ATTITUDES, CHARACTERISTICS AND USE PATTERNS OF RIPARIAN BOATERS 0N. THREE HEAVILY USED LAKES IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ROBERT WARNER DITTRICK, IR. 197 1 LIBRARY ABSTRACT ATTITUDES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND USE PATTERNS OF RIPARIAN BOATERS ON THREE HEAVILY USED LAKES IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN BY Robert Warner Dittrick, Jr. The demand for outdoor recreation Opportunities is continuing to increase with a resultant growing pres— sure on existing recreation resources. This is especially true in the case of water-based recreation. The responsi— bility for providing public access for recreational purv poses to Michigan's waters lies with the Waterways Com— mission in the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. A majority of the lakes in Michigan are now sur- rounded by year round or seasonal private dwellings. In the past, the development of public access sites on these lakes has often led to problems between these lake shore owners (the "riparian owners") and the transient boater using these sites. Many times the Waterways Commission has met strong Opposition from riparians who express dis— pleasure with the opening of the lake on which they reside to use by the general public. Robert Warner Dittrick, Jr. The Waterways Commission sponsored this study to better understand the characteristics and attitudes of riparian owners and obtain improved guidelines for plan- ning their programs in order to provide a maximum benefit to all boaters. When compared with transient boaters in Oakland County and Michigan boaters as a whole, the riparian populations on the study lakes were found to have a higher percentage of persons in professional—technical occu- pations and fewer in the craftsman-operative categories. Boats were distributed quite evenly among riparian re» spondents and there seems to be no significant relation- ship between the number and type of boats owned and occupation. Riparians on the study lakes also had substantially higher incomes than other Michigan boaters. It was found that one riparian was just as likely to own a particular number and type of boat as any other riparian regardless of income. As in the case of income and occupation, riparian boaters on the study lakes had attained higher educational levels than both the transient boaters and Michigan boaters as a whole. Again there seemed to be no relation— ship between educational achievement levels and the number and type of boats owned. Robert Warner Dittrick, Jr. Although no apparent relationships were found between any of the socio-economic characteristics and boat ownership, the riparians owned an average of two boats each. The consistency of this finding for all the study lakes suggests that this level of ownership may be typical for riparians in at least the Oakland County area if not for a much larger region. It was found that all the riparians were just as apt to have negative attitudes and be dissatisfied with boating conditions, regardless of their occupation, in- come, or education levels. This uniform pattern of attitudes was found on all the study lakes. There appeared to be no direct relationship be— tween the amount of time spent boating and the negative attitudes of riparians. This finding indicates that the attitudes of riparians are probably not the result of recent experiences on their lake but are due to problems which they have encountered over a period of time. ATTITUDES, CHARACTERISTICS, AND USE PATTERNS OF RIPARIAN BOATERS ON THREE HEAVILY USED LAKES IN SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN BY Robert Warner Dittrick, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1971 I would like to dedicate this thesis to my wife, Nanette, for her unparalleled patience and sacrifices. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would never have been completed without the help received from many people. The author wishes to express his appreciation to each of the individuals who gave of their time so unselfishly. Firstly, appreciation is given to Dr. Michael Chubb, Director of the Recreation Research and Planning Unit at Michigan State University, for making funds and resources available to complete this study, and for his continual guidance and encouragement. The superb job of typing the final draft by Vicki Selby was very helpful. The author is indebted to the Waterways Commission for sponsoring this study and specifically to Mr. Keith Wilson, Director, and Mr. Ed Eckart, for providing valu— able information and advice. A special acknowledgment is given to the security department of the Washington National Airport for the rapid recovery of stolen baggage containing data, without which this thesis could not have been completed. For understanding shown by fellow workers, the author is grateful, Mr. Gilman Aldridge, Chief Park iii Naturalist, Fairfax County Park Authority for allowing time from the job to work on the thesis and to Miss Sue Noble, for her generous donation of time in proof read— ing. A deep personal gratitude is expressed to Mike Freed, Rich Meganck, and Marvon Watson, three very close friends without whose encouragement and companionship this Master of Science Degree would never have been achieved. My family, at a time when extended illness by the author threatened the completion of this study, provided encouragement and generously gave their time. Appreciation is especially given to my father, Robert W. Dittrick, and sister, Courtney, for the seemingly endless hours spent coding the data. Words cannot express the appreciation deserved by my wife, Nanette. The countless hours she spent coding and typing when she did not have time, can never be repaid. The understanding and encouragement she expressed were incredible. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . Study Objectives . . . . . . Riparian Ownership and the Public Access Site Program. . . . . . . . Riparian Rights. . . . . . . Public Access Site Program . . . II. METHODS AND PROCEDURES. . . . . . Review of Related Research. . . . The Study Area. . . . . . . . Selection. . . . Physical Features and DevelOpment. The Questionnaire. . . . . . . Questionnaire Design . . . . . Distribution. . . . . . Summary of Questionnaire Contents. The Interview . . . . . . . Response to the Questionnaire . . Non-Respondent Interviews . . . III. RESULTS OF THE STUDY . . . . . . General Characteristics of Riparians Ownership. . . . . . . . Length of Lake Frontage . . . . Boat Types . . . . . . . . Page l4 14 16 16 17 23 26 29 32 33 34 35 36 36 36 37 39 Chapter Socio-Economic Characteristics . . . . Occupation . . . . . . . . . . Income . . . . . . . . . . . Education . . . . . . . . . . Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . Negative Response Categories . . . . Positive Response Categories . . . . Analysis of Attitudes . . . . . . Attitudes and Socio-economic Characteristics . . . . . . . Use Patterns . . . . . . . . . IV. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . Number and Type of Boat Owned . . . . Level of Dissatisfaction . . . . . Amount of Boating and Attitudes. . . . Recommendations for Improvement of the Questionnaire . . . . . . . . Future Demand on Public Access Sites . . SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. The Questionnaire Distributed to the Riparians of the Study Lakes. . . . . B. The Interview Used by Ashton to Gather Data from the Transient Boaters Using the Study Lakes . . . . . . . . . . C. Cover Letter for Riparian Questionnaire. . D. A Table Showing the Number of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents, Average Lake Front- age, and Average Number of Boats Owned per Riparian Section . . . . . . . vi Page 40 42 49 57 61 65 66 67 68 71 76 79 80 82 83 83 85 87 89 93 97 98 Appendix Page E. Tables Comparing the Numbers and Types of Boats Owned to Socio—Economic Charac- teristics of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents . . . . . . . . . . 100 F. Tables Comparing Socio—Economic Charac— teristics of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents to Use Patterns. . . . . 105 G. Tables Comparing Frequencies of Positive and Negative Attitudes of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents to Income on the Study Lakes . . . . . . <. . . . 110 H. Tables Comparing Frequencies of Positive and Negative Attitudes of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents to Education on the Study Lakes . . . . . . . . . . 113 I. Tables Comparing Frequencies of Positive and Negative Attitudes of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents to Occupation . . . 116 vii Table 1. LIST OF TABLES Page 1969 Riparian Survey Respondent Property- Ownership by Lake of Residence . . . . 36 Reasons Given by 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents from All Study Lakes for Choosing Lake Location. . . . . . . 38 Number of Each Type of Boat on Each Lake Owned by 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents 41 Distribution of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents from All Study Lakes Among Occupation Classes . . . . . . . . 42 Occupation of Boaters Responding to the 1964 Michigan Recreational Boating survey I O O O O I O O O O O O 44 The Comparison of the Percentage of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents on the Study Lakes and the Percentage of Boats Owned . 46 The Number and Type Boat Owned per 1969 Riparian Survey Respondent for Each Occupation Category on the Three Study Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 The Distribution of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents by Family Income Groups Compared to the 1964 Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study and National Values . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Comparison of the Percentage of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents in Various Income Classes on the Study Lakes and the Percentage of Boats Owned . . . . 54 viii Table 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Page The Distribution of 1969 Riparian Survey ReSpondents by Income Categories and Lake 0 o O o u 0 I o o o o o o 55 The Number and Type Boat per 1969 Riparian Survey Respondent in Each Income Category for the Three Study Lakes . . . . . . 56 Distribution of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents by the Household Head Edu- cational Level for the Study Lakes . . . 59 The Comparison of the Percentage of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents and the Percentage of Boats Owned on Each Indi- vidual Study Lake by Household Head Educational Attainment Class . . . . . 62 The Number and Types of Boats Owned per 1969 Riparian Survey Respondent in Each Educational Category for the Three Study Lakes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 63 Frequency and Ranking of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondent Negative Responses for the Three Study Lakes . . . . . . . 69 Ranking, Number, and Number per Respondent of Positive Attitudes Revealed by 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents from All Three Lakes. . . . . . . . . . . 72 Frequency of Positive and Negative Atti- tudes by Income Class for 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents from All Three Lakes . 74 Frequency of Positive and Negative Atti- tudes by Education Level for 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents from All Three Lakes. . . . . . . . . . . 75 Frequency of Positive and Negative Atti- tudes by Occupation for 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents from All Three Lakes . 77 Number of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents, Average Lake Frontage, and Average Number of Boats Owned per Riparian Section. . . 98 ix Table Page E-l. The Percentage of Each Type Boat Owned by 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents in Each Individual Occupation Category for All Study Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . 100 E-2. Occupation of 1969 Riparian Survey Respon- dents Compared to the Number of Each Type Boat Owned for the Study Lakes. . . . . 101 E-3. Education of 1969 Riparian Survey Respon- dents Compared to the Number of Each Type Boat Owned for the Study Lakes. . . . . 102 E-4. Number and Type of Boats Owned per 1969 Riparian Survey Respondent in the Higher Income Categories, Union and Cass Lakes. . 104 F-l. Occupation of 1969 Riparian Survey Respon- dents Compared to the Number of Hours Boated. . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 F—2. Income of 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents Compared to the Number of Hours Boated . . 106 F-3. Education of 1969 Riparian Survey Respon- dents Compared to the Number of Hours Boated. . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 G—l. Frequency of Positive and Negative Attitudes of Union Lake 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents Compared to Income. . . . . 110 6-2. Frequency of Positive and Negative Attitudes of Orchard Lake 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents Compared to Income. . . . . 111 G-3. Frequency of Positive and Negative Attitudes of Cass Lake 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents Compared to Income. . . . . 112 H-l. Frequency of Positive and Negative Attitudes of Union Lake 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents Compared to Education. . . . 113 H-Z. Frequency of Positive and Negative Attitudes of Orchard Lake 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents Compared to Education. . . . 114 Table H-3. Frequency of Positive and Negative Attitudes of Cass Lake 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents Compared to Education. Frequency of Positive and Negative Attitudes of Union Lake 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents Compared to Occupation Frequency of Positive and Negative Attitudes of Orchard Lake 1969 Riparian Survey Respondents Compared to Occupation Frequency of Positive and Negative Attitudes of Cass Lake 1969 Riparian Survey ReSpondents Compared to Occupation xi Page 115 116 117 118 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Union Lake with Its Surrounding Development at the Time of the Riparian Study . . . . 19 2. Cass Lake with Its Surrounding Development at the Time of the Riparian Study . . . . 22 3. Orchard Lake with Its Surrounding DevelOpment at the Time of the Riparian Study . . . . 