I i . RECREATIONAL BOAT TRANSPORTATION IN MICHIGAN: . ‘ A STUDY-30F USE PATTERNS ANO CHARACTERISTICS -- — OF BOATERS WHO TRANSPORT THEIR BOATS Thesis for the Degree. Of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY R RICHARD A. MEGANCK ' 1971 . , . 4- ' f o. -. 1 ,' ‘ ’40 a I E '.‘ I‘Q‘V Lv‘um'h'fi ‘-'.'.' 'r "1'“ ' - '7‘ ' " ' ' " "' - ' ~."..a"'0l4\!0'l" v ..._.. .-. ,, - . ,.. p" . u 5 ha . . H .. , - I . I. . \u.y . .’ ,. . . . .‘ ,y ' ‘ ' NR Awwmem RAF-a -. ‘_:9.‘ I...‘b“l . — .fi, ' .. - Oz. - . ‘ If!!! ABSTRACT RECREATIONAL BOAT TRANSPORTATION IN MICHIGAN: A STUDY OF USE PATTERNS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BOATERS WHO TRANSPORT THEIR BOATS BY Richard A. Meganck The main problem examined in this thesis was the relationship between the behavior of a person who transports his boat for recreational purposes and selected socio- economic characteristics. This project was part of the 1968 Michigan Recreational Boating Needs Survey undertaken for the Waterways Commission, Michigan Department of Natural Resources by the Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University. This study was designed to add to the overall transportation information which will be used in a computer simulation model to predict future demand for recreational boating in the State of Michigan. A total of 21,764 questionnaires were mailed to a stratified random sample of registered boat owners in the State of Michigan. The sample was stratified by county and by boat length. A return of 5,674 questionnaires provided an acceptable sample from which to undertake the analysis. Richard A. Meganck The data was expanded to estimate by county the number of boat owners in Michigan who transport their craft. A linear regression analysis was run on the CDC 3600 computer at the Michigan State University Computer Labora- tory. This analysis indicated that greater than 55 per cent of the respondents transported their boats during 1968; 75.1 per cent by trailer and 24.8 per cent by car top. It was also shown by comparison to the 1965 data that the boating fleet is becoming more mobile in the State of Michigan. Age, occupation, and education of the family head V» and total family income were the independent variables tested in the regression analysis. All were found to be significant to the 5 per cent level and therefore, none were deleted from the model test. These variables accounted for a total of 6.4 per cent of the variance. RECREATIONAL BOAT TRANSPORTATION IN MICHIGAN: A STUDY OF USE PATTERNS AND CHARACTERISTICS OF BOATERS WHO TRANSPORT THEIR BOATS BY Richard A. Meganck A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park and Recreation Resources 1971 DEDICATION To Mike and Judy Freed; Whose Life-Style and Goals Have Been an Inspiration to Me. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS A report of this type which fills a small gap in an already complex system for necessary information for state- wide planning of recreational facilities can succeed only if the author enjoys the help and cooperation of many individuals. I wish to thank in particular Dr. Michael Chubb, my academic advisor and thesis director for many months of sincere dedication and encouragement during this study. A special thanks must also be given to Mr. Fiske, who di- rected the 1968 Boating Needs Survey and whom without his help and guidance, this thesis would have been impossible to undertake. I would also like to express my sincere appreciation to Professor and Chairman of the Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Mr. Louis F. Twardzik for his unending allegiance to me throughout my undergraduate and graduate degree programs. I wish to thank the secretarial staff and the staff of the Recreation Research and Planning Unit for their time in the preparation of this thesis, and also Mr. James Mullin iii and Mr. Larry Paxton of the Michigan State University Com- puter Laboratory. Lastly, I wish to acknowledge my parents Mr. and Mrs. Albert Meganck for their unending belief in my edu- cation goals and their encouragement in my career desires. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. BACKGROUND INFORMATION . . . . . . . . 1 Growth of Boating Statement of the Problem Significance of the Problem Hypothesis and Objectives Definitions Review of Literature II 0 PROCEDURES 0 O O C O O I O O O O O 12 Selection of the Method Methods of Survey Research Design of the Questionnaire Sampling Procedures Evaluation of Bias Coding of the Data Hypothesis Testing Limitations III. SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BOAT TRANSPORTERS . . . . . . . . . . 26 Analysis of Frequency Count Data Characteristics of "All" Boat Owners Compared to Characteristics of Boat Transporters Summer Storage Method and the Boat Transporter Socio-Economic Characteristics by Summer Storage Class Analysis of Boat Class and the Method of Transportation by Frequency of Transport in the 1968 Boating Needs Survey Expansion of the Number of Persons Transporting Boats to Statewide Values by County Chapter Page IV. HYPOTHESIS TEST ANALYSIS . . . . . . . 52 Introduction Results V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . 56 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . 60 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 Appendix A. 1968 Michigan Recreational Boating Needs Questionnaire B. Summary of Number of Boating Demand Study Questionnaires Mailed by County of Registration and Boat Length C. Optical Scan Sheets D. Expanded Estimates of the Number of Boat Transporters by County E. Statistical Regression Analysis Computer Run F. County Coding Identification Numbers vi Table 10. 11. LIST OF TABLES A Comparison by Length in the Number of Boats Registered in the Years of 1965 and 1968 . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Mailed Sample, Returns and Usable Questionnaires by Boat Class . Sample for Test of Survey Bias . . . Comparison by Occupation Categories of Non-Transporters to Boat Transporters in the 1968 Michigan Boating Needs Survey . . . . . . . . . . Education Distribution for Non- Transporters and Boat Transporters in the 1968 Boating Needs Survey . . . Income Distribution for Non-Transporters and Boat Transporters in the 1968 Boating Needs Survey . . . . . . Age Distribution for Non-Transporters and for Boat Transporters in the 1968 Boating Needs Survey . . . . Age Distribution of Boat Transporters for the 1968 Boating Needs Survey . Per Cent of Transporters and Non- Transporters by Summer Boat Storage Type and Average Number of Times Transported . . . . . . . . . Transporters by Selected Summer Storage Type for the 1968 Boating Needs Survey Number, Per Cent of Group and Average Transportation Rate Per Capita . . vii Page 19 21 29 32 32 33 34> 36 38 41 Table Page 12. Number, Per Cent of Group and Average Transportation Rate Per Capita by Education and Summer Storage Type . . . . 43 13. Number, Per Cent of Group and Average Transportation Rate Per Capita by Income and Summer Storage Type . . . . . 44 14. Number, Per Cent of Group and Average Transportation Rate Per Capita by Age and Summer Storage Type . . . . . . 47 15. Boat Classes by Per Cent and Frequency of Transport when the Method of Transport is a Trailer . . . . . . . 48 16. Boat Classes by Per Cent and Frequency of Transport when the Method of Transport is a Car Top . . . . . . . 48 17. Frequency of Transportation for Trailer, Cartop and All Transporters . . . 50 viii CHAPTER I BACKGROUND INFORMATION Growth of Boating Recreational boating has increased at an unbe- lievable rate in both the United States and Michigan during the last twenty years. In the days preceeding and immedi- ately following World War II, it was a sport enjoyed primarily by the wealthy, although many middle class persons did own small boats which served their demand for water oriented recreation. But in the period from 1950 to 1964, there has been a 120 per cent increase in the numbers of recreational watercraft in the Nation.1 The number of per- sons boating has also increased at a phenominal rate. The Boating Industry Association estimates that nearly forty-one million Americans boated in 1967 as compared to approxi- mately thirty-eight and one-half million in 1964.2 1National Association of Engine and Boat Manu- facturers and Outboard Boating Club of America, Boating l964--A Statistical Report on America's Top Family Sport (New York: N.A.E.B. and O.B.C.A., 1964?} p. 8. 2Boating Industry Association, The Marine Market, Annual Market Research Notebook (Chicago: Boating Industry Association, 1967), p. 43. Michigan has been a leader in the nationwide trend with the number of registered recreational watercraft in- creasing from 217,533 in March of 1958 to 398,902 in December of 1965.1 By the close of 1968, a total of 438,017 boats was registered in Michigan.2 Therefore, Michigan has experienced over a 100 per cent increase in the number of registered watercraft in the ten year period from 1958 to 1968. Table 1 shows the growth, by boat size class from 1966 to 1968. (In Michigan for general planning purposes, boats are divided into two major categories; under twenty feet in length and over twenty feet in length.) TABLE 1 A COMPARISON BY LENGTH IN THE NUMBER OF BOATS REGISTERED IN THE YEARS OF 1965 AND 1968 Registered Boats Registered Boats Less Than Greater Than Year 20 Feet 20 Feet Total No. % No. % 1965 377,763 94.8 2,139 5.2 398,902 1968 413,949 94.6 24,068 5.4 438,017 1Michigan Department of Conservation, Waterways Commission, Transportative Predictive Procedures, Technical Report No. 9c (Lansing, Michigan: MichiganFDepartment of Commerce, April 1967), P. 4. 2Michigan Department of State, Secretary of State's Office, Division of Vehicle and Watercraft Records, "Size and Type of Registered Boats in Michigan Counties" (Lansing, Michigan: December 31, 1968). There has therefore been an increase of greater than 39,000 or 8.9 per cent in the registered watercraft in Michigan in the three year period from December 1965 to December 1968. The reasons for this increase in the number of registered boats and consequent increase in total boating participation are several. The increase in population in the United States and Michigan has had an effect on the growth of demand for outdoor water oriented recreation, although its effect is small compared to the other factors involved. An increase in the amount of disposable income coupled with an increase in the amount of leisure time re- sulting from a shorter work week and longer annual vacation periods has given more people greater opportunities to be- come involved in an entirely new spectrum of outdoor recre- ation activities. (The participation rate per capita has obviously played an important role in this demand increase.) People are becoming more mobile, and this fact coupled with 'the above mentioned factors, makes it easier for peOple to Iparticipate more often in boating. More ramps, launching Etnd.docking facilities, access sites and marinas have there- iffare been required. Technical advances such as the deVelop- Infiint of small, high horsepower motors and moderately priced Weltercraft have permitted many families to participate in ‘Vii1:erskiing and other boating activities that were previ- <311s31y out of their financial reach. Finally, Michigan's unique water resources with 3,288 miles of Great Lakes shoreline and 35,000 inland lakes, complemented the change in water oriented activities participated in by Michigan residents.1 Statement of the Problem In 1968, the Waterways Commission of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources2 requested that the Recre- ation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, undertake a long term study of recreational boating demand in order to predict future recreational boating characteristics and patterns by county for the State of Michigan. As a result, the 1968 Michigan Recreational Boating Needs Survey was conducted in order to gather socio-economic and partici- pation data from boaters. This data was obtained from mailed questionnaires, and will be used in the RECSYS-SYMAP computer simulation model in order to predict possible future participation patterns. Two sub-projects within this demand study were de- Signed to analyse particular sections of the information tained in the questionnaire, they are: lDetroit Edison Company, Growth--Southeastern Mich— —_SI§JQ, A Good Place to Grow (Detroit: Detroit Edison Com- Pany, Area Development Division, 1961), p. 14. J: 2The Michigan Department of Natural Resources was e“named the Michigan Department of Conservation in 1968. ‘_ H— —.~_. _____ . 