.1...“

-v_v

O

‘iljg-

.'T'-

\

 

 

 

l’."‘. ' O ‘:‘ ‘ I. ‘ "‘1

‘1

0

V

lf‘

:0 H.-.

1%.}...

C
b

.o’I\J._.\d.'

' I

T

A STUDY OF THE FACTORS THAT co +_.§ . - - A is 1
TO THEIR FTNANCIAL‘ succsss " __ ' - j _
Thesis for the Degree am. .5. ’ '
MTCHTGAH STATE UNIVERSITY _
ROGER DEE MURRAY ' ‘
e . 1974 '

    

 

_. .. v-
-.O(.o‘»o.‘

-o
o-‘ .p‘

'0 J'Jll'. —

 

HHHH HHHH Em R y L
Michigan State -
J ”T???”

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUNDS IN MICHIGAN:
A STUDY OF THE FACTORS THAT
CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR FINANCIAL SUCCESS
By
Roger Dee Murray
The number of commercial campgrounds have increased
phenominally in Michigan since the early 1950's and it
would appear that this growth will continue through the
1970's. One of the factors that has influenced the
development of commercial campgrounds is the highly reported
inadequacies in the supply of governmentally owned camp-
grounds. This reporting plus the apparent attractiveness
of the lifestyle of campground managers has generated a
large interest among potential investors to study the
feasibility of commercial campground development.
The basic information to make an investment decision

is for the most part not available. A number of studies

Roger Dee Murray

on the commercial campground studies have been made in
other states but information has not been gathered on the
Michigan camping industry. The purpose of this study was
to identify some of the facilities and programs that con-
tribute to the financial success of commercial family
campgrounds in Michigan.

These indexes were developed from previous studies
on commercial campgrounds in states other than Michigan.

The indexes are a combination of variables that had been
identified as being correlated with successful campgrounds
in these studies. These variables were grouped into three
indexes to test the hypotheSes. The hypotheses that were
tested concerned: (1) physical and locational factors,
(2) recreation programs and facilities, and (3) managerial
skills.

A questionnaire was mailed to all commercial campgrounds
to gather information to test the hypotheses. The information
from respondents that indicated that they had been in the
campground business for three or more years was used in the

study.

The hypothesis that the sum of the frequency of occur-

ance of specific physical and locational features for an

Roger Dee Murray

individual campground will be higher for financially
successful campgrounds than for financially unsuccessful
campgrounds was found to be significant at the .05 level
using the Chi—square test.

Neither of the other two hypothesis concerning
recreation programs and facilities and managerial skills
were significant at the .10 level using the Chi-square
test. Campground owners did not appear to have put any
emphasis in developing these areas. The mean frequency of
occurance for the recreation programs and facilities
items was low when compared to the physical and locational
items.

It would appear from the information given by the
respondents that the overwhelming majority of campground
owners derive satisfactions from operating their camp-
grounds other than the financial returns that they receive.
The majority of the respondents indicated that their
business was successful even when their financial returns
indicated that this success was not based on financial
returns.

From the results of this study it was recommended

that the commercial campground owners should concentrate

Roger Dee Murray
on developing their recreational programs and facilities
and their managerial skills. Once the basic campground
facilities have been fully developed these two areas appear
to offer the greatest opportunity for a commercial camp—
ground owner to obtain an advantage in the market place
over his competitors, whether they are publically or

privately financed.

COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUNDS IN MICHIGAN:
A STUDY OF THE FACTORS THAT
CONTRIBUTE TO THEIR

FINANCIAL SUCCESS

BY

Roger Dee Murray

A THESIS

Submitted to

Michigan State University ,

in partial fullfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

1974

. v;
(‘0 TABLE OF CONTENTS
(5
Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . l
The Problem . . . . . . 4
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . 6
Definitions . . . . . . . 7
Research Design . . . . . . . 9
Limitations . . . . . . . . 9
II. CONDUCTING THE STUDY . . . . . . . 13
Developing The Study . 1

The Questionnaire . . I
Data Collection . . . . . .

20
Index Development . . . 23
Question Development for
Hypothesis I . . . . . . . . 24
Question Development for
Hypothesis II . . . . . . . . 31
Question Development for
Hypothesis III . . . . . . . . 34
III. ANNALYSIS AND RESULTS . . . . . . . 42
Responses to Questionnaire . . . . 42
Capital Investment and
Return on Investment . . . . . . 45
Selected Characteristics . . . . . 46
Testing the Hypotheses . . . . . . 51
IV. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . 63
Goals of the Campground Owner . . . 64
Recommendations for Campground
Development . . . . . . . . . 66
Recommendations for Further
Research . . . . . . . . . . 68
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . 7O
BIBLIOGRAPHY o o o o o o o o o o o o 71

APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Chapter Page
Appendix
I. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . 77

II. Responses to Physical and
Locational Questions . . . . . . . 88

III. Responses to Recreation Programs
and Facilities Questions . . . . . O 90

IV. Responses to Managerial Skills
Questions . . . . . . . . . . . 96

V. Responses to Miscellanious Questions . . 105

TABLE
1.

lo.

11.

12.

LIST OF TABLES

Questions and Maximum Scores Used To
Gather Data For Each Index To Test
The Hypothesis . . . . . . . . .

Facilities Desired By Campers . . . .

Desired Facilities or Conveniences That

Should be Included in One Private
Campground Fee, Georgia, 1969 . . . .

Physical and Locational Index Items
Used To Test Hypothesis II . . . . .

Recreation Program and Facility Index
Items Used To Test Hypothesis II . . .

Managerial Skills Index Items Used
To Test Hypothesis III . . . . . .

Summary of Respondents by Campground Size

Summary of Returns and Usable
Questionnaires of Commercial Campgrounds
With Three or More Years of Operation .

Summary of Capital Investment and Net
Income of Commercial Campgrounds .

Length of Camper Visit in Successful
and Unsuccessful Commercial Campgrounds

Summary of Successful and Unsuccessful

Campground Size and Index of
Frequency of Occurance of Selected
Factors . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Responses to Index Items
To Test Hypothesis I . . . . .

22

26

29

31

34

4O
43

52

53

Table

l3.

l4.

l5.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

A Crossbreak Showing the Number of
Successful and Unsuccessful
Commercial Campgrounds Above and
Below the Mean Frequency of
Physical and Locational Items . . . .

Percentage Crossbreak of Table 13 Data
Showing Percentage of Successful and
Unsuccessful Campgrounds Above and
Below the Mean Frequency of Physical
and Locational Items . . . . . . .

Summary of Responses to Index Items
To Test Hypothesis II . . . . . .

A Crossbreak Showing the Number of
Successful and Unsuccessful
Commercial Campgrounds Above and
Below the Mean Frequency of
Recreation Programs and Facilities
Items . . . . . . . . . .

Percentage Crossbreaks of Table 16 Data
Showing Percentage of Successful and
Unsuccessful Campgrounds Above and
Below the Mean Frequency of Recreation
Programs and Facilities Items . . . .

Summary of Responses to Index Items
To Test Hypothesis III . . . . .

A Crossbreak Showing the Number of
Successful and Unsuccessful Commercial
Campgrounds Above and Below the Mean
Frequency of Managerial Skills Items

Percentage Crossbreak of Table 19 Data
Showing the Percentage of Successful
and Unsuccessful Campgrounds Above
and Below the Mean Frequency of
Managerial Skill Items . . .

ii

Page

54

55

57

58

58

59

61

61

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to identify some of
the facilities and programs that contribute to the
financial success of commercial family campgrounds
in Michigan. It is exploritory in nature,attempting
to replicate the findings from other studies by develop-
ing indexes to measure financial success.

Commercial campgrounds have increased phenominally
since the early 1950's and it would appear that this
growth will continue through the 1970's. The growth
in this sector has been matched by the governmental
sector and yet there does not appear to be enough
campsites to satisfy the demand by the camping public.

Historically, Michigan has had the reputation of
providing high quality family camping opportunities
among those who seek this type of activity as an outdoor
recreation experience. In 1971 there were 464,541 camp
permits written in the 69 state parks with campgrounds.

l

This was an increase of 13.5 percent over the number
of permits written in 19691 and represented an occupancy
rate in the state parks of 75 percent during the peak
season June 15 to September 7 in 1970. The occupancy
rate for the months of July and August were close to
100 percent in many northern lower peninsula state
park campgrounds and many forest campgrounds reached
over 100 percent occupancy rate during July and August
because many of them are not supervised and two or more
camping families may occupy one site.2

In state parks alone, visitor days per thousand
residents of the state have increased from 250 in 1964
to 435 in 1970 and it is estimated that the visitor days
per thousand in public campgrounds in 1970 was 850.
Historically, the majority of campsites available for
public use in Michigan have been provided by governmental

agencies. In 1970 there were 26,121 campsites supplied

 

1State Park Camp Permit, Parks Division

Report, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1970.

2Michigan Recreation Plan 1970, Office of

Planning Services, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, pg. 109.

3

3 while the commercial campground

by the public sector
industry provided 8,910 campsites.h

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources
estimates that an additional 15,049 publically owned
campsites would have been required to meet their demand
in 1970. This figure was estimated from their high
"turnaway" rate and estimates of the large number of
potential campers who do not go camping because of the
fear of being turned away. They have estimated that this
deficiency in the public supply of campsites will increase
to 33,215 campsites by 1985.5

The large number of campers who have been turned
away from publically owned campgrounds plus the potential

latent demand of those who do not attempt to go camping

because of the fear of becoming a "turnaway" has brought

 

3Ibid., pg. 111.

hEugene F. Dice, Tat Wah Chiang, and Timothy
Smythe, Privately Operated Campgrounds in Michigan,
Extension Bulletin E-7l7 (East Lansing, Michigan Coopera-
tive Extension Service, Michigan State University, 1971)

pg. 5.

5Michigan Recreation Plan 1970, pg. 111.

1,
about a surge in development and interest in development
of commercial campgrounds.6 In 1954 there were only 342
commercial campsites in Michigan, but by 1970 an additional
8,568 commercial campsites had been developed for a total
of 8,910 campsites located in 198 campgrounds.7 It has
been estimated that private investment in additional
commercial campsites in the years 1971, 1972, and 1973

will total approximately $36,212,OOO.OO.8

THE PROBLEM
The highly reported inadequacies in the supply of
governmently owned campgrounds plus the apparent att-
ractiveness of the lifestyle of campground managers has
generated a large interest among potential investors to
study the feasibility of commercial campground develOpment.

It would appear that many of these investors are willing

 

6"Turnaway" campers may find a campsite in
another state, federal or commercial campground, and
therefore "turnaway” figures may be a poor method of
measuring demand to construct additional campsites in
a park other than the one where the ”turnaway” occurred.

7Dice, Chiang, Smythe, Privately Operated
Campgrounds in Michigan, pg. 5.

8Michigan Recreation Plan 1970, pg. 28.

5
to commit their resources to take advantage of the pro—
jected demand for additional campsites, but they first
need some basic information before an investment decision

can be made.

This information for the most part is not available
in Michigan. It must instead be gathered from studies
that have been completed in other states that focus on
their own camping industry and includes occupancy rates,
returns on investments, development costs and the type of
commercial campground developments that are required to
attract large numbers of campers.

Johnson suggests that three out of five recreation
enterprises will fail and probably not more than half of
the remainder will be financially successful. He feels
that this high rate of failure can be lowered if meaning-
ful data can be provided on the economic potential,
management factors and the recreation facilities and pro~
grams required on site to facilitate decision making. If

this data is not provided to potential recreation developers,

6

consultants and agencies providing poor advice can
expect to receive unfavorable reaction from investors.9

Meaningful data for potential investors in commercial
campgrounds in Michigan is needed to answer the question
of whether or not there are a number of factors pertaining
to campground location, campground management, and campground
facilities that can be correlated with profitable campground

enterprises? A survey of the literature suggests three

possible hypotheses.

HYPOTHESES
HYPOTHESIS I.

The sum of the frequency of occurance of specific
physical and locational features for an individual camp—
ground will be higher for financially successful campgrounds
than for financially unsuccesscul campgrounds.

HYPOTHESIS II.
The sum of the frequency of occurance of specific

recreation programs and facilities for an individual

 

9Hugh A. Johnson, "Opportunities and Limitations
In Private Recreation Development" (paper presented at
recreation workshop at Wilkes—Barre, Penn., April 6, 1966).

7

campground will be higher for financially successful
campgrounds than for financially unsuccessful campgrounds.
HYPOTHESIS III.

The sum of the frequency of occurance of specific
managerial skills for an individual campground will be
higher for financially successful campgrounds than for

financially unsuccessful campgrounds.