25 xii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Early in 1969, the Waterways Commission of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources entered into con— tract with Michigan State University to conduct a study of the carrying capacity of inland lakes for boating. Previously the state had gathered limited information concerning the number of boats launched at different launching sites, but no information was available on how much boating various types of lakes can support before the quality of the recreational experience deteriorates for different types of users. /// One of the responsibilities of the Waterways Com— mission is to provide public access to Michigan's inland lakes and streams. Since the state has 36,000 miles of streams and 5,500 inland lakes of ten acres or more,1 providing adequate public access is a major task. 1Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Recreation Planning Division, "Michigan Recreation Future" (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, September, 1966), p. 4. The recreational boaters on an inland body of water can generally be divided into two categories: first, the boaters who do not own property adjacent to the water but gain access for their boat through the use of a public facility or across private lands, and second, boaters who are riparianl land owners. This thesis will deal with the boating use pat- terns and characteristics of riparians on three selected lakes. Information concerning the behavior and charac- teristics of transient boaters2 on these three selected lakes, has been reported in a previous thesis by Peter Geoffrey Ashton.3 ,1 Statement of the Problem The common problem facing most agencies which pro- vide outdoor recreational opportunities is the tremendous increase in the demand for such opportunities in recent years. This increase is attributable to greater 1The term "riparian" will be used in this thesis to describe anyone owning land which includes lake front- age or lake access rights. A "riparian boater" is defined as anyone using a boat owned by a riparian. 2The term "transient boater" will be used to de- note any boater who gains access to the water by way of a public facility. 3Peter Geoffrey Ashton, "Recreational Boating Carrying Capacity: A Preliminary Study of Three Heavily Used Lakes in Southeastern Michigan" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Resource DevelOpment, Michigan‘ State University, 1970). participation in various types of outdoor recreation activity: increased pOpulation, more leisure time, greater mobility, and higher disposable incomes. Increas- ing demand is a problem because this greater participation is taking place on a relatively fixed resource base so user pressures on land and water often lead to over— crowding and conflicts between users. Indications are that participation will continue to increase in the foreseeable future. It is important to examine existing trends and projections in order to understand the entire scope of this problem. In 1962, it was predicted that the population of the United States would double between 1960 and the year 2000 from 179 million to 350 million.1 The 1970 census already has shown a population of 205 million people; The growing movement in the nation's working p0pulation to obtain shorter work weeks, longer vacations, and earlier retirement is steadily increasing the amount of leisure time available for the pursuit of various recreational activities. Automatically this results in an increased demand for recreational facilities. Available 10.8. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com— mission, Projections to the Years 1976 and 2000: Economic Growth, Population, Labor Force and LeISure, and Trans- portation, Study Report No. 23 (Washington, D.C.: Govern- ment rinting Office, 1962), p. 120. leisure time for Americans is expected to increase 2.5 times within the period from 1950 to 2000.1 Better highways, faster automobiles, and more time to use them results in creasing mobility for the popu- lation. This has placed the limited recreation resources within reach of growing numbers of people, resulting in more use of those resources. In the case of boating, the greater amount of available leisure time allows boaters additional time to boat while higher mobility permits boaters to reach more lakes at greater distances. These factors, along with higher disposable incomes and easier credit financing, have contributed to boating becoming a favorite recre- ational activity for many people. Easier financing has increased the purchasing power of the public, making the acquisition of a boat possible even for persons in lower income brackets. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission reported that water is a prime factor in most outdoor recreation activities. The Commission's National Recre— ation Survey showed that 44 per cent of the population . . . . 2 prefer water-based recreat1on act1v1t1es over any others. lMarion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966), p. 20. 2U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- Inission, Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D.C.: (Sovernment Printing Office, 1962), p. 173. This study also demonstrated that a greater percentage of the population in the north central region participates in boating than in any other region.l From industry sta— tistics for outboard motors in use and boat and motor sales, it appears that Michigan has the highest partici- pation in boating of any state in this region.2 This high level of demand for recreational boating opportunities has long been recognized as a resource management problem by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. In a public statement made in 1961, Floyd Fanselow noted: There is an urgent need for more public access to Michigan's lakes and streams. The problem is a serious one and it can be expected to grow more acute in the future. Many existing sites are al- ready overcrowded. Each year additional thousands of hunters, fishermen, pleasure boaters, canoeists, water skiers, picnickers, and campers are swarming to our waters for their recreation.3 In 1966, the Waterways Commission completed a study of recreational boating in order to determine the probable lU.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com— mission, National Recreation Survey, Study Report No. 19 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 24. 2Michigan State University, Department of Resource Development, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, Vol. II (Lansing, MICh.: State Resource PlanfiIng Program, Michigan Department of Commerce, July, 1966); P. 10.2. 3Floyd Fanselow, "The Public Access Program" (paper read before the meeting of the Michigan Marine Dealers Association Seminar, Detroit, Michigan, February 16, 1961), p. 2. level of boating demand by 1980. The study was based on a questionnaire mailed to 10,000 registered boaters. According to the study there were approximately 400,000 recreational boats registered with the Department of State on December 1, 1966. In addition, there were an estimated 50,000 sailboats and row boats which were not required to register, making the total of 450,000 recreational boats. The study estimated there will be 762,000 registered boats and 90,000 nonregistered boats in the state by 1980, making a total recreational boating fleet of around 852,000.1 There are some indications that recreation demand is generally increasing at a more rapid rate than antici- pated earlier. By 1967, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation found that the ORRRC predictions made in 1960 for the participation in major summertime activities were far below actual participation.2 Some evidence, however, exists to show that the present rate of increase in boat— ing participation in Michigan is not as great as in the mid-1960's.3 1Program Statement Public Access Site Program, Michigan State Waterways Commission, Department of Natural Resources (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Waterways Commission, 1970), P. 6. 2U.S., Department of the Interior, Bureau of Out— door Recreation, Outdoor Recreation Trends (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, April, 1967), p. 12. 3Discussion of current boating demand-study work with Dr. Michael Chubb, Director, Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, 1971. The Waterways Commission is attempting to meet the increasing demand for boating in Michigan by its Public Access Site Program which is providing more places where the public can boat. However, the development of public access to lakes which have previously been completely sur— rounded by privately owned land has raised questions and conflicts. As the need for recreational opportunities in— creases, the amount of available recreational land is decreasing in relation to the growing amount of riparian land utilized as homesites. Large numbers of people are seeking shoreline areas outside the cities as desirable places to live. It is therefore frequently becoming neces- sary for governmental institutions responsible for provid- ing recreational land to exercise their powers of purchase or eminent domain in order to satisfy these needs. In doing so, these agencies are often facing considerable opposition from riparian land owners, who in many cases, have organized lake associations to protect their inter— ests. By Sponsoring a study of the carrying capacity of lakes for boating, the Waterways Commission is attempt— ing to better understand the relationships between boating and the water resources necessary for this activity. This will aid in the administration of the Public Access Site Program and possibly result in the alleviation of some of the problems which exist due to conflicts between various types of boating. Study Objectives The objective of the present study was to collect and analyze data which would characterize the riparian, his use patterns, and his attitudes toward other boaters in order to provide information necessary to make management decisions relative to access sites. The specific goals of the investigation were to gather data on the charac— teristics typical of the people who own land adjacent to the three Oakland County lakes studied, to obtain infor— mation on the amount of time they spend on the lakes, what factors determine this usage, and to determine their feel— ings toward other boaters both riparian and transient. The purpose of this thesis is not to present a solution to the problem of conflicts between riparian owners and other lake users; rather it is to provide information for the Waterways Commission which will aid in a better understanding of the riparian owners‘ behavior and attitudes toward the Public Access Site Program. An attempt is made to describe and analyze these attitudes and characteristics and to test the following three hypotheses: 1. There is a direct relationship between socio— economic characteristics of riparians and the number and types of boats owned. It is theorized that as income, education, and occupational level (from unemployed to professional-technical) increases, the number of boats owned will also increase and there will be a tendency for certain classes of riparians to own certain types of boats. 2. The level of riparian owner dissatisfaction with boating conditions is directly related to socio— economic characteristics. It is suggested that as income, education, and occupational level increase there is an increase in dissatisfaction. 3. There is a direct relationship between the level of dissatisfaction of the riparian owner and the amount of boating he does. Riparian Ownership and the Public Access Site Program Riparian Rights The riparian doctrine is of major concern in this study because in the state of Michigan, water law is governed primarily by this system. The basic principle of the riparian doctrine is that only land owners with frontage on a particular body of water have water rights. These owners are designated as "riparians" and may use water for domestic purposes--drinking, cooking, washing, stock watering, navigation, and recreational uses. Non— riparians do not normally have any water rights unless specified by easement or other special legal agreements. Riparian water rights go with the land. A riparian is entitled to use water entering upon his land, but cannot reduce its quantity or impair its quality. Water rights cannot be lost by non-use, and the size of a riparian holding does not affect priority of water use. The 10 riparian doctrine is not compatible with consumptive uses, but tends to encourage multiple use of water resources. Public Access Site Program At one time, city dwellers had to be adventurers in order to enjoy the more remote beauty spots and fishing places of this country. Only a few from urban areas were privileged to enjoy nature's wonders. However, with today's automobile, a majority of people have the oppor— tunity to enjoy a wide variety of recreational activities further from their homes.2 The revolutionary change in transportation in the last half century has allowed many urban residents to reach their favorite fishing and recreation spots a sufficient number of times each year to justify the owner- ship of a parcel of water frontage. Year-round commuting from cities and towns to nearby lakes and streams has also been made possible. As a result, much of the shore— line of Michigan's lakes and streams has been divided into small cottage lots. Frequently this greatly limits Oppor- tunities for water-based recreation by non—riparians. However, as Fanselow pointed out: 1C. R. Humphrys, Watershed Management, Department of Resource Development, MiEhigan State University (Lansing, Mich.: by the author), pp. 50—51. 2Floyd G. Fanselow, "Public Access to Lakes and Streams in Michigan" (paper read before the Fourteenth Midwest Wildlife Conference, Des Moines, Iowa, December 18, 1952). p. l. 11 Water is like air, owned by no one yet owned by all. Therefore, no one can claim an exclusive right to take fish on the basis of water ownership. In Michigan, the riparian owners of inland waters have title to the land under the water; but the right to take fish is shared by all, provided the water in which they are taken is public. It is therefore necessary to provide a legal expedient to convey rights which would provide public fishing over private lands. In the late 1930's it became evident that something would have to be done to give the general public access to the state‘s lakes and streams; the best way to do this was to obtain public ownership of selected shoreline prOperty. At that time, these sites were primarily in— tended to give the fisherman access to game fish popu- lations which were maintained by the state. In 1939, organized recreation groups sought an amendment to existing statutes from the Michigan legis- 1ature which would increase the cost of fishing licenses and earmark the extra money for the purchase of additional access points on lakes and streams. In the early 1940's, the Fish Division assumed reSponsibility for acquisition and development of these new access sites. This program continued until 1962, when an austerity program practically eliminated the purchase and develOpment of new sites.2 The Department of Natural Resources went through a re-organization in 1962 in which the responsibility for the operation of all land-based programs such as fishing lIbid., p. 3. 