1. An analysis of selected use patterns and socio- economic characteristics of multiple boat owners. This study was also concerned with estimating the number of unregistered watercraft in Michigan.1 2,. An analysis of the nature and patterns of trans- portation of recreational watercraft. The principal objective of this study was to dis- cover if there is a relationship between the number of times a boat is transported and cer- tain socio-economic characteristics. The author was responsible for this investigation and it is the subject of this thesis. The first part of the thesis will be concerned with tabulations of the characteristics of boat owners who trans- port their craft. The frequency of launching, the type of storage facility used, the number of launches, the boat length, and the means of transporting the boat will consti- tute the main tabulations. Frequency counts indicating possible relationships between selected socio-economic characteristics and transportation characteristics will also be discussed in this section. 1Ronald Kaiser, "A Study of Multiple Boat Ownership in Michigan" (unpublished M.S. thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1970). The second part of the thesis will be an investi- gation of possible statistical correlations between boating transportation patterns and certain socio-economic char- acteristics. This area of investigation is of great impor- tance to the Waterways Commission's planning staff and it was one of the tasks specified in the contract between the Recreation Research and Planning Unit staff and the Com- mission. Significance of the Problem The Michigan Department of Natural Resources has agreed to the Recreation Research and Planning Unit using the RECSYS computer simulation technique1 for predicting the probable distribution of recreation demand by county on a statewide basis. This model will continue to be used to predict boating demand and therefore serves as a valuable tool for planners in the Waterways Commission. They feel that such information would also be of assistance to other resource management agencies involved in determining the magnitude and direction of programs related to recreational boating. The analysis of the characteristics and behavioral patterns of boaters who transport their boats could 1Michael Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a Systems Analysis Approach: Part III--The Practical Application of 'ProgramfiRECSYS" and—“SYMAP" (East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Parkiand Recreation Re- sources, Michigan State University, 1967). eventually assist in improvement of the transportation link in the RECSYS simulation computer model. Hypothesis and Objectives The main hypothesis of this thesis is that the number of times a person (registered boat owner) transports his boat is related to certain of his socio-economic char- acteristics. The dependent variable is the number of times a person transports his boat. The independent variables that will be tested are age, income, occupation, and edu- cation of the head of the family. The hypothesis for a linear equation stated mathematically is as follows: Y = f (a) (x1 + x2 + x3 +x4) + E where: Y - is the observed dependent variable--the number of times a person transports his boat. xl-x4 — are the observed independent variables--a person's (head of the family) age, income, occupation and education. a — is the point where the slope intersects the y axis. E - is the random error observation. The main objectives of this thesis are: 1. To give general description of socio-economic characteristics and boating behavioral patterns of Michigan boaters who transport their boats in order to better understand the problem sub- ject and assist in the identification of pos- sible relationships. 2. To test the hypothesis stated above. Definitions Registered Boat: Any boat which is propelled by machinery, whether or not machinery is the principal source of power, must be registered with the Secretary of State in Michigan.1 Therefore, the terms "motorboat" and "registered boat" are synonymous. Boat Transporter: For purposes of this study any person who transports his boat either by a car tOp carrier or trailer and, (a) launches the craft at his destination or (b) stores it at the destination, will be termed a "boat transporter." Review of Literature At the present time, very little information exists about the characteristics of boaters at either a national, state or local level. Prior to the 1968 Recreational Boat- ing Needs Survey, no study had been undertaken which attempted to analyse in detail the socio-economic 1Michigan Department of State, Secretary of State's Office, Division of Vehicle and Watercraft Records, Michi- lggn's Marine Safety Act, Act 303, Public Acts of 1967 (Lansing, Michigan: 1967). characteristics of boaters in the State of Michigan. Existing imprecise and fragmentary data is no longer a re- liable enough tool on which to base planning for future boating demand and the use of our land and water resources. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission's report of 1962 (ORRRC)l was the first major attempt to study many phases of natural resource based recreation on a national level. Because of the relatively small number of the respondents interviewed in Michigan, the raw ORRRC data for the State is not reliable for planning purposes within the State. The ORRRC reports present data on a regional basis and these results are not usually applicable in Mich- igan for planning purposes due to the State's unique dis- tribution of natural resources. This is especially true in the case of boating because of the State's large inland and Great Lakes water resources. Finally, the data for the ORRRC studies was gathered in 1959 and 1960 and therefore is now considerably out-of-date. The Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study of 1966 (MORDS)2 concerned itself very little with the relationship 1 U I I 0 Outdoor Recreat1on Resources Rev1ew Comm1ss1on, Report of the Commission to the President and to the Con- gress, Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962); and the twenty-seven volumes of individual reports. A detailed analysis of boat- ing is given in Report No. 19, National Recreation Survey. 2Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, Tech- nical Report No. 6 (Lansing, Michigan: State Resource Plan- ning Program, Michigan Department of Commerce, June 1966). 10 between the incidence of transport and the socio-economic characteristics of those who transport their boats. The report stated that 73.9 per cent of the respondents trans- ported their boat by trailer, 2.8 per cent used their car top for transportation and 22.9 per cent indicated that they transported their craft by some other means.1 But there was no attempt to relate socio-economic characteristics to these frequency counts. The 1966 Transportative Predictive Procedures study by the Michigan Waterways Commission2 included tabulations of transportation frequency and methods by size of boat but did not gather data on the socio-economic characteristics of those who transported. The amount and quality of research concerning the recreational use of resources has been increasing at a steady rate for several years now and much background in- formation needed to conduct more sophisticated studies is being compiled. Many states are preparing detailed recre- ation plans including sections on recreational boating. However, most of these studies are concerned primarily with boating registration figures and average participation values. This thesis is an attempt to provide a more 1Department of Resource Development, Michigan Out- door Recreation Demand Study, p. 10.14 2 . . . M1ch1gan Department of Conservat1on, Transpor- tative Predictive Procedures, pp. 47-49. 11 detailed analysis of Michigan boaters who transport their craft as a contribution to understanding recreational boating and predicting future boating demand. CHAPTER II PROCEDURES Selection of the Method The data which will be analyzed in this thesis came directly from the 1968 Boating Needs Survey questionnaire. It is primarily a result of mailing 21,764 of these ques- tionnaires to a stratified sample drawn from Michigan's 438,017 registered boat owners. A copy of the questionnaire and the accompanying cover letter, appear in Appendix A. Methods of Survey Research There are several methods that can be used in recre- ation research to collect data needed for an analysis of demand. Among these, the telephone interview, the obser- vation interview, the observation method, and the personal interview were rejected as acceptable means for gathering the data. The limitations of staff, time and money were important in the decision not to select any of the above nethods. (For a more complete discussion of the procedures for each of these methods, and their advantages and dis- advantages, see Crapo and Chubb, Recreation Day-Use 12 13 Investigation Techniques.l Even though this study con- cerned state park day-use investigation techniques, it was felt by the Recreation Research and Planning Unit, that many of the findings concerning questionnaire design were per- tinent to the development of a suitable questionnaire for the 1968 Boating Needs Survey.) After considering the ex- perience of the Waterways Commission with the 1965 boating survey and reviewing several other studies, the mailed self- administered questionnaire was selected as the most suitable data gathering method. Some of the advantages of the mailed questionnaire which were considered are: (l) A relatively small staff of comparatively untrained people can obtain data from a large sample of respondents. (2) Self-administered questionnaires tend to be less expensive per response than interview methods. (3) Respondents can retain a feeling of anonymity. (4) It permits data gathering over a large geographical area. It was felt that these advantages outweighed the dis- advantages of which the following were the most important: (1) Self-administered questionnaires limit the depth and detail of questions. (2) There may be difficulty in ob- taining an adequate response rate. (3) It may require an 1Douglas M. Crapo and Michael Chubb, Recreation Day-Use Investigation Techniques: A Study of Survey Method— ology, Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Technical Report No. 6 (East Lansing, Michigan: Department of Park and.ReCreation Resources, Michigan State University, April 1969). 14 extended period of time to obtain an adequate response. (4) Bias may enter in the answers because of misunderstand- ing or falsifying of the information by the respondent.1 There are three main methods of distributing self- administered questionnaires for a boating study of this type. They are: (l) handing out the questionnaires to boaters during the season; (2) a mailed questionnaire at intervals during the season; (3) a mailed questionnaire at the end of the season. The Waterways Commission and the Recreation Research and Planning Unit decided to use a mailed questionnaire at the end of the season with a large sample size and one mailing instead of a smaller sample and intensive follow-up procedures. It was planned to mail the questionnaire in early November 1969, immediately following the boating season. Because of delays in transferring boater registration information from the Secretary of State's Office to the Michigan State University Computer Laboratory tapes, the actual questionnaire was not mailed until late March; resulting in what can be termed a "delayed mail questionnaire." However, a delayed mail questionnaire survey gave the best results to Shafer and Hamilton when they compared four survey techniques used in outdoor lCrapo and Chubb, Recreation Day-Use Investigation Techniques, pp. 22-24. 15 l recreation research in 1967 so the losses due to the late mailing may not have been significant. Design of the Questionnaire The questionnaire design started in the early fall of 1968. A series of draft questionnaires were prepared and reviewed by the Recreation Research and Planning Unit staff and by personnel from the Waterways Commission. A revised draft was tested by distributing it to fifty persons known to have boats who were employees of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Michigan State University, or St. Lawrence Hospital, Lansing, Michigan. Further revisions based on the problems and comments of these test respondents resulted in the final questionnaire design. In the final printed instrument, three types of questions are found: (1) closed questions, (2) fixed alternative questions, and (3) open-ended questions. The questions proceeded from impersonal, easily answered questions to those requesting more personal infor- mation and ended with an Open-ended question regarding boater complaints and problems. The first page was a moti- vational letter introducing the study. It was printed on a replica of Waterways Division stationary and asked the boat 1Elwood L. Shafer, Jr. and John F. Hamilton, Jr., .A Comparison of Four Survey Techniques Used in Outdoor Recreation Research, United States Forest Service Research Paper NE-86 (Upper Darby, Pennsylvania: N.E. Forest Experi- 1ment Station, 1967). 