DEFINITIONS
Commercial Campground: Any campground that is developed
with private capital, provides family camping, and is
open to the general public on a fee basis. There must
be an interest in making a profit but this does not need
to be the primary objective.

This definition is one that is commonly referred to
in the literature as a private campground. Describing
campgrounds as defined above with the word private is an
imprecise use of the word. It is usually used in this con—
text to mean that the campground is developed with private
capital in contrast to governmental funds but this does
not necessarily mean that the organization is profit

oriented. Many non-profit organizations develop family

8
campgrounds with private capital and yet these campgrounds
are not included in the literature on private campgrounds.
Commercial campgrounds is a more definitive description

of this sector of the campground industry.

Successful Campground: For the purpose of this study a

 

successful campground is a campground with_a net income
above the mean of the campgrounds that indicated that
they had made a profit in 1971 and had been in business
for at least three years prior to 1971.

This definition was used in order to compare the
campgrounds with relatively high financial returns with
those that were actually losing money. By comparing the
extremes, the differences in operation between them should
be more evident. If all of the respondents were used,
an equally arbitrary definition of financial success

would have to be used.

Unsuccessful Campgrounds: For the purpose of this study
an unsuccessful campground is one that had been in

business for at least three years prior to 1971 with a

net loss in 1971.

9
RESEARCH DESIGN

The study was designed to correlate the frequency of
occurance within a campground of certain physical and
locational features, recreation programs, and managerial
techniques with the economic success of commercial camp-
grounds. A number of other studies have suggested a
wide variety of camper preferences and operating procedures
that are important in the campground industry. An index
was derived from the sum of selected variables from these
studies for each of the successful and unsuccessful commer-
cial campgrounds. The indexes will be expressed in the
form of a percentage of the observed frequency of the
variables to the total of the maximum frequency possible.
The index for each hypotheses will be used to compare the
successful and the unsuccessful campgrounds and to test

the hypothesis.

LIMITATIONS
The results of this study may be affected and the
value limited because of problems in the data gathering
!

phase. [Non-response was a problem and the bias, if any,

introduced by non-response is unknown. _The study is based

10
on the assumption that the non—respondents were a
random sample of the total population. The potential
problem of non-response bias was not investigated
because of a number of future studies that were being
developed. It was felt that a strong possibility existed
that the non-respondents would be alienated by pressure
placed upon them for answers on the questionnaire,
especially the financial questions, and thereby jeopar—
dize future studies.

Another major problem was the non-response to the
request for financial data. Thirty-six percent of the
respondents either failed to answer the financial ques-
tions or responded with figures that appeared to be
highly questionable. If the respondents indicated that
other income was included in the answers for campground
rental or if the net income or loss was identical to the
gross income or loss, the questionnaire was not used. A
further description of these returns is included in
Chapter III. Neither the questionnaires without the
financial data or the ones with questionable figures
could be used in the analysis of the data for testing the

hypothesis.

11

As the completed questionnaires were being analyzed,
a major problem became apparent. Financial comparisons
using all recreation oriented income that was a reasonable
extension of the camping industry had been planned in the
original proposal. This could not be done because the
question asking for financial returns from other recrea-
tion related activities was non-selective. Some answers
to this question gave the financial returns for motel
room and cottage rentals. Because this information could
not be seperated from the total amount of money received
for those activities that were a logical extension of the
campground business this data could not be used in analysis
of the data.

Perhaps the most serious limitation of the study”
was the inability to measure the quality of the factors
that received positive responses on the questionnaires.
Ideally, follow—up with on-site visits should have been {
made to the successful and unsuccessful campgrounds to
measure the quality of the entire camping operation. This

was not attempted because of financial and time restric?

tions.

12
The results obtained in this study are based
solely on the information from campground operators who
completed the questionnaire and returned it and not the
entire population of campground owners who had been in
business three or more years. It is also restricted to
the year 1971 which may or may not be a representative

year for the camping industry.

CHAPTER II

CONDUCTING THE STUDY

Because of the lack of financial resources and the
geographically dispersed location of commercial campgrounds
in Michigan, the method chosen to collect the data for
this study was a mail questionnaire. This decision was
made with the full knowledge that the most commonly
criticized disadvantage of self-administered questionnaires
is the bias involved from non—response to the questionnaire.
Therroblem of non—response and the potential of biasing
the results of the study are directly related to the ex-
tent to which non—respondents differ from respondents. The
most inexpensive method of preventing this type of bias

. . . l
15 to reduce non-response to a mlnlmum.

 

1Douglas M. Crapo and Michael Chubb, Recreation
Day-Use Investigation Techniques: A Study of Survey
Methodology, Recreation Research and Planning Unit,
Technical Report No. 6 (East Lansing, Michigan, Department
of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University,
April 1969) pg. 27.

 

l3

l4

DEVELOPING THE STUDY

SPONSOR.-—The Department of Park and Recreation
Resources, Michigan State University, has had an ongoing
cooperative extension program for commercial campground
managers. This study was planned as an additional input
into this educational program. It has been suggested
that the sponsorship of the survey also has an impact on
the response rate. If the sponsoring body is involved
with the population to be surveyed the study will have a
better rate of response. If the study is conducted with
official backing from a sponsoring body not connected
with the population, it would elicit the next most desir-
able response and the sponsorship of a university or
research agency not directly involved with the population
would be the least desirable.2 Because of its involvement
with the population it was decided that the Cooperative

Extension Service would be the sponsor of the study.

COVER LETTER.--A cover letter should also be enclosed

 

with the questionnaire that explains the purpose of the

 

2Crapo and Chubb, Survengethodology, p. 20.

15
study and how the responses will be used. The letter
should be on official stationery with an official title
after the signature. A personal letter appears to be
more successful than a form letter.3 Because of a
technical problem involving the federal regulations
covering the frank mailing privilage, a personal cover
letter was not used. In order to meet the regulations
that require an authorized signature on correspondence
using the frank mailing privilage, it was determined that
the cover letter would be printed on a facsimile of
cooperative extension stationery and the official letter-
head and used as the first page of the questionnaire
booklet. This insured that an authorized signature would
appear in the correspondence when the questionnaires
were returned in a franked envelope. The effect that this
decision, not to use personal cover letters, had on the
rate of response is not know, but the assumption is that

it would be small compared to the advantages of having

 

3R. A. Young, I. I. Holland, and A. R. Gilmore,
"Getting Better Returns from Mail Questionnaires,"
Journal of Forestry, November, 1970, pg. 724.

16
received mail in the customary fashion from a well known

sponsor.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

The physical appearance of the questionnaire is one
of the factors that has been shown to increase the
response rate,5 and considerable time was spent attempting
to maximize this benefit. The questionnaire was assembled
into a booklet of ten pages printed front and back because
it tended to be lengthy. The type size and style were
varied to emphasize instructions and key words, and the
questions and the spaces for response were positioned
close together to avoid confusion. A picture was used on
the first page of the actual questionnaire because Young,
Holland, and Gilmore had suggested that a photograph or
other graphics is a method of improving the appearance of

the questionnaire with a corresponding improvement in the

 

4S. Levine and G. Gordon, "Maximizing Return on
Mail Questionnaires." Public Opinion Quartly, Vol. 27,

l7
5

response rate. A facsimile of the questionnaire may

be found in Appendix I.

QUESTIONS.--The questions that furnished the basic

 

data for this study were developed after a survey of

the literature on commercial campgrounds and interviews
with individuals involved in the commercial campground
industry. Whenever possible, the respondent only had

to check the response that was correct for his campground.
All of the open ended economic questions were placed at

the end of the questionnaire following a statement that
reinforced the cover letter's assurance that all individual

answers would be held in strictest confidence.

DISTRIBUTION.-—Questionnaires were sent to all commercial

 

campgrounds that were open to the general public. Act
171, Public Act of 1970, requires that campgrounds be
licensed annually. The Michigan Department of Public
Health distributes a list of privately and municipally
owned campgrounds. This list covering the 1971-72

licensing period was used to identify the 351 campgrounds

 

OJ

5Young, Holland, and Gilmore, ”Mail Question—
naires", p. 723-

18

that would receive the questionnaire.6 It was decided
that a complete census of commercial campgrounds would be
surveyed. The number of commercial campgrounds was
limited and the data obtained could be used for compari-
son in future studies.

For the purpose of this study, only commercial
campgrounds that had been in operation for three years
or longer would be used. It was necessary to contact
all existing campgrounds because prior to Public Act
171 of 1970, campgrounds were registered under the
mobile home act. The potential for error of trying to
determine which mobile home park was in reality a
campground was too great to risk. A more accurate deter-
mination of the number of campgrounds that had been in
operation for three or more years could be made if the
respondents were asked to indicate the year that they

opened for business.

 

6"Licensed and Proposed Campgrounds in
Michigan", Michigan Department of Health, Lansing,
February, 1972. (Mimeographed.)

19
Three years of operation was arbitrarily picked
as a period of time that was adequate to have a
business operating at a level that would approach its
final development. It was felt that by this time the
physical development, recreation programs and managerial
skills should begin to have their influence on profit

or loss.

FOLLOW-UP.--It has been demonstrated that follow-up

 

letters can significantly increase the response from

the questionnaire. Researchers at the University of
Illinois used two follow-up letters, mailed three weeks
and five weeks after the original mailing with the first
follow-up bringing in an additional 18.2 percent.7 The
response after three follow-ups does not appear to

justify the additional effort required.8

 

7E. L. Shafer, Jr., and J. F. Hamilton, Jr.,
A Comparison of Four Survey Techniques Used in Outdoor
Recreation Research, U. S. Forest Service, N. E.
Experiment Station, Resource Paper NI—86, p. 22.

8R. A. Young, 1. I. Holland, and A. R.
Gilmore, "Getting Better Returns from Mail Question-
naires," p. 721.

20

A postcard was mailed to non—respondents in this
study three weeks after the first mailing and a new
questionnaire including a follow-up letter was mailed
three weeks following the post card. No attempt was
made to survey those who did not respond to the question-
naire and the follow—up attempts because additional
studies were being prepared and the author did not want
to take the chance of alienating campground operators and
jeopardizing future studies. It was felt that one of
the main reasons for non—response was the financial
questions. This is an extremely sensitive area to many

people including campground operators.

DATA COLLECTION
Questions 1 through 4 were designed to collect basic
information for this and future studies but the infor—
mation was not required to test the hypothesis. The pur-
pose of question 1 was to obtain information on ownership
patterns for future studies. Question 2 was designed to
identify the respondents position in the organization and

question 3 obtained information on whether or not the

21

campground was the owners major source of income.
Question 4 identified the owner's goals for operating the
campground.9

Question number 5 asked the respondent to indicate
the month and year that the campground first opened. The
study would involve those campgrounds that had been in
business three or more years. A campground had to be in
operation prior to January 1, 1970 in order to be included.

Questions 6 through 9 and 11 through 14 were developed
to collect basic data as a bench mark for future studies.
The data obtained from these questions was not used in
testing the hypothesis.

Questions 30, 31, 36, 38, 39, 43, 49, 51, 66, 67, and
68 were collected for information purposes either to
gather background information or to substantiate or explain
other answers given in the questionnaire.

The remaining questions were used to develop indexes

to test the hypotheses. Fifteen items were developed into

 

9
Appendix I.

A facsimile of the questionnaire is located in

22
an index to test hypothesis I, thirty—seven items were
developed into an index to test hypothesis II, and
forty-nine items were developed into an index to test
hypothesis III.
TABLE 1
Questions And Maximum Scores Used To Gather

Data For Each Index To Test The Hypothesis.

 

 

 

Hypothesis I Hypothesis II Hypothesis III
Physical and Recreation Pro- Managerial
Locational grams and Skills
Facilities
Ques. # # of Ques. # # of Ques. # # of
Items Items Items
17 l 33 l 10 1
18 1 45 36 15 l
19 l 16 l
20 l 26 l
21 1 27 l
22 l 2 l
23 1 37 l
24 1 4O 1
25 1 41 l
28 l 42 l
29 3 AA 1
34 1 46 23
35 l 47 12
48 1
5O 1
52 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

23
INDEX DEVELOPMENT

An index is an ordinal measure of variables con—
structed by the simple cumulation of scores assigned to
specific responses to the individual items comprising
the index. The items included in the index should meet
the required criteria of face validity and unidimensionality.
Face validity requires that items included in the index
should appear to measure the independent variable that
is the subject of the index. Unidimensionality in index
construction requires that the composite construction
measure only one dimension. Therefore, only items reflec-
ting on the subject of the index directly should be used
even though two variables are empirically related to one
another.10

The items for inclusion in the indexes were developed

from previous studies on commercial campgrounds in states

other than Michigan. The indexes are a combination of

 

10Earl R. Babbie, Survey Research Methods
(Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company,
Inc., 1973). pp. 254-256.

