‘fi‘ " '

'\

r “a.

-;-$.‘

| -v".
'1

1-...000

.4
o.
a
' O.
.
n-n
:
o.
- .

\Qf‘QOn —....0- ~00

”9—-"-

¢-ooa..-‘ 'V\v----v - '~-- ~

SEASONAL AND PERMANENT RESIDENTS
ATTITUDES 0F IMPACTS OF RESIDENTIAL
RECREATIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENTS

Thesis for the Degree of Mg II.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
CHARLYS P. WARD
1973

 

    

-
.
, .
.
- I-
I ' -
’ . a ‘
. ' _
' '— 7.-
.
. .. . '
.
‘ l
' o -.
.
. . ‘_ _
. . , O
. . - _ .
.. . - .. . _ .
_ ' . . _ ' ' . -
. r ' .-
' .- , _ ’ -
. .. .g . . _ ' ' I c -- . o, '
. . ’ -- , .. '
-o - . . .. _
o . , _
' p...‘ O . t ‘ O
. . . - - _ - .,
. ‘ a ‘ . - _ ‘ ' v
’0. 1 u l ’ ’ V”. O "'
’ ’ .
' ' '7 - » .
' I ' no 0 . . '»
oo .. . L >.. . .° ” "' ‘ 9".
. ' . 4 .- '
‘ . a y.. .., , - .- ., '
. o .. .
' .- , .p I¢-» . . . a
o- . ... _
- -- . ’. ‘ ' -’ pr - I-rov.u ,. ' ' ‘
- g ‘ ' - I O. .‘u.
. . _
_ ' ‘ .' ' o v, . r. . .,. ,'.‘ "' I- . r.
' . - -.. ,
- .a , ,.. ... .
' ' -- ‘ 1" ."
. 4 . . . ' .".’ ‘° A
‘ .1 . , ‘ . _, ' ". o-
. ‘ ' , . . _ O. . _
. - v . I 0’ -”_ ” c
. u _ ' . ' o .' J. -, . 5 o -' ' I‘
. . .
-- - ' Irv . ..II o lo ’
n. . ’ J l l . _.- " 7 0.0.0.7
- -., u -- a. - ’ '
‘ _ - a l. - . " " O ‘-Ov.o
‘ . . . . . . .. . ' . -.. - ’ ' -“'v- —
' I - r ._ no. - .-°.’I" .fo 0'. ...-,. 'Odpp'I'O'590
' I u o ' . p . ... " '--u.. o. ‘,_ i
' ' ‘ n . 0' '0 '0', ovv-vp ... , . .' "“4v0-v '¢.I.
- /‘ .
. o _ _.. 1 . . ,, .’ . ‘ ro r .l .. _
. . ..
. . . t, -. ,,. o .-,
n ' "I O I 9 v -"‘
‘ ‘ - 0.. -. — ,

  

.
v
u.
> o
o
o
. --_
,_
.
' o-
‘ r

I... .,c

- .-

' or -..
‘r.

I -- "o

' ‘0.
-vol-.,
_‘ _.__I to.

a.
,. .
v
o
.-
.
0
o
o
n .
' n
7"
I ,
. _-‘-
..
. -

- r
o--.

1‘
“.1,
.1'..

-_."

.
. -
-. ‘

‘ a
.- -_
r- r
..

 

 

 

‘ L
I III III" I“ II III I III I I [:1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

we 0 5 2001

FEB 062302
{1313;02-

SEASONAL AND PERMANENT RESI DHTS
ATTITUDES 0F IMPACTS OF
RESIDENTIAL RECREATIONAL LAND DEVELOPMENTS

 

A Theeie
Submitted to
Michigan State University

In Partial Fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree

MASTER OF ARTS

 

by
l' flfr
Charlye‘fifi’flard
December 1973

'0‘
In.

‘11

'04

.‘I‘

.H

O"

ii

("I

.., 2c

I .1
fig) ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

(5;? This thesis is the result of the inspiration offered
by Dr. Gertrude hygren of the Department of Human Environment
and Design, College of Human Ecology, and the challenge
posed by attempting to answer the question, "what are social
indicators?" It is a question which, undoubtedly, will be
asked by a great many people in future years as governments
structure land use laws calling for impact statements which
measure the social and psychological impact of development
as well as the bio-physical elements. This situation
provided an opportunity to scratch the surface.

The author is indebted to Dr. hygren, thesis advisor,
for her guidance and encouragement throughout all phases of
this study. Professor Sanford Farness of the Urban Planning
Department not only served on the committee, but provided
extremely valuable knowledge concerning social indicators
and man's interrelationships with his environment. Sincere
appreciation is also expressed to Professor Richard Graham
and Dr. Robert R. Rice, committee members for their suggestions
and patience. The author is also indebted to Mary Andrews
of the Research Center for her willingness to guide the
inexperienced through the maze of computer techniques.

many others have contributed their knowledge and
willingness to assist and a special bouquet should be
presented to the authors family who endured much disorganisation

and inattention but displayed infinite patience.

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
AC K NOMDGTENTS e o e e e e e O O O O s O O O O 0 e e s 1 1

118T OF TABLES O 0 O O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 v
Chapter
I INTRODUCTI ON 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0

General Statement of the Problem
Significance of Study . . . . .
Objectives. . . . . . . . . .
Hypothesis. . . . . . . .
Definitions . . . . . .

Scope and Limitations of the Study

0 o 0 o C 0
e e e e o O
O O O O C 0
00¢an s-u H

II m3" OF urmmu e e e O s s s e e e e e e 10
Historical Background and Government Policy 11

Needs, Beliefs, Behavior . . . . . . . . . 20
Leisure and Mobility . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Environmental Planning. . . . . . . . . . . 29
Land Deve10pments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Impact Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Social Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
III CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITY . . . . . . . . . 42
Demographic Details . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
M1 OthVO. e s s e e e s e e e e e e e e a}
Opal Lake Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
The Current Situation . . . . . . . . . . . 47

IV DESIGN FOR INVESTIGATION . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Sampl e e s e e s s s e e e e e e e e e e e 53
I ma trument 0 O O s e e 0 e e e e e e e 54

Statistical Techniques . . . . . . . . . . 57

V' FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION . . . . . . . . . 62
Analyeia Of Data e e e e e e e e e e e 62
Description of Sample Population . . . 62

Goals 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O O 66

Goal Satisfactions . . . . . . . . . . 66

Leisure Activities . . . . . . . 69

Chapter

Participation in Activities
Community Quality . . . . .
Community Solidarity . . .
Perceived Change . .

0

Community Quality Satisfactions

General Effects of Land Developm

Discussion . . . . . . . .
Analysis of Hypothesis . . .
Implications for Future Study .

VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . .

BIBLIOGRPHY
APPENDI one

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions . . .
Suggestions for Future Study .

eeefteeeee

iv

Page
71
71
73
81
83
90
97

104
104
109
113
116
122

Table

N)

10

11

1?

LI ST OF TABLES

Characteristics of Seasonal and Permanent
Respondents According to Percentages . . .

Goals Very Important To Residential Location
For Seasonal and Permanent Resident . . .

Goal Satisfactions of Residential Location . .

Leisure Activities Very Important For
Seasonal and Permanent Residents . . . . .

Time Spent by Permanent and Seasonal
Residents Participating in Outdoor
ACtiVitiOs O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0

Seasonal and Permanent Residents Comparative
Rating of Community Quality Factors . . .

Comparative Attitudes of Seasonal and.
Permanent Residents Relating To Community
Solidarity.-..............

Comparison of Seasonal and Permanent
Resident's Perceived Effects of
Land Development on Economic, Physical,
Social, Freedom and Justice Aspects . . .

Comparative Satisfactions of Seasonal and
Permanent Resident Regarding Qualities
of Social and Physical Factors . . . . . .

Comparative Attitudes of Seasonal and Permanent
Residents to General Effect Statements . .

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation
Comparisons Between Seasonal and
Permanent Residents . . . . . . . . . . .

F-Ratio and Probability Scores Comparing
Permanent and Seasonal Residents
and vari abl 98 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

Page

63

67
68

7O

72

74

75

79

82

84

88

E9

vi

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
13 leans and Standard Deviation Comparison
According to Geographic Location, _
Residency Status and Dependent Variables . 99

14 FbRatio and Probability Scores for Variables
According to Geographic Location . . . . . 102

Chapter I
I NTRODUC TI 0N

Northern Michigan, because of the natural resources,
is experiencing a land development boom which, if allowed to
continue at the present rate without impact studies and
controls, may have serious effects on the human dimension.
The Governor's Special Commission on Land Use stated:

"There is Just so much space to put things. Quality of life
and the economic health of our society are laudable goals,

but often seem in direct conflict."1

The report indicates
that almost 30,000 lots a year are being sold and the number
is rising by 1000 a year. "This development...is in conflict
with potential recreation land and unique areas..."2
Confrontations between developers, conservationists
and permanent residents are common and are likely to continue
unless a framework is developed within which all concerned
parties can work. People with diverse goals have divided
interests. Most seasonal residents are looking for relief
from urban congestion and ways to add new dimensions to
their lives. Small community residents may view these

developments as a means of increasing employment and the

 

1Governor's Special Commission on Land Use Report,
December 14, 1971 (Lansing: State of'Michigan, 1971), p. 1.

21bid., p. 2

u
to

 

v.
I!

‘e

 

'-.
‘s

 

economic potential, but the longtime residents may feel
threatened by land developments because of decreasing
privacy and the physical changes which threaten the ecology
and aesthetic environmental quality which originally
attracted them.

Seasonal residents are often prevented from parti-
cipating in planning because they lack voting power or are
simply not well informed. "As a result, those interested
in financial gain may overshadow others and disproportion-
ately affect the shaping, growth, direction and quality of
the community."3 Where new land developments are scattered
at random, the costs of providing services such as roads,
sewers and electricity often become a burden because conven-
tional tax practice spreads the load of providing these
services among all taxpayers--not Just those who receive the
services. Townspeople and long time seasonal residents
often object, especially if the land development is desig-
nated "private". "Those who benefit most from large scale
construction projects...often do not live in the immediate
area of the project, while those who do live there frequently
lose...to make room for the project. Thus, the beneficiaries
often are spared the cost which is laid on others who don't

benefit in any proportion, if at all, to the cost they bear."4

 

3Haxwell C. Huntoon, Jr., "Is Housings No. 1 Problem
Getting the Action it Demands", House and Home, (August,1972),54.

4Neil L. Drobny and Norbert Dee, "Planning a Live in
World", gettelle Research Outlook, 4:2 (1972), 3.

 

e1
’1
'1
u
I
‘
I
'1
1

II .. .. 1|
.. s‘ {as see av [- he v-o

The recent trend toward environmental awareness
indicates that some concerned citizens want their views
considered before decisions with environmental impacts are
made. The economic indicators which have been used to
assess the national well being do not reflect other dimen-
sions of our welfare, specifically psychological and social.
Forecasts of the future have usually been expressed in the
form of financial projections, but this concentration on
production breeds neglect of the quality of living.

A social report with a set of social indicators
could help improve public policy making by giving social
problems visibility and provide insight into how things are

changing, therefore, making better evaluations possible.5

General Statement of the Problem

This study is aimed at learning the difference in
how people in a developing area perceive the impact of land
development according to whether they are permanent or
seasonal residents of the area.

Substantial changes in the physical environment
often bring accompanying changes in the social character-
istics of an environment, however, our knowledge of the
results of these interrelations is limited and this limit-
ation makes it difficult to understand the source of

 

5U.S. Department of H.E.V., Toward a Social Re ort,
(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing OffIce, T§5§T.

problems when they arise. Social changes are seldom
apparent, but must be recognized as an important factor_when
designing environments. Residential land developers may
please the people who occupy the space they design, but
displease or even disrupt the social fabric of the population
outside the project.

There has been relatively little attention paid by
developers or regulating institutions with regard to the
impact which this type of environment has on the family, or
the micro unit of society. This study attempts, by means
of feedbacks, to comprehend the effects of land developments

in a social sense.

Significance of Study

It is the strong contention of many people involved
in family and community problems that feedback from affected
residents has value as one kind of information to be taken
into consideration in the determination of public decisions.
Neither governments nor developers have devoted the attention
required, however, to obtain feedback from all segments of
the affected population.

We know that people perceive the advantages and
disadvantages of a land development differently, and in order
to deal with these differences effectively, we need to know
more about the foundation on which these differences are
based, and if they are responsible for the development of

serious social conflicts. There are indications that

O:

's

.4

f :

1".

'1

‘1

5

differences may polorize around goals and the re-affirmation
of these goals in attitudes toward residential recreational
land developments.

It becomes more and more evident that governments,
planners.and architects of living environments want and—
need direction in setting policies. This doesn't mean that
all sources of conflict are avoidable, but rather that it
may be possible to increase the likelihood of choosing
the most advantageous set of trade-offs. Compromise and
adjustment must be brought about by some intelligent mod-
ification of both action and desire.

If differences in attitudes between seasonal and
permanent residents is apparent, the data could have
significant effects on future planning by increasing know-
ledge about social indicators, as well as helping to

determine a framework for social impact statements.
Objectives

The main objective of this study is to determine if
there are differences in the responses between permanent
and seasonal residents in the following categories, which
will be considered the social indicators of residential
recreational land developments.

Expressed goals

Degree of goal satisfaction

Number and types and relative frequency of
recreational activities engaged in

"‘1-

"a—‘

-
|

s
‘9!
'~‘

1‘ ‘.l
N h‘

'91.

."‘I

Attitudes toward community quality

Attitudes toward community solidarity

Perceived effects and degree of satisfaction
with the new development on the social,
physical, economic aspects and the distribution
of freedom and justice

Attitudes toward effects of and toward future
residential recreational land developments

Hypothesis

There will be significant differences between
permanent and seasonal residents when responding to a
set of social indicators relating to residential recreational

land developments.
Definitions

This study was designed to learn the differences
in how people in a develoPing area perceive the impact of
land development according to whether they are permanent
or seasonal residents of the area. The following terms,

definitions and assumptions will apply.

Social indicators: give data about the con-
sequences of man-made designs on peoples
attitudes, needs and goals. It is a language
of concepts developed from feedbacks from
users of man-made environments indicating
attitudes toward those environments and the
effects which they have on social behavior.

In act statements: are a systematic descrip-
TIon o? proposea environments which identify
beneficial and detrimental impacts on all
systems affected, therefore, facilitating

the establishment of priorities and alter-
natives for policy making.

Attitude: is a "...predisposition to think,
TeeI, pgrceive and perform toward a cognitive
object”

Goal: "an and toward which a design is
EIrected. It is an aim or purpose.“
Social goals are members individual goals
tempered by the goals of others.

Seasonal resident: is one who dwells in a
IocaEIon oEIy a? certain times or seasons.

In this study, those residents whose permanent
address is other than otsego County, but reside
part time within the boundaries of the study.’

Permanent resident: is one who dwells in

a Iocaron conEInually, without change. In-
this study, those residents whose permanent
address is in 0tsego County and who reside
within the boundaries of the study.’

Communit luality: the characteristics of

the commun. y w ch determine it's value,
worth, character or condition.

Communit solidarity: the coherence or
feeIIngs o? oneness in social relations
and interests on the part of the residents.

 

 

Recreational activity: is pleasurable
amusement or aEtion participated in to
relax or refresh the mind and/or the body.

Residential recreational land develo ment:
Is a sIzaEIe p10? of Tana, IdenEITIaEIe and
planned to provide housing and recreational
facilities.

Social climate: the privacy, friendliness
and aesTEeEIc qualities etc. of one's
surroundings.

 

6Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral
Research (New York: Rinehart ana WInsTon, 15615, p. 183.

7Cleo Fitzsimmons, The Rana ement of Famil Resources
(San Francisco: 11.1%. Freeman, 1951), p. 332.

*See map attached to questionaire, Appendix B, p. 127.

 

Ph sical attributes: the congestion, services
TacIIITIes, ecoIogical aspects etc. of one's
surroundings.
conomic factors: business climate, taxes,
Encoms, 305 poEential etc. of one's
surroundings.
Freedom and justice: equitable treatment,
mpose res ra n s and regulations and
security.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

Since this study involves only the effects of a
residential recreational land development, the data will
not be generalized to other types of development since
each type of a development is unique.

The sample population used in this study made it
impossible to control demographic variables of age, income,
education or marital status, however, it was possible to
control ownership of property; so only those respondents
who owned and lived in, either permanently or seasonably,

a housing structure were selected for the quota sample.
Property owners who did not presently reside in the area
any part of the year were eliminated on the basis that they
would not have personal insight into the social impacts of
the area.

Mobile home owners were purposely excuded from the
study based on the following assumption. In this particular
community, mobile home owners often are transient residents
and, therefore, do not identify with the area or the

community.

Since the questionaire was to be independently
completed it was impossible to control the sex of the
respondent. It, therefore, had to be assumed that the
family is a unit and valid information can be obtained from
one of it's members. I

An attempt was made to get a random sample for this
study by obtaining lists of property owners, however, due
to personal financial restrictions and difficulties with
obtaining the information,8 this approach was necessarily
modified. An attempt was also made to secure aerial
photographs of the area with which to pin point housing
localities. Since none had been taken recently enough to
include the new land development this idea, too, was
abandoned.

A quota sample was, therefore, chosen as the
alternative to a random sample by dividing the area to
be sampled bordering the development into four approximately
equal sections and drawing from returned questionaires an

equal number of completed schedules.

 

83cc Appendix A for correspondence regarding this.

Chapter II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In order to more fully understand the various
factors influencing and complicating a study such as this,
there are conditions, pressures, psychological aspects and
social arrangements which must first be explored. Harold
Proshansky in a paper delivered on environmental psychology,
explained that this type of study "...is concerned with
people, places and the behavior and experiences of these
people in relation to these places".9 He went on to say
that "the physical environment means the complexity that
constitutes any physical setting in which man live, interact,
and engage in activities for either brief or extended

10 At the center of the environmental

periods of time".
psychologists concern is the "built environment" which
definitely identifies any residential recreational land
development. Attitudes toward them are naturally influenced
by a great many things, therefore, a broad illumination of

relevant issues seems logical.

 

9Harold Proshansky, "Environmental Psychology and
the Design Professions", figman Behavior: A Mini-Conference

and Exhibit (papers presented at the Franklin Institute,
Novemfier 11, 1971, Philadelphia), p. 15.

1°1b1d., p. 16.