16 owner for his cooperation in helping plan for Michigan's boating future (see Appendix A). Page two was a map of Michigan which was included to aid boat owners in filling out the questionnaire since several questions asked the respondent to name specific counties where his boat was launched or used. Page three was concerned with the type of power system, its horsepower rating, the place of storage during the boating season, whether or not the boat was transported, the means of transportation, the number of times it was transported, and the counties where the boat was launched most frequently. The fourth and fifth pages of the study contained fixed alternative and closed questions. They concern the number of days the boater used the Great Lakes and inland lakes and streams in Michigan for boating and the amount of use in any Canadian Province or another state. Page six and part of page seven involved personal information which was considered necessary for the fore- casting of probable future demand for boating facilities. This information is important in this study when comparing transportation behavior patterns with socio-economic data. .Age and sex of the family head, income and education level, are the areas with which the questions were concerned. The remainder of page seven contained the one com- ‘pletely open-ended question pertaining to boating problems *which was not coded for purposes of the 1968 Boating Needs 17 Survey, although most of the responses were read by the Director of the Waterways Commission. SamplingpProcedures Selecting an appropriate sample structure for the 1968 Boating Needs Survey involved consideration of the level of accuracy desired, the time and money available, and the experiences encountered with two previous studies. The Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study and the 1965 Boat- ing Needs Survey both indicated that approximately 38 per cent return could be expected from a mailed self-administered questionnaire to a sample of registered boaters if no follow-up procedures were used to increase response. The respondent sample size of the 1965 Boating Needs Survey was determined to be adequate for analysis on a county by county basis, and thus was used as a model for the 1968 study. The decision was made, therefore, to mail out approximately 22,000 questionnaires to a stratified random sample of registered boat owners. In order to obtain adequate repre- sentation of the larger boats, 10 per cent of the population of registered boats over twenty feet in length was sampled while 5 per cent of these under twenty feet were included. Of the total mailed, 615 questionnaires were sent to out- of-state residents. A detailed county breakdown of the Inailed sample by both county and boat size is given in Appendix B . 18 In order to obtain the data necessary to develop the sample, boat registration records from the Michigan Secretary of State's Office were obtained. These records list the type and size of registered boats by county and give the names and addresses of the owners. As of December 31, 1968 there were 438,017 boats registered in Michigan. The actual selection of the persons to receive the ques- tionnaires was carried out by calculating the sampling interval necessary to produce the above mentioned percent- ages for each boat size class in each county. This required that 2,296 persons with boats over twenty feet and 19,468 with boats under twenty feet receive questionnaires. The computer was programmed to fill the sample cells by a random selection method. Of the 21,764 questionnaires, approximately 5,700 or 26 per cent were returned. This was still felt to be an adequate sample even though it fell substantially below the 38 per cent which previous studies indicated could be ex- pected to be returned from a large sample population.1 Two- hundred and sixty-two of the 615 out-of-state users who re- ceived questionnaires, returned them and this was determined to be an acceptable level of return. 1The lower response rate was probably due to a combination of factors such as the late mailing date, more difficult questions than in the 1964 and 1965 surveys, and the fact that survey research of this type is now less of a novelty in Michigan. 19 The counties of Wayne, Kent, and Macomb were repre- sented by large numbers of returned questionnaires because of their large populations. Because of budget limitations and after consultation with a statistician and the Waterways Commission, an acceptable sample of the questionnaires re- turned from these counties were coded initially.1 The following table indicates the number of registered boat owners for each category and the response rate of usable questionnaires. TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF MAILED SAMPLE, RETURNS AND USABLE QUESTIONNAIRES BY BOAT CLASS Boat No. of No. of No. of % Returns Used Size Regist. Mailed Usable Usable in Socio- Classes Boats Quest. Returns Returns Econ. Anal. 20' or 413,949 19,468 5,049 25.9 4,376 less 20' 24,068 2,296 598 26.0 439 plus TOTALS 438,017 21,764 5,647 25.9 4,815 a o I o o o Questionna1res were not included 1n the analys1s because, although the respondent filled in the information concerning his boat, he did not answer the socio-economic questions. 1Personal interview with Mr. Paul Fiske, Instructor, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Supervising the 1968 Boating Needs Survey. 20 Evaluation of Bias According to Moser, non-response may be a problem in survey research because usually the persons who do not re— spond are different in some way from the ones who do. Even if the practice of interviewing 100 per cent of the persons selected to answer the questionnaire was used, the results would not be bias free. Moser found that bias from non- respondents will increase as their differences from the respondents become greater.1 Some individuals think that any type of survey research is an invasion of their privacy and therefore their answers will undoubtedly be biased re- gardless of the interview method used. To check on the severity of bias present in this study, both due to non- response and the misunderstanding of questions, the mail questionnaires were followed-up by personal interviews in three sample counties. Ingham, Grand Traverse, and Leelanau Counties were selected because they offered a variety of urban and rural situations in two different geographical areas of lower Michigan. Time and available manpower were also important in selecting these counties as the ones in which personal interviews would be conducted.2 Originally, 1C. A. Moser, Survey Methods in Social Investigaf tion (London: Heinemans EducatiBnal Books Limited, 1958), p. 177. 2Additional information on this and other aspects of the 1968 Boating Needs Survey will be given in subsequent Recreation Research and Planning Unit reports to the Water- ways Commission. 21 it was planned to conduct 100 interviews in Ingham County and 100 distributed between Leelanau and Grand Traverse Counties. In Ingham, seventy-five were to be non-respondents and twenty-five respondents. The same proportions were to be used in the other 100 interviews. Because the funds available were limited and difficulty in scheduling inter- views with some respondents was experienced, not all of the interviews were completed. Table 3 shows the actual dis— tribution of these personal interviews. To date, a detailed statistical analysis of the interview data has not been made. However, comparison of the data for those that did respond to the interview with those who responded to the initial questionnaire indicates that the information obtained was reliable. TABLE 3 SAMPLE FOR TEST OF SURVEY BIAS Eguggizd Number Number Number of County g Actually of Re- Non- 0 Be Interviewed s ondents s ondents Interviewed p p Ingham 100 47 13 34 Grand Traverse 56 20 36 }>100{: Leelanau l7 2 15 TOTAL 200 130 35 85 22 Coding of the Data Information was taken from the questionnaires and placed on pre-printed optical scan forms. Copies of the Optical scan forms are found in Appendix C. The information coded on each form was as follows: 1. Boat identification number, power system, county where the boat was registered, its storage location during the season, if it was trans- ported, by what means it was transported, number of times it was transported, boat use out-of- state or in Canada, and additional boat types (lengths and horsepower). Boat identification number, county where launched the most, what type of facility (city, county, township, state, federal, commercial, private, other), same for county of second-most launches, third-most launches, and all other launches. Boat identification number, Great Lakes use, total days of use, county most used, purposes (trout/salmon fishing, other fishing, hunting, waterskiing, cruising, other), same for county of second-most use, third-most use, and all other use. Boat identification number, inland lake use, total days of use, county most used, purposes (trout/salmon fishing, etc.). 23 5. Boat identification number, county of residence, zip code, age--head of family, sex--head of family, male ages, female ages, occupation, income, education. Hypothesis Testing Stepwise deletion of variables from a least squares equation was thought to be the most direct and least ex- pensive method of analysis for this study. In stepwise deletion, an initial least squares equation is hypothesized using all of the independent variables. One variable is then deleted from the equation and a new least squares equation estimated. A second variable is deleted and the least square equation again recalculated. The procedure continues until a variable selected as a candidate for de- letion meets one or more stOpping criteria.1 The stopping criteria for this routine was a minimum significance level of 5 per cent. (See Chapter IV for more detail.) Limitations The methods employed in data gathering were affected by certain circumstances which may limit, to some extent, the accuracy of the results. 1Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, LSDELig Stepwise Deletion of Variables from a Least S uaregEquation, Statistical Sérvices Description No. 8 (East Lansing, Michigan: 1969). 24 As mentioned previously, non-response was a problem. Obtaining every respondents cooperation is an impossibility when one employs a mailed questionnaire. The possibility of bias due to non-response will eventually be tested as part of the Recreational Boating Needs Study analysis. Ten per cent of these who did return the question- naire refused to fill in the socio-economic information requested. This eliminated much of the information needed for the analysis section of the study. Only frequency counts of the actual boating data can be produced from ques- tionnaires filled out in this manner. Questionnaires with- out the socio-economic data were not included in analysis of these variables. Probably the most significant limitations was that several of the questions did not produce the desired infor- mation. Question six only analyzed two methods of trans- portation and it is indicated in a later chapter of this thesis that a substantial per cent of boat transporters may use a different method than either a trailer or a car top. Question eight on page three was intended to be an extremely important part of the boating behavior analysis since it would yield information concerning the number of times boats were launched and the counties in which launching took place at various types of facilities. The majority of people answered by merely placing an "X" under the type of facility used instead of numerals indicating the number of times 25 launched at that type of facility. As a result, this question could not be coded. Respondents also found that completion of questions ten, twelve, and thirteen was difficult primarily because of their complexity. However, interviews of respondents in the three test counties did not indicate serious errors in ansWering these questions. The results of the study are limited to information gathered from persons who returned the questionnaire or were selected for a personal interview, and not the entire boating population. It is also restricted to registered boat owners only.l Analysis of data began in April 1970, and results pertaining to boat transportation are expressed in the succeeding chapters. 