24

variables that have been identified as being correlated
with successful campgrounds in these studies. These
variables have been grouped into three indexes to test
the hypotheses.

Another concern in selecting items for inclusion
in an index is the amount of variance provided by these
items.11 An item that was equally divided between
successful and unsuccessful campgrounds or had been in-
dicated by only a very small number of respondents would

be of little use in the index.

QUESTION DEVELOPMENT FOR HYPOTHESIS I
The questions to develop the necessary information
to test the hypothesis that the sum of the frequency of
specific physical and locational features will be higher
for financially successful campgrounds than for financially
unsuccessful campgrounds were developed from studies of
public and commercial campgrounds. A search of the

literature indicated that a number of authors suggested

 

llIbid., pg. 256

25
that the same factors might be correlated with financially
successful campground operations or camper preferences.

Brown and Holemo12

sought to determine where
private campgrounds should be located. They found that
nearly one—half of the campers using commercial campgrounds
did not want to travel over five miles off a major highway
on a hard surfaced road or over one mile on a gravel road.
They also found that the older the camper, the less the
distance they were willing to travel from major highways.
Bond and Ouellete asked campers to indicate their
preferences for selected facilities. From this data they
developed a chart which is Table 2 in this study showing
selected facilities desired by campers in public and
private campgrounds. Campers in private campgrounds pre—

ferred nine of fourteen facilities by a greater percentage

than campers in public campgrounds.

 

12E. Evan Brown and Fred J. Holemo, Private
Campground Operations in Georgia, University of Georgia
College of Agriculture Experiment Stations Research
Bulletin 89, March, 1971, (Athens, Georgia: U. of
Georgia, 1971). '

26

TABLE 2

FACILITIES DESIRED BY CAMPERS

 

 

Public Commercial
Facility Campground Campgrounds
Flush Toilets 83% 90%
Picnic Tables and Fireplaces 87% 89%
Swimming 80% 86%
Hot Showers -69% 72%
Children's Play Area 38% 51%
Laundromat 31% 42%
Concession 22% 31%
Stocked Fish Pond 24% 24%
Electricity at Site 15% 14%
Sport and Game Facilities 16% 16%
Boating Facilities 14% 15%
Cabins 5% 3%
No Special Facilities 4% 2%

 

Source: Bond and Oullete, Characteristics of Campers,
p. 21.

 

.They found that in three of these nine cases the
differences were statistically significant. These were
children's play areas, laundromats, and snack bars or
concessions, all of which were important to summer dwellers.
Summer dwellers represented a greater prOportion of campers

in private campgrounds compared to public campgrounds.13

 

13Robert S. Bond and Gerald J. Ouellete, Characteris—
tics of Campers in Massachusetts, Planning and Resource Develop-
ment Series No. 6, Holdsworth Natural Resources Center,
Publication No. 572, November 1968, Massachusetts, Agricul—
tural Experiment Station and The Massachusetts C00perative
Extension Service, University of Massachusetts, 1968.

 

27

They also asked campers if they would be willing to
pay higher fees for additional facilities and 44.3 percent
of commercial campground users were willing to pay addi-
tional fees. Their study did not indicate what these
facilities should be and they can only be inferred by the
results of the questions dealing with the most desired
facilities.

Their study also substantiated the often reported
preference of campers for campgrounds located on lakes.
Rivers were much less popular with campers with a total of
approximately 42 percent preferring lakes in contrast with
approximately 3 percent of private campground campers pre-
ferring rivers. This preference for campgrounds located on
water has been well documentedla and based on this expressed
desire of campers it was felt that this factor should be
weighted heavier than all other physical and locational
factors. An arbitrary scale was developed that gave a weight

of 3 for location on a natural or artificial lake or pond,

 

4Ronald W. Hodgson, "Campground Features Attractive
to Michigan State Park Campers", (Unpublished M.S. Thesis,
Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State
University, 1971), David W. Lime, Factors Influencing Camp-
ground Use In The Superior National Forest of Minnesota,
U. S. Forest Service Research Paper NC-6O (St. Paul, Minn.:
U.S.D.A., 1971) and others.

28
a weight of 2 for large rivers, and a weight of l for small
streams.

Brown and Holermo also studied the facilities that
campers desired. Table 3 is a figure developed by the
authors showing preferences of private campground facilities.
The respondents also were asked which of the desired
facilities should be included in the basic campground fee.15

Cordell and Sykes in their study of the Indian Boundry
Campground in Tennessee found that 91 percent of respondents
selected a clean comfort station as one of the most import-
ant facilities for camping satisfaction. Seventy-six
percent indicated a bathouse with hot showers and fifty—
eight percent indicated a campstore as the next most import-
ant facilities in a campground.

Ninety—three percent of their respondents preferred

modern flush toilets in the comfort stations and seventy-

four percent of the individuals answering the questionnaire

 

15Brown and Holerma, Campground Operations, pg. 15.

29
TABLE 3

DESIRED FACILITIES OR CONVENIENCES THAT SHOULD BE

INCLUDED IN ONE PRIVATE CAMPGROUND FEE, GEORGIA, 1969

 

 

Basic Facilities Facilities or Con~
or Conveniences veniences Desired
Number Percent
Restrooms 514 94
Water Outlets ' 502 92
Showers 496 91
Picnic Tables 465 85
Water Hookup 340 62
Electric Hookup 331 60
Playground 267 49
Swimming Area 263 48
Fireplaces 249 45
Grocery Store 162 30
Sewage Hookup 157 29
Laundry 146 27
Dumping Station ‘ 142 26
Fishing 134 24
Firewood 127 23
Bottled Gas 72 13
Badminton 29 5
Volleyball 29 5
Miniature Golf 11 2
Hunting 8 1
Par 3 Golf 6 1
Driving Range 5 l

 

Source: Brown and Holerma, Campground Operations, pg. 15.

wanted these located within 100 to 200 feet of their camp-

site.16

 

l6Harold K. Cordell and Clinton K. Sykes, User
Preferences for Developed-Site Camping, U. S. Forest Service
Research Note SE—122, December 1969, (Asheville, North
Carolina: U.S.D.A., 1969.)

30

The facilities that were discussed in the literature
and considered important by campers were included in ques-
tions for this study. For the purpose of this study
facilities were considered without regard to quality.
Ideally, a visit should have been made to the campgrounds
to rate quality because a facility of poor quality could
be detremental to the overall campground operation. In
this study, a poor quality facility carries as much
weight as a high quality facility.

The literature of camper preferences and physical
campground features associated with financially successful
campgrounds would indicate that a successful campground
operation would require a number of basic physical
facilities and locational features as a prerequisite to
successful Operation. Table 4 indicates the physical
and locational features that comprise the index for
testing hypothesis I. As discussed previously, a campground
located on water was weighted up to a maximum of 3 depend-
ing on the body of water with a lake or pond receiving the
maximum weight for this item. All other yes or positive
responses were given a weight of one. It was expected

that financially successful campgrounds would have a larger

31

number of these physical and locational features than

unsuccessful campgrounds.

TABLE 4

PHYSICAL AND LOCATIONAL INDEX ITEMS

USED TO TEST HYPOTHESIS I

 

Index Item Hyp. I

Index Item Hyp. I

 

l.
2.

O

VONU'I-L‘UJ

Water Hookups 8.
Sewer Hookups 9.
Electrical Hookups lO.
Dumping Station 11.
Portable Pump Unit 12.
Flush Toilets 13.

Hot Showers

Picnic Tables
Fireplaces

Paved Campground Rds.
Located on Water
Located 1 Mi. Highway
Located on Hard Rd.

 

QUESTION DEVELOPMENT FOR HYPOTHESIS II

Recreation programs and facilities are potentially

the services that can provide a competitive advantage

for commercial campgrounds.

The fees charged by the

public sector of the industry that is subsidized by taxes

are lower than a commercial operator can charge and

expect to make return on his investment. By providing

a superior recreation service that is above and beyond

32

the service provided by the public sector the commercial
sector can charge the higher fees to at least have the
potential of a fair return on its investment.17

The list of activities and facilities in questions
33 and 45 were designed to develop frequency counts
for the index to test the hypothesis that the sum of
the frequency of occurance of specific recreation pro—
grams and facilities will be higher for financially succes-
sful campgrounds than for financially unsuccessful camp-
grounds were limited to those facilities and programs
that were feasible in a campground. A review of the
literature did not seem to suggest specific recreation
programs with the exception of swimming that had been
correlated with financially successful campgrounds or
with camper preferences. Without suggesting any particular

recreation programs, LaPage and other authors suggest that

the importance is that the campground user has a variety

 

17Edward G. Berstein, "Recreation Program in a
Private Family Campground.”_ Park Practice Program,
December, 1970, pp. 51—58.

 

33

of recreation programs from which to make his selection.18
The only exception to the lack of specific suggeStions

for recreation programs is swimming. Nearly every

publication on both commercial and public campgrounds

stress the importance of swimming. The importance of

this specific recreation activity seemed to dictate

that it not be treated on an equal basis with other rec-

reation programs. An attempt to weight swimming

heavier than other recreation programs was made by

giving campground operators an opportunity to give four

responses for activities involving swimming. Question

33, and swimming lessons, swimming pool, and swimming

beach are possible responses in question 45. Table 5

shows the specific items that were used in the index

to test hypothesis II. All yes or other positive

responses were given a weight of one. It was ex-

pected that financially successful campgrounds would

 

18Wilbur F. LaPage, The Role of Customer Satis-
faction In Managing Commercial Campgrounds, U. S. Forest
Service Research Paper NE-105, 1968 (Upper Darby, Pa.:
U. S. D. A., 1968), pg. 7.

34

have a larger number of these specific recreation

programs and facilities than unsuccessful campgrounds.

TABLE 5

RECREATION PROGRAM AND FACILITY INDEX ITEMS

USED TO TEST HYPOTHESIS II

 

INDEX ITEM HYP. II

 

1. Campfire program

2. Swimming lessons

3. Tennis

4. Snowmobile trails
5. Roller skating

6. Boat launching ramp
7. Horseshoes

8. Shuffleboard court
9. Skiing (downhill)

10. Recreation building
11. Hunting

12. Marina

13. Teen activities

14. Table tennis

15. Swimming pool

16. Firewood

17. Fishing poles

l8. Hiking trails

l9. Playground equipment

20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.

Fishing

Ice skating

Ball diamond
Boating

Canoeing
Volleyball

Skiing (cross country)
Water skiing area
Movies

Dancing

Pool table
Swimming beach
Golf

Badminton

Other

Other

Other

Swimming

QUESTION DEVELOPMENT FOR HYPOTHESIS III

The operator of a commercial campground must be a

competent manager if his campground is going to be financially

successful.

This competency must be based not only on

technical knowledge and the ability to carry out principles

35
of management but it must be linked to a desire on the
part of the manager to provide a service for his customers.
The campers in Michigan have traditionally camped at
publically owned facilities. In many cases, the public
sector has the monOpoly on the best locations and the
most unique natural resources forcing the commercial
operator to rely on superior services for the public to
outweigh the public sectors advantage in location and
resources.

The questions to obtain frequency counts for the
index to test the hypothesis that the sum total of the
frequency of occurance of specific managerial skills will
be higher for financially successful campgrounds than for
financially unsuccessful campgrounds, were developed from
studies on commercial campgrounds.

Advertising should be an important means of attracting
business to the campground. Respondents were asked to
indicate the number of different types of advertising that

they used in question 47. The total number of different

36
methods being used was felt to be important by a number
of previous studies.19
One factor that appears to be ignored in the litera-
ture is the importance of delivering the advertising to
potential market areas. Bond and Ouellette discovered
this importance when they found that visitors most frequently
obtained information about commercial campgrounds from

20 While realizing the major

automobile associations.
importance of distribution of advertising in potential
market areas, this was not measured in this study because

of the difficulty of having to first determine the potential
market area of all the campgrounds included in the study.

Question 46 was designed to measure potential sources

of income that were being used by campground operators.

 

19A. B. Sherling and E. W. McCoy, Considerations
In Establishing Camping_Facilities in Alabama, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, Circular 193 January, 1972
(Auburn, Alabama, Auburn University, 1972), pg. 10, and
Rudolph A. Christiansen, Sidney D. Staniforth, Aaron Johnson
and Rollin Cooper, Privately Owned Campgrounds in Wisconsin,
Research Division, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences
Research Report 43, March, 1969, (Madison, Wis., U. of
Wisconsin, 1969), pg. 12.

20Bond and Ouellette, Characteristics of Campers,

p. 19.