1O

11

Historical Background and Government Policy

Early settlers viewed their environment and nature
as a hostile force and one which had to be conquered. In
later years, nature was viewed as a potential source of
unlimited wealth. The environment was worth what could
be extracted from it. in neither case did nature command
a value of it's own. "As a result, the environment,
especially it's natural and social amenities bore costs
for which no price was listed."11

Today, it is apparent that quality of life cannot
be achieved solely through economic assessment, but must
also take into account the social dimension. "Traditional
attitudes toward environment created many abuses and
inequities that still persist."12

The relations between environmental changes and the
quality of life are subtle, numerous and diverse. They
may be characterised as aesthetic, educational, historical,
emotional, safety-concerned, pride-concerned or whatever."13
More and more often today people are raising their voices
in an attempt to get social concerns attended to, consequently

some projects like Brandywine, Pennsylvania and Charlotte

Creek, New York have failed because the plans reflected

 

11Drobny, "Planning a Live in World", op. cit., p. 2
121mm, p. 3
13James R. Finley and Janet R. Baker, "Social

Elements in Environmental Planning", Battelle Research
Outlook, 4:2 (1972), p. 8.

12
the limited notion of a few to define what would be good
for many.

Prior to the 1960's most environmental concern
centered around quantitative studies which focused mainly
on economic and physical factors. More recently the trend
is centered around the interrelationships between man
and his physical setting.

Literature indicates that sociologists,
psychologists, educators and planners all over the country
have expounded much the same philosophy: that methods must
be found to encourage developmental patterns which will be
beneficial socially and environmentally as well as econom-
ically and physically.

Raymond Bauer, participating in a Conference in
Planning at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in
1966, theorized that in the next couple of decades we
will need more information about the society in which we
live and more measures of people's capacities, their wishes
and aspirations and their relation to one another.14
Steven Carr, at a planning conference of the American
institute of Planners in 1966, noted that the general

question to be asked about any environmental form is

whether it provides the required settings to support the

 

14Raymond Bauer, "Social Indicators: 0r working
in a Society Which Has Better Social Statistics", Plannin
amErIEge:

For Diversit and ChOice, ed. Stanford Anderson (C
H.I.T. Press, 1563), p. 243.

13
socially desirable planful behavior of it's residents and
whether it will bring increased meanings to their lives.15
Perhaps Constance Perin summarized it best when she stated:
"Our direction should be toward uncovering...the conceptual
gap between what we do to make and change the environment
and what people require from their environment".16 .

With the emergence of the new national goal of
"environmental quality", State and National governments
have been forced to enunciate their goals more clearly
and to formulate plans for implementation. Since 1950 and
during the administrations of Presidents Eisenhower,
Kennedy and Johnson, a number of attempts have been made.

One would hardly expect that one of our newest
States would be the spearhead in such a movement, but in
1961 the Hawaii Legislature passed a.law which has been
referred to as the "quiet revolution". "Very simply, what
Hawaii's law does is to take a concept which has been
sacred for 300 years of American History--the idea that
privately owned land is a commodity--and superimpose on it

a new concept: that privately owned land is also a public

 

”Steven Carr, "The City of the Mind", Environment
For.flan The Next Fift Years, ed. William R. EwEId, 3 .
(EIoomIngEon: IndIana UnIversity Press, 1967), p. 218.

“Constance Perin, With Man in Mind: An Inter-
disciplinary Prospectus for EfivIronmenEaI DesIgp (CamEridge:

M.I.T. Press, 1970), p. 1.

In

K.-

Le‘

14
resource."17 [italics in original] Hawaii had been
startled by what was happening to the land because the
granting of state hood and jet travel had caused a tourist
and population boom of enormous proportions. The Hawaiian
Land Use law stipulates, therefore, that the State will
draw up and enforce regulations governing private land
which will be treated as a natural resource and, therefore,
be protected.

This early move by Hawaii drew little attention
on the mainland at first until in the mid 1960's the
environmental movement awakened the public. A few states,
Massachusetts, Delaware, and California began passing
piecemeal laws to protect problem areas. Then in 1970
Vermont and Florida followed Hawaii's example authorizing
state-wide land use plans.

It wasn't until 1970 that the Nixon administration
officially suggested that economic growth might not be the
most accurate measure of progress. It was an observation
which would have been difficult to ignore in light of a
report presented by the Department of Health, Education
and Welfare in 1969 which indicated that unrest and dis-
content were growing despite an increase in personal

incomes. Reasons given were that "congestion, noise and

 

17James Nathan Miller, "Hawaii's 'Quiet Revolution'
Hits the Mainland", National Civic Review, 62:8, September
1973. p. 412.

vs
'I

I.

'-
'el

‘0
--

a

15
pollution are by products of economic growth and makes the

18 and that often large organizations

world less livable"
necessary for modern technology make people feel insigni-
ficant. Improvements in the standard of living increase
the rate of new expectations and these expectations rise
faster than social adjustment can be made. The report went
on to suggest that what was needed was a social report with
a set of social indicators to give visibility to problems
and provide insight into how things are changing.19
It is not easy to implement such prescriptions and
declarations through legislative enactments, however, Congress
did outline environmental goals in the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1970, although the means to achieve these goals
was not fully comprehended. The purpose of the act is
explained as follows:
"To declare a national policy that will
encourage productive and enjoyable harmony
between man and his environment; to promote
efforts that will prevent or eliminate
damage to the environment and biosphere and
stimulate the health and welfare of man;
to enrich the understanding of the ecological
systems and natural resources important to

the Nation: and to establish a Council on
Environmental Quality."20

 

18U.S. Department of H.E.w., op. cit., p. XII.

19Loc. cit.

20Robert B. Ditton and Thomas I. Goodale (eds.),
Environmental Im act Anal sis: Philoso h and Methods
(SprIngfieId: NaEIonEI TecEEicEI InformaTIon Service, 1972),
p. IV, (Proceedings of the Conference on Environmental Impact
Analysis).

 

 

16

Basically, the law requires that any prOposal
involving the Federal Government must include in the early
planning stages a statement on how the project affects the
quality of the human environment. The submission of a
statement has been enforced, but the act has shortcomings in
that it calls for an impact statement but provides no.
leverage to force changes to less damaging alternatives
should they be indicated.

In his State-of—the-Union message to Congress in

February 1973, President Richard Nixon stated:

"Land use policy is a basic responsibility
of State and local governments. They are
closer to the problems and closer to the
people...but the Federal Government must
exercise leadership in land use decision
processes....

Our greatest need is for comprehensive
new legislation to stimulate State land
use controls. We especially need a
National Land Use Policy Act authorizing
States, in cooperation with local govern-
ments, to protect lands of critical environ-
mental concern, and to regulate the siting
of key facilities such as airports, highways
and major private developments. Appropriate
federal funds should be withheld from States
that fail to act.

Americans not only need, but also very
much want to preserve diverse and beautiful
landscapes, to maintain essential open farm
lands, to save wetlands and wildlife habitats,
to keep open recreational space near crowded
population centers, and to protect our shore-
lines and beaches. Our goal is to add creat-
ivity to the beauty and lgng term worth of
land already being used."

 

21"Nixon on Pollution, Natural Resources, Energy
Farming”, U.S. News and World Report, (February 26, 1973), 83.

17

Congress is now putting "pressure on all States
to get into the land-use-planning business".22 [italics
in original J

In Michigan, the Governors office prepares reports
which supposedly assess the quality of life, however,
the 1969 report remained basically an economic report and
actually contained little information pertaining to the
quality of life.23 The report, however, did indicate
that since changes in attitudes were increasingly evident,
areas of social significance such as values, beliefs,
perceptions, attitudes, mobility and space distribution

should be explored.

In response to the stated objectives of the NEPA,24
Governor’Milliken of’Michigan appointed a Special Commission
on Land Use in 1971. They discovered a great need and
recommended the State develop and implement a comprehensive
land management program to protect the land from undesirable
patterns of development. This, the commission felt, was
necessary due to the major and unregulated increase in
land development, particularly in Northern Michigan. Of

particular concern was the regulation of land sales.

 

22Miller, op. cit., p. 415.

23Office of Planning Coordination, Bureau of Policies
and Programs, Social Reporting in.Michigan: Problems and
Issues, Technic Repor A- , Fe ruary ( ans ng:
Eovernment Printing Office, 1970).

24National Environmental Policy Act.

18
The commission's specific recommendation was:

"It is recommended that the State
initiatet an immediate review program of
all major land sales including those
that do not fall under existing sub-
division regulations. It is further
recommended that the state adopt a land
sales act to regulate the sale of land
within real estate developments."2

In the absence of consistent policies concerning
developments, communities have relied on local zoning
policies to determine standards, however, most current
zoning is inadequate, spotty, short termed and measures
no aspect of quality. Often speculators buy well in
advance, land which they anticipate will be used in the
future and boost the prices contending that people demand
amenities and are willing to pay for them.27

These "developers may or may not take cognizance
of the environmental effects of development, and no level
of government is involved in the determination of the

28 Another problem arises when

best use of the land".
developers sell individual parcels of ten acres because
these do not fall under the jurisdiction of the

Subdivision Control Act 1967.29 The adoption of a land

sales act to regulate developers and require them to

 

26Land Use Report, op. cit., p. 6.

27"Leisure Boom: Bi gest Ever and Still Growing",
U.S. News and World Report Washington, D.C., April 17, 1972).

28Land Use Report, loc. cit.

29Act 288, effective January 1, 1968, see Michi an
Statutes Annotated, 19L_Real and Personal Property, 1978, p. 161.

19
provide guarantees of promised improvements was recently
enacted. It is designed to protect the buyer from un-
scrupulous sales and provides stiff penalties for misrepre-
sentation. As this is being written, the Land Sales Act goes
into effect (October 1, 1973) and there are apparently many
developers who will be out of business for failing to regis-
ter and comply.

The State Land Use Commission also proposed legisla-
tion in 1971, which after being revised may be introduced to
the 1973 Legislature. It relies heavily on local township
and county governments for land use planning although past
history reveals that local governments often are unduly
influenced by economic and political pressures, the results
of which have not been encouraging. The proposal does not
seem to be overly buearocratic, but provides firm guidelines.
In multi-jurisdictional developments, however, the State
Commission is required to make the final decisions.

"The bill would protect prime agricultural,

state historical and other unique lands, all
of which are specifically defined, by
regulating the quality of development in
these areas. These protected tracts are
termed 'areas of Critical Environmental
Concern' and they are to be so designated
in the State Land Use Plan. It will be
required that local governments, at a

minimum, adhere to the guidelines estab-

lished in the act in regulating development 30
in areas of critical environmental concern."

30House Committee on Towns and Cities, State

Land Use Act...S o sis (Lansing, July 1973), compIIed
5y wII'IIam T. SIEur‘Eevant, committee aid.

20

Even though it is evident from the above information
that there have been great strides made in the last decade
toward adaptation and implementation of creating a quality
environment, many related issues are still left to the courts
which, unfortunately base decisions mainly on yesteryear's
precedents which is only a partial response to today's needs.

Better information is required on social values and
the way people relate to and depend on their environment.
"Such values involve subjective considerations, woven
intimately into peoples attitudes and emotions. As of
now, a complete data base does not exist upon which to
build an analysis of such environmental factors."31

The remaining sections of this chapter will explore
some of the explicit and implicit factors relating to

social indicators.
Need, Beliefs, Behavior

Before being able to evaluate an impact on
anything, one must first possess an understanding of the
needs of people, their personal beliefs or values and the
behavior resulting from these needs and beliefs.

Case and Larson, Professors in a graduate program
at the University of Vermont, in September 1970, began
a year long seminar designed as an experiment to prepare

leaders and communities plan their futures. They felt

 

31Drobny, "Planning a.Live In World", op. cit., p. 5.

21
that "any process of future cognition and planning must
begin by determining values for the future. An undesirable
future is one in which basic human needs are not central
to the goals of social and political decision making. A
desirable future is one in which human needs are the basic
unit of analysis--social political, economic and educat-
ional".32 They based their study on Abraham Maslow's
Hiearchy of Basic Human Needs which contends that all men
slaare certain basic needs which can be arranged in a

hierarchy of five levels. Those needs are:

1."Physiological needs: to survive, man
needs food, clothing, shelter, rest.
As the imperative requirements for
staying alive, those represent the most
elemental needs.

2. Safety or security needs: when physio-
logical needs are satisfied, man wants
to keep and protect what he has. He
starts to try to stabilize his environ-
ment for the future.

3. Social needs: as his environment
becomes more stable, he seeks to be
part of something larger than himself.
He has social needs for belonging, for
sharing and association, for giving
and receiving friendship and love.

4. Ego needs: these are the needs that
relate to one's self esteem (needs
for self confidence, independence,
achievement, competence, knowledge)
and one's reputation (needs for status
recognition, appreciation, deserved
respect of one's peers).

\

" 32Charles w. Case and Robert L. Larson,
vPIreparing Educators for their Future", The Futurist,
1i. 6 (December 1972), p. 253. i"’

IN“

IV"

1'-
s..
Ilfigé

.
‘ut

.g.
V

is

“:9

22

S. Self-fulfillment needs: finally come
the need for growth, self-development
self actualization. As the capstone
of all his other needs, man wants to
realise the full range of hissindividual
potential as a human being.

It is important to note here that many of our
social problems arise out of human needs or the lack of
:fulfillment of these needs. Often planning and designing
philosophies have not been responsive to the changing
rmeeds of individuals or groups and major decisions have
taeen made for a future generation based on what was good
in the past. People tend to rebel at handed down decisions,
Iregimentation and other forms of restrictions and prefer
to make as many of their own decisions as possible. This
is a value or belief handed culturally from one generation
‘to'another and goes hand in hand with definitions of
equality. The equality value comes into play in situations
that involve rank, rights or privileges, and inheritably
Peeple consider unchecked authority, dominance and submission
to be out of bounds.

Of recent importance as a value is "leisure".
PQOple value leisure because they have desires or needs
to pursue interests or activities of their own choosing.
'“Vsaue judgements refer to what is best, what is desirable
01‘ preferable and what ought to be done. They suggest the
°Peration of wishes, desires, goals, passions, valences

\

33Ibid., p. 254.

.".‘

“use

I".-
«.8

D! ‘
we:

11a:

21 .
“he:

1'
,
7

23
ormorals."34 Also, "values...influence our choice of
alternatives, they make our actions intentional"35 but it
must be remembered that values and beliefs are of an
implicit structure (deep within the psychological make-up
of an individual). "Actual beliefs arise from the inter-
.abtion between this implicit structure and specific
situational demands. Thus beliefs are, in a sense,
peculiar to the particular situation."36 Although beliefs
vary widely in character, they are definitely important
information sources when considering environmental impacts.
This idea is supported by Norberg-Schulz who said:

"Existential space is a psychological
concept, denoting the schemata man
develops, interacting with the environ-

ment.... The environment image, therefore
comprises wishes and dreams....

To satisfy these wishes, man tries to
change his environment. Man's existential
space is thus determined by the concrete
structure of the environment, but his needs
and wishes create a feedback. The relation-
ship between man and environment is, there- 37
fore, a two way process, a real interaction."

Functionally, beliefs are guides to actions.
"Belief statements refer to what is possible, what exists,
What happened in history, what a person is, what he can

¥

34Karl Scheibe, Beliefs and Values (New York: Holt

Rinehart and Winston, Inc., , p. .
35Christian Norberg-Schulz, Existence S ace and
éErhhitscture (New York: Praeger PublisEers, 1971;, p. 35.
36

Scheibe, op. cit., p. 35.
37Norberg-Schulz, op. cit., p. 37.

24

do. They are framed in terms of expectancies, hypotheses,

subjective probabilities, assumptive worlds, cognitive

maps etc."38

Most current personality theorists subscribe to the
belief that behavior is a joint function of a person and
the environment, but have usually studied individual
variables. There now is a growing awareness that the
man-made physical. environment may have important influence
on psychological states and social behavior. "Each man
has around him an invisible series of space bubbles that
expand and contract, depending on his emotional state, his
culture, his activities, and his status in the social
system."39 Studies of dormitories, hospital wards and
classrooms have yielded information concerning spatial
arrangements and social interactions, but not much work has
been accomplished to study social problems relating to
residential choice, migration and the role of vacationing

and tourism.
Basically the social theorist believes that people

Vary their behavior extensively in different social and
1Z’hYsical environments, mainly because the reinforcement
consequences for particular behaviors vary extensively.

Behavior positively reinforced in one setting may be

\
38Scheibe, op. cit., p. 41.

39Edward Hall, "Human Needs and Inhuman Cities",

7.211s Fitness of Man's Environment (New York: Harper and Row,
’ p. O

(in:

H
it

‘

in)

25
negatively reinforced in another. "Physical settings,
simple or complex, evoke complex human responses in the
form of feelings, attitudes, values expectancies and desires,
and it is in this sense as well as in their known physical
properties that their relationships to human experiences
.amd behavior must be understood."40

"Since healthy behavior is exploratory, varying
and venturesome in nature, it requires an environment
which allows, indeed encourages the development and exercise
or such behavior."41

Group association makes it necessary that men
regulate their impulses and actions with reference to one
another. Human beings are endowed with identical sets of
desires which cannot be freely fulfilled without frequently
coming in conflict with the desires of others. It would
appear, therfore, that in future planning, compromise
unset be brought about by some intelligent modification
bath of action and desire.

Therefore, in decision making concerning our
environments, we must realize that individual needs must
be recognized, but as part of a larger or macro context
h'hzich includes the total environment. "Living quality

‘

40Harold M. Proshansky, William H. Ittelson and
I‘eanne G. Rivlin, "The Influence of the Physical Environment
on Behavior: Some Basic Assumptions", Environmental
Iifizchology (New York: Holt, Rinehart and WInsEon, 1970), p. 28.

41Norberg-Schulz, op. cit., p. 34.

P:

1
A. II

.
u

0L1
MI.

I:

{kl

26

is an attribute not merely of the house, but also of it's
environment. Indeed, social science indicates that the
character of family life may be more strongly affected by
the nature of the family's adjustment to it's social
surroundings than by the quality of the physical house

itself."42

Leisure and Mobility

Closely tied to the needs, beliefs and behaviors
of people in this total picture are the components leisure
and mobility. More and more free time due to fewer working
hours has created an abundance of leisure time which once
was only for the aristocratic, but now reaches all segments
of society. "Leisure has developed a whole ladder of
status symbols, and people scheme to get into cliques with
the reputation of being where the funds. A whole complex
01’ industries supplies fun badges."43 It appears that
leisure is meaningful only if it is based on sufficient
Status. "Status used to come from family position,
8Question and the kind of work one did."“ Now it seems
to come more from sheer spending power and we find we

"live among semi-strangers who can be impressed only by

\

42Burnham Kelley, esi and Production of Houses
INsw York: McGraw—Hill, 19%}, p. XIX.