1It is estimated that Michigan has more than 57,000 boats which legally do not require registration. Kaiser, "Multiple Boat Ownership," p. 73. CHAPTER III SELECTED CHARACTERISTICS OF BOAT TRANSPORTERS Analysis of Frequency Count Data In this chapter, the following tOpics will be examined: 1. Comparison of the characteristics of all boat owners (respondents to the 1968 Boating Needs Survey) and of those boat owners who transport their craft, by examining occupation, income, age, and education of the head of the family. Analysis of the storage methods used by the boat transporter. This includes examining cer- tain socio-economic characteristics associated with selected storage places. Analysis of the length and frequency of trans- portation of boats carried on car tops and by trailers. Expansion of the number of persons transporting boats from the sample data to statewide county by county estimates. Comparison of the characteristics of the respondents to the 1968 Boating Needs Survey to the characteristics of 26 27 respondents in previous studies conducted in Michigan will not be included here since this topic was previously dis- cussed by Kaiser.1 Characteristics of "All" Boat Owners Compared to Characteristics of Boat Transporters Occupation of Respondents The occupation given by the respondents in question eighteen were originally coded in eighteen separate occu- pational classifications based on the system used by the United States Bureau of Census. It was felt by the author and the Recreation Research and Planning Unit, that for purposes of this and other related studies, these eighteen original classes could be combined into twelve categories. Several of the original eighteen classifications contained extremely small numbers of respondents and therefore analy- sis might be more satisfactory if some were combined. The following indicates the combination process. Original Coding New Classifications Classifications Used in Analysis 1. Professional 1. Professional 2. Farmers 2. Farmer; Farm Laborers 3.- Managers 3. Managers 4. Clerical 4. Clerical; Sales 5. Sales 5. Skilled Craftsmen lKaiser, "Multiple Boat Ownership," Chapter 3. 28 Original Coding, New Classifications Classifications Used in Analysis 6. Craftsmen 6. Operative 7. Operative 7. Service; Household 8. Household 8. Labor; Other Factory 9. Service 9. Housewife 10. Farm Laborers 10. Retiree ll. Laborers 11. Other (Student; Military; Unemployed) 12. Student 12. No response to question 13. Housewife l4. Retiree 15. Military 16. Unemployed 17. Other; Factory 18. No response to question The figures in Table 4 compare the occupational categories of non-transporters with those of the respondents who transported boats. The values show that 22.2 per cent of the total non-transporters to the survey fall into the "managers" category. The next most significant occupational class was that of "retirees" with 18.7 per cent. "Profes- sionals" and "skilled craftsmen" also recorded significant percentages with 18.2 per cent and 16.5 per cent respec— tively. "Labor" and "housewives" had the smallest percent- ages with .8 per cent and .4 per cent. 29 TABLE 4 COMPARISON BY OCCUPATION CATEGORIES OF NON-TRANSPORTERS TO BOAT TRANSPORTERS IN THE 1968 MICHIGAN BOATING NEEDS SURVEYa Non-Transporters Boat Transporters Occupation Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Professional 259 18.2 428 13.7 Farmer 17 1.1 58 1.9 Managers 316 22.2 475 15.2 Clerical 102 7.1 233 7.5 Skilled 235 16.5 914 29.2 Craftsmen Operative 39 2.7 286 9.2 Service 37 2.6 167 5.3 Labor 11 .8 20 3.1 Housewife ll .7 2 .l Retiree 266 18.7 340 10.9 Other 102 7.1 9 .3 No Response 24 1.6 58 3.6 TOTALS 1,419 100.0 2,990 100.0 aOf the socio-economic questions in the question- naire, age, occupation, and education refer to only the head of the family. just that of the family head. Income refers to total family income; not 30 In general, boat transporters had a similar dis- tribution of occupational classifications. The same occu- pational classifications which recorded the highest percent- ages for the non-transporters, were found to exhibit the greatest per cent ranking for respondents who transported their craft; although in a different order. "Skilled craftsmen" recorded the greatest percentage with 29.2 per cent. This is 12.7 per cent higher than the same category for non-transporters and 7 per cent greater than the highest rating (22.2%) of a non-transporter occupational classifi- cation. (Kaiser also experienced a similar trend in exam- ining the occupational distribution of multiple boat owners.)1 Managers with 15.2 per cent and professionals with 13.7 per cent were the next highest categories, al- though they dropped 7 per cent and 5 per cent respectively from their class rating of non-transporters. The occu- pational group entitled "other" (including students, mili- tary, and unemployed) experienced a drop of 6.8 per cent while the "retiree" category fell 7.8 per cent. When the entire range is considered, these differences are probably not very significant. 1Kaiser, "Multiple Boat Ownership," page 33. 31 Education of Respondents Education was divided into the five categories listed in Table 5 for both the 1968 Boating Needs Survey and this analysis of boat transporters. In general, the level of education did not vary significantly between non-transporters and boat transporters. Nearly 50 per cent of both categories had at least started high school and more than 33 per cent had at least one year of education past high school. Income of Respondents Comparisons of the number of respondents in the seven income classifications (Question 19) is made in Table 6. It was evident that the largest class of persons for both non-transporters and the boat transporters was in the $10,000 to $14,999 range. (Kaiser also found this to be true with 31.2 per cent of multiple boat owners represented in that category.)1 Boat transporters were found to have smaller percentages in both the above $15,000 category and the range below $10,000. The distribution of income shows that 20.9 per cent of boat transporters had incomes of greater than $15,000 while 29.5 per cent of the non-transporters were contained in the same income category. There was only a 2.4 per cent lKaiser, "Multiple Boat Ownership," page 31. 32 TABLE 5 EDUCATION DISTRIBUTION FOR NON-TRANSPORTERS AND BOAT TRANSPORTERS IN THE 1968 BOATING NEEDS SURVEY Non-Transporters Boat Transporters Education Number Per Cent Number Per Cent 1-5 141 8.2 231 7.4 6-8 216 12.6 302 9.6 9-12 714 41.6 1,553 49.7 13—16 414 24.2 766 24.5 16+ 228 13.3 275 8.8 TOTALS 1,713 100.0 3,127 100.0 TABLE 6 INCOME DISTRIBUTION FOR NON-TRANSPORTERS AND BOAT TRANSPORTERS IN THE 1968 BOATING NEEDS SURVEY Non-Transporters Boat Transporters Income Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Less than $3,000 122 7.9 108 3.7 $3,000 - $5,999 192 12.5 254 8.8 $6,000 - $7,999 207 13.4 391 13.6 $8,000 - $9,999 187 12.1 501 17.4 $10,000 - $14,999 372 24.2 1,018 35.4 $15,000 - $24,999 279 18.1 450 15.6 $25,000 and over 175 11.4 153 5.3 TOTALS 1,534 100.0 2,875 100.0 33 difference in the totals of income below $10,000 for the two respondent breakdowns. Age of Respondents The age categories used in the initial frequency counts for the 1968 Boating Needs Survey were not the same as the breakdowns used for this thesis because of the detail which it was felt was needed concerning the age groups of boat transporters. The age classes analyzed in the 1968 Boating Needs Survey are: (1) ages one to thirty; (2) thirty-one to sixty; and (3) age sixty and over. The use of these broad age categories would not yield the specific data that was desired by the author. Table 7 illustrates the ages for non-transporters and for the boat transporter when the broad age breakdowns used in the 1968 Boating Demand Survey were utilized. TABLE 7 AGE DISTRIBUTION FOR NON-TRANSPORTERS AND FOR BOAT TRANSPORTERS IN THE 1968 BOATING NEEDS SURVEY Non-Transporters Boat Transporters Age Number Per Cent Number Per Cent 1-30 74 4.3 306 9.8 31-60 1,094 63.8 2,352 75.2 60 and over 545 31.8 469 15.0 TOTALS 1,713 100.0 3,127 100.0 34 The author felt that since 75.2 per cent of the transporters fell in the age group range of thirty-one to sixty years old, more detail was needed for this group. It was also felt that it would be important to know if there were any noticeable divisions or trends in the other two broad age classifications. Table 8 illustrates what was found. This more detailed table gave the author a clearer picture of what age groups were actually doing the majority of the transporting. The findings were not anticipated since both of the age groups forty-one to fifty and fifty— one to sixty did more transporting than the youngest TABLE 8 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF BOAT TRANSPORTERS FOR THE 1968 BOATING NEEDS SURVEY Average Number of Times Age Number Per Cent Boat is Transported 1-20 71 2.3 11.0 21-30 235 7.5 19.3 41—50 951 30.4 13.1 51-60 782 25.0 11.2 61-70 369 11.8 9.6 70 and over 100 3.2 6.7 TOTALS ‘ 3,127 100.0 12.7 Nix als: '0. 4 O. 35 respondent group. The opposite, although not fully antici- pated because of the greater number of "heads of the house- hold" appear in the higher age groups, was expected at the author's first appraisal. The age group thirty-one to sixty also contains the great majority of the boat owners and therefore even if the older group is not averaging as many trips carrying a boat per respondent as the younger group, it probably has a greater impact on the resources. These averages will be examined in more detail in a subsequent section of this chapter. Summer Storage Method and the Boat Transporter The Boat Transporter For purposes of the 1968 Boating Needs Survey and this thesis, it was felt that examining differences in the location of boat storage during the season might provide valuable insights concerning boat transporter behavior. Therefore, the following in-season storage classes were used in the questionnaire (see Question 4): 1. "At my permanent home, which is not on a lake or river." 2. "At waterfrontage located at my permanent home lot." 3. "At a commercial marina-berth." 4. "At a summer cottage." 5. "At a publicly-owned marina." 36 6. "At a boat or yacht club." 7. "Other (specify)." Comparisons of data concerning storage place with similar data from the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study could not readily be made since the categories used in that in- vestigation were not the same and could not be combined in a way which would make comparison possible. The author and Recreation Research and Planning Unit staff decided comparison would be limited to the cal- culation of percentage figures. Table 9 provides this in- formation. TABLE 9 PER CENT OF TRANSPORTERS AND NON-TRANSPORTERS BY SUMMER BOAT STORAGE TYPE AND AVERAGE NUMBER OF TIMES TRANSPORTED I St Per Cent Per Cent of Average Torage of Non- Boat Number of ype Transporters Transporters Transportations Home; No 11.1 64.8 16.5 Water Home; On 30.3 6.8 5.2 Water Commercial 8.2 3.0 4.9 Marina Cottage 42.2 18.0 5.7 Public 1.0 0.8 3.2 Marina Yacht Club 1.6 0.6 3.2 Other 5.1 5.0 8.3 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 12.7 37 Of the non-transporters, 11.1 per cent stored their craft during the season at their permanent home which was not located adjacent to a water body, and of the trans- porters, 64.8 per cent used the same storage place. While 30.3 per cent of the respondents who did not transport their boat stored their boat at their permanent home located on the water, only 6.8 per cent of the total boat transporters were contained in this category. Eighteen per cent out of a total of 42.2 per cent of the non-transporters transported their boat from a cottage where the boat was stored. Finally, even though there was a small percentage (1.6) of the non-transporters who stored their boat at a yacht club, 0.6 per cent of the transporters were found in this cate- gory. It can be speculated that the majority of these people own larger, more expensive craft and stored them at a yacht club all year. Summer Storage Types In order to obtain a more detailed impression of transportation patterns, three of the storage methods were examined more closely. Table 10 indicated that 55.1 per cent of all the respondents to the 1968 Boating Needs Survey transported their craft. These persons transported their boats an average