V

 

0‘ WV

 

 

 

 

. :3}.

_u a
0 fi'.‘

':;:"§:‘1 §

o I‘
'1"

“Am... v . ' so.
,I?‘ .E
m "’2'
.g.u‘ .

m

Warm--
. ‘I 5.-
“*z‘z'p.

. ‘I'I‘NI-wl‘gg" ‘01.

.--

— ' ———— ~ - ————_ . _ V
a? '.’."‘.~fm."WhM.-ooomo~- - --.~m~., ‘->-—---.¢-‘ ~.“~_.-*--._-d~l-_
V '7'

I
“b ..

v.32,
Au
6‘. A

AII ANALYSIS OF RECREATIONAL BOATING
EXPENDITURES _
(A STUDY OF LAKE MICHIGAN BOATERS)

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
THOMAS DONALD WARNER
1974

V -
......

fl - — a o...-. -- ~-,.—< . a -M~t¢noo ‘7 vv ‘ _ _ Yfi

.....

. m
- -_‘_n-_--. -_ .. . ,_ _~.4.1'.-

.....

t ’ '
oooooooo

I | < C ., _ ‘ . ‘ .. ' .
'- .. , ‘Oll. - l - .. 1.." ’ . ._' ' ‘ ' ‘ '
’wh'f&“an.n,-_~.°N‘ ‘,‘ .,. .

‘ '1va

J . ,.
o En 13am 5

III III III IIIIIIIIIII III ‘1‘“me {I

I
I
3 1293 101 899

IIIIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“It? “0453! 35
i 1 PW)” j ‘ . . _- - ..
I“ .2 5.7. W Mp1, 2 7:; ZIJHII:
. A”?

If” I7

I
..-—
fig

SEP ‘13”.260'1
{.7 il/IIIIJLAG 2

F E: 31737399

 

 

 

 

 

IIIIIII .. I... I. ‘ I I,

ABSTRACT

AN ANALYSIS OF RECREATIONAL BOATING EXPENDITURES
(A STUDY OF LAKE MICHIGAN BOATERS)

BY

Thomas Donald Warner

The primary objective of this study was to collect
recreational boating expenditure data for use by Michigan
State Waterways Division in planning an expanded marina
complex. Specifically, information on expenditures was
collected to determine what items and services are pur-
chased,(where they are purchasedd and the amount expended
for each. Information was not collected on purchase prices
of craft, but the type of craft owned was recorded and
expenditures reported by craft type categories.

Expenditure questionnaires were sent out to 500
randomly selected craft owners who rented seasonal slips
at nine marinas (four commercial, three municipal, two
private) in the designated study area along the southeast-
ern shore of Lake Michigan. The study area from which
boaters (seasonal slip renters) were drawn for the expendi-
ture survey includes Muskegon, Michigan, as the northernmost
marina selection site, and New Buffalo, Michigan, as the

southernmost marina selection site.

Thomas Donald Warner

The questionnaire covered "craft related informa-
tion," such as the size of the craft and onboard craft
accommodations and facilities. "Craft operations"
information was sought on travel time to and from the slip
rental site, number of days the craft was utilized during
the boating season, and amounts of maintenance performed
by the craft owner. The expenditure information is broken
down into "craft" and "trip" related expenditures. The
final information sought on the questionnaire was socio-
economic status (SES) data on each of the craft owners.
The data collected was analyzed to determine A”’“ 0“e
(l) the extent to which socio-economic status characteris- I

tics affect recreational boating expenditure patterns,

(2) whether craft type and size are factors in expenditures,

 

and if so, to what degree, and (3) whether differences in

 

craft utilization due to travel time, etc. affect spending J
for the recreational boating experience.

A total of 330 questionnaires (66% of sample popu-
lation) were returned, of which 312 (62.4%) were usable
for tabulation and data analysis. To test the various
hypotheses presented by this study, regression analysis and
non-parametric two-way analysis of variance techniques were
utilized.

The results of the analysis of SES characteristics
showed that increases in income, family size, and age of

the craft owner had a positive impact on recreational

Thomas Donald Warner

boating expenditures. As craft owners' levels of education
increased, expenditures were found to decrease. This
finding was contrary to what had been expected prior to
analysis of the data.

Owners of motorized craft were found to spend more
on boating related activities than owners of sail craft.
It was also found that boating expenditures within these
two craft types increase as boat length increases. Other
significant findings from the study include the following:
(1) the greater the distance and/or travel time between
the boat owner's residence and the marina where the boat
is docked, the greater the expenditures made by the boater;
(2) the greater the number of days the craft is utilized,
the greater the boater's expenditures; (3) the longer the
craft is kept in the water during the boating season, the
greater will be boating expenditures; and (4) as the amount
of maintenance performed by the craft owner increases,

boating expenditures decreased.

AN ANALYSIS OF RECREATIONAL BOATING EXPENDITURES

(A STUDY OF LAKE MICHIGAN BOATERS)

BY

Thomas Donald Warner

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

1974

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the indi-
viduals who contributed their time and effort to this study.
Assistance was provided by Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of
the Waterways Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, and Mr. James E. Oakwood on the Waterways Divi-
sion research staff. Their assistance included information
on the proposed marina development project and the letter
of introduction which allowed access to information sources
vital to the study. Special thanks is extended to the
marina owners and operators who participated in the study.
Through their contributions, project success was made
possible.

I am especially indebted to Dr. Donald F. Holecek,
principal investigator and major advisor for the study,
for his continued assistance throughout the project.
Recognition is also given to Dr. Lewis W. Moncrief and
Dr. Clifford R. Humphrys who served on my master's degree
committee.

Project funding came from the Michigan Waterways
Division, and through this grant, this boating expenditure

study was carried out.

ii

PREFACE

The recreational boating expenditure study reported
herein was initiated in February of 1973 with final analysis
concluded in February, 1974. During this one year span of
time and after the body of the thesis had been prepared,
the "energy crisis" evolved in the United States. The
impact this fuel shortage will have on future recreational
boating is uncertain. The figures reported here for
recreational boating expenditures were collected during a
period of time when fuel and oil supplies were relatively
plentiful and inexpensive. However, if the shortage of
fuel and oil persists and/or the prices of these commodities
remain high, it is possible that the level of recreational
boating and related expenditures observed in this study may

decline at least in the near future.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . .
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . .
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . .
Recreational Boating in Michigan

‘V

II. STUDY ISSUES AND RESEARCH PROBLEM

The St. Joseph/Benton Harbor Marina

Development Study . . . .
The Problem Statement . . .

III. RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . .

Review of the Literature . .
Consumer Behavior Literature

Socio- Economic Status (SES) Character—

istics and Expenditure Patterns
Psychological Characteristics and Spend-

ing Patterns Literature .

Travel and ReCreational Expenditures

Hypotheses . . . .
Socio- Economic Status (SES) .

Differences in Craft Size and Type
Differences in Craft Utilization

IV. RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION AND GENERAL
FINDINGS O O O O O O O O

The Expenditure Questionnaire .
Marina Site Selection . . .
The Respondent Sample . . .
Questionnaire Mailout Procedure
Questionnaire Response . . .
Follow-Up Procedures . . . .
Non-Response . . . . . .

iv

Page
vi
vii

viii

15

15
15

21

30
32
34
34
34
35

36

36
41
43
46
48
48
50

Chapter Page

Telephone Follow-Up Questions . . . . . 51
General Findings . . . . . . . . . 52
Craft Type and Size . . . . . . . 53
Number of Engines Per Craft . . . . . 54
Galley and Rest Room Facilities . . . 56
Winter Storage of Craft . . . . . . 56
Seasonal Use of Craft . . . . . 59
Length of Time Craft is in the Water . . 61
Craft Related Expenditures . . . . . 62
Trip Related Expenditures . . . . . 69
Total Expenditures . . . . . . . 74
Socio- Economic Status (SES)
Characteristics . . . . 76
Results of the Telephone Follow- -Up
Survey . . . . . . . . . . . 83
V. TESTING THE HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . 87
Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . . 87
Testing the Hypotheses . . . . . . . 89
Socio—Economic Status . . . . . . . 89
Differences in Craft Size and Type . . 95
Differences in Craft Utilization . . . 98
VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . 105
Summary of Results . . . . . . . . 105
Utilization of Study Information . . . . 108
Recommendations for Further Study . . . 110

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . 112

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

LIST OF TABLES

Table
1. Activities Undertaken When Boating on Great
Lakes and Inland Lakes Ranked in Order of
Estimated Number of Boat Days . . . .

2. Summary of Respondents by Type of Craft

Owned . . . . . . . . . . .
3. Number of Engines . . . . . . . .
4. Galley and Rest Room Facilities . . . .
5. Winter Storage of Craft . . . . .
6. Seasonal Use of the Craft--Days Utilized by
Family, Relatives, and Friends . . . .
7. Craft Related Expenditures . . . . .
8. Trip Related Expenditures . . . . . .
9. Total Expenditures . . . . . . .

10. Socio-Economic Status (SES) Characteristics
11. Average Computed Incomes . . . . . .
12. Results of the Telephone Follow-Up Survey
13. Non-Parametric Two-Way Analysis of Variance,
Craft Type and Size Compared to Total

Expenditures . . . . . . . . . .

E-l. Multiple Regression Analysis (Total
Expenditures) . . . . . . . . .

E-2. Multiple Regression Analysis (Craft
Related Expenditures) . . . . . .

E-3. Multiple Regression Analysis (Trip
Related Expenditures) . . . . . . .

vi

Page

53

55

57

58

60

63

70

75

77

80

84

98

148

149

150

Figure

1.

2.
3.

4.

10.

11.

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Marina Selection Sites, Lower Lake

Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Occupations for All "Motor Craft" Owners . . 81
Occupations for All "Sail Craft" Owners . . 82
(X Y) Plot, Total Expenditures/Craft Owner

Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
(X Y) Plot, Total Expenditures/Education . . 93
(X Y) Plot, Total Expenditures/Family Size . 94
(X Y) Plot, Total Expenditures/Age . . . . 96
(X Y) Plot, Total Expenditures/Travel Time

to the Marina . . . . . . . . . . 99
(X Y) Plot, Total Expenditures/Days the

Craft is Utilized . . . . . . . . . 101

(X Y) Plot, Total Expenditures/Time Craft
Kept in Water . . . . . . . . . . 102

(X Y) Plot, Total Expenditures/Maintenance
Performed by Owner . . . . . . . . . 104

vii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. Michigan Waterways Division Letter of
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 119

B. Letter of Transmittal and Expenditure
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . 121

C. Follow-Up Letter of Transmittal and "Thank
You" Post Card . . . . . . . . . . 127

D. Least Squares Plot Diagrams (Craft and Trip
Expenditures) . . . . . . . . . . . 130

E. Multiple Regression Analysis Figures (Total,
Craft, Trip Expenditures) . . . . . . . 147

viii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Recreational boating in the United States is
becoming an ever increasing leisure time activity drawing
participants from a large cross section of our nation's
population.{’One of the reasons for increased boating popu-
larity is the wide range of craft types (motorized, sailing,
canoes, etc.) and sizes available in today's market. The
availability of a wide mix of craft types and sizes at
various prices broadens boating's appeal. {Another reason
for the observed high rate of participation in boating
relates to the scope of activities the boater can engage
in: each different boating activity from cruising the
Great Lakes in a motor yacht to canoeing down some remote
stretch of river offers a different and unique experience.
This range of experiences related to boating activities
has broadened the total population of boaters in this
country.

The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation estimates that
between 1965 and 1980 boating (as a recreational activity
related to the number of visitor days) will increase 76 per-
cent while the total population of the United States will
increase by only 29 percent. Furthermore, between 1965

1

 

\IIII.rII [II ‘ II III
[ I II

\I I

and the year 2000 boating will increase 215 percent while
population increases are projected to increase by only

76 percent.1 This increase in boating's popularity, as indi-
cated by the above projected figures, may be related to

a number of factors including availability of increased
leisure time, greater incomes, and increased mobility.

The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission reports
that by 1976 there will be an estimated 285 million
"occasions of participation" by boaters annually (this
figure does not include sailing craft or canoes), and by
the year 2000 there will be 557 million occasions of par-
ticipation annually.2 In 1969 there were over 8,469,000
pleasure boats in use on United States waters, with annual
retail expenditures on boating equipment, servicing and
maintenance alone totaling 3.2 billion dollars.3 The 1970
boating expenditure figures showed an increase over the
previous year, but due to a general slowdown in economic
growth in 1970, expenditures at this time were made pri-

marily for used equipment and replacement of accessories.

 

1The University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program,
The Future of Boating on Lake Michigan (Madison: The
University of Wisconsin, 1971), p. 7.

2Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Action for Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964), p. 11.

3University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program, 0p.
cit., p. 7.

 

 

 

II. N’III...[ . [I [ ll [[ JIIIIINfIII‘r‘IIIIIN v

The above figures illustrate the extent of partici-
pation in recreational boating in this country as well as
providing some measure of the impact these millions of boat-
ers have on the economy. Because of this growth in boating
and its related activities, many states have concerned
themselves with attempting to provide public access and
facilities for the boater. Planning is being carried out to
meet the needs of the growing number of boaters. This boat-
ing expenditure study was carried out to provide data inputs

to assist those involved in developing these plans.

Recreational Boating in Michigan

 

When looking at the geographical setting of the
state of Michigan, one realizes the vast water resources
available to the recreational boater. Michigan has four
of the five Great Lakes partially within its boundaries,
totaling some 38,575 square miles or 41 percent of the total
Great Lakes area. Michigan‘s Great Lakes shoreline extends
over 2,274 miles and no point in the state is more than 85
miles from one of the four bordering lakes.1 Michigan also
possesses a large number of inland lakes. Given increasedfi)
access to bodies of water, more and more people have
chosen to use their leisure time and income to participate
in recreational boating in the state of Michigand Michigan

ranks first among the fifty states in total number of

 

lMichigan Water Resources Commission, Michigan and
the Great Lakes (Lansing: The Commission, 1967), p. 1.

 

 

r\l_ '

-.'-.—~.__. .-"’~‘

registered motor boats. The total number of registered
motor boats in Michigan in 1973 was more than 520,000
craft.l This figure represents only powered craft, with
non-powered craft accounting for an estimated additional
150,000 craft.2

Boating information gathered by the consulting

firm, Recreation Resource Consultants, and reported in the

1971 Michigan Recreational Boating Study identified areas

 

where Michigan craft owners recreate, reported the activi-
ties participated in by the boaters, and estimated the
expected future boater participation patterns in the state
of Michigan. There were two boat length categories utilized
in the 1971 study: (1) less than 20 feet, and (2) greater
than 20 feet. This study reports that 25.1 percent of the
less than 20' craft and 66.3 percent of the 20' plus craft
are used primarily on the Great Lakes with the remainder

of use being on inland bodies of water.3 These figures
reflect to some extent the suitability of the various craft
sizes for the two different bodies of water. A boater who

wants to navigate the Great Lakes, because of wave size

 

1"Number registered" is the total number of regis-
tered boats listed by the Secretary of State for its 1973
year-end tabulation.

2Ibid.

3Recreation Resource Consultants, 1971 Michigan
Recreational Boating Study_(East Lansing, Michigan: 1972),
p. 77.

 

 

and limited protection from storms, would need a craft
larger than those most commonly found on inland lakes.

The 1971 Michigan survey of boat owners previously
discussed ranked boating related activities according to
the total number of days of participation on both the
Great Lakes and inland lakes. In Table 1,which was devel—
Oped from this study, it can be seen that Great Lakes
boaters ranked "cruising" as the number one activity with
"other" fishing and salmon/trout fishing second and third.
Water skiiing, "other" activities, and hunting were the
final three activities most often participated in. Inland
lake boaters ranked "other" fishing first, followed by
cruising, water skiing, salmon/trout fishing, "other"
activities, and hunting. Again, the activities that are
carried out by the craft owner related in part to the body
of water (Great Lakes or inland lakes) the boater uses.

Projected figures for "all boating" participation
in Michigan by 1980 are set at 16,290,000 boat days
annually.1 This figure when compared to the 1971 partici-
pation total of 11,661,000 boat days shows an increase of
over 4 million boat days annually in only nine years.

This section on the participation in recreational

boating in Michigan attempts only to bring into focus the

 

lRecreation Resource Consultants, 1971 Michigan
Recreational Boating Study (East Lansing, Michigan: 1972),
p. 98.

 

 

TABLE 1

ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN WHEN BOATING ON GREAT LAKES
AND INLAND LAKES RANKED IN ORDER OF ESTIMATED
NUMBER OF BOAT DAYS

 

Great Lakes Boating Inland Lakes Boating

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rank No of N f
. . . . o. o
A .
ct1v1ty Boat Days % Act1v1ty Boat Days %
II II
1 , Cruising 1,421,000 38.0 Otber. 4,554,800 47.9
f1sh1ng
"0th fl
2 .er. 1,097,700 29.4 Cruising 2,483,700 26.1
fishing
S/T Water
3 fishing* 615,600 16.5 skiing 1,920,500 20.2
4 wate?. 357,700 9.6 S/T. . 338,200 3.6
sk11ng fishing*
Other Other
5
Act. 188,600 5.0 Act. 154,700 1.6
6 Hunting 56,100 1.5 Hunting 47,500 0.5
Totals 3,736,700 100.0 9,499,400 100.0
Source: Reproduced from 1971 Michigan Recreational Boating Study

(East Lansing:

*Salmon/trout fishing.

 

upward trend in boating over the foreseeable future.

Recreation Resource Consultants, 1972), p. 71.

Because of the projected increase in boater needs, plans

must be prepared by responsible governmental agencies to

accommodate the craft owners.

The information contained

herein should be of assistance to those charged with the

responsibility of developing these plans.

CHAPTER II

STUDY ISSUES AND RESEARCH PROBLEM

The St. Joseph/Benton Harbor
Marina Development Study

 

 

The Michigan State Waterways Division, in carrying
out its assigned task of providing Harbors of Refuge, is
evaluating the feasibility of an expanded marine develOp—
ment project along the southeastern shore of Lake Michigan
at St. Joseph/Benton Harbor, Michigan. The existing munici-
pal marine that serves these two cities provides for

between 80 to 85 seasonal slips for craft ranging in size

 

from 20-40 feet in length, and 20 transient (craft seeking

 

limited time usage of the harbor and its facilities)
accommodations.

Services and facilities available to the craft
owners at this site include gasoline sales, water, elec-
tricity, rest rooms, a dock attendant, haul-out facilities
and holding tank pump-out.l The parking areas provide an
area for dry-land storage of craft for the winter months.

The above listing of services and facilities is what is

 

1Michigan State Waterways Commission, Michigan
Harbors of Refuge/1973 (Lansing: The Commission, 1973),
p. 22.

 

generally found at most of the existing Commission spon-
sored harbors.

It is important at this juncture to mention the
position of the cities of St. Joseph and Benton Harbor in
relation to the megalopolis created by the cities of
Chicago, East Chicago, Hammond, Gary, and Michigan City
to the west, which lie along the southern tip of Lake
Michigan. Many thousands of recreational boats, both
motorized and sail, visit the eastern shore of Lake Michigan
from these Illinois and Indiana cities either for the
purpose of cruising the lake or to fish for salmon and
trout. With the exception of the private marina facilities
at the city of New Buffalo, Michigan (which is not a
Waterways Commission sponsored harbor), the first Michigan
"Harbor of Refuge" is found at St. Joseph/Benton Harbor,.
Michigan.

With the sheer numbers of craft increasing along
this shore, the Waterways Division has found it necessary
to expand the number of available boating slips at the
cities of St. Joseph and Benton Harbor. Having identified
a site (approximately three miles up the St. Joseph River)
for a new marina, the Waterways Division decided to study
the possibilities of an extended marina development com-
plex to help absorb the increasing flow of recreational

boaters into the area.

In discussions with the Waterways Division Direc-
tor and staff members, it was pointed out that this new
site would be developed strictly for Great Lakes boaters
(20' plus craft) who desire seasonal berthing since other
marinas in the area already provide adequate facilities
and services for the boat owner having a trailered craft.

The new site would be built to accommodate between
200 and 300 craft with a breakdown of proposed development

as follows:

MARINA RELATED FACILITIESl

Waterways Division Development:

 

(l) Adequate harbor
a. Protected entrance
b. Sufficient depth and width (entrance and
harbor)
(2) Access road (rough)
(3) Utilities (water and electric lines)

Private Development at the Marina Site (proposed):

 

(l) Slips (seasonal)
(2) Marina office building
a. Administrative office
b. Payment office
c. Limited boating goods sales
(3) Holding tank pump-out
(4) Fuel and oil sales
(5) Rest rooms
(6) Shower facilities
(7) Haul-out facilities
(8) Boat storage facilities
(9) Boat sales and services (plus sporting goods)
(10) Parking facilities

 

1List compiled from a meeting held with Waterways
Division staff, February 28, 1973.

10

NON-BOATING PRIVATE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT

Private Development at the Marina Site (proposed):

 

(1) Housing (condominiums)
(2) Restaurant facilities
a. Restaurant and bar
b. Snack shop
c. Gift shop
d. Clothing store
(3) Ice vending machines
(4) Parking facilities
The proposed marine complex property would remain state
owned, with private individuals developing the facilities
at the site. It was pointed out by the Waterways Division
staff that this concept for marina development in the
state of Michigan would not be implemented until adequate
research was completed to judge the feasibility of such a
venture.
The reason for the Waterways Division's concern
for extended marina development of this type is derived
from the authority and responsibility given to the Waterways
Commission. It is responsible for acquiring, constructing,
and maintaining harbors, channels, and facilities for
vessels in navigable waters lying within the boundaries of
the state of Michigan as well as granting concessions within

the boundaries of harbors to furnish to the public fuel,

oil, food, and other facilities. These two powers would

 

allow for the Waterways Commission to develop a site by
combining state funds and funds from the private sector

of the economy.