‘3Pardon B. Tillinghast, "Leisure: Old Patterns
and New Problems", Plannin For Diversi and Choice,
ed. Stanford Anderson, op. cI‘E. p. 119.

44111111., p. 153.

I” I“
In ad

u‘lj
my..‘

In:

31138

1,,

-0,
f ‘-

was
«.1

"-0
"d.:

IN

27

the pure glitter of legal currency".45 "One reason for the
spiral in equipment buying is the accelerating desire to

'get back to nature'. The lure of the great outdoors is
proving more magnetic year after year statistics show."46
The second home is no longer a luxury and "...present day

development seems to favor a new mobility".47 Some believe
this new development offers possibilities for richer social

action, while others contend that such mobility makes human

d svelopment impossible . 48

Either way, there is no doubt that "the city dweller
cut off from the natural environment, suffers a real moral
and pathological deficiency: the jamming of town exits on
holidays proves that towns are becoming positive prisons
from which the inhabitants endeavor to escape on all
occasions as often as possible".49 However, often the

town dwellers, by their very presence, destroy that which

they have come to seek.
"The world's population is growing too fast for the

comfort of any of us", Tillinghast stated in a planning

k

4SLoo. cit.

46Huntoon, "Is Housings No. 1 Problem Getting the
Action it Demands", House and Home, op. cit. p. 54.

47Norberg-Schulz, op. cit., p. 35.
48Loo. cit.

49George Meyer-Heine, The Human A roach to Urban
Planning, (France: Internationa Feaera‘EIon and PIanning,

1968) , p. 102.

 

..!i

.sp
(I

28

conference in 1966 at MIT, "and the most serious problems
of the next several decades will relate to our relations
with our neighbors".50 The traditional patterns of social
life based on kinship, ethnicity and shared turf is
changing to a social life based on what one does.

Vance Packard's theory in A Nation of Strangers was
that great numbers of people feel unconnected to both
people and places, and we are passing a legacy of coldness
on to the next generation. The reason for this
psychological phenomenon he felt was due to the uprooting
or people and to migration};1 Herbert Gans, however,
disagrees with Packard and contends that Packards version
of society is over romantic and that America has always
been a nation of movers. He calls Packard a journalistic
sociologist who preaches sermons aimed at big business or
Government which is engaged in taking away Peoples
freedoms, reducing their individualism and destroying
1511st which is traditional. Gans claims that people aid
destructive tendencies by greed for income, prestige, comfort
and pleasure};2 He also argues that a sense of community

eItists only when neighbors need each other for survival,

5orillinghast, op. cit., p. 143.

51
Vance Packard A Nation of Strangers (New York:
I)IElvid Mckay Co., Inc., 19 . ’

SzHerbert Gene, "Vance Packard Misperceives The Way

l‘1C>st American Movers Live", Psychology Today, 6:4
September 1972), 28. .

29

in a disaster, where dangerous work creates a common
. bond, or where the community is threatened by an outside
force.

It would seem reasonable in either augument that
"in order to assess the performance of an individual,
group or society, information concerning the goals of that
group and it's values is required".53 We have lacked
farsighted biological and social philosophy capable of
developing controls which keep pace with changes in ways
of life. With increasing leisure time, affluence and
seemingly unlimited mobility of the populations, we are now
in a state of emergency and communities are waking up
(sometimes too late) to dangers which should. have been
Predicted long ago. Environment precautions have consisted
Of ad hoc measures to slow down the depletion of natural
resources, the rape of nature and the loss of a sense of

human fulfillment .

Environmental Planning

"In order to realize and capitalize on the
POtential inherent in the urban fringe, we should develop
Planning techniques that allow us to predict the
c=<>nsequences of our development proposals so that we can

eBtablish appropriate controls prior to the resultant

k

53Rene Dubes, "Man and His Environment: Adaptations
a31d Interactions", The Fitness of Man's Environment (New York:

Harper and Row, 1963), p. 235.

3O
impacts, both physical and social, which can then be
regarded as total environmental planning."54

Economic and political functions are better
understood than social functions and social functions are
better understood than specific psychological and
behavioral functions. Social meanings and values are
seldom immediately apparent. "Social significance,
usually widely known to the residents of a place...may be
difficult to determine from the outside except by long
familiarity, or more objectively by surveying the local
residents and noting frequency of agreement."55

Determination of peoples' environmental needs
and desires as the basis for objectives of public policy
is not a simple matter. Beyond the simple basic needs,
Ive encounter individual and group differences. Often
Statistical trends which are taken as an example of what
People want, are really the result of what is available.
30, "in addition to the usual quantitative surveys of
objective phenomena, such as population movements and
bathtubs, we need studies of peoples' attitudes toward
environment, the effect of different kinds of environment

‘—

54Peter Jacobs, "The Urban Fringe", Habitat, XV,1
(1972), 31. """"""

SSSteven Carr, "The City of the Mind", Environment

for Man the Next ift Years, ed. William R. new, r.
com mg on: n ana University Press, 1967). P. 215.

1!. 10C

11:7;

“his

‘1 s-

?Q} g

"as:

9211-1

31

on social behavior, and trends in both behavior and ideals."56

In past years we have allowed citizens to do
virtually anything: "pollute the lakes, contaminate the
atmosphere, build a high rise next door that makes our
own living space uninhabitable because it shuts off view,...
transform a potential area on a lake into a run down
industrial waste, plow up country side, bulldoze trees,
and build thousands of identical prefabricated bungalows
in open country."57 Aesthetic qualities are often over-
looked and even repressed in favor of financial gain or
as the result of pure unconcern. Unfortunately, concern
for the aesthetic values has never been a determining
factor in the design of artifacts in this country. There
:is indication, however, that some people are becoming
aware of this oversight and are going to demand increased
consideration of the aesthetic qualities of their
environments .

Important decisions have often been "made by
Officials, both public and private, who have little or no
knowledge of the consequences of their actions".58
Architects and planners have not, in the past, been
Prepared to understand all consequences either, because the

‘_

56Catherine Bauer, "Social Research as a Tool For
Community Planning", Social. resource in nformal Grou s,eds.,
Fostinger, Schacter and BacE, op. cit., p. 195.

57am, "Human Needs and Inhuman Cities",
op. cite p0 167s -

5BLoc. cit.

32
studies of social sciences, humanities and ecology have
been lacking in their curricula. Certainly lacking, too,
has been a feedback from users of man-made environments
to give us data of the consequences of these designs. Since
in all of our daily activities we are dependent in some
way on the form of our interaction with the man-made world,
it is essential that we pull together scattered information
about man's interaction with the environment in order to
‘better control it. We can't, however, evaluate a system
'ny looking solely within that system. We, also, must know
what impact it has on other systems."-9

The general question to be asked about any
environmental form is whether it provides the required
settings to support the physical and socially desirable
Planful behavior of it's residents and to bring increased
meaning and pleasure to their lives.

The seminar conducted at the University of Vermont
(Inferred to earlier) was designed to help administrators
and planners behave in a proactive way rather than a
reactive one.60 Their idea of a planner is one who plans
114% and not $2; the people. Eitalics in original] Their
lldea was apparently the result of a speech delivered by
the Honorable Shirley Chisholm, a U.S. Congresswoman, who
od:a.planning conference in April 1970 emphasized that

E

59Charles Williams, Jr., "Inventing a Future
Civilization", The Futurist (August 1972), p. 140.

60Case and Larson, The Futurist, op. cit., p. 254.

‘Is" I

'IEJIII

:w
u. g

1" "I

5"“

|‘ '
:9 a

“I

I; I.
.,,.

33
"planners will have to become advocates of the people and
not lackeys for the 'democratic' aristocrats who control

their paycheck . " 61

Land Developments

Certainly one of the most critical problems we
now face is the control of needless speculation in housing
land. The epidemic of owning a second home is becoming a
.resource tragedy.62 Speculators buy large tracts of land
at unbelievably low prices and boost the prices to often
unrealistic prices amounting to thousands of dollars per
acre. They tear down trees, bulldoze roads and advertise,
with all kinds of promises of dream fulfillments. "There
are about 10,000 subdividers operating in 49 states...and
sealing, by conservative estimate, $5 billion dollars worth
<1f raw land a year."63 [italics in original] The carving
Itp of the land to build roads in such developments is
(treating a big problem with soil erosion, particularly
Vflhen the property is advertised and sold as an investment,
leaving the bulldozed land to stand idle while the erosion
Continues year after year.

Local governmental units are often unwittingly
responsible for the rape of the countryside because of the

‘

61Shirley Chisholm, "Planning With and Not For the
Peeple", Planning (1970), 3, (paper read at ASPO NaEIonal

leaning on erence, New York, April 4-9, 1970).
62Miller, National Civic Review, op. cit., p. 413.

63Loc. cit.

I ‘ I. O a Al- I‘.‘ I. Ito II
1‘ i P‘h I t “ I \
‘I I . I .I 1‘ h

34
emphasis which has been placed on economic growth. These
local governments often actually search for people to
develop the land in order that it produce more tax dollars
and more business for the community.

Many communities do not have any land use plans
or zoning regulations. Even when they do, most current
zoning is restrictive, but contains clauses to make exceptions
a part of every ordinance. Zoning regulations usually
contain.many flaws because they assume that density per se
:is the best measure of the character of the community.
They contain no standards against which quality as well
as quantity can be judged.
Through zoning regulations a community usually
seeks to preserve or encourage the planned character of
Iliving areas, shopping areas and working areas. Major
<=omprehensive land use planning, on the other hand, is
aimed at achieving a healthful, efficient, safe, functional,
13eautiful and stimulating community. Therefore, it seems
that "...peoples needs must be given highest priority
in planning for future development. Residents must more
actively determine the quality of their surroundings."64
When land developments are established, often the
social ramifications which result cause disruptions of
established behavior patterns of a great number of people.

‘

64Jean Schlater, National Goals and Guidelines for
est ans ng, in ormat on

Research in Home Economics, ,
3ervIces, fiIcEIgan State University, 1970), p. 54.

35
Trouble begins when newcomers, who are primarily urban
oriented for Jobs and social interaction and are basically
seasonal residents, arrive with expectations with regard
to schools and services which tend to be higher than those
of the original residents. Oldtimers, being rural oriented
and having control and voting power of the government,
regard as intemperate the demands by the newcomers for an
increase in services provided by the township. These two
social systems conflict because of "differences in education,
political philosophy, definition of needs as opposed to

65 Undercover

luxuries and urban versus rural orientation".
activities, initiated by the non-voting residents, such as
court injunctions and law suits often cloud the real issues.

In order to assure that land developments do not
have detrimental effects on either the physical or social
environment, proper attention should be focused on
development projects and their impacts on the established
community and it's residents. "Motion, personal observation
and nostalgia are not the most reliable guides for policy
and action. It is from the facts, the realities of our

el'lvircnment that we must begin."66

‘

65Richard 1). Duke and Gary King, "Planning in the
Urban Fringe", (East Lansing: Technical Bulletin 13-40,
Institute for Community Development and Services, Michigan
s‘tate University, November, 1963), p. 4.

66Robert Wood, "Science and the City", The Fitness
21 Man's Environment (New York: Harper and Row, ”57), p. 177.

36
As states begin to face the reality of the
necessity of land use control and establish legislation
to guide development, there will undoubtedly be opposition
based on economic growth and rights and freedoms. Many"
states are attempting to control only governmental
developments while others are requiring impact statements
in advance of any development. Clearly the people most
affected are the large land developers. Some may be
driven out of business, especially irresponsible ones who
employ advertising and selling methods which falsify their
intentions, however, the new laws may actually help those
responsible land developers who fulfill the obligations

and perform impact studies.
Impact Statements

The University of Wisconsin at Green Bay recently
Opened a new total University in order to develop an
environmental awareness. Out of their experience a
1"Indamental concern has surfaced which is that anyone
engaged in impact analysis is confronted with a difficult
question: "What is an impact--what is an unhappy or
undesirable environmental impact?"67 One of the dictionary

definitions for impact is "a continuing powerful influence"68

¥

67Edward W. Weidner, "University of Wisconsin at

C}1‘een Bay: It's Environmental Focus and Imact", Bitten
and Goodale, eds., op. cit., p. 63. .

68Funk and Wagnalls, Britannica World Lan a e
iaéLctionggy (New York: Funk and WagnEIIs 50., 1§62E.

a:

PM
"‘

37
which certainly describes any land development adequately.
An undesirable impact would be any influence which did
not consider the "socio-cultural environmental element
as well as bio-physical".69 Impact statements, consequently,
become descriptions of proposed environments which identify
t>eneficial and detrimental impacts on gll systems affected,

therefore facilitating the establishment of priorities and
silternatives for policy making.

A framework for impact statements does exist, called
:iampact zoning, developed by John Rathenkamp and Walter
Sachs, which provides an objective way to measure the
effects of a proposed project on a community financially,
Physically and ecologically. It analyses and correlates
‘tlie effects of four key parameters--the growth rate of the
community, infrastructure (the projects need for services
Versus the towns ability to supply them), municipal cash
ifilow (the cost of servicing versus tax revenue it will
create) and natural determinants (environmental consider-
ations):70 This framework does not, however, measure

social progression or retrogression.
Social Indicators

Interest in the problem of measuring the state of
Bociety has grown remarkably in the 1960's. Early writers
69Weidner, loc. cit.

7oHuntoon, House and Home, op. cit., p. 54.

38
concerned about indicators of the social climate were
Bauer 1966,.71 Gross 1966'72 and Sheldon and Moore 1968.73
"More recently, the widely circulated publication 'Toward
a Social Report'74 has brought additional ideas."75 Campbell
and Converse in The Human Meaning of Social Cha_r_ige76' keynote
the importance of a subjective dimension, but suggest that
multiple measures need to be developed because no single
indicator is capable of measuring even a limited segment
or the population.
Social forecasting has an important roll to play
in identifying costs and benefits early enough so that a
meaningful choice can be made of various alternatives. "In
the past, there was too much tendency to concentrate on the
immediate benefits of technology and to ignore the costs,
especially the costs imposed on those who did not use the
technology or benefit from it, but simply happened to be in

¥

71Raymond Bauer, Social Indicators (Cambridge:
MIT Press, 1966) .

”Bertram Gross, "The City of Man: A Social Systems
Accounting", Ewald, (ed.) op. cit.

73Wilbert E. Moore and Eleanor B. Sheldon, eds.,
ndicators of Social Chan e: Conce ts and Measurement,
ew or : usse' Sage oun a on, .
74U.S. Department of H.E.W., op. cit.

75Kenneth E. Hornback and Robert W. Shaw, Toward a
uantitative Measure of the ualit of Life (Washington,
Hminer oy nsiue,1 ,p. .

76Angus Campbell and Phillip Converse, eds., The

HImam Meani of Social Ch e (New York: Russell Sag?—
IOundatIon, k7”.

39
the vicinity."77

Sociologists have had a tendency to go slumming
when they study social aspects of environments and they
tend to emphasize visible and dramatic social problems
identified with morality and deviant behavior such as crime
and delinquency, mortality or morbidity. Although these

studies have been useful and have provided impetus for
reform movements, this slumming approach emphasises the
bad and suggests emergency treatments, but does little to
help design homes and neighborhoods which will provide a
quality environment:78

Now attention is focused on community planning

using social indicators as a guide to creating a more
sensible attractive environment. "The responsibilities of
the experts, whether in government or elsewhere...is
enormous",79as they are forced to grapple with questions
or social, psychological and cultural implications.

Systematic studies are necessary using random

sampling of populations as the basis for impact statements.
Interviews, questionaires and observational techniques
all are valuable methods 'by which to determine attitudes

‘—

77.10seph Martino, "The Role of Forecasting in
Technology Assessment", The Futurist, V1.5 (October 1972), 211.

78Catherine Bauer, "Social Pressures in Informal
Groups" op. cit., p. 183. .

791bid., p. 186.

40

and opinions concerning social impacts.80 The impact
statement offers the strong advantage of providing a
language which can be understood by both community
authorities and developers.

Social variables are difficult to measure, but they
are important. Impact statements should include studies
of life styles and behavior patterns of the people who will
be affected by the development as well as disruptions such
as noise, pollution, traffic volume and physical relocations.
Harder to ascertain, but nevertheless important, are long
term effects on life styles, changes in recreational

patterns, shepping habits, school routes and neighborhood

social patterns.81

Social indicators are not defined according to the
disciplines of social, physical biological and economic
content, but rather refer to the micro unit of society
( family and individual) and include the impact on physical,
economic as well as the social and psychological status
Of these units.

Social indicators are of two types, subjective and
Objective. Included in the subjective indicators are
bcliefs, ideas and values, held implicitly and usually

nOt specifically stated. Both objective and subjective

\_

80Per K. Johnson, "Social Aspects of Environmental
IImpact", Ditton and Goodale (eds.) Environmental Impact

Analysis. op. cit., p. 89.
81Ibid., p. as.

41
indicators are actually a result of tangible impacts, and

are dependent upon both hard and soft data collection.

To illustrate, social objective impact indicators of land
developments are concerned with amounts of taxes, congestion
and noise pollution and are relatively easy to measure, but
the quantity of stress generated is not.

This study is concerned with exploring methods of
measuring the social subjective type of impact and the
questionaire was designed for people to give their perceptions
of the effects of a current land development. Such infor-
mation, it was assumed, should make it possible to draw
inferences relative to subjective indicators as a function
of that environment. There must, however, be a continuous
social inventory with which social trends can be predicted.

If a language of concepts related to these
subjective indicators can be developed from users of man-
made environments, then the data gathered should be useful
in the creation of policies that are more orderly,

comprehensive and comprehensible than those now employed.

.1382 i

‘Vs‘pl,
an“!

,. £1
' .i

{a
'__

Chapter III
CHARACTERISTICS OF COMMUNITY
Demographic Details

The land development chosen for the study is in
Otsego County approximately five miles south of Gaylord,
Michigan. The area studied actually lays in two townships,
Bagley and Otsego Lake. The first people moved to Otsego
County in 1868 for purposes of lumbering. Although the
time has passed for lumbering to be a major industry, there
still are a few mills left in the area. It now ranks as
the "Ski Capital of Michigan" and since there are many
lakes and resorts, it has become a major tourist center
both summer and winter.

With the increase in mobility of’Michigan residents
and the expanded expressway system, the flight from the
City has lured a great number of people and the population
Of this once quaint village has increased rapidly.

The population in the County increased from 7,545 in 1960
to 10,422 in 1970 or a 38.1 percent increase.82 In Bagley
Township, between 1960 and 1970, the population increased

‘

82U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census,
‘hlited States Census of P0 ulation: 1970, Number of
InFa'BI‘Ean‘Es, Michigan, p. 51-34.