21bid. 12 sites was transferred from the administering division to the department's three regional field offices. The Fish Division retained its planning responsibilities for access sites but relinquished control over site Operation and maintenance. About the same time, the "public fishing sites" were re-designated "public access sites" because it was recognized that boating was becoming a popular recreational activity in its own right. In 1966, negotiations began with the Michigan State Waterways Commission to determine whether or not that agency could assume responsibility for the Public Access Site Program if funds were made available by the legis- lature. The legislature responded by increasing the marine fuel tax appropriation from one—half of l per cent to 1-1/2 per cent of the total gasoline taxes collected by the state, effective January 1, 1968. In May 1968, responsibility for administration of the Public Access Site Program was transferred to the Waterways Commission.1 The Waterways Commission thus became legally and administratively responsible for the acquisition, develop— ment, and maintenance of access sites. Subsequently, an active program of acquiring and developing new sites was adOpted. Problems with objections from riparian owners were subsequently encountered where it was feared new or Ibid., p. 4. l3 expanded access sites would result in lakes being over- crowded Or use conflicts occurring. CHAPTER II METHODS AND PROCEDURES Review of Related Research Previous research concerned specifically with riparian boaters seems to be almost nonexistent. Earlier boating studies usually did not separate riparian and non- riparian boaters. In most cases, such studies were done by means of a sample of registered boat owners on a state— wide basis. Some comparison between the results of such studies and the current investigation will be made in Chapter III. Boater attitudes toward other boaters are related to levels of satisfaction. Threinen investigated con— flicts among boaters in his boating studies of counties in southeastern Wisconsin; it is conflicts of the type he mentions that affect the levels of satisfaction among lake users. He wrote: Boating demand is consumptive of shore and water space and that space consumption of water is directly proportional to speed. Therefore consumption of water-space is much higher for fast boats and for indiscriminate travel such as with waterskiing. . . . Waterskiing is the activity of fast boats and it is an activity which keeps them occupied for extended periods. Without waterskiing, fast boating would 14 15 find less employment on the small inland waters. Speed is not a very significant element for the transportation of fishermen or for sightseeing because sightseeing is most enjoyed at lower speeds. The spatial demand on water for boating at lower speeds causes a negligible amount of intra— activity, and inter-activity interference arises. Waves from speeding boats drive out the fishing boats, likewise the rowing, paddling, and sail- boating. Water skiing is density dependent and when pursued to excess, it limits the number of participants. Aerial counts frequently illustrate that the density of waterskiing seldom builds up more than about one boat per twenty acres of water. As the number builds up an element of fear influences the downed waterskier, therefore twenty acres is the minimum spatial requirement of waterskiing.l The Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study pro— vides a good description of the average Michigan boater and discusses the Oakland County respondent as an example. This is particularly significant since this present study is concerned with three lakes in Oakland County. The Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study states that: Like most other survey respondents, Oakland County respondents were employed in professional- technical positions or as skilled craftsmen. Incomes of Oakland County boaters were found to be generally higher than most respondents; with 72.7 percent having family incomes of $8,000 or more compared to 58 percent in this income category for the state as a whole. Educational levels of Oakland County respondents were also generally higher than for all survey respondents. Fifty-three percent of this county's respondents indi- cated they were educated beyond the high school level as compared with 42.4 percent among all survey respondents. 1W. W. Threinen, "An Analysis of Space Demands for Water and Shore," Transactions of the Twenty-ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference (Washington, D.C.: Wildlife Management Institute, March, 1964): pp. 358-59. 16 Few significant differences were observed between the annual frequency of boat use for Oakland County respondents and all respondents in general. Oakland County boaters, however, used their boats slightly more in the July-August period and less in September- October than all survey respondents. Respondents from this county also concentrated more on boat use during vacations (24.3 percent) than did all other respondents (19.6 percent). The percentages of Oakland County respondents listing various lengths of boating outings were about the same as for all survey respondents. Slightly more of the respondents from this county indicated that they preferred full—day trips than did respondents in general, and fewer Oakland County boaters indicated a preference for outings of less than one-half day. As with all persons sampled in this survey, the popular boating activities for Oakland County re- spondents were fishing, short pleasure cruising, and waterskiing, in that order.1 The Study Area Selection Three lakes in Oakland County were selected for investigation for the following reasons: 1. This study was intended to be complementary to the Ashton investigation and therefore the same lakes were chosen. 2. The Waterways Commission requested that the study be conducted on heavily used lakes. 1Michigan State University, Demand Study, pp. 10.28-10.29. 2More details on the process of selecting the . three lakes in Oakland County are given in Ashton, "Boat1ng Carrying Capacity," pp. 21-23. l7 3. Oakland County is part of the Detroit metropolitan area and together with Wayne County accounts for one-fourth of all registered boats in Michigan. Physical Features and Development The three lakes selected, Union, Cass, and Orchard are among approximately 1,000 natural lakes and ponds in Oakland County. They are located some five miles south- west of Pontiac, Michigan. All three lakes have relatively clear water and a wide variety of fish. Union Lake is 465 acres in size and has a depth of 110 feet at its deepest point. It has been intensively developed as can be seen in Figure l. Obser- vations indicated that almost all the residences on this lake were permanent year-round homes. Most of the 328 houses are small and of about the same value except for a section at the eastern end of the lake where they are obviously of greater value. Most of the homes have septic tank systems for sewage disposal. There are no facilities for storm drainage except Open ditches along the roads which empty into inlet and outlet streams. The roads around the lake are mostly dirt, with a few paved areas. Union Lake has a public access site at its west end. Some parcels of riparian land on Union Lake are owned and maintained by back lot subdivision associations for the purpose of permitting their residents access to ‘l l.‘ III-TI! 18 .mpsum cmflummau 0:» mo meu 0:» pm ucmEmon>mO mcHOcsouusm muH nuflz mxmq OOHODII.H musmfim .th‘. ._ It ISL-ML i a .p. . I .r _ l9 20 the lake; these riparian owners were not included in the survey. There is also a private business on Union Lake which sells boat fuel and rents boats. On Union Lake, attempts are made to regulate use by means of an organized lake association. Cass Lake (Figure 2) is the largest of the three lakes studied. It has an area of 1280 acres and many places deeper than 100 feet, the deepest being 123 feet. Like Union Lake, Cass Lake has been intensively developed. The 625 homes on Cass Lake are permanent residences which vary from small run-down cottages to large expensive estates and include trailers in a mobile home park on riparian land. Cass Lake has many riparian owners who live on a network of canals dredged away from the lake. These riparians have all normal riparian rights but do not have frontage on the lake proper. Most residents on Cass Lake use septic tank systems. Most of the roads are dirt and gravel with Open ditch storm drainage. The public access is through the Dodge Brothers No. 4 State Park which also has an extensive swimming beach. There is some private commercial development in the form of a sailing marina, a swimming beach, and power boat marina. Like Union Lake, Cass Lake has riparian lots owned by groups of non-riparians in order to secure access to the lake. There is apparently no organized lake association on Cass Lake comparable to the Union Lake Association. 21 .wpsum smaummwu on» mo mafia on» an ucmemon>mO mcfiocsouusm mufi nuwz oxmq mmmunu.m musmflm 22 I- l.‘ 1!... u .9. a .. . 1...... . . . o. g... . 3.. .. . . .P. “I $37040 l‘: I I p. T i o c 11. s. I ~ ..J n O x .IJ.‘ . 4 . . ail . ‘r 4- .‘At \ G CO p.111 p... \.L 3'. O.- .? ‘1‘ 23 Orchard Lake (Figure 3) is 788 acres in extent with a maximum depth of 110 feet. Its shores are occupied by a country club, ninety permanent residences, and a public access site. All the residences around Orchard Lake are large expensive estates with considerable lake frontage. Orchard Lake Village maintains its own police force, the roads around the lake are paved, and there is an extensive storm sewer system. Many riparian residences are connected to city sewers. The private country club maintains a sail boat marina and there is one other small boat rental Operation. Orchard Lake is in close proximity to Cass Lake as can be seen in Figure 2 (Orchard Lake is in the upper left-hand corner of the photograph). A culvert connects the two lakes and allows the level of Orchard Lake to be regulated. The riparian owners Of Orchard Lake have organized a lake association. The Questionnaire A self-administered questionnaire (see Appendix A) distributed by hand with a pre—stamped and addressed re- turn envelOpe was adopted as the best method of Obtaining the desired information with available financial resources. The objective was to reach 100 per cent of the riparian owners and to Obtain as high a percentage response as possible. A personal interview would probably have been the best way to secure maximum accuracy and compliance but 24 .mcsum cmwummwu may mo 08H» 0:» um ucwemon>wO mcflpcsouusm muw nufiz Oxma Oumcouonl.m musmwm 25 26 funds were not available to hire the additional staff needed to Obtain an adequate sample by this method. Questionnaire Design The self-administered questionnaire has been used more frequently in social investigation than any other type of survey instrument. However, like other personal survey research techniques, the self-administered question— naire is an imposition on the potential respondent's prie vacy. A resulting inclination by the respondent not to respond must be anticipated and all reasonable steps taken to overcome this tendency.1 The following factors have been found to influence the percentage in a given pOpu- lation that will respond to a questionnaire: 1. The nature of thegpopulation being surveyed: Individuals with higher economic status have a tendency to respond more frequently.2 2. The subject of the survey: A high level of interest in the subject of the survey by the respondents lDouglas Crapo and Michael Chubb, Recreation Area Day-Use Investigation Techniques: Part I, A Study of Survey Methodology (East Lansing, Mich.: Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recre— ation Resources, Michigan State University, 1969), Techni— cal Report NO. 6, pp. 19-20. 2Ibid., p. 20, citing Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls and Samples: Practical Procedures (New York: Harper and Brothers,I§5073 p. 82. 27 results in a higher response rate.1 The surprisingly high response to the two Open—ended questions on the questionnaire (see Appendix A, Questions 23 and 24), in which the respondents were simply asked for "suggestions or remarks concerning boating on this lake," appears to substantiate this claim. The study was conducted at a time when boating on the lakes was at its peak with a probable correspondingly high level of interest in boating problems. 3. The sponsorship of the survey: "A survey with official backing will normally get a bigger response than one emanating from say, a university or a research agency." Due to considerable opposition to the Public Access Site Program by riparian owners in the past, it was believed that mentioning the Waterways Commission as the sole sponsor would have a detrimental effect on response. However, due to publicity concerning "campus unrest" at Michigan State University it was felt that mention only of the university might also have a detrimental effect in some cases. Therefore, both the Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State University and the 1Ibid., citing C. A. Moser, Survey Methods in Social Investigation (London: Heineman Educational Books, Ltd., 1958), p. 181. 2Ibid., quoting R. M. Jackson, "Differential Value of the Mailed Questionnaire and the Interview in a Follow— ‘up Study of High School Graduates" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1959), p. 110. 28 Waterways Commission of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources were mentioned in the cover letter (see Appendix C) to show the recipients that the study was a COOperative effort by organizations interested in recreation resource management. 4. The questionnaire length:1 In order to give the impression of limited length, the questionnaire was designed to fit on one folded sheet, or two pages printed both sides. 5. The attractiveness of the questionnaire:2 The study of recreation area day—use investigation techniques mentioned previously found that questionnaires on blue paper resulted in a slightly higher response rate followed by questionnaires on white, brown, tan, yellow, and orange paper, in that order.3 Blue paper was therefore used for the questionnaire in this study. A cover letter (see Appendix C) typed on the letterhead stationery of the Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State University, was photocopied to create the impression Of an originally typed letter. An italicized type was used to further add to the attractiveness. 1Ibid., citing Claire Selltiz, et al., Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Holt, Riiehart and Winston, 1967). p. 241. 2Ibid., citing Parten, p. 391. 31bid., p. 97. 29 6. The ease with which the questionnaire can be completed and returned:1 The questionnaire was designed to be easy to read and complete. The questions with which respondents might have difficulty or which might cause antagonism were placed at the end of the question— naire to avoid an early loss of interest. Distribution The questionnaires were distributed by hand. The only other feasible method (without considerable prior field investigation to create a list of names and addresses) would have been mailing the questionnaires to "occupant" or the equivalent, and it was felt this would probably decrease response. Federal law made it impossible to use the convenient mailbox so it was necessary to deliver the letter and questionnaire to the door. This meant a con— siderable additional expenditure of time and effort, but it was time well spent, in that it avoided some of the problems associated with a mailed questionnaire. The questionnaire was placed inside the screen or storm door to keep it out of the weather and yet to avoid personal contact if possible. The staff members distri— buting the survey instrument found that while personal contact would probably increase response, it often lead Ibid., p. 21. 