11

The Department of Park and Recreation Resources at
Michigan State University was commissioned by the state
Waterways Division to examine the feasibility of such an
enterprise for St. Joseph/Benton Harbor, Michigan. The
research plan for this effort has been separated into three

major phases. Phase number one, a boating expenditure

x

fi

study, is designed to determine boater expenditures by
.. g,,,_~____\~____‘_____

 

 

size and type of craft owned. The second phase's goal is

K

 

to estimate "demand" for seasonal slips by boaters from
the three state area around the southern tip of Lake
Michigan. In the third phase of the study, data from
phases one and two will be combined and analyzed in a
linear programming model to determine the best possible
makeup of services and facilities at the proposed marina

site.

The Problem Statement

 

The research problem presented by this study
is to estimate expenditures which recreational boaters

make at home, en route to their craft at their marina ,

- ‘5
or slip rental sites to identify variables which influ- U¢m&~4
m ”‘1‘? 9" ‘

 

ence the total amounts of these recreational expenditures.
A number of questions are addressed by this study

including the total amount of expenditures made (by type

 

Z.
and size of craft owned) and which goods and services adha
51“,“,
. F"' .
are purchased. For example, what are the differences 1

average expenditures between powered craft and sailing

M’
(2’1”

I

NW"

12

craft? Not only are the two craft types (motorized and
sail) investigated, but different length categories are
looked at as well. (Other factors which affect a boater's
expenditure patterns that were studied include: differ-
ences in hull material as they bear on maintenance and
upkeep costs, number of engines, capacity of on—board over-
night accommodations as it relates to expenditures on
shore-based accommodations, and the effect a galley on

board the craft has upon expenditures for prepared meals

(9 and grocery purchases.)

The research attempts to look at the entire package 7

 

of the boating activity to arrive at a reasonable estimate

 

 

of the total expenditures made by participants in this

activity. Will, for example, the distance between the

“a

owner's home and where his craft is docked account for

differences in the amount of craft usage and, in turn,

P,“

expenditures? Will the distance between the owner's home

and marina site determine the extent of maintenance the

-r

 

owner performs both during the boating season and while
the craft is in winter storage? Other needed information
pertaining to craft operations gathered for this study
was the length of time the craft is kept in the water

‘— fl

during the boating season, and amount of usage by the

 

Leno-“7",“;
" E i as

 

owner, relatives, and friends.

L, 12.. our

( Beyond craft and craft operation information,

questions dealing with amounts of expenditures in the areas

13

of pre-launch maintenance costs, launching fees, slip rental
fees, purchases of boating equipment, expenditures on fuel
and oil and in-season maintenance costs were answered by
boaters included in this survey. These boaters also pro-
vided the cost for craft haul-out, storage preparation
costs, boat storage expenditures, effluent pump-out costs,
and_craft insurance expenditures. The answers to these
questions will provide information on craft related costs;)

Expenditures beyond those spent primarily for the
operation of the craft that were collected include: travel
costs to and from the slip rental site, food (both groceries
and prepared meals), alcoholic beverages, off-craft lodging,
recreational equipment related to recreational boating, and
expenditures for non-boating recreational activities while
at the slip rental site. The above mentioned trip related
expenditures when combined with clothing expenditures,
laundry costs, and craft related expenditures includes
the vast majority of items and services purchased by the
recreational boater.

In summary, as indicated in the Opening of the
problem statement, this study was designed to gather

U1".
expenditure information covering all facets of boating.

This information was then analyzed to determine the impact

”\{L‘q’w

of craft use, SES characteristics, and craft type and
H‘flnJ/

M“;u+uflllflu
size on expenditures. Additionally, this information is

a vital input to the linear programming model for the

14

St. Joseph/Benton Harbor site. It is anticipated that the
information will be of use to others interested in the

recreational boating activity.

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH DESIGN

Review of the Literature

 

Before creating the research design for this study,
a review of relevant literature covering the broad tOpic
of consumer behavior was undertaken. Included in this
topic are two subtopics particularly relevant to this
study: (1) socio-economic status characteristics and how
they relate to the expenditure patterns of individuals,
and (2) psychological or personality characteristics
related to spending patterns.

In addition, published research was reviewed to
determine how differences in distances and travel time
might affect the expenditures for a recreational activity.
Literature found to be of particular relvance is discussed

in the following sections of this document.

Consumer Behavior Literature

 

In studying the model of an individual in the role
of a consumer, it is necessary to look at three scientific
fields to understand, explain, and predict human action.
These three fields are psychology, sociology, and economics,
making the study of consumer behavior an interdisciplinary
endeavor. In addition to the use of consumer behavior

15

16

studies by professionals in the field of marketing, other
groups interested in consumer behavior research include
governmental and social action agencies interested in
establishing or in effecting public policy decisions rele-
vant to consumer affairs.1 This last statement relates
directly to the main purpose for which this expenditure
study was carried out. It is important that the Waterways
DiviSion determine what the consumer characteristics of
the Great Lakes boater are, and how these characteristics
will affect that market area. A decision can then be made
by the Division on developing a site which will provide
the desired goods and services.

The study of consumer behavior involves the appli-
cation of concepts and variables from behavioral science
disciplines to increase understanding of human behavior in
the consumption role. When successful these studies can
lead to the design of more efficient marketing or social
action programs.2 Consumer behavior relates to a freedom
of choice which is dependent upon the affluence of con-
sumers and the specific society to which the consumer

belongs.3 Of particular interest in this statement is how

 

lScott Ward, ed., Consumer Behavior: Theoretical
Sources (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1972), p. 8.

2

 

Ibid., p. 9.

3Peter D. Bennett and Harold D. Dassarjiar, Consumer
Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice—Hall, Inc.,
1972), p. l.

17

affluence of the consumer creates freedom of choice.
Questions such as Will the individuals with the greatest
amount of income have the greatest amount of recreational
boating expenditures because of this greater degree of
freedom in spending? are asked and, hopefully, answers
provided.

Within the field of consumer behavior, the most
completely refined bodies of theory are the economic theories
relating to consumer behavior. The basis behind this body
of theory of consumer behavior involves choice.1 Most
economic consumer behavior theorififi rest upon the following
three assumptions:

1. Each consuming unit has a limited (finite)
income.

2. Each consuming unit has unlimited (infi-
nite) needs or wants.

3. Each good or service capable of satisfying
a need or want carries a nonzero cost.

The thought here is that since one is unable to purchase
everything he wants, he must select those goods and services
he can afford and desires the most. These theories suggest
that both income and availability of the commodities will
have an influence on how much income an individual may
choose to allocate to boating. Here the assumption was

made that whatever goods the Great Lakes recreational

 

1Peter D. Bennett and Harold H. Kassarjiar, Consumer
behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1972), p. 11.

2Ibid., p. 12.

18

boater wanted or needed could be obtained as long as suf-
ficient funds were available. Related to 1973 observed
spending patterns, there was no apparent lack of goods
available to the boater but possibly a lack of services
along the Great Lakes shoreline.

The reasoning behind consumer behavior in economic
theory is that each consumer tends to seek the greatest
satisfaction or utility from each purchase. The basic
principle that explains the way consumers choose a certain
mix of goods and services is called the "law of diminishing
marginal utility," which is derived from the belief that
an idividual's ability to enjoy the use of a good diminishes
as he consumes more of that good.1 The individual, accord-
ing to the above theory, will allocate his finite income
in such a way that the utility received from the last
unit of expenditures is equal for each good. This is then
the law of equal marginal utility per dollar. Another
theoretical approach to utility maximization is the "indif-
ferences approach" where scaled intervals to measure
utility are replaced by an ordinal scale of preference.

In graphing these points of utility, the income consumption
curve is utilized.

One construct of "satisfaction" perceived by the

consumer was defined by Spence, Hull, and Skiller:

 

1Peter D. Bennett and Harold H. Kassarjiar, Consumer
Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1972), p. 12.

19

If the actual outcomes (of the purchase) are
adjudged by the buyer to be at least equal to those
expected, the buyer will feel satisfied, that is,
actual consequences are greater than or equal to
expected consequences. If, on the other hand, he
adjudges the actual outcomes to be less than what
he expected, the buyer will feel dissatisfied,
that is actual consequences are less than expected
consequences. . . . If the brand proves more satis-
factory than he expected, the buyer has a tendency
to enhance the attractiveness of the brand. If it
proves less satisfactory than he expected, he is
.1ike1y to diminish its attractiveness.

Another important area that affects an individual
as a consumer is his own perception. In the context of
this boating expenditure study, how does a boater perceive
himself and others around him, and how will that perception
affect his expenditures? Does the perception of the
individual that he is socially equal to his fellow boater
prompt him to purchase a larger craft or more expensive
boating equipment when the boater in the slip next to him
does? There are two major categories recognized as determi-
nants of perception: (1) stimulus factors and (2) func-
tional factors.2 The former relate to physical stimuli,
i.e., what the prospective buyer sees and likes he will be
more willing to purchase. The impact of stimuli for the

boating expenditure study would be extremely difficult to

measure since large amounts of spending are predicted to

 

1Peter D. Bennett and Harold H. Kassarjiar, Consumer
Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1972), P. 36.

2Ibid., p. 45.

20

fall in the categories of fuel and oil purchases as well
as services pertaining to the maintenance of the craft.

The second category of perception, that being
functional factors, also influences expenditure behavior.
The underlying theory on functional factors proposes that
on one hand, we screen out messages we do not want to per-
ceive, while on the other hand we distort, modify, and
often add elements so that very often we see what we want
to see.1 An example of this might relate to the distance
between a boat owner's home and where his craft is kept
during the boating season. The distance may be many miles,
but because of limitations on where he can rent a seasonal
slip, the boat owner will tend to ignore the length of
travel time.

This brief overview of literature concerning gen-
eral characteristics of consumer behavior only touches the
main points of an expansive field of study. In the fol-
lowing section, which deals with socio-eceonomic status
(SES) characteristics of individuals and how these charac—
teristics affect spending, the focus is turned toward a
more closely related research tool that is used directly

in this study.

 

1Peter D. Bennett and Harold H. Kassarjiar, Consumer
Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1972), p. 12.

21

Socio-Economic Status (SES) Char-
acteristics and Expenditure
Patterns

 

 

This literature review covers (under the broad
heading of social-economic status) five major areas that
are to be considered in the analysis of the recreational
expenditures information obtained from the sample popula-
tion of Lake Michigan boaters. The five categories are
(1) education, (2) income, (3) age, (4) family size, and
(5) occupation.

One of the objectives of this study was to determine
to what degree the above selected SES characteristics
affect the sum of recreational boating expendigures. The
knowledge gained from the SES data analysis will hopefully

aid in explaining expenditure behavior.

Education.--In Robert T. Michael's book, The Effect

 

 

of Education on Efficiency in Consumption, the author

 

describes education as part of an individual's "human
capital," which is in fact an investment good. The view
presented here is that peOple enhance their capabilities
as producers and as consumers by investing in themselves.1
The most important point assumed when looking at education
affecting expenditure patterns is stated in the following

quote:

 

1Robert T. Michael, The Effects of Education on
Efficiency in Consumption (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1972), p. 3.

 

22

By assuming Hicks—neutral productivity shifts,
the effect of education on real income through non-
market efficiency is examined, and it is suggested
that changes in the level of education will lead to
changes in the composition of the commodity basket.
If education enhances nonmarket productivity, the
consumption commodities--and the expenditure on
market goods--should shift toward luxuries.

If boating on the Great Lakes, which generally requires
large and expensive boats, is considered to be a luxury,
then Michael's theory would suggest the Great Lakes boaters
encountered in this study would tend to show a high level
of educational achievement. Questions pertaining to dif-
ferences in craft size and even craft type when compared

to education levels will have to be analyzed to test this
hypothesis.

The working hypothesis pertaining to the direction
of education's effect on nonmarket efficiency proposes
that education raises nonmarket productivity, thereby
increasing the household's real income.2 The following
two paragraphs indicate the reasons for increased produc-
tivity through increased education.

There are at least two reasons for expecting

the effectcmfefficiency to be positive. First,
therejfisthe well-documented positive correlation
between levels of schooling and wages. From mar-
ginal productivity theory we infer a positive

relationship between one's education and the pro-
ductivity<xfhis time in the labor market. Since

 

1Robert T. Michael, The Effect of Education on
Efficiency in Consumption (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1972), p. 5.

2

 

 

Ibid., p. 17.

’I‘ (II/III I I. I‘I‘I'III‘II I\ I.I|I\|I.|"I.|‘I'Iu‘ll“ll )i III.I¢ ll ‘l.““l1l||..

23

education is embedded in the individual, if it
affects the productivity of his time favorably in
productive activities in the labor market it may
be expected to do so in other productive activities
as well. If education raises the productivity of
one's time in nonmarket production, it thereby
lowers the costs or increases the efficiency of
nonmarket production, other things held constant.

Second, the level of education may affect pro-

ductivity in the household for the same reasons

that the level of technology affects productivity

in the firm . . . education represents exposure to
.knowledge and perhaps the development of a receptive
attitude toward the use of new information.

As pointed out in the theory of increased education
leading toward an increase in individual income, this has
both a market and nonmarket effect. What this boating
expenditure study must do is determine the impact of various

education levels on consumption in the boating market.

Income.-—The second of the (SES) characteristics,
and one which will be researched in making determinations
as to what factors produce variances in boating expendi—
tures, is the income variable. Current theories dealing
with income and expenditures point to a trend which suggests
that as incomes increase the percentage of these increases
that ii: spent on necessary goods (i.e., food) decreases
while that spent on non-necessities such as recreation
increases. Investigating the income variable in this study

will help determine what the individual expends in boating

 

1Robert T. Michael, The Effect of Education on
Efficiency in Consumption (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1972), p. 17.

 

24

and will aid in distinguishing between groups with dif-
ferent expenditure characteristics.

A problem encountered in this study, when looking
at income categories, arises when two individuals in the
same income class purchase different craft types (motorized
vs. sail) causing one boater to have predicted greater
expenditures for gas, oil, and maintenance than the other.
To help eliminate this problem, a breakdown between craft
types will have to be instituted with comparisons of length
categories and then compared for each of the two groups
(motorized and sailing craft).

When looking at income and what effect it might

have on expenditures, Fisk,in his book Leisure Spending-

 

Behavior,looks at not only actual existing income, but
income expectations as well. If a person were expecting
a raise in his income, he might then proceed to purchase
increased amounts of goods, goods of a better quality,

or increased services. This could relate to a new craft,
boating equipment, or less maintenance performed by the
owner and more by a professional.

The inverse would then also hold true. If the
boater were able to foresee a decrease in his income, he
would then tend not to buy a new craft, or equipment,
and perform more maintenance by himself. This would relate
also to the boater going into retirement. Unless accrued

savings were set aside to purchase a new craft, the

25

individual would be resigned to fewer expenditures pre-
dictably "across the board."1 The following quotation
illustrates the idea behind the expected increase or
decrease in income.

Optimism about one's own income prospects,
expectations of income increases in the near future,
and a feeling of security regarding one's job and
income tend to promote spending. Recent past
.income increases, if considered to be enduring
rather than temporary, operate in the same direc-
tion. 0 O C

On the other hand, fear of income declines or
unemployment . . . promote saving. If a person has
a satisfactory income but believes that the pre-
vailing good times will come to an end, his
incentives to create reserves for the future become
powerful.

Clawson and Knetsch view expenditures on recre-
ational goods and services as coming from the "discretionary"
segment of one's income: That is what would remain after
expenditures for existence and subsistence. In this study,
a great deal of thought has been given to the following
questions: What is the best figure to measure an individu-
al's income? Which amount will he more readily provide in
a questionnaire or interview--his total income, his after

tax income, or his "discretionary" income? To maximize

response, especially when dealing with personal incomes and

 

lGeorge Fisk, Leisure Spending-Behavior (Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963), p. 105.

2George Katona, "Variability of Consumer Behavior,"
in Contributions of Survey Methods to Economics, ed. by
L. R. Klein (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954),
pp. 48-59.

 

 

26

expenditures, each question should cover an area for which
the respondent can provide the most accurate answer with
the least amount of work. This point will have to be
researched even more thoroughly so that data obtained by
each question will provide usable data for the study.

When we look atja boater's income in trying to
explain his expenditures for the recreational activity he
is involved in, it is sometimes necessary to look at the
broader area of SES characteristics in combination with
income levels to find an answer to what influences the
individual's recreational boating expenditures. In large
part, the use of income is socially determined; the person
wants to do what other people of his social class do and
to avoid being conspicuous or unusual.1

A final brief paragraph on measuring income's
effect on expenditures deals with the estimation of
income-expenditure curves (Engel curves). Although a
number of other variables are included (i.e., education
level, family size, age, and geographical region), the use
of Engel curves indicates the partial effect that income
has on expenditures. Through the use of multiple regres-
sion techniques, each of the independent variables can

be measured for explaining in part the variance in

 

1Robert T. Michael, The Effect of Education on
Efficiency in Consumption (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1972), p. 22.

 

 

27

expenditures. This statistical method will be discussed

in depth later in this chapter.

Agg,--Another variable in the SES category which
was considered in the analysis of boating expenditures is
the age of the craft owner. In previous studies, utilizing
age as a variable, the individual studied was the head of
the household. For the purpose of this study, the craft
owner will be considered the head of the family and the
prime income producer.

It has been-assumed that‘kpgyledge is acquired by
experience and that age may contribute to human capital
through experience or a form of on-the-job training in

1 Differences in age would reflect a life

consumption.
cycle of earning capability. Individuals in their late
teens and early twenties, although they might have a job,
would not start out in the top salary or wage bracket for
the firm of institution they would be working for. As
the individual increases in age, and assuming that he has
learned through his experiences and has realized position
and pay raises, his income will climb.

At some point prior to the age of retirement, the

income level would tend to stabilize, and then at retire-

ment, the income level would decline. In View of this

 

1Robert T. Michael, The Effect of Education on
Efficiency in Consumption (New York: Columbia University
Press, 1972), p. 32.

 

 

28

sequence of earning capability to the predicted expenditures
made by the boat owners in this study and especially con-
sidering the initial cost of the craft, one would expect
that the mean age of the people in the sample population
would fall somewhere between 35 and 55. The theorem here

is that the younger individual would not have the income

to participate in the boating activity addressed in this
study (own a boat greater than 20' in length) and that

most older individuals looking towards retirement will

save their funds in the anticipation of future decreases

in income.

Family size.—-The fourth SES characteristic impor-

 

tant to this study is family size. The size of an
individual's family is correlated to the age of the head
of the household. The observed fluctuation in family
size refers to the "family life cycle."1 It is expected
that as the family size increases, the amount of money spent
for recreation would decrease since the larger family would
require greater expenditures for such necessities as food,
clothing, shelter, education, and medical expenditures.

In trying to predict the impact the family size
variable will have on recreational expenditures, it is

expected that the larger the family size, the less spent

 

1Peter D. Bennett and Harold H. Dassarjian, Consumer
Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1972). p. 101.

29

on boating than those with one or no children. One point
that must be investigated is that when the children leave
home, there is an increase in funds available to the head
of the household for discretionary spending. This fact
might aid in explaining any recognizable increases of

expenditures for individuals over 40 or 45 years of age.

Occupation.--The final SES factor considered for

 

analysis in this study is occupation. In reviewing the
literature on education, there appears to be a link between
the education level of a person and the type of job he
has. This linkage between education, occupation, and
income is not always clear. In this country, an individual
with little or no formal education can earn enormous sums
of money through creating a new product or idea. Although
tied to income, occupation in relation to expenditures is
also tied to what is called group conformity.1
An example of the above would relate to a sales-
man whose job and income are reflected in his ability
to influence prospective customers. The use of a plea-
sure boat to entertain these customers might relate to
the general body of salesmen and their task of influ-

encing customers. Probably a clearer example would be

found between professionals in the medical profession

 

1Peter D. Bennett and Harold H. Dassarjian, Con-
sumer Behavior (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
Inc., 1972), p. 98.

 

 

30

where a sizable amount of the individual's income is dis-
cretionary. If a fellow practitioner becomes involved in
boating for any number of reasons, his actions might then
influence other individuals in his social group.

Psychological Characteristics and
Spending Patterns Literature

 

 

Although the psychological reasons behind consumer
behavior will not be tested by this expenditure study, a
brief overview is necessary to help explain more fully why
a consumer's spending patterns are the way they are.
Research dealing with the psychological characteristics of
the consumer is primarily carried out to predict the impact
of advertising products.1

This body of research looks at individual personality
traits to aid in predicting consumer behavior. The follow-
ing statement illustrates how personality traits might
influence expenditures.

The same personality trait can be made manifest

in very different ways, depending on local and tem-
porary conditions and circumstances. The need for
esteem, for instance, can lead to the purchase of
an expensive car. But, if everyone on the block
knows that Mr. Jones can afford an expensive car,

and if all his friends own expensive cars, the need
for esteem may lead to the purchase of a secondhand

 

 

Ford.2
lScott Ward and Thomas S. Robertson, Consumer
Behavior: Theoretical Sources (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973), p. 176.
2

Ibid., p. 178.