42

 

hfi 1
3.59.7.3

(“v

("I I
.' 0
Lin
Tawns‘!

an: :1

a,"
“Way!

43
from 1,186 to 2,194, an amazing jump of 93.4 percent, but in
Otsego Lake Township the increase was less--342 to 473 or
38.3 percent.83 Part of the explanation for the extreme
difference in the two townships is that in Otsego Lake
Township most of the development has been seasonal homes
and the lake front property had been developed many years
before. Also, much of the land is State owned. During
that same period in Bagley Township, however, there was
an earlier residential development which sold small
residential lots covering many acres. Bagley is also
located closer to the town of Gaylord and, therefore, many
residents are permanent.

There was one large tract of land resting partly
in Bagley Township and partly in Otsego Lake Township
which was owned by one person and used mainly for a
private hunting club. The property covered approximately
2,000 acres and was abundant with forested land and wild-
life. Although during hunting season the property was
patrolled, many local and seasonal residents were able to

simply enjoy the beauty of the forest.
Michaywe'

in 1969, Thompson-Brown Company of Detroit, Michigan
Purchased this large tract of land and began to prepare
1ft for development sale under the name of Michaywe' a

reasort community.

;

83Ihid.

ul' 0 Q
l

m1

‘ v ‘

T4} it

I:-' I
".133

3521c

44

The land was platted into 2,200 lots for single
homes and sites for 1,100 condominium housing units. Bull-
dozing began on the projected 32 miles of hard surfaced
roads, land was cleared for an 18 hole golf course and
dredging began to create four lakes out of swamp areas. The
property was ready for the sales force in 1971 while work
continued on the spacious clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis
courts, riding stables, travel trailer park and ski slopes.84
Included in the sale of the large tract of land was 800 feet
of lake frontage on a relatively clean and blue placid
lake (0pal.Lake)85 nestled way back in the woods. Michaywe'
planned to develop a Swim'n'Sun Club on this property;
equip it with boats and grant their property owners

beachfront privileges on Opal Lake.
Opal Lake Problems

Property owners on Opal Lake naturally feared,

among other things, the loss of privacy on their quiet

86

lake. They organized an association and resorted to

their only method of fighting what they felt was a grave

inJustice. They sought an injunction to stop development

¥

84Carl Konzelman, "Progressfl The Detroit News,
October 20, 1972, p. 3B.

85Opal Lake had approximately 70 dwellings on it's
shoreline, a public access site and no commercial activities.

86The Opal Lake Association with 59 members is a
non profit organisation composed of people whose interest

1! to beautify, preserve and maintain Opal Lake and it's
environs.

45
of the Swim'n'Sun Club claiming that the proposed use of’
the shoreline would overburden Opal Lake and violate the
riparian rights of all shoreline property owners".87 The

court granted the injunction and structured it with these

restrictions:
1. Only members or their guests could use the
facilities.

2. The Opal Lake Park would be enclosed with

a fence and provide no more than 50 parking

places.
3. Only 15 small non-power boats, provided by

the Association could be launched from the

property.

4. Only 120 individuals, excluding boaters 88

could use the facilities at any one time.

The Opal Lake Association was given power to inspect
the site and enforce the restrictions. The Court addition-
ally ordered that Michaywe' could no longer use promotional
materials to indicate an unrestricted use of Opal Lake
for property owners.

Opal Lake Association appealed the final character
of the injunction, and Michaywe' cross appealed contending
that the trial court erred in granting an injunction in
anticipation of any showing of harm caused by the
defendent on the Opal Lake frontage. 'The cross appeal

failed with the Appeals Court citing the Environmental

n

  
 
 

 

87State of’Michigan, Court of Appeals,
Association v. M cha e' Lim teo ' : h

(Play 23, 1973), p. 2.
8aloe. cit.

      

No. 14002-

46

Protection Act of 1970 which allows private citizens to
bring actions to prevent pollution. "The act is signifi-
cant in that it represents a legislative acknowledgement
of a court's power to recognise anticipated harm and fashion
a remedy to prevent the harm where it's potential becomes
discernible from evidence taken in an adversary proceeding."89

The Appeals Court felt that there would be difficulty
in enforcing those restrictions set forth in the original
injunction because the burden of inspection would be a
constant one and would force one set of owners to be watch
dogs over another set which would be an inequality of rights.
The restrictions also could lead to further expensive
legal battles if it were discovered that the restrictions
were being violated. The appeals ruling was that
restrictions as to the numbers using the facilities of the
Swim'n'Sun Club were necessary, but the burden of
enforcement should not be with the Opal Lake Association.
The case was sent back to the lower court for further
hearings concerning Egg in the Michaywe' Owners Association
would be allowed access rights and Egg the restrictions
would be enforced. Further hearings are scheduled but
cannot be included in this thesis since they will not be

concluded in time.

 

89State of Michigan, Court of Appeals, 0p. cit., p. 14.

47

Another issue which has caused displeasure on the
part of some local and long-time seasonal residents is the
installation by Michaywe' of a pipe line leading from
Otsego Lake into Michaywe' property for the purpose of
replenishing lakes in the development. The Department of
Natural Resources contends it followed a main waterway
and was necessary to keep Otsego Lake at a reasonable level,90
however, there are many who question the route chosen for
the construction of the pipe line. It was in fact, held up
in court for a while. Since it has been completed it has
created an additional tax load for all bordering residents
and has had a noticable effect on the water level in

Otsego Lake.
The Current Situation

Michaywe' is now an established fact, minus their
Swim'n'Sun Club, which is built but not in operation.

To date, much of the antagonism toward the land
development which was apparent in the beginning seems to
have subsided somewhat, with the exception of the Opal
Lake area, probably mainly due to the fact that Michaywe'
is a well planned development, laced with commons, green
areas and very luxurious amenities. The developement is

young yet, however, and since only a few luxurious homes

 

90Opinion expressed in a private interview with
Steve Swan, D.N.R., Gaylord, Michigan, August 17, 1973.

48
have been constructed to date, there remain many questions
of future impact. ‘

One of the newest occurances in the county is
the establishment of oil drilling companies in the area.
and with them came a great need for low cost housing.
Since there has not been much home construction in the
area, the need for shelter has produced a great influx
of scattered mobile homes, particularly in Bagley Township.
The County until this year has been operating on
a master plan and zoning ordinance developed in 1965.
Recent years have shown that plan to be inadequate since
the 1980 projected population of the 1965 plan has already
been exceeded. The county commissioners in March 1973
adopted an interim zoning ordinance and a firm was hired
to develop a comprehensive land use plan. In the planning
process "land reconnaissance will be undertaken to identify
significant land use trends and to identify specific land
use impacts, both favorable and unfavorable, with
suggestions for possible treatment in developing of a
control ordinance."91
As is true in most cases, however, their proposal
mentions no study of social impacts. Apparently, the
editor of the Herald Times, who also serves as the Planning

Commissioner, realized this need and did an opinion survey

 

91Jim welch, "Planning, Zoning Update Authorized
by County", Otsego Herald Times, July 12, 1973, p. 1.

‘1".
we"

a
I‘-
"Vfl

Inn

.. j"

49
in the county in.May 1973. The opinion survey was
delivered with one edition of the newspaper and, therefore
reached a large population. Agricultural, residential,
commercial, industrial and public and recreation goals were
explored. Of particular interest was the question, "What
do you feel is the greatest land development problem in
the county at this time?" "Answers to this question put
land developers, realtors and the oil company and their
people at the top of the list."92 The author was given
the privilege of reading the original survey returns for
comments from Bagley and Otsego Lake Townships to ascertain
some of the sentiment in the area, since it would cover
much of the same population. Some of the comments follow:

-- Too many get rich quick developers operating
in the County.

-- Over population in County brings pollution of
streams, lakes, rivers without adequate sewer
water, garbage etc. facilities.

-- Subividing "cityfies" the North.

-- High price developments such as Michaywe' are
fine in a way, but do tend to increase taxes
in surrounding areas.

-- Too much speculation-~lack of regulation.

-- Gaylord has.lost all it's glory and beauty
to fast development of the many "fast buck"
realtors.

-- Too much development for rich people.

-- Area over publicized, over advertized and not
ready for big influx of people.

 

92taken from "Summary of Land Use survey Otsego
County" located in Zoning Administrators office, Gaylord.

50

-- Property over valued, over taxed which
is discouraging for improvements-not
enough services given for taxes received.

-- Large developers dump additional problems
on County and do not aid in their relief.

-- Lack of consideration for natural surroundings
the land development projects today
ignore the rough beauty of our wild lands.

-- The projected use of development already
platted and approved will create, in the
future, serious problems in ecology, law
enforcement, waste disposal etc.

-- Give thought to ecology of our lakes and
rivers because without them, no development
will be worth the price.

-- The precious wilderness lands that are
left must be saved and kept natural as
possible. We must stand now to help
keep these lands the way they are--after
all we might look upon them as industry
as well as their natural state.9

It would seem there still remains some concern on
the part of residents!

In an interview with the planning commissioner
concerning land developments and Michaywe' in particular,
he felt that the main worry for the local authorities was
the tax load which would be necessary to provide services
to the area as it grows. He felt it was also hard to
imagine that many people in the area and the problems that

94
will arise.

in response to the question "Do you feel that

 

93Opinions expressed in Land Use Survey-Otsego
County Zoning Administrators office, Gaylord, Michigan.

94Interview with Jim Welch (editor Herald Times
and Planning Commissioner) August 23, 1973.

51

the area can support 3221 many septic tanks or will a
sewage system be necessary?" he noted that the Health
Department was keeping a wary watch on the amount of
development and would reguire a sewage system when it
reached a dangerous point of development. Michaywe' has
a proposed site for a sediment pond type of system, but
right now can't afford it.

To a question regarding the impact statement which
Thompson-Brown might have performed and presented in
advance of the development, the reply indicated they had
only presented some physical impact data. The respondent
also indicated the development company advises the local
authorities of any changes they wish to make, however,
they are difficult to deal with since they are under the
impression that the original permit overcomes any later
disagreements.

Asked if he felt the Opal Lake Association had
a legitimate complaint or if the trouble could have been
avoided, the reply indicated the problem was legitimate
but could not have been avoided since aay development of
the property on Opal Lake would have created misgivings.
According to the respondent, many people in the
area are up in arms about the numbers of mobile homes
scattering the county. The new zoning code should help
that problem in the future, but can't eleminate those mobile
home already established. Local residents surmise that

people from down state feel that they can come North and

52
do whatever they want to with the land. Most importantly
he said, "Land developments bother me because there is
less land for people to just look at walk in and enjoy.
They aren't making natural land anymore!"95

An attempt has been made in the foregoing
observations to describe the environs and atmosphere
which encircled the problem as this study was launched.
It naturally becomes a very complicated picture.

95$tatenent by Jim Welch, private interview
August 23, 1973. .

Chapter IV
DESIGN FOR INVESTIGATION
Sample

The sample population used were those permanent
and seasonal residents living within a two mile adjacent
area surrounding the Michaywe' land development near
Gaylord, Michigan. Selection of the respondents was
based on availability. The researcher contacted those
respondents who were in residence during a one week period
in August, 1973. In order to obtain as much randomness
and equality as possible, a map of the area to be studied

96and anreoord

was drawn and divided into four sections
kept of distributed questionaires by the investigator to
insure equal distribution in each section.

Prospective respondents were personally contacted
and asked to complete the questionaire. If they were so
disposed, they were given the choice of having the

investigator return for the completed questionaire or were

 

968cc overlay and map with questionaire
Appendix B, p. 126-127.

53

54
given an addressed stamped envelope with which to mail

the questionaire.

Instrument

The questionaire97

was designed by the researcher
to relate to the problem under investigation. It was
presented to respondents with a cover letter identifying
the survey as one associated with the Department of Human
Environment and Design in the College of Human Ecology at
Michigan State University. A map of the area included

in the study was also attached. The questionaire requested:

1. demographic data-to determine sex; age;
number of children; residential status;
type of living structure and ownership;
length of residence and type of
employment of respondent. Optional
questions at the end of the questionaire
also determined respondents' marital
status; highest grade in school
completed; estimated income and number
of household members employed.

2. goals and goal satisfacticns-to identify

and determine the importance of incentives

 

97See Appendix B., p. 128.

55
for living in the area, and parallel
questions designed to verify goals and
the satisfactions with their original
incentives.

3. activities-questions designed and rated
on a three point scale to identify types
of activities respondents engage in,
their importance and the time spent
participating in certain related outdoor
activities.

4. opinions of community quality-selected
and revised statements patterned after
Bosworth's Community Attitude Scale,98
rated on a five point scale, which
revealed opinions about community
goodness or quality.

5. opinions of community relations-selected
and revised statements, patterned after
Fessler's Community Solidarity Indeg,99
rated on a five point scale, which revealed
Opinions toward personal social relation-

ships or community solidarity.

 

98Delbert Miller, Handbook of Research Desi
and Social Measurement (New York: David McKay 50., inc.,
1931), p. 191.

99Ibid., p. 198.

56

6. satisfactions and dissatisfactions-

items listed to determine on a five
point scale, respondent opinions

about how developments affect the
social climate, physical attributes,
economic factors, and the distribution
of freedom and justice. Items listed
to determine, on a five point scale,
satisfaction or dissatisfaction with
some physical and social qualities of
the area.

7. opinions about land developments in

general-statements designed on a five
point scale to discern respondents
opinions with regard to the effects of
land developments and preferences
concerning future developments.

The instrument was pretested on five respondents
who were familiar with Northeronichigan and land develop-
ments, but did not live in the area of the study. Criticisms‘
and suggestions were noted and revisions made in wording
and format where necessary.

Names of respondents, contacted and to whom the
questionaire had been distributed, were coded and a list
kept by the investigator, so that nothing but a number
appeared on the questionaire. This was done to assure

anonymity as well as to identify in which of the four

u
' r I
let u

get:
the

.1
e561

“n
'u

57
map sections the respondent resided. A quota sample was-
then selected from among the returned questionaires.

A total of 64 questionaires were given to residents
in the area defined by the map in Appendix B, and 47 were
returned to the investigator. Of this number, four were
incomplete and were discarded. In order to equalize the
cell sizes, three others were eliminated by having another
person, not associated with the survey, draw them out of
the total number of useable forms. The sample size,
therefore, was equalized with twenty seasonal and twenty
permanent respondents, or five seasonal and five permanent
respondents in each of the four areas. Area.M represents
residents who live within the Michaywe' land development;
area 0 includes residents residing around and near Opal
Lake and area A and B encompasses the residents living in
the Au Sable Ranch area (the older land development referred
to earlier). A total of 40 respondents, therefore, form

the sample size for this study.
Statistical Techniques

Questionaire responses were coded and computer
cards punched by the investigator. Demographic data were
coded for each respondent as were the major categories of

variables designed to test the hypothesis. The categories

programmed and computed were:,

2.
3.
4.

6.

58

Goal aspirations
Goal satisfactions
Activities participated in
Attitudes toward quality of the community
Attitudes toward solidarity of the community
Perceptions of effects of development on aspects:
a) physical
b) social
c) economic
d) freedom and justice
Satisfaction with physical qualities
Satisfaction with social qualities
General attitudes toward land developments

Programs were designed to:

1.
2.

3.

4.

5.

give demographic data

give frequency and percentage responses to
each of 166 items of the 9 major categories
and 4 sub categories of variables.

give means, standard deviations and F-ratios
for each category of variables according to
residency and geographic location.

compare every response according to length
of residency.

compare responses according to geographic
location by area.

Goals, goal satisfactions and activities were all

coded on a three point scale with the highest number (3)

indicating "very important" or "very satisfied",

(2) "somewhat important" or "somewhat satisfied" and (1)

"unimportant" or "dissatisfied".

Community quality statements in the questionaire

were an attempt to determine how the respondents viewed

the worth,

character or condition of the community. A

59

panel of five people was asked in advance to determine
which statements indicated progressively improved comm-
unity quality. The statements were then coded, reversing
those which signified retrogressive qualities. A high
score on a five point scale, therefore, indicated
progressively better community qualities.

Community solidarity statements on the questionaire
were designed to ascertain the respondents perception toward
community coherence or feelings of togetherness in social
relations and interests. Statements which were considered
to be negative in nature by the judgement panel were
reverse codes when preparing the program. A computed high
score, therefore, indicated high solidarity. Responses
to both the quality of the community and community solidarity

statements were scored as follows:

Scores
Strongly disagree 1
Disagree 2
No opinion 3
Agree 4
Strongly agree 5

Statements descriptive of changes in the community
were coded according to whether they related to the
physical, social, economic aspects of the environment or
whether they were perceived as affecting the freedom or the
justice of the residents involved. The statements

classified in each category were:

6O

 

Categogy £2223; of statement
16A (page 133)

Physical 1,2,3,4,16

Social 5,6,13,14,15,17,21

Economic 7,8,9,10,11,12

Freedom & Justice 18,19,20,22,23,24
Each statement regarding community changes in the instrument

was scored according to the following weightings:

Scores
Much worse 1
Worse 2
No change 3
Better 4
Much better 5

A high score, therefore, was interpreted to mean that
recent changes in the community were perceived as creating
better conditions.

Satisfactions with physical and social conditions
of the area under study were coded according to the

following statement locations in the instrument:

 

Categogy Number of statement
16B (page 134)
Physical 1,4,S,8,9,10,11,16,17

Social 2,3,6,7,12,13,14,15,18

61

Responses to satisfactions were scored according to the

following weights:

£22.12
Very dissatisfied 1
Dissatisfied 2
No opinion 3
Satisfied 4
Very satisfied 5

A high score indicated a higher degree of satisfaction.

Frequencies were computed for each statement to
be used in determining the discriminating power of each
by univariate and multivariate analysis.

Twenty statements dealing with the subject of
land development were included to identify the personal
opinions of the respondents toward land developments in
general. The questions were written in a form that did
not lend itself to determining favorable or unfavorable
qualities. Each statement was coded separately in an
attempt to identify possible differences between the

opinions of the seasonal and permanent residents.

Chapter V
Fl NDI NGS AND I NTERPRETATI 0N

Analysis of Data

Description of Sample Population
The data in this investigation are presented mainly

in terms of percentages comparing seasonal and permanent
residents. Table 1, page 63 a 64, includes demographic
characteristics of residents in the sample pepulation.

It was found that most respondents were males in
both seasonal and permanent categories, and all but two of
the respondents were married. Most respondents in both
categories were in the 45-64 age bracket, however, there
were more respondents in the 18-29 bracket in the permanent
sample and more over 65 in the seasonal sample. The mode
fell in the 45-64 bracket. Seasonal residents had more
and older children living at home (a total or 35) than did
the permanent residents (a total of 21). Here children of‘
the seasonal residents were of secondary school or college
age than were the children of the permanent residents.