30 to extensive conversations which would have made it impossible to complete distribution on schedule. A stamped reply envelope was used because studies have shown that this method tends to result in a larger percentage response than an envelope printed with "return postage paid." The author believes that when a prospec- tive respondent receives a stamped envelope, he appreciates the extra effort made by the researcher and is apt to reciprocate with an effort to complete the questionnaire. For this reason, the stamped envelope was placed on top to catch the respondent's attention. The stamped envelOpe method is more expensive than the "return postage paid" method. However, with the relatively small sample size in this study, the additional expense was small enough to be considered a worthwhile investment under the circum- stances. The questionnaires were distributed twice in successive weeks to every residence on the three lakes. The first distribution was on August 25, 1969, and the second on September 2, 1969. The second distribution included an additional two—by-five-inch piece of blue paper in each set (self-addressed stamped envelOpe, cover letter, and questionnaire) which bore the message, "If you have completed this questionnaire before, please indicate in question #1 and fill out questions 11 thru 17." This note was merely a restatement of question #1. 31 It was felt this blue slip would catch the eye of the respondent and be read immediately because of its short length. It explained that if they failed to return the first distribution this was a second chance or in case they had responded previously that it was only necessary to complete part of the questionnaire. It was felt that a better response would be received by making the com— pletion of the entire questionnaire on the second distri— bution unnecessary. The blue note also helped the respondent realize that the second distribution was not an accidental repeat of the first. It was necessary to know the general location on the lake of each respondent's property but it was felt that asking the respondents to give names or addresses would probably lower the percentage response appreciably. It was therefore decided to divide the lakeshore in each case into numbered sections, based on a classification of the types of residences. It was observed that the homes around the lakes tended to be divided into groups. The homes of higher value were at one location on the lake, and homes of lower value were grouped elsewhere. This made the sections easily definable. As the question— naires were distributed, field staff wrote the lakeshore section number inconspicuously on the last page so it was possible to subsequently identify the location of each respondent. . 1 32 Originally, the purpose of the second distribution was to gain data on two different weekends for comparison purposes. However, the number of respondents which filled out questionnaires from both distributions was so low it was decided not to use the second wave questionnaires in the analysis. The second distribution therefore served as an effective follow-up to bolster response. Summary of Questionnaire Contents The first part of the questionnaire (see Appendix A) is a series of questions about the respondent's riparian prOperty and its recreation related features. Page two makes inquiry into the type and amount of boating in which the respondent engages. Experiences, attitudes, and opinions are invited on page three. Beginning at the bottom of page three and continuing to page four are the socio—economic questions which caused the most problems in terms of Objections and non—response. The last two questions on the questionnaire are Open ended, inviting respondent's "suggestions or remarks concerning boating on this lake." It was the surprisingly large response to these questions which allowed the attitudes of riparians to be studied in depth. The data from the returned questionnaires was 'transferred to Optical scan forms. The data from one criestionnaire required three forms. This information 33 was then automatically punched onto computer cards and analysis carried out in the Michigan State University CDC 3600 computer. The Interview Boaters using the public access sites on the three lakes were interviewed (see Appendix B) as part of the overall study conducted by Ashton. Weather permitting, the interview was administered between 1000 hours and 1930 hours on the weekends sampled, up to and including Labor Day weekend. Almost every transient boater leaving the lakes before 1500 and after 1700 hours and 80 per cent of those leaving during the busiest time between 1500 and 1700 hours were interviewed. The interview was divided into three sections: the first part dealt with information about the boating party and type of boat, the second section asked for information about boating activity, and the final portion contained questions about socio-economic characteristics of boaters.l Aerial photography was used to assist in recording and interpreting boating use patterns on the lakes. Dur- ing the days interviewing was taking place, aerial photo- graphs were taken every hour on the hour and these were subsequently used to determine the densities of various 'types Of boating activities on the lakes. 11bid.p pp. 29—30. 34 Response to the Questionnaire The total response to the riparian owner question- naire was 51 per cent. Since the questionnaire was distri- buted to all riparians on the three selected lakes, this number represents 51 per cent of the total riparian population. The response from the individual lakes varied. Union Lake which had 328 riparian residents produced a return of 188 questionnaires for a response rate of approximately 58 per cent. Orchard Lake with 90 riparian residents had 58 questionnaires returned for a 64 per cent response. Cass Lake had a lower response rate with 291 of the 625 riparian residents mailing in the question- naires for a 47 per cent response. The types of riparian land probably had an effect on the response from Cass Lake residents. Response was markedly lower for sections which riparians did not own frontage on the lake proper but lived on one of the networks of canals or in the mobile home park which owned some riparian land, giving the residents collective riparian rights. Response to most questions on the questionnaire 'was satisfactory. As expected, the question concerning the respondent's income resulted in more objections than any other. 35 Non—Respondent Interviews In order to determine if the information Obtained from voluntary respondents was significantly different from similar data from non—respondents, a sample of non— respondents was interviewed. Locating non-respondents proved to be quite difficult and time consuming. An un- realistically high proportion of the riparians said they had returned a questionnaire, which seems to indicate a reluctance to be interviewed. Because of the time in— volved and the limited funds available, it was only possible to obtain fourteen interviews. While this only represents 3 per cent of the non—respondents, these inter— views involved riparians with a wide range of character— istics and appears to be representative of a cross- section of the riparian owners that did respond. The main reason for non-response seemed to be lack of time necessary for completing the questionnaire. The riparians who did not respond to the questionnaire tended to not own a boat. CHAPTER III RESULTS OF THE STUDY General Characteristics of Riparians Chapter II discussed some characteristics of the study area, the lakes and the homes around the lakes. This chapter will be concerned with the riparian owners, their boating behavior, and attitudes based on the responses to the questionnaires. Ownership When the respondents were asked about the prOperty they were occupying, 92 per cent indicated that they owned the prOperty, 7 per cent were renting, and l per cent did not respond to that question (see Table 1). TABLE l.--l969 riparian survey respondent property-ownership by lake of residence NO Lake Own Rent Guest Response Union 91% 6% 0% 2% Orchard 97 2 0 2 Cass 91 9 0 0 All three lakes 92 7 0 l 36 37 It can be seen that almost all riparians own their property while only a few rent lakeside property in the study area. A large percentage of these homes are permanent year-round residences. Respondents indicated that 77 per cent lived on their lake the entire year while 22 per cent resided for only part of the year. A more detailed break- down showed that 66 per cent of the respondents on Union Lake lived there year-round while 33 per cent were there only part of the year. On Orchard Lake, 81 per cent were year-round and 17 per cent part year residents. Cass Lake had 83 per cent year-round residents and 17 per cent who use their property seasonally. It was desirable to gain an indication of why the riparians decided to live on the lakes being investigated. It was felt that boating opportunities might be one reason for selecting riparian property. In order to investigate this matter, the following open-ended question was asked: "Why did you choose to live on this lake?" (see Appendix A, question 5). The following results were obtained (Table 2). The high response for recreation potential and for environment could be most significant when considering the riparians' attitudes toward boating on their lakes. Length of Lake Frontage The length of lake frontage owned by riparians varied a great deal. The property frontages of Union Lake 38_ TABLE 2.--Reasons given by 1969 riparian survey respondents from all study lakes for choosing lake location. Reason Number of Responses For its recreation potential 91 Because of the environment 62 Its location ‘ 56 Its physical features 56 Like the lake 56 Combination of location, physical and family reasons 39 Acquired from the family 33 Property was available for rent or sale 33 Location and size or price 28 Because of its beauty 20 Family reasons (considered a nice place for children) 17 Water level is controlled 3 Other 16 were generally much smaller than those of Cass and Orchard lakes. Union Lake averaged 72.5 feet of frontage per re- spondent, which was well below the 101 foot average of the three lakes combined. When analyzed by shoreline section, only two of the seven sections of Union Lake were above the overall average; the other five were far below. The section with the largest number of respondents was section six. While section six had over twice as many respondents, its average frontage was only 57 feet. (For data on the number of respondents per section and the average frontage per section see Appendix D.) Orchard Lake frontage averaged 166 feet per riparian owner. This is the largest average frontage of the three lakes. The limited number of riparian owners 39 on Orchard Lake resulted in sections with low numbers of respondents, the section with the largest response con- tained only 10. Orchard Lake varied from a section with eight owners averaging 74 feet per property to a section with five owners averaging 310 feet per parcel (see Appen- dix D for details of per section averages). Cass Lake with an average frontage of 121 feet was also a good deal above the 101 overall average. Cass also had the widest range of frontage, widths ranging from a section with a 48-foot average to one with a 315-foot average (see Appendix D). Boat Types All three lakes combined show an average of approximately two boats per respondent. Union Lake aver- ages 1.9, Orchard 2.3, and Cass 1.9 boats per riparian. For a detailed breakdown of the average number of boats per respondent in each section see Appendix D. A problem arose when asking people about the types of boats that they owned because the same boat can be used for a variety of activities. For instance, a boat with a powerful outboard motor could be used for fishing, cruis- ing, or water skiing. Nevertheless, reliable information concerning boat usage was obtained by being specific in the categories when relating them to activities. They were asked to answer by checking the following: canoe, sailboat, fishing boat, drag boat, pontoon boat, houseboat, 40 water skiing boat, rowboat, cruiser, or other. The response therefore was related to the activity. Boat types according to lake appears to follow a general pattern for all three lakes (see Table 3). Each of the three lakes had more boats used for water skiing than for any other purpose. Fishing boats ranked second and were among the top three types in fre- quency for each of the lakes. Rowboats and sailboats were the next most numerous boats, both being in the top four frequency groups for each lake. Canoes were next, followed by pontoon boats, cruisers, and drag boats in that order. Each of the individual lakes closely followed this pattern. Socio-Economic Characteristics Questions concerning socio-economic characteristics had the fewest number of responses. This is probably be- cause many respondents consider such questions an invasion of privacy and simply refuse to answer them. Although the number of responses were lower, they were substantial enough to make valid observations. This section is concerned primarily with a com- parison Of the number and types of boats owned to the socio-economic characteristics of occupation, income, and education. Later in this chapter these same socio- economic characteristics will be compared to attitudes and use patterns. 41 TABLE 3.—-Number of each type of boat on each lake owned by 1969 riparian survey respondents. Number of Boats «u _.— 1- F”. Boat Type Total for Union Orchard Cass Three Lakes Lake Lake Lake Canoe 72 19 12 41 Sailboat 125 42 22 61 Fishing Boat 158 55 26 77 Drag Boata 7 3 l 3 Pontoon Boatb 64 21 12 31 Water—skiing Boat 274 110 26 138 Rowboats 129 58 13 58 Crusier or Runabout 43 7 3 33 Other 32 14 4 14 Total 904 329 119 456 a A "drag boat" is a high-powered boat capable of high speeds. They are often powered by automobile motors and used for racing. b A "pontoon boat" is a boat which has pontoons to enable it to float. They are capable of carrying a number of peOple at a time and are often called ”party boats.” 42 Occppation The pattern of response to the question asking about the occupation of the "head of the family" is repre- sented in Table 4. For the purposes of this study the occupations were grouped into the following categories: 1. Professional and technical--including managerial, clerical, sales, and service. 2. Craftsmen and Operatives--including foremen and laborers. 3. Self-employed. 4. Retired. 5. Other--including unemployed, housewives, and students. TABLE 4.-—Distribution of 1969 riparian survey respondents from all study lakes among occupation classes. Occupation Number Percentage Professional and technical 280 59 Craftsmen and operatives 91 19 Self-employed 34 7 Retired 65 14 Other 8 2 Total 478 101 43 When this occupational distribution is compared with that of Michigan recreational boaters in general there seems to be a substantial difference in the percentages in each category. Table 5, with figures taken from the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, makes it possible to compare the distribution of occupation classifications among 1964 Michigan recreational boaters as a whole, with the distribution revealed by the present study of riparians. There seems to be a substantially higher percentage in the professional-technical category, for the riparians, 59 per cent, compared to an estimated 33 per cent for recreational boaters as a whole. There is a much lower number of respondents in the craftsmen-operative category, 19 per cent in the riparian study compared to approxi- mately 40 per cent for boaters as a whole. The self- employed category is 7 per cent compared to 12 per cent for boaters as a whole. The retired boater shows a higher percentage living on the lakes as riparians (14%) than there are boat owners as a whole (10%). It may be concluded that while among Michigan boaters as a whole there are more craftsmen-operative boat owners than any other occupational group, professional- technical riparian owners predominate on the lakes studied because they have the financial capability to own lake front property. There also seems to be a tendency for a retired person to live on lake front property but these TABLE 5.