31

Characteristics that have been studied and relate
to recreational expenditures are: needs of achievement, the
need to be active, the need of affiliation, the need for
capacity, the need for exhibition, the need for masculinity,
self confidence and self esteem, sociability, social
presence, and venturesomeness.l Many of these psychological
needs can be manifested in challenging the Great Lakes in
a sailing craft, of taking friends out for a ride in the
new luxury motor cruiser, etc. The point here is that
there is a myriad of possible combinations of factors
affecting the purchaSing behavior of each individual. No
two people are exactly alike and what prompts one person
to buy a recreational boat may be very different from what
might prompt another to buy a boat.

Katona emphasizes the need for studying the psycho-
logical make-up of individuals in the economic setting by
stating:

The psychological study of economic processes

is possible because human decisions, and human
behavior in general, are governed by laws, that is,
are not arbitrary, unpredictable, indeterminate.
While human beings are not marionettes pushed
around by external forces, the latitude of their
choice itself is subject to scientific analysis.

Differences in perceptions, motives, and attitudes

are measurable and can be related to causal factors.2

 

lScott Ward and Thomas S. Robertson, Consumer
Behavior: Theoretical Sources (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1973), p. 176.

 

2George Katona, Psychological Analysis of Economic
Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1963), p. 8.

32

Travel and Recreational
Expenditures

 

 

In the area of recreational research, a great deal
of effort has been devoted to analyzing the relationship
between the amount of traveling required for an individual
to reach a recreation area and the impact of that travel
on the number of visitations and on expenditures. A
majority of this research has been focused on the western
national parks because of their distance from the population
centers of this country.

It is assumed here that the farther away from the
recreation area the participant lives, the greater the cost
to travel to that site. Hence expected number of visita-
tions would decrease as distance increases. Evidence to
support this assumption will be shown later in reference
to several studies. If the first assumption is true, con-
versely then, the individual living close to the recreation
area would more readily travel to the site since travel
costs would be minimal. Reliable information is needed
for travel patterns in order to facilitate system planning
and facility development.1 For the proposed St. Joseph/
Benton Harbor marina project, information is needed on
travel patterns of the boaters and potential users of the

facility in order to plan the actual composition of the

 

1J. A. Deacon and others, "Travel to Outdoor Recre—
ation Areas in Kentucky," Journal of Leisure Research, V’
4:4 (Fall, 1972), p. 312.

 

33

facilities at the site. This information is to be deter-
mined through a three state demand study around the southern
end of Lake Michigan.

Fisk indicates that expenditures on domestic vaca-
tion travel and weekend trips may have increased more
rapidly than any other recreational expenditure categories
since the middle 'SOs.l If one looks at recreational
expenditures made by the individual out for a weekend drive
or even a vacation, we would find that the travel costs
incurred would make up a substantial part of the total sum
for recreational expenditures. What was determined in this
boating expenditure study is how travel time or distance
between the craft owner's home and the "slip rental site"
where his boat is kept will affect the total annual amount
of expenditures related to boating. The figures on the V/
amount of visitations both during the boating season and
while the craft is stored in relation to travel time will
be an indicator for participation in the activity. A
positive correlation should be shown between amounts of
visitations and total expenditures to relate increased

travel to the craft to increased total expenditures for

‘L

1George Fisk, Leisure Spending-Behavior (Phila-
delphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1963), p. 46.

boating.

 

 

34

Hypotheses

 

Socio-Economic Status (SES)

 

1.

Boat owners with the highest SES levels will expend

more for the recreational boating experience in each

of the craft type and size categories.

A. The boat owner's income is a positive factor rela-
ted to his recreational boating expenditures. The
higher the income, the greater will be the amount

of expenditures in all categories.

KB. The boat owner's education level (which is posi-

tively correlated to incomé) affects the amount of
boating expenditures. The higher the education
level achieved, the greater will be the predicted
amount of expenditures.

C. Total expenditures are inversely related to family
size. As the family size increases, total expendi-
tures decrease.

D. The amount of recreational boating expenditures
increases as the age of the owner increases up to

the age of retirement.

Differences in Craft Size

 

and Type

1.

Owners of motorized craft have higher total expendi-
tures than owners of sailing craft. The greater the
overall length in each of these two categories, the

greater the total expenditures.

35

Differences in Craft Utilization

 

3.

Those boat owners showing the greatest amount of craft
utilization have the greatest expenditures for the
boating activity.

A. Craft owners with the greatest amount of travel
time between their home and slip rental site will
show the least amounts of expenditures.

B. Individuals who use their craft frequently will
spend more money for recreational boating than
those with a lesser amount of days usage.

C. The longer the draft is kept in the water, the
greater are total expenditures.

D. The greater the amount of maintenance performed
by the owner, the fewer the expenditures in both
the "total expenditures" and "craft—related

expenditures" categories.

CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH ADMINISTRATION AND

GENERAL FINDINGS

The Expenditure Questionnaire

 

While exploring possible research designs for this
study, a great deal of consideration was given to how
confidential information could best be obtained on personal
expenditures from a sample taken from the boater population.
The first method considered was personal interviews. When
looking at where the boaters lived in relation to where
they kept their craft during the boating season, however,

a problem was immediately recognized. Since the home
addresses were spread out over the three states of Michigan,
Indiana, and Illinois as well as even more distant states,
it would not be possible given project budget constraints
to travel to the craft owners' homes for interviews.

I

Conducting personal interviews at the marinas
where the craft are kept during the boating season was con—
sidered next. “In order to obtain reliable data on
expenditures that had been made in the past year for every-
thing from special clothing for boating to the amount of

money paid for fuel and oil, the craft owner would need to

consult records which probably would not be available at

36

37

the slip rental site. Another consideration was the
availability of the craft owner while at the slip rental
site. To collect the information needed for the study, a
lengthy interview would have to be carried out. This

would not be looked upon favorably by the craft owner out
for a weekend of recreational boating. It was finally
decided that the craft owner would not, in most instances,
be willing to sacrifice his valuable boating time to answer
a series of questions, and/or any responses given would
probably be only gross estimates.

A second method for eliciting the responses of the
boaters considered was that of telephone interviews. This
idea was decided against primarily because without prior
knowledge of the call the response for boating expenditures
would yield inaccurate estimates. If the craft owners
were informed in advance of the telephone call, the responses
would probably be more accurate, but the high interview
cost for each respondent would be prohibitive for a sizable
sample.

After reviewing the possibilities of utilizing the
above methods of obtaining data, and determining each to
be unacceptable primarily because of cost considerations,

a mailed questionnaire was considered next. By using a
mailed questionnairei the respondent would (1) be able to
refer back to past records on boating expenditures--increas-

ing accuracy of the information, (2) not involve personal

38

contact--possib1y decreasing the respondents' unwillingness
to respond to personal questions, (3) be able to utilize

as much time needed to answer the questions without being
pressured by an interviewer, and rushing through the questions.

The usual weakness of mailed questionnaires is a
low rate of reSponses. ‘In this instance, it was felt that
the boaters would be motivated to answer the questionnaire
since their response would stimulate facility and service
improvements from which they would benefit directly.
Another important factor in boating response rates for
mailed questionnaires is the use of "follow-up" procedures.

After considerable weighing of alternatives, it
was decided that a mailed questionnaire would be utilized
for the study, and that extensive follow—up procedures
would be used to achieve the highest possible response
rate.

A preliminary questionnaire was drawn up, and mailed
out as a pretest to boat owners in the Lansing, Michigan,
area who owned craft registered at marinas located in the
sample area. The purpose of this pretest was to determine
the ability of respondents to answer the questions, and to
solicit the type of information the study was actually
seeking for tabulation and analysis purposes. A total of
ten pretest questionnaires were mailed out, each with a
cover letter explaining the purpose of the questionnaire,

emphasizing the importance of response, and requesting

I I ‘l. ‘1' . I ‘4. I

39

comments on clarifying the questions as they were written.
Nine oftfluapretest questionnaires were returned, all with
comments helpful in preparing the finalized questionnaire.

The finalized questionnaire, after several reviews

1,;

_4-‘ P

and re-writes, contained a total of 44 questions. Utilizing

\ \2”

the questionnaire format used in the 1971 Michigan Recre-
ational Boating Study, the boating expenditure questionnaire
was divided under five separate sub—headings.

The first subheading was Craft Information. Ques-

 

tions in this section included:

A. Craft type (motorized or sail)

B. Centerline length of craft (coded 20-30',
30'l"-45', 45'+)

C. Hull material

D. Number of engines

E. On-board overnight accommodations

F. Galley and rest room facilities

The second subheading used was Craft Operations/Related

 

Trip Information. Questions in this section included:

 

-A. Distance between slip rental site and home

address

B. Where the craft is stored in the off-season

C. If the craft is stored inside or outside

D. Amount of visits to the craft while it is
stored

E. Visits while stored for inspection or
maintenance

F. Pre—launch maintenance performed while
craft stored

G. Amount of pre-launch maintenance performed

by owner
H. Days craft utilized during the boating
season

 

lRecreation Resource Consultants, 1971 Michigan
Recreational Boating Study (East Lansing, Michigan: 1972).

 

 

4O

. Average length of time out of port

. Average number of persons on the craft

. Where meals eaten

. How long the craft is kept in the water

. Amount of maintenance for storage preparation -J

3t7x<qhq

The third subheading used was Craft Related Expenses. Ques-

 

tions in this section included:

Pre-launch maintenance costs

Craft launching fee

Purchases of boating equipment (1972 season)
Expenditures on fuel and oil

In-season maintenance costs

Haul-out costs

Storage preparation costs

Effluent pump-out costs (seasonal)

Boat insurance (annual)

Initial cost of the craft

C—IHCCO'UL‘UUOGIII’

The fourth subheading used was Trip Related Expenses. Ques-

 

tions under this subheading included:

A. Estimated travel expenditures (to and from

site)

B. Food expenditures related to boating -%

C. Expenditures for off-craft lodging (marina.
site)

D. Boating related recreational equipment
expenditures

E. Expenditures for non-boating recreation at
marina site

F. Boating related expenditures for clothing

G. Seasonal laundry costs at marina site

The fifth and final subheading used was Craft Owner Informa—

 

tion, which covers the basic SES characteristics of each

boat owner. Questions under this subheading included:
A. Age of craft owner r Ir
B. Education level of craft owner;<

Occupation of craft owner A

Number of persons in immediate family ..

Annual family income _

FIDO

A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix B of

this thesis.

41

Marina Site Selection

 

In order to determine expenditure characteristics
which would be most similar to ones at the proposed new
site, users of marinas located both above and below
St. Joseph and Benton Harbor, Michigan, were selected as
the total population of boaters from which the sample
population was drawn. Muskegon was selected as the
northernmost harbor site, and New Buffalo, Michigan, was
selected as the southernmost harbor site in establishing
the boundaries of the study area (see Figure l). Muskegon
was selected since it is used as an arbitrary mark-off
point between the upper and lower halves of Michigan's lower
peninsula. New Buffalo is the southernmost community in
Michigan that has a harbor open to Lake Michigan where
marinas would be operating. At the seven communities each
with open water access to Lake Michigan between the northern
and southern study area boundaries, there are a total of
48 marinas offering 3,563 seasonal slips and broadside
moorings. Since the proposed marina developmental complex
at the St. Joseph/Benton Harbor site would have slip
accommodations for between 200 and 300 craft, the decision
was made to choose those marinas out of the available 48
that had a slip capacity within this range.

The existing breakdown of marina types along the

five southern Michigan counties along Lake Michigan is

42

FIGURE I
MARINA SELECTION SITES

LOWER LAKE MICHIGAN

 

 

 

 

 

   
     
  
 
 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

  

 

 

 

 

LEI
MUSKBGON
k"
N,
STATE 0E MICHIGAN.............jfiffy‘k
w ——'~' “”‘"""‘"“ _“ “‘"u 1“” ”“1 .'
“ i
LAKE MIpHIGAN
*4 ? HOLLAND
I
I I SAUGATUCK
: I
, l
_______________ __.' I
I I
:i SOUTH HAVEN
I i
I I
I I
I' i
I IST. JOSEPH/
I BENTON HARBOR
\ l , 7
. I
I
3% -__«___A._’L__J,_-—— 13: ~
I I ' (5:71;.
I I ~ 4' ""‘*
S: /I . G J/ O 3
\ I -- L "rd?
3 .NEw BIPEALO .. ‘ i“ m..
.\ '— ------- L--_EI-_--2?MM mix-‘4-
NR ,, f/
I \ ’// I N D I A N

 

 

 

43

71% commercial, 21% private, and 8% municipal.l In order
to choose a representative sample of craft types and
sizes for analysis, respondents were drawn from all three
types of marinas. Of the total number of marinas at the
selected harbor sites, ten marinas qualified as sample
sites from which names of craft owners were sought. Of
the ten marinas, five were commercial, three municipal,
and two private (yacht-boat clubs) marinas. The 1,887
boaters renting seasonal slips at these ten marinas then
constituted the total population from which the sample

was drawn.

The Respondent Sample

 

Once the individual marinas had been selected, the
next task was to travel to these sites along the southern
Lake Michigan shoreline to request the lists of names and
addresses of the craft owners renting slips at the various
marinas. The one stipulation for selecting names from
these lists was that the minimum craft size for the sample
would be 20 feet in length because, as indicated in
Chapter II, the proposed marina site would not offer
accommodations for trailered craft since facilities
already exist in the area on the St. Joseph River for the

smaller boats. The 20 foot minimum length was established

 

lMichigan Water Resources Commission, 1972 Inventory

 

of Michigan Marinas (Lansing, Michigan: The Commission,
1972).

 

44

as the smallest craft not readily trailered but yet large
enough to ply the Great Lakes.1

A total of three trips were made to the marina
sites to gather the slip rental lists. The first trip on
May 5th and 6th, 1973, covered the entire shoreline between
Muskegon and New Buffalo. On this trip, two lists of
names were provided immediately upon request and four
marinas mailed their lists to the University within the
next week. The second trip to the marina sites took place
on May 16, 1973, and two more of the lists were made
available. On this trip, it was discovered that the owner/
operator of the largest marina in the study area felt that
he could not release the names of his customers but that
if the cover letters, questionnaires, and return envelopes
were sent to his office, the questionnaires would be sent
out using his own business envelopes.

This method would not allow for any follow—up
procedures for non-respondents from this marina, but since
this site had some of the development features of the
proposed site at St. Joseph/Benton Harbor, it was decided
to accept this modified method of sending out the ques-
tionnaires. After the first two trips, eight out of the

ten lists of names being sought for the study were obtained.

On the third and final trip on June 8, 1973, one more list

 

lRecreational Resource Consultants, 1971 Michigan
Recreational Boating Study (East Lansing, Michigan: 1972),
p. 46.

 

 

45

was collected and a commitment was made by the final
marina owner to mail in the list of slip renters from
that site. Problems in obtaining this last list arose
because the marina changed ownership about this time and
the new owners, though apparently willing to cooperate in
the study, were too busy organizing the newly acquired
business to supply the boater list for the study.

In total, nine of ten marinas in the study area
provided lists of names of all their slip renters owning
craft over 20' in length. This excellent cooperation was
made possible by a letter of introduction provided by
Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of the Michigan Waterways
Division (a copy is located in Appendix A of this thesis).
The lists obtained from the nine marinas contained 1,332
names of boaters owning craft greater than 20' in length.
From this list of names, a random sample was drawn.

The total number of names on the nine lists by
marina type was as follows: commercial marinas (four),
928 names; municipal (three), 199 names; and private
(two), 205 names (numbers in parentheses indicate the
number of marinas). From these totals, an equation for
determining the sample size was developed giving a total
of 500 as the amount of boaters to be sampled for the
study. The breakdown of the sample size for each marina
type was: commercial (four), 300 boaters; municipal

(three), 100; and private marinas (two), 100 boat

46

owners.l Once the sample size was determined, each of the
names of the craft owners was given a 4-digit identification
number. Numbers were then drawn from a random digit table,

and those numbers selected became the sample population.

Questionnaire Mailout Procedure

 

On July 13, 1973, two weeks before the mailing
out of the actual questionnaires, a letter of transmittal
(whichjisincluded in Appendix B of this thesis) was sent
out to the 350 craft owners that were sampled through the
Recreation Research and Planning‘Uhit office. The remain-
ing letters were mailed out by the one marina owner
unwilling to provide a list of boaters using his marina
along with the questionnaires. The goal of this letter
was two-fold: First, to inform the craft owners that a
questionnaire dealing with recreational boating expendi-
tures would be sent to their address from Michigan State
University's Department of Park and Recreation Resources,
and that this questionnaire required information which would
be contained in past expenditure records and that this
letter of transmittal would allow them time to go back
into these records. The second goal of the letter was to
inform the possible respondent of the importance of

actually filling out the questionnaire. It was indicated

 

lEquation drawn up and worked out by Dr. James
Stapleton, Chairman of the Statistics Department, during
a personal interview held June 13, 1973.

47

in the letter that only a small portion of the boaters
could be sampled, and for this reason each boater repre-
sented a larger number of boaters, and that only through
response to this questionnaire could improvements of
boating services and facilities be improved along the
Great Lakes.

On July 24, 1973, after mailing out the letter of
transmittal and before mailing out the main body of ques-
tionnaires, 150 letters of transmittal, questionnaires,
stamped return envelopes, and 8¢ stamps were sent to the
marina that was unable to release its list of slip renters.
These 150 questionnaires, as was pointed out earlier in
this chapter, were mailed out using the marina's
business envelope, with the return envelope having the
Research Unit's address on it.

On July 27, 1973, the remaining 350 questionnaires
were mailed out to the remaining boaters in the sample.
In order to carry out follow-up procedures, each of the
respondents was given a 5-digit identification number.
The first two digits indicated the marina type and which
marina the respondent utilized. The last three digits
were used to identify the individual respondent. These
five digits were placed on the back page of each ques-
tionnaire to identify respondents as the questionnaires
were returned. Non—respondents could then be identified

for follow-up purposes.

48

Questionnaire Response

 

It was decided that three weeks would be allowed
for returns of the questionnaires before mailing the
follow-up questionnaires. After one week, 102 of the 500
questionnaires mailed out had been returned. An additional
37 questionnaires were returned in the following week as
the_rate of return rapidly began to diminish. At this time
there had been no returns from the sample of boaters
utilizing the marina which was to mail out questionnaires
under its own letterhead. By the end of the third week,
only 21 more questionnaires were returned. At the end of
the third week, a total of 160 questionnaires had been
returned to the Research and Planning Unit, or 32% of
the population. However, a call to the marina mailing out
questionnaires directly revealed that their 150 question—

naires had just been mailed out three days earlier.

Follow—Up Procedures

 

At the end of the initial three weeks, 190 follow-up
questionnaires and cover letters were mailed out to the
non-respondents. The follow—up cover letter (a c0py is
located in Appendix C of this thesis) attempted to elicit
higher response by again stating the importance of each
individual response. By the end of the fourth week, or
the first week after the follow-up questionnaire had been
mailed out, 81 questionnaires were returned (16% of the

population) of which 41 were unmarked from the mail-out

49

marina. At the end of the fifth week 28 more questionnaires
were returned (5.6%).

During week number six "thank you" post cards were
mailed to the entire group of 350 individuals in the sample
population handled through the Research Unit. The purposes
of this card (a copy is located in Appendix C of this
thesis) were to thank the respondents who had cooperated
in the survey and to indicate that if they had not mailed
in the questionnaire, to do so at their earliest possible
convenience--this to stimulate additional response.

In the following three weeks, another 49 question-
naires were returned. By September 21, 1973, 318
questionnaires had been returned, or 63% of the 500 sent
out. This figure, however, was not the final total for
returns. After another month, while the questionnaires
were being coded and prepared for key-punching onto com-
puter cards, another 12 questionnaires were returned. The
final tally of questionnaires received was 330, or 66% of
the total 500 sent out; of these, 312 (62.4%) were usable
for tabulation and analysis purposes.

Of the 18 questionnaires that were sent in but
not usable for the study, six were from boat owners who had
sold their boats, four had been returned unanswered, two
respondents were unable to provide expenditure information
since they indicated they did not have that type of informa-

tion in their records, two of the respondents owned craft

50

less than 20' in length, one respondent did not provide
information because he felt the questionnaire was "too

' and three questionnaires were usable but arrived

personal,‘
after tabulation and analysis had been completed.

Of the 350 questionnaires sent out from the Recre-
ation Research and Planning Unit office on July 27, 1973,
182 were returned representing 36.4% of the 500 respondents.
Of the 190 follow-up questionnaires, 54 were returned, or
an additional 10.8% of the population. Out of the 150
sent out of the marina office, with no identification
numbers on the back of the questionnaire, 94 were returned
adding 18.8% of the total population.

The interesting point here is that out of a total
of 350 questionnaires mailed out with identification
numbers, 236 were returned, slightly over 67.4% of that
total. Of the 150 mailed out directly by the marina,

94 were returned, or 62.7% without any follow—up procedures

being utilized.

Non-Response

 

Of the total 170 non-respondents, 114 were identi-
fiable from the lists‘provided by the marina owners. A
telephone follow-up was carried out to determine if those
individuals that failed to respond were in any way differ-
ent from those who did respond. Non-respondents from a

cross section of the marina sites were selected and contacted

via telephone. Determination of the number of non—responents

51

contacted by telephone was based upon budgetary considera-
tions. A total of 25 of the 114 identifiable non-respondents
(slightly less than 25% of that population) was selected
for the telephone interview. The purpose of these inter—
views was to ascertain whether or not the non-responding
population was significantly different from the responding
population, and if different, to estimate the impact of
these differences on overall study findings.

The questions given below were developed to obtain

information through the telephone interview.