The majority (60%) of the seasonal residents had attained
a college or advanced degree, while the majority (80%) of
the permanent residents were high school graduates with

several having spent some years in college. Incomes were

62

Characteristics of Seasonal and Permanent Respondents
According to Percentages

Table 1

63

 

 

 

Characteristics Percentages
Seasonal Permanent
N=20 20

Sex:

Male 60.00 85.00
Female 40.00 15.00
Age:

under 18 0.00 0.00
18-29 0.00 25.00
30-44 40.00 30.00
45-64 50.00 45.00
Mari tal status:

Single 0.00 5.00
Married 100.00 90.00
Divorced 0.00 0.00
Widowed 0.00 5.00
Children living at home: number

Pre-school 2 5
Elementary 9 7
Secondary 17 8
College 7 1
School grade completed:

8-1ess 0.00 0.00
9-12 0.00 0.00
high school graduate 20.00 40.00
Some college 20.00 40.00
College degree 30.00 15.00
Advanced degree 30.00 5.00
Estimated income: (16)

under 85.000 0.00 5.00
85,000 to $15,000 0.00 50.00
815,000 to 830,000 50.00“ 35.00
830,000 to 850,000 43.?5 5.00
850,000 or over 6.25 5.00

64

Table 1 (continued)

 

Characteristics Percentages
Seasonal Permanent
N=20 =20
Type of living stucture:
Mobile home 0.00 0.00
Single family 100.00 100.00
Apartment 0.00 0.00
Length of time lived or
vacationed in area:
5 years of less 20.00 30.00
6-15 years 55.00 35.00
16 years or more 25.00 35.00
Expect to reside in area:
This is last year 0.00 5.00
1-2 more years 0.00 0.00
3-5 more years 5.00 0.00
Indefinitely 95.00 95.00
Environment desired for
vacations: (19)
Quiet, natural 60.00 26.32
Entertainment centers 0.00 10.53
Recreation centers 5.00 5.26
Visits to friends/relatives 0.00 26.32
Quiet/recreational 10.00 5.26
Quiet/entertainment ‘0.00 5.26
Recreation/visits 10.00 5.26
Quiet/visits 0.00 15.79
All types 15.00 0.00

 

v——

*Percentages are based on N-QO responses unless
otherwise indicated by the number in parenthesis. The same
procedure will be followed on succeeding tables.

65
found to be higher with seasonal residents than with
permanent. The majority of seasonal residents (94$) earned
from $15,000 to 850,000 while the majority of the permanent
residents (85%) fell between 85,000 and 830,000 income
level. All respondents were living in single family homes.
Mobile home owners were purposely excluded as explained
earlier, and to date there are no apartments in the area
studied.

fifty-five percent of the seasonal residents had
lived or vacationed in the area from 6-15 years, while the
permanent residents were almost evenly divided between five
years or less (30%), 6-15 years (35%) and 16 years or more
(35$). over-all the length of residence was not appreciably
different in the two samples and the mode was between 6-15
years. Almost all residents in both categories plan to
live in the area indefinitely. Sixty percent of the seasonal
residents preferred ”quiet, natural settings for vacations
and permanent residents divided evenly (26$) between "quiet
natural settings" and "visits to friends and relatives".

Some definite differences were discovered to exist
between the characteristics of the seasonal and permanent
residents. The seasonal sample had more education, higher
incomes, and more and older children living at home, and
their expressions of preferance for vacations was strongly
in favor of quiet, natural settings. Some of the differences
in perception between seasonal and permanent residents,

therefore, may be due to these differences and not solely

66
because of their status as seasonal or permanent residents.
In the following dicussions, therefore, it should be
-remembered that these were uncontrolled factors in this.

study.

9.2.1.2
Responses to expressed goals (item 10A on the
questionaire) as a determinant of residential location are
reported in Table 2, page 67. Permanent residents indicated
that the three major factors in choosing their location
were 1) ”a good location to raise children" (65%); 2) "a
chance to enjoy a more rural way of life" (63$): 3) "the
opportunity to get back to nature and take advantage of
recreational resources" (60%). All three of these goals
were chosen with nearly equal frequency. The majority (90%)
of the seasonal residents said they chose the location for
”the opportunity to get back to nature and take advantage
of recreational resources", and sixty percent of them also
indicated the "chance to enjoy a rural way of life" was

important.

Goal Satisfactions

Table 3, page 68 presents data on satisfactions
with goal achievement (item 103 on questionaire). Respond-
ents indicated they were satisfied with their choice of
location. The highest number of respondents in the "very
satisfied" category corresponded to the same category in

the expressed goals table. A comparison of Table 3 and 4

Table 2

Goals Very Important To ResidentialeocatiOn

For Seasonal and Permanent Residents

67

 

 

 

 

1E
Goals Very important to 1
Seasonal Permanent a“ v
N=20 N320 aJ
business or economic
opportunities 5.00 25.00
Chance to enjoy rural
way of life 60.00 (19) 63.00
Opportunity to get back
to nature-take advantage
of recreational resources 90.00 60.00
Ability to live near friends
or relatives 10.00 (19) 15.79
Good location to raise
children 20.00 65.00
Other 5.00 5.00

 

68

Table 3

Goal Satisfactions of Residential Location
For Permanent and Seasonal Residents
(expressed in percentages)

 

Goals Very Satisfied
Seasonal Permanent

 

N320 ' N=20

Business or economic
opportunities (14) 42.86 (19) 42.11

chance to enjoy rural
way of life (19) 57.89 75.00

Opportunity to get back
to nature-take advantage
of recreational resources 70.00 80.00

Ability to live near friends
or relatives (15) 53.33 (16) 37.50

Good location to raise
children (11) 45.45 (17) 76.47

Other 0.00 0.00

 

69
reveals some identifiable differences. The desire to
”get back to nature" was denoted by 90 percent of the
seasonal residents as being very important, however, only
70 percent indicated they were "very satisfied". It is
interesting to note, too, that while only 60 percent of
the permanent residents marked ”getting back to nature and
enjoying recreational facilities" as an important goal,
80 percent were "very satisfied" with that goal. Seasonal
residents showed nearly equal frequencies for "a chance to
enjoy a more rural way of life" in expressed goals and goal
satisfactions, but more (75%) of the permanent residents
indicated satisfaction than those (63$) who originally chose
that reason for residency. Greater satisfactions were
indicated by both seasonal and permanent residents when
"business and economic opportunities" and "a good location

to raise children" were compared on the two tables.

Leisure Activities

Leisure activities important to the residents
(item 11 on questionaire) showed that seasonal and
permanent residents agreed on their choice of types of
activities (Table 4, page 70). "Enjoying nature and the
outdoors” was very important to 85 percent of the seasonal
residents and 84 percent of the permanent residents. Sixty-
five percent of the seasonal sample and 75 percent of the
permanent sample also enjoyed active outdoor sports

activities. Parties and social functions were least

Table 4

Leisure Activities Very Important For
Seasonal and Permanent Residents

(expressed in percentages)

70

 

Activity Types

Very important to

 

Seasonal Permanent
N820 N820

Enjoying nature & outdoors 85.00 (19) 84.21
visiting with friends

& family (19) 31.58 35.00
Parties and/or social

functions 5.00 (19) 10.53
Active outdoor sports

activities .65.00 75.00

 

71
important to both samples.

Participation in Activities
Participation in outdoor activities, Table 5. PBGe

72, (item 12 on questionaire) revealed many similarities
between seasonal and permanent residents and verified that
outdoor activities were important to both samples. Combined
frequent and occasional percentages showed that snowmobiling
was the activity marked most frequently (80$) by permanent
residents and swimming was the activity marked most freq-
uently (90$) by seasonal residents. Permanent residents
also enjoyed equally (65%) snow skiing and fishing. Golf
was a close second choice for seasonal residents (80%).
Differences appeared between the populations when
percentages were compared in golf, bicycling, horseback
riding, snowmobiling, motorcycling and swimming. Thirty-
five percent more seasonal residents said they participated
in golf than permanent residents. Bicycling attracted more
permanent residents by a 30 percent margin. Horseback
riding and motorcycling were frequently participated

in by seasonal residents and snowmobiling and bicycling
were more frequent sports for permanent residents. The
sport least participated in by seasonal residents was
bicycling (21$) and by permanent residents were horseback

riding and motorcycling (both 20$).

Community Qpalipz
Community quality ratings reported in Table 6,

 

Time Spent By Permanent and Seasonal Residents

Table 5

Participating in Outdoor Activities
Frequently 0r occasionally
(expressed in percentages)

72

 

 

 

Activity Frequently Occasionally
Seas. Perm. Seas. Perm.
Eazo N-zo
Fishing 10.00 5.00 65.00 60.00
Power boating 10.00 10.00 50.00 45.00
Water Skiing 5.00 10.00 40.00 20.00
Snow Skiing 35.00 40.00 25.00 25.00
Swimming 30.00 .20.00 60.00 50.00
Motorcycling 10.00 10.00 35.00 10.00
Snowmobiling 15.00 55.00 35.00 25.00
horseback riding 0.00 5.00 40.00 15.00
Golf 5.00 25.00 75.00 20.00
Tennis 20.00 10.00 10.00 25.00
Sailing 5.00 0.00 40.00 35.00
Canoeing 0.00 5.00 30.00 30.00
Bicycling (19)0.00 15.00i19)21.05 35.00
0thers(hunting, hiking
skeet, archer!) (4) 40.00 0.00 (2)1o.oo o.oo

 

73
page 74 (item 14 on questionaire), indicated similar
attitudes for both seasonal and permanent residents. Of
particular interest were the high similar percentages
shown in response to three statements. linety percent of
the seasonal residents and 85 percent of the permanent
residents felt that officials should get public sentiment
before acting on major developmental projects. In response
to the statement: "Progress can best be accomplished by
having only a few peeple involved in decision making”,
seasonal residents disagreed by 80 percent and permanent
residents disagreed by 85 percent. The other statement
which indicated considerable similarity as well as a high
concensus was, "services and recreational facilities are
not necessary to make the community grow". Both seasonal
and permanent residents disagreed with the statement with
nearly equal frequency. The one major discrepancy between
seasonal and permanent residents was evident in the
statement: ”Economic progress is more important than the
social changes which may follow". Fifty-five percent of
the permanent residents agreed with the statement while
only 15 percent of the seasonal residents agreed.

Community Solidarity
An examination of Table 7. Pages 75 a 76, which

showed attitudes relative to community solidarity (item 15
on questionaire), revealed that permanent and seasonal

residents both gave the community a high rating on nearly

74

Table 6

Seasonal and Permanent Residents Comparative
Rating of Community Quality Factors
(expressed in percentages)1

 

 

 

Quality Factors? Low Rating3 High Rating4
Seas. Perm. Seas. Perm.
N-20 N220

Progress 15.00 55.00 60.00 40.00
Improvement 50.00 60.00 30.00 30.00
Taxes 35.00 30.00 45.00 60.00
Sewage system 20.00 10.00 65.00 75.00
Chamber of Commerce 10.00 15.00 45.00 65.00
Personal business 10.00 35.00 65.00 60.00
Decision making 20.00 15.00 80.00 85.00
Public sentiment 5.00 5.00 90.00 85.00
Outsiders take advantage 25.00 40.00 70.00 50.00

Service a recreation needs 5.00 15.00 90.00 85.00

Outsiders create problems 25.00 40.00 65.00 60.00
Police 5.00 15.00 85.00 75.00

 

1Where percentages do not equal 100%, the missing
percentage appeared in the "no opinion" column.

2For complete statements see: "Opinions of Community
Quality" in questionaire, Appendix B, p. 132.

3Low ratingscombined percentages of attitudes
"strongly agree" and "agree".

4High ratingacombined percentages of attitudes
"strongly disagree” and "disagree".

Comparative Attitudes 0f Seasonal'and Permanent

Table 7

Residents Relating To Community So
(expressed in percentages)

Solidarity Variablesz

AA

1—

Low Rating 3

lidarity

75

V———

High Ratingaf

 

Seas. Perm. Seas. Perm.
N220

a) Area appearance 15.00 25.00 85.00 65.00
b) Courtesy 10.00 35.00 80.00 60.00
c) Friends 0.00 0.00 90.00 80.00
d) People differences 10.00 30.00 80.00 70.00
s) Superiority 0.00 10.00 85.00 85.00
f) Belonging 5.00 15.00 75.00 85.00
g) Permanency 5.00 0.00 80.00 90.00
h) Hind own business 10.00 50.00 90.00 35.00
1) Take advantage 5.00 10.00 95.00 85.00
3) Peaceful, orderly 15.00 35.00 70.00 55.00
k) Friendliness 35.00 30.00 30.00 35.00
1) Local concerns 25.00 30.00 40.00 55.00
m) Differences 15.00 10.00 40.00 50.00
n) Excitement 40.00 20.00 35.00 70.00
c) Concern about kids 20.00 40.00 55.00 60.00
p) Utility services 30.00 45.00 45.00 45.00

Table 7 (continued)

76

 

 

 

Solidarity Variables Low Rating High Rating
Seas. Perm. Seas. Perm.

N820
q) Criticisms 30.00 45.00 45.00 45.00
*r) Childrens control 15.00 45.00 40.00 45.00
s) money 0.00 20.00 75.00 85.00
*t) Efficiency of services 0.00 15.00 60.00 55.00
H) Childrens respect 15.00 35.00 55.00 50.00

—_r_f

2ror complete statements see: "Opinions of

1Where percentages do not equal 100%, the missing
percentage appeared in the "no change" column.

Community relations” in questionaire, Appendix B, p. 132.
Note: negative answers were reverse coded, therefore, high
score indicates good solidarity attitude.

column.

3Low ratingscombined percentages of "strongly disagree"
and "disagree"

‘High rating=combined percentages of "strongly agree"
and "agree" responses.

*Relatively high number of responses in "no change"

77
all factors. The majority of both populations (90$ seasonal,
80$ permanent) indicated that friends were easy to find in
the area. Eighty percent of the seasonal population-and
90 percent of the permanent population felt it wasn't
necessary to live in the area permanently in order to gain
a sense of belonging. Of note were responses to the
statement: ”People as a whole mind their own business".
Seasonal residents agreed by 90 percent, but only 35 percent
of the permanent residents agreed. Seventy percent of the
permanent sample indicated that the area was becoming more
exciting and had more to offer now, while only 35 percent
of the seasonal residents felt that this was true. Of note
are the low percentages displayed for both a low rating and
high rating in response to the statement: "This used to be
a friendlier area”. A nearly equal number of responses
(35$ for both samples) indicated they perceived "no change"
relative to this statement. Other items such as "control
of children", "efficiency of services" and "differences

between people" also indicated respondents did not perceive

much change.

Perceived Change
The perceived effects which the land development

had had on the economic, physical and social aspects of the
community, and respondents attitudes toward freedom and
justice (item 16A on questionaire) are presented in Table

8, pages 79 a 80. With regard to the economic aspect, a

78
majority of both populations (74$ seasonal and 70$ Permanent)
felt that living expenses were higher compared to other
areas, but a majority of both (70$ seasonal and 60$
permanent) also felt that there was a greater variety of
goods available. Seasonal residents by 79 percent compared
to 53 percent of the permanent residents perceived permanent
residents' incomes to be higher since the land development
was established. Seasonal residents, also, thought that
economic conditions were better now (74$) while only 47
percent of the permanent residents had the same feeling.

Agreement was noticable among the physical quality
factors. Impressions were with 85 percent of the seasonal
residents and 75 percent of the permanent residents that
congestion was worse in the area. Seasonal residents felt
to a greater extent (85$) than permanent residents (65$)
that air, water and noise qualities were worse.)

Impressions of the social aspects of the comm-
unity were similar for both samples. Sixty-five percent
of the seasonal residents and 50 percent of the permanent
residents indicated they felt the beauty of the environment
to be worse, but 65 percent of both sample populations
agreed that the recreation facilities were better. Worthy
of mention is the fact that 63 percent of the seasonal
residents felt that there had been a negative effect on
privacy, while only 40 percent of the permanent residents
agreed. Neither sample indicated privacy to be "better".

The category called freedom and justice revealed

79

Table 8

Comparison of Seasonal and Permanent Resident's
Perceived Effects of Land Deve10pment
0n Economic, Physical, Social,
Freedom and Justice Aspects
(expressed in percentages)

 

Conditional Aspects Perceived Effects

 

Better2 Worse3
Seas. Perm. Seas. Perm.
N=20 N220 m=20 N=20
Economic
Level resident's
income (19) 78.94 (19) 52.64 (19) 0.00 (19) 10.53
Number jobs
available (19) 63.15 (19 63.16 (19) 0.00 (19) 21.05
“Tax rate (18) 27.78 (19) 10.53 (18) 38.89 (19) 52.63
Variety goods
available 70.00 60.00 5.00 20.00
Economic condition(19)73.68 (19) 47.37 (19) 10.53 (19) 21.05
Living expenses (10) 5.26 15.00 (19) 73.68 70.00
Phlsical
Quality private
service (19) 52.63 50.00 (19) 21.05 40.00
Quality public
service (19) 57.90 70.00 (19) 0.00 10.00
Congestion 5.00 5.00 85.00 75.00

Quality air, water

noise 5.00 0.00 85.00 65.00

Quality health,

education facil.(19) 52.63 65.00 5.26 5.00

80

Table 8 (continued)

*7—

Conditional Aspects Perceived Effects

 

 

 

Better Worse
Seas. Perm. ' Seas. Perm.
fi;?0 .N;§0 N826 ”=20
Social
Beauty of environment 15.00 15.00 65.00 50.00
Social activities (19)42.10 50.00 (19)10.53 15.00
Privacy 0btainable(19)10.52 15.00 (19)63.16 40.00
* Community
friendliness (19)15.79 10.00 (19)15.79 10.00
*Security and
safety (19)10.52 20.00 (19)31.58 25.00
*Social acceptance (19) 5.26 15.00 (19) 5.26 5.00
Recreation
facilities 65.00 65.00 10.00 0.00
Freedom and Justice
*Personal freedom (19)10.52 15.00 (19)15.79 20.00
*Residents self
d1‘C1P11nC {19) 5e26 5.00 (19)36084 35e00
*Legal reg. enforced 10.00 20.00 15.00 30.00
Personal rights (19) 5.26 20.00 (19)21.05 25.00
Citizen participation
opportunity (18)38.89 50.00 (18) 5.56 5.00
People treated
as equals (18)11.12 20.00 (18) 5.26 20.00

1 1Where percentages do not equal 100$, the missing
percentage appeared in the "no change" column.

2
"much better" or ”better".