-—Occupation of boaters responding to the 1964 Michigan Recreational Boating Survey.a Occupation Percentage of Responseb Skilled Craftsman Factory Worker Sales and Clerical Manager or Foreman Business Owner Professional—Technical Farmer Retired Student Unskilled Worker Total 16.49 14.50 7.21 12.39 12.87 20.13 1.21 9.70 1.35 4.50 100.00 aFigures are taken from the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Study. bThese figures cannot be grouped into those used for the 1969 riparian study because some of the figures which are grouped here are in separate categories in the riparian study. 45 people are likely to have retired from higher paid occu- pations. The difference in the self-employed categories, 7 per cent, for riparians to 12 per cent for boaters as a whole, suggests that self-employed people may have less time and money or there is a possibility that the category was vague or inaccurate. It must be kept in mind when com- paring these figures that the category of recreational boaters as a whole includes riparians. ”w” Ashton's interviewing of transient boaters re- sulted in the following distribution: 17 per cent were professionals, 7 per cent technicians, 5 per cent were in sales work, 10 per cent were managers, 20 per cent of boat- ing party heads were craftsmen, 7 per cent were students, and 8 per cent miscellaneous occupations. A total of 26 per cent did not respond.1 ‘5” A comparison of distribution within occupation categories for riparians on each Of the three lakes indi- vidually discloses similar distributions for Union and Cass lakes (see Table 6). The professional-technical workers on both Union and Cass lakes consisted of well over one-half of the riparian population of these lakes. The craftsmen-operative worker category contains approxi- mately one-fifth of the responses on both Union and Cass lakes. The retired category consisted of 15 per cent and 1Ashton, "Boating Carrying Capacity," p. 117. 46 m m H a m e m m nonuo ma «H ma ma OH me we ma omueumm a A m m m m m m emsoHOEmumamm ma ma mm mm m N ma om m>wumummo IcmEmuumuU mm mm mm mm up on Am mm Hmofiasomu Iamcowmmmmoum ©0230 .Qmwm Omczo .mmmm Omczo .mmmm 00:30 .mmmm mumom w w mumom m w mumom w w mumom m w coeummsuoo mmxmq m mxmq mmmo mxmq pumnouo mxmq cowgo .Omc3o mumon mo mmmucmouma man can magma Susan 0:» co mucmpcommmu mw>usm cmaummwu mmma mo mmmucmoumm on» «O comwummEoo 0£B||.m mange 47 13 per cent respectively. For all practical purposes, these two lakes show the same distributions. Orchard Lake had approximately the same proportion of retirees as Union and Cass Lakes but it had approximately 20 per cent more of its population than the other two lakes in the professional-technical class and almost none in the craftsmen-operative category. This was to be eXpected because the residences on Orchard Lake are of obviously higher value. As mentioned before, there was an average Of approximately two boats per riparian respondent in the present study. When a closer examination of the number Of boats owned by respondents in each occupation category is made, an interesting relationship is revealed. The percentage of respondents in each of the categories corres- ponds exactly with the percentage Of boats owned by those respondents in each category (see Table 6). This relation- ship suggests that boat ownership is evenly distributed throughout the riparian population regardless Of the occupation of the "head of the family." This conclusion is reinforced by the data for each of the study lakes when examined individually (see Table 6). Closer examination of the distribution of boat ownership reveals that water-skiing boats are the kinds of boats most frequently owned by riparians (see Table 7). In every occupation category with the exception of retired 48 mm.m ma. ma. ma. mm. mm. 00. mm. mm. mm. Honuo mm.a mo. mo. «a. em. em. 00. we. mm. mm. Omuaumm oo.~ 00. am. am. am. mm. 00. mm. mm. ma. ammoHQEm Imamm om.a mo. Ha. ma. om. om. mo. pm. me. «a. mm>wumummo IcmEmummuO mm.a mo. mo. ma. mm. Ho. Ho. om. Hm. ma. Hmowcnomu IHMOOflmmmmoum umom wcfifixm umom Hmuoa umcuo nomasuo cooucom 30m luoumz mmuo Oswnmwm Hflmm mocmo cowummsooo .mmxma monum moms» on» so muommumo coaummsuoo some MOM ucmocommmu >O>usm cmwummwu momahzxmpmc3o upon max» can gonad: mnBII.n mqmde 49 persons, water-skiing boats were the kind of boat owned most frequently by the riparian owners; well over half had boats used for this purpose. Retirees most often owned fishing boats but water- skiing boats were second along with rowboats. Sailboats were next in frequency of retiree ownership. The higher frequencies among passive type boating (fishing, rowboat, and sailboat) shows a tendency toward less active boating by retired persons. It is interesting to note that while sailboats ranked second in frequency of ownership with professional- technical workers, they had a relatively low popularity among craftsmen-Operative workers. Overall, the frequency ranking shows boats used for water skiing are most numerous followed by fishing boats, rowboats, and sailboats in that order. The other categories of boats are far less numerous than those mentioned (see Appendix E—2 for a detailed frequency table). Tables showing the frequency of each type boat in the various occupation categories for the individual lakes can be found in Appendix E-2. Income The annual income of the riparian family was grouped into the following categories in order to corres- pond with the categories used in Ashton's companion study: 50 (1) $4,999 or under (2) $5,000 to 6,999 (3) $7,000 to 7,999 (4) $8,000 to 9,999 (5) $10,000 to 14,999 (6) $15,000 to 19,999 (7) $20,000 to 24,999 (8) $25,000 and over Table 8 shows the distribution of responses for each of the income categories. The income data in Table 8 shows that one-third of the riparians responding to the income questionl earned less than $15,000 while one-third fell between $15,000 and $24,999 and one-third earned $25,000 and over. These findings are significantly higher than those of both Ashton's study of transient boaters on the three study lakes, and the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Studyfs figures on Michigan recreational boaters as a whole. The Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study found that over two-thirds of the respondents had family incomes 1The percentage response to the income question was 42 per cent compared to 51 per cent which was the response for the questionnaire. Of those responding 82 per cent answered the income question. 51 TABLE 8.--The distribution of 1969 riparian survey respondents by family income groups compared to the 1964 Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study and national values. Union, Cass, 8 Orchard Income Lake Riparians 1969 R21:::Z::d U.S. Families and Grou Egat sa Families Individuals p Number of Percentage 19:: in 1963a in Michigan Respondents of Total 1960a N a $4,999- under 17 4% 9.5% 6,999 12 2 32.2 $7,000- 7,999 8 l $b b $8,000- 9,999 20 5 20.4 a $10,000‘ 1 14,999 98 21 24.7 J $15,000- , a 19,999 86 23 5... $20,000- 24,999 42 11 13.2 5.4% $25,000- over 124 33 J a J aFigures were taken from the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, p. 10.9. b . . . Data for equ1valent categor1es not ava1lable. 52 of from $6,000 to $15,000.1 The largest response was in the $10,000-$14,999 income level with 24.7 per cent.2 Ashton found that approximately one-half of the "boating party heads" of transient boaters had incomes of less than $15,000 per year. One-fourth did not respond.3 When the responses to the question of family income in the three studies mentioned are compared substantial differences are found. Eighty-seven per cent of the re- spondents to the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study (Michigan recreational boaters as a whole) had incomes Of less than $15,000 a year, 67 per cent of the respondent transient boaters on the study lakes had an annual salary below $15,000 and only 33 per cent of the riparian respon- dents had incomes under $15,000. The boaters of Oakland County have higher incomes than the average boater in the state of Michigan. Within Oakland County, the riparians have an average income significantly higher than that of transient boaters. Only one-third of the transient boaters have incomes in excess of $15,000 per year, while the riparians have one-third making $25,000 and over. When considered alone, Union Lake had basically the same pattern among the higher income categories as the 1Michigan State University, Demand Study, p. 10.9. Ibid. 3Ashton, "Boating Carrying Capacity," p. 116. 53 three lakes combined. Orchard Lake had 65 per cent of its respondents in the $25,000 a year and over category; this amounted to 31 responses in the $25,000 and over and only 16 in the other seven categories. Cass Lake had only 37 respondents with incomes lower than $10,000 a year and 168 with incomes which were above this level. When income is compared to the number of boats owned a relationship similar to that with occupation is observed. Comparison of the percentage of respondents in each income category and the percentage of the boats owned by each of those categories reveals the greatest difference between any pair of per- centages is only 3 per cent (see Table 9). The three study lakes show the same parallel relationship individually and in no case does the percentage of respondents in each in- come category compared to the percentage of boats owned by that category differ by more than 4 per cent. The con- sistency of this relationship indicates that there are no tendencies for respondents in any income group to own more boats than respondents in the other income categories. Correlation of income to boat type is another aSpect of the data which deserves mention. The frequencies for the four lowest incomes become too small for analysis when tabulated by individual lakes. There will be no attempt to use these figures except when combined and used for the three lakes together. 54 mm om Hm mm mm mm vm mm HO>0Iooo.mmm HH oa m m m m ma ea mmm.vmlooo.omw mm Hm ha SH ma ma mm mm mmm.ma|ooo.mam an em mm mm m m om mm mmm.vauooo.oam m m e a m m e m mafimnooogm H m N N o o H m mmm.nnooo.hm m m m m a m m m mmm.m|ooo.mw v v m m m N m m umpcssmmm.vm Omczo .mmmm @0230 .mmmm Omcso .mmmm Omc3o .mmmm mumom w w mumom m w mumom w w mumom w a mEoocH mmxmq m mxmq mmmo mxmq Oumnouo mxmq coHcD .Omc3o mumon mo mmmucmoumm on» was mmxma hogan may no mommmao mEOOcH muoflum> OH mucmpcommmu wm>u5m cmwummwu moma mo mmwucmoumm mnu mo cOmHummEooal.m mamda 55 Table 10 indicates the distribution of respondents among income categories for each lake; note the low per- centage of respondents in the income levels below $10,000 per year. TABLE 10.--The distribution of 1969 riparian survey respon- dents by income categories and lake. Per Cent Response by Lake Income Union Orchard Cass Lake Lake Lake $ 4,999 and under 3 2 5 $ 5,000- 6,999 3 2 3 $ 7,000- 7,999 2 0 2 $ 8,000- 9,999 3 2 7 $10,000-14,999 23 8 28 $15,000-19,999 29 15 17 $20,000-24,999 14 6 9 $25,000 and over 23 65 28 Respondents with incomes lower than $10,000 favored water skiing and fishing boats but rowboats were also popular. For the three lakes combined (see Table 11), water-skiing boats were owned by more riparians in each of the high income categories ($10,000 and above) than any other type of boat. Fishing boats ranked second. Fairly high frequencies among sailboats and rowboats were also recorded. For detailed data concerning the ranking of boat popularity by individual lake for income see Appendix E-4. 56 «H.N 0H. mo. mm. mm. ma. «0. om. mm. 0H. Hw>o Iooo.m~m mo.m mo. NH. mm. om. NH. 00. ow. Hm. ha. mmm.e~ Iooo.o~m mo.m mo. mo. mm. em. ea. Ho. mm. mm. mm. mmm.ma Iooo.mam mo.a mo. mo. mm. mm. ea. Ho. Hm. ma. ma. mmm.va $8.3m om.H ma. oa. ma. om. om. oo.H mm. om. mo. mmm.m Iooo.mm mm.H ma. 00. mm. mm. ma. 00. mm. ma. ma. mmm.> Iooo.nm mv.H mm. mo. mm. mm. 00. 00. mm. mo. na. mam.» Iooo.mm an.a NH. mo. ma. mm. mo. 00. mm. ea. NH. Hmong can mmm.vm umom mcflwxm umom muouu Hmuos umnuo ummwsuu 30m lumps: cooucom memo mcficmflm Hamm mocmu mEoocH .mmxma musum woman may MOM muommumo mEoocH comm cfl ucmOcommmu mm>usm cmfiummwu mmma umm umon Oahu paw Hogans O£BII.~H mammq mumom m0 w .02 GOHDOOSUM mmcommmm mo ucmu Mom m.mmxma hogan on» u0m Hm>ma Hmcowumosno Ommc paocmmson mcu ma mucmpcommmn >m>usm cmwummflu moma mo coflusnwuumwalc.ma mqmdg 60 to the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study question- naire in the following manner: . . . 47.6 percent had between 9 and 12 years of schooling, 23.9 percent between 13 and 15 years of schooling, 18.5 percent 16 or more years, and 10.0 percent 8 years or less of schooling.1 The conclusion that riparians on the study lakes have more education than boaters generally is probably related to the fact that with more education there is a better chance of obtaining an occupation with a high salary, and this higher income enables a person to afford the more costly riparian land. Further analysis of the educational level data indicates that Union and Cass lakes have similar distri- butions of educational achievement by family heads while Orchard Lake has a substantially smaller percentage of responses in the lower educational levels. Union and Cass lakes have 34 per cent and 45 per cent respectively of responses in the high school graduate or below levels, while Orchard has only 12 per cent in these categories (see Table 12). Education follows the same trend as occupation and income when compared to the number of boats owned. The same parallel relationship exists when the percentage of respondents in each education category is compared with the percentage of the total number of boats owned. The 1Michigan State University, Demand Study, p. 10.11. 