Telephone Follow-Up Questions

 

1. Did you receive a c0py of a boating expendi-
ture questionnaire?

2. Do you presently own a boat? ‘,
3. What type of craft do you own/power or sail?

4. Length of craft?

5. Travel time from home address to slip rental
site?

6. How often is your craft utilized (number of
days)?

7. Average annual expenditure for boating
activity?

8. Reason for not filling out the questionnaire:

a. Felt your response was not important
b. Questions too personal

c. You feel existing marina facilities are
adequate
d. Did not care to comment

e. Too busy

52

In order to achieve a cross section of the non-
respondents, random identification numbers were selected
from each of the eight marinas from which the original
lists had been obtained. The actual telephone interviews
were conducted at the end of October. Results of the
telephone interviews will be given at the end of the next
section, General Findings, for comparison purposes between

the two bodies of data.

General Findings

 

To facilitate data tabulation and analysis, the
boating expenditure questionnaire was designed so that
each question could be coded directly on the questionnaire
in the page margins. Once the coding was completed, and
the data deck key-punched, a COBOL computer program was
written to summarize the data.1

Although most of the questions on the question-
naire were usable for this expenditure study, some of the
questions were designed and placed on the questionnaire
to obtain information for the linear programming model
being set up for the St. Joseph/Benton Harbor site.
Several of the questions on boat storage were not included

in the tabulation. The tabulation program was designed

to summarize responses by two craft types (motorized and

 

1Computer program consultant for the project was
Mr. Paul Rochlen.

53

sail), by three length categories (20-30', 30'1"-45',

45'1"+) and by length categories within craft types.

Craft Type and Size

 

Of the 312 usable questionnaires, 200 were from
owners of motorized craft and 112 from owners of sailing
craft. Since one of the nine marinas sampled (a yacht
club) had only sailing craft that utilized its facilities,
sailing craft representation is higher in the sample than
would be expected given the population mix of sail and
motorized craft. As can be seen in Table 2, 64.1% of the
questionnaires returned were from owners of motor craft and
the remaining 35.9% fitmlsailcraft owners.

Table 2 also indicates the breakdown by size

according to craft type. An assumption is made here, that

TABLE 2

SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS BY TYPE OF CRAFT OWNED
(Size and Length of Craft)

 

Motor Craft Sailing Craft

 

 

20-30' 30-45' 45'+ 20-30' 30-45' 45'+

 

Type of craft/Freq. 200 112
Type of craft/% 64.1% 35.9%
Craft length/Freq. 102 89 9 79 32 1

Craft length/% 51% 44.5% 4.5% 70.5% 28.6% .9%

 

54

the number of craft in each craft type and length categories
is correlated to a personal income distribution existing

in the pOpulation. The larger numbers in the smaller craft
length categories are found in all boating studies for the
Great Lakes or statewide waters. It must be pointed out
that there was only a single respondent in the 45'+ length
category for sailing vessels. This effectively eliminates
this category from providing statistically sound data for

tabulation or analysis.

Number of Engines Per Craft

 

This question on number of engines was asked so
that expenditures related tormfixnrcraft over sailing craft
and larger motor craft over smaller motor craft could be
analyzed. This information is found in Table 3 on page 55.
In the motorized category, the greatest percentage of 20—
30' craft were found to have one engine (67.0%). The
30'l"-45' motorized craft generally have two engines per
craft (87.6%). All boats in the largest motorized craft
category had two engines.

Most (55.4%) sailing vessels in the sample possessed
one auxiliary engine, while a sizable percentage (40.5%)
had one standard engine. A few sail boat owners (4.1%)
reported having no motor on board their craft. Most sail-
ing vessels (58.6%) from 30'1" to 45' in length had one
standard engine while 32.3% were reported to have only an

auxiliary engine.

55

 

 

 

 

 

H Hm vs a mm 00H mwmcommwu mo MODES: Hmuoa
wo.o0H mm.~m wv.mm o mm.H wo.H .x54 OcO\u:OOAOmnOchcm
H OH Hw o H H .xs¢ m:O\.Umumlmchcm
o o o wH.HH o wo.m .xsd 6cm 039\ucmoummlmchcm
o o o H o m .x:¢ paw OBB\.qumlmchcm
o wm.m wH.v o o wo.v .x:« can m:0\ucmoummnmchcm
o N m o o v .xsd can m:0\.qmumnmchcm
o wm.m o wa.mm wo.sm wo.mm 039\ucmoummumcfimcm
o H o m mu mm o3B\.vam|w:Hmcm
o wo.mm wm.ov o mN.HH who mc0\ucmoummIOCHmcm
o mH om o OH so OcO\.wOumuOchcm
Huc mm": anus and mm": NOHHG
+.mv .mvuom .omnom +.mv .mvlom .om1om
ummuo Hflmm ammuo nouoz

 

Asumamq 6cm mama ammuo smc

mmZHUZM m0 mmmEDZ

m mqmdB

56

Galley and Rest Room Facilities

 

The questions concerning on-board galley and rest
room facilities were included to further determine the
types of expenditures made by boaters and where these are
made. If the craft has a galley or kitchen facilities, a
larger percentage of meals would be expected to be pre-
pared on the craft. This would translate into higher food
expenditures for groceries than for meals eaten at restau—
rants on shore. This would not always be the case, but
the presence of a galley would create some variance in
where expenditures for food would be made by the boater.
As indicated in Table 4, most (83.1%) of all motorized
craft in the study had galleys and 85.5% of all sailing
craft had galleys. .

The availability of on-board rest room facilities
was reported for 88.1% of all motorized craft, and 88.2%
of all sailing craft (see Table 4). The importance of
rest room facilities to recreational boating expenditures
is that one cost the Great Lakes boater incurs during the
boating season is that for holding tank pump-out service.
Although this service is sometimes included as part of
the slip rental cost, it is still a cost the boater must

pay when cruising the Great Lakes.

Winter Storage of Craft

 

Because of the severity of Michigan winters and

the resulting problems of ice formation on the bodies of

57

 

 

 

 

o Hm.m wm.mH o o wm.- w\.omm::xprmOLnmemn ammuo
o m MH o 0 mm .qmum\.omm Eoou ummn 0: mm: ummHU
wooa ww.mm wm.mm mooa wooa wm.ee w\.omm goo“ Ommu mm; “mayo
H om mm m mm mm .OOMM\.omw Soon ummu mm: ammuo
o o wm.ma o wm.¢ wq.mm unmoumm\smaamm on was Ommuo
o 0 ma 0 4 mm .amum\mmaamm on was ammuo
wooa wooa wm.mm wooa wm.mm wo.He ucmoumm\smaamm mm; ummuo
H mm mm m mm mm .amum\>maamm mm: ammuo
an: mm": as": an: am": moans
+.mv .mvuom .omuom +.mq .mquom .omuom
ammuo HHmw uwmuo mono:

 

Anumcwq can mama Ommuo mmv
mmHquHoam zoom emmm oz¢ wmqq<o

v MHm¢B

58

water in this state, winter storage of craft is another
expenditure made by the recreational boater. Since the
craft included in this study are generally too large to
transport from the marina site to the owner's home, most
boats are stored at or near the marina during the winter
months.

Most of the marinas have no or very limited
indoor winter storage facilities, and the cost of using
these structures increases the winter storage expenditures
and consequently total expenditures for the overall boat—
ing activity. Table 5 indicates where the craft included
in this study are stored by each length and craft type
category.

Visits to the craft while they are stored averaged

l3, l9, and 9 days, respectively, for each of the three

TABLE 5

WINTER STORAGE OF CRAFT
(By Craft Type and Length)

 

Motor Craft Sailing Craft

 

 

20-30' 30-45' 45'+ 20-30' 30-45' 45'+

 

Stored inside/Freq. 58 42 6 20 5 1
Percent 57% 47% 67% 25% 16¢ 100%
Stored outside/Freq. 44 47 3 59 27 0

Percent 43% 53% 33# 75% 84% -

 

59

motorized craft length categories. Visitations of sail-
craft owners to stored boats were 16, 13, and 30 days for

each of the length categories.

Seasonal Use of Craft

 

One group of unexpectedly high figures obtained
from this survey was that of craft utilization during the
boating season. Table 6 on the following page indicates
the total figures broken down into average number of days
of usage by the owner and his family, relatives of the
family, and friends of the family. The question actually
used on the questionnaire is as follows:

15. How many days each boating season is your craft

utilized? (exclude visits in which maintenance was
the prime objective)

 

1. By you and your immediate family.

Cruising trips Docked use
2. By relatives. Cruising trips Docked use
3. By friends. Cruising trips Docked use

There are a number of possible reasons for the high
number of days the craft is used. The question utilized
in the questionnaire might have been misinterpreted by the
respondent. Instead of giving the number of days the craft
was used solely for cruising or docked use, the respondent
could have included the number of days the craft was
utilized for both activities. If in fact this is the case,
this double counting will have inflated the figures pre-

sented in Table 6.

60

 

 

 

 

mwcmflum u A.Aumc
mm>HHMHmm u A.Hmmv
HHHEHE u 1.5mmc
mm n.omH H.Hm m.moa «.mma m.mm HHOOOIIOONHHHOs mama
c o.oe «.mm m.mm m.Hs m.vq wmxooc Hmuoe
mm H.oo m.mm H.mm m.mm m.mm mmmflsuo Hmuoe
o m.ma m.m 0.0H m.HH 4.m wmxooc A.Humv BONAHHOs msmo
o H.ma o.mH o.mm o.ma o.oa mmmflsuo A.Aumv BONHHHOO msmo
o H.aH o.m oH H.HH m.oa Omxoow A.Hmmv BONAHHO: msmo
o o.HH 4.0a o m.m m.n mmmflsuo 1.Hmmc BONHHHO: msma
o o.km m.vm m.mv ¢.mv m.mm wmxoou 1.5mmc OONAHAus mmma
mm o.¢m m.vm n.om m.om 5.5m mmmfisuo 1.5mmc cmuflafius mmmn
an: mm": as": an: awn: moans
+.m4 .mvuom .omnom +.mv .mvnom .omuom
ammuo Hflmm ammuo uouoz

 

Asumcmq 6am mama ammuo mmv
mozmHmm oza .mm>HB¢qmm .quz¢m
wm nmNHqHao mwaouuemamo mme mo mm: gazomamm

m mqmflfi

61

A second possible explanation would relate to the
number of days the family used the craft with relatives and/
or friends on board the craft. In response to the question,
the craft owner might have included the number of days the
craft was utilized jointly in responding to the number of
days the craft was used solely by relatives or friends.

This would again lead to an increased count over actual
usage of the craft.

A problem might not exist with these figures--and
in fact they might represent the actual usage. According
to a Waterways Division research staff member, the response
to the number of days of craft utilization by the craft
owner falls within the response figures that were given
by boaters in previously conducted studies. This point
wuld tend to give face validity to the figures; however,
further work should be carried out to get a more accurate
response from the craft owners. In future studies, the
question should be given stricter design restrictions to
find out craft usage,and minimize the possibility of double
counting.

Length of Time Craft Is in
the Water

 

 

The final figure tabulated for craft operations
section was the average length of time the craft (for
each size and type category) was kept in the water. This
figure would represent the maximum amount of days the

craft could be utilized for the boating season. The

62

average number of days motorized craft were kept in the
water, for each of the three length categories, was 162.8,
174.1, and 163.3 days, respectivelyu Sailcraft averaged
165, 175, and 150 days. The average number of days that
the boats were in the water for both craft types and all

craft length categories was 166.5 or 5.6 months.

Craft Related Expenditures

 

In order to obtain boating expenditures incurred
by the craft owner, a total of eleven questions on the
questionnaire were asked each craft owner. The figures
for craft expenditures are listed in Table 7 on the follow-
ing page to allow for comparison of expenditures for each
craft type and size category. In the following sections,
the contents of this table are discussed and emerging

spending patterns highlighted.

Pre-launch maintenance costs.--Prior to the start

 

of each boating season and while the craft is still in dry-
land storage, there are certain maintenance tasks that
are usually performed. Maintenance activities prior to
launching would include activities ranging from repainting
the hull and polishing chrome fixtures, to overhauling the
engine and testing radio equipment.

Question 21 on pre-launch maintenance asked for a
breakdown on expenditures in 14 categories. The question

then asked for the total average amount spent on the craft

63

.mmcommmuucoz n mz

 

 

 

 

oo.oooa «H.mm~ Hm.H~H oo.oom Hm.mnm Hm.ema mumoo mocmusmcfl Hmscca

oo.ooa mm.em mm.mm mm.mHH sm.mv hm.mq unclassm ucmsammm
mz HH.mqm mm.moa oo.mmv nm.vmm oo.~HH Ommnonm umon cemmmmummo
m2 oo.mva m~.v«m oo.mm Hm.oe mm.moa mumoo .mmum mmmuonm
mz 4m.m> 4H.mm oo.om mo.mo Hm.mm usonasmn ammuo

oo.ooma Hm.sm sm.mm om.mmm Hp.mflm vq.moa mumoo .ucflma cemmmmucH

oo.ooa ma.me Hm.qm om.mmh. Ho.kmv om.HH~ Hflo 8cm Hmsm
mz aa.mmm nm.oav ~¢.mom. om.emm Hm.m~m Hmuoun.mflsam mcflumom
mz oo.mm~ oo.moa HG.HH~ 4N.mma am.~sa umauou.mflsam mcflumom
mz MH.Hmm mm.mm oo.mmm 4H.mma mm.mm~ man-.mHsam mcflumom
mz mo.omm Hm.oam mk.mos ~m.mma mm.a~H Opflm mflamu.mflsam Beaumom
m2 mm.svm mv.mma ms.mas mm.vm~ ao.som mmm Hmucmu OAHm
mz mo.vm Hm.mm oo.om mv.mm mo.m¢ 66% mcflnocsmq
mz oa.~m~ mm.OHH om.m>m mm.mmm mm.maa Hmuos\.ucflme nonsmaumum

/
an: «mus menu mus awn: moan:
+.mv .mvuom .omuom +.mq .mvuom .omuom
ammuo Hflmm ummuo uouoz

 

Asumcmq paw dame ummuu wmv
mmmDBHozmmxm Qdeqmm Bm<mu

h mqmdfi

64

in preparation for summer operation. For tabulation and
analysis purposes, only the total figure was pulled out

of the data to show the trend between craft types and

length categories for expenditures. As can be seen in

Table 7, the greater the size for both motorized and sail-
ing craft, the larger the average expenditure for pre-launch
maintenance. Comparing the two craft types, expenditures
ran considerably higher for motor craft than sail craft.
This relationship is explained by increase in maintenance

costs required for engines found on the motor craft.

Craft launching fee.--The tabulated figures for

 

launching the craft do not reflect standardized launching
rates found at most marinas. The figures for this category
are derived from three different marina types (commercial,
municipal, and private) and so only averages for each

craft type and length is given. As was found with pre—
launch maintenance, the larger the craft the greater the
expenditure. This same pattern held true for craft launch-
ing. Motorized craft again showed higher expenditures

than sail, but the difference here might possibly reflect
the cooperative efforts of the yacht club members in the
survey. The launching of the sailing craft at the one
yacht club in the survey was done by the owner with other

yacht club members to keep costs at a minimum.

65

Seasonal slip rental fees.--One of the most costly

 

items for construction and maintenance at a marina is the
building and upkeep of docks. The slip rental fees charged
by the marina reflect the amount of costs per length of
craft in relation to length of slip needed for the craft.
The tabulated figures for slip rental fees represent the
averages derived from the three marina types. It was

found once again, as the craft size increased, so did the
cost for slip rental. There is little difference between

craft type and amount of expenditures in this category.

Purchases of boating equipment.--In order to

 

determine the amount of money being spent annually for
boating equipment and where the actual purchases were being
made, question 24 was broken down into boating equipment
expenditures made at the "slip rental site," home address,
and other (i.e., through catalogs, etc.). As can be seen
in Table 7, expenditures on boating equipment increased

for each length category except in the case of motorized
craft, lengths I and II (20-30', 30'1"-45'), for expendi-
tures at the "home address." A partial explanation for
this expenditure pattern would be that the craft owner in
this length category might be purchasing optional equipment

that is found as standard equipment on larger craft.

Expenditures for fuel and oil.——This question pre-

 

sented to the craft owner was expected (1) to elicit amounts

66

of expenditures made by the craft owner, and (2) to quantify
the expected differences in spending between motorized and
sailing craft. The tabulation of data showed that the
larger the craft, the greater the expenditures. Motorized
craft, as expected, showed considerably greater expendi-
tures than sail craft. The average annual expenditures
when combining the averages for all three lengths of
motorized craft was $1,368.00 against only $200.84 for
the total averages of the three sailing craft length cate-
gories.

As expected, this category on boating expenditures
again indicated the quantitative difference in spending

for different craft type.

In-season maintenance costs.--Expenditures made

 

by the boater to maintain his craft in Operating condition
were requested in question 26 of the questionnaire.
In-season maintenance would include any type of maintenance
activity covered during pre-launch preparation except work
done on the hull. The average expenditures found in this
study again increase for each length category with motorized
craft having considerably higher averages than sail craft.
The figures represented in this category for craft mainten—
ance indicate as great a difference in expenditures as was
shown by the averages for fuel and oil purchases between

motor and sail craft.

67

Craft haul-out expenditures.-—The average figures

 

for craft haul-out at the end of the boating season were
expected to approximate the cost for craft launching. .AS
seen in Table 7 this was the case with only a slight
increase for haul-out over launching fees. The slight
difference in expenditures can be partially explained by

the fact that some respondents included their launching

fee in their slip rental fee, causing somewhat lower overall
averages for launching. The relatively high price for
having the craft taken out of the water reflects the

expense of the equipment to lift and move the large craft.

Storage preparation costs.-—One expenditure the

 

craft owner incurs at the end of the boating season is

the cost to prepare the craft for winter storage. The

cold temperatures and extreme weather conditions of Michigan
winters create the need for winter storage. Question 28

on the questionnaire dealt with expenditures made by the
boater for storage preparations. An interesting point

here is that the length category I craft for both motorized
and sailing vessels had greater expenditures for storage
preparation than the larger length categories. The possible
explanation for the difference would be that a greater per-
centage of the larger craft are stored inside buildings
which would eliminate the need for costly coverings, etc.

for the craft that are stored outside.

68

Boat storage costs.--The need for dry-land winter

 

boat storage was covered earlier in this chapter, and
expenditures for storage came out at about the same price
as the seasonal slip rental fee. The average figures for
all length categories reflect expenditures made for the
rental of storage space both inside and outside of storage
structures.

Motorized craft had higher rates for winter
storage than sailing craft, but this can be explained by
the fact that 78.2% of all sailing craft were stored out-
side of buildings compared to only 46.8% of the motorized
craft. When a boat is stored inside a building, storage

costs increase.

Seasonal expenditures for craft insurance.-~The

 

final question dealing with craft related expenditures
requested the annual cost for boat insurance carried by
the craft owner. A comparison between length categories
of both motorized and sailing craft shows similarities in
amounts of expenditures except in category III which has
questionable data for the one 45'+ sailing craft in the
study.

The need for insurance coverage is obvious con—
sidering the investment the craft owners have made in
purchasing their craft. The average cost for the 45'+

motorized craft, for example, is over $83,000.00.

69

Trip_Related Expenditures

 

The second category of recreational boating
expenditures and fourth section of the questionnaire is
"trip related expenditures." This section covers expendi-
tures made between the home and marina site, or while
participating in recreational boating. The expenditure
questionnaire contained seven questions covering "trip"
costs to determine the true spending patterns for the
participants in this recreational activity. The figures
on "trip related" expenditures can be found in Table 8 on
the following page, and are highlighted in the following

sections.

Seasonal food expenditures.-—Under this heading,

 

information on seasonal expenditures of grocery purchases,
alcoholic beverage purchases, and meals ordered in restau-
rants, connected to the boating activity, was sought.
These three expenditure categories under the broad heading
of food purchases are then broken down into expenditures
made at the home address, slip rental site, and en route
to the marina. Figures on expenditures for prepared meals
were not included for the home address. Only the total
figures are shown for each food category in Table 8.

Unlike expenditureszfiyrcraft Operationsanuimainte-
nance, which fairly consistently exhibited increases with craft
size increases and higher expenditures for motor craft than for

sail craft, spending patterns for "trip related expenses" did

70

.wmcommmuucoz n mz

 

 

 

 

mz mm.nm oa.HH oo.ov ms.mm sm.mm mpmoo sumcsmq
mz mm.mma mm.~e «H.54m mm.mma Hw.mm mmauoHO mcflumom
mz oo.soa me.mo m~.mmm mm.¢m HG.H¢H Beaumonu202\.wcmmxm .Omm
mz mv.HHH AH.~0H mm.omm mv.mma 44.nma wmumamu mcflumom\.mflsam .Omm
mz oo.o mh.m4 oo.o am.oa mm.om mcflowoa ummuoummo
mz mk.emo mm.nvm mn.nmm mm.mms mm.mkv HHOOO Ommum>mn can coon
mz ma.avm mn.woa mN.HHN mm.oam HH.HmH mamme wmummmum\.ocmmxm Boom
mz m¢.mmfi oa.mh mn.mma mo.mma Hm.vma Hocooaax.ncmmxm coom
mz NH.Hom ao.moa ms.wmm mm.mom mm.mma mmflumoou0\.vcmmxm coon
Hus mm": anus mun mmna moan:

+.mv .mvuom .omION +.mv .mvuom .omuom

“mayo HHmm ummuo uouoz

 

Anumcmq Cam make ummwu wmv
mmmDBHszmxm QMBfiHmm mHmB

m mamfiB

71

not follow that some exact pattern. Expenditures for food
(groceries) increased from length I to length II in both
categories of craft type, but under motorized, length III
craft owners average expenditures dropped.