3Worsescombined percentages of responses marked

"much worse” or "worse".

*Relatively high number responses in "no change" column

Betterscombined percentages of responses marked

81
that fifty percent of the permanent residents and 39 percent
of the seasonal residents perceived that there were more
opportunities for citizen participation and only one
seasonal and one permanent respondent indicated there were
fewer opportunities. Several people in both groups (36$
seasonal and 35$ permanent) 0n the other hand, felt that
residents' self discipline was worse.

The fairly low percentage totals revealed through-
out Table 8 indicated that many respondents felt there had

been no change in many of the categories.

Community Qpality Satisfactions
Satisfactions with physical and social factors

(item 16B on questionaire) shown in Table 9, page 82,
display similar attitudes between seasonal and permanent
residents. Fairly outstanding was the attitude toward
sewage treatment. Fifty percent of the seasonal residents
were satisfied with the present system, while 60 percent
of the permanent residents were dissatisfied. Differences
can also be noted with regard to fire protection where

50 percent of the permanent residents were satisfied and
50 percent of the seasonal residents were dissatisfied.
The same difference is shown in attitudes toward police
protection when 75 percent of the permanent residents felt
it was adequate, however, only 35 percent of the seasonal
residents agreed and 35 percent were dissatisfied.
Seasonal residents were slightly more dissatisfied (50$)

82

Table 9

Comparative Satisfactions of Seasonal and Permanent
Residents Regarding Qualities of
Social and Physical Factors
(expressed in percentages)

 

 

 

Factors Satisfactions
Satisfied Ddssatisfied3
Seas. Perm. Seas. Perm.
N220 N 20 N320 N=20

Physical
Road maintenance 75.00 55.00 25.00 45.00
Waste disposal 30.00 35.00 60.00 55.00
Sewage treatment 50.00 20.00 25.00 60.00
Telephone service 30.00 40.00 45.00 45.00
Electrical service 80.00 50.00 20.00 40.00
Fire protection 10.00 50.00 50.00 35.00
Police protection 35.00 75.00 35.00 20.00
health facilities 70.00 70.00 10.00 25.00
Housing quality 65.00 60.00 10.00 30.00

Social

Road safety a patrol 50.00 80.00 35.00 20.00
Noise levels 45.00 50.00 50.00 40.00
Lake quality 55.00 55.00 35.00 40.00
Natural beauty 65.00 70.00 25.00 30.00
Shopping facilities 85.00 80.00 5.00 15.00
Entertainment facilities 75.00 70.00 5.00 25.00
Recreational facilities 85.00 85.00 5.00 15.00
‘*Cultural advantages 25.00 30.00 15.00 40.00
‘*!outh recreation 40.00 45.00 25.00 40.00

 

1Where percentages do not equal 100%, the missing
percentage appeared in the "no opinion" column.

2Satisfiedr-combined responses of "very satisfied"
and "satisfied".

3Dissatisfied=combined responses of "dissatisfied"
and "very dissatisfied".

*Relatively high number responses in "no opinion"
column.

83
than they were satisfied (45$) with noise levels. .lost of
both sample populations (85$ seasonal, 80$ permanent) were
satisfied with shopping facilities, entertainment
facilities (75$ seasonal, 70$ permanent) and recreational
facilities (85$ both seasonal and permanent). A slight
dissatisfaction (15$) was indicated by seasonal residents
with regard to cultural advantages, while permanent
residents were more dissatisfied (40$). More seasonal
residents indicated they had "no opinion" for all categories

than did permanent residents.

General Effects of Land Developments

The comparisons in perceptions to statements with
regard to land developments in general (item 17 on
questionaire), shown in Table 10, pages 84, 85, 86, did not
show a great deal of variance. Some interesting observations
can be made, however, which are important to future
development and control. Eighty percent of the seasonal
residents and 50 percent of the permanent residents agreed
with the statement that land development projects have
reached a point of over-development in this immediate area.
Both samples said that land developments effected the
way of living of those already in the community (85$ seasonal,
80$ permanent). Fifty percent of the permanent residents
indicated that land developments step on the rights of
established community members, but only 35 percent of the

seasonal residents agreed with them.

Table 10

Comparative Attitudes of Seasonal and Permanent
Residents To General Effect Statements
(expressed in percentages)1

 

 

 

Statements Attitudes
Agree2 Dis—agree 3
Seas. Perm. Seas. Perm.
N-2O N=20

 

The general ecology (air,
water, plant life, animal
life) is damaged by recent
60.00 60.00 20.00 30.00

land developments.

Concern for environmental
quality has had priority
over economic
considerations. 15.00 15.00 65.00

70.00

Present land development
projects have reached a
point of over development
in this immediate area. 80.00 50.00 5.00 40.00

Land developments have had
bad effects on the beauty
65.00 40.00 20.00 50.00

of the environment.

Land developments have good
effects on the services
and recreation facilities
70.00 55.00 25.00 30.00

that people want.

Land developments have poor
effects on personal privacy

and freedom. 55.00 45.00 25.00 30.00
Land developments have

increased my feeling of

safety and security. 20.00 25.00 70.00 65.00

Table 10 (continued)

85

 

 

Statements

Agree

Seas.

Attitudes

Fame

Dis-agree

Seas.

Perm.

 

Land developments promote
new friendships. 35.00
Land developments have no
effect on the way of living
of those already in the
community. 15.00
Land developments have de-
creased the economic status
of residents of the area. 10.00
Economic gains are more
important than environmental
quality. 15.00
Land developments have good
effects on taxes 20.00
The way decisions are made now
usually have my best interest
in mind. 20.00

Land developments usually
step on the rights of
established community
members. 35.00

Permanent residents‘ interests
are considered more often
than seasonal residents'
interests when decisions
about developments are made.50.00

Recreational residential
land developments are
definitely preferable to
other types of development

in this area. 55.00

60.00

15.00

15.00

10.00

25.00

30.00

30.00

40.00

40.00

45.00

85.00

45.00

70.00

55.00

55.00

35.00

20.00

20.00

20.00

80.00

80.00

80.00

60.00

55.00

50.00

40.00

40.00

Table 10 (continued)

66

 

 

Statements

Agree

Attitudes

Perm-i

Dis-agree

Seas.

Perm.

 

More new land developments
are needed in Northern
Michigan. 0.00

Future land developments
should ideally include
only single family housing 80.00

Future land developments
should be free from controls
and restrictions regarding
the nature and size of
the project. 0.00

Future land developments
should be controlled by
the State 50.00

5.00

45.00

5.00

50.00

85.00

0.00

95.00

35.00

80.00

45.00

90.00

35.00

 

1Where percentages do not equal 100$, the missing

percentage appeared in the "no opinion" column.

2Agree=combined percentages of responses "strongly

agree" or agree” .
3
”strongly disagree” or"disagree” .

Disagree-combined percentages of responses

87

Worth mentioning on the topic of future land
development were responses shown in Table 10. In answer
to the statement: "More new land developments are needed-
in Northern Michigan", 85 percent of the seasonal and 80
percent of the permanent residents disagreed. To the
statement: "Future land developments should ideally include
only single family housing", 80 percent of the seasonal
residents agreed while the permanent residents split evenly
(45$) between agree and disagree. A strong majority
(90$ permanent and 95$ seasonal) residents indicated that
future land developments should have controls and restrict-
ions with regard to the size and nature of the project.
Fifty percent of both the seasonal and permanent residents
felt that land developments should be controlled by the
State.

Univariate and Multivariate analysis tests were
computed on the eleven categories of variables considered
to be important to the social indicators to discover
whether there was a significant mean difference in any of
the variables. 0n the basis of the results given in
Table 11, page 88, it can be noted that there were no
significant differences between seasonal and permanent
residents (ps<;05). The multivariate test of equality
of mean vectors, Table 12, page 89, had a total probability

less than .1922. The only univariate score which was

significant was goal satisfactions (p=<;0468).

 

88

Table 11

Mean Scores and Standard Deviation Comparisons
Between Seasonal and Permanent Residents
For All Dependent Variables

 

l' .

 

Variables Means Standard
Deviations
Seas. Perm. Seas. Perm.
N220 N=20 N=20 N820
Goals 9.90 10.55 1.65 1.96
Goal satisfactions 10.05 11.85 3.09 2.41
Activities participated in 8.80 8.65 3.65 3.76
Community Quality 44.30 42.35 6.79 4.39
Community Solidarity 76.00 72.40 9.75 10.92
Physical changes 14.20 14.90 3.52 2.63
Social changes 17.05 18.45 4.38 2.58
Economic changes 18.95 18.10 3.55 4.76
Freedom and Justice 19.65 21.05 5.60 2.74
Social satisfactions 30.40 29.50 5.60 6.48
Physical satisfactions 18.60 17.55 4.64 5.26

 

Table 12

F-Ratios and Probability Scores
Comparing Permanent and Seasonal
Residents and Variables

 

*M. — — —-- v--——v~

unitivariate Analysis of Variance
Dependent Variable-Type of Residency

 

 

 

F-Ratio Degrees of Freedom Level of Probability
1.4858 38. .1922 .
Variable F-Ratio Probability
P less than-
Goals 1.29 .2638
Coal Satisfaction 4.22 .0468
' Activities .02 .9006
Community Quality 1.16 .2878
Community Solidarity 1.21 .2783
Physical Change .51 .4807
Social Change 1.51 .2261
Economic Change .41 .5256
Freedom, Justice 1.00 .3220
Physical Satisfaction .45 .5071

Social Satisfaction .22 .6409

90

Discussion

The sample populations used in this study were not
matched on all characteristics, although there were many
similarities. All respondents lived in single family homes
since mobile home residents were purposely excluded due to
their rather transient disposition, and there were no
apartments in the area. The age of all residents averaged
between 45 and 64 and all but two respondents were married.
The average length of time in residence averaged for both
sample p0pulations between 6 and 15 years, and all but two
respondents expected to remain indefinitely. Seasonal
residents definitely most enjoyed quiet natural environments
for vacations while permanent residents were more diversified
in their choices, but split evenly between quiet natural
environments and visits to relatives and friends. Incomes,
schooling and children living at home were distinguishing
characteristics. Seasonal residents had more and older
children living at home and had higher levels of education
and incomes. In particular, these factors may have lent
unknown weights to some responses which were not identi-
fiable in this study.

Goals and goal satisfactions appeared to give the
impression that generally both sample populations were
satisfied with their original reasons for choosing to
locate in the area. Seasonal residents seemed unconcerned

about raising children in the area since they probably

 

I .. .

91
didn't consider that area their prime place of residency.
The fact that some of them didn't bother to mark their
satisfactions on that factor may account for the fairly
significant difference which showed up in the probabilities.
When one compares the percentages of "desire" and
"satisfactions" with "getting back to nature", however, it
might appear that perhaps the land development was
providing a more city or suburban atmosphere than people
desired. This would support a hypothesis that inadvertently
"city people" destroy the very thing which they came to
enjoy.

The increased availability of recreational resources
brought about by the land development might account for
permanent residents becoming more satisfied with the
opportunity to get back to nature and take advantage of
recreational facilities than their initial locational
reasons indicated.

It doesn't appear unusual that according to Table
4, the types of activities most enjoyed by all respondents
were active outdoor sports and enjoying nature and the
outdoors. The area is actually located in the heart of
one of the prime recreational locations in Northern
Michigan, which yields an abundance of natural life
and recreation to be enjoyed.

Data revealed in Table 5, page 72, suggested there
was not a great deal of difference between what the

respondents do and their original reasons for locating in

92

the area. Participation in outdoor activities was
abundant and the increased amenities: golf course, ski hill,
tennis courts, etc., offered by Michaywe' apparently
provided many more opportunities. 0n the whole, seasonal
residents participated in greater numbers in all activities
except snowmobiling, bicycling and slightly more in snow
skiing. A contributing factor would probably be the fact
that seasonal residents were actually spending their]
vacations and leisure time while in the area, but many
permanent residents necessarily spent a great deal of their
time working. Since incomes were higher with the seasonal
population, it seemed natural for them to be involved with
the more costly activities since they could more easily
afford the extra contrivances. For example, many more
seasonal residents participated in golf, horseback riding
and motorcycling, all of which are costly. Permanent
residents, on the other hand, participated more in the less
expensive sports of bicycling and swimming. It doesn't
appear unusual, however, that the sport most often
participated in by permanent residents was snowmobiling.
Many permanent people feel snowmobiles are a necessity due
to the extreme snow conditions which descend on that area
at times.

The discrepancy with respect to economic progress
(Table 6, page 74) being more important than social changes
is actually not unexpected. Permanent residents would

naturally be more concerned with the economic progress of

93
the community and the more people brought into the area
by land development, brings better prospects into the
community for economic improvement.

There was strong contention on the parts of both
populations that officials should get public sentiment
before acting on major development projects, and that more
people should be involved with decision making. The data
seemed to indicate that people definitely wanted to be more
actively involved in decision making and planning.

The concensus of opinion relative to community
solidarity indicated that most of both populations felt
there was good coherence. Seasonal residents apparently
were more inclined than permanent residents to feel that
people as a whole mind their own business. This might be
due to the small town atmosphere which surrounds permanent
residents in which everyone seems to know all and tell all,
while seasonal residents often make efforts to not become
involved. The fact that permanent residents felt the
area was becoming more exciting and had more to offer
(Table 7, page 75) could be attributed to the additions
and improvements in the recreation and entertainment
facilities made by the land development company.

Seasonal residents had the impression that
economic conditions were improved and permanent residents'
incomes were greater since the land development was
established. Permanent residents, however, did not agree

to a great extent. These attitudes might be connected on

94
the part of seasonal residents to the feeling that living
expenses were higher in this area; although since the
permanent residents also felt living expenses were
relatively higher, the responses could be a reaction to
general economic conditions. Whether expenses were actually
higher in this area than in other resort areas at the time
of this study was undetermined.

The land development was perceived as creating more
congestion, and adverse effects on water and noise qualities.
This is rather a natural phenomenon, however, with pp:
increase in population. The privacy factor (Table 8,
page 79) seemed particularly important and worse to both
sample populations, and the aesthetics of the environment
was also earmarked as being damaged. A trade-off seemed
apparent, however, when both populations strongly felt that
the recreation facilities had improved. Perhaps the
indication is that Michaywe' brought increased pleasure
to the lives of the area residents.

In the freedom and justice category, the data
revealed that both populations perceived residents self
discipline as being worse. This reaction might expose
some inner resentments, particularly in view of the
respondents' related feelings toward privacy, or it could
be a result of increased motorcycle and snowmobile traffic
in the area. '

The dissatisfactions which showed up among the

seasonal residents with regard to fire and police protection

95
(Table 9. page 82), most likely can be attributed to their
urban orientation. They naturally are accustomed to
faster and more complete protection and probably feel
uncomfortable with the situation in a rural community.
Permanent residents, on the other hand, accept the situation
as a way of life. It seemed unusual that more seasonal
residents were satisfied with the sewage system than were
permanent residents since all residents were using septic
tanks. it might be that since permanent residents used
their septic systems more consistently, they experienced
more problems. The slight dissatisfaction indicated by
permanent residents with regard to cultural advantages is
a natural phenomenon since there are few cultural
advantages in small towns and seasonal residents probably
don't expect to find them there.

Perhaps it is true that often those who arrive
first to get their piece of rural solitude and escape urban
congestion, prefer to keep others from joining them fearing
it will become another urban environment. This became
apparent when both permanent and seasonal residents,
responding to the land development statements (Table 10,
page 84), rejected anything indicative of urban life.

They felt no more new developments in Northern.Michigan
were needed and that definite controls were necessary in
the future. Seasonal residents decidedly rejected the
idea of anything but single family homes, probably

because apartments reminded them of the city life they

 

96
were trying to escape.

Although both sample populations agreed that the
general ecology had been damaged by the land development,
the seasonal residents felt more strongly that the
aesthetics of the environment had deteriorated. This
reaction might be due to the fact that seasonal residents
may be more in touch with ecology problems due to higher
levels of education. 0n the other hand, it could also mean
that the Michaywe' development had accomplished an
aesthetically pleasing development which was quite pleasing
to the permanent residents. Half of the permanent residents
indicated that land developments stepped on the rights of
established community members, which may account for an
impression on the part of both populations, that land
developments had definitely had effects on their lives.

About half of both sample populations indicated
that the State should have control over future development,
which would suggest that there was some support for a

Land Use Bill.
Analysis of Hypothesis

This study was based on a premise that there have
been conflicts of interest concerning land developments.
Therefore, it was surmised that there would be significant
differences revealed by feedbacks from permanent and
seasonal residents. The hypothesis based on this premise

W88 3

97

"There will be significant differences'
between permanent and seasonal residents
when responding to a set of social
indicators relating to residential
recreational land developments."

The total mean scores were computed for each
variable considered to be one type of social indicator,
(goals: goal satisfactions; activities; community quality;
community solidarity: physical, social, economic, freedom
and justice attitudes toward change and satisfactions with
physical and social qualities). Table 11 and 12 contain
data which reveals there were no significant differences
between seasonal and permanent residents, (p=<.1922) although
univariate tests and mean scores indicate possible diff-
erences and trends. Goal satisfactions, for example, was
significant (p=<.04) at level of probability p=<505. The
multivariate analysis indicated no significant difference,

therefore the hypothesis was not supported.
Implications For Future Study

During the process of data collection it became
increasingly evident that there might be more differences
based on geographic location than simply between permanent
and seasonal residents. Therefore, a two by three program
was written and computed according to the following

cells and populations:

98
a B area permanent residents
& B area seasonal residents
as permanent residents
as seasonal residents

ar
ar
area permanent residents
area seasonal residents

A

A

.H

H

0

0
A multivariate analysis of variance test was computed to
test differences in these cells.

A and B residents were combined since they had
like qualities, being the older land development described
earlier. Area.l included residents of’Michaywe' land
development and Area 0 residents were those living around
Opal Lake.