37
The author of this study developed the list and each
item was required to be a logical extension of a campground
enterprise and closely related to the anticipated needs
of the campground user. A large number of studies have
indicated that the financial return for campground
enterprises has been low and a good manager would be
aware of this and try to maximize his income by selling
other services or goods.

LaPage found that campers who made advance reser-
vations camp more frequently and spent more days per
visit. Forty-eight percent of the campgrounds in his
study reported that their business was predominantly by

21 This would appear to indicate

advance reservation.
that there was a large demand for advance reservations
and this demand plus the fact that very few publically
owned campgrounds in Michigan have a reservation system
should make an advance reservation system a high priority
for commercial campground operators.

Many other services appear to be necessary to increase

the chance of financial success for a commercial campground.

 

21Wilbur F. LaPage, Successful Private Campgrounds,
U.S. Forest Service Research Paper NE-58, 1967 (Upper
Darby, Pa.: U.S.D.A., 1967), pg. 13.

38

LaPage suggests services such as; adequate and appropriate
directional signs, long seasons, 24-hour attendants,
telephone availability, competence in first aid, children's
activities, babysitting, bulletin boards, rental equipment,
instructional services, camp stores, regular firewood
deliveries and trash removal, pre-season netices of changes
in rates and services, assistance to new campers, camp-
ground maps, area maps showing tour routes, arrangements
for discount rates at nearby attractions, posted rules and
regulations, liability insurance, and almost anything that
reflects a concern for the camper's convenience, enjoyment,
and protection. The remainder of the questions in this
section were developed by extracting the basic ideas in
LaPage's study.22

Table 6 lists the managerial skills items in the
index item to test hypothesis III. All yes or other
positive responses were given a weight of one with the
exception of question 15 dealing with whether or not the
owner and his family go camping. A no response for this

question was given a weight of one.

 

2“fizLaPage, Customer Satisfaction, ppo 15-16.

39

LaPage found that if a campground owner was a
camper there were significant reductions in visit
lengths, frequencies, and return intentions of the
campers in his campground. Therefore, a positive response
indicating that the owner and his family were campers
was a negative response in this study.23
It was expected that financially successful camp-
grounds would have a larger number of these specific

managerial skills used in the operation of the campground

than the unsuccessful campgrounds.

 

23LaPage, Successful Private Campgrounds, p. 8.

40

TABLE 6

MANAGERIAL SKILLS INDEX ITEMS USED TO TEST

HYPOTHESIS III

 

INDEX ITEM HYPOTHESIS III

 

H
OKOCDNCDULL‘UJNH

H
H

12.

HHHH
PUT-PW

17:
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
310
32.
33.
34.
350
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.

Off-season rates
Manager goes camping
Discount rates over one week
Garbage removal
Telephone available
24—hour attendant
Advance reservations
Christmas cards

Tourist information
Discount rates at tourist attractions
Acquainted with state park personnel
Clothes dryer

Washing machines
Camping trailer sales
Tent sales

Camping trailer rentals
Tent rental

Bicycle rental

Camping trailer storage
Snowmobile sales
Snowmobile rental
Grocery items

White gas

Babysitting

Riding horse rental
Canoe rental

Boat rental

Paddleboat rental
Outboard motor rental
Boat sales

Bottled gas

Gifts and Souvenirs
Other

Other

Brochures

Campground directories
Direct mail

Roadside signs

Camping magazines

Radio

41.
[+20
43.
44.
[+50
46.
47.
48.
49.

41

TABLE 6 (cont'd.)

TV

Displays at sportshows
Newspapers (general)

Newspapers camping and sports)
Other

Other

Campground owners organization
Educational meetings

Accept credit cards

CHAPTER III

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire was sent to campgrounds that had
been identified as commercial campgrounds. Eleven of
these questionnaires were returned by the post office
as undeliverable. Of the remaining 340 questionnaires
which were assumed to have been delivered, 181 question-
naires or 53.2 percent were returned.

Response bias is a concern in all mail surveys.
This bias is significant if the non—respondents differ
significantly from the total population surveyed. It has
been suggested that the overall response rate is one
guide to the representativeness of the respondents. It
has also been suggested that 50 percent is adequate for
analysis and reporting, 60 percent is good, and 70 percent

or more is very good. Babbie cautions that these figures

42

43

are only rough guides that have no statistical basis, but
can be used as a rough guideline.l

If large or small campgrounds were overly represented
in the sample, it could bias the results of the study.
The following table gives the percentage of respondents
for each of the campground size groups. The variance in
returns among the groups was not felt to be a major pro-

blem for the purpose of this study.

TABLE 7

SUMMARY OF RESPONDENTS BY CAMPGROUND SIZE

 

Number of Campsites/Campground

51-25 26-50 5IélOO 101-200 2014

 

 

Percentage of
Respondents 46% 60% 56% 63% 55%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Only the commercial campgrounds that had been in
operation for three years including the 1971 camping
season were analyzed in this study. Campground operators

were asked to indicate the month and year that the campground

 

1Babbie, Research Methods, p. 165.

44

first opened. From their responses llO campgrounds were
identified that had been in the campground business for
three or more years. Three of these campgrounds were
not commercial campgrounds leaving a total of 107 camp—
grounds to be studied.

Thirty-one of the 107 campgrounds that returned the
questionnaire did not answer the financial questions and
another twelve cam ground operators indicated that they
could not seperate camping from their other sources of
income. Without the financial data, these returns were
not of any value in testing the hypotheses.

The financial responses of the remaining questionnaires
were carefully inspected and another eight questionnaires
had to be eliminated because of extremely questionable data.
If the net income was exactly the same or larger than the
gross income, the questionnaire was not used to test the
hypothesis. Seven of the questionnaires reported net incomes
that were the same or larger than the gross income and one
campground operator indicated that day~use returned the
most income and it appeared that he reported day—use income

as campsite rental. These problems made the questionnaire

unuseable for testing the hypothesis.

45

The following

table gives a summary of the respondents with three

years in the commercial campground business.

TABLEEB

SUMMARY OF RETURNS AND USABLE

QUESTIONNAIRES OF COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUNDS

WITH THREE OR MORE YEARS OF OPERATION

 

 

 

Total Unable To Non-Response Question- No.of % of

Returns Seperate To Financial able Usable Usable
Camping Data Financial Returns Returns
Income Data

107 12 51 8 56 52. 5%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND RETURN 0N INVESTMENT
The fifty-six campgrounds had a total capital invest-
ment of better than three million dollars (See Table 9)
geographically dispersed in thirty lower peninsula counties
and five upper peninsula counties. There was no apparent

correlation between geographical location within the state

and the financial success of the campgrounds.

NET INCOME.—-The net income for camping was added to

income paid to family members who worked in the camping

 

46

portion of the business. The fifty—six campgrounds had a
net income of $145,798. This is an average of $43 per
campsite. This represents a 4 percent average return
for salaries of the family members who work in the camp—
ground and return on their investment.

Forty—two campgrounds indicated that they had shown
a profit in 1971. Nineteen campgrounds were above the
mean for this group and by definition these were the
financially successful campgrounds. As indicated in
Table 9 the successful campgrounds' net income was approxi-
mately 99% of the income for all fifty-six campgrounds.

Fourteen campground operators indicated that their
campgrounds had a net loss for the 1971 season. This loss
totaled $32,472 or an average of $32 per campsite. By
definition, these campgrounds were the financially un-

successful campgrounds.

SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS
SUCCESSFUL CAMPGROUNDS
The ownership pattern of the campgrounds did not appear
to have any correlation to their success. Fifteen of the

successful campgrounds are individually owned, three are

47

.Pcospmo>sa Hmpflmwo co mohsmam amflcnsm

 

 

 

 

 

no: can pmmp pedonmmamo one medaosa pod moot madman mass .m
.PdoEpmc>sH Hmpammo so nonsmHm Shannan nos
can pmmp mezzonmmamo 039 oceaocfl pod meow onsmflw mane .m
.ecoSPmo>sH Hmpammo so monsmam Smacnsw Poe
own page chSOLmQEmo omhmp oUSHoGH pom mooc onsmflm mane .H
mm a- msa.mm a cam a ooo.aam a ms Hmo.a an
m
mane oms.maae msa.aa mmo.mms.am cm mmm.a ma
N
new mom.mdaw hoo.H@ ama.q©m.m@ do mmm.m mm
H
mpam com Hence meam Pacspmo>GH mopam mopem %
oaooQH esoosH pom pews Hmpadmo Mo % 90 %
9oz pmz upmc>cH .><
Hmeadmo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HdwmmmooSmcD

mcsdommmemu
HSmmmmoosm

Goapmnmmo mo memo»
once no mouse
SPHB mendopwmamo

mQZDOmUmZ<o AdHommSZOU mo MSOOZH Bmz 924 BzmSBmm>ZH A<HHm<U mo wm<EZDm

m mAm<B

48
partnerships, and one is organized as a corporation.

The primary goal of eleven of these campground
owners was to develop their campgrounds so that it would
be their main means of support. Four of the campground
owners with this goal indicated that they in fact had
reached this goal in 1971. The remaining seven were
still not able to exist on their campground incomes alone.
Four of the owners indicated that their goal was to
supplement family income and the remaining four owners
indicated that their goal was to operate their campground
to obtain rewards other than financial.

The final question that was asked of the owners
was if they felt that their business was a success. All
nineteen of these owners felt that their business was
successful. Twelve of them also indicated that they were
going to expand their business by adding more campsites.
Two of the successful campgrounds were open year around.

The owners were asked if the majority of campers
stayed more than two nights. Eighteen of the successful
operators indicated that this was the case in their camp-

grounds.

49

UNSUCCESSFUL CAMPGROUNDS

 

Ten of the unsuccessful campgrounds were individually
owned, two were partnerships, and two were corporations.
The goals of the unsuccessful campground owners were
divided amongst the choices given to them in the question-
naire. Six responded that their objective was to develop
their campground so that it would be their major source
of income and two of the owners indicated that this was
their main means of support. Supplemental income was the
goal of six of the owners and goals other than financial
were indicated by the remaining two owners.

Eleven of the fourteen unsuccessful campground owners
indicated that their campground was a success. One of the
two who indicated that they were interested in satisfactions
other than financial was among those who did not consider
their campground a success. This leaves ten owners who
indicated that financial returns were important who are
losing money, and yet, they consider their campground a
success. This would appear to indicate that financial
returns, even when indicated as a goal, may be of minor

importance to campground owners.

50

Two of the unsuccessful campground owners indicated
that they are open year around and thirteen of them plan
to develop more campsites in the future.

When asked to indicate the length of visit by
campers, nine of the owners indicated that the majority
of campers stayed longer than one night. This appeared
to be significantly different results than were obtained
from the successful campground operators. The campground
user appears to be using the successful campgrounds as a
destination campground while the unsuccessful campground
user has more of a tendency to stay only one night.
Using the Chi-square test this is significant at the
10 percent level. TablelI)illustrates the length of

camper visit in commercial campgrounds.

TABLE 10
LENGTH OF CAMPER VISIT IN

SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUNDS

 

 

Two or ‘
More Nights One night

 

Successful l8 1

 

 

 

 

 

Unsuccessful 5 9

 

51

TESTING THE HYPOTHESES

Indexes were computed for the successful and
unsuccessful campgrounds by dividing the sum of the
responses for each hypothesis by the maximum number
of responses possible for each hypothesis. Table 11
summarizes the indexes, number of campsites, and the
financial return per campsite for each of the successful
and unsuccessful commercial campgrounds.

The hypothesis were tested individually using
simple 2 X 2 crossbreak analysis to determine the nature
of the relations between the variables. For a complete
discussion of crossbreaks see Foundations of Behavioral

Research.2

Hypothesis I

The sum of the frequency of occurance of specific
physical and locational features will be higher for
financially successful campgrounds than for financially

unsuccessful campgrounds.

 

2Fred N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral
Research, (New York, N.Y.: Holt, Rinehart and Winston,
Inc., 1964), pp. 624-649.