The expenditures for alcoholic beverages again
fluctuate downward for the length III craft owner. In
fact, only the length I sail craft owner averages less
money spent for alcohol than the largest craft size for
motorized boats. This is not the expected trend in spend—
ing behavior that had been predicted for all expenditures
per category. The average amount of money spent by craft
owners for prepared meals showed substantial increases in
every length category, although II and III motorized only

show a difference of slightly over one dollar.

Seasonal expenditures for off-craft lodging.-—The

 

second question on "trip expenditures" covered in this
thesis deals with the amounts of money the craft owner
paid out on the average for off-craft lodging at the marina
site. It would, of course, be necessary to seek off-craft
lodging when the number of individuals to be lodged exceeded
on-board lodging capacity. However, boaters may choose for
one reason or another to use off—craft lodging rather than
stay on the craft. One respondent built a $68,000 summer
home to avoid sleeping on the craft.

In the motorized category, length I, only 22 craft

owners out of 102 indicated any expenditures for off-craft

72

lodging with the average expenditure for all craft owners
in that category totaling $26.93. In length II motorized,
14 boaters out of 89 paid for off-craft lodging with the
average expenditure for the category being $16.29. Owners
in length category III motorized, and lengths II and III
in sailing craft, made no expenditures for off—craft
lodging.

The only other expenditures for off-craft lodging
was in length category I sailing craft: The average was
$45.75 for this group with only 10 responding that they
used off-craft lodging out of the 32 in this category.

The trend concerning off-craft lodging vflflxfll one might
expect would have owners of smaller craft seeking off-craft
lodging for weekend guests since on-board overnight accom—
modations are not as great as are found on the larger craft.
Of the total 312 respondents, only 46, or only 14.7% of the

sample population, indicated they utilized off—craft lodging.

Recreational equipment/boating related.-—The ques-

 

tion concerning the purchases of recreational equipment
that would be utilized during or related to the boating
activity was broken down into three categories: fishing
equipment, water skiing equipment, and skin—SCUBA diving
equipment with two "other purchases" categories left open.
Again the figures represented in Table 8 indicate the total
for expenditures flmrrecreational equipment purchased at

both the "home address" and "slip rental" site.

73

Purchases of recreational equipment decreased from
length II in relation to length I for motorized craft. The
remaining length categories showed increases for each size
group. Expenditures for recreational equipment averaged
somewhat less for the sail craft owners, possibly because

they consider sailing a complete sport in or of itself.

Non-boating recreational expenditures at "slip

 

rental site."--Question 37 on the expenditure questionnaire

 

was designed to determine seasonal spending patterns for
boat owners participating in other forms of recreation
while at the "slip rental site." Oftentimes, the craft is
considered a mobile cabin or summer home to be used as a
base of operations. This question was designed to see how
much money was spent by the craft owner for such recre-
ational activities as golfing, tennis, bowling, movies,
spectator sports, and "other activities."

Referring back to Table 8, less money was spent by
the length II motorized craft owner than length I motorized;
however, the general finding was that this category of
expenditures increased with boat size. Motor craft owners
included in this sample on the average spent more on non-
boat related recreation activities than<iuisampled sail

boat owners.

Boating related seasonal clothing expenditures.--The

average amount of expenditures for boating clothes follows

74

the trend of the larger the craft, the greater the
observed expenditure. Totals between the two craft types
are fairly close together, indicating little difference
between craft type and amount of money spent for clothes
for recreational boating. The differences in expenditures
between length classes would not necessarily indicate
greater amounts of clothes being purchased, but possibly

better quality.

Seasonal laundry costs at "slip rental site."--The

 

final question related to "trip" expenditures relates to
laundry costs incurred while at the slip rental site.
These figures for all craft length categories are all
relatively small and reflect that either the laundries
aren't used to a great extent at the marina or simply are
not available to be used. Again the only difference in
actual expenditures when compared to the upward trend per
craft length category is found when comparing the length I
and length II motorized categories with I showing a

slightly higher average ($33.87 to $29.75).

Total Expenditures

 

The total expenditures made by the craft owner
reflect the sum of "craft" and "trip expenditures."
Table 9 shows the actual average figures for each boat
length and craft type. A comparison between motorized

and sail craft indicates only moderate differences in

75

TABLE 9

TOTAL EXPENDITURES
(By Craft Type and Length)

 

Motor Craft

 

 

 

Number of responses 102 89 9

Craft size 20'-30' 30'-45' 45'+

Expenditures total $2,774.56 $3,831.76 $6,401.44
Sail Craft

Number of responses 79 32 1

Craft size 20'-30' 30'—45' 45'+

Expenditures total $2,243.85 $3,620.23 $2,200.00

 

amounts of expenditures, with the greatest differences
probably accounted for in purchase of fuel, oil, and boat-
ing equipment.

Except for the 45’+ sailing category, each succeed-
ing length category showed substantial increases in average
expenditures for the activity of recreational boating. The
45'+ sail craft figure must be heavily discounted because
it represents only a single response combined with incomplete
answers on the questionnaire.

The average figures presented here are conservative
estimates of total expenditures since expenditures for

travel are not computed in the final tabulation. Response

76

to the questionnaire on amount spent to travel from the
home address to the slip rental site was considered so
inaccurate (i.e., $3.00 for 120 mile round trip between
the two sites) that these perceived travel costs were not
included in the "total" expenditure figures.

Socio—Economic Status (SES)
Characteristics

 

 

The final group of questions on the expenditure
questionnaire covered the socio—economic status (SES)
characteristics of the boater. There were a total of five
questions covering the age, education level, occupation,
and income of the craft owner as well as the determination
of family size. Table 10 on the following page lists the

average figures for each of the SES characteristics.

Age of craft owner.--In all six craft lenth cate-

 

gories, the average age of the boat owners was over 40
years. The age of the motorized craft owners had an

average increase in years from length category I at 46.9

up to 51.2 in category III. The sail craft owners start

the same upward trend for the age category, but the

single 45'+ sail craft owner's age drops below the length II
sail category for average age. One thing the age category
points out is that recreational boating, at least in the
class of Great Lakes boats this study covered, is participa-
ted in by individuals that have been working, and building

up their discretionary funds for their recreational activities.

77

.mb mmmm co cm>Hm mEoocH Mom mpoun

.mh mama so cm>Hm coHumospm How mpoom

 

HF4W7©CVF10<DC>H<$CHVF40

mh.vH

mm.m

vv.m
N.mv

umnuo

UmuHumm

ucwEmoH0mcm 3mg

HmumcmmIHmHHoo wsHm

m>HumucmmmHQmH mmHmm

meuoz huogomm

hmuwHU

HmumcmmlumHHoo wanS

Hmcomme

mommmwoum

ummchcm

HOGBO mmmchsm

m>Husomxm mmmchom

washouud

.o.z\uouooo
mocwmmOHm\coHummsooo

mm.m mh.NH vv.m mm.h QmEoocH Hmsccm
Hm.m mo.m mm.m mm.m >HHEmm CH mCOmumm mo umnEdz
mm.o mn.m mm.m nv.m MHOCBO mo Hm>mH :oHumospm
m.m¢ m.Hm c.5v m.mv mmmum>¢\umc30 ammuo m0 mod

H
Hrfi

P4N

F4H
m<ra>wxo~4H<:c>o<¢c>vr~u>

caocnoxocncxocouaocooamr~
ocaqwuqmoc3c>o<3r+o<3wio
[\Fihf\O\Or4CDHChO‘OCDWTW

 

NM":
.mVIom

men: an: own: moans
.OMION +.mv .mVlOM .OMION

 

 

ammuo Hflmm

ummuo mono:

 

Anumcmq pcm mmme ummHU va
MUHBmHmMBU¢m¢mU Ammmv maaaam UHSOZOOmIOHUOm

OH mqm<B

78

Education level of the craft owner.--For coding

 

purposes, educational achievement of the craft owner was
divided into nine response categories:

. Elementary school '6. Associate degree

. Junior high 7. B.S. and B.A.

. High school (some) 8. M.S. and M.A.

. High school 9. Doctor's (M.D./Ph.D.)
. Some college

UlubWNI-J

The figures in Table 10 represent the average of all
responding craft owners. As can be seen in the tabulated
figures, each succeeding craft length category has higher
averages for educational level for the craft owners. In
comparing the average educational levels of motor craft
owners to that of sail craft owners, it is interesting to
note that the lowest average educational level for the
sail craft owners is higher than the highest average level
of education for the motor craft owners.

The reason or reasons for this difference were not
specifically addressed in this study. Perhaps one reason
is that the handling of a sailing vessel would be more
intellectually demanding than Operating a motor craft.
Maybe the reason lies in sailing's "return to nature"
character which appeals to individuals with higher levels
of education. In any case, this finding merits considera-
tion by those involved in planning and managing boating

facilities.

Size of the family.--The average response related

 

to the size of the family, for five of the six craft

79

categories, was slightly greater than 3.5 per family.

The averages for family size seem relatively low. Possi-
bly this reflects a smaller family size for the older craft
owners who have had their children grow up and leave home.
There is no real trend apparent in the tabulated figures
concerning craft owners' family size and size and type of

craft purchased.

Income.--Question 44 on the boating expenditure
questionnaire offered 18 possible income groups which the
craft owner could check to indicate the amount of family
income. Income was solicited in this manner because it
was felt that the rate of response to this key question
would be increased over what might be achieved if the
respondent was required to list his exact income. Income
categories were listed in $2,500 increments starting at
less than $10,000 annually and ending with over $50,000

in income.

Less than $10,000 10. $30,001 to 32,500
$10,001 to 12,500 11. $32,501 to 35,000
$12,501 to 15,000 12. $35,001 to 37,500

$15,001 to 17,500 13.
$17,501 to 20,000 14.
$20,001 to 22,500 15.
$22,501 to 25,000 16. $45,001 to 47,500
$25,001 to 27,500 17. $47,501 to 50,000
$27,501 to 30,000 18. $50,001 and over

$37,500 to 40,000
$40,001 to 42,500
$42,501 to 45,000

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

 

 

As can be observed in Table 10, as the size of the
craft increased for both motor and sail craft, so did the
average amount of income. The lowest average income of

$22,466.00 was for sail craft length category I. The

80

highest response for a group was 18 for sail craft III at
over $50,001 (only one respondent in this category). The

complete figures for average income are found in Table 11.

Occupation of the craft owner.--The final SES

 

characteristic that is discussed in this chapter on general
findings is that of occupation of the craft owner. The
occupations were coded under 15 different categories with

the tabulated figures shown in Table 10. Figures 3 and 4

on the following two pages illustrate graphically the differ—

ences in occupation groups for motor craft and sail craft.

TABLE 11

AVERAGE COMPUTED INCOMES
(By Craft Type and Length)

 

Motor Craft

 

 

 

Number of craft 102 89 9
Craft length 20'-30' 30'—45' 45'+
Coded average 7.89 8.44 12.78
Act. income level $24,725 $26,100 $36,950
Sail Craft

Number of craft 79 32 1
Craft length 20'-30' 30'-45' 45'+
Coded average 6.99 14.76 18.00

Act. income level $22,466 $41,900 Over $50,000

 

pmcvo .mH pmxnoz maovowm .OH nmmcchm .m

Uthpwm .:H zmhmHu .m gonzo mmmchsm .:
pcmfimoaomcm 3mg .mH AcwmvpmHHoo opfinz .m .owxm mmmchdm .m
AcmmvhmHHou ODHm .NH monomme .s mochovp< .N
mmHmm .HH . 90mmmmopm .m HOOHpOz\90poom .H

 

"mCOHpmoHMHmmmHo aOHpmmdooo

81

H

.2

N

 

..._._.._.nIm

NH HH

‘HH
.
-...~..'.-I.3
03

(D

b

 

 

 

 

Ampcwpcommmm oomv
WMMZSO =BM<MO MOHOE=
AA< mom mZOHH¢mDooo

N MMDUHL

 

 

 

 

M;

 

oH
mH
om
mm
om
mm
o:
m:

om

82

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

pwsvo .mH mmxnoz macpomm .oH hmmcchm .m
pthpwm .:H mmpmHo .m pmczo mmmchdm .:
Pcmfimopomcm 3mg .mH AcmmVLMHHoo OPHSB .m .ome mmmchsm .m
AcmwvhmHHoo msHm .NH hmsomme .u >0c90pw< .N
mmHmm .HH hOmmmmoam .m HMOHUOE\QOHOOQ .H
umcoHPOOHmemmHo COHHmadooo
mH :H H «H HH DH m m b m m j m m H
fin NH fl ..LH,. HE M1 .M Mu .H _
l _ .l O _” .1 . .l . H _ l m
_w m m _H _1 _” m
N. A m __ : :
.\ :1 fl 3 . _ u
.1 NH _ , _-.._ L
:H E mH
wH _
_
MN

Ampcmpcommmm NHHV

mmmzzo =em<mo 4H<m= .

 

 

 

HH< mom szHB<mDooo

m MMDGHM

oH

mH

om

mm

om

mm

o:

m:

cm

83

From the tabulated figures, it can be observed that
boaters come most commonly from five job categories. The
occupation that had the highest number of boaters, for both
motor and sail craft categories, was business owners, fol-
lowed in order by (2) business executives, (3) salesmen,
(4) engineers, and (5) factory workers. The remaining ten
occupations in order of importance from highest to lowest
(for both sail and motor craft) were doctor, retired,
other, teachers, law enforcement, attorneys, professors,
and clergy, with none found in the blue and white collar
jobs-general categories.

Results of the Telephone
Follow-Up Survey

 

 

As was indicated earlier in the section on research
administration, a telephone survey was carried out to
determine if there were any substantial differences between
the boat owners that responded to the questionnaire and
those who didn't. Table 12 on the following page indicates
the response to each of the eight questions asked of the
25 craft owners contacted by phone.

It can be seen that 92% of the non-respondents
sampled did receive a questionnaire through the mail. This
finding would appear to rule out the possibility of large
numbers of individuals not even receiving questionnaires
which could have accounted for considerable non-response.

Of the 25 non-respondents called, only 18 or 72% still

 

 

NH mmsn 009 .m

o usmEEoo ou wumo u.:UHQ .Q

o mumsvmpm mmHuHHHomm mcHHmz .0

H Hmc0mumm oou mcoHummoo .m

¢ ucmuuomEH no: mmcommmm .<
mmcommmulcoc MOM GOmmmm .w
oo.oom.Hmlmmmnm><\mucm©commmu HHH mchmon How musqucwmxm Hmsccm mmmum>¢ .5
whom vmnwmmnm>¢\mucmpcommmu HH¢ pmNHHHps mH ummuo mamw mo MODESZ .w
.cHE ovlwmmum>¢\mucmpcommmn HH¢ mcHHmE van 0803 :mm3umnlmEHu Hm>mua .m
waomuHH «\womIH oxmomuHH o\womuH meuo 0:0 mo suchH 0:» mH 0mg: .4
m\wm.nmnHHmm mH\m~.mhuuouoz ammuo mo mama was: .m
n\wmmloz mH\wm>|mmw ammuo m :30 mHucmmmum so» on .N
N\wmloz mm\wmm|mmw muHmccoHummsv m m>HmomH do» UHQ .H

mmcommwm coHummso

 

Amumczo Ommuo mac
sm>mam msuzoqqom mzommmume mme mo meqommm

NH MHmdfi

85

owned craft. This finding suggests that another sizable
percentage of non-respondents probably no longer own boats
and therefore had little incentive to fill out and return
the questionnaire.

Of the 18 respondents still owning boats, 13 had
motor craft (72.2%) and 5 had sail craft (27.8%). These
figures when compared to the 64.1% to 35.9% ratio (motor
to sail) of respondents suggests that the ratio of motor
craft to sail craft owners may be higher in the non-
responding population. Of the 13 motor craft, one was too
short (17') to be included in the study, while the remain-
ing 12 were split up evenly between length categories I and
II. The five sail craft were found to be in the first two length
categories also (Length I--4 craft, Length II--1 craft).

Travel time between home address and slip rental
siteikn:those contacted via telephone averaged 40 minutes
which is lower than the mean of just over 60 minutes found
among those responding to the expenditure survey. The
number of days the craft was utilized was also low: 34 days
in the telephone survey to 56 days in the questionnaire
response. The average for the 14 individuals that would
hazard a guess as to what their total recreational boating
expenditures might be was only $1,300. The lowest average
for questionnaire respondents was $2,243.85 for length I
sail craft. It should be pointed out here that when the

individuals were asked questions on days of craft usage

86

and amount of expenditures made by them they were unsure
of whatever figure they came up with. They had no time to
check for the accuracy of their figures.

Reasons for non-response were also solicited from
the selected non-respondents. Twelve said they were "too
busy" to answer the questionnaire; four felt their response
was not important, and one felt the questionnaire was too
personal.

In summary, a rather high proportion of non-
respondents (28%) did not respond because they no longer
owned a boat.“ This group of non-respondents would appear
to have little if any impact on the validity of the expendi-
ture data presented herein. The lower estimated expendi-
tures reported by non-respondents in the telephone follow-up
than for respondents, the lower usage of the craft during
the season, and the "too busy" to respond high rate of
selection combine to suggest that non-respondents probably
use their boats less and spend less money—-possibly because
they are "busier" than boaters who responded to the ques-
tionnaire. In generalizing the expenditure pattern data
reported here to the population of Lake Michigan boaters,
one should be advised that the figures, due to the lack of

accurate responses, are predicted to be somewhat lower than

what actually exists.

CHAPTER V

TESTING THE HYPOTHESES

Analysis of the Data

 

In order to analyze the data on recreational
boating expenditures made by Lake Michigan Great Lakes
boaters, a number of data analysis methods were utilized.
These procedures were used for two purposes: (1) to pre-
dict trends in future recreational boating expenditures
and (2) to test the hypotheses as to the strength of the
variables in determining expenditure patterns presented
in this thesis. The analysis included simple regression
analysis, multiple regression analysis, and non-parametric
two-way analysis of variance.

It was decided to look primarily at three different
dependent variables covering boating expenditures. The
first dependent variable being "total" expenditures; the
second, "craft" expenditures; and the third, "trip related"
expenditures. There were other possibilities for dependent
variables such as the purchases of prepared meals at the
slip rental site, grocery purchases, or literally any other
itemized expenditure category covered in the questionnaire.
For the purpose of narrowing the scope of the analysis,
however, the three larger categories were utilized as the

dependent variables.
87

88

The number of independent variables chosen for
analysis is considerably larger than the number of dependent
variables. The following descriptive variables were
selected to hopefully explain the differences found in
expenditure patterns: craft type (motorized or sail),
craft size (20-30', 30-45', 45'+), travel time between the
home address and slip rental site, percent of maintenance
performed by the craft owner, number of days the craft is
used during the boating season, income level, education
level, family size, age, and occupation.

In the following sectionj'Testing the Hypotheses,
scatter diagrams and statistics necessary for interpretation
are placed with each hypothesis to be tested. Finally,
non-parametric two-way analysis of variance will be used
to determine whether or not total expenditures are sig-
nificantly different by craft type and length.

The coverage of analysis in this thesis is
restricted to the testing of the hypotheses on variable
effects and does not attempt to predict expenditure trends
or patterns for the Great Lakes boater. Through the
utilization of the available analysis techniques, it is
hOped the hypotheses that are presented will be positively
tested.

In terms of the simple regression analysis tech-

niques, the model used was

Y = a + BX + u

89

where Y represents the dependent variable (expenditures),
a the Y intercept, B the regression coefficient, X the

independent or descriptive variable, and u the disturbance

term.1

The multiple regression technique utilized the

formula

Y1 = Bo + lel + B2X2 + . . . Bka + u .

It is generally implied that the variation in Y is system-

1

atically explainable by the part of the Yl that is

represented as (B0 + lel + BZXZ + . . . Bka) and that
2

the part of Y not explained by the X5 is represented by u.

1
Results of the multiple regression computer runs can be

found in Appendix E.

Testing the Hypotheses

 

Socio-Economic Status

 

Hypothesis 1: Boat owners with the highest socio-
economic status (SES) characteristics level will
expend more for the recreation boating experience in
each of the craft type and size categories.

 

To determine the validity of this hypothesis, the
individual SES characteristics must be compared to expendi-
ture patterns since no single all inclusive SES measure was

established for this study.

 

1David S. Huang, Regression and Econometric Methods
(New York: 1970), p. 12.

2Ibid., p. 53.

90

In looking at the tabulation of the expenditure
data, one notes that there is a positive relationship
between craft size and amounts of expenditures. Similar
comparisons to expenditures can be made with such SES
characteristics as education level, income, and age.

After looking at the sub-hypotheses under the SES heading,
this section will be concluded with a statement concerning
the validity of Hypothesis 1.

Sub-Hypothesis 1-A: The boat owner's income

will be positively related to his recreational

boating expenditures. The higher the income,

the greater the amount of expenditures in all
craft categories.