of 12.8 times a year per capita. It was suspected by the author and proven by the analysis, that certain persons transport their boats more often than others. Of the 2,279 persons storing their boat at their 38 TABLE 10 TRANSPORTERS BY SELECTED SUMMER STORAGE TYPE FOR THE 1968 BOATING NEEDS SURVEY Boat Transporters by All Selected Storage Types 1966 Totals Respond— All ents St. Type St. Type St. Type Respondents #1a #2a #4a Number of 5647 2279 937 1660 5209 Respondents Number that 3127 2027 215 562 2510 Transported % that 55.1 88.9 22.9 33.8 48.2 Transported Ave. No. of 12.8 16.5 5.2 5.7 C Times Boat Transported a#1 is a permanent home not on water; #2 is a per- manent home on water; and #4 is a summer cottage. bMichigan Department of Commerce, Transportative Predictive Procedures, p. 47. cPersonal interview with Mr. Michael Dale Freed, Staff Member, Waterways Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. number of times a boat was transported in 1965 because the only questionnaire classifications of frequency were "regular" and "occasionally" rather than a numerical count. It is impossible to give an accurate permanent residence, not located on water, 2,027 or 88.9 per cent transported their craft an average of 16.5 times per year. porter makes in a year. This is 3.7 trips more than the average trans- This is understandable since nor— mally these individuals must transport their craft to enjoy 39 water recreation. However, it is significant that 11.1 per cent of these respondents did not transport their boats during the season and hence apparently did not use them. The next largest category was that of persons who stored their boat at a summer cottage. Nearly 34 per cent of these boat owners transported their craft an average of 5.7 times per year. This is to be expected since many of these persons probably own their own cottage and do most or all of their boating there. In many cases, they store their boats at the cottage and do not have to transport them at all. Therefore a smaller percentage of these people must have found transporting their boat a necessity. Persons who own waterfront property were found to transport their boat less since most of the water oriented recreation engaged in by this group would take place at their home. Just 22.9 per cent of people owning a home located on water transported their boats in 1968; and they did so an average of only 5.2 times. Other more permanent storage facilities require an individual to transport his boat a fewer number of times on an average as indicated in Table 9. The Transportative Predictive Procedures study indicated that 48.2 per cent of the respondents transported their craft.1 This is 6.9 per cent less than the 1968 1Michigan Department of Commerce, Transportative Predictive Procedures, p. 47. 40 value so the boating fleet is becoming more mobile. An estimate such as this must be examined carefully before any accurate comparison can be made. In 1965, the questionnaire was aimed at the boat used most frequently, while in the 1968 survey the questionnaire was keyed to a particular boat whether or not it was the craft used most often. Therefore, an estimate of 6.9 is conservative and a true measure may indicate that the actual increase may be higher. Socio-Economic Characteristics by Summer Storage Class Storage types 1, 2, and 4 will be briefly examined and compared to selected socio—economic characteristics in this section. Occupation and Summer Storage SEE: Table 11 contains figures comparing the occupational classes by storage type. The most obvious trend was that boat owners in all occupational categories utilizing storage type 1, transported their boats more on an average per capita than do people in storage types 2 and 4. Respondents in nearly every occupational category, storing their boat at a cottage, transported their craft more on an average than those respondents who stored their boat at their residence which was located adjacent to the water. The occupational classes of "operatives" (class 6) and "other" (class 11) were the exceptions. 41 .s OHnms mmmm n.m 0.00H Hmm ~.m o.OOH «Hm m.oH c.00H mmo.~ deBOB ¢.¢ m.m om ~.v m.v m m.wH m.m no NH o.~ m. H o.v m. H m.mm v. 5 HH h.v n.oH ow v.v m.nH hm H.NH ~.0H mom 0H o.o N. H o.o o.o o o.o H. H m o.m m.m ow o.m m.m m m.mH H.m mm m m.v o.o mm m.v m.m n H.5H m.m HHH h m.¢ m.h Hv o.o m.> mH b.0H ~.0H mom w m.m m.m~ mmH m.o m.m~ em ~.mH H.mm omm m v.m n.m av m.v N.HH vm 0.5H m.w mmH v m.m m.om vHH H.m m.vH mm m.mH m.mH New m m.v m.H n o.m m. H N.MH m.m wv m m.m m.vH vm m.v H.mH ms m.mH H.mH mmm H ME .wa -1“... mm -MMA H1 .oz .m>¢ mo w mo oz .02 .m>< mo w mo oz .02 .m>< mo w mo 02 mcoHumm Ammmuuouv Aumum3 co .mfiomv Aumum3 o: .mEomv Isooo e mama mmmuoum m mmha mmmuoum H onus mmmuoum «BHmdu mum MBdm ZOHfidfimOmmZ¢ 02¢ mbomw ho BZHU mmm smmmZDZ HH mqmdB 42 "Skilled craftsmen" (occupational class 5) accounted for the greatest per cent of the total transporters for each of the storage types examined. This class also transported their craft more than the average for each summer storage type. An extremely small per cent of the total trans- porters were composed of "farmers and farm laborers," "housewives,' and "other" in all storage classes. "Skilled craftsmen" accounted for the greatest percentages of the total transporters in every storage class tested. Education and Summer Storage c.1222 Table 12 indicates several very interesting ob- servations. It seems that more people with greater than a high school education in the 1968 Boating Needs Survey sample, own either a home adjacent to water or store their craft at a cottage. This is possibly a result of a fact illustrated in Table 13 that these individuals earned greater incomes and could probably afford homes adjacent to water or own a summer cottage. Table 12 indicates that 26.0 and 25.8 per cent of people who stored their boats at storage categories numbers 2 and 4 respectively, have had at least one year of edu- cation past high school. The percentage of people who stored their boats at a home not located on the water and having at least one year of education past high school is 43 o.OOH h.m Nmm o.OOH N.m mHN c.00H m.mH hmo.m mHQBOB m.NH m.m mm N.HH m.v vN H.h h.MH va +mH m.mN m.m me o.wN H.@ mm H.mm m.hH mmw OHIMH m.mv m.w NON o.wv m.m mm m.Hm v.5H mmo.H NHIm b.m h.m m¢ o.h h.N mH m.OH m.mH mom mlo m.w m.m hm m.m m.N Hm m.h m.NH «ma mIH .mcmue .mcmue . .mcmua .mcmua . .mcmue .mcmua . Hmuoe mo mwcwwm Hmuos mo mwcwmm Hmuoe mo mwcmwm mumm» mo w .02 .w>< no m .02 .m>¢ mo m .02 .m>¢ CH GOHumo Ammmuuouv Humans co .oEomv Humans o: .mEomv Iapm q mama wmmnoum m mama mmmuoum H mmae mmmnoum NH mqmdfi MAME mwdmOBm mmZSDm QZfl ZOHBdUDQm wm fiBHmdu mmm madm ZOHBdBmommZ¢ 92d mDOMU m0 BZWU mmm .mHmSDZ 44 o.ooi s.m omm o.o0H o.m mmH c.00H m.eH som.H usages m.HH m.m om m.n o.v mH w.~ o.mH mv Hm>o can ooo.m~w ~.mH o.w ¢OH h.~m m.m me H.MH «.mH mvm mam.QNWIooo.me m.nm m.m an m.mm o.m mm o.mm m.mH mmm mmm.VHonoo.OHm H.mH n.> mm H.~H n.w vm m.mH m.nH mum mmm.meooo.mw v.m v.n mv m.m m.~ pH h.mH m.mH mam mom.hwnooo.mw m.m v.v om m.HH m.¢ mm m.m v.mH mnH mmm.mmIooo.mw H.m v.m mH o.¢ m.v m m.m ~.HH eh ooo.mm cmnu mama .mcmue .mcmna . .mcmua .mcmue . .mcmua .mcmua . Hmuoa mo mwcwwm Hmuoa mo mmcwwm Hmuoa mo mwcmwm mo m 02 m>¢ mo w oz m>4 mo w oz m>< mEoocH Hummuuoov Ammumz :0 .mEomv Aumumz o: .meomv v mama mmmnoum m mama mmmuoum H maha wmmuoum mafia mwdmoam mmSZDm 924 mSOUZH um dBHAdU mmm mfidm ZOHBfiBMOmmZ¢MB m04mm>¢ 024 Abomw m0 BZMU mmm .mmmzbz ma wand? 45 23.1. Similar comparisons were noticed among persons who had more than sixteen years of education when a cross check was made to Table 13. The nine to twelve years education group represented the largest percentage simply because the majority of the respondents were from this group (Table 5). In general, the percentage rates for particular storage categories by edu- cation follow that of the total sample (Table 5). Another interesting fact which is indicated in Table 12, is that the average rate of transportation dropped off more rapidly for the cottage storage class than for the other two classifications which were examined. Income and Summer Storage Class There are understandably fewer persons in categories 2 (at waterfrontage located at my permanent home lot) and 4 (at a summer cottage) that store their boats consistently when comparing income with storage type. The income range $10,000 to $14,999 as reported in Table 6, had the greatest per cent of both the non-transporters and of the boat trans- porters. This same trend holds true when Table 13 is examined in detail. It also shows that as income rises for a given storage category above the $14,999 bracket, there are proportionately a greater per cent of the total boat transportation population who own waterfrontage or a cottage. 46 Of the respondents, 49.0 per cent of those utilizing storage type 1 were found to have incomes of less than $10,000. Only 36.3 and 31.4 per cent of those who stored their boats at their home located on the water or at a cottage respectfully, had incomes in this same bracket. Age and Summer Storage Class_ In general, the findings illustrated in Table 14 do not vary significantly from the results of all boat trans- porters by age found in Table 8. The minor per cent differ— ences are not particularly important when the entire range is considered. Analysis of Boat Class and the Method of Transportation by Frequency of Transport in the 1968 Boating Needs Survey The boat classes used in Table 15 are the standard planning breakdowns used by the Waterways Commission and are as follows: Class 1, boats less than twelve feet in length; Class 2, boats twelve feet to twenty feet in length; Class 3, boats twenty feet to thirty feet in length; Class 4, boats twenty feet to forty feet in length; and, Class 5, boats forty feet in length and over. When Tables 15 and 16 were compared, several trends were revealed. Of the boat owners who transported their craft by trailer (transportation Type 1), 78 per cent ap- peared in boat class 2 (twelve feet to twenty feet), while the per cent of car top transporters (transportation Type 2) 47 o.oOH nwm mmm o.o0H ~.m mH~ o.o0H m.mH wmo.~ mqflaos m.m m.~ mm m.¢ ~.m 0H m.~ h.m ow Hm>o paw op m.NH m.m Nb m.mH m.v em m.HH v.NH omm oanm m.wm o.o mvH o.mm m.q mm H.¢N m.vH mac OGIHm m.om m.m mom ~.v~ w.m mm m.mm m.hH mam omIHv m.mH ¢.m mm H.mH m.w Hv v.H~ m.mH mmw ovIHm m.~ v.m vH m.m «.0H om m.m m.~m vhH OMIHN v.~ H.m vH m. m.w m m.~ «.mH we oNIH .MHMMW ..MM.. IMEAMN .MMMMM ..MM.. quwwm .mmmww ..MM.. Iwcwwm no w .02 .m>< we m .02 .m>< mo m .02 .O>< mmd Ammmuuouv Anmumz so .mfiomv Aumum3 o: .wEomv w mama mmmuoum m mama wmmnoum H mama mmmuoum mmwa mu¢ 024 ADOMU m0 BZMU mmm @H mnmdfi .mmmSDz :req. a .I 11.5 WNW iyl‘ 48 TABLE 15 BOAT CLASSES BY PER CENT AND FREQUENCY OF TRANSPORT WHEN THE METHOD OF TRANSPORT IS A TRAILER Boat Transporters by Trailer Freq. of Transport Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5 Less than 5 16.3 72.8 10.0 0.3 0.0 5-10 17.5 80.9 1.3 0.2 0.0 11-15 15.7 82.1 2.1 0.0 0.0 16-20 14.5 83.9 1.5 0.0 0.0 20 and over 19.3 79.7 0.8 0.0 0.0 TOTALS 17.0 78.0 4.7 0.1 0.0 TABLE 16 BOAT CLASSES BY PER CENT AND FREQUENCY OF TRANSPORT WHEN THE METHOD OF TRANSPORT IS A CAR TOP Boat Transporters by Car Top Freq. of Transport Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class Less than 5 63.4 36.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 5-10 65.9 33.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 11-15 66.6 33.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 20 and over 72.8 26.3 0.8 0.0 0.0 TOTALS 67.6 31.9 0.4 0.0 0.0 49 which fell into the same class was only 31.9 per cent. The less than twelve feet category of transportation Type 2 yielded 67.6 per cent; compared with only 17.0 in the same class of transportation Type 1. Therefore, many trans- porters with smaller boats hauled them on their automobile, while more of the twelve feet to twenty feet boats were transported by trailer. Trailer transporters of boats greater than twenty feet in length amounted to 4.7 per cent of the total. Only 0.4 per cent of car top transporters moved a boat of greater than twenty feet in length. More than 79 per cent of the persons who trailered a boat more than twenty times per year, appeared in boat class 2 (twelve feet to twenty feet) while only 26.3 per cent of the sample transported a boat of greater than twelve feet in length more than twenty times by car tOp. This general trend was found to exist when comparing this class of boat with the frequency of transport. Considering smaller boats (less than twelve feet in length), the Opposite is true with a much higher per cent (72.8) of the persons transporting their craft more than twenty times in a year using a car t0p as compared to a trailer (19.3). Again, a general trend can be easily identified in this boat class. When the total boat transporting population is con- sidered, 75.1 per cent transported their craft by a trailer and 24.8 per cent used a car top carrier. These figures may be useful to the Waterways Commission when planning future launching sites. 