61 greatest difference between pairs of percentages is 2 per cent (see Table 12). This relationships holds true when the lakes are examined individually. These data appear to indicate that the level of education among the riparian household heads on the three study lakes is not related to the number of boats owned. A riparian with an eighth grade or less education is apt to own the same number of boats as a riparian with a higher educational attainment level. When the data from all three lakes is aggregated (see Table 14), water-skiing boats seem to be the most frequently owned type of boat in every education category except "8th grade or less" where fishing boats have the highest ranking. Fishing boats had the second highest occurrence in all categories except 8th grade or less, college graduate and advanced degree. Fishing boats ranked third among the latter two while sailboats were second. Rowboats had a consistently high occurrence for all categories. For this same data by individual lakes see Appendix E-3. Use Patterns The use patterns of riparian and transient boaters can.be expected to differ for a variety of reasons. The £>roximity of residence in relation to water has an effect upon the time required for a boating experience. A boater Mflno must travel to a lake with public access spends time 62 .mmfiocmskum 30H mo mmsmomn pwuquo mp3 maommumo encapsumg one Q m m OH NH ON a mmummo pmocm>p¢ m 4 ON mN a 4 x00: mumspmuo umoa AN 8N Nm Nm AN SH mumsppuo mmwNNoo mN mN SN mN pm pm mmmNNoo maom NN 4N m 8 MN 4N mumspmuo Nooaom poem ma AN m N m m Noopom Baez meow m e e e H a mmmq no mpmuw sum Omczo .mmmm Omczo .mmmm Omc3o .dmmm mumom w m mpmom w w mumom w w mxmq mmmu mxma Oumnouo mxmq cowco Hm>mq Hmcoflumosnm m.mmmao ucmEcflmuum Hmcoaumospm Omen ansmmsoc ma mxma wcsum HMOON>HOGH 3080 so Omc3o mumou mo mmmucmouom on» was mucmpcommmu >m>nsm coaummwu mmma mo mmmucmoumm on» no COmflumOEoo mnaln.ma mamas 63 .moHocosonm 30H mo omsooon oouuHEo mm3 muomoumo zucopsum= one o mo.~ OH. OH. mm. em. no. 00. mm. me. mH. oonmoo ooco>pd mH.N mo. mo. mm. mm. mm. «0. mm. mm. MH. xnog opmsoouo umom mo.m «0. mo. om. «O. NH. Ho. em. mm. vH. ouosvouw omoHHoo mm.H no. no. mm. mm. OH. Ho. om. em. OH. omoHHOO oEom mm.H mo. HH. mm. mm. mH. Ho. em. mm. NH. oumoomuo Hooaom nmflm mn.H OH. mH. mm. mm. OH. mo. em. mH. NH. Hoonom nmfim oEOm om.H «H. no. HN. mm. NH. 00. em. 00. no. mmoH no opouw sum umom mcHme umom HouOB uonuo HomHsuu 30m nuouoz coouaom mono OCHcmHm HHom oocou MHo>oH HMGOHuoosom poczo muoom mo momwe .moon mpsuw oousu on» MOM anomouoo HocoHuoOSOo sumo OH ucopcommon >o>usm cmHuomHu mmmH mom ooczo muoon mo woman paw Hogans oseln.VH mamHuN No. HN NH NN. N HH No. NH NH NN. NN NH mcHaaHsN No. HN NH NH. N N NN. NH NH No. NN HH Noon can ocoN oaHa No. oN HH No. N NH HH. oN oH NN. NH NH sag No. N NH NN. NH H NH. HN N NN. NH NH ouHN oooooc No. NN N HN. NH N no. NH NH No. NH HH NcHonsuouos No. NN N No. H NH NH. HN N NH. NN oH upogoououcm son oH. NN N NH. HH N No. NH HH oH. NN N uaoHnouN «NNH Houoaoo No. NN N NH. N N NH. NN N NH. on N oaHnNHN No. oN HH NH. N N NH. NN N HH. NN N aoHuoHHoN NH. NH H HH. N N No. HH NH NH. oN N ooHoz NH. NN N HN. NH N HH. NN N HH. NN N Nuuoooum can ousmHN HH. HN N HN. NH H NH. NN H HH. NN H wouuHH NH. NH N HN. N NH HH. NN N NH. HN N NNHHoauN anon NN. HN N HN. NH H NN. NH N NN. NNH N uoaoN can oooom NN. NNH H HN. NH H NN. NN H NN. NNH H popaouo .mnom .oz xcam .muom .oz xcom .mmom .oz xdum .muom .02 Hand .oz .02 .oz .02 nouauHuu< o>Huouoz undo uuonouo sown: noxoq m HH¢ .quOH annu- Oouau can now cannon-cu O>Hunoon uaoucon-ou mo>unu cdHuomHu ome no mgaxndu can hucoauoumnu.mH uqmdfi 70 lakes because of the dangers associated with high-powered boats traveling at high speeds. Another significant finding is that noise ranked sixth in frequency for all the lakes combined. However, its position varied from fourth on Cass Lake to twelfth on Union Lake. One possible explanation of why a greater number of peOple consider noise a problem on Cass Lake is that, because of its size, it attracts a larger number of high-powered "drag" boats which are associated with high noise levels. Pollution is considered a major problem on Union Lake, ranking third. On Cass Lake it was considered of less importance, ranking fourteenth. Orchard Lake re- spondents placed pollution in the middle of the scale at ninth position. It is interesting to note that while Orchard Lake respondents ranked pollution as being of less significance, litter was first with the same number of complaints as crowdedness, and speed and power. Orchard Lake riparians also considered water-skiing much more of a problem, plac- ing it in fifth position, while Cass and Union respondents ranked it ninth and sixteenth respectively. Complaints about the public access sites ranked high among Orchard and Union lakes riparian owners but was ranked last for Cass Lake. This may be due to the influence of the organized lake associations, which tend to strongly oppose public access sites on their lakes. 71 There were only two positive attitude categories which received a significant number of responses (see Table 16). These were the "general positive response" group and "law enforcement" class. It is interesting to note that there were very few positive responses from Orchard Lake riparians. From an examination of the questionnaires from respondents who answered the question about their experi- ences on the lake (question 16) and also indicated an attitude of some kind in questions 23 and 24, it was found that having good boating experiences apparently had little to do with their attitudes. The respondents who said they had enjoyed positive type experiences were responsible for 102 complaints and only two responses of a positive type. Those who said they had negative experiences generated 539 negative attitude responses and 13 positive attitude responses. This indicates that the attitudes expressed in the questionnaire were not based on temporary emotions triggered by an unfortunate experience but rather are general attitudes strongly felt by the respondent. Attitudes and Socio-economic Characteristics When income data from all three lakes are examined in aggregate, a relationship which appears to be generally common to each lake individually is revealed. The values in the columns headed "percentage of negative responses" 72 .uucoocomuou no Hones: on» an cooH>Ho nouauHuuu obwuHuom uo Honaszu Ho. 0 H 00. oo. o o co. co. 0 o 00. no. a N no. mo. vm H no. NNOOO o oo. o o 00. H 0 Ho. H n 00. H 9 Ho. H m co. H H mo. mH N mc. mu H ao. OH H ho. mm ooHsN can ocHHuaom anon ouHm ascend I’QNH aaQEUOHOHGH 3nd HNMMM ougoaoon o>HuHuom Houonoo .mnom .Oz Hana .maom ooz 002 .oz .02 .oz Hana .mnom .02 Hand .maom .oz Haum .333: 033.8 undo phonouo ooHoo noxoa N HHH .noon oounu HHu scum nucoocomnou. ao>uan cdHuanu mme wn 00H¢o>ou novauHuuo o>HuHoom Ho unovcomuou Mom Honaug can .uonaag .mcHHHGMII.OH manta 73 and "percentage of respondents" show a direct relation- ship. The figures are almost the same in each column for each income category. This indicates that generally user satisfaction did not vary with income (see Table 17). However, there does seem to be a slight inclination for the respondents in income categories $10,000 to $14,999 and $15,000 to $19,999 to express a higher percentage of positive attitudes than other respondents. Orchard Lake is the exception with 100 per cent of its positive re- sponses coming from the $25,000 and over category. For detailed data concerning the frequency of attitudes com- pared to income categories by individual lakes refer to Appendices G-l through G-3. When the attitude responses are arranged and analy- zed in a similar manner by education levels, the pattern is almost as regular as it is for income (see Table 18 and Appendices H-l through H-3). The "percent of nega— tive responses" values in Table 18 differ from the "per— centage of riparians" by a maximum of 2 per cent in any one class. This also appears to indicate that there is no appreciable difference between the attitudes of riparians with different head of household educational attainment levels. The "percentage of positive response" values also correspond closely to the "percentage of respondents" values except for the "some college" and "college gradu— ate" categories. The "some college" category has a 74 m.o m.m mm Hm om vNH mH Hmm Ho>o w ooo.mmm H.o o.N N N NH NH N NN NNN.HNIooo.oNN H.o N.N NN HN HN NN HH HNN NNN.NHINNN.NHN N.o H.N NN NN HN NN NH NNN NNN.HHuooo.oHN N.o N.H o N N NN o NH NNN.NINNN.NN o.o N.H N N N N o NH NNN.NINNN.NN o.o o.N o N N NH o HN NNN.Nnooo.NN N.o N.N N H H N N HH noon: N NNN.HN .mmom .mmom . . .mmom .mmom .mmo mucoo .mmom .mmom mom moz .mom .moz Nm Icommom .mom .moz oEoocH w w .02 .oz .02 mucopcommom .moxMH ooHsu HHo EOHM musoocommou >o>uso GMHHMOHH mmmH How mmmHO oEoocH SQ mopsuHuuo o>Huomoc paw o>HuHmom mo hocosvonII.NH mqmée 75 N.N o.N o o o N o H uaoooum H.o N.N OH NH N NH N NNH oopmoo oooco>o< H.o H.N N N N NN N NN Huoa ouMSOoHO umom H.o o.N OH NH NH NN N NNH ouoooouo oNoHHoo N.N N.N NH NN NN NHH NN HHN oNoHHoo oaom H.o H.N NH NN NN HNH NH NoN ouosoouo HoosoN NNH: H.o N.N HH HH NH NN N NHH HoonoN NNHN oeom N.N H.N N N N HH N NN oNoH Ho ooouo nuN .mwom .mmwm .mmom .mmom .mmo mucoo .mmom .mmom o om z .mom .moz m Icommom .mom .moz H >oH N N N .oz .oz .oz ooHuoooom mucoocommom .moxMH oounu HHo Eoum mucoOcommoH >o>u9m coHHoOHH mNmH HOm Ho>oH coHuoosoo an mopsuHuuo o>Huomoc poo o>HuHmom mo mucosvoumnl.mH mamas 76 slightly higher percentage of positive attitudes per respondent while the ”college graduate" group exhibits a lower value. A similar analysis of the data by occupational classes showed that none of the classes had more of a tendency toward negative attitudes than any other (see Table 19 and Appendices I—l through I-3). The same is true for the positive attitudes with the exception of the "other" category; however, it only accounts for 2 per cent of the total respondents. Use Patterns When the total hours per respondent are analyzed by occupation, income, and education classes (see Appen- dices F-l through F-3 respectively) and compared with the number of negative responses per respondent (Tables 17, 18, and 19) no relationships appear to exist. Unlike Ashton's finding that "the level of boat user dissatis- faction was found to be directly related to the intensity of use,"1 it seems that riparian attitudes are not re- lated to the amount of boating done by the respondent. On high use lakes, the riparian lives constantly with the 'various uses and environmental problems of his lake, and is likely to be dissatisfied regardless of the amount of time he uses the lake. In many instances, respondents 1Ashton, "Boating Carrying Capacity," p. 120. 77 m.o H.N m N N m N mH Honuo H.o N.N OH HH HH mo N NNH OoHHuom H.N N.N N N N HN H HN ooNoneoumHoN H.o H.N NH NH NH Hm NH NNH mo>HuoHomo IcoEmumoHO H.o N.N HN mm m omN mm mmm HoOHcsoou IHoGOHmmomon .mmom .mmom .mmom .mmom mucoc .mmom .mmom .mom .woz . . .mmom . mom moz w Icommom mom .moz GOHuomsooo w m .02 .02 .Oz mucoocommom .moon oounu HHo Eon“ mucoocommou No>usm GMHHNQHH NNNH How coHuoOsooo Na mopsuHuuo o>Huomoc Odo o>HuHmom mo mucoswoumnl.mH mqmda 78 indicated they did not boat during certain periods because of the crowdedness. SO, for the riparian, dissatisfaction is often the reason for lower use levels. On the other hand, the transient boater who is highly dissatisfied will probably go to another lake rather than modify his boating to avoid unsatisfactory conditions. This situation is unfortunate when it is recollected, from Table 2, that riparians when asked why they chose to live on the lake have as the two most frequent responses: (1) for its recreational potential, and (2) because of the environment. The riparian boater cannot escape the problems of over- crowdedness as easily as the transient boater so he is forced to live with them. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The goal of this investigation was to determine whether certain relationships exist between riparian boat owner behavior, attitudes, and socio-economic charac- teristics. It was felt that if a definite relationship could be established between the number of boats per riparian, or the amount of boat use by riparians, and some measurable characteristic of that riparian (like socio—economic characteristics) then the Waterways Com- mission could use it as a guide in future predictions. If the Waterways Commission could predict the number of boats and amount of use by riparians, they could obtain a better understanding of the demand for boating placed on an inland lake by the riparian sector. With the addition of this data to other information concerning boating demand, the Waterways Commission would have an improved basis for predicting total demand. This would result in better planning of their public access site program. It was also felt that if such relationships could be identified, it might be possible to predict 79 80 changes in riparian behavior and attitudes in a manner that would be useful to the Waterways Commission in its planning activities. In order to determine if such relationships did exist, the following hypotheses were formulated and tested. Number and Type of Boat Owned First, it was hypothesized that there was a direct relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the riparians and the number and type of boats owned. It was theorized that as income, education, and occupation (from unemployed to professional-technical) increases, the number of boats owned will also increase and there will be a tendency for certain classes of riparians to own certain types of boats. There was a slightly higher number of boats per respondent on Orchard Lake (2.3) than there was for Union or Cass lakes (both 1.9). As a whole, the riparians studied averaged approximately two boats per respondent. Compared with transient boaters in Oakland County and Michigan boaters as a whole, there was a higher percentage of riparian boaters in the professional—technical occu- pational category and fewer in the craftsmen-operative category. Boats were distributed quite evenly among respondents with no appreciable tendency for any occu— pational category to own more or less boats. There was 81 a slight tendency for retired riparians to own a higher proportion of boats used in more passive forms of recre— ation such as fishing. The incomes of the riparian respondents were sub- stantially higher than either the transient boaters using the same lakes or Michigan boaters as a whole. However, no income group within the riparian pOpulation studied was more likely to own a certain number or type of boat than any other group. As in the case of occupation and income, riparians on the average had higher levels of education than other boater groups. These findings were expected because they are all interrelated. The riparian land is more expen- sive, so it was obvious that the people who would own such land would have to receive higher incomes than the average boater; this is obtained through better paying occupations (professional-technical) for which normally a higher level of education is required. Education was not found, however, to be related to the number of boats owned by riparians. The same types of boats were generally found to be popular regardless of educational achievement level. Although no relationships were found between any of the socio-economic characteristics and the number of boats owned, it is significant that the three lakes averaged two boats per riparian respondent. Even though 82 the three lakes studies represented three substantially different patterns of riparian owner socio—economic characteristics, boat ownership remained remarkably con- stant. The figure of approximately two boats per riparian may be reasonably typical for lakes in Oakland County, and could be representative of a much larger region. Level of Dissatisfaction It was hypothesized that the level of riparian owner dissatisfaction with boating conditions is directly related to socio-economic characteristics. It was sug- gested that as income, education, and occupational levels increase there is a greater level of dissatisfaction. It was found, however, that on the study lakes, any re- spondent regardless of his income, education, or occu- pational level was as likely to have negative attitudes and to be dissatisfied as any other respondent. This seems to indicate that the attitudes of riparians have developed from his experiences rather than his status in life. The survey also showed that riparians on all the lakes experienced the same problems and shared similar attitudes toward boating. In fact, the attitudes were so similar among these riparians that it is believed that they may be typical for riparians in general who live on a lake which is provided with public access 83 facilities.1 The understanding of these attitudes and feelings can provide the Waterways Commission a better indication of the problems and thereby aid them in avoid- ing similar problems in the future. Amount of Boatingdand Attitudes It was also hypothesized that there is a direct relationship between the amount of boating undertaken by a riparian respondent and his prOpensity to have a nega- tive attitude toward conditions on his lake. Although this was found to be true in Ashton's study Of transient boaters on the study lakes, this was not the case among the riparian boaters. Many respondents indicated that they refused to boat during periods of high use because of the problems they encounter. Recommendations for Improvement of the Questionnaire Even though none of the hypotheses proved to be true, a great deal was learned about the riparian and his attitudes. If future studies along these lines are under- taken, more could be learned about attitudes by improving the section designed to gain this data. The attitudes information for this study came from a surprisingly good 1However, it must be remembered that nearly all of the riparian respondents on the three lakes surveyed were in the middle and upper income groups; 89 per cent earned $10,000 or more. Riparian populations with more substan— tial representation from lower income categories may exhibit different attitude patterns. 