 

Referring to the simple correlation data in the
margin of Figure 4, it can be seen that income had a posi-
tive correlation of .418 to total expenditures. The plot
of the regression line for total expenditures versus amount
of income indicates that for the sample population of
boat owners, the greater the income level, the greater the
amounts of expenditures. To actually test the hypothesis
that income does affect expenditures, one must determine
which of the following is accepted: the null hypothesis

(H : = 0) or the alternate hypothesis (Ha: # 0), with the

x-uX
SX

when looking at the data in Figure 4 shows that the t value

0

level of significance at 5 percent. The t test (t

)

of 8.11 is far greater than the critical value of t (1.960)
with 310 degrees of freedom and a level of significance of

0.5. Thus the null hypothesis cannot be accepted, and it

mzoozH

Nm

 

_ «.mH v.4H w.NH w.oH oo.m om.b ov.m om.m om." _.o
_ _ — HII _ a. _ _ _ H H
.4 .4 Wm .4 .4.I
4 d 4
4 4
.4 .4 m“ M“ H m" .C
a a 4 4 m -
« . w ‘4 4 4. 44 C 44 w . 4
. . . «4 4
4 w A. . H . 4
4
q « 4. . L .m m m“ m 4. 4
«m .4 d. 4 .4 .4
4 4 .. « 4 4
- 4 « .4 4. a M“ 4
« 4 ..
w .«
.0 .4 .4. .0
1 4 4 4
.4 0,4 4
a d 4
4 4 4
« 4 4
4
4 MZOQZH mmzzo Hm<mo\mmm:BHozmmxm q<eoe
4 804m AM xv
4 manon
:1

 

80‘399t'8

€0+3186'9

moon
h mo .m

n
.m.n .20»

em.
mmOHm mm

HH
MAOHm mm

N4.
mmOHm .mmm .o

mm.mm
MH<2HHmm .MMm .o

wH
ZOHH¢HMMMOU mqmm

mo.m~H Amv mmo

om.¢4OH A<V ammomma

mmmzh_mzmmxm L<Ho

92

is concluded the slope is significantly different from
zero. The alternative hypothesis then is accepted sup-
porting the hypothesis that total expenditures and boat
owners' incomes are positively correlated.
Sub-Hypothesis l-B: The boat owner's education
level will be positively correlated to total
expenditures. The higher the education level

achieved, the greater the amounts of expenditures
expected.

 

The simple correlation figure derived from Figure 5
shows a negative correlation (-.059) between education and
total expenditures. The plot diagram in Figure 5 shows
a negatively sloped regression line from the sample popu-
lation. The t value for the slope is -l.04 which is below
the critical value of 1.960 for 310 degrees of freedom at
.05 level of significance. From this data, the sub-
hypothesis l-B is rejected.

Sub-Hypothesis 1-C: Family size will be nega-

tively correlated with total expenditures for

recreational boating-~that is, as the family

size increases, the recreational expenditures
will decrease.

 

The simple correlation figure derived from Figure 6

shows a positive correlation (.008) between family size and

total expenditures. The plot diagram in Figure 6 shows a
slightly positive regression line for the sample population.
The t value for the slope is .140 which is below the
critical value of 1.960 for 310 degrees of freedom at .05
level of significance. From this data, the sub-hypothesis

l-C is rejected, and the null hypothesis is accepted.

zolcaoagm mm

 

«I44 «44 -J—

44

 

070 oué. om.w 07w om; ow.m Saw ow; 00¢. ..o
_ H 4 _ _ _ _ L L m.
4 II
N u . w . .
4 4 m
4 d « 4 m.
w a 14.1 1 a. mo .”
4
4 Q 4 4 A
4 Q m 4 G .md .22
a m 4 a 1 at. 2
4 4 a m E Bod 4.:
w 4 4 m
4 4 8 4o.
4 4 29$ .2
4 ON.
4 4 4 « 4 4.43m .mmm A
m3:
9 $4258 .53 A
4 4 4 I m mm“
4 n. 20:35.80 5%
w 3.3.. as man
4 $.32 3 25%..
4 onH<oaom\mmmseHazmmxm 44909
4 .83 9 5 mmmstmzmmxm .35..
m mmson
4 l_l

 

mew _. zam

 

 

od.m cm.h om.m ov.m om.4 ow.m on.~ ow.H com. .o
_ H _ _ _ _ _ _ m.
.4 4. .4 Itl
4 4 4 m m M 4
.4
4 a 4 4
4 4 4 m
A4 .4 m. U“
.4 .4 Idfil A4 __ a"
4.
“c .4 Wm .u Wm _n
4. 4. ab
.4 mm .4 .4 Wm .1 m.
d. a.
4. .4 Wu 4. mu
4 4 « 4 w
9 4 4
4 4 4 4 4 «
9
|.m4
4 4 S
A. 4 u“.
A.
u
8
.4
.4
mNHm .z<m\mmmDBHszmxm H4509
904m Am xv
w NMDme 4 ll

 

mww
m mo .UH“

OHl
.h.n .Eozm.

om:
mmoqm mo.

04H
mAOHm mo.

ow.m_
mmOHm .mmm .QH

44.Hmm
MHflzHHmm .mmm .DH_

moo
ZOHH<HmmmOU MHmEH

4m.“ Amv mmoa

am.O4ON A44 ammommaz

mmm=H~mzm¢xm 4<Hoh

95

Sub—Hypothesis l-D: The amount of recreational
boating expenditures will increase as the age

of the owner increases--up to the age of retire-
ment.

 

The simple correlation figure derived from Figure 7
shows a positive correlation (.039) between age and total
expenditures. The plot diagram in Figure 7 shows a slight
positive regression line for the sample population. The
t value for the slope is .680 which is below the critical
value of 1.960 for 310 degrees of freedom at .05 level of
significance. From this data, the sub-hypothesis l-D is
rejected, and the null hypothesis accepted.

In trying to show that the greater the SES charac-
teristics the greater are the predicted total expendi-
tures, it was found that income of the craft owner is the
only significantly correlated variable to recreational
boating expenditures. The categories of education, family
size, and age of the craft owner do not show a marked
effect on the overall boating expenditure patterns found

in this study.

Differences in Craft Size

and Type

Hypothesis 2: Owners of motorized craft will show
greater total expenditures than owners of sailing
craft. The greater the overall length in each of
these two categories, the greater the total expendi-
tures.

 

 

In order to test this hypothesis, non-parametric
two-way analysis of variance was utilized. This analysis

technique is based on a distribution-free test of analysis

 

 

nae
m mo .oHn

 

96

 

OH.
.m.n .zozmn

~04.
mmOHm mo 4

80099” 6

owe.
4 4 98.5 no N.

mm.m
mmoqm .MMm .QBm

NM.Oan
MH<ZHme .MMm .Dhm

mmo.
ZOHH<HMMMOU MHmZHm

‘4
'4
60*3166' 9

«0.4 Amv mmoqm

4 mm .32 3 Emomuafi

.4

4 mmm=H~mzmmxm 4<Hoh
mw44mmmasHazmmxm 44905

804m A» xv
.4 OLI-
h mmDUHm 7

 

97

of variance allowing for uneven distribution of observa-
tions for the variable categories. In the computer program
model, the row and column variables, craft type (motor/
sail) and craft size (length I, 20-30'; length II, 30—45';
length III, 45'+) were compared to the cell or "score"
variable "total expenditures."

As can be seen in Table 13 located on the following
page, the cell figures represent the number of craft that
are above and below the median expenditure figure. Motor
craft/length I showed 43% of the observations above the
median with only 16% of sail craft/length I above the
median. Motor craft/length II showed 80% of the observa-
tions above the median, while only 69% of the sail craft/
length II are above the median.

The CHI-SQUARE figures for this program are listed

below:
TOTAL CHI-SQUARE = 75.35645*
ROW CHI-SQUARE = 22.89304* *Significance
level at .05.
COLUMN CHI-SQUARE = 61.91624*

The analysis of data comparing craft types and
sizes in relation to total expenditures clearly indicates
(1) motor craft show higher expenditures over sail craft,
and (2) as the size of the craft increases, expenditures
also increase. Hypothesis 2 then is accepted for this

study.

98

TABLE 13

NON-PARAMETRIC TWO-WAY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE,
CRAFT TYPE AND SIZE COMPARED TO
TOTAL EXPENDITURES

 

Craft Length I Craft Length II
Freq./% for Freq. Freq./% for Freq.

 

Cell Total Above Median

 

Motor Craft 44/43% 72/80%

Sail Craft 13/16% 22/69%

 

Cell Total Below Median

 

Motor Craft 58/57% 17/20%

Sail Craft 66/84% ' 10/3l%

 

Differences in Craft Utilization

 

Hypothesis 3: Those boat owners showing the greatest
amount of craft utilization will have the greatest
expenditures for the boating activity.

 

Again, to test this hypothesis, four specific areas
related to craft use will be looked at: (1) travel time,
(2) days utilized, (3) time craft kept in water, and
(4) amount of maintenance performed by the owner.

Sub-Hypothesis 3-A: Craft owners with the great-

est amount of travel time between their home and

slip rental site will show the least amounts of
expenditures.

 

The simple correlation figure derived from Figure 8
shows a positive correlation (.129) between "travel time"
and total expenditures. The plot diagram in Figure 8 shows

a positive regression line for the sample population. The

ZHH Emily;

m:

 

<sz<Z MIR OB MEHB Hm><mH\mMMDBHszmxm H<BOB
Hoqm A» xv

m mmame

_ m.oH om.m Ob.m om.b om.w 04.m om.v ow.m 0H.N cg.“
_ a 1 _ _ _ I4 _ _ _ _
.4 .4 .4 w—
.4 .4 MW .1
.4 U« .4 mm
4 4 m u
.4 .4 .4
4 . 4 u
.4 .4
4 4 4 4 4 m ..l
.% 4 Q 4 m
4 «
.4 .4 .4
4. 4. Wm “M
4 I.
« 4
.4

 

90‘3349'8

80‘3196'9

mm
m mo .6

o
.m.n .202

mm
mmoam mo

om
MAOHm mo

mm.
mmOHm .mmm .Q

5N.wm
mH<SHHmm .MMm a

¢N
onH4Hmmmoo mHmz

mm.oNH Ame mmo

m4.mHmH A4v ammomma

mmm=h_mzumxm 44H.

100

t value for the slope is 2.30 which is greater than the
critical value of 1.960 for 310 degrees of freedom at .05
level of significance. From this data, the null hypothesis
is rejected, and the alternate hypothesis is accepted. The
sub-hypothesis 3-A is rejected since the correlation is
Opposite to what had been predicted.

Subjgypothesis 3-B: The individuals that have

the highest number of days in which the craft

is utilized will show the greatest amount of
expenditures.

 

The simple correlation figure derived from Figure 9
shows a positive correlation (.269) between the number of
days the craft is utilized and total expenditures. The
plot diagram in Figure 9 shows a positive regression line
for the sample population. The t value for the slope is
4.92, which is greater than the critical value of 1.960 for
310 degrees of freedom at .05 level of significance. From
this data, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the sub-
hypothesis 3-B is accepted.

Sub-Hypothesis 3-C: The longer a craft is kept

In the water, the greater will be expenditures
for the boating activity.

 

The simple correlation figure derived from Figure 10
shows a positive correlation (.208) between the amount of
time the craft is kept in the water and total expenditures.
The plot diagram in Figure 10 shows a positive regression
line for the sample population. The t value for the slope
is 3.74, which is greater than the critical value of 1.960

for 310 degrees of freedom at .05 level of significance.

. .343 w>¢o om

 

 

_ .NoH .44" .mNH .moH 0.6m o.~p 0.4m 0.0m o.oH _.o
Id _ _ _ d _ _ _ H H _
4 4r I.
«4 444 4.4«4 w
.. 4 . .. 3.. 3...... 4. .
‘c 44 4.
4 Liv 44 4
4% .m AW44m" 4 4
« 4
4 4a 1% 4
44
4 4
4 4 4f “X4 A4 wm4« 4 .l
l 4 4 4 4 4
m .4 4 4
4 4.4
4 4 4 4. 4 « 4
IL
44.4 .4 .4
4
omquHB: mH am<mo mma mm<o4mmmsaHozmmxm A4909
4 904m AM xv
m Hmoon

 

90*3999'8

CO+BI€6'9

mooo.
m mo .UH

OH
.m.n .ZOZM

mN.a
mmoqm ho

Nm.
mmOHm mo

44.
mmOHm .mmm .QH

m4.mHm
MH<SHHmm .mmm .nn

mom
onH4Hmmmoo MHMZH

oo.~H Ame macs

m4.oam4 A43 emmummaz

mum at mzmmxm ._E.E

0:0» «04¢:

Hm

 

_ .MvN .mam .00H .NOH .00“ .00" 0.—0 0.4m 0.0m _.0
J _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .0
4 w 4 4 4|l
4 a 4
4. .C .4 .4
4. 4.44 U«
4 I 4 4 4
4. .4 .4
4 . 4 4
4 4
u m 4 M
4. cm mm ...v
. M...
4 4 C n...
m. 4 . w
1 4
.4
4.
.4 .4
4 ma .4
9
I 0
.4 .4 .4 .4 W”
+
O
E
.4
.4
4 mMB<3 ZH Bmmx Bh<¢0 mZHB\mMMDHHszmxm A<HOB
H.040 AM. xv
4 0H mmome [I

 

moooi
m m0 .0H

CH
.m.n .2020.

00.4
mmogm ho.

4m;
mmOHm m0.

N4:
mmoqm .MMM .09“

0H.hmm.
HH<ZHHmm .mmm .GHu

mom
ZOHH4HMMMOU MHmZH“

mo.m Amy amour

54.444 A40 ammummazu

mmmahmnzmmxm 0<Ho.

103

From this data, the null hypothesis is rejected, and the
alternate sub-hypothesis 3-C is accepted.

Sub-Hypothesis 3-D: The greater the amount of
maintenance performed by the owner, the smaller
will be the total amount of expenditures made
by the craft owner.

 

The simple correlation figure derived from Figure 11
shows a negative correlation between the amount of mainten-
ance performed by the craft owner and total expenditures.
The plot diagram in Figure 11 shows a negative regression
line for the sample population. The t value for the slope
is -7.35 which is greater than the critical value of 1.960
for 310 degrees of freedom at .105 level of significance.
From this data, the sub-hypothesis 3-D is accepted, and the
null hypothesis is rejected.

With the exception of the travel time variable,
which tested opposite to what had been predicted at the
start of the study, the remaining variables had a signifi—
cant impact on the expenditures made by the boater in

relation to craft utilization.

mzzo

.zch ma

 

L ".mm «.06 «.mm v.mm m.mv m.mm P.mw w.m~ om.m _.o
_ _ _ _ _ _ H _ a _ _
- .4 .4
.4 .4 .4
.4 .4 .4 “« .4 “w .4
4 4 4 4 4 4
.4 .4 “«
« 4 4 4 4 4 4
. 4 4 m
« m « 4 4 G
u .4
- 4 Q 4 4 4 4
. M“ U“ .4 u I:
H “w .4 .4 .4
M .4 .4
.4 4. 4. .4
4.m“ .4 .4
.4 “«
Q 4 4 4
.4 I.
.4 .4
.4
.4

mmzzo Mm omzmommmm moz<ZMHzH<Z\mmmDHHszmxm A<BOH
904m Aw xv

HH mmome

4_I4

 

50*399t'9

30‘3186'9

mo.
m mo

.m.Q .2.

mmoqm .

.
mmoqm .mmm

RN:
MH<ZHHmm .mmm

mi
ZOHH<AHMMOU m4_

04.44: Ame m

-.wmmm A4V ammom.

mmmzpfimzmmxm 4¢

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Results

 

Through the use of various regression and analysis
techniques, it was possible to determine the impact that
various socio-economic status characteristics (SES) and
craft usage patterns have on recreational boating expendi-
tures. The tabulation of the expenditure data indicated
possible positive correlations between expenditures and
craft type, size, percentwmfmaintenance by the craft owner,
income, education, age, and a number of other variables on
which data was collected for this study.

Simple correlations between the dependent variables
(expenditures made by the craft owner) and independent
variables of craft usage and SES characteristics were run,
followed by simple and multiple regression analysis pro-
grams to provide test information for the various hypotheses
presented in this thesis. In testing the hypotheses
dealing with socio-economic status characteristics, it was
determined that income was positively correlated to boating
expenditures with the plotted regression line showing the
increase in expenditures as the amount of income increases.

The use of the one-sided t test for the slope of the

105

106

regression line also indicated acceptance of the hypotheses
presented by this thesis.

The sub-hypothesis (l-B) dealing with the predicted
increase in recreational boating expenditures as the educa-
tion level of craft owners increases was not proved out by
the data gathered for this study. The simple correlation
between the two variables was -.059 and the t test did not
support the hypothesis at a significance level of .05. The
possible explanation for this outcome lies in the fact that
it was observed for this study that the higher the education
the individual craft owner achieved, the greater the ten-
dency for owning a sail craft. As is seen in the tabulation
of the data, the lowest education level of the sail craft
owners was higher than the highest education level of motor
craft owners. In every instance, the sail craft categories
had lower expenditure figures than motor craft, this indi—
cating the possible negative correlation for education and
expenditure figures.

The family size variable was hypothesized to have
a negative effect on recreational boating expenditures as
the size of the family increased. The simple correlation
was a positive .008 and the hypothesis presented by this
thesis was not supported. The simple regression plot
line clearly indicates a slight increase in boating expendi—
tures as the family size increases, this to be related

more toward "trip related" expenditures and the purchase

107

of food, clothing, etc. for the recreational boating
experience. With the relatively high income levels these
craft owners had in this sample population, it can only

be assumed that the higher level of money for discretionary
spending can account for the increase in expenditures as
the family size increases. The hypothesis that increased
age of the craft owner would show increases in total
expenditures was not proven out in this study.

Utilizing non-parametric two-way analysis of vari-
ance for determining the significance of craft type and
length on boating expenditures indicated a positive
relationship of motor craft over sail craft and increases
in expenditures as craft lengths increase. The hypothesis
dealing with craft utilization shows that as travel time
increases, expenditures also increase. This finding was
opposite to what had been expected, since increased travel
time between the craft owner's home and slip rental site
would tend to decrease the overall amount of craft usage
(-.116 correlation between travel time and number of days
the craft is utilized). The number of days utilized vari-
able related to expenditures proved out positive in testing
the hypothesis that increased number of days the craft is
used, the greater the total amount of recreational boating
expenditures. The same also held true when looking at the
number of days the craft is kept in the water during the

boating season in relation to total expenditures. As the

108

number of days the craft is kept in the water increases,
so do the expenditures. The final variable tested was
that of percent of maintenance by the owner in relation

to boating expenditures. The correlation figures for
these variables came out a -.385 with the one-sided t test
supporting the hypothesis that increased percentages of
maintenance performed by the owner would decrease the
amounts of expenditures made by the owner in both total

and craft related expenditures.

Utilization of Study Information

 

The purpose of this study was to provide boating
expenditure information by specific craft types (motor/
sail) and craft size categories (20-30', 30-45', 45'+).
This information is needed specifically for input into a
linear programming model which is being designed to assist
the Waterways Division in planning a marina development
complex at a proposed site on Lake Michigan.

P Given the boating expenditure data that was
Kgathered and analyzed in this study, the Michigan Waterways
é;:::g§ivision can better estimate the economic impact boaters
I have in the state.
Beyond the Michigan State Waterways Division's use
of this information, individual marina owners and operators
with facilities on the Great Lakes or adjoining waters

will be able to predict income from future planned services

for the boaters, and thereby determine their economic

109

feasibility. Since the tabulation of the data is broken
down into a wide range of expenditure categories, the
projected income from sales of fuel, oil, craft maintenance
services, etc. can be determined by the marina owner.
{ The knowledge of the expenditures made by the
boaters is important to the commercial marina owner since,
at best, the operation of a commercial marina in the Great
Lakes region is a marginal income producer for the owner.1
The number of craft on the Great Lakes is not the problem
behind marginal economic returns for marinas in this region,
since most marinas actually have long waiting lists of
craft owners wanting to rent slips at these sites. The
income problem for the marina owners relates to the limited
boating season for the Great Lakes. Unlike the marina
operations found in Florida or California which are open
year-around, the Great Lakes marinas are in full operation
only during the summer months. Since the fall, winter,
and early spring months cannot be utilized by the boat
owner to participate in recreational boating, there are
fewer visits to the craft than if the waters were open
and the climate was favorable for year-around boating.

With the limited boating season, the commercial
marina owner must maximize his income during the short

boating season and minimize his Costs of operation. If the

 

1Information provided by Mr. Keith Wilson, Chief,
Michigan State Waterways Division, in a presentation at
Michigan State university (April 15, 1974).

\

110

marina owner can determine where the craft owners' dollars
are going for the boating activity, he can develOp his
site to provide services and facilities that return the
greatest income.

A third group of individuals that would be able to
utilize the expenditure data would be the prospective
craft purchaser. The tabulated data would indicate the
average amount of money it would take to own and operate
a craft related to the type (motor/sail) and the size of
the craft. Before a study of this type, the prospective
craft buyer would know the cost of the craft, but little
about the cost of slip rental, winter storage, maintenance,
fuel costs, etc. With the completion of this study,
information on total recreational boating expenditures is

now available for those wishing to enter the boating market.

Recommendations for Further Study

 

An area which requires further work in determining
the total boating expenditures is that of computing the
actual travel cost incurred by the craft owners for each
trip they make to their craft (both during and after the
boating season). The question on trip expenditures was
asked each craft owner but the responses that were returned
were so inaccurate (i.e., $3.00 for 200 mile round trip)
that it was decided not to include these responses in com-
puting "trip related" and total expenditures. In a

follow-up examination of that data not utilized Specifically

111

in this thesis, a national average figure for cost-per-
mile for automobiles can be applied to the figures on
miles between the craft owner's home and slip rental site
to achieve a more accurate figure than those provided by
the craft owner on the questionnaire.

An additional area in which research can be carried
out is relating expenditures made by the craft owners and
the type of marina (commercial, municipal, private) at
which they keep their craft. Again, the data has been
collected through the questionnaire on expenditures, allow—
ing for further analysis without additional data collection.