50 Table 17 shows the percentages of respondents in each frequency of transportation class by method of trans— port. Only l7.4 per cent of the total boat transporters move their craft more than twenty times per year; while more than twice as many, fewer than five times annually. TABLE 17 37.3 per cent, transport their boat FREQUENCY OF TRANSPORTATION FOR TRAILER, CARTOP AND ALL TRANSPORTERS Freq. of Trailer Car Top Total Boat Transport Transporters Transporters Transporters Less than 5 38.8% 32.9% 37.3% 5-10 21.9 26.5 23.0 11-15 11.7 14.4 12.4 16-20 9.9 8.8 9.6 20 and over 17.5 17.1 17.4 TOTALS 99.8 99.7 99.7 Expansion of the Number of Persons Trans- portinngoats to Statewide Values by County The method of expansion and the expansion figures appear in Appendix D. When the projected number of persons by county that. transport their boat were compared to the per cent of the boat owners by county who transport their boat, several 51 interesting facts were apparent. Although it is not within the scope of this thesis to give detailed reasons for these trends, they will be briefly examined. The counties of Clinton, Eaton, and Ingham present an interesting compari- son. In Clinton and Eaton, 60.6 and 60.9 per cent re- spectively of the registered boat owners transported their craft in 1968, while in Ingham only 49.3 per cent of the boat owners moved their craft by either car top or trailer in 1968. Wayne County recorded 68 per cent of the boat owners transporting their craft. This figure may seem rather high when compared to other counties in this area of the State. Macomb County experienced only 50.9 per cent and Oakland a per cent of 56.9 who transported their boats. Other high and low values recorded in Appendix D must be examined carefully because in some counties the sample may include a relatively small number of persons transporting their boats which may be too small to justify a statistically reliable comparison. CHAPTER IV HYPOTHESIS TEST ANALYSIS Introduction The hypothesis of this thesis was that the number of times a person (registered boat owner) transports his boat is related to certain socio-economic characteristics. The method employed in the test of this hypothesis was a linear regression analysis and is expressed as follows: Y = a + bl PI + b2 PC + b3 PE + b4 PA + E where: Y - is the dependent variable of how many times a person transports his boat. a - is the point where the slope intersects the y axis. bl-b4 - is the slope of the line. - is the total family income. - is the occupation of the head of the family. - is the education of the family head. - is the age of the head of the family. - is the per cent of error determined in the analysis. 52 53 The outcome of a regression test utilizing a linear model, is that the relative importance which each inde- pendent variable has in determining the dependent variable (Y) can be estimated. All of the independent variables are tested and ranked according to their influence and given a per cent rating as to their importance in determining the dependent variable. The author arranged with the Michigan State Uni- versity Computer Laboratory to use the least squares deletion (LSDEL) computer routine to test the above men- tioned regression model. The program was discussed in Chapter 2. The minimum level of significance (stopping criteria) for the hypothesis test was set at 5 per cent. Therefore, the confidence level was determined to be 95 per cent. In choosing a 5 per cent significance level, two considerations were examined. First, two statisticians from the Application Programming section of Michigan State Uni- versity's Computer Laboratory were consulted concerning this matter. It was decided that using a 10 per cent signifi- cance level would not predict at a low enough level and therefore much of the data would be left unexplained in the model test results. Secondly, a 5 per cent level of significance is used in the majority of social science research. It was felt by the computer center staff, after considering the 54 model and the variables that were to be tested, a 95 per cent confidence interval (.05 level of significance) would yield more accurate results and provide the best test of the given regression. Results All of the independent variables tested were found to be significant at the 5 per cent level (see Appendix E). None were deleted by the regression analysis. The F test (regression from the mean divided by the error)1 which re- lates the independent variables to the dependent variable was determined to be 69.0 at 5 per cent significance. Testing at a significance of .05 for a pOpulation of greater than 4,000 indicates that what is said concerning the re- spondents at .05 per cent significance, even though it be a small per cent of the total variance of the independent variable, will be true nearly 100 per cent of the time. Age of the family head and total family income were both significant to the .05 level. These were the variables having the greatest significance level and therefore the ones least likely to be deleted from a regression equation testing the independent variable of the number of times a person transports his boat. Education and occupation of the 1Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, LS: Least S uares (East Lansing, Michigan: 1969), StatiSticai SerV1ces Description No. 7, page 32. 55 family head were found to have significance levels of .048 and .002 respectively (see Appendix E). Education was therefore nearest to be deleted from the equation, being only .002 per cent from exceeding the .05 stopping criteria level set for this regression. The value of R2 (proportion of the sum of squared deviations from the mean of the dependent variable accounted for by the independent variables)1 was determined to be .064 for the final model analysis. Therefore, the four variables of total family income, age, education, and occupation of the head of the family accounted for only 6.4 per cent of the variance. This leaves 93.6 per cent to be explained by other variables. It can be assumed that further study will identify other variables which determine the number of times a person transports his boat, and therefore make it possible to raise the coefficient of determination. 1Michigan State University, LS: Least Squares, page 7. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The research problem investigated in this thesis was a real one, because it dealt with an actual situation and has provided facts which can be utilized by the Water- ways Commission. Analysis of the data indicates that 55.1 per cent of the respondents in the 1968 Boating Needs Survey, transported their boat an average of 12.8 times per year per capita. The remaining 44.9 per cent of the re- spondents indicated that they did not transport their craft in 1968. Of the transporters, it was shown that 75.1 per cent used a trailer and 24.8 per cent used a car top for transporting their craft. When these figures are expanded to give estimates of statewide values, it is indicated that a total of approximately 236,500 persons transport their boats of which about 177,400 do so by trailer and 59,100 carry their boat on top of a vehicle. Of the boat owners who transported their craft by trailer, 78 per cent of the craft appeared in the boat class of twelve feet to twenty feet in length. Boats less than twelve feet in length were transported most frequently on top of a vehicle and accounted for greater than 67 per 56 57 cent of this transportation method totals. Nearly 7 per cent more of the boating population were found to be trans- porting their boats in 1968 as compared to the 1965 totals and therefore, the boating fleet is becoming more mobile in Michigan. This figure was explained in a previous chapter. Of the total sample of boat transporters analyzed in this thesis, the majority were found to be "skilled craftsmen" with at least a ninth grade education, earning between $10,000 and $14,999 per year, and between forty-one and fifty years of age. The hypothesis has been supported by the foregoing analysis. It was determined that there are significant relationships between the number of times registered boat owners transport their boats and the selected socio-economic characteristics of age, occupation, and education of the family head and the total family income. All of the independent variables tested were found to be valid indicators of the dependent variable at the 5 per cent level of significance. Therefore, none of the independent variables were deleted from the regression analysis. The small percentage of the variance which is ac- counted for by the four independent socio-economic variables, indicate that further research in the area of recreational boat transportation is needed. Such research should be aimed at not only analyzing the characteristics of the 58 transporter, but also include investigation of such rela- tionships for various origins and destinations. This thesis analyzed the entire State and the results may therefore have masked important relationships due to an "averaging out process" among the counties. Selected counties could be isolated and analyzed to determine if there are‘trends which this thesis failed to examine. To improve research in this area, other means of transporting craft besides the two classes used in this thesis should be examined. The 1966 Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study report indicated that 22.9 per cent of the State's boat owners transported their boat by some other means than a trailer or car top.1 The author there- fore was not able to analyze an important segment of the boat transportation population because the question~only had two categories. Another point which may improve future research in this area would be to test other socio-economic or other kinds of variables which may be involved in recreational boating research., This will help reduce the 93.6 per cent of the variance which is unaccounted for in this thesis. A study of this type might be best accomplished by selecting samples of high, medium, and low transportation users and 1Michigan State University, Department of Resource Development, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, p. 10.14. Other methods could be, in the back of a truck, inside a station wagon, or inside a recreational vehicle. u-Inn ‘ . .HVH 5 PF" HIVL. 59 then interviewing them, analyzing their characteristics and determining their similarities and differences. Finally, outdoor recreation research must become a sophisticated science, especially in Michigan, where so much of the economy is dependent on these types of activi- ties for progress. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Blalock, Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw- Hill Book Company, 1960. Kerlinger, Fred N. Foundations of Behavioral Research. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966. Mills, Fredrick Cecil. Statistical Methods. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1938. Reports and Documents California, Division of Small Craft Harbors, Department of Parks and Recreation. California Small Craft Harbors and FaciliEies Plan. Sacramento: Leeds, Hill, and Jewett, Inc., March, 1964. Boating Industry Association. The Marine Market. Chicago: Annual Market Research Notebook, 1967. Chubb, Michael. Outdoor RecreationPlannin in Michi an b a System Analysis Approach: Part III--The Practical Application of—“Program RECSYST'r‘andfifiSYMAP.Tr East Lansing: Department of Park and Recreation Re- sources, Michigan State University, 1967. Crapo, Douglas and Michael Chubb. Recreation Area Day-Use Investigation Techniques. East Lansing: Recre- ation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State Uni- versity, Technical Report No. 6, 1969. Michigan, Department of Conservation, Waterways Division. Transportation Predictive Procedures--Recreational Beating agd Commercial Shipping. Lansing: State Resource Planning Program, Michigan Department of Commerce, Technical Report No. 9C, 1966. 60 61 Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station. LSDEL: Stepwise Deletion of Variables from a Least Squares Equation. East Lansing: Statistical Services Description No. 8, 1969. . LS Least Squares. East Lansing: Statistical Services Description No. 7, 1969. Michigan State University, Department of Resource Develop- ment. Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study. Lansing: State Resource Planning Program, Michigan Department of Commerce, Technical Report No. 6, Volume II, 1966. National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers and Outdoor Boating Club of America. Boating_1264--A Statistical Report on America's Top Family Sport. New York: N.A.E.B.M. and O.B.C.A., 1965. Other Sources Michigan, Department of Conservation, Boat and Water Safety Section. Michigan Marine Safety Act. Act 303. Lansing: 1967. Shafer, Elwood L. and John F. Hamilton. A Comparison of Four Survey Techniques Used in Outdoor Recreation. Upper Darby, Pennsylvania: N.E. Forest Experiment Station, 1967. APPENDICES APPENDIX A 1968 MICHIGAN RECREATIONAL BOATING NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRES €52 STATE C? MICHIGAN ' N '2 “f." L' I .( 4.-'. I ) NATUtM. usooecu (LIAIAIIIss-Im: E - -' wmemms COLM'SiiOx . .h’ CHARLES A. bCT‘ER H)FP.Y H. “IHHHIY CEOEGF RUN/.5532 Governor “Tm“ (Joint-Ton _ p ‘ 1‘ , , 5 .. , ,. .. . vow» J mun. (A“' Y ’UHHJ‘N OEPI.‘E:' ,mg’gq‘ k/r .‘xi-‘nl LililfiL RESOLII35CES VIC! Choun‘an E. M UJYMA tum A. NMC AIIITIAN DacdoI IIONARD N. lHOMSCIN ROBERT C. MttAUCvHLIN EOSIRT F. KING IREDHIICK O. ROU.‘.E, 12. AUGUST SCHOILE -—_.l_-... 5035" J 7"- LIU‘IG Steven- T. Menu. tuiluLI-Ig Molu'y to flu Communon [nu-ma, A'Lv‘air‘pn 4471528 2.33-0.26 «(we MIC‘HIGF .‘H Enclosures 1.} I" “W t- J .Dear Boat Owner: At this time of year, when boats are out of the water, the waterways Com- mission, like everycne else, is making plans for the coming sea:;on ard seasons ahead. he Iant to make sure that the rivers dlaLes of Hi cIigan, including the Great Lake.s, offer safe and 9299121213 recIenti n to all who love the water. To help us in our job, we need your assistance in finding out more about the kinds of facilities you and other boaters redoire. IT there are shortages in certain areas, we I-.ould lite to Inca atcut tth.n He are, therefore, sending you this o..estionnaire wi.n the req . est iziiat you t.aM a few momerts to Till it out and send it back to us. This study is one of several research projects being undertaken for the ”aAerwgys Division by the Recreation R esearch and Planning Unit at Michigan Stzte University. Your name was taIen at random from the list of boat registrants. and your reply need not be singRG. It will he used with all the otter replies to Show us the pa tern of boating in Michigan and indica .c whe-re we shculd be proxiding new or improved facilities. Simply place your completed questionnaire in the stamped, ore-addressed envelope and Inail it back to us at your convenience. Thank you very much for your help. With best wishes for a good season in l969. Keith Wilson Director KN: jaw 6 3 3 - F UR YO UR f.3§3§3'§' KNEE: A ...G‘ LJNTY AE‘JD iEGHWA‘I’ MAP Ch wliClllG AN In: heat; 1 \\ e -‘ - \ :5, ICle ’ \\b I (run \--§_§!10ro.4.v IC"ECIW,‘i\ ”Wise“ I 'Iha\ I- --L -1. I. l l 4" - 'uourcntu , .1 _1 . ' mutual ! r_ _+ “r ; tom! $3.30.” "qu “I” tap/:0: , ‘ ' -‘ —- — — o- - I fltiififl ' JV JOSEPH IIAICH "u'k _IHLLION.£ 64 MICHIGAI‘J III (II-ITATIII).\IAL PCATIVC NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE _____ ‘DW'=' PI. EASE ANS‘JHW‘I (ILJESTII‘JN‘S I Ti'l’I’)‘tIGI113I-'OH THE. BCAT IDENTIFIED a b'Y THE It! GIST RATIO»: It'i rF/Jt‘fi-I AND BOA I I. ENG I H WHICH I'I"’E AR MINES?! Y1 HIP. AIJIEIx‘rSS (If-3 Pri-IQL I 'I-..u‘;m —_‘—— My 1‘ L... T WHAT TYPE or PO ‘I’PR svs1 Era-I DOES THIS amt" HAVE-7 (Check one) ‘ D Outboard motor ET Inboard met.” I: Inboa'd motor with Outboard drive D Saflhoat sttlh motor C) Other Iwrr'te i:t)___ ._ _._...__ 2 WHAT IS THI‘ HOHSI POWER RATING OI' T HE I‘PW‘ARY MOTOR (OR MOTORS} USED ON LUIS BOAT? _______Hp. -Hp. Indicate horsepower of any other motors usnd on thrs boat: - A _._--_ ,_--_ ____._. __..__._--- 3 WHAT COUNTY IS THIS BOAT REGISTERED ”W- _- _______ _.___-___--_ _ _._-._.,_-..*--..._____---_--- Covnty 4 WHERE DO YOU USUALLY KELP THIS BOAT DURING THE BOATING SEASON? (Check one) LJ At my pr-rmanent home, whrch rs not on a lake or river. D At sx'atvrfrontcce located at my pumanertt home Iot. D At a commucml marrm- berth. C] At a summer ct‘rttuge B At a DYJbIthy Owned manna. D At a boat or yacht duh D Other (stwcrIyIt____ __ ___________ mt __._. ..__.._ 5 WAS THIS. BOAT TRANSI‘ORTFD FROM YOUR HOME OR OTHER LOCATION TO PARTICULAR LAUNCH- ING SITES DURING THE PAST BOATING SEASON (calendar year I968)? D YES [I NO If ”NO" skrp Over Questrons 6, 7, and 8, and proceed with Questron 9. 6 WAS 1mg BOAT TRANSPORTED BY: D traiIer C] car-top ca.rier 7 PLEASE INDICATE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF- TIMES YOU TRANSPORTED THIS BOAT FROM THE PLACE OF STORAGE OR MOORING TO THE PLACE OF USE. Number of Irma: 8 IN THE TABLE BELOW. NA‘JE THE COUNTIES WHERE YOU MOST OFTEN LAUNCHED THIS BOAT. AND INDICATE THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE BOAT WAS LAUNCHED AT EACH BOATING ACCESS POINT. __ _-_._ ----_ _., r. _.___ ____ Number 09 1 mm: Thu Boat Launched at— County . IWr .to in) FUN": Manna 0' Ramp _ Private ' Coatmrcwl propmv Crty, Caunty Stctc _ "m. or other I ,‘ or Tow'tshiu Famlrtms Federal Most Launches d» 206 most bunches I!» Allothu Louncnet T 65 9 DID YOU USE THIS BOAT ON ANY OF THE MICHEL/VI SECTIONS OF THE GREAT LAKES, OR CONNECT- ING WATERS', DURING THE PAST BOATING SEASON (calendar year I938)? '(Grezrt Lakes and comp-(fling waters are LaLes Huron. Superior, Erie, Michigan, and St. Clair; St Mary's River, St. Clair Rum, and Detrort River.) E] NO —-— II “NO", please nroce-cd to Question II. D YES ~~- II ”YES" please continue WIIIT question IO. IO IN THE TAIIII III. I L)“: , NAME THE THE-ii: GREAT LAKES OR COIIINILTII‘JG WATERS COUNTIES WHERE THIS BOAT WAS USED DURING THE PAST BOATING SEASON. Give the number of days that the boat was actually in the water under power or sail In each c0uIIty, and give the number of boating days scent on particular activities. (See map on page 2.) USE OF THIS BOAT ON GREAT LAKES AND CONNECTING WATERS ONLY Note: Count each part day spent boating as a lull day. The number of days spent on Spimtic boating BCUJITIL‘S may not HIuaI the total number ol days shoan In the Count each part day spent on a particular boating activity as a full (by for that activity. left hand column. 1 l I I 80.!!an Activrt-cs .. . I No, davs v0u u at this boat Ior - IU|.I _,.._ _‘ " II 00“ Cotmry TroIIt.“§aImn Other Water . . . - - h 0' (Write In) Home list-m9 “mm": WW3 cm'sm m w ' *— "'1 3N""' (No (No INo (No. (No. INO- Days) Days) nit-Ix) Days) Dan) Davsl EXAMPLE I7 Maui/5141., H ,2 O 9‘ 3 O ~-t I 4. County at * most use COunty 01 L. 4? 2nd most use ' . ’T _ County at l “ 3rd most use. ’2’ I A I Boating In "All Other" Cauntics II DID YOU USE [rug BOAT ON ANY INLAND LAKES on STREAMS IN MICHIGAN DURING THE BOATING SEASON (calendar year 1968)? [3 NO --— It ”NO" please proceed to question 13. [3 YES --—- If "YES" please continue with Question no. 12. PAST 66 12 IN THE TABLE BELOW, NAME THE 'IHRFI~ MICHIGAN COUNTIES WHERE THIS BOAT WAS USED HOST ON INLAND LAKES AND STREAVS DURING THE PAST BOAT INC} SCASON' Gist: the number of days that thisboat was actually in the water ur-rler power or Sz'ltl in each OI these counties. and give: the number at booting days spent on various activities (See map on paym- 2.) PIC-”- _.___ .— .— USE OF THIS BOAT ON INLAND LAKES {‘4 STREI’JI‘S Note. COMM, each {mt ddy SI‘t‘HT lutitwt; as .3 .‘uli my. I Count each part day scent on The number (It I: ._,. >l.‘ -:It on SIJI'I IILL II “wring tIv',II/lI'U<. I a piilIlttlIJI’ booting activity may not -:‘I-_I.I: IrII- toml nun In: of uz, t moan II. the as a lull day lot that thIVIIV. Ieft I and rtnutmt i _ I [Uniting ACIIVItrPS Total i No (I Iys ytlu .J‘M1IUHS our. Imu _-,_-. . _- ---_ __ - -,,4-__----.. - "r" -._. . u..- ___ -_. .7 Days ' ~. . ".7 . . . . Ludo”, TlLul Ml non Other Amer _ OT . . her OI “Viltv InI Inning J 1,9,”19 ”WWII”? L Stun.) Clutsing ._.__-,-. _ _ ,-.__.--__. I---._-__._. ._ I ._ .._._._.-.... _.._._._. 903': J ‘ n“ mt. II‘Io IN') (No. (No (No, I mm o .m Days) Day 9 Dust Devsl y.» —-—--—T—- --o--»-— ———-,-.--‘ -4 - -— -74 » .. »- I» _,._ , ,_ -- --- —— —-——-—~—-I _.-,_______4 o i . -—'—--— , / T_~.*~1" -o-—~——-— _-_,..__ -— 7' -- ~f --— -~--- _.. - - - A - ,,.___..._-, ~----————l --~ -' --‘--‘ - —4 ~— -——- Ct) mt ' OI I «P‘- k V “9 . “ WIS! use Lt].-_.~ --— ’- ~—--~~v———o-—-r———— ,_ -~>—--~--—-——-L———-——- ———————— - ———————— y——-— .....k......., _. _.._.. u-u.........u-..- -,.-._._.-_+. _.._._.. “ 'IntIude othet tnbouttls. (mthoatds, satlhuats, canoes, inlmard-outboatds, rowboats, etc. w— ———-————v— ‘— w— IN ORDER TO FCIIFCAST THE I‘LITURE I)I.’.1A’.‘I)FOR BOATING FACILITIES IN I‘MCHIGAN, IT IS I‘IECEZSEH'JIY I (JR US TO ME ABI II Tl) TIE III 'rAMII. Y (..H '«IIACTERISTICS \M I H BOATING USF PATTE HMS. Pt I. AS: ASSIST US BY AJE-IWEIIING THE (TULSTIOIIS IN' THE FIJI LOWINU SUCTION. I5 PLEASE GIVE YOUR COUNTY AND STATE OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE,AND WRITE IN YOUR POSTAL ZIP CUUt. County name -_,E._--- _- ”W---" ”n---” u__-.._ State__.._-__--,_.__ ___.___._ Postal Zip Code__.___--._-_____ 16 WHAT IS THE AGE AND sex or THE "HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY?” Age: _.__-ye;:ts Sex. Lrj Male CI Female I7 GIVE THE AGE AND SEX OF EACH MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY RESIDING WITH YOU (excluding the "head of household") Male; ages._.__,,__..__,____,___._, * Female: ages:...-..--._,__-_...__..__,._.__ ‘8 WHAT IS THE OCCUPATION OF THE ”HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY?” (Please indicate the type of job that yet: hold. NOT the organization for whtch yOu work) (Tints-Tn) ‘9 PLEASE ESTIMATE YOUR TOTAL FAMILY INCOME FOR 1968 BY CHECKING THE PROPER BOX BELOW. ICheck' only one boxI. ‘ CI Under 33.000 [3 $6,000 to $7,999 F] 310000 to $14,999 B 525,000 and over U $3000 to $5,999 I 38.000 to $9,999 I J 515.000 to $24,990 68 20 WHICH OF THE Al-IS‘ST’E'I s £;I.'.(,‘-‘r'.’ BEST Irt’l"‘:{..‘+‘Tli'.-‘. THE T L YEARS OI- EDUCATION COM‘LETED BY THF "rte AD 0! YOUR FAMILY?" (Check one 0.») U I} m I... :__J I. IT LI .3 LI L: I“. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ' 1] 12 d l' T w '__J 14 15 16 IQ] D D D I”: t_J (1! more ._. *‘w’umtm "‘1 "nu—'— 5:: v 2] IN THE SPACE BE LOW, PLEASF INDICATE ANY SPECIAL. BOATING PROBLEMS YOU MAY HAVE: _ .____.__.\.—.—~———. —— __—- --..~— —— —— _._.- - _— ~—_ -----_, .—..V. -- _- F._--.. -.._...— ---—-’-—-~_--_.-— -.__._.._-__—- ‘4- .— _ -_ — .——~...— - ~ - - —— —— a .o—_- ——...-— C's-..— - ...... ~_-_-__.—..- fikfirfi- 4 — - — - -— —.- — ——~ ————-~—- — .u— - -——-—-——-»-——- a... - ~— .. - -— 4 —-._ .. —- —— — — ~ -- —— -am- q“.- —-.——— __ -_~_—. ._ —. ———— —~v—— — _...... 7 — 7 v .c _ - __- .— -__.‘ ~- — --._. ._.. u u—o--- - - _ _ ..—.._ - ~—¢—~o_ __ —— ——— — — - —_. — no- -4- -_ -_.~... - .— w- .. .— .. - —_______-,__._.._-_-A --_.-.--__... _--._.v.__,-, ._. -t._ ..._ .—_ -7 w--. -v--....--. ,______.-._..- ”._- ,7..- ._...._—-- _ _-.—_- _—_fi__-44» , —_-- . 7,, 7 - 7—— ”-77 - , -7..— -.—- -rrr-fi—_.V—.r wr— - — ———-.—— .- ——~—~-.—..—‘_—..__— .__—.-_---.—-—-————._. .-—_-_~_._-—_--_—-_ ru— —.—-— --- ..-—— 7 ~-—--—-77.—.-—--7----—-7~ —.—— -- .-.'-.._. —...-—_——_-.. --.——7--.<.——.-... -- M—-— -.———--—.- - .— _— _ - -- —'.—— _-—__v—-—---.—.—— ~-—- ~—-———— - ~——.—_—-.—~ ~ _. ———-—————.—-.—— — - ._——.———.—. — .. ~k- —. .——-—-— ‘— w-fi— ..——————-————-- __..—-_..._--—---—- ._ _ - __. .————.—-—.—-— — _ —... ‘__ -m__.-.. .-.-..a --— _. .— _-- _. .._».— __ __~._..— a. >.—— -—-—~.- w—c— ——___ __.-.._.__..-—.—— .—.———— *-—.———~.-o—.——_- .— _—- M-‘ -—.. —-——-—..———— ‘.— -—-—.¢-— _-V——.-_--._~r-..--..——-—o—--- -————.- .- -—- —.-_..— .- ~—-—-—-——— I -- ~wu—_—-‘ .-...-—_———.-—-- ----fl—Q —————- . -——.. THANKS FOR YOU/T HELP I If you accidently mesplace the return envelope provided, please mail to: Recreation Research and Planning Unit Room 312 Natural Resources Building Michigan State University East Laming, Michigan 46823 APPENDIX B SUMMARY OF NUMBER OF BOATING DEMAND STUDY QUESTIONNAIRES MAILED BY COUNTY OF REGISTRATION AND BOAT LENGTH STUDY QUESTIONNAIRES MAILED OF REGISTRATICN AND BOAT LENGTH OF BOATING DEMANE R ‘ 1 LC- UF-‘IB 13 F "\ EARY O um SU' 69 H (D‘kaOVI‘NQDr'i'J‘r—1\DKO\Dmr-’MI‘~J‘.v‘irfimomkfir—ICOHO‘D m (3 T.‘".“(T‘I\Dr-4£\I‘T\DKOC'Jr-4KC‘ONCO)“1K‘OFJH(DCDONU§O\NI“N +1 NHH HN VNmr’Jr-iHH H H HHN N H O \ H H y 0) :> O 'U OOOOOOOOMOOONOOOHOOOHOOONOOOOO .f; . . (I; 0 Vi" C) .30 OOOOOOOOCNOr-iomCVHHHOOOc—l00003006800 l . O m C) r“. U\V\‘1V'1'Lf;x_:\'$3: C‘.