84 response to the Open ended questions asking for remarks and suggestions (Questions 23 and 24, Appendix A). This response was interpreted to be an indication of a willing- ness and interest among the riparians to make his attitudes known. It was found that these attitudes fell into the seventeen negative and four positive categories listed at the beginning of the attitudes section of this thesis. By using these categories as a basis, some questions directly concerned with attitudes could be included without “lead— ing" the respondent. Information received in some questions proved to be unusable and it is suggested these questions be drOpped. Question 7 dealing with facilities present at the property provided no useful data because of poor response. The time and date portions of Question 16 resulted in such vague information that it was of little value. Question 17 seemed to be difficult for respondents to understand and few followed the directions. The large number of lakes listed in this question led to data so spread out that it could not be used in any analysis. If Questions l3, l4, and 15 are to be used again they should be refined in order to be easier to understand and result in more meaningful information. The socio—economic questions were as well received as could be expected; a method of printing the justifi- cation of that section in a way to better catch the eye 85 it is felt would result in increased response to these questions. Distribution of the questionnaire by hand proved to be extremely time consuming and should only be attempted if plenty of time can be alloted. Also this method had some logistical problems such as carrying enough question- naires to prevent constant backtracking to a vehicle, walking around fences between homes, and avoiding un— friendly dogs. Future Demand on Public Access Sites It must be realized that the creation of a public access site on a lake automatically causes problems for riparians. While Michigan's peOple are entitled to use its resources, the rights of the individual must also be protected. The problem of the disregard for property which does not belong to an individual is an old one, and attempts should be made to alleviate some of the common problems like crowding, pollution, and litter. The demand for recreational activities is growing and there will be constant pressure for the public access sites to be used for other activities. The Outdoor Recre— ation Resources Review Commission study indicated that by the year 2000 swimming will be the most pOpular single outdoor recreation activity exceeding even driving for 86 pleasure, which now holds first place.1 It is felt by the author that the typical Michigan public access site is too small to support other water-based recreation activities and that policies must be established which are directed towards limiting the types and volume of use at problem sites. Users must be directed to more satisfactory locations wherever possible. Wide scale use of the sites for other activities will cause additional friction between the Waterways Commission and riparian and should be avoided. There is a need to work with the riparian rather than against him in future attempts at meeting the growing demand for recreational oppor- tunities. . lU.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- mission, Outdoor Recreation in America, p. 173. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Clawson, M., and Knetch, J. L. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Resources for the Future. Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966. Reports and Transactions Crapo, Douglas, and Chubb, Michael. Recreation Area Day— Use Investigation Techniques: Part I, A Study of Survey Methodology. :Technical Report No. 6. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1969. Humphrys, C. R. Watershed Management. Lansing, Mich.: Privately printed. Michigan State University. Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, July 1966. Ourdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. National Recreation Survey. Study Report No. 19. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. . Projections to the Years 1966 and 2000: Economic Growth, Pdpulation, Labor Force and Leisure, and Transportation. Study Report No. 23. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. . Outdoor Recredtion for America. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962. Threinen, W. W. "An Analysis of Space Demands for Water and Shore." Transactions of the Twenty—ninth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Washington, D. C., March 1964. 87 88 Unpublished Materials Ashton, Peter Geoffrey. "Recreational Boating Carrying Capacity: A Preliminary Study of Three Heavily Used Lakes in Southeastern Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Fanselow, Floyd G. "Public Access to Lakes and Streams in Michigan." Paper presented at the Fourteenth Midwest Wildlife Conference, Des Moines, Iowa, December 18, 1952. . "The Public Access Program." A paper read before the meeting of the Michigan Marine Dealers' Association Seminar, Detroit, Michigan, February 16, 1961. "Program Statement Public Access Site Program, Michigan State Waterways Commission, Department of Natural Resources." Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State Waterways Commission, 1970. U.S. Government Publications U.S. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Outdoor Recreation Trends. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, I964. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRE DISTRIBUTED TO THE RIPARIANS OF THE STUDY LAKES DATE HAVE YOU COMPLETED THIS QUESTIONNAIRE BEFORE? [3,yes [:lno IF YES COMPLETE ONLY QUESTIONS II THRU 17 OF THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. 2. 00 YOU OHN 0a RENT THIS PROPERTY? (Check one)Down Brent Dguest 3. DO YOU RESIDE HERE THE ENTIRE YEAR? [3 yes [:lno IF NO ON THE AVERAGE. HOW LONG 00 YOU OCCUPY THIS RESIDENCE EACH YEAR? months weeks or If only weekends how many PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOHING INFORMATION CONCERNING YOUR PERMANENT RESIDENCE. zip code city county 4. HOH LONG HAVE YOU OHNED OR RENTEO THIS PROPERTY? years months 5. HHY DID YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE ON THIS LAKE? 6. HOH MUCH FRONTAGE. ON THE HATER. DO YOU HAVE WITH THIS PROPERTY? feet 7. PLEASE CHECK ALL THE FACILITIES RHICH ARE PRESENT ON THIS PROPERTY: 0 DOCK D BOAT HOIST DBOAT HOUSE 0 TRAILER LAUNCH FACILITY DSANO BEACH D OTHER (specify) DANCHORED FLOAT FOR SHIHHING 8. HOW MANY BOATS DO YOU HON? 9. HOW MANY OF THE BOATS YOU OHN ARE KEPT AT THIS LAKE? 10. DO YOU KEEP ANY BOATS OTHER THAN YOUR OWN AT THIS LAKE? C] no C] yes how many 89 gabl‘uflllx I II. 90 PLEASE COMPLETE THE FOLLOHING INFORMATION ABOUT THE BOATS KEPT ON YOUR PROPERTY. TYPE NUMBER LENGTH HORSEPOHER DO YOU OHM? (Check) 'YES NO 12. FOR EACH DAY DURING THE PAST HEEK INDICATE THE NUMBER OF HOURS THAT THE BOATS KEPT ON THIS PROPERIY HERE ACTUALLY USED FOR IRE-FOEEOHTNG ACTIVITIES: BOATING MON. TUE. HED. THURS. FRI. S T. SUN. ACTIVITIES (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) (hours) 13. IS THE PATTERN IN QUESTION 12 TYPICAL OF YOUR NORMAL USE? Dyes Duo IF NO PLEASE BRIEFLY DESCRIBE HOH THIS DIFFERS FROM YOUR NORMAL USE. 14. HHAT FACTORS DETERMINE YOUR TYPICAL SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES AS YOU HAVE INDICATED THEM ABOVE? 9]. 15. HOH DO YOU FEEL ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCES ON THIS LAKE DURING THE PAST HEEK? 16. IS THERE ANYTHING HHICH STANDS OUT IN YOUR MIND ABOUT YOUR EXPERIENCES ON THE LAKE THIS PAST HEEK? Ono Dyes specify NHAT STANDS OUT? TIME DATE HHY DO THESE STAND OUT IN YOUR MIND? 17. DO YOU BOAT ON OTHER LAKES? n no 0 yes HHAT LAKES? HHEN? (Chock‘one) NEEKOAYSD HEEKENDSD HOLIDAYSU HON MANY TIMES PER BOATING SEASON? IF YES HHY DO you CHOOSE ANOTHER LAKE? IB. HAVE YOU USED THIS LAKE'S PUBLIC ACCESS SITE TO LAUNCH YOUR BOAT THIS SUMMER? C) no Dyes. number of times IN ORDER TO FORECAST NEAT FUTURE BOATING CHARACTERISTICS IN NICEIGAN HILL BE IT IS NECESSARY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO RELATE EANILY CHARACTERISTICS TO BOATING USE PATTERNS. PLEASE ASSIST US If ANSWERING THE EOLLONING DUES- TIONS ABOUT YOUR EANILY CHARACTERISTICS. 19. HHAT IS THE AGE AND SEx OF THE “HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY?“ AGE: years DHRLE DEEMALE I1- I II Niall. u NPYH .r.‘ 1. (0‘ Iv \ 92 20. HHAT IS THE OCCUPATION OF THE |'HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY?" OCCUPATION (not organization) 21. HHICH OF THE FOLLOHING REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT OF FORMAL EDUCATION COMPLETED BY THE I'HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD?“ (Check one) DEIGHTH GRADE OR LESS 0 COLLEGE GRADUATE 050ME HIGH SCHOOL 0 POST GRADUATE NORK 0HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 0 ADVANCED DEGREE DSOME COLLEGE 0 STUDENT 22. HHICH OF THE FOLLOHING INDICATES THE TOTAL INCOME OF YOUR FAMILY IN 1969? (Check one) [334.999 or under CISl0.000 to 14.999 085.000 to 6.999 0315.000 to 19.999 037.000 to 7.999 D S20.000 to 24.999 038.000 to 9.999 0525.000 and over 23. SUGGESTIONS 0R REMARKS CONCERNING BOATING ON THIS LAKE: 24. OTHER REMARKS: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION. IF YOU HAVE MISPLACED THE RETURN ENVELOPE PLEASE SEND THE QUESTIONNAIRE TO: Robert Dittrick Recreation Research and Planning Unit Department of Park and Recreation Resources Room l3l Natural Resources Building Michigan State University East Lansing. Michigan 48823 APPENDIX B THE INTERVIEW USED BY ASHTON TO GATHER DATA FROM THE TRANSIENT BOATERS USING THE STUDY LAKES APPENDIX B. INTERVIEW SCHEDULE USED AT PUBLIC ACCESS SITES DATE TIME LAKE INTERVIEWER 1. Have we interviewed you before? *Yes No *2. What time did you arrive at this lake today? *3. What time are you leaving this lake today? *4a. How many people are in your boating party? b. Could we have your age and the six and age of the others in your party? Member interviewed 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sex Age *5. How many boats are in your party? Cruiser Sailboat Fishing Water skiing Drag boat Houseboat Canoe Runabout Other (specify) Boats Horsepower Length Type 1 2 P4::Q'§EIUIOUID 93 II 'IIIIE fr 94 *6. What was the main reason you picked Lake today? (close to home, Open water, other launch ramps crowded, good fishing, etc.) 7. Do you own property on this lake? Yes No 8. Are you a guest of a person who owns property on this lake? Yes No *9. How many days have you used Lake this summer? *10. How many days have you spent boating this summer? (anywhere) *lOA. How many times have you used Lake between Monday and Friday of this past weeE? *11. Place of residence? Zip or street and city or city and county *12. Approximately how long did you spend on the following activities today? (Approximate quarter hours) (Hand the boater a card) **Ask Specifically A. Water skiing H. Waiting in line B. Motor boat to launch boat cruising I. Waiting in line C. Fishing to load on D. Sailing ramp E. Picnicking J. Tied to private F. Sunbathing __. dock G. Swimming K. Paddling or rowing L. Other *13. OVER 95 m m a m m e m N H m m. m. m M... u 3 m... zmmo m4; Ammmum umnuo 0». mm W I. u m I. s n m. U...“ OGON mom mafia Roma 3mg» @3033 z m m. m. m. m m1 m: 33 on» :3 x2: U 3 x. 5 6 no. 5 U. T. 50 wax u. ,w w. .b sufl>wuo< «Macon oomam .2 x00» mmwuw>fiuom HDON mums3 DE 303m Dummam so» nanos cumo may no mcam nonuo may no 96 *14a. How do you feel about your experience on this lake today? (Don‘t ask about conflicts or crowded con— ditions at first, this is misleading the boaterII If boater indicates conflicts or crowding, then ask his perception of the problem!) b. What things stood out in your mind as you used the lake today? c. Do you have any opinions? 15. Employment (specific) 116. (Hand the boater a second card and ask) Would you please give me the letter which corresponds with your total family income? 17. On the reverse side of the card, would you please give me the letter which correSponds with your completed education? VERY GOOD! JUST ONE FINAL QUESTION!! *18. During any of the activities you did today, did you ever notice or feel that you were crowded? (Refer to #13 OPEN to answer question) a. Ask which areas did you feel crowded in? b. What time in each area did you begin to feel crowded? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ASSISTANCEII GOOD DAY, ETC. BOAT REGISTRATION NUMBER or IF SAILBOAT, TRAILER LICENSE NO. MC APPENDIX C COVER LETTER FOR RIPARIAN QUESTIONNAIRE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY am um . locum am DB'AI‘I‘UINT 0' PAIR AND ”CREATION IIBOUICIB - NATURAL MCI! BUILDING Dear Lake User: There is little known about the characteristics of boating and boat owners in Michigan. Through this study an attempt is being made to better understand the Michigan boater. The study is being conducted by the Department of Park and Recreation Re- sources at Michigan State University under the supervision of. and funded by, the Waterways Division of the Michigan Depart- ment of Natural Resources. Your lake is one of three chosen for this study. Your cooperation by returning the attached questionnaire in the enclosed stamped, self-addressed envelope is appreciated. For several weekends we have been interviewing boaters as they leave the public access site. The results obtained from your questionnaire will be related to the interviews taken at the public access site and to aerial photographs being taken of your lake each hour. All these will help us gain a complete perspective of the boating on your lake. We are especially concerned with your boating this past week ending Sunday, so the prompt return of your questionnaire is of utmost importance. flew 523,04 Robert Dittrick Graduate Assistant 97 APPENDIX D A TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF 1969 RIPARIAN SURVEY RESPONDENTS, AVERAGE LAKE FRONTAGE, AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF BOATS OWNED PER RIPARIAN SECTION TABLE D-l.