Another area that can be worked on with available
data gathered by this study is to predict future expendi-
ture patterns. With information on predicted expenditures,
policy decisions can be made as to the extent that future
marinas be developed, and existing marinas should be
expanded to meet the demand for goods and services by boat
owners. It would be advisable that a follow—up expenditure
study be carried out to determine the fluctuation in recre-
ational boating expenditures between boating seasons to
help predict the reliability of projected future expendi-

tures by boaters.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

112

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1322152

Bennett, Peter D., and Dassarjian, Harold H. Consumer
Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1972.

Brennan, Michael J., Ph.D. Preface to Econometrics.
Chicago: 1960.

 

Burk, Marguerite. Consumption Economics. New York: 1968.

 

Canoyer, Helen G., and Vaile, Roland S. Economics of Income
and Consumption. New York: 1951.

 

 

Clawson, Marion, and Knetsch, Jack”L. Economics of Outdoor
Recreation. Baltimore: 1971.

 

 

Cocharane, Willard W., and Bell, Carolyn Shaw. The Economics

 

of Consumption. New York: 1956.

 

Emer, Robert E. Economic Analysis and Scientific Philosophy.
London: 1967.

 

Engel, James F., and others. Consumer Behavior. New York:
1968.

 

Fisk, George. Leisure Spending-Behavior. Philadelphia:
1963.

 

Friedman, Milton. A Theory of the Consumption Function.
Princeton: 1957.

 

Goldberger, Arthur S. Econometric Theory. New York: 1964.

 

. Topics in Regression Analysis. New York: 1968.

 

Gordon, Leland J. Economics for Consumers. New York: 1961.

 

Guthie, Harold W. Statistical Methods in Economics Home-

 

Hadar, Josef. Mathematical Theory of Economic Behavior.
Reading, Mass.; 1971.

113

114

Hadley, G., and Kemp, M. C. Variational Methods in
Economics. New York: 1971.

 

 

Hamburg, Morris. Statistical Analysis for Decision Making.
New York: 1970.

 

Hellwig, Zdzislaw. Linear Regression and Its Application
to Economics. New York: 1963.

 

 

Householder, Alston S. The Theory of Matrices in Numerical
Analysis. New York: 1964.

Huang, Chi Kan. The Thermal Current Structure in Lake
Michigan. Ann Arbor, Michigan: 1969.

Huag, David S. Regression and Econometric Methods. New
York: 1970.

 

Katona, George. Psychological Analysis of Economic
Behavior. New York: 1963,

 

. The Powerful Consumer. New York: 1960.

 

Katona, George, and others. Contributions of Survey
Methods to Economics. New York: 1954.

 

 

Klein, Lawrence R., ed. Contributions of Survey Methods
to Economics. New York: 1954.

 

Kuznets, Simon. Quantitative Economic Research Trends and
Problems. New York: 1972.

Lansing, John B., and Morgan, James N. Economic Survey
Methods. Ann Arbor, Michigan: 1971.

Massy, William F., and others. Purchasing Behavior and
Attributes. Philadelphia: 1968.

 

. Stochastic Models for Buyer Behavior. Cambridge,
Mass.: 1969.

McCleeland, David C. The Achieving Society. Princeton,
N.J.: 1961.

 

McKenna,_Joseph P. Aggregate Economic Analysis. New York:
1965.

Michael, Robert T. The Effect of Education on Efficiency
in Consumption. New York: 1972.

 

115

Nicosia, Francesco M. Consumer Decision Processes. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J.: 1966.

 

Puckett, Richard H. Introduction to Mathematical Economics.
Lexington, Mass.: 1971.

 

Strumpel, Burkahrd, and Morgan, James N., eds. Human
Behavior in Economic Affairs. San Franc1sco: 1972.

 

Tucker, W. T. Foundations for a Theory of Consumer
Behavior. New York: 1967.

 

Ward, Scott, and Robertson, Thomas S. Consumer Behavior:
Theoretical Sources. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: 1973.

 

 

Reports

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Lake Central Region, U.S.
Department of the Interior. Water Oriented Recre-
ation in the_Lake Michigan Basin. Ann Arbor,
Michigan: 1965. '

 

 

Department of the Army. Lake Michigan Regional Boating
Survey and Analysis. Chicago: 1974.

 

 

Michigan Water Resources Commission. Michigan and The Great
Lakes. Public INformation Series II. Lansing:
1967.

 

. Water Resource Uses: Present and Prospective
for Lake Michigan and Proposed Water Quality
Standards and Plan of Implementation. Lansing,
Michigan: 1967.

 

 

 

Morris, John. Nonparametric Statistics. Computer Insti-
tute for Social Science Research, Michigan State
University. Technical Report No. 40. November 1,
1967.

 

. Recoding of Data for Nonparametric Statistical
Analysis. Computer Institute for Social Science
Research, Michigan State University. Technical
Report No. 40.1. April 1, 1967.

 

. Nonparametric Chi-Square Test and Analyses of
Variance. Computer Institute for Social Science
Research, Michigan State University. Technical
Report No. 42. June 1, 1966.

116

Morris, John. Nonparametric K-Sample Tests. Computer
Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan
State University. Technical Report No. 43.
December 13, 1966.

 

. Nonparametric Measures of Randomness and Good-
ness of Fit, Kolmogorov-Smirnov and Run Tests.
Computer Institute of Social Science Research,
Michigan State University. Technical Report No. 44.
Revised November, 1969.

 

 

. Mann-Whitney and Wilcoxon Tests, Randomization
and Sign Tests, Parametric T-Test and F-Test.
Computer Institute of Social Science Research,
Michigan State University. Technical Report No. 45.
November 17, 1966.

 

 

. Non-parametric Two-Way and Three-Way Analysis
of Variance. Computer Institute of Social Science
Research, Michigan State University. Technical
Report No. 46. November 17, 1966.

 

 

Oakwood, James, and Chubb, Michael. Planning Public Recre-
ational Boating Facilities in Michigan. East
Lansing: Michigan State University, 1968.

 

 

Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Action
for Outdoor Recreation for America. Washington:
1964.

 

Recreation Resource Consultants. 1971 Michigan Recreational

 

Boating Study. Report No. 2. East Lansing: 1972.

 

Swanson, Ernst W. Travel and the National Parks--An
Economic Study. Raleigh, North Carolina: 1969.

 

 

University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Program. 'The Future of
Boating on Lake Michigan. Report No. 6. Madison,
Wisconsin: 1971.

 

 

Articles

Centers, Richard. "Motivational Aspects of Occupational
Stratification." Journal of Social Psychology,
Vol. 28 (1948).

Cohen, Jacob. "Multiple Regression as a General Data-
Analytic System." Psychological Bulletin, Vol.
70, No. 6 (1968): Pp. 426-43.

 

117

Deacon, J. A., and Pigman, J. G. "Travel to Outdoor
Recreation Areas in Kentucky." Journal of Leisure
Research, 4:312 (Fall, 1972).

 

Klein, L. R., and Lansing, J. B. "Decisions to Purchase
Consumer Durable Goods." Journal of Marketing,
XX:2:108-l32 (October, 1955).

 

Naulinger, John, and Raps, Charles S. "Leisure Attitudes
of an Intellectual Elite." Journal of Leisure
Research, 4:196 (Summer, 1972).

 

Roseborough, Howard. "Some Sociological Dimensions of
Consumer Spending." Canadian Journal of Economics
and Political Economy, 26:3:452-464 (August, 1960).

 

 

Welch, Finis. "Education in Production." Journal of
Political Economy (January, 1970).

 

 

Other Sources

 

Unsolicited comments made by craft owners on the expendi-
ture questionnaires concerning the condition of
boating facilities in the state of Michigan.

Michigan Waterways Division. Interview with Mr. Keith
Wilson and Mr. James Oakwood held on January 24,
1973.

Michigan State University. Interview with Dr. James
Stapleton, Chairman of the Statistics Department,
to determine the study sample size. Held June 13,
1973.

APPENDICES

118

[‘1 ll

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN WATERWAYS DIVISION

LETTER OF INTRODUCTION

119

1 2 0
STATE OF MICHIGAN

\TUIAL amen mm WAYERWAYS (EMISSION
mnv H. wwrnuv IOIERT F. xmo
Chairman Chairman
«to. T. JOHNSON Anczug'?‘ ELLIOTT
3:31:15.L:‘LL ' _ WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN. Governor emulates :23,“
' s
IARLEB a. vouuouove DEPARTMENT OF N ATU R Al. RESOURCES VOszr'jmm,
Steven: T. Mason Building LEONARD H. 7wonso~

Lansing. Michigan 48926
A. GENE GAZLAY, Director

May 3, l973

Serial No. 850-73
File No. A 12.5

T0 WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

The Michigan State Waterways Commission of the Department of Natural
Resources is considering a marina complex in the St. Joseph-Benton
Harbor area. The Commission has asked Michigan State University to
prepare an economic analysis of such a project. An important aspect
of this study is to contact marinas in the vicinity of the project
being considered.

Mr. Tom Warner has been assigned by the University to make these con-
tacts. Your cooperation in answering his questions would be greatly

appreciated.
incere yours, .
K W

Keith Wilson
Director

KW:Jow

 

APPENDIX B

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND

EXPENDITURE QUESTIONNAIRE

121

122

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY usr ransom - mason: «m

 

    
 

DEPARTMENT 0’ PAIR AND RECREATION RESOURCES 0 NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

June, 1973

Dear Boatowner:

The Department of Park and Recreatibn Resources at Michigan State University
is conducting a research project for the state of Michigan's waterways Com?
mission. The purpose of this project is to obtain information for the Com-
mission to be used in developing future marinas which will better meet boat-
er's needs. We feel that the best way of determining what boaters desire

in future marinas is to contact as many boaters as possible and ask them to
provide their preferences. Unfortunately, it is not feasible to contact
every boater who uses Michigan marinas for this information, so we have been
forced to select a representative sample of boaters for this purpose. You
have been selected from a rapidly growing list of boaters to provide some
information that will have a substantial impact on the future quality of
hosting in Michigan.

You will be receiving a questionnaire designed to obtain the answers the
Waterways Commission needs to plan future marina facilities, in a few days.
Since we are sending out only a limited number of these questionnaires,
your cosperation in completing and returning the questionnaire is crucial
since each of your responses will be multiplied to take into account the
boaters we have not contacted for this information. All responses will,
of course, be treated in strict confidence.

Upon receipt, the information you supply on the questionnaire will be coded
for computer processing without identifying its source and then the question-
naire itself will be destroyed. From this point on all information will be
completely anonymous.

We have worked diligenaiy to compile a concise and straightforward question-
naire which will require a minimum of your time and effort to complete. In
conclusion, we can not over emphasize the importance of receiving a completed
questionnaire from 1599:

a; a

Louis F. Twardzik
Professor and Chairman

Donald F. Holecek
Assistant Professor &
Principal Investigator

2123

BOATING EXPENDITURE QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear Boat Owner:

This questionnaire, as indicated in the previously mailed letter
of transmittal, has been sent to you to aid us in a study of extended
marina site development for the State of Michigan's Waterways Com-
mission. It is hOped that through your response, representative data
on boating expenditures can be gathered: this information to be used
in computing the type and extent of development at future marina sites.

All responses made by you on this questionnaire will remain
strictly confidential, following rigid University policies.

To return the completed questionnaire, please use the stamped
envelope that was sent with the questionnaire.

Recreation Research and Planning Unit
Michigan State University

ID NO.

FOR OFFICE USE

MARINA CODEEl] [2]

3 u 5
[ l [ l [ l

6
CARD NO. [1]

 

 

6.

7.

CRAFT INFORMATION

 

Type of craft: (check one) 1 Motor Cruiser 2 Sailing Craft

Centerline length of craft: Feet Inches

Hull material: (check one) 1 Wood 3 Fiberglas
2 Steel W Aluminum
5 Other

 

 

One 3 One with
outboard
Two with auxiliary
outboard engine

5 One auxiliary engine

only

Number of engines: (check one) 1

auxiliary
engine

2 Two W

 

 

 

On-board over—night accomodations: (check the number your craft will

accomodate)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 None 6 Six

2 Two 7 Seven
3 Three 8 Eight
u Four 9 Nine
5 Five 10 Ten

 

11 Over ten

Does your craft have a galley? (check one) 1 Yes 2 No

 

Does your craft have restroom facilities? (check one)
1 Yes 2 No

 

 

1n
8. [ J
18

[ l

1

9. I l

10. E2

 

9.

10. Is your craft stored:

CRAFT OPERATIONS/RELATED TRIP INFORMATION

The term "slip rental site" in this questionnaire will refer to the
marina or yacht club where you currently rent a seasonal slip for your
craft, along with the surrounding city or town.

Distance between your home address and the marina location where your
craft is kept during the boating season:
(complete both) Miles Estimated travel

time

Where is your craft stored during the non-boating season?
(check appropriate answer) 1 Home address
2 "slip rental site"
3 Boat yard or marina other
than "slip rental site"
(If you checked number 3/name the site below)

 

 

 

.site name city state
(check one) 1 Inside a building
2 Outside

 

 

15 16 17
[ J I J [ J

a E91 E01”

11.
12.

13.

1%.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

CRAFT OPERATIONS/RELATED TRIP INFORMATION

2124

Howfoften do you visit your craft while it is stored?

Days

What percent of the visits to your stored craft is for:
Maintenance on craft

Is pre-launch maintenance performed on your craft at its storage location?

2 Security

check

(check one) 1 Yes 2 No (if 22, list location where pre-
launch maintenance is carried out)

 

site name

city

state

What ercent of the total pre-launch maintenance is done by: '
(complete both) 1 You(including family and friends)
2 Hired labor

Now many days each boating season is your craft utilized? (exclude visits
in which maintenance was the prime objective)

Cruising trips Docked

1. By you and your immediate family.

2. By relatives. Cruising trips

3. By friends. Cruising trips

Docked use

Average length of time out of port/per cruising trip:
Days and/or Hours

use

Docked use

Average number of persons on the craft per cruising trip:

While at the "slip rental site", how

(list in percentages) l
2

many meals are:

the craft.

Prepared and eaten on the craft.
Purchased carry-out meals eaten on

Meals eaten at restaurants, snack

shops, etc...

Approximately how long is your craft kept in the water during the

boating season? Months and

Days

What is the work breakdown for storage preparation?
Work done by you(family and
friends included)

(list in percentages) 1

2

Hired labor

 

21.

CRAFT RELATED EXPENSES

 

Answer the following questions to the nearest dollar. If actual
figures are not available, list your best possible estimate.

Pre-launch maintenance costs: (individual break down and total figure)

l.$ Hull repair

2.$ Radio equipment

3.$ Shaft 8 Propeller
W.$ Galley equipment
5.$ Re-finish wood trim
6.3 Engine repair

7.$ Electrical systems

lS.$

 

 

8.3 Rudder

9.$ Chrome fittings
10.3 Masts

11.$ Sails

l2.$ Riggings

Other maintenance costs(list
below)

13.$ /
lu.$ /

TOTAL

22. What is the launching fee for your craft? $

23.

2”.

Seasonal slip rental fee: $

(Total cost)

Purchases of boating equipment/1872 season
(list amount spent for each item in the proper column)

LIST ON NEXT PAGE

 

FOR OFFICE USE
3
11. E J

12. (”J E J MAI
E6] (7] SEC

13. E81

lu. [ ] [ J YOL

15. E33 3”]
35 35 YOL

39 W0 REL

16. [ J [ J [ J
17. [ J
52

51
18. [ J [ J E J
SN 55
E J [ J
56 57
19. [ J M [ J t
58 59 60
20. [ J E J E J
62 63 on 65
21. [ J[ J[ J[
67 68 69 7
[ J [ J[ J[
71 72 73
[ J [ J [ J
7” 75 76
[ J [ J [ J
77 7e 79
[ J [ J [ J

4-

DUPLICATE COLS
FROM CARD I

CARD [2] 7 8

-q

21. CON'T[ J[ J
IOJIIJI2JI3JI”1

16 17 18 19 20

[ J[ J[ J[ J[ I
22 23 2M 25 26
E J[ ][ J[ J[ I
28 29 3O 31 32
[ J[ J[ J[ J[
an 35 36
22. [ J [ J [ ‘
37 38 39
23. [ J [ J [

1125

CRAFT RELATED EXPENSES

24. Purchases of boating equipment/1972 season/Con't:
PURCHASE SITE
ITEM HOME ADDRESS
l.ChartIng equip
2. Deck furniture
3. Extinguishers
4.Plags

5. Galley equip.
6. Life vests
7.Lights

8.Lines

9.Radio equip.

Other items: (list)
10.
ll.

"SLIP RENTAL SITE" OTHER

 

(narmxnowmcnvwm
ormxnvrmcnvwmcm

 

(0'0)
(0'0“)

 

(I) (1)-(D MMMUIMMMMV‘l

$

12.TOTALS $

 

$

25. Estimated seasonal expenditures on fuel and oil:

FOR OFFICE USE

2u11. I03 I1] I21

an as 96 W7 us
[ 3][ ][ ][ ][ J[ J

2.Igl I0] I1]
i21E33E“IE51E5
3. I”: £91 I“;

61 62 63 6M 65
E JE JE JE JE 1E6 J

u.I7I I31 I91

IOIIIIIzIIaIIuIISI

57
JE J

 

DUPLICATE COLS 1-5
FROM CARD I
CARD [3]

7 8 9
2W/CON'T5E ][ ][ J

 

 

26. In-season maintenance costs (estimated total): (this figure to reflect to E1 E2 l3 Eu l5
expenditures for haul-outs and launching due to maintenance) 3 J J J J J
6 7 8
s.I J I J I I
27. Cost for craft haul-out (end of season): 5 i9 E0 E1 E2 E3 E“
28. Storage preparation costs (estimated total): $ 15 J 6] 3 J J
29. Cost for off-season boat storage: 5 . 7'E J E J E J
'—-—-—-——— 28 29 30 31 82 E3
30. Effluent pgmp-out costs (seasonal expenditure): $ . C ][ ][ ][ J J J
u 5 6
31. What is your annual expenditure for boat insurance? 5 . 8 E J E J I]
37 38 39 no Ml u2
32. What was the cost of your craft? (total cost) [ ][ ][ ][ ][ ][ 1
$ Purchased new n3 nu us
$ Purchased used g,[ ] [ ] [ ]
W7 us 99 50
TRIP RELATED EXPENSES [6 ][ ][5 JE :5 ][1]
33. Estimated travel expenditure to and from Your ”slip rental site”:(per t-.r;i.p)L1-052 [ J [ 3] E J
' $ . 55 56 57 58 59
E ]E J[ lt IE JE 0J
34. Average seasonal boating related food expenditures: 61 62 63

LOCATION WHERE PURCHASED

 

 

ll. [ J [ J [ J

6H 65 66 67 68 69
E JE JE JE JE JE J

12. E01 I1] (:3

 

ITEM PURCHASED AT PURCHASED AT EN ROUTE TOTALS
OME SLIP RENTAL SITE
1. Groceries $ $ $ $
2. Alcoholic beverages $ $ $
3. Meals purchased at $ $

restaurants, snack

:_ 73 7W 75 76

78
‘E JE II II JE JE I

 

 

 

 

 

shops, etc... ‘BUFEICKIE CUES 1'5
FROM CARD I
35 s ' . - CARD[u]
. easonal expenditures for off-craft lodging (while enroute or at the
”slip rental site”) 25 [7][8][9]I0]
1. For you and your immediate family 5 En route S "Slip ' 12 13 l“
2. invited guests rental sit 26 %l][ ][ ][ J
5 En route S "Slip ' ' 15 16 17
rental alt 27. I I I I I J
FOR OFFICE USE 32. E0 E1 E2 E3 E” E5 35
g g o 1 39./l '
28. I II II II I 31 32 33 35 35 66 U7 W8 69 50 51 3 J J J J 1 J 7 8 9 10 11 12
22 23 2a [ 3[ 3f 3[ ][ 3E6 3 I II II II II II I EBJE7JE8] [ If it If JE Ji 3
29. E J E J E J 37 38 39 90 W1 92 52 53 5n 55 56 57 [3]%”]%5]%6][7]E8 ]
30 (5] E6] (7] [ ][ug[ 35 3E5][ 1 [ SBJEQJEOJElJEM ][ 3] DUILICATE COLS 1-5
0 I s L"
33. I I I I I I 2E II II II II II I FR““ C‘“D I

31. I8] (9] ID]

I“ -S {6 67 68 69

CARD [5]

36.

37.

38.

39.

1J26
TRIP RELATED EXPENSES

Recreational equipment expenditures: (1972-boating related)

 

 

 

ITEM
1.Fishing equipment 5 $
2.Water skiing equipment 5 $
3.8kin/SCUBA equipment 5 $
Other purchases (list)
4. $ $
5. $ $
6.TOTALS $ 5
a

Expenditures for non-boating recreational activities while at the “slip

rental site“ (for your family during the boating season)
l.Golfing $ 4. Bowling $
2.Tennis $ 5. Spectator sports §
3.Hovies $ 6.
7. $
8.TOTAL EXPENDITURE $

 

 

Seasonal clothing expenditures: (boating related)

(list amounts spent) 1.5 Home address
2.5 En route
3.$ ”Slip rental site”

Total seasonal laundry costs at the "slip rental site“: 5

others (list)

FOR OFFICE USE

36./l

25 26 27 28 29 &

Purchased at home Purchased at "slip rental site 9 0 1 2 3 N
II II II II II

2E1J[ J[ J[ J[S JE

32 33 3N
3I1 JE JE JE JIS JI

37 38 39 N0 N1 N
E JE JE JE JE JE

N3 NN N5 N6 N7 N
5[ JE J[ JE JE JE

I91E°IE11I21E31I

E
[
6
J E

 

4o.
' 41.
42.
43.
44.