-“‘}."‘.C‘C’.‘?!".C'Q’j‘,‘"‘""‘f\"—4f'3\0(13CONlan’o\O | ll HH N N N HH H u: C) (Q C) N MOSCDNKOV‘ZI‘CJMKQFFLDCDOOONN‘OI\IFaKDPJlDCQVN_r-10(Q (")O! 1.: (#561076. \D‘.DN(\K“C-‘\\DO’DM \DW" (‘THKQWJfWKDKD'nl‘ : H H H N H H H H H H (N r-i 01 H (2) :2 3'1 l\ \o \J H n? ‘3' m MD M (~. m H C?) m“ m c) 03 (1' m "r m (\3 C“) (x N in m Q‘ K010 H H O\ m m \9 \o H \o co (0 H N N H m m 0‘) 2‘ \o N 1\ H N m N ‘1‘ C) r—l r-{ r-‘i ("3 ’ (“I H 1‘24 [<0 1". :4 (\z m ~<~ m \o r-x CO CH O H m r": xr m '4) h m c» cw r—l m m '-:“ L") V) I“- 0’3 an O t) r4_re r4 v4 .4 r1 r4 r4 r4 r4 cq rq (4 cu c¢ r; cw re re c1 91 C) F \. 70 NON.N N NO ONN NNONN NNN NO NNN O N N ON . ON NO NNO N O NN mmN OmN NO NO N O N NN N ON OON O O O N\ NN mm ONN N N ON NNN NO NN NN O O N NN ON Nm NON O O ON NNN NN ON NO O . O O N ON mm NN O O N mm NO ON NO O N m mN NN NN NNN O N m NN NO NO N O O O NO NN NN NON.N N Nm NON . NNO NON ON NNN N O ON m NN NO ON N O N . mN NN NO ONN O O ON NN NN NV NON O N NN NON , NO NO ON O O ON NO ON NO mN O O N NN NO NN NN O O O ON NN NN N O O N N O NO NON.N \ N . NN NO NNN ONN NO NN O O N N- mN ON NON O N NN NNN NON NN NNO .O N NN NNN NON NN ON O O N mm NN ON NN O O N NN mm ON NON O O O N ON mm NNN O O N ON Nm ON NNN O N NN NON NNN NN NO O N N NN N NN NON O - N NN N NN Nm Nmuoa Hm>o cam .OO .ON : .ON .ONH.“ON .ON : .NN mmmN No .NN Nazpoo Nmewsz Baom wwsqflucovnl m xHuzmmmm B-—Continued [$314. GThS OI '7. D] N 4 B O r‘- "I1 Total 40T’ 40' and Over 3 Q) ("1 O er - m 3.!) G) F. 31 (‘3 r4 "7 (a U OFOF“O®f\Nr-3P{M ox'fiworxmcxmmm [\V’V'Q‘HVM\DKDP')\OI\T:‘LDKOODNHNO\H m r4 anm H \Vfl'ln \0 § 0") HOOOOOMOCDOVOOOONOOOJOM r-i ooHooonoooer—ioomovomm m H (\lrlf'Jr-‘JOMKDNlfl0~3(')f“NO\OU}f‘U\P~l(\lr—{ m HMODr-‘l NP L!) r" CDOJr-’)COI\MCOH5\\D<3'HO\O<1‘I\(‘IC\!HHH vNNH OICD"J‘N'---- I'd»- .-..- ............... o - ”--- ......................... o.o-- - ............. u -- ----- - - ..--- - ........................ -. - .-.-- —~~-- -.--- aw...- so..- o-o-a ----- - - ----- a.-- .......... a a..- -uu-c— GD.-- -. - -.‘-- ..... ~--~. cc-.- ......................... . ..- -n-c- .m-n- -- -- ---.- ----- --- - ..... -. - ---.- ..... ---- - -— - ----- ............................. ---.- ..-. -- - ---‘- ..... - .-- —--.- ---.- On--- ......... o co... .c-o- .......... -- —- ..... ..--o .......... -.-.- -- _ ..... --..- -- n- ---------- o.... -o-._ -...- ----- ---------- --_ - --- - - - .................... --—.- u u- .- -.- - -4--- ----- —-.-- no..- ----- ......... u —. u 9.... -- o ----- c- .- .c..- - .............. lllllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllIlllllllllllllIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIlllllllll NI~YID IN U Q A \JU‘Ud .5 :TrQuI/_saln1;3p ii§hjng :OtheI fishing Other NNNK) www— p..- - ..... 3‘ 2:22: 2:12: ._-I 33 :2- ..... 35 ----- 37 12.... :Togal gays 47 xx: 49: Tron? u 'rnnn ‘Mhlflq Other 65 :32: :1: :2:- 67:2: - :t: ----- cu.-. n.-.- - --- .......... ............... ............... ----- - - -- o ..... . --- - ......... - ..... .u - nu..- ............... o. -- ..... -- - -.- .......... - n - .......... co... - - ----- ............... ----- - -- ----- o---- - --- ..... ..... .-- -...- - --- ~o-n- - on.-- n - ..... -o-o- --------- - Pummg :Water SKIIng :JCIIIismg H ..... County ~ 3 _d usIed ' ‘2: ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... .-..- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... -. - ----- ..... us- - -_- o- - -»- —4s. --.5. ct- - .u- - ~- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ----- ----- .; - -n- -. --..- -.-- -.o-- ..... - .- ..... ..... -o- ----- ..... - - ..... - - ..... ..... ..... ..... -.--- ..... ..... ..... ----- ..... .. - ..... --_._ ....- ~- -.--- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ----- ..... ..... ..... 75 INLAND LAKES AND STREAMS ----- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ----- ..... ..... ..... ..-.- ..... ..... - - ..... ..... ..... ..... .-..- ..... ..... -...- ....- ......... - .......... ..... - .......... .......... .......... .......... - --- ..... .......... ---- ..... .......... ..... --. -- -.--- .......... .---- ..... -.--- ————— ---.- ..... ...-_ --—- .......... -- -o ----- .......... .......... --.-- ----- ---------- .......... .......... ..... - --- .......... ----- ..... .......... - .- -...- ......... - ----- ..... ---a- ..... ----- ..... ---------- .......... o---- ..... .......... ----- ,.-.- .......... ----- -1..- ----- ..... .......... ----- uuuuu --..- ..... —.--- ----- .......... ----- ..... ----- --. - ----- ..... .......... ---.- . - ----- --- - ---o- ..... ..... .a - ----- ..... - --------- ----- ..... - n-u ..... ----- g--- ----- ..... ----- ----- ..... ..... ..... ----- ----- ----- .u-o- ..... ..... -.--- ----- ..... ----- ----- ..-.- ..... .......... -.- ..... ......... - ---------- .......... ..... . - -- - ..... .......... .......... ........ - .......... ..... --. - .......... ......... - ---------- .......... --- --..- ---------- ---------- ---------- --_ ..... --------- - .......... --_ ----- .......... ----- - - ---------- ---- 09-.— .......... ---------- ----- ----- ---------- ----- ----- ---------- - --- ..... ---------- --..- ..... ---.- ----- --..- ..... uuuuuuuuuu ---------- .n.-- .s..- ---------- ----- -.--_ -op-u .- -- --. - ---. ---------- ---------- ----- ----- ---------- .u-o- ----- ......... - - -~- ----- ---------- ..... ----- ---------- . - - ----- ----- - o.- ----- --. - ---------- -.--- - - - -- ----- ---------- .--- ----- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ---------- ----- o -- ---------- ----- ._ o ..... ..... ----- ..... ----- ----- - - ..... ..... ----- ----- o...- ..... ._..- ~- ..... ----- - - ---.- ..... ..... ..... ..... ----- ..... ..... ----- ..... ----- ----- uuuuu ----- ..... Tiwé i E-.. (ON 41;- 43 as (BU-i Dawn-O m u s A .3; -;c:: :z: . .3.: .‘T'..' QuestIon ..CJZ 2.3": 413.2 3'37. Age —- He ' Ma'lem -. -.; - - —_. .q - .unv . - --p . 9v... -.-L- .n._ :.'::;_:;_; 7mm 2;).: ... <..- -..-. - g . .-.u- . a . ' I nco'rfi'e s agwi Io: 3:715 Océ-thtio'h' " "Eddcéfiori -.p. '15 CoIIrTI-y ovf' residence ..... 0d 0! -.-.- ...- ....- ,.--- Sex — HeéIqioI‘ f-amIly ---. on. family -2... 32: ..¢— --. .ZI: --..- ...—- ..... 112:: -...- 231:2 ..... 2.32 :21: 22:" 22:2 3212: 2.13:: :""T' 2.3; III; .3272 ,:I :ZI’Z; ":2; 212:; . . - o - .. .... ..¢ . - ..... . - -..._ .......... - - -...- .......... - ---- - —.- ..-.- --..- --..— .- ..... m.‘.. - .......... ..- --.-- ..... ... - .-.- ..... . - ......... - .-.V- .......... . .- .--- - —- - n. ----- .-.-- ..... . .. . .. . . . ............... ----- - .— . .-- ..... .- .. . . - --------- --. - ............... ..... -.o . --..- ...._ ..... -..- ..... .uuo- -,... a. _. --------- - o ..- ..... .......... o u»- ..... ------ - .-. ----- - -.. -.--. ----- ----- --- - ..... u...— . .- ..... ..... -.*- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... -...- ..... ----- ----- ..... --.-- ----- wu'h- _ .p- ----- ..... ..... -.--- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... --..- -.--- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- uuuuu ..... ----- ..... ..... nu..- ..... ..... ..... ..... 76 ..... .—-.- -o¢.- _---- ..... 2:32: 131:: 271:: ..... ----- ..... ----- -uuc- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ----- ..... ...-- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ----- --..- ----- ----- ..... --..- -_..- "7.: ..... ..... ----- ---.- ..... ..... ---.- ..... ----- ..... ..... ----- ----- ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... ----- ----- ----- ..... ----- ..... -.-.- 2:2: :33 ..... ..... -...- ... - ..... ..... ..... ----- -.-.- ..... -.-.- ..... ----- :flz: :15: :11: rim: :tz: ---.- ----- ..... o-.-- ..... o--.- ----- ----- ----- ..... ----- ..... ..... ----- ----- 2-32: - .- - -- -—-.- --.-- ..... ---c- --u-- -...- u.-.- ..... ..... -...- -4 . -uu. 181: 23.: 115:: ..... ..... ..... ..... o...- ..... ..... . -- ..... -- - ..... ---o- ..... ----- ----- n.-- HlIlllllllllllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIllllIlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll APPENDIX D EXPANDED ESTIMATES OF THE NUMBER OF BOAT TRANSPORTERS BY COUNTY APPENDIX D EXPANDED ESTTMATES OF THE NUMBER OF BOAT TRANSPORTERS BY COUNTY The expansion factor was determined by dividing the number of registered boats in a county by the number of questionnaires used in the socio-economic analysis (see Table 2, p. 19). The estimate of the number of persons transporting the boats statewide by county was determined by multiplying the number of registered boats of a particular county by the per cent of the registered boats that are transported from that county. (For example, Wayne County's 68,405 registered boats were multiplied by the per cent of Wayne County's transporters who were included in the sample (68.0) to yield an estimate of 38,307 persons that transported their craft from Wayne County's registered boat population.) The per cent of boat transporters by county is determined by dividing the number of people that transport their boat for a selected county by the number of registered boat owners in the same county. 77 78 .APPENDIX D—wContinued Number of Percent of Boat County Expansion Persons Trans- Boat Owners Who m_ Factors Aporting Boats Transport Alcona 33/1 356 50.0 Alger 98/1 594 66.7 Allegan 77/1 2935 66.7 Alpena 84/1 1967 60.0 Antrim 89/1 1020 43.2 Arenac 61/1 267 44.4 Baraga 63/1 441 63.6 Barry 65/1 1551 42.1 Bay 78/1 3712 67.1 Benzie 91/1 901 55.5 Berrien 77/1 6422 72.8 Branch 85/1 2097 40.3 Calhoun 81/1 5632 66.0 Cass 104/1 2601 37.9 Charlevoix 60/1 984 47.0 .Cheboygan 94/1 891 34.5 Chippewa 121/1 1317 61.5 Clare 67/1 787 56.5 Clinton 81/1 1578 60.6 Crawford 92/1 183 33.3 Delta 54/1 1206 65.7 Dickinson 65/1 981 60.0 Eaton 59/1 2217 60.9 Emmet 60/1 1243 55.3 Genesee 74/1 14045 59.7 Gladwin 72/1 644 56.2 Gogebic 92/1 1296 66.7 Grand Traverse 75/1 2665 54.7 Gratiot ' 132/1 1607 76.5 Hillsdale 94/1 1612 58.6 Houghton 57/1 800 40.0 Huron 79/1 551 38.9 Ingham 61/1 6542 49.3 Ionia 74/1 1434 51.3 Iosco 85/1 1282 60.0 Iron 89/1 879 45.4 Isabella 54/1 1091 63.3 Jackson 85/1 5243 51.2 Kalamazoo 69/1 6250 52.6 79 APPENDIX D——Continued Number of Percent of Boat County Expansion Persons Trans— Boat Owners Who Factors porting Boats Transport Kalkaska 114/1 288 40.0 Kent 89/1 16860 70.5 Keweenaw 49/1 195 100.0 Lake 58/1 354 54.5 Lapeer 69/1 1317 67.8 Leelanau 54/1 702 37.1 Lenawee 88/1 3479 63.5 Livingston 63/1 1254 35.0 Luce 70/1 275 36.4‘ Mackinaw 73/1 213 10.3 Macomb 96/1 11362 50.9 Manistee 128/1 1408 64.7 Marquette 66/1 2172 64.7 Mason 100/1 1497 65.2 Mecosta 80/1 1447 72.0 Menominee 91/1 636 50.0 Midland 73/1 2486 56.7 Missaukee 78/1 155 25.0 Monroe 87/1 3401 65.6 Montcalm 79/1 2361 73.1 Montmorency 66/1 396 46.1 Muskegon 75/1 6040 68.3 Newaygo 71/1 1077 41.7 Oakland 76/1 21085 56.9 Oceana 71/1 788 64.7 Ogemaw 45/1 454 43.5 Ontonagon 31/1 433 63.8 Osceola 46/1 601 61.9 Oscoda 68/1 336 83.3 Otsego 113/1 566 50.0 Ottawa 59/1 4229 60.2 Presque Isle 94/1 473 35.7 Roscommon 76/1 903 29.3 Saginaw 65/1 5761 57.0 St. Clair 89/1 3361 50.0 St. Joseph 67/1 3068 53.8 Sanilac 58/1 603 66.0 Schoolcraft 97/1 547 42.8 Shiawassee 63/1 1400 43.5 Tuscola 63/1 757 40.0 Van Buren 80/1 2907 62.7 Washtenaw 66/1 3742 46.4 Wayne 107/1 38307 56.4 ’ Eexford 83/1 1305 68.0 TOTALS 236.529 55.1 APPENDIX E STATISTICAL REGRESSION ANALYSIS COMPUTER RUN .I f u ‘ OII' v‘lII-II..!-"|¢I||.,!-I‘I.I0!II.I. qt"! IIlIultll‘I Iv-'.-"l-l ll.l'.ll-. .I. 'II 0“: |, I.Nh n- 1.. aououomc.monvmo wwdw.muheoo :et.o«00fihmo.modofl w »me >mm a mm a» 21mg . colooooo.o. ;;: ..,. . . . .g, cooaoooo.oaonn ; .- ..;a+i.;.-!1iéis::i !;é:i: -1;fi:1;::a;::: :: . mmm 23m .-:;-.-:.a.;.:. -. z -;.i::::: Y > x3m .. .. -...-;;;I-;:s:-zg , -i:;z-¢::|:;-;--y-an4nlcmm:u,xaza;q»;mmc -- m. -..;. . s-::iciz.-: ,.2iaa:ainll!l13,;.ri::!;::!-.-;-..::rs 7.;..:i:n1::.: .. . ..-.;,:@nmommz - . vamomdno.~" ;::.:.;1.4= Nflm~.o.: «moo.l .:.;;..ommm.o. 0400.0 _ _ . ; .,. _ .. , Nenq whcx~»um to «exam ommmmmo so .OHOOflmmm.oonofin 7 lizemz npumqv Jane» .v . Ii, It! n , uT.l I .ll‘. v -1 .0. I. l . 1‘.) utlIIIIII z '.'\vnl"ll'|||.'!‘. . Y | I.«¢ov-, . .IIIUICI'|nIl.. II. I . nit ['1‘ u . l ‘1‘»‘0: " Ill: rll'lli |!.. I '. I‘lli.. . II .. In . .‘ll -nmncmnmonvOfl- :Nnov ;-Naaommflm.nflnwoo -. . . - ,_momaw . l.lc\ III] vl“! .11 "lll O '1 II! t'll'tl'. - .l 1 .l.l|..l Iii. mooo.a» mndo.oo Havnawnv.nowfiw e Nvonamna.nmmmm-s! .i.:«}-zo «on >04 :. lulu: ::.Jaa‘:x::ese;i.-:s;i-_- m.-- .1-, -;,V‘:-;;:i:l:ua:es-qi-l .zoawquFH.»mm>m omnmwnome mnnamma ...... -- - , --- -1 - - -..-31 - -£-I Ill ; ”EWLITOHmmHmmu quacm 24 r mom withnzwr;6i- - -11- 41-1- 1 ...... -- -|- :e.- ---.. .;s!suustslalii.aaa: 2.Hmvnso”mm»amu:wuz