Table 13, page 99 presents the observed cell means
and standard deviations for each cell. A trend began to
develop indicating the likeness of both permanent and
seasonal residents by geographic areas. There does seem
to be a fairly wide margin in means of goal satisfactions
in area 0 &‘M between seasonal and permanent residents.
This was also the only variable which possibly could be
considered significant in the previous analysis, therefore
it could have been these areas which were responsible for
the near significant difference. A review of frequency
and percentage tables computed by areas indicated seasonal
residents of area 0 chose this location for it's rural
and quiet qualities and then became dissatisfied with the
trend of events, in particular the land development which
they felt was infringing on their rights. Area.N
seasonal residents obviously participated a great deal

Table 13

means and Standard Deviation Comparison
According to Geographic Location

Residency Status and

Dependent Variables

99

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cell Variable means Standard N=
Deviations

A-B permanent Eééig 10.50 1.6 10
A-B seasonal 10.20 1.6 10
m permanent 11.00 2.3 5
M seasonal 9.80 1.9 5

0 permanent 10.20 2.5 5

0 seasonal 9.40 1.6 5

Goal Satisfaction

A-b permanent 11.20 2.3 10
A-B seasonal 10.90 3.0 10
m permanent 12.80 2.4 5
M seasonal 10.80 3.7 5

U permanent 12.20 2.7 5

O seasonal 7.60 1.2 5

Activities

A-B permanent 8.90 3.5 10
A-B seasonal 6.90 2.1 10
M permanent 8.60 4.4 S
M seasonal 14.00 2.5 5

0 permanent 8.20 4.4 5

U seasonal 7.40 2.4 5

Community Quality

A-B permanent 42.20 3.5 10
A-B seasonal 42.90 6.9 10
M permanent 54.80 3.6 5
M seasonal 46.60 5.6 5
0 permanent 39.20 4.7 5

U seasonal 44.80 8.1 5

communit Solidarit

A-B permanent 9.10 9.7 10
A-B seasonal 73.00 7.1 10
M permanent 80.60 10.1 5

m seasonal 81.60 10.3 ‘ 5

u permanent 70.80 11.7 5

0 seasonal 76.40 13.0 5

Table 13 (continued) 3100

Cell Variablefi Means Stantard

Deviation N:

 

Physical Changes

 

 

 

 

 

permanent 13.90 2.5 10
seasonal 14.10 4.5 10
permanent 17.20 2,5
seasonal 14.20 3,0
permanent 14.60 1.5
Belaonal 14 . 40 1 . 9
Social Changes
permanent 18.00 1.8
seasonal 15.80 4.0
permanent 21.00 2.9
seasonal 21.60 4.0
permanent 16.80 1.9
seasonal 15.00 2.1
Economic Changes
permanent 16.70 4.7
seasonal 18.90 4.4
permanent 21.40 5.0
seasonal 19.60 2.3
permanent 17.60 3.6
seasonal 18.40 3.0
Justice and Freedom
permanent 21.10 1.4
seasonal 18.60 5.4
permanent 23.80 2.2
seasonal 22.60 7.2
permanent 18.20 2.4
seasonal 18.80 3.9
Satisfaction
thsicalggualities
permanent 26.10 5.7
seasonal 28.50 5.2
permanent 30.60 3.1
seasonal 29.60 3.0
permanent 27.40 5.5
seasonal 27.80 5.4
Satisfaction
Social Qualities
permanent 27°40 7'9
seasonal 30.90 4.7
permanent 34000 10 5
.eaaonal 33040 307
seasonal 26040 701

is?
more in sports activities than any of the groups. This
would be a natural tendency, since the Area.l population
was within the Michaywe' development where more amenities
were available.

There was quite a variance between area A-B
permanent residents and area.n permanent and seasonal
residents regarding community solidarity. As mentioned
earlier, this difference might be attributed to rural
rather than urban orientation.

There seemed to be quite a difference in percentages
per item and in mean scores between Area 0 and Area M
residents in the variables of social change and Justice
and freedom. Respondents in Area.n were quite satisfied
with lake quality, while only a few of Area 0 residents
indicated satisfaction. Area 0 residents overwhelmingly
felt the ecology had been damaged, the development had
poor effects on privacy, taxes, friendships, security and
freedoms. They, also, definitely felt the development
stepped on their rights. The situation involving the
Swim'n'Sun Club again would probably explain their feelings.

Finally, a test was programmed to compare the
attitudes of Area.M and A-B residents and Area 0 and A-B
residents. Table 14, page 102, gives the F-ratio and
probability factors for this test. The total probability
was less than .0167 indicating that there was a difference
when comparing residents according to geographic.location.

Noticable were differences in: activities (p=<.0232),

Table 14

F-Ratics and Probability Scores for Variables

According to Geographic Location

102

 

 

 

Multivariate Analysis of Variance

Dependent Variable-Geographic Area x Type of Residency

 

 

 

 

F-Ratio Degrees of Level of
Freedom Probability
Type of Residency 1.8196 34. .1067
Geographic Location 2.0912 34. .0167
Interaction 1.3607 34. .1843
;:=:;_ _______ v —=
Variable Foratio P-less than
Goals .43 .7135
Goal Satisfactions 1.29 .2870
Activities 4.21 .0232
Community Quality 1.75 .1880
Community Solidarity 3.42 .0442
Physical Changes .99 .3803
Social Changes 9.78 .0005
Economic Changes 1.50 .2361
Freedom and Justice 3.39 .0453
Satisfactions/physical qual. 1.09 '.3460
Satisfaction/social qual. 3.03 .0613

 

*Contrasts comparing Area M & AB with Area 0 7 AB.

103
solidarity (ps<.0442), social changes (ps<.0005). and
Justice and freedom (p=<.0453). The variable "satisfaction
with social qualities" was marginal (p=<.0613). Ibratio
and probabilities between Opal Lake and Michaywe' was
omitted in this study because the samples were so small
it was felt, in view of other findings, that there would
be no differences, however, the frequency and percentage
figures between areas M and 0 indicated significant trends.

Since Opal Lake residents were the more active in
protesting the development, it may be suggested that
adverse effects are unevenly distributed when land is devel-
oped and that analyses by area, as well as residential

status, should be investigated.

Chapter VI
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Summary

This study was based on a premise that conflicts
often arise between seasonal and permanent residents living
in and around a residential recreational land development
and that a decision-making process wherein all parties
participate might result in a more even distribution of
costs and benefits.

Advantages and disadvantages of land developments
are viewed from different perspectives by different people.
Certainly not all conflicts are avoidable, however, it may
be possible to discover acceptable trade-offs and less
discriminating compromises by obtaining feedback type
information following land developments.

Land developments affect individuals, families,
groups and society as a whole. Little attention has been
focused in the past on the impacts which man-made changes
in our environment have had on people who live in that
environment. Most concentration has been in the economic
realm and interest in financial gain has often over-
shadowed all other considerations. Absent from most
planning has been the science of human ecology, although
a review of literature revealed that much attention within

104

105
the last decade had been devoted to discussing the subject.
Little, however, had actually been accomplished toward
implementing a process to determine methods leading to
improvement.

The Federal Government has suggested that social
reports with a data base of social indicators are necessary
to provide insight into how things are changing in order to
preserve and maintain precious lands. Some legislation has
been enacted such as the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1970 and Congress is now putting the pressure on all
States to legislate land use policies. In the absence of
consistent policies, most communities have relied on local
zoning policies which tend to be inadequate, short termed
and lacking in many aspects of quality. Michigan has
recently enacted a Land Sales Act which is designed to
protect the buyer from unscrupulous sales and possibly a
State Land Use Act which is designed to regulate the quality
of development, will pass the Legislature this year.

It has become apparent that concentration on
quantity has resulted in destructive costs to the natural
and social environments and that an increased value must be
placed on the quality of life. Better information is needed
on social values and the way people relate them to their
environment.

Since the family makes the decisions relative to
residential location, it was assumed that feedbacks from

families within and surrounding a land development could

106
aid in disclosing retrogressive and progressive impacts of
land developments. Families differ in many ways, by
communities; by ethnic and religious groups; by economics
social class, education and vocation; by life style and
life cycle; by role and authority within the family; and by
number. It soon becomes apparent that any study involving
the micro unit (the family) and it's interrelationships
within the macro environment (the community and society)
encompasses many elements.

In order to predict any impact from an environment,
one first must possess an understanding of the relevant
needs of people, their beliefs and their behavior. Since
group association necessitates that people regulate their
impulses and actions with regard for one another, we need
to know how each segment views other segments of the
population. Affluence, an abundance of leisure time and
increased mobility have instilled in the American people
a desire for amenities which were once attainable only by
the wealthy. The accelerating desire to escape urban
congestion and get back to nature, along with increasing
ambitions for prestige, comfort and pleasure have resulted
in a land development boom, and may mean the actualization
of these goals attainable for but a few; and unless
controlled may result in a loss of natural aesthetics and
human fulfillment for many. When urban oriented newcomers
arrive they often create conflicts with the rural oriented

established community members.

107
When land developments are established there are often
social ramifications which involve a great number of
people. New laws being established now demand impact state-
ments for all land developments which propose to identify
beneficial and detrimental impacts on all systems affected.
.Heasuring the effects of a project on a community financially,
physically and ecologically are not too difficult, however,
measuring the social subjective parameters of a community is
a complicated and evasive task. The responsibility now is
to grapple with questions of social, psychological and
cultural implications.

Social variables are difficult to measure because
they include subjective considerations and we don't yet know
exactly how to gain the information we need; since social
forecasting involves development of a system for obtaining
social indicators, or measures of the social environment.
Physical settings, natural or man-made, evoke human
responses in the form of feelings, attitudes, values,
expectancies and desires. These are, in essence, the social
responses which result from objective impacts, such as
increased congestion, taxes, crime, noise, needed services,
pollution or other types of data capable of statistical
measurement.

The instrument used for this study was, therefore,
developed by the researcher to explore the subjective
social impacts of a land development. It was designed to
reveal demographic facts which might identify different

108
life-style, life cycles or socio-economic differences.
Goals and goal satisfactions were considered important to
the study since they involve values, expectancies and
desires. Behavior, or activities, were identified as an
important aspect of social indicators, since they result
in part from needs values and beliefs. A section of the
instrument was, therefore, devised to measure types and
amounts of activities participated in by residents.

Sections were fashioned to measure subjective
attitudes toward community quality and solidarity and
toward changes in the social, economic and phsical aspects
of the community. Expressions toward freedom and justice
brought about by the land development were also requested.
A section inquiring about attitudes toward land developments
in general was included and could give insight into future
action possibilities.

The instrument was pre-tested and changes were made
according to criticisms and recommendations. A sample
population of 40 persons was selected from an area near
Gaylord, Michigan involving a recreational residential
land development named Michaywe'. Respondents were
selected living in and adjacent to the development according
to their availability during a one week period in the
summer of 1973. Respondents were individually contacted
and asked to participate. The instrument was self
administered and either picked up by the investigator or
mailed by the respondent who had been provided with a

109
stamped addressed envelope. '

The data received by the investigator was then'
coded and transferred to data cards for computer tabulation.
Tabulation included frequencies and percentages for each
of the 166 items on the questionaire as well as total
tabulation for each variable by univariate and multivariate
analyses. Data were analysed according to:

1. Percentages of each item and variable

2. Comparisons of responses of seasonal and
permanent residents

3. Comparisons of responses according to
geographic location

Conclusions

Demographic data revealed some differences between
seasonal and permanent residents particularly with regard
to income and education levels and numbers and ages of
children. These factors were not controlled in this study
so could account for some of the trends noted.

It was found that generally speaking there was not
a great deal of difference in attitudes between seasonal
and permanent residents,.although some of the following
impressions merit mention.

- Seasonal residents were apparently seeking relief
from urban congestion as revealed by their goals. The same
goals were also important to permanent residents, but

they were also concerned with the location for raising

children. Economic goals were not defined as being of

110
first importance to permanent residents, which is not too
surprising when one realizes that small towns do not
usually provide the best economic advantages. Permanent
residents did seem to be more concerned with economic
considerations than seasonal residents and apparently they
felt the land development would bring some economic
improvement to the community.

The results indicative of the residents' satisfactions
with goals revealed the only real significant difference.
In this case seasonal residents were less satisfied with
the opportunity to get back to nature and take advantage of
the recreational resources. A hypothesis might be drawn
that the very nature of land developments, in some ways,
destroyed certain natural aesthetics and provided a some—
what suburban atmosphere which is exactly what the residents
were attempting to escape. This hypothesis was further
supported in portions of the study which revealed adverse
attitudes toward more and larger land developments and
multiple housing, as well as dissatisfactions with
congestion, air, water and noise qualities.

Conversely, however, permanent residents indicated
they were more satisfied with the ”opportunity to get back
to nature and take advantage of recreational facilities?.
Apparently, they too, are displeased with the congestion
and qualities of the ecological factors, but they are
willing to accept in trade the improved recreationaland
entertainment facilities provided by Michaywe:

111

Both seasonal and permanent residents preferred
nature and outdoor sports for leisure activities and quiet
natural environments for vacations, but more seasonal
residents participated in a wider variety of sports and
tended to engage in the more costly sports. This behavior
may be an attribute of their higher incomes and the fact
that seasonal residents have more leisure time while in the
area. Kore seasonal residents were dissatisfied than
permanent residents with public services which probably
can be attributed to their urban orientation and familiarity
with city services. Approximately half of the permanent
residents indicated dissatisfaction with some aspects of
freedom and justice and felt that land developments stepped
on the rights of established community members.

It is possible that since this particular land
development is one of the best planned in respect to
maintaining ecological balance and aesthetic quality, it
might explain, at least in part, the lack of antagonism and
even acceptance by permanent residents. In addition, these
particular permanent residents share similar goals with
seasonal residents for outdoor activities and recreation
and the Michaywe' development has added or improved
recreational facilities. This, therefore, represents a
trade-off or compromise and may be responsible for
establishing a type of harmony among the residents.

The conclusion must be drawn in summary that

although there was only one statistically significant

.112
difference in evidence between permanent and seasonal
residents in the univariate analysis, observable trends
were noted when the data were analysed according to frequencies.

In addition to investigating the hypothesis that
differences exist between seasonal and permanent residents
with regard to the impact of land developments, this study
also included the development of an instrument for
identifying subjective social indicators. The researcher
feels that although the instrument did not function to
clearly define differences, there were trends which restrain
one from considering the hypothesis untenable.

The fact that the size of the sample was small
might be a major factor contributing to the results of the
analysis. The sample size, however, was unavoidably small
due to the recency of the land development, which means
the impact was limited.

Although there were indications that changes had
taken place, perhaps the trade-off of the sharing of
recreation facilities was responsible for the positive
attitudes and similarities between the seasonal and
permanent residents that are uncommon. In the final
analysis, the fact that Michaywe' is such a well planned
development could be a factor accounting for some
acceptance. This is a new development, however, and not
enough time has elapsed to yield a perception of the full
impact as yet.

113

Suggestions for Future Study

For purposes of determining the perceived impacts
of a given land development, a study should be designed
where the sub populations are larger. However, for the
purpose of tracing the evolution of such impacts, data must
be gathered early in the development process. Although
this study was designed to determine if seasonal and
permanent residents responded differently to land develop-
ments, it is now recognized that this investigation could
serve a valuable purpose as a bench mark for the determin-
ation of how the impacts progress by repeating the study
after a reasonable number of changes have taken place. For
example, after the number of residents reach half the number
anticipated; or after the golf course, ski area and other
facilities are closed to the public (if that option is
taken); or after extra facilities or services are established
(if they follow) to serve the demands of the more populated
region.

On the whole, the instrument used in this study
seemed to cover much of the necessary information, but
might be revised to deal more explicitly with the area
under study. If possible a future study should attempt
to control demographic variables with the exception of
seasonal and permanent status or by area of residence.

By the definition of seasonal resident, however, there will

114
usually be differences--they will have more money, education
and probably more children. Therefore, since almost every
recreational residential land development in Northern
micigan contains residents of a higher socio-economic
status than many small community residents, it may be
impossible to control this variable in any sample.

Some of the questions may have been unnecessarily
vague, particularly in the sections concerned with
community quality and solidarity and changes in the
community. These sections were also slightly difficult
to code because of the positive and negative nature of the
statements. One might consider making them all positive
or all negative, however, this might affect the objectivity
of the instrument.

The list of the activities should be changed or
increased to include such things as hiking, archery, skeet
or any other activity common to the area under study.

Because of the general high aesthetic quality of
this land development, the instrument tends to slight that
aspect of the environment except as questions relate to
natural beauty. In future studies, this area should
probably be strengthened and include questions to reveal
attitudes toward man-made artifacts, since not all land
developments are as aesthetically pleasing as the one
referred to in this study. ‘

There was a tendency on the part of respondents to

rely on the "no opinion" or "no change" column in each group.

115

Consideration might be given to eliminating the "no opinion"
column, which might help to force more definite answers,
however, the "no change" category is important and should
also be included in the report of findings in future studies.

Since significant differences were found when the
data were computed by areas, further investigation of this
procedure is warrented. In retrospect, differences based on
geographic location are reasonable in light of the fact that
development does not have equal effects on all peOple.
Proximity to access roads, community facilities and the
development itself may be a critical factor in the
determination of the social impacts.

It would be possible for the administrative body
of this development to make some contributions to the
community which could have affects on how positively or~
negatively people perceive this development in the future.
If people perceive no benefits, for example; if the taxes
are increased to support services and people are deprived
of their privacy; while at the same time they are denied
the use of recreational facilities, they are likely to
develop negative perceptions. It would seem logical, in
view of trends already developing, that the Board of
Directors consider some trade-offs, especially with respect
to those people on the peripheral borders of the development
who are more likely to perceive negative impacts. This
type of compromise should help to create long lasting

harmony among all people.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Single Volume Works

Anderson, Stanford. (ed.). Plannin for Diversit and Choice.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966.

Bauer, Raymond. Social Indicators. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966.
Campbell, Angus, and Philip Converse. (eds.). The Human

meanin of Social Chan e. New York: RusselI Sage
FoundaIIon, 1972.

Ewald, William R., Jr. (ed.). Environment For Man The Next
Fift Years. Bloomington: IndIana UnIversIty Press, 1967.
Papers from Planning Conference of Institute of
Planners, 1966.

Festinger, Leon; Stanley Schacter and Kurt Back. Social

Pressures in Informal Groups. New York: Harper and Bros.,
Kelley, Burnham. Desi and the Production of Houses.
New York: McGraw fiIII Book 60., 1959.

The Fitness of Man's Environment. New York: Harper and Row,

. apers e vere a Smithsonian Institution
Annual Symposium, February 1967.

Fitzsimmons, Cleo. The Mans ement of Famil Resources.
San Francisco: W.H. Freeman, 1951.

Human Behavior: A Mini Conference and Exhibit. Philadelphia:
. papers presen e a n he tute, November 11, 1971.

 

 

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: Holt, RIneEart and VInston, inc., 1964.

Meyer-Reine, Georges. A Human A roach to Urban Plannin .
France: internationEI FederagIon and PIannIng, 1966.

Miller, Delbert. Handbook of Research Desi n and Social
Measurement. New York: DavId Mckay Co. inc., 1961.

.Moore, Wilbert E. and Eleanor B. Sheldon. Indicators of

Social Chan e: Conce ts and Measurement. New York:
RusseII Sage FoundatIon, 1966.

117

 

‘118

Norberg-Schulz, Christian. Existence S ace and Architecture.
New York: Praeger Publishers, 1971.