52

TABLE 11

SUMMARY OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL

CAMPGROUND SIZE AND INDEX OF

FREQUENCY OF OCCURANCE OF SELECTED FACTORS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net Income Index Index Index
No. of or Loss Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis
Campsites Per Site I II III
Successful
13 $138 .82 .35 .43
15 67 .45 .38 .20
30 100 .45 .16 .18
3O 67 .73 .11 .20
35 94 .55 .05 .20
38 86 .73 .30 .31
44 136 .64 .41 .31
54 231 .82 .35 .31
57 145 .73 .24 .31
60 102 .82 .32 .31
60 123 .82 .51 .43
63 68 .91 .19 .37
70 129 .82 .22 .39
75 8O .82 .51 .53
8O 8O .82 .38 .49
89 103 .73 .35 .45
109 2 .73 .35 .45
123 72 .82 .68 .53
218 172 .73 .38 .43
Unsuccessful
3O - 37 .82 .35 .24
30 —103 .55 .14 .22
43 — O .27 .30 .33
44 - 82 .27 .ll .31
45 - 33 .45 .35 .35
48 — 13 .64 .22 .41
5O - 10 .82 .30 .41
57 — 31 .73 .46 .51
59 - 61 .56 .50 .31
65 - 94 .45 .41 .37
65 - 77 .36 .27 .27
95 - 13 .73 .32 .43
140 - 31 .55 .24 .33
250 — 1 .27 .35 .45

 

 

 

 

 

53

The percentage of positive responses for the index
items for hypothesis I are shown in Table 12. The mean
frequency for the composite index is 66. Item analysis
indicates that four items should be eliminated from the
index because the results of the survey indicate that
they do not make an independent contribution to the index.
These were: 1) Sanitary dumpingstation, 2) Location
within 1 mile of a state highway, 3) Location on a hard

surface road, and 4) Electrical hookups.

TABLE 12
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO INDEX ITEMS

TO TEST HYPOTHESIS I

 

 

 

 

 

% of % of

Positive Positive

Response Response
Item Successful Unsuccessful
Water Hookups 84% 71%
Sewer Hookups 68 50
Electrical Hookups 100 100
Dumping Station 79 93
Portable Pump Unit 32 14
Flush Toilets 89 79
Hot Showers 84 79
Picnic Tables 89 57
Fireplaces 63 43
Paved Campground Rds. O 0
Located on Water 93 62
Located 1 mi. Highway 42 57
Located on Hard Rd. 58 57

 

 

 

54
The mean frequency for physical and locational factors
is .64. As indicated in Table 13, sixteen of the successful
campgrounds had scores of .64 or above and three had scores
below the mean. Four of the unsuccessful campgrounds had
frequency counts above the mean and 10 had frequencies below

this figure.

TABLE 13
A CROSSBREAK SHOWING THE NUMBER OF
SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUNDS
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN FREQUENCY OF

PHYSICAL AND LOCATIONAL ITEMS

 

 

 

Above Below
Mean Mean
Successful l6 3

 

Unsuccessful 4 10

 

 

 

 

 

55

TABLE 14

PERCENTAGE CROSSBREAK OF TABLE 13 DATA

SHOWING PERCENTAGE OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL

CAMPGROUNDS ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN FREQUENCY

OF PHYSICAL AND LOCATIONAL ITEMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

—: ——:l
Above Below
Mean Mean
Successful 84% 16%
Unsuccessful 29% 71%

 

 

Results

The null hypothesis would be rejected in favor of
hypothesis I. The relationships were significant at the
5 percent level using the Chi-square test.

Hypothesis II

 

The sum of the frequency of occurance if specific
recreation programs and facilities will be higher for
financially successful campgrounds than for financially
unsuccessful campgrounds.

The percentage of positive responses for the index
items for hypothesis II are shown in Table 15. The mean

frequency for recreation programs and facilities is .31.

56
As indicated in Table 16 twelve of the successful commercial
campgrounds were above the mean and seven were below .31.
There were 6 of the unsuccessful campgrounds above the mean

and eight campgrounds were below the mean.

57

TABLE 15

SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO INDEX ITEMS

TO TEST HYPOTHESIS II

 

 

 

 

% of % of
Positive Positive
Response Response
Item Successful Unsuccessful
l. Campfire program 21% 21%
2. Swimming lessons 11 O
3. Tennis 5 O
4. Snowmobile trails 32 21
5. Roller skating 5 O
6. Boat launching ramp 63 36
7. Horseshoes 79 71
8. Shuffleboard court ll 14
9. Skiing (downhill) O 0
10. Recreation building 42 57
ll. Hunting 52 14
12. Marina 11 l4
13. Teen activities 16 14
14. Table tennis 5 29
15. Swimming pool 0 14
16. Firewood 95 93
17. Fishing poles 5 O
18. Hiking trails 53 71
19. Playground equipment 84 100
20. Fishing 84 79
21. Ice skating 16 21
22. Ball diamond 37 21
23. Boating 74 57
24. Canoeing 47 29
25. Volleyball 42 36
26. Skiing (cross country) 5 O
27. Water skiing area 42 21
28. Movies 21 O
29. Dancing 21 14
30. Pool table 21 21
31. Swimming beach 84 57
32. Golf 5 O
33. Badminton 32 43
34. Other 7 15
35. Other 7 14
36. Other 7 14
37. Swimming 84 71

 

 

 

 

58

TABLE 16
A CROSSBREAK SHOWING THE NUMBER OF
SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUNDS
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN FREQUENCY OF

RECREATION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES ITEMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Above Below
lMean. Mean
Successful l2 7
Unsuccessful 6 8
TABLE 17

PERCENTAGE CROSSBREAKS OF TABLE 16 DATA
SHOWING PERCENTAGE OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL CAMPGROUNDS
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN FREQUENCY OF

RECREATION PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES ITEMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Above Below

Mean Mean
Successful 63% 37%
Unsuccessful 43% 57%

 

Results

The null hypothesis would not be rejected in favor

of'hypothesis II. The relationships were not significant

59

at the 10 percent level.

Hypothesis III

 

The sum of the frequency of occurance of specific
managerial skills will be higher for financially successful
campgrounds than for financially unsuccessful campgrounds.

The percentage of positive responses for the index
items for hypothesis III are shown in Table 18.

The mean frequency of managerial skills was .36.

As indicated in Table 19 ten of the successful campgrounds
were above the mean while nine were below. The unsuccessful

campgrounds had seven above the mean and seven below the mean.

TABLE 18
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES TO INDEX ITEMS
TO TEST HYPOTHESIS III
% of % of

Positive Positive
Responses Responses

 

Item SUCCESSfUl Unsuccessful
l. Off-season rates 16% 21%
2. Manager goes camping 47 5O
3. Discount rates over one week 74 93
4. Garbage removal . 74 64
5. Telephone available 84 79
6. 24 hr. attendent 95 71
7. Advance reservations 100 100
8. Christmas cards 58 36
9. Tourist Information 84 86
10. Discount rates at tourist

attractions 5 O

60

TABLE 18—-Continued

 

 

% of % of

Positive Positive

Responses Responses

Item Successful Unsuccessful
ll. Acquainted with state
park personnel 26% 21%

12. Clothes dryer 47 43
13. Washing machines 53 43
14. Camping trailer sales 0 7
15. Tent sales 0 O
16. Camping trailer rentals 16 29
17. Tent rental 5 l4
18. Bicycle rental 16 21
19. Camping trailer storage 53 50
20. Snowmobile sales 11 O
21. Snowmobile rental 5 7
22. Grocery items 58 57
23. White gas 26 14
24. Babysitting 21 14
25. Riding horse rental 0 0
26. Canoe rental 42 14
27. Boat rental 68 43
28. Paddleboat rental 42 14
29. Outboard motor rental 16 O
30. Boat sales 11 O
31. Bottled gas 63 29
32. Gifts and souvenirs 32 14
33. Other (sales) 21 O
34. Brochures 84 100
35. Campground directories 79 100
36. Direct mail 32 57
37. Roadside signs 84 100
38. Camping magazines 37 36
59. Radio 5 14
40. TV 5 O
41. Displays at sportshows 21 43
42. Newspapers (general) 16 36
42. Newspa ers (campin and sports) 11 29
4 . Other advertis1ng O 7
45. Campground owners organization 63 79
46. Educational meetings 68 79
47. Accept credit cards. 0 7

61

TABLE 19

A CROSSBREAK SHOWING THE NUMBER OF

SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL COMMERCIAL CAMPGROUNDS

ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN FREQUENCY OF

MANAGERIAL SKILLS ITEMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Above Below
Mean Mean
Successful 10 9
Unsuccessful 6 8
TABLE 20

PERCENTAGE CROSSBREAK OF TABLE 19 DATA
SHOWING THE PERCENTAGE OF SUCCESSFUL AND UNSUCCESSFUL CAMPGROUNDS
ABOVE AND BELOW THE MEAN FREQUENCY OF

MANAGERIAL SKILL ITEMS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Above Below

Mean Mean
Successful 53 47
Unsuccessful 43 57

 

Results

The null hypothesis would not be rejected in favor of

62

hypothesis III. The results were not significant at the

10 percent level.

CHAPTER IV
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The major purpose of this study was to collect basic
information on the commercial campground industry in
Michigan that could be used as a "benchmark" for future
studies. The study also tested three hypotheses concern-
ing: (1) physical and locational factors, (2) recreation

programs and facilities, and (3) managerial skills.

Hypothesis I.--Successfu1 commercial campground enterprises
score higher on the index than unsuccessful campgrounds.
This index was found to be significant at the .05 level.
The successful campground owners had developed their land
intensively and the majority Of them were located adjacent
to relatively large bodies of water while the unsuccessful
campgrounds had less development and less desirable loca-
tions, however, the majority of the owners of successful

and unsuccessful campgrounds had developed their campsites

63

64

extensively and the majority of both groups had indexes
higher than .50 for physical and locational items.

The information given by the respondents suggests
that commercial campground owners are concentrating
primarily on developing their physical campsite facilities
and they appear to be following the model used in operating
and developing campgrounds that the Michigan State Parks

use in their camping facilities.

Hypotheses II and III.—-The indexes that measured the
frequency of occurance of recreation programs, facilities,
and managerial skills did not predict successful or un-
successful commercial campgrounds. Campground owners did
not appear to have put any emphasis into these areas. The
mean frequency of occurance for the recreation programs and
facilities items was .31 and for the managerial skills items
it was .36. These are relatively low scores when contrasted
with the scores for the physical and locational index which

had a mean frequency of occurance of .64.

GOALS OF THE CAMPGROUND OWNER
A total of 44 owners indicated that their goal was to

develop their campground as their major source of income,

65
seven owners considered their goal was one Of supple~
menting their income and five were interested in other
than financial returns.

It would appear from the information given by the
respondents that the overwhelming majority of campground
owners derive satisfactions from Operating their camp-
grounds other than the financial returns that they receive.
Only five of the owners apparently recognize that this is
the case. Forty-four of the respondents indicated that
they were successful even when their financial returns indi-

cated otherwise.

Camping Income.——The average net income for campground
operators was $2,604 per year, which seems to be well
below a yearly salary figure that would be satisfactory to
support a family and give a fair return on an investment
that averages approximately $61,589 per campground, and
yet, 44 or 79 percent of the owners indicated that their
business was a success. This dicotomy between goals and
the feeling that they are operating a successful business
should be investigated because it could be one of the

reasons that this industry has a low rate of success when

66

it is measured on an economic scale.

Supplemental Income.--The author had originally planned

on comparing campgrounds using the financial returns from
campsite rental and other related recreation income but

this was not possible because the question used to

Obtain information on supplemental income did not seperate
camping related income from other supplemental income. It
did appear that many of the campground owners did supplement
their income from campsite rental with income from other
services that they provide campers, but in most cases,

this supplemental income appeared to be limited.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CAMPGROUND DEVELOPMENT

The low frequency of occurance of the index items
for developing the recreation potential of the campground
and managerial skills indicates that commercial campground
operators are doing very little to develop these resources.
These two areas may offer the greatest opportunity for a
commercial campground owner to obtain an advantage in the
market place over his competitors whether they are publically

or privately owned if the studies from other states which

67
have indicated the importance of diverse recreation
facilities, recreation programs, and well developed mana-
gerial skills are applicable in Michigan.

If financial success is an important goal of the
campground owner, it would appear that these relatively
unexploited areas must be developed to Obtain financial
success. This appears to be especially true when one looks
at the low financial returns of those campgrounds with
highly developed campsites. They could only be considered
financially successful when compared to those campground
owners that actually lost money in 1971. Even when faced
with low financial returns, which in the majority of cases
is probably based on low occupancy rates, 75% of the camp-
ground owners in this study indicate that they plan to develop
more campsites continuing the emphasis on physical development.

If campground owners develop their managerial skills
and the recreation potential of their campgrounds, their
operations should be monitored and studied to attempt to
quickly determine if these factors can increase financial
returns, however there is the strong possibility that many
campground owners who are presently in the industry may

lose those rewards that they now obtain from their relatively

68

relaxed methods of operation

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Supplemental Income

1.

It is recommended that future studies include
the financial returns from services and goods
that are provided to supplement the campers
experience in commercial campgrounds. In con-
junction with this, the camper's preference to
include or not include the cost of these supple-
mental activities and services in the basic

campsite rental fee should be investigated.