CRAFT OWNER INFORMATION

 

Age of craft owner:

Education level of craft owner/list grade or degree last completed:

Occupation of craft owner/

 

Number of persons in your immediate family? .

Annual family income: (check one)

1. Less than $10,000 9. $27,501 to 30,000
2. $10,001 to 12,500 10. $30,001 to 32,500
3. $12,501 to 15,000 11. $32,501 to 35,000
4. $15,001 to 17,500 12. $35,001 to 37,500
5. $17,501 to 20,000 13. 37,5001 to 40,000
6. $20,001 to 22,000 14. $40,001 to 42,500
7. $22,001 to 25,000 15. $42,501 to 45,000
8. $25,001 to 27,500 16. $45,001 to 47,500
17. $47,501 to 50,000
18. $50,001 and over

J
59
J

2
J

N In] I5] I6]
5 I71 I8] I9]
6 I0] III I2]
7 I31 I”I I5]
3 I6] I7I I8]

 

 

ROM CARD I

CARD [6]

l3
3 [
16
E J

 

l

E
2
E
22
E
23
E

J
J
J
J

NN. In]

 

 

J
l7

E
20
[

IN
E J

18
J E

J

15
E

J

UPLICATE COLS l-

38./l [7] I J I2 J
2 I 0I III12 I I

J

APPENDIX C

FOLLOW-UP LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

AND "THANK YOU" POST CARD

127

128

n I c In a A n ‘s 'r A T E u {x I v E R SIT v east lansing ' michigan 48824

 

department of park and recreafiion resources ' natural resources building

August 17, 1973

Dear Boat Owner:

Several weeks ago a questionnaire dealing with boating expenditures'was
mailed through our research and planning office to your address. Due to
any number of possible problems (away from home on vacation, did not re-
ceive the questionnaire, postal service not returning the questionnaire
to us, etc...) it is vital for the research project and future improved
marina development in the state that we send a follow-up copy of the
questionnaire to you for your response.

Since the time of the original mailing a sizable number of questionnaires
have been filled out and returned; but we must point out here that each
boat owner who receives a questionnaire in this survey, due to the large
boating population, is representing not only himself but a great many
other boaters.

At your earliest convenience, please fill out the questionnaire as com-
pletely as possible and mail it to our office using the stamped return
envelope. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION!

Sincerely,

aMt .14. 21"“:«m

Donald P. Holecek
Assistant Professor a
Principal Investigator

 

129

FOLLOW-UP
"THANK YOU" POST CARD

Dept. of Park 8 Recreation Resources
Recreation Research 8 Planning Unit
131 Natural Resources Bldg.

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Mi. 68824

 

 

 

 

 

 

CRAFT OWNER'S
3 NAME AND ADDRESS
L _.J
Dear Boat Owner. August 31, 1973

we would like to take this opportunity to thank you
for cooperating with us in the Boating Expenditure survey.
we have already received a large percentage of returns for
the questionnaire and we feel that with this information,
new and improved steps can be taken to develop future boat-
ing facilities in the State of Michigan.

THANKS AGAIN!
Sincerely,

9M4?

Donald F. Holecek
Principal Investigator

P.S. If you have not returned your questionnaire at this
time please do so at your earliestconvenience. If you
did not receive a questionnaire, please contact our office
immediately so that one can be sent to your address!

 

 

 

APPENDIX D

LEAST SQUARES PLOT DIAGRAMS (CRAFT

AND TRIP EXPENDITURES)

130

mzoqu

 

_ NS" 4.: «.3 mi: oo.m owé 07w om.m om; _.
d _ atn a» 1. 4‘ an _ _ a
.4 .q .4 “« .4
.4 .4
.4 .4 .4 4 “Q m. 4 .w u« m. m«
U“ U“ 4. 4 .c .4 .4 . . . .
4. .4 .4 4 4. 4. mm .« . . .
.4 .4 u .4 4. .4
Wu 4. .4 .4 «H . . A . . mm «W 4 .4
- - 4 4 c. .4 .4 .4
4 « 4 .4 4 4
«
. a 4 .4 “c 4
Q .4.. d 4
1. 4 4
.4
4 4 d
.4 4
.4
4.
.4
.4
.4
.4
.4

 

€O+3299'Z

€0‘3t92'9

moooA
m mo .UHM

cam
.m.n .Zozmn

PET
mmOAm no A.

on;
$815 mo p

94.3
mmoqm .Mmm .95

mm.NooL
MH§HHmm .mmm .95

wme .
onfigoo again—Hm

No.mm “my mmoam

om.mmo A4V ammummazu

mmmzhmazmmxm Hm<mu

mzoqu

 

 

 

 

  

N.wu ¢.v~ w.w~ m.o~ oo.m ou.b 0*.w om.m om.H _.
+ _ _ _ _ _ _ d _ _ M .0
.4 .4 .4 .4 .0 mw w. .0 .4 .n
4 « c «
4 4 4 « u « 4
a“ 4 u« ”« Mm .1 “c .4 .4
a 4 m 4 4 W 4 Q 4
.4 4.
E 111T « « a m
4 « 4 4 4 4 4
w 4 4 4 m 4 4 4
4. 4. 4. so
.4 4. .4 M“
«w .4 U« .4 .4 n.
4. .4 .4 .4 4. a" .4 “w
4.Mu .4
l 4 4
«
.0 .4 4. 4. m“
6
9
3
...
0
S
.4
.4 In

 

mooo.
m mo .uH

0a
.h.n .EOZm

mw.w
macaw mo

4m.
mmOAm mo

mo.
mmoqm .mmm .QH

NH.m©
MH<EHHmm .mmm .QH“

mmm
ZOHH<Ammmoo mgmzH_

m4.o~ Amy macs“

mm.mo4 A4v ammommazg

mmmzhmazmmxm AHmH

zeitqujom .

mw

 

 

r 07m owé. om.m ov.m om;V owlm. SUN om; com. _.o
4 4 _ D _ _ _ _ 4 _ _ .o
4 4 4 4 4 ll
4
m a 4 m m
a M 4 4
AW, IIMWI .4 m" 4. .4
m 4 m « « 4 4 4
4 4 4 4 m a
4 m 4 « 4 J m.
m 4 4 m
4 4 M n.
3 0
11. « « 4 4 8
4 4
«
4 m.
4 .Inw
I,
n.
4 4 NU.
4
4
« .1

 

mam.
m mo .OHm

OHM
.m.n .Sozmm

mqn.
mmoqm mo h

cow.l
mmoqm ho H

wm.mm
mmoqm .mmm .Ham

0N.HmHH
MH<ZHHmm .mmm .th

mqo.l
ZOHH<AMMMOU mamZHm

Hw.omu Amv macaw

mm.amofl A4v ammoMmazH

mmmzhmnzmaxm Hm<mu

zoicqoaam

mm

 

 

 

_ 8.0 omé. om.w 91m om; om.m 22m om; com. .o
44 _ _ n4 _ _ _ _ M q mu
m a 4. a 4 4
.4
mm “a ma .4
«I w“ .4 .4
4 4 4 «
mu .0 .4 lisp
4. 4 .4 4
a Q 4
4 4 m 4 . 4 I
.4 a. “N .4 I.Mw
4. m 4. 4 no.
.4.4 « Wm W“ m.
H“ .4 as
4 .4
.4
.4
4
4 a 4. .6
|.m=
6
g
3
.+
0
e
4.
4 III.

 

mam.
m mo .QHm

OHM
.m.n .Zozmn

HH.H
mmoqm mo m

mo.Hl
mmoum mo H

qua
mmoqm .mmm .QHm

Hcdmm
mH<ZHHmm .mmw .QHm

mmo.l
ZOHH<ANMMOU mamZHm

Am.w4u Amv mmogm

mm.m- A4V HAMDMMHZH

mmmzp_azmmxm m_mh

mme

.z¢n_

 

 

 

_ o~.m cm.b om.m Lv.m om.v ow.m 0h.~ om.“ com. _.o
_ _ _ _ _ 1 . _ _ _ _ .o
.4 .4 .q .4 .11.
.4 .4
4 « 4 m a m 4
.4 .4
4 4 — 4
.4 .4 M-
.4 .a
.a .4
.4 .4 mm .4 .4
4 MW. .4
.4 so
.4 .4 4. .4 Wm 1.”:
.4 .4 .4 “a
"w .4 .4 “Q n.
1 4 a w 4 cc.
.4
4 4 4
.4 .4
.4 .3
.4 .4 mu
nu
4 4 Wu.
.4
.4
.4 .4 :4:

 

on
MAOAm mm

mm.
mmoqm mm

4m.
mmoqm .mmm .n

mo.Nm
MH<EHHmm .mmm .n

Noam
ZOHqummmoo many

nH.u Amv mam

Ho.w44H A<v ammomm

mmmzhmazmmxm H¢<~

mmHm

.zm...

4N

 

 

_ o~.m ON.P om.m ov.m om.* om.m Db.N cm.“ com. r
_ _ _ _ _ 4‘ _ _ \fi _ a
4 ll
4 4 « u . 4
.4
q 4 4 m m 4
«W:
.4 Mn “N u“ .4
m « m
4. 4. .4
4 4 4. d
.4 4. I.
4. .4 Wu
4 4 4 «
l
.4. . ..
4. 4. .4
4 «

 

80‘3663'1

€0+3863'Z

om
.m mo .0

o
.m.m .202“

on
mmoam mo

um.
mmOAm mo

ww..
mmoqm .mmm .QL

Hm.a.
MH<ZHHmm .mmm O“

«Na
ZOHH<AmMMOU mang

mo.“ Amv mmo.

mm.~mn A<v ammomma.

mmmatozumxm a;

 

 

mug
m mo .UH

 

 

 

oi
.m.m .Sozm

Nm.
mmoqm no

137
44
‘4 ‘4
4
80*3399'3

mm.
4 58% mo

Nu.
mmoqm .mmm .QH

mN.wwH
mH<ZHHmm .mmm .99

one
ZOHH<AmmmOU mqmzH

60*3t93'9

m~.oa Amy mmog

nn.mom A<v ammommaz

mszSzmmxm r25

 

mm

 

 

 

 

_ m.vb w.om m.~m ~.pm m.—m m._wv ~.ov v.4m P.0m o;mm
1% _ _ _ a u _ _ . mu
.4 .4 4:4AV 1f4 414444.. .4444. .4 .4 A. .JII
4 4444 444 «4 4W4 44 4« 444 4
4 4 4 41 m“ 4 4 4 4
444m u 4 4 4 4 44 4« u 4
.4 44. .4 .444 .4
4. .4 1. JECAVC. 4wm44 “M
Iv 441 44 4 « 44«4«W «4 44444 4 44 4
4
.4 4. 1. A~I1MWHKMIIIIILNHWI, .4
4 4 44444 4 4 4444 «4 m44 444 I:
4 4 « 4 4 44 4 444
4 4 4 4 4 4 4
.4 .qnud. .4 .4 A. r;
4 4 .
4 4 4 4 4 4 .LB
.0... 4 4 44 4 « 4 .4.
4 4 E
4 4 4
4 4
4 4 4 4 4 7
1m
a
3
.9
O
c
4

4 lfl

 

aoN
.m mo .0H.

0:
.m.n .202m.

”“0.
mmOAm m0 .

©N.fi
mmoqm mo L

om._
mmoqm .mmm .QHM

mm.wn_
MH<SHHmm .mmw .QHM

Hmo..
ZOHH<AmMMOU MAMZHm

ma.4- Amy mmoqm

mm.oaw A44 ammoMmaz.

mmzzhfimzmme m_mh

7:» n_m_>¢m:

m.oH

ow.¢

or.o

wH

om.r

om.m

 

139

'4<L4 '4

_

A

 

 

 

 

‘4 <F44‘fl

 

 

‘4 ‘4! <klll

‘4

'4

14Kfl‘444 '4

 

‘44l4

loo

EO‘BZES'Z

90*3992'8

 

mqo
m mo .UHM

OHM
.m.m .Zozma

Hm.m
mmoqm mo 4

Rm.g
mmoqm mo a

@4.Ha
mmoqm.mmm .Hm

Hm.anH
mH4zHHmm .MMm.Hm

NHH.
ZOHH<AMMMOU MAMZHm

mm.Hm Amy mmoqm

oa.Hw~H A44 ammoMmazH

mug: 354$ #25

z: ._m_>¢~:

mfi

 

 

 

 

 

_ m.o~ ow.m 06.0 09b om.m Dim om.v 0N.m ofm on“;
4 _ _ _ _ _ . . A _ .
. 4 m ..
.4
4. .4
4 m
m 4 4
4 4 m m
1 4 4 4 4
.4.|
4. .4 Mn .4 .4
4 m
nu .4
m“ .4 .4 Wu
4. .4
.4

 

£0+3863'I

€0+3969'Z

om.
m mo .0“

o.
.m.Q .202”

mm
mmoqm mo

ma
mmogm mo

mm.h
mmOAm .mmm .Qu

mo.m~
MH<EHHmm .mmm .Qu

mNA
ZOHH<AMMMOU mamEH

o4.44 Amv mac.

mm.~mm A4. ymmummaz

mmmahfimzmmxm m~m_

.n_:: w>¢Q

.mwo—

.44~

.mwfi

om

.mow

 

-L-

 

141

fl,

[.0

90‘3289'2

50‘3991'9

 

mooo
m we .0

o
.m.n .Eoz”

oo._
mmoqm mo

mo
mmoqm no

em.
mmoqm mmm .Dp

mm.mma
mH<ZHHmm .MMm .nh

D.—
c:

ZOHH4AMMMOU mqmzH

mm.o Am. mmo.

ma.mmOH A4V ammommu.

mmg: nzmmxm KEN

. .ZHD m>¢o

.Nmfi

.44"

.wafi

om

.wofi

 

.4
479

1.
.4

_

 

€0+3662'I

60*3969'2

 

moo.
m mo 4

.
.m.m .20_

Nm
mmoqm m.

n.
mmOAm ma

mm
mmoqm .mmm .A

mH..
mH<ZHHmm .mmm .n

N.
ZOHH<AMMMOU mqmv

NH.m Amy man

o4.mmm A44 ammomm_

mmmatmzmmxm n_ z

”.th ”$qu

Hm

 

_ .m4~ .m.~ .mm. .44. .mm. .40" o..m o.p~ _.o
4 . 4 . . _ . . _ _ mu
4 4 4 4 4"
. .4
.4 4 .4 .w
.4 «4 mm .4 .
.4 44 x .4
u 4 . 4
.4 . .4 “« .4
u < «
.4
a . 4 44 .4
. O 4 14%
4. «H .4 m"
1. .4 .4 MW MW
M. 4
.4
4 4
4. a.
4 In.
t
4 n.
4. n.
C)
.4
.4
.4
.4 I1:

 

4H0
m mo DH“

0:
.m.n .zozm.

co:
mmogm mo.

04:
mmoum mo.

.59
mmoum .mmm .QH.

om.HhH
MH<ZHHmm .mmm .QH.

wma
ZOHH<AMMMOU MAAEH

mm.4 Any 4404

mn.~mo A44 ammommez

mmmzp~mzmmxm Hm<xu

MEHF mquz

Hm

 

_ .mvu .SN .mg .umfi .33 .2: 040 0.4m o.bw _.o
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 4 .o
.4 .4 .0 - “w mu 4. A4nlu.
« 4 4 4 4
44mm 4. u. w
.4
a" 4 4
4 4 M w 4
W q «
. .4
h .4 1.
.4 4. .4 .1 mo
4 m « 4 m
A. 4 .4 n.
m. m 4 4 m
«
.4
.4
U« a 4. no
I. S
6
8
3
+
o
e
.4

 

mooh

m mo .m
.m.m .20?
on.
mmoqm mm

mmoqm mo

mmoqm .mmm .Q

mo.o
MH<XHHmm .mmm .9

am
ZOHH<AMMMOU mqmz

Hm.4 Amv mmo.

~4.mNH- A<V ammomme_

mmmahfinzmmxm mmm.

mzzo .quz m:

 

 

_ ".mw u4mb «.mm 44mm w4mv m.mm b4mN 04mg om.m L.o
4 4 J _ _ _ 4 _ _ _ 4 ..u
4 ll
4. .4 .4
.4
« «
.4 c. 4.
«w 4. 4. “w
a
m 4 ..,.
m 4 .. .m
.4 4. .4 4. Au
.4 4. .4 .4 nu
«1.
.4 4.
.4
.4
4. m:
4.|.mu
.'
n.
.4 Mw
.4
.4
4 <1]

 

mooo
m mo .0

o
.m.Q .202

mm}
mmoqm mo

Hn._
mmoqm no

we.
mmoqm .mmm .Qp

oo.oea
MH<EHHmm .mmm 4c;

M44.
ZOHH<AMMMOU mamZH

.44.4H- Amv mac;

4m.44mm A4v ammUMmez

mmmabmmzmmxm H¢<mu

mzzo

.ZHEZ

ma

 

4; ".mm «.mb m.mw v.mm m.m4 w.mm b. w.m~ om.m _.o
_ H _ — . _ _ _ _ _
.4 A4 4 .c .4 .4 Ww.|
4 4 «
4 . M 4
4 4 a
4 Q
4 4 m 4 grim
.c .4 .4 .4 .4
4. .4 .4 4. “«
4. .Q .4
.4
.4 A. .4 l1
4. .« .4 4
”We 4. 44 4. .4
474 «H .4 .4 .4
1. .4 .4
«H
.4
.4
«H .4 .4 .4
4.

 

 

 

 

 

80*3862’1

30*3863'2

can
.m mo .0H

0.
.m.Q .Zozm

MA.
mmoqm mo

w4.~
mmoqm mo

4‘
PC

mmoqm .mmm .QH

mm.4m
MH<ZHHmm .mmm .QH

mma.
ZOHH4AMMMOU mqmzH

4~.~- Amv mmog

44.44“ A4V ammommwz

mmmzhmmzmmxm mmmp

APPENDIX E

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS FIGURES

(TOTAL, CRAFT, TRIP EXPENDITURES)

147

148

TABLE E-l

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
(Y1 = Total Expenditures)

Eguation:

 

Y1 = a + blxl + bzx2 + b3x3 + b4x4 + b5x5 + b6x6 + b7x7

+ b8x8 + ng9 + blox10 + bllxll
Variable Designation:

Y1 = Total expenditures X6 = Maintenance by owner

*x1 = Craft type (motor/sail) x7 = Days craft utilized

*x2 = Craft length (20-30') x8 = Income (family)

*x3 = Craft length (30-45') x9 = Family size

*x4 = Craft length (45'+) x10 = Age of craft owner

x5 = Trayel time (home to xll = Occupation of craft
marina) owner

Computed Values for Variables: (R2 = .5023 / F = 30.28/

 

 

 

Sig. = .0005)

Regression Coefficients Std. Error TB
a 2121
x1 -388 148 -2.6**
x2 Value contained in constant due to singularity.*
x3 938 141 6.7**
x4 3251 385 8.4**
x5 80 41 1.9
X6 —8 2 -3.4**
x7 9 2 4.9**
x8 63 15 4.1**
x9 —76 40 -l.9
x10 -14 7 -2.2**
x11 -4 15 - .28

 

*Dummy variables. **Sig. @ .05.

149

TABLE E-Z

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS
(Y2 = Craft Related Expenditures)

 

Eguation:
Y2 = a + blxl + bzx2 + b3x3 + b4x4 + b5x5 + b6x6 + b7x7
+ b8x8 + ng9 + blox10 + bllxll
Variable Designation:
Y2 = Craft expenditures x6 = Maintenance by owner
*x1 = Craft type (motor/sail) x7 = Days craft utilized
*x2 = Craft length (20-30') x8 = Income (family)
*x3 = Craft length (30-45') x9 = Family size
*x4 = Craft length (45'+) x10 = Age of craft owner
x5 = Trayel time (home to xll = Occupation of craft
marina) owner

Computed Values for Variables: (R2 = .5528 / F = 30.09 /
Sig. = .0005)

 

 

 

Regression Coefficients Std. Error TB
a 1577
X1 -243 106 -2.3**
x2 Value contained in constant due to singularity.*
x3 709 101 7.1**
x4 2948 275 10.7**
x5 38 29 1.3
x6 -7 2 -4.7**
x7 5 l 3.5**
x8 44 11 4.0**
x9 -57 29 -2.0**
x10 -7 5 -1.5
x11 1 11 .13

 

*Dummy variables. **Sig. @ .05.

150

TABLE E-3

MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS

 

 

 

 

 

(Y3 = Trip Related Expenditures)
Equation:
Y3 = a + blxl + bzxz + b3X3 b4X4 + bsxs + bsxs + b7X7
+ baxa + b9X9 + blOXlO + bllxll
Variable Designation:
Y3 = Trip expenditures x6 = Maintenance by owner
*x1 = Craft type (motor/sail) x7 = Days craft utilized
*x2 = Craft length (20-30') x8 = Income (family)
*x3 = Craft length (30-45') x9 = Family size
*x4 = Craft length (45'+) xlo = Age of craft owner
x5 = Travel time (home to xll = Occupation of craft
marina) owner
Computed Values for Variables: (R2 = .2385 / F = 9.39 /
Sig. = .0005)
Regression Coefficients Std. Error TB
a 544
X1 -145 68 -2.14**
x2 Value contained in constant due to singularity.*
x3 229 64 3.56**
x4 304 176 1.73
X5 42 19 2.20**
x6 -.16 l -.16
x7 5 .9 5.17**
x8 19 2.69**
x9 -18 18 -.99
- _ **
x10 7 2.36
x11 -6 -.82
*Dummy variables. **Sig. @ .05.