--Number of 1969 riparian survey respondents, average lake frontage, and average number of boats owned per riparian section. ' Average Average Number 33:22:“ RZEmEESegis Frontage of Boats per p Ft. Respondent UN ION LAKE 1 25 67.0 2,3 2 20 75.9 1.9 3 19 65.8 2.0 4 10 108.6 2.2 5 31 80.4 2,0 6 64 57.2 1.9 7 13 116.6 1.5 ORCHARD LAKE 9 1 100.0 1,0 10 5 310.2 1,4 11 3 97.7 3,0 12 4 231.0 2.2 13 2 155.0 4.0 14 10 112.2 2.1 15 8 226.5 2.3 15 8 74.3 2.9 17 3 309.0 2.0 13 8 108.3 2.0 19 4 196.5 1.3 CASS LAKE 20 17 182.6 2.2 21 12 107.0 2.1 22 7 76.3 1.7 23 4 106.3 1.3 24 8 186.9 1.7 25 9 80.0 2.1 26 10 64.7 1,6 27 3 51.9 1.5 23 16 48.2 1,5 29 12 50.3 1.8 98 99 TABLE D-l.--Continued ' Average Average Number Sfififiéin Rfizmgigegis Frontage of Boats per p Ft. Respondent CASS LAKE, continued 30 28 105.2 2.0 31 18 130.2 2.4 32 17 107.5 1.4 33 61 . 114.4 1.8 34 22 93.6 2.8 35 2 315.0 3.0 36 20 109.2 2.1 APPENDIX E TABLES COMPARING THE NUMBERS AND TYPES OF BOATS OWNED TO SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF 1969 RIPARIAN SURVEY RESPONDENTS lOO N m m N m m o H m m m umnuo MH mH m SH m «H o mH mH mH SH wmuHuom a 0 8H m a HH 0 a A m a ummoHaew TMHom mH em mm mH om RH me Hm HH mH mH o>Husuoao TcoEmummuo Ham emm «om umm ewe wmm Ham Ham ewe «mm mom HHOchomu Tamcoflmmomoum umom mcwflxm umom uncommom Hmuoa Honuo Homaouu 30m Tuouoz cooucom mono mcwnmfim Hamm oocmo ucoo mom coaummoooo .mome Susan Ham you anomoumu cowummoooo Hman>HccH comm cw mucovcommou >o>uom :mwummflu mmma an vocso noon omau some mo omnucoouom O£BII.HIm mqmda .101 Hmuoe mm.N NH. mH. mm. mm. NH. 00. mN. mN. mN. m ammo om.H oo. 0m. 00. 0m. 0m. 00. oo. oo. 00. N cumnouo oo.m oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oo. oo. oo. om. om. N GOHco om.N mN. oo. mN. oo.H oo. oo. om. mN. mN. v nonuo Hmuos om.H mo. No. vm. em. vH. 00. we. mN. NN. mm mono hm.H mo. mo. mN. vm. mH. oo. om. mN. Hm. Nm cumnouo om.H oo. 00. me. 00. vH. oo. oo.H vH. wH. N coHco m>.H mH. 00. mm. Nv. mo. 00. NN. Hm. NH. 0N couHuom Hmuoa oo.N oo. HN. HN. mm. HN. 00. mm. mN. mH. vm mmmu mo.H 00. EN. EN. hm. NH. 00. NN. NH. NH. mN ousruuo oo.~ 00. mm. 00. mm. mm. 00. so. mm. 00. m osmonew COHco mo.N oo. oo. mH. mm. mm. 00. mm. om. mm. m IMHom Hobos oo.H mo. HH. wN. om. MH. mo. hm. mH. VH. Hm ammo mm.H NH. 0H. oN. mm. HH. No. hm. NH. 0H. hm cumnouo oo.m oo. oo. oo.H oo.H oo. oo. oo. oo. oo.H H o>Humuomo COHcD mm.H m0. m0. VN. vb. mH. 00. mm. HN. mo. mm TcoEmummuu Hmuoa mm.H mo. mo. mN. Hm. mH. Ho. om. Hm. mH. omN ammo oo.H vH. HH. NN. mm. HH. Ho. 0N. mm. vH. oeH uumnouo mN.N 0H. mo. HN. Nm. VN. No. mv. mv. HN. Nv HooHcsoou coHcD Nm.H mo. mo. mm. mm. OH. HO. NN. VN. no. mm uHchHmmomoum umom ucHme poom Hmuoa nonuo nomHouo .. cooucom mono mcHsmHm oocmu . moxcq 30m Tuoumz HHmm mmom COHummoooo ucwvcommom mom umom no case .02 .mome Susan on» How voc3o anon 0mm» come no manage any on woummsoo mucovcommou wo>uom cmHummHu mmmH mo GOHDEQDUDOIT.NIm mqmda 102 HsuoN mo.N so. No. on. so. NH. Ho. am. pm. «H. mm mmmo mm.H 00. OH. NN. no. NH. mo. mN. me. NH. ov nuanouo NN.N mo. NH. mm. NV. NH. 00. om. we. mN. NH assesses coch «o.N No. so. NN. me. No. 00. NN. NN. HH. NN mmmHHoo Hosea NN.H No. 50. NN. mm. NH. Ho. on. «N. NH. NHH ammo mN.H mo. NH. NN. mm. NH. 00. mN. 0N. NH. mm wasnouo Ho.N No. 00. No. NN. No. 00. NN. oq. ow. mH «NOHHoo eoHca NN.H No. mo. oN. om. NH. No. SN. mN. HH. no meow Hsuoe NN.H mo. HH. NN. mm. NH. Ho. NN. NN. NH. HOH ammo oo.N oo.H 00. No. mm. mm. 00. 00. so. 00. mm Neurone oo.N oo.H 00. No. mm. mm. 00. 00. as. co. m mussomuo EOHco Nm.H mo. no. mm. mm. mH. No. mm. NN. mH. ov Hoosum anm Hsuoe NN.H 0H. mH. NN. mm. 0H. mo. em. mH. NH. mm ammo 0H.N NH. NN. NN. om. 0H. mo. mm. NH. NH. He unanouo oo.m oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo.N oo.H 00. H Hoogum coHco No.N No. 00. on. NN. mH. NH. cm. mH. no. mH anm meow Hsuoe om.H NH. No. HN. NN. NH. 00. em. 00. no. NH ammo oN.H 0H. 0H. oN. ON. 0H. 00. cm. oo. 0H. 0H numrouo om.N oo. oo. om. om. om. oo. oo.H oo. 00. N mmmH no coHcs om.H om. oo. 00. 0m. 00. oo. om. oo. 00. N muses rum Hmuoe Hosuo HomHSHU umom mcHme cooucom mono UGHanm umom oocmu 30m lumps; , HHsm ome .02 coHumoscm unaccommom Hum umom mo mama .mome known onu How cocso umon ommu some mo Hanson one ou commmEoo mucovcommou >o>uom GMHHUQHH oomH mo coHumoscm11.mlm mamaa 103 Hmuos oo.N oo. oo. oo. oo.H oo. oo. om. om. 00. N ammo oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. o cumnouo oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. oo. o COHcD oo.N oo. oo. oo. oo.H oo. oo. om. om. 00. N ucocoum Hmuoe mo.N OH. NO. mN. vb. No. 00. NN. mq. mH. Nv mmmu HN.N mo. mo. mH. mm. HH. 00. Nm. om. Nm. mH consume HN.H oo. 00. NH. me. NH. 00. Nm. ms. 00. N Noumea coHcD oo.N mH. oo. om. mN. oo. oo. mH. Hm. mH. oH cannabvd Hmuoa MH.N mo. mo. mm. Nm. 0N. vo. mm. mN. NH. mN mmmo vv.H 00. HH. mm. vv. HH. 00. mm. 00. HH. m vnmnouo oo.m mN. MH. mN. mm. mm. mH. mm. mm. mN. m xnoz COHcD oo.N oo. oo. om. mm. 00. 00. NH. mm. 00. o mumsomuo umom usom mcHme usom ome Hmuoa uosuo ummwouu 30m luoum3 cooucom mono mcwanm HHmm oocmu .oz GOHumooDm unaccommom Mom umom mo saws concHucooll.mlm names .oHnmu own» cH cocoHocH uoc mos om mucoocommou mo hocoowoum 30H m can oxmq cumnouom 104 oN.N No. oH. oN. om. oH. mo. NN. oo. oH. mono Ho>o oo.N oH. No. an. no. oo. oo. oN. Hm. oo. coHco uooo.mNo oo.H oo. NH. NN. om. NN. oo. mm. NH. NN. mmoo moo.oN oH.N mo. mo. no. oN. oo. oo. No. oN. oH. coHoo Tooo.on No.H oo. No. HN. om. NH. oo. NN. NN. oN. mono oom.oH oN.N No. oo. mm. No. NH. No. oo. mm. oH. coHco uooo.mHm oo.H mo. oo. oN. No. oH. oo. mm. oH. oH. ammo oom.oH No.H oo. oo. om. No. NN. No. mN. NH. HH. coHco uooo.oHo M U. om mcflflxm coopcom mmHQ mafifimuflh “mom wocmu Hmuoa Honuo HomHouo 30m Tuoumz HHmw oxMH oEoocH unoccommwm mom umom mo mama m.mome mmmu 0cm GOHGD .mmwuommumo oEOUCH Hosch any cH unaccommou >o>uom cmHummHu.mmmH mom nocso mumon mo wmwu Eco Honesznl.vlm mqmda APPENDIX F TABLES COMPARING SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF 1969 RIPARIAN SURVEY RESPONDENTS TO USE PATTERNS 105 TABLE F—1.--Occupation of 1969 riparian survey respondents compared to the number of hours boated. Number of Hours Boated No. per Respondent Lake Resp. Mondays Weekdays Weekends Total PROFESSIONAL-TECHNICAL 104 1.16 4.75 4.74 10.65 Union 44 .93 4.68 5.36 10.97 Orchard 154 1.13 4.25 4.36 9.74 Cass 302 1.11 4.49 4.64 10.24 Total CRAFTSMEN-OPERATIVE 34 1.76 6.06 4.97 12.79 Union 1 .OO .00 8.00 8.00 Orchard 64 1.19 2.67 3.23 7.09 Cass 99 1.37 3.81 3.88 9.06 Total SELF-EMPLOYED 9 1.78 5.33 4.66 11.66 Union 3 2.00 8.33 3.00 13.33 Orchard 26 1.04 4.96 3.88 9.88 Cass 38 1.29 5.32 4.00 10.61 Total RETIRED 30 .40 2.67 3.07 6.13 Union 7 .43 1.86 1.14 3.48 Orchard 39 1.79 4.36 3.00 9.15 Cass 76 1.12 3.46 2.86 7.43 Total OTHER 5 1.00 4.20 2.60 7.80 Union 2 1.00 6.50 5.33 6.20 Orchard 5 .40 .80 1.00 2.20 Cass 12 .75 3.17 2.83 6.75 Total 106 TABLE F-2.--Income of 1969 riparian survey respondents compared to the number of hours boated. Number of Hours Boated No. per Respondent Resp. Lake Mondays Weekdays Weekends Total $4,999 & UNDER 10 .30 1.50 1.30 3.10 Union 1 .00 3.00 .00 3.00 Orchard 14 1.50 4.36 3.29 9.14 Cass 25 .96 3.16 2.36 6.48 Total 5 .20 1.00 .60 1.80 Union 1 .OO .00 .OO .00 Orchard 11 1.00 1.27 2.36 4.64 Cass 17 .71 1.12 1.71 2.94 Total $7,000-7,999 4 2.75 11.25 8.25 22.25 Union 0 .00 .00 .OO .00 Orchard 7 .57 .57 1.14 2.29 Cass 11 1.36 4.45 3.73 7.00 Total $8,000-9,999 6 1.17 9.50 5.83 16.50 Union 1 1.00 1.00 .00 2.00 Orchard 16 1.06 1.94 3.44 6.44 Cass 23 1.09 3.87 3.91 8.87 Total $10,000-14,999 39 .95 3.46 3.36 7.77 Union 4 .00 1.25 2.50 3.75 Orchard 64 1.16 3.27 3.67 8.09 Cass 107 1.03 3.26 3.15 7.81 Total 107 TABLE F-2.--Continued Number of Hours Boated No. per Respondent Lake Resp. Mondays Weekdays Weekends Total $15,000-19,999 46 1.30 4.24 5.20 10.74 Union 7 .86 5.14 8.57 14.57 Orchard 39 1.35 4.46 2.69 8.51 Cass 92 1.29 4.40 4.39 10.09 Total $20,000-24,000 21 2.33 7.81 6.29 16.43 Union 4 .25 2.25 3.25 5.75 Orchard 18 1.56 5.50 5.94 13.00 Cass 43 1.81 6.33 5.86 14.00 Total $25,000-OVER 35 .97 4.88 4.00 9.86 Union 32 1.03 4.91 5.50 11.44 Orchard 62 1.26 5.39 5.24 11.89 Cass 129 1.12 5.13 4.97 11.53 Total 108 TABLE F-3.--Education of 1969 riparian survey respondents compared to the number of hours boated. Number of Hours Boated No. per Respondent Resp. Lake Mondays Weekdays Weekends Total 8TH GRADE OR LESS 3 .00 2.33 1.00 3.33 Union 2 .00 3.00 4.50 7.50 Orchard 13 .23 1.15 .92 2.31 Cass 18 .17 1.56 1.33 3.06 Total SOME HIGH SCHOOL 16 .94 4.63 6.06 11.63 Union 1 .00 2.00 .00 2.00 Orchard 48 2.04 6.27 3.90 12.15 Cass 65 1.74 5.77 4.37 11.86 Total HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATE 43 1.28 5.33 3.67 10.28 Union 3 .67 1.00 .67 2.33 Orchard 65 1.31 3.69 3.75 8.75 Cass 111 1.28 4.25 3.64 9.17 Total SOME COLLEGE 67 1.34 4.81 4.31 10.46 Union 15 .80 4.53 4.67 10.00 Orchard 79 1.05 3.57 3.90 8.52 Cass 161 1.15 4.17 4.14 9.47 Total COLLEGE GRADUATE 28 .92 4.39 5.79 11.11 Union 17 1.12 4.76 5.82 11.71 Orchard 43 .95 3.47 3.84 8.26 Cass 88 .98 4.01 4.84 9.83 Total 109 TABLE F-3.--Continued Number of Hours Boated No. per Respondent Lake Resp. Mondays Weekdays Weekends Total POST GRADUATE WORK 7 1.29 5.43 6.00 12.71 Union 9 2.00 9.56 7.44 19.00 Orchard 9 .22 2.22 2.44 4.89 Cass 25 1.16 5.76 5.24 12.16 Total ADVANCED DEGREE 16 1.19 3.81 3.19 8.19 Union 7 .14 1.57 3.14 4.86 Orchard 21 1.29 4.14 6.19 11.62 Cass 44 1.07 3.61 4.61 9.30 Total STUDENT 2 .50 .50 1.00 2.00 Union 0 .OO .00 .00 .00 Orchard 0 .OO .00 .OO .00 Cass 2 .50 .50 1.00 2.00 Total APPENDIX G TABLES COMPARING FREQUENCIES OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ATTITUDES OF 1969 RIPARIAN SURVEY RESPONDENTS TO INCOME ON THE STUDY LAKES 110 N.o m.H 0N mH MN mm m mm Ho>01ooo.me N.o N.H 0N OH «H HN m on mmmaleooo.0Nw H.o N.N mm Hm mN mv m NOH mmm.mHiooo.me m.o m.N «N mN MN mm o Hm mmm.¢HIooo.0Hw N.H m.m o m m m o mH mmm.mnooo.mw o.o N.H o H N m o v mom.N?ooo.Nm o.o N.N o m m v o m mmm.m|ooo.mw o.o m.m o m m m 0 NH Hoccslmmm.vm .mmom .mmmm .m .m .m .d .m .mom .moz mom mom mom mpcoc mom mom .mom .moz m Icommom .mom .moz oEoocH unoccommmm w w .02 .oz .02 .oEOUCH ou Conmmaoo mucoccommou mo>nom cmHummHH momH ome coHGD mo mucouHuum o>wummoc can o>Huwmom mo mocooooumlu.Hlo mqmfia H.o m.N oOH om mo Hm m mN uo>OTooo.me o.o o.v 0 OH m m 0 NH mmm.oNTooo.0Nw o.o m.m 0 ON mH N o mN mmm.mH?ooo.mHm o.o N.H o m w v o N mmm.¢HTooo.0Hw o.o o.v o m N H o v mmm.m?ooo.mm o.o o.o o o o o o o mmm.Nlooo.Nm o.o o.o o o N H o o mmm.m|ooo.mw o.o o.N o N N H o N Hooooaooo.oo .mmmm .mmom .mmom .mmom menu .mmom .mmom .mom .moz . .mmom c . mom .002 w Icoamom mom .mwz oEoocH w w .02 .oz .02 unaccommmm .oEODCH ou ponmmfioo mucoccommou >o>uom cmwnmmHH mmmH ome cumnouo mo mocsuHuum o>Hummoc cam o>HuHmom mo mocoovoumlu.an mHmaa H.o o.N mN Nm mN mm N owH um>onooo.mNm o.o m.H o m m NH 0 NN mmm.vNTooo.0Nm H.o N.N 0N HN NH vm m Nm mmm.mHIooo.mHm N.o N.H ow «N mN mm OH «OH mmm.VHiooo.OHm o.o m.H o m N «H o mN mmm.m|ooo.mm o.o N.N o m N m 0 HH mom.NIooo.Nw o.o H.N o m m N o mH mmm.o|ooo.mm m.o m.H NH m m HH m HN Hoccoimmmavm .mmom .mmom .mmom .mmom mason .mmwm .mmom .mom .moz . . .mmom . mom moz w Tcommom mom .moz oEoocH unaccommom m w .02 .02 .oz .oEoocH ou coucmfioo mucoccommou wo>uom GMHHMQHH momH oxmq mmoo mo mucouHuum m>wummoc can o>HuHmom mo mocwswoumll.mlw mamas APPENDIX H TABLES COMPARING FREQUENCIES OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ATTITUDES OF 1969 RIPARIAN SURVEY RESPONDENTS TO EDUCATION ON THE STUDY LAKES 113 u- n. o H H N o N pawnsum m.o N.N mH OH m 0H e Nm mmummo umocm>o< N.o N.N w m N o H ON xuoz mumsomuw umom H.o o.N m «H 0H NN N mm mumscmuu ommHHou N.o o.N mm «m Nm mm OH NNH mmmHHou «sow N.o m.N MN NN «N ow m mm mumsumuo Hoonom anm N.o N.H NH N m NH m «N Hoonom anm mEom o.o m.v o N H N o m mmmH no momma sum .mmwm .mmwm .mmmm .mmmm .mmm mucmv .mmmm .mmmm QOH mu: m z .mom .mmz m Icommmm .mom .mmz .u cm ucmvcommmm .coHumosom ou omummEoo mucmvcommmu mw>usm cmHummHu mmmH mxmq coHcD mo mmosuHuum m>Hummmc can m>HuHmom mo mocwsvmumll.Hsm mamma 114 nu nu o o o o o o usmusum o.o o.m o «H NH N o HN mmumma nmocm>u¢ o.o «.« o «N mH m 0 mm xuoz mumsomuu umom H.o N.N mm Nm Hm mH H N« mumsumuo ommHHoo H.o N.N no MN NN mH N «m mmmHHou meow o.o o.o o o m m o o mumscmuu Hoonom anm o.o o.m o m N H o m Hoonom smHm meow o.o o.N o m « N o « mmmH Ho mcmuu gum .mmwm .mmwm .mmwm .mmmm .mmm mucmo .mmwm .mmmm m z .mom .mmz mm Icommmm .mom .mmz cowumwwwm W w .02 .02 .02 M H .H ucmocommmm .coHumosnm ou cmummfioo mucmwcommmu mm>u5m GMHHMQHH momH wxma vumnouo mo mmwsuHuum m>Hummmc can m>HuHmom mo mocmswmumnl.Nnm mqmda nn uu o o o o o o ucmosum H.o N.N N N N NH N N« mmnmmo nmocm>n< H.o o.N N « « N H NN xuoz mumscmuw umom H.o N.H N NH NH o« N am mumsnmuu mmmHHoo N.N N.N «« «N NN No NH NNH wmmHHou meow H.o N.H NH 0N «N Nm N NHH mumsomuo Hoonom smHm H.o N.N NH NH NH H« « om Hoogom smHm meow N.o N.H N N « 0H NH mama no woman sum .mmwm .mwwm .mmmm .mmmm .mmm mucmv .mmmm .mmmm coH mu: m z .mom .mmz m Icoamwm .mom .mmz .u cu m m w .o .o .0 mo Hm>mq unaccommmm z z z .COHumosvm ou UmummEoo mucmucommmu >m>u5m cmHummHu mmmH mxmq mmmo mo mmcsuHuum m>Hummmc 6cm w>HuHmom mo mocmswmumnu.mum mqmfia APPENDIX I TABLES COMPARING FREQUENCIES OF POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE ATTITUDES OF 1969 RIPARIAN SURVEY RESPONDENTS TO OCCUPATION 116 o.o m.N o N N N o m uwnuo o.o N.N v mH mH mN H mm UmuHumm N.N H.N N N N N N NN uoNoHaemumHmN H.N N.N NH NH ON NN « NN 0>Humummo ucmamummuu N.o N.N mN Nm mm mm NH mHN HNOHanowu nHmconmmmoum .mmmm .mmmm .m .m .m .m .mom .mmz mmm mmm .mmmm mucmw mmm mwm .mom .mmz w ncommmm .mom .mmz COHummsooo unaccommmm N N .02 .02 .oz .GOHummsooo ou vmummfioo mucmvcommmu >m>usm GMHHMQHH momH mxmq COHCD mo mmvsuHuum m>Hummmc mam m>HuHmom mo mocmsvmuhnl.HlH mqmde 117 m.o m.o mN o v N H H Hmnuo o.o N.N 0 NH mH N o mN vmuHuwm o.o o.N o « N N o N NmNonsmuNHmN o.o o.o o o N H o o m>HuNummo IcmEmummnu H.o N.N mN mN NN Nv m NHH HNUHGSUmu uHMGOHmmmmoum .mwwm .mwwm .mmmm .mmmm .mmm mucwc .mmmm .mmmm m .mom .mmz mm ucommmm .mom .mmz coHummsooo ucmwcommmm w w .02 .oz .02 .GOHummsuoo ou Umummeou mucwccommmu >m>usm cmHnmmHu NNNH mxmq vumsouo mo mmospHuum m>Hummmc van 0>HuHmom mo Nocmswmumuu.NuH mqmHuNummo unmEmummuU H.o N.N om vm mm ovH NH mom HMUchomu uHMGOHmmomoum .mwwm .mmwm .mmwm .mmmm .mmm mucmv .mmmm .mmmm m .mom .mmz mm ncommmm .mom .mmz GOHummsooo ucmwcommmm N w .oz .02 .oz .coHummsooo on vmummfioo mucmccommmu >m>usm cmHummHn mNmH mxmq mmmo mo mmvsuHuum m>Hummmc can m>HuHmom mo Nocwsvmumun.muH mqmde ll 111””11111111”111111111111“111111111111:11111111 3101296196