Packard, Vance. A Nation of Stangers. New York: David McKay
Co. Inc., 1972.

Perin, Constance. With Man LnMind: An Interdisci linar
Prosgectus for-EfivIronmentaI DesIgn. CamBrIdge:

ress, 1970.

 

 

Proshansky, Harold; William H. Ittelson and Leanne G. Rivlin.
(eds.). Environmental Ps cholo . New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, 1970.

Scheibe, Karl E. Beliefs and Values. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, inc., 1970.

Schlater, Jean. Nafional Goals and Guidelines for Research
in home Econom cs. as Lansing: M c gan ate

UnIversIty information Service, 1970.
Multivolume Works
Michigan. Michigan Statutes Annotated. (1970).
Funk and Wagnalls. Britgngica World gggégage Dictignagy.
New York: Funk and Wagna ls 00., 19 2.
Periodicals

Case, Charles W. and Robert L. Larson. "Preparing Educators
for the Future", The Futurist, vI,6 (1972).

Chisholm, Shirley. "Planning With and Not For People",
Plannin (1970). Paper read at ASPO National Planning
Conference, New York, April 4-9, 1970.

Drobny, Neil L. and Norbert Dee. "Planning A Live-In World",
.Battelle Research Outlook, 4:2, (1972).

Finley, James R. and Janet K. Baker. "Social Elements
in Environmental Planning", Battelle Research Outlook,
4:2 197?).

Gans, Herbert J. "Vance Packard Misperceives The Way Most
American movers Live", Psychology Today, 6:4, September,1972.

119
Huntoon, Maxwell C. or. "Is housings No 1 Problem Finally
Getting the Action it Demands", House and Home, August,
1972.
Jacobs, Peter. "The Urban Fringe", Habitat, XV,1 (1972).
Konzelman, Carl. "Progress", The Detroit News, October 20,1972.

"Leisure Boom: Biggest Ever and Still Growing", U.S. News
and World Report, April 17, 1972.

 

Miller, James Nathan. "Hawaii's 'Quiet Revolution' Hits the
mainland", National Civic Review, 62:8, September, 1973.

"Nixon on Pollution, natural Resources, Energy, Farming",
U.S. News and World Report, February 26, 1973.

Welch, Jim. (ed.). "Planning, Zoning update Authorized by
County", Otsego Herald Times, July 12, 1973.

Williams, Charles, Jr. "Inventing a Future Civilization",
The Futurist, August 1972.

Documents

Office of Planning Coordination, Bureau of Policies and

Programs. Social Re ortin in Michi an: Problems and
Issues. TecEnIcaI Report A-37, Petruary, 1970.

State of’Michigan, Court of Appeals. 0 al Lake Association
v. Micha e' Limited Partnershi and De artment of
fiaturaI Resources of State of HIcEIgan, NO. 11002

«May 23. 1971).
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census. United States
Census of Population: 1960' Number of Inhabitants,
c gan. as ng on: . . Government PrIntIng Office,1971.
U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare.

Toward a Social Re ort. Washington: U. S. Government
PrIntIng OIIIce, 1969.

Others

 

Ditton, Robert and Thomas I. Goodale. \eds.). Environmental
in set Anal sis:Philoso h and Methods. SprIngtIeId:
Department of Commerce, RatIonEI Tecfifiical Information
Service. Proceeding of the Conference on Environmental
Impact Analysis, Green Bay, Wisconsin, January 4-5, 1972.

120

Duke, Richard D.; Gary King. "Planning in the Urban Fringe".
Technical Bulletin B-40. East Lansing: Institute For
Community Development and Services, Michigan State
University, November, 1963.

Hornback, Kenneth E. and Robert W. Shaw. Toward a Quantitative
Measure of the Quality of Life. Washing on: omer oy
ns e, 1 .

Land Use Survey, Otsego County. Located in Zoning Administrators
0 ce, Gaylord, michigan.

Sturtevant, William T. (Committee Aid). "State Land Use Act...
Synopsis". Lansing: House Committee on Towns and
Counties, July 1973. (Mimeographed) Review of House
Bill 5055.

APPENDIX A

Letter to Thompson-Brown

Letter from Thompson-Brown

122

2804 Warwick
Saginaw, Michigan
July 18, 1973

Mr. Roy Russell
Thompson-Brown Company
Twelve Mile Road
Farmington, michigan

Dear Hr. Russell,

I am presently organizing a survey which will become
the basis for my master's thesis at the Michigan State
University and am in need of some information which I have
been told you might be able to supply.

The intent of the survey is to learn what attitudes
people living in and adjacent to land developments have
toward land development and how it affects their lives. My
interest in this area was stimulated partly the the Governors
Special Commission on Land Use Report 1971, which suggested
there should be a method of social reportin added to the
physical and economical impact (feasability studies. With
the development boom in Northern Michigan, many people feel
that impact studies which include this human dimension
could perhaps prevent future conflicts and confrontations.
Since social meanings are seldom apparent and are difficult
to determine, feedbacks from residents is probably the best
way to gain insight into attitudes. Therefore, I would
appreciate your providing me with a list of residents in the
Michaywe' community. I plan to mail them a questionaire
and so would also need addresses. I would also be interested
in obtaining, if you could provide it, a copy of the
feasability study which was done prior to the implement-
ation of Michaywe'.

I will not use this information for anything other
than writing a thesis, however, I would be happy to provide
you with a report when l finish the project if you are
interested. A development as well planned as michaywe'
should elicite quite favorable reations.

Thank you for your help.

Sincerely,

1.! \“- r 0 ‘9. 1
“...‘chs . ’cmo\

Mrs. Char ya Ward

123

1’ THOMPSON-BROWN COMPANY Q
REALTORS

 

32823 Twelve Mile Road e Fermingfon. Michigan 48024 e 3 | 3/476-8700

August 7, 1973
Our 50th Year

Mrs. Charlys Ward
2804 Warwick
Saginaw, Michigan 48603

Dear Mrs. Ward:

Thank you for your letter of July 18th and the fine comments
about our Michaywe' project at Gaylord.

As much as we appreciate the work you are undertaking for your
master's thesis, I regret that we cannot furnish you with a list
of residents at Michaywe'. The Michaywe' Owners Association
Board of Directors, at a recent meeting, adopted a policy against
releasing such information to any group or individual. A major
reason for this action was becuase of a very recent California
lawsuit decision wherein such release of names and addresses
constitutes an invasion of an individuals privacy. Perhaps you
can get the information you need through some other source such
as records in the County Register of Deeds or Tax Offices.

we don't have in one document (or even a few for that matter) all
the facts and planning that went into the study that determined
the feasability of Michaywe'. Probably the quickest and easiest
way for you to get this would be to arrange to sit down with me
for a two or three hour interview, and with slides, maps and talk,
I could brief you on how the decision was made to develop Michaywe'.

we are more than anxious to help you in any way we can and likewise
would appreciate a copy of your report when finished.

If you wish to meet with me please arrange with my secretary, Mrs.
Kaumeyer (313/476-8700), for a date and time.

 

RJR:mlb

Everything in real estate from the ground up

APPENDIX B

Introductory Letter
Map of Area Under Study

Questionaire

125

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING « MICHIGAN 48823

 

COLLEGE OF HUMAN ECOLOGY
DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN ENVIRONMENT AND DESIGN

To: Selected Otsego County Residents
Re: Survey research at Michigan State University

Date: August 1973

The enclosed questionaire is part of a study taking place in the Department of
Human Environment and Design in the College of Human Ecology at Michigan State
University. Our intention is to learn what people think about residential recrea-
tional land developments taking place in their communities.

Northern Michigan, because of it's natural resources is experiencing a residential
land development boom. This unprecedented growth has already had effects which
we are eager to learn more about. We really don't know how these developments
affect the lives of people. It is possible that developments can have great benefits
and also possible for them to create problems.

We believe many people have important opinions and can help us gain insight into
the consequences of residential land developments. Now is your chance to be heard!
Your honest answers to these questions will help us gather information necessary to
work with planners, citizens and officials in future decisions concerning northern
Michigan development.

Be assured your answers will be held in strict confidence and only summary analysis
will be made. Thank you for your cooperation.

Sincerely,

Charlys Ward. Graduate Student

Gertrude Nygren, Professor, Human Environment
and Design

126

ArcmA Ar¢a. B

 

AYQQM Art.“ 0

 

127

  

 

 

N37

   

'“I
l
I
I
t
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I

‘---— -0----------_.-- ---.

 

 

Lego-Ii
, hun- Inth . -—--------M' ‘
Suzi M5

12E3

OPINION QUESTIONAIRE

Respondent number

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
Please place a check (v’) in the appropriate space.

1. Sex of respondent:
Male
Female

2. Age of respondent:
under 18

18-29

30-44

45-64

65 or over

 

 

3. Indicate number of children living at home in these grade levels:
pre-school
elementary
secondary
college

4. Your residential status in Otsego County:
permanent resident(your permanent address is in Otsego Co.)
seasonal resident(your permanent address is not in Otsego Co.)

 

5. The type of housing structure you live in (in Otsego Co.) is:
mobile home
single dwelling
apartment
other (please name)

 

 

6. Do you own this residence?
Yes No

7. Length of time you have lived or vacationed in this area:
5 years or less
6-15 years
16 years or more

8. Length of time you expect to reside in this community, either
part of the year or year around:
this is the last year
1-2 more years
3-5 more years
indefinitely

 

9. If you are a permanent resident, indicate your major method of
livelihood
own or operate a business
salaried position
hourly wage earner

farmer

retirement income
other (please name)

 

 

 

129

GOAL§

The following reasons are often given for choosing to reside in
Northern Michigan. We would like to know how important these reasons
were to you when on decided to come to or to remain in Otsego County.
Place a check (I/ if the reason was VERY IMPORTANT, SOMEWHAT IMPORTANT
or NOT IMPORTANT to you

VERY SOMEWHAT NOT
10.A How important was: IMPORTANT IMPORTANT IMPORTANT

Business or other economic
opportunities available here.

The chance to enjoy a more rural
way of life.

The opportunity to get back to nature
and take advantage of recreational
resources.

Being able to live near relatives
and friends.

A good location to raise children.
Other (write in)

 

Other (write in)

 

10.3 How has this community met your expectations? Are you VERY
SATISFIED, SOMEWHAT SATISFIED or DISAPPOINTED with the:

VERY SOMEWHAT DIS-
SATISFIED SATISFIED APPOINTED

Business or other economic
opportunities available here.

The chance to enjoy a more rural
way of life.

The opportunity to get back to
nature and take advantage of
recreational facilities.

Being near relatives and friends.

Location as a good place to raise
children.

Other (write in) ____ ____

Other (write in)

 

11.

12.

13.

When you go on

seek?

Of these following leisure time activities, which are personally
VERY IMPORTANT, LESS IMPORTANT of NOT IMPORTANT?

ACTIVITIES

Quiet, natural environment

Other (name)

 

IMPORTANT

Quietly enjoying nature

& outdoors

Visiting with friends

& family

Parties and/or social

funtions

Active outdoor sports

Other (name)
Other (name)

activities

Entertainment centers

Recreation centers

Visits with relatives or friends
Other (name)

vacation, what type of activity do you generally

 

 

VERY

 

 

LESS
IMPORTANT

 

following outdoor activities in Otsego County?

Fishing
Power boating
Water skiing
Snow skiing
Swimming
Motorcycling
Snowmobiling
Horseback riding
Golf

Tennis
Sailing
Canoeing
Bicycling
Others

MUCH

 

 

 

SOME

llllllllllllllll

NOT
IMPORTANT

 

Approximately how much time do you spend participating in the

NONE

130

131

OPINIONS OF COMMUNITY QUALITY

The following statements, about which there is no general agreement,
have no right or wrong answers. Think about each statement as
relating to the entire community--including Gaylord. Record the first
answer which occurs to you--we want your honest opinion.

SA=STRONGLY AGREE, A=AGREE, ?=NO OPINION, D=DISAGREE, SD=STRONGLY DISAGREE

14. Place a check (V) in the space
to indicate your feeling concerning
the statement. SA A ? D SD
a) Economic progress is more important than
the social changes which may follow

b) Community improvements are fine if they
don't increase taxes.

c) The main problem we face here is high
taxes.

d) The sewage system of the community should
not be expanded as the community grows
if it increases taxes.

e) Leaders of the chamber of commerce are
against the welfare of the majority
of citizens in the community.

f) This community would get along better if
each one would mind his own business
and others take care of theirs.

g) Progress can best be accomplished by
having only a few people involved in
decision making.

h) Officials should get public sentiment
before acting on major developmental
projects.

1) Outsiders are out for themselves at the
expense of those who live here all
the while.

j) Services and recreational facilities are
not necessary to make the community
grove

k) Outsiders create problems which are
detrimental to the community.

1) The police force should be especially
strict with outsiders.

132

OPINIONS OF COMMQNITY RELATIONS

The following statements refer to the specific area indicated by the
attached map. We would like to know how you feel about relations in
this particular area.

SAISTRONGLY AGREE, A=AGREE, ?=NO OPINION, D=DISAGREE, SD=STRONGLY DISAGREE

15. Place a check (v') to indicate SA A ? D SD
how you feel about these statements ‘

a) No one cares much how the area looks.

b) Almost everyone here is polite and
courteous.

c) Real friends are hard to find in this area.

d) People differ in what they believe and
how they live, but they respect each
other.

e) A lot of people here think they are
too nice for you.

f) I feel very much that I belong here.

g) There is no way to feel you belong
unless you live here permanently.

h) The people as a whole mind their own
business.

1) Everyone here tries to take advantage
of you.

j) This area is very peaceful and orderly
k) This used to be a friendlier area.

1) Local concerns are fair and square
with everyone.

m) People give you a bad name if you insist
on being different.

n) The area is becoming more exciting and
offers more now than it used to.

o) Folks are unconcerned about what their
kids do as long as they keep out of
the way.

p) Utility services are better and easier
to obtain now.

q) People are generally critical of others.

r) Families in this area keep their children
under control.

a) You must spend lots of money to be
accepted here.

t) We used to have better and more efficient
utility services

u) Parents teach their children respect
for others.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CHANGES IN THE COMMUNITY

 

The following list describes conditions which may or may not have

ch ed in this community in recent years.
Plggg a check (v’) in the space following each item if conditions
are UNCHANGED or to what degree they seem BETTER or WORSE to you.

MUCH NO MUCH
16 A BETTER BETTER CHANGE WORSE WORSE

L Quality of private services
(1.0. telephone, electricity)

1 Quality of public facilities
(i.e.roads, parks, building etc)

3.Amount of congestion
(people, traffic)

.Quality of air, water, noise
.Beauty of environment

.Quality of recreation facilities
.Level of resident's income
.Number of jobs available

.Tax rate (compared to other
areas)

m.Varieties of goods available
u Economic conditions

u.Everyday living expenses
(comparing other areas)

.Availability of social
activities

n.0pportunity to obtain privacy
m.Friendliness in community

m.Quality of health & educational
facilities

n.Feelings of security and safety
m.Amount of personal freedom

m.Exercise of self regulations
(do people discipline themselves)

OOQOUI#

1

0)

lllllll

 

 

zLEnforcement of legal regulations

2LSocial acceptance of you and
your way of life

zzRecognition of personal rights

2a0pportunities for citizen
participation

2¢Chances that all people are
treated as equals

|
llll ii ii! Hi i Ill llllll ll

llll II III ill l lll llllll II
III! ll Ill Ill l Ill llllll II
III! ll Ill ill I III llllll II

1353

 

SATISFACTIONS

1:54

We would like to know if you are satisfied or die-satisfied with the
following physical and social qualities of this area (refer to map).

Place a check (4') in the space corresponding to the most accurate
description of your degree of SATISFACTION or DIS-SATISFACTION for each

item.
16. B

Road maintenance
Road safety a patrol
1101 se levels

.Wasts disposal
(3m, when)

Sewage treatment
Lakes (water quality)

Natural beaut
(Lakes, Iandscape)

Telephone service

llectrical service

- fire protection

- Police protection

. Shopping facilities

. Entertainment facilities
. Recreational facilities

Cultural advantages

. Health facilities

. Quality of housing

- Youth recreation facilities
. Other

Other

VERY

SAT

NO

DIS-

VERY DIS-

SATISPIED ISPIED OPINION SATISFIED SATISFIED

OPINIONS OF LAND DEVELOPMENTS

135

We would now like your opinion on land developments in general. Please
indicate (1’) to what extent you AGREE or DISAGREE with these statements.

SAzSTRONGLY AGREE, A=AGREE, ?=N0 OPINION, DBDISAGREE, SD=STRONGLY DISAGREE

17.
a)

b)

e)

d)

e)

r)

s)
h)

1)

:l)

k)
1)

m)

11)

SA

The general ecolo (air, water, plant
life, animal life is damaged by
recent land developments.

A ? D SD

 

Concern for environmental quality
has had priority over economic
considerations.

 

 

Present land development projects
have reached a point of over
development in this immediate area.

Land developments have had bad
effects on the beauty of the
environment.

 

 

 

 

Land developments have good effects
on the services and recreation
facilities that people want.

 

Land developments have poor effects
on personal privacy and freedom.

 

 

Land developments have increased
my feelings of safety and security.

 

 

 

Land developments promete new
friendships.

 

 

Land developments have no effect on
the way of living of those already
in the community.

 

 

Land developments have decreased the
economic status of residents of
the area.

 

 

Economic gains are more important
than environmental quality.

 

 

Land developments have good effects
on taxes.

 

 

The way decisions are made now
usually have my best interests
in mind.

 

 

Land developments usually step on

the rights of established community
members.

 

 

17 (cent.)

0)

p)

q)

r)

a)

t)

Permanent residents' interests are
considered more often than
seasonal residents' interests when
decisions about developments

are made.

Recreational residential land dev-
elepments are definitely pre-
ferable to other types of develop-
ment in this area.

More new land developments are
needed in Northern Michigan.

Future land developments should
ideally include only single family
housing.

Future land developments should be
free from controls and resrictiene
regarding the nature and sise of
the project.

Future land developments should be
controlled by the State.

SD

13GB

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

These questions would help us with our survey if you are willing to
answer them.

18.

19. The

Your marital status:
Single
Married
____Divorced
Widowed

8 or less

9-12

High school graduate
____Seme college

College degree

Advanced degree

highest grade in school you finished:

20. Your estimated income (combined if both husband a wife employed)

21.

under 85.000
""85,000 to 315,000
____815,000 to $30,000
____}30,000 to $50,000

over 850,000

husband

wife other

children nene

number of members in household receiving pay for employment:

"Illllllllllll'llllllllllll“