Recreation Programs and Facilities

2.

As indicated previously, the research methods

that were used in other states to develop the
thesis that a large variety of recreation programs
and facilities increase the chance of financial
success in a campground industry should be studied.
If possible, an emperical study should be developed

to test the hypothesis in Michigan

Campground Quality

3.

A study should examine what the camper perceives as

69
the factors that make the distinction between
high quality and low quality facilities and
the effect that quality facilities and programs

have on the success rate of commercial campgrounds.

Campground Owner Motivation

4.

A future study should investigate the satis—
faction that commercial campground operators
obtain from their enterprises and their goals in
the operation of the campground. The assumption
of the majority of the studies has been that
campground Operators are seeking financial returns
and this does not appear to be the case. Perhaps
we should be investigating how to maximize other

returns.

Length of Camper Visit

5.

This study found that the majority of campers
only stayed for one night in unsuccessful camp-~
grounds. The information to explain the short
length of stay is not available and should be

investigated in a future study.

70
CONCLUSION

The information gathered for this study is st
’best a preliminary approach to a needed, complete and
systematic study of the commercial campground industry and
the results should therefore be applied with caution.

It would appear that the physical development of
the campsite sets the basic foundation for successful
Operation. How to develop the campground for higher
financial returns to the owners remains to be identified
by further study. Continuing research in this area is
justified on the strength of the high interest of poten—

tial commercial campground owners and the camping public.

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS

Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont, Calif.:
Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1973.

Kaplan, Abraham. The Conduct of Inquiry. Scranton, Penn.:
Chandler PublishingICompany, 1964.

 

Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research.
New York: HOIt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1964.

Scott, William A., and Wertheimer, Michael. Introduction
to Psychological Research. New York: John Wiley
and Sons, Inc., 1962.

REPORTS

Allee, David J. What Can I Do To Increase My Profits In
The Campground Business? Dept. of AgriculturaI
Economics Bulletin No. 531. Ithaca, N.Y.:
Cornell University, 1969.

 

Bird, Ronald. Income Potential of Various Kinds of Farm
Recreational Enterprises in Missouri. U. of
Missouri, Agricultural Experiment Station and
Resource Development Economics Division, U.S.D.A.,
Bulletin 783, 1963.

Bond, Robert S., and Ouellete, Gerald J. Characteristics
of Campers in Massachusetts. Planning and Resource
Development Series NO. 6, Holdsworth Natural
Resources Center, Publication No. 572; Amherst,
Mass: University of Massachusetts, 1968.

Brown, E. Evan, and Holemo.‘ Private Campground Operations
in Georgia. University Of Georgia College Of
Agriculture Experiment Stations Research Bulletin
89, Athens, Ga.: University Of Georgia, 1971.

71

72

Burch, William R., Jr., and Wenger, Wiley D., Jr. The
Social Characteristics of Participants in Three

Styles of Family Camping. Forest Service Research
Paper PNW-48, Portland, Oregon: U.S.D.A., 1967.

Callahan, John C., and Knudson, Douglas, M. Economic
Aspects of Commercial Outdoor Recreation Enterprises
in Southern Indiana. Research Bulletin No. 814.
Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, 1966.

Clement, Charles D. Recreation Travel and Mobility. Outdoor
Recreation Research Study NO. 3, Bureau of Business
and Economic Research. Athens, Ga.: University of
Georgia, 1967.

 

Christiansen, Sidney D.; Staniforth, Sidney D.; Johnson,
Aron; and Cooper, Rollin. Privately Owned Camp-
grounds in Wisconsin. Research Dividion, College
of Agricultural and Life Sciences Research Report
NO. 43, Madison, Wis.: U. of Wisconsin, 1969.

Cordell, Harold K., and Sykes, Clinton K. User Preferences
for DevelOped-Site Camping. Forest Service Research
Note SE-122. Ashville, N. C.: U.S.D.A., 1969.

Crapo, Douglas, and.Chubb, Michael. Recreation Area Day-
Use Investigation Techniques: Part 1, A Study of
Survey Methodology. Recreation Research and Planning
Unit, Dept. of Park and Recreation Resources,
Technical Report NO. 6. Lansing: Michigan State
University, 1969.

 

Dice, Eugene F.; Chiang, Tat Web; and Smythe, Timothy.
Privately Operated Campgrounds in Michiggn.
Extension Bulletin E—7l7. East Lansing: Michigan
State University, 1971.

 

Driscoll, D. S. Family Camping in Alabama. Agriculture
Experiment Station, Bdlletin 374. Auburn: Auburn
University, 1967.

Echelberger, Herbert E., and Shafer, Elwood L., Jr. Some
Managers View Points on Campers and Campground
Operation. Forest Service Research Note NE-88.
Upper Darby, Pa.: U.S.D.A., 1968.

 

 

73

Grueter, Josef. Simulation of a Recreation Firm: Flow
Chart and Computer Program. Part 1 of Economic
Analysis of Camping-Oriented Recreation Firms.
Maine AgricuItural Experiment Station Technical
Buéletin 36. Orono, Maine: University of Maine,
19 9.

Grueter, Josef. Manual for Maine Outdoor Recreation Firm
Simulation. Part 2 of Economic Analysis of Camping—
Oriented Recreation Firms. Maine AgriculturaI
Experiment Station Technical Bulletin 37. Orono,
Maine: University of Maine, 1969. .

Grueter, Josef. The Private Camping30riented Outdoor
Recreation Industpy in Southern Maine-~A BuSIness
Anal sis. Part 3 of Economic Analysis of Camping-
Orlented Recreation Firms. Maine AgricfiItural
Experiment Station Bulletin 686. Orono, Maine:
University of Maine, 1970.

Johnson, Hugh A.; Huff, Judith M.; and Csorba, J. J.
Private Outdoor Recreation Enterprises in Rural

Appalachia. Economic Research Service, Bulletin
EELS-(+29. U0 So Do A. 9 19690

LaPage, Wilbur F. The Role of Customer Satisfaction in
Managing Commercial Campgrounds. Forest Service
Regearch Paper NE-lO5. Upper Darby, Pa.: U. S. D. A.,
19 8.

LaPage, Wilbur F. Successful Private Campgrounds. Forest
Service Research Paper NE-58. Upper Darby, Pa.:
U. S. D. A., 1967.

Lime, David W. Factors Influencinngappground Use in The
Superior National Forest of Minnesota. Forest
'Service Research Paper NS—60. St. Paul, Minn.:
U. S. D. A., 1971.

 

Loomis, Clifton W. and Wilkins, Bruce T. A Study of Camp-
ground Businesses in New York State. Dept. of
AngcfiItural Economics BuIletin No. 315. Ithaca,
N. Y.: Cornell University, 1970.

 

Montville, Francis E. How to Plan the Recreation Enterprise.
Cooperative Extension Service Circular 396. Orno,
Ma.: University of Maine, 1968.

74

Moore, Elmer J. Rural Recreation Enterprises in New England:
InvestmentngReturns, and Problems. AngCuIture
Economic Research ReportINo. 56, Economic Research
Service. U. S. D. A., 1964.

 

Shafer, E. L., Jr., and Hamilton, J. F., Jr. A Comparison Of
Four Survey Techniques Used in Outdoor Recreation
Research. Forest Service Resource Paper NI-86.
Upper Darby, Pa.: U. S. D. A., 1967.

 

Sherling, A. B., and McCoy, E. W. Considerations in Establish—
ing Camping Facilities in Alabama. Agricultural
Experiment Station Circular 193. Auburn, Alabama:
Auburn University, 1972.

Stipe, S. H., Pasour, E. L., Jr. Economic Opportunities
for Selected Recreational Enterprises in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Economics Information Report
NO. 1. Raleigh, N. C.: North Carolina State
University, 1967.

 

Wagnor, J. Alan. Campgrounds for Many Tastes. Forest
Service ResearchIPaper INT-6. Ogden, Utah:
U. S. Do A., 19630

Wayt, William A.; Acton, Robert W.; and Whittaker, James C.
A Look at Commercial Recreation on Small Woodlands
in Ohio. Forest Service Research Paper NE—lOl.
Upper Darby, Pa.: U. S. D. A., 1968.

Wilder, Robert L. Promotion and Public Relations in
Private Recreation. Cooperative Extension Service
Special Report 296. Corvallis, Oregon: Oregon
State University, 1970.

Williams, J. W., and Schermerhor, R. W. Economic Analysis
of the Potential for Developing Overnight Camping
Facilities on or Near Major Highways in Oklahoma.
Oklahoma State University, 1968.

"Licensed and Proposed Campgrounds in Michigan"
Lansing: Michigan Dept. of Health, 1972. (Mimeo-
graphed).

. Michigan Recreation Plan 1970. Office of
Planning Services. Lansing: Michigan Dept. Of
Natural Resources, 1972.

75

. State Park Camp Permit. Parks Division Report.
Lansing: Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, 1970.

ARTICLES

Berstein, Edward C., "Recreation Program in a Private
Family Campground." Park Practice Program,
(December, 1970), 51-58.

Bull, Leonard, "Problems of Private Recreation Units."
Farm PolicygForum, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1965-66, pp. 33-35

LaPage, Wilbur R., "Campground and Camper Market Research."
Trends in Parks and Recreation, Vol. 7, NO. l, 1970.

Levine, S., and Gordon, C., "Maximizing Return on Mail
Questionnaires." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol.
27’ pp. 568-575.

Thorp, Max M., "Recreation As A Farm Business." Farm
Policy Forum, Vol. 18, NO. 1, 1965-66 p. 18.

Yound, R. A.; Holland, I. I.; and Gilmore, A. R., "Getting
Better Returns from Mail Questionnaires." Journal
of Forestpy, (November, 1970), 724-25.

PAPERS

Johnson, Hugh A., "The National Outlook--Supply and Demand
in Outdoor Recreation." Paper prepared for
presentation during Arkansas Extension Recreation
Training Workshop, July 28-30, 1969. (Mimeographed).

Johnson, Hugh A., "Opportunities and Limitations in Private
Recreation Development." Prepared for presentation
at Recreation Workshops at Wilkes—Barre, Hershey,
Titusville, and Greensburg, Penn., 1966. (Mimeo-
graphed).

THESES

Helm, Donald R., "Fundamental Social and Economic Aspects
Of Commercial Outdoor Recreation Enterprises in
Michigan." Unpublished M. S. Thesis, Michigan
State University, 1968.

76

Hodgson, Ronald W., "Campground Features Attractive to
Michigan State Park Campers." Unpublished M. S.
Thesis, Michigan State University, 1971.

Wang, Darsan, "Camper Preferences and Campsite Characteris-
tics at Ludington State Park, Michigan." Unpublished
M. S. Thesis, Michigan State University, 1971.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX I

QUESTIONNAIRE

77
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SE RVICE

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY ° EAST LANSING ° MICHIGAN 48823
Department of

Park and Recreation Resources
AND U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COOPERATING Natural Resources Building

 

Dear Campground Operator:

We are conducting a survey of commercial campground enterprises in Michigan.
The purpose of this study is to identify the specific facilities and programs
that are characteristic Of commercial campgrounds. This information will
enable us to develop guidelines that may be of value to you in making future
management decisions and increasing your profits. Your name was Obtained

from the list Of commercial campground Operators licensed by the State. Your
campground enterprise will not be identified in the final report of the study
and we assure you that your answers will be held in strictest confidence. They
will only be used with all other replies to show patterns Of development in
commercial campgrounds.

Please assist us by completing the enclosed questionnaire. A complimentary
copy of the conclusions will be reserved for each person who completes the
questionnaire. The study will be forwarded to you as soon as it is completed.

Sincerely,
/;Sié;}¢(':2;2- 1106
Rog, D. Murra €7//

Extension Specialist
Park Management

RDMzmch
Enclosure

78

THIS COMMERCIAL

CAMPGROUND STUDY
is conducted .by the

DEPARTMENT of PARK and
RECREATION RESOURCES
and the

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
SERVICE

 

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

 

1. Is your campground business owned: (Please check one)
Individually
Partnership
Corporation

2. Which of the following statements best describes your position?

I am the manager of the campground but I do NOT own any
portion of the enterprise.

I am the manager of the campground and I own all or a
portion of the business.

I own the campground but I do not work on the site.

Other

 

3.

4.

10.

I79
If you are an owner, is your campground your major source of income?

Yes

No

*

Which of the following statements best describes the owner's goals
for operating the campground.

The primary goal is to receive enough income from the
campground and related recreation enterprises to Support
my family for the entire year.

The primary goal is to supplement my family income with

no plans to use the campground as my only source of family
income. We receive additional income from other sources
such as another job, pension or retirement, off season
employment, etc.

The primary goal is to give my family something to do. We
enjoy operating the campground and the profit that the camp-
ground produces is not really the most important reason that
we are in the camping business.

Other (Please Specify)

 

 

In what year did you campground first open?
' Month Year

Does your campground stay open year around? Yes No
If yes, continue with question 9.

If 22, continue with question 7.

On what date does your campground OPEN for the season?

 

Month

On what date does your campground CLOSE for the season?

 

Month

What is your basic charge per night for a campsite in July and August?
(NOte: If your basic rate varies per site according to location, give
the average rate charged fer a site.)

$

 

Do you have an off-season rate? Yes No

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

80

Do you charge for additional campers after a certain number of campers per
site? Yes No

 

If "yes”, what is the additional charge? Per person $
over of people.
Number

 

 

How many campsites did your campground have in 1971?

 

What is the average size of your campsites?

Length

 

Width

 

Do you and your family go on camping trips? Yes No

Do you have discount rates for campers who stay at least one week?
Yes

*

No

*—

Do you have water hook—ups at some of your sites?

Yes -- How many sites?

 

No

#

Do you have sewer hook-ups at some of your campsites?

Yes -- How many sites?

 

No

 

Do you have electrical hook-ups at some of your sites?

Yes -- How many sites?

 

No

Do you have sanitary dumping stations for trailer holding tanks?

Yes

**

No

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

81
Do you have a portable pump unit to pump out holding tanks?

Yes

No

Not including overflow camping areas, are all of your campsites served
by comfort stations with flush toilets?

Yes

No

m

Not including overflow camping areas, are all of your campsites served
by comfort stations with hot showers?

Yes

No
Do you have picnic tables at each camping site? Yes No

Do you have fireplaces at each camping site? Yes No

Do you have plastic garbage bags in all of your garbage cans?

Yes

No
Is a telephone available to campers 24 hours a day? Yes No
Are the roads within your campground paved? Yes No

Which of the following best describes the location of your campground?
Located on a natural lake
Located on an artificial lake or pond
______ Located on a river

Located on a small stream

Notlocated on any body of water

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

82

What is the size of the total parcel of land where your campground is
located?

 

Acres

If your campsites are located on a body of water, what is the total front
footage available to your campers?

 

Do you have a campground attendant on duty 24 hours per day during the
season? Yes No

 

Do you have swimming at your campground? Yes No

Is your campground located within one mile of a state or interstate highway?
Yes

No

Is your campground located on a hard surface road? Yes No
Which of the following statements most nearly describes your campground
situation?

The majority of our campers stay two nights or more

The majority of our campers only stay one night

Do you take advance reservations? Yes No
Do you allow pets in your campground? Yes ‘No
Do you allow alcoholic beverages in your campground? Yes . No

Do you mail Christmas cards or other greeting cards to your customers?

Yes

No

Do you have local tourist information and advertisements of local
attractions on display and available to your campers?

Yes

No

m

42.

43.

44.

45.

83
Do you have arrangements for discount rates at local tourist attractions?
Yes

No

Is your campground located within 15 miles of a state park? Yes No

If ”yes”, are you personally acquainted with the personnel working at the
state park? Yes No

 

 

What facilities and program are available on your site for campers?

 

Campfire program Hiking trails

Swimming lessons Playground equipment

______Tennis ______Fishing

______Snowmobile trails ______Ice skating

._____ Roller skating ______ Ball diamond(s)

______Boat launching ramp ______Boating

______ Horseshoes ______ Canoeing
Shuffleboard court(s) Volleyball

Skiing (downhill) Skiing (cross country)

 

______ Recreation building ‘_____ Water skiing area
______Hunting ._____ Movies
______ Marina ______ Dancing
_____ Teen activities _____ Pool table
______Table tennis _____ Swimming beach
______Swimming pool ______Golf
______Firewood Badminton
FiShing poles (Note: Do §g£_check fOr sales -— Check only if

available on a loan basis.)

Other

 

Other

 

Other

 

an

46. Do ygu provide, sell, or rent the following equipment and services?

______ Clothes dryers ______ White gas

_____ Washing machines ._____ Babysitting service

______Camping trailer sales ______Riding horse rental

_____ Tent sales '_____ Canoe rental
Camping trailer rental ______ Boat rental

______Tent rental ______Paddleboat rental
Bicycle rental ______ Outboard motor rental

______ Camping trailer storage ______ Boat sales

_____ Snowmobile sales ______Bottled gas
Snowmobile rental Gifts & souvenirs

Grocery items

Other

 

Other

 

47. Check the following types of advertising that you use to attract business
to your campground.

Brochures Radio
Campground directories T.V°
Direct mail Displays at sportshows

Roadside signs Newspapers (general)

Camping magazines Newspapers (camping & Sports)

Other

 

48. Do you have a membership in a campground owners organization?
Yes

No

49. If ”yes", what is the name of the campground owners organization?

 

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

S7.

58.

59.

8‘)

Have you attended any educational meetings or conferences for campground

 

 

owners or operators? Yes No
Is your campground affiliated with a franchise chain? Yes No
Do you accept credit cards for camping fees? Yes No

What do your guests like most about your campground?

 

What do your guests like least about your campground?

 

 

The fOllowing series of questions deal with the financial aspects of your
business. YOur c00peration and accuracy will be greatly appreciated. Ybur
answers will be held in strictest confidence.

 

What was your total capital investment in the campground portion of your
business including land, buildings, roads, etc?

 

$

What was your gross income from campsite rental in 1971?

 

$

What was YOUY,EE£ income or 1088 (please circle the amount if a loss
occurred) from campsite rental in 1971?

$

 

What was your gross income in 1971 from other recreation related activities
located on the same property as your campground such as campstore, boat
rental, etc.?

$

What was your net income or loss in 1971 from other recreation related
activities? (Please circle if a loss occurred.)

$

60.

61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

86

Including yourself if appropriate, how many members of your immediate family
who are over 14 years of age work at your campground during the season,
40 hours or more per week?

No.

 

Including yourself if appropriate, how many members of your immediate
family who are over 14 years of age work at your campground during the
season, less than 40 hours per week?

No.

 

How many people not including members of your immediate family work at
your campground 40 hours or more per week during the season?

No.

 

How many people not including members of your immediate family work at
your campground less than 40 hours per week during the season?

No.

 

Do you pay wages to any member of your immediate family?

Yes

No.

If you do pay wages to your immediate family what was the total amount
paid to all family members living at home for the entire year of 1971?

(Note: Do not include profits from the campground business as reported
on question 59.)

$

Since your 1971 camping season, have you opened up any new campsites?
Yes

No

Do you plan to develop more campsites in the future?
Yes

No

Do you feel that your campground business is successful? Yes No

87

THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP

If you accidentally misplaced the return envelope provided, please mail to:

Dept. of Park & Recreation Resources
Room 131, Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan 48823

APPENDIX II

RESPONSES TO PHYSICAL AND LOCATIONAL QUESTIONS

88

APPENDIX II

RESPONSES TO PHYSICAL AND LOCATIONAL QUESTIONS

umom mommndm
chem no Umpmooq
mm .50
hmsgmwm mpmem
.HS H QHSpHB
an .58

Sachem H
hm>Hm N

.vnm no mxmq m
mm45

.em .mneU .e>m
mm .50
mmomammhem

mm .50

mmHQmB .oem
am .50
mumsocm Pom
mmsa

.HHoH QmSHm

mm .30

.2 .nem .psom
am .50

.mpm .Qmm

ON .50

.mmxm .omHm
maéé

.mmxm hmsmm

ma .50

.mmxm poem;
baud

.OZ
UCSOLMQEmo

1001111010001111011011.11111110111111
01010010100011100100110000100011001
33320333333333333333233333333333303

00000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOlOOO1000000000
11001111001111100011001011110000010

11001111111111111111011110111000010

10001111111111111111111010111111110
10011111111111111111111110111111110
OOOOOOOO01010011011000000000OOOOOOO

10000111lllllllllllllllllOllOllllOO

lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
10111001llllllOOllOOOlOOOOOOOlllOOl

10111101111111111101011111110111101

19*

*
8
1

17*

*
6
1

I?

**************
123/45678901234 0.123456789012345
11111 7.222222222333333

Successful Campground
* Unsuccessful Campground

Positive Response
Negative Respcnse

*-
*
l:
O:

89
APPENDIX II--Continued

wwom mothsm
Upmm no Umpmooq
mmsfi
sngmflm mumpm
.Hz H QanHS
sm .50

awmppm H
pm>Hm m

.ocm so mxmq m
mm .50

.sm .mggo .u>m
mm .30
moomHQmpHm

mm .50

moHQme .on
¢m .50
mpmzosm Pom
mm .50

.HHoB zmsz

mm .50

.3 .mam .ppom
Hm .30

.mpm .Qmm

ON .50

.mmxm .omHm

0H .50

.mmxm pmzmm

mH .50

.mgxm popmz
ngfi

.02
quopmmewo

110101001110001101101

000001101111011110000

333230330103032333221

000000000000000000000

001110110001000101011

101110010011000111101
001101001111101111011
011101001111101111011
000111101111111111111
111111111111111111111
100010000011101010110

110010101011101011111

678901234567w90123456
333344444444 45555555
**************
**************

APPENDIX III

RESPONSES TO RECREATION

PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES QUESTIONS

90

APPENDIX III

RESPONSES TO RECREATION

PROGRAMS AND FACILITIES QUESTIONS

mmflpfl>flpo¢ cmme
me .20

mcthz

me .so
Anflpqsm

AA .50

.Auam .omm

me .so

Acflflxm

ms .50
upmonmammsnm
m: .50
moosmmmhom

me .so

.dam .nocq awom
me .30

.ApAm Amaaom
Qufio

.mHAe .Hnszocm
ms .50

mHQCmH

ms .50

.QOH mQHSEHBm
ms .23

.Emm mLHHQEmo
m: .50
msHESHBm
nmgé

.oz undopmemo

OOOOOOOOOOlOOOOlOl

OOOOOOOlOOOOOOOOOl

01000110001001.0000
10000101001001.1011
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOlOOOl
11000111111101.1111

100101110111010111

OOOOOOlOOOOOOOOOOO
llOOOOlOOOlOlOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOl
OOOOOOlOOOOOOOOOOl
100000000000101001
011001111111111111

123/456789 678
********* *lflfl

*10

1234
1111
****

*15

*19

00000000100000

00010101000010

00000010011111
00000000001010
10000000000000
00000011000000
00011111110101

10111011111011

00000000001000
00000000001000
00000000000000
00000000000000
00010110110000
00111111111111
A2 AAA AAA

1. :uwl .3
9. 2323 23

*20

l—Positive Response
O—Negative Response

* Successful Campground
**Unsuccessful Campground

91

APPENDIX III-—Continued

.>Hpo¢ some

me .30

wnflpmz

me .50
Acflpcsm

me .so

.AeHm .omm

md .30

AQAAAA

3 so
eAmopoHAAssm
ms .50
moonmmmpom

me .so

.msm .sonq pwom
mq.:a

.mpxm Amaaom
me .50

.chflH .HQEBOQW
ms .50

mHQCoH

m: .50

.wcmq mcflesflsm
me .so

.emm oaawmfiwo
m: .50
msflasazm

mm .50

.oz UQSopmmEmo

OOOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOOOlO

00000000100010001000010

00110110100000100000000
00100010010011010111100
OOOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOOOOO
OOlOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOlOO
10110011110011110001111

00110110101011001001110

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
00111010010000.0110000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
00100000100000000001110

11110011110001111111110

45678901234567%90123456
3332233/4/4/4/444I4A. 45555555
**************
**************

92

APPENDIX III--Continued

mcflflxmhopmz
m¢ .50

Aoov AmHHAm
mq .50
HamnAmHHo>
md .30
wsflooflwo

mq .50
mzflpwom

md .50
Unoamflo Hamm
ms .30
mcflprm moH
mq .50
Aqflgmfim

mq .50

.mfidwm .Ummam
mq .50

.mHAA AQAAHA
ad .50

mmaom AQHAAHA
md .50
ooozmpflm

mq .50

Hoom mcfiesflzm
mJ .50
mflqcma manna
m: .50

.oz UCSOAmQEmo

011000 01
000000 00
110000 00
10100100

11110011

01000001
00000010
11110111
11001111

100001 10

01000000
11011111
00000000
00000000

123/45678
******* *

00101100011001110111111100111
OOOOlOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
01100111010110000001100000010
10.1001011100101011110111001OO

O1101101111011110111111110111

OOlOOOllOlllOOOOOOlOOOlOOOOOl
OOlOOOOOOOlOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOOOO
OlllOlllllllOllllllllllllOlll
111101lllllllOlOlllllllOlOlOl

11000101111110001111110010101

000000OOOOOOOOlOOOlOOOOOOOOOO
11111111111111101111110111111
000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00

000001000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00

90123456789012345678901234567
*flflflflflflflflflfl222222222233333333

93

APPENDIX III--Continued

wcflflxmpmpmz
mq .50

Aoov mafiflxm
mq .50
Hamn>mfiao>
mqéé
msflmocmo

ad .50
mmflpmom

mJ .30
UGoEmHQ Hamm
mg .50
mcflpmxm mOH
mq .50
quSmHm

mg .sa

.mfidwm .Ummam
mq .30

.mfipe mcfixflm
Quéo

mmaom mzflflmflm
mq .50
woozmuflm

mq .50

Hoom MQHESH3m
ma .50

maQCmH mapwe
mq .50

«oz UGSOQmmEmo

OOOOlOOOOlOOOOOlOlO
OOOOlOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OOOOOOlOlOOOOOOlllO
lllOOlOOOOOOOOlOllO

11101100010110.111an

OOOOOOlOOOOOOOlOlOO
OOOOOOOOOOlllOOOOOO
lllOllOlOlllllllllO
llllOllllllllllllll

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OllllllOlllllllllll

OOOlOOOOOOlOOOOOlOO

38 o
39 o
40 O
41 0
A2 0

**43 1

l

**54 0

**55 1

O
6
R/
*
*

**A4 0
**45 o
**46

**A7 0
**48 o
**49 1
**50 o
**51 O
**52 o
**53 O

94

APPENDIX III--Continued

pmspo

mq .30
copcflavmm
mq .30
maow

md .50
gommm .Eflzm
S .8
manwe Hoom
ad .50
mcwozma

3 .30
mmfi>oz

3 .50

.OZ
nzdopmmamo

00000000011000lOOlOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

llOOOOOOOOlOOllOOlOll000011110000000000
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOOOO00000000100
OllOOlllllllllOlIlllO111111111110011110
OOOOOOlOOOOOOlOOOlOOOOOOOOOO01010000000
OOOOOOOlOOOOOlOOllOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

OOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOllOOO000000000000000000

123/456789 01234567890123456789
********* 22222222223333333333

*10

1:42;
11I1.
*IA*

*14
*15

6
l
*

*17
*19

8
l
*

95

APPENDIX III--Continued

hw£#o

ma .50
nopcweumm
mq .50
macs

md .50
Sommm .Eflzm
mq .30
mHQmB doom
mq .50
mnaoqmm

3 .50
mmH>oz

md .50

.OZ

, Ugopmmfimo

COCO/4100000100000
01.001011000001011

00000000000000000
lOllOOOlOlllllOLO
1.0000010010010000
00000000000010100

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

01234567801012.3456

AAA/44444445555555
**************
**************

APPENDIX IV
RESPONSES TO MANAGERIAL

SKILLS QUESTIONS

96
APPENDIX IV

RESPONSES TO MANAGERIAL SKILLS QUESTIONS

.Somz mcfinmwz
mqéé
mhmzhm
9‘50

xpwm mPMpm
flwéo

.mph hdoe
padoomfio

NJ .30

.powcH pmahdoe
H¢ .50

mwpmo

DJ .50
onaym>ummom
mm46

.9: qm

mméé
oQoQQonH

mm .50

mmmn mmmnpmo

om .30

.mpn pqzoomflm
oZuH ca .50
waemo 30% on
ma .50

.mpp Commmmumwo
OH .50

9oz Undopmmswo

.fiw

1000llOOOOOllllllOlOOOOOlOOlOO
lOOOOlOOOOOllllllOlOOOOOlOOlOO
lOOOlOOOOlOOlOOOOOlOOOOOOOllOO
OlOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOO
llOllllOOllllllllllll010111101
llllO0010011101101010011001101
lllllllllllllllllllll111111111
OlOllllllllllllllllll111111110
OOllOllllllllllllllll111011111
lllllllllOlOlOllOOlOlOOOllOllO
lOOOlllOlllllllOlll11111101001
llllOlOOOOOOllOllOOOOlllOllOlO
OOOOOOOOlOOOOOOOOllOOOOOlOOOOl
123456789012345678901234567890
*********flflflflflflflflflfl22222222223

1
3

32

:Positive Response

O=Negative Response

1

* Successful Campground
**Unsuocessful Campground

97

APPENDIX IV--Continued

.SOmz mqfinmmz
mq .50
mpmzpm
0d .50

xgmm mpmpm
m: .50

.mpn QSOH
pndoomflm

NJ .50
.pomcH pmHLSOB
ad .50

mupmo

03 .50
mcowpm>pommm
mm .50

.ppm .LS 4N
mm .30
mcosmoama

mm .50

mmmn mwmnpww
mm .50

.mpp padoomfim

oZuH 0H .30

wmswo 50% on

ma .30
.mph Gommmmummo
0H .30

.oz Undonmmewu

000100011101011000110100

000100011101011000110100

100000000010001001000000

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

110011011001111101111111

100010100110001011000010

111011111111111111111111

001111111111111100110110

llllllOlllllllllOlllOllO

101011110101110010011111

lOlOlllllOllOlllllllllll

101111011101111000010011

000000000000000001001010
345678901234567890123456

33333334A444444445555555
**************
**************

98

APPENDIX IV—-Continued

.Hpnm pmom

md .50

.Hme moqmo
od .50

.Hme mmhom
oq .30
msflppflmsnmm
m: .50

wow mpaflz

mq .50

msmpH hLmOOLU
md .50
.Hnszsm
wd .50
.Hns3nm
m: .50
ommpopm
m¢ .50
maohoflm
m: .50
Housmm puma

ms 450

Hmpcmm Amaawhe
0d .30

mmamm puma

©¢ .50

mmamm hmawwpa
mq .50

.oz UQSOMmmamo

.Hpcm

mmamm

.Hpcm

110100110111010

100000100000010

000000000000000

000000000010001

100000010000011

100001110001111

100000000000000

100000100000000

001000011100101

000000000000001

000000000000001

001000000000010

000000000000000

*1 O

*2 O

*3 O

*40

*5 O

*6 O

*7 0

*8 O

*9 O
*10 O

*11 O

*12 O

*13 O

*14 O

*15 O

11

11

OO

10

01

1

O

O

1

O

O

O

O

*16 o

1

0

O

1

O

O

l

O

*17 O

11000100111111111001

10010100110000001000

00000000000000000000
10000000100000000000
00100000010010000000
10100110000010010101
00000000000000000000

00000000000000000000

11010100010000110010
11100000000000001000
00000000010000001000

00000000000000101000

00100000000000000000
00000000000000000000
89012345678901234567
flfl222222222233333333

99

APPENDIX IV--Continued

.Hpqm pmom

9» .50

.Hpmm monmo
md .50

.Hpmm mmpom
md .50
mcfippamsnmm
0d .50

wow mpaxz

oq .50

mEoPH hpmoopo
m: .50

.Hpqm .Hpazcm
03 .50

mofimm .Hnszcm
ed .30
mmwpopm

m: .50

.Hpqm mH0»0flm
wq .50

Hmpcmm Pcoe
mq .50
Hmpcom hmaawpe
mJ .50

mmamm puma
m: .50

mmHmm pmHHmpB
m¢ .50

.oz undopmmsmu

1010110001011010100
0110010000000000100

OOOOlOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

0001000000100000010
0010000000010100000
1110001011010111010
OOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOO
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
0011100010111100110
0000000101000000100

0000100010010000000

0000000000011100010

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

0000000000001000000

8901234567890123456

3344444444445555555
**************
*************.*.

100

APPENDIX IV--Continued

mumammam

3 .50

>9

3 .50
owvmm

3 .30
.mm: .mfiwo
S .50
mama

S .50
Gm: #088
S 5o
mmflhopomkflfl
3 .50
mmh3£oomm
3 .50
moamm pmSPo
3 .30
mpwww

3 .50

man emappom
3 .50
moamm pmom
m: .50
.Sqm .88:
m: .30
.Hpcm pmonmavumm
3 .50

.oz undopmmsmo

00000001001000110101000000000000O

000000000000000100000000000000000

00000000000000101000000000000010O
000001110110101000010101101000100
011111110111111111010111110011000

10000001011100100000000100000010O

011111111111111111010111101111000
011111111111111111010111101111000
OOOOOlOlOOlOOOOOOOOOOO11000010000
000000000011011100010010001000000
000111011011110100010000100001010
OOOOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOO0000000000000

000000010010000001000001010011000

000 000100101011111000000001001100000
1221/45678901234567890123/45678901 221/456
*** ***** *flflflflflflflflflfl2222222222332/3333

101

APPENDIX IV--Continued

mmwammfla

bé .50

>8

Nd .30
oavmm

3 .50
.mwz .mEmo
Nd .30
mcmwm

NJ .50
Hawz pomnwa
S .30
mmfipopoopflm
h: .30
meDSoopm
3 .50
moamm hmnpo
o¢ .30
mpmwo

m¢ .50

mac Umappom
3 .50
mmamm pwom
m: .50
.Hpqm popoz
3 .50
.Hme pwonmavvmm
w¢ .50

..oz Undopmnamo

00010001100010010110

00000000000000000000
00000000000000100010
00000001010000010011
01101111111111111111
10010010101011011010
01111011111111111111

01111011111111111111

00000000000000000000
00010100001010000000
O 0010100000110100001

O OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

O 0000100000000000000

00010000000010010000
78901234567890123456

3334A444/4444l45555555
**************
**************

102

APPENDIX IV--Continued

mohmo panopo

mm .50
mmsflpomz .cm
0m .50
QHSmLmQsz
md .50
A0290

Nd .30
Amcflaamov
mummwmwzmz
Nd .30
mhmmmam3mz
Nd .30

.oz quopmmemo

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
100101011111011111011000011101110000010
000001011111111101111010101101100000010

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOOOO
000000000001000001000000100101100000010

000000000011000001010010000110000011111

l23456789012345678901234567890123456789
*********flflflflflflflflflfl22222222223333333333

103

APPENDIX IV--Continued

mapmo pfiuopo

mm .50
mwcapmmz .um
Om .50
aflnmhonamz
md .30
pmnpo

Nd .50
mcflmawov
mhmmwmmzmz
tdéo
mummwmmzoz
Nd .50

.oz ocSOAwmamo

OOOOOOOOOOOlOOOOO
10011110110111110
lOOlOlOlllllllIlO

00000000000000010

10010000000110010

00000101010000011

01234567%90123456
44444444 45555555
**************
**************

APPENDIX V

RESPONSES TO MISCELLANIOUS QUESTIONS

105

APPENDIX V

RESPONSES TO MISCELLANIOUS QUESTIONS

meow

d .50
wasmmmmoosm
mo .50

Nmmpwm

opoa moam>mm
No .50
OHHosooad

mm .50

mpmm

mm .30

mpzmfln 03p
gasp who:

on .50

ucfiop<

pwmw some

0 .50

msoocH Mo
mohfiom mono:
m 150
coapmhomnoo m
mflsmhmcphmm N
Hmsofi>HvGH H
H .50

.oz UGSOLMQBmo

3223.511111112131211223212.1212113

11111111111111111.110111011101101
00011111101111001011001011101101
.111111.11111101111111111111111111
1.1111111101111111.111111011111111
1111011111111111111111111011.1111

00000000001000000010000000000100

00100001011000001100010000000000

1.1113.121211121111111?—11.121.111.111

12345678901234567890123456789012,
* * * * * * * * * flflflflflflflflflflZZZZZZZZZZBZ/B

Positive Response
Negative Response

1
O

* Successful
**Unsuccessful

106

APPENDIX V--Continued

mHmoo

d .30
NHdmmmmoosm
mo .30
NmmpHm

whoa QOHm>mQ
No .30
0HH0£00H¢
mm .50
mpmm

mm .50
mpsch 039
camp mpoz
mm .50
undop<
pom» Como

o .50
osooGH Ho

condom mono:
n .50
COHpmhomhoo.m
mHnwnocppmm N
HMSUH>HUGH H
H .50

.oz anachmmamu

111321114231132112122212

110110010000111110111111

111111111011111111110111

111111111111011111111111

111111111111111111111111

111111111110011111011110

000000100100010010000000

001000110000000010000010

111311113111121123131111

345678901234567890123456
333333344444444445555555
***********H**
*********** **

 

b. A. ll
‘1' ‘II 11

HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

Ill!
3

I III Ill IINIIIIII lllll lllll llllllll llHl

12 3101620684