I '4‘ If. '.‘ l’ .A ”1‘! . -U 1' ' r‘I:"‘\ I I ‘ ,1“, ('I.‘ 'I II ' I. q ‘ I- II n I '. I'wfl“...{‘:'-JI '.'I‘ I ‘i .‘ . "' ’.' 1“.“ '.‘. ’. I.l I. “.".I‘ I... \‘Vi‘pq '13. .;: ": ‘t'i'l‘l‘.:I'g .'i IJI If ..l"l\l' ‘_..‘:I" I .‘;v '.‘..IW“FH'O‘ Q;:%“'"~ gt,” .W '0 ‘0 v ( l" .I-i I.‘u"'t I "I I I‘QI'I (‘.‘ ‘.'“ '1”. III ' I I' II ‘fi-III In" ' ‘JIJ '3' ' :g: 'M 7"“.I :::"I:~ " 'I‘I" ‘.' ‘.'. 7:0,; ‘01:"".I.I.l I '.H'. H.” III; C ‘.‘. “l I.” ‘ '.' ‘ fi‘ 0 ‘ " »"I.' on 'u 'I‘” '2" -- -I two-3'” 'It'a“ MI". I 5.If“'§"""'. ' ' ' " I'I. _ .‘l-Igl jw-II "I F \tl ‘- I‘I'I'I I '0‘- . I I' A' .I.-. "i "“" “II" '.. '. ' ' :I'” ' ' n .‘I 1 ‘ ' " "' ‘I ". ' (We 40- ‘-I‘"""‘°{ o I I vh- .". i ‘1’ v ' i _ 0' .‘|" 1., c I. I lit 2.. 'm. I'I : I ‘Q I . " l“” ' l‘ _ I '3'! "'3'” H ' \' ‘ ‘ . $|'fi.1 0‘ I. I .‘I . l0! ‘ I I ‘ . '4 '.'b'. ' . ~ H‘ . ‘. '_ ‘.I l‘. .'. '0 1" k.I0-'|'."‘ ‘ ‘.‘ I. If." ' \ OR . ‘ '.' .U .. III ”I " I.. ‘I. ‘I’“|l‘ ’.‘! I"II.II . I.."4~II4II .. I ' . t ‘- ' I . . . II. III.“ . I ' '4 |I -' '.‘. . I‘Il. |.. t u- I I "It! I-II I 'I III fl '.‘ '.'I‘.I I.’ :I |.| I:I.I\Qqh“‘€";"“ I ‘ .! §§ fits. ‘ . l | I I . I .ll' I '.III‘H :. \I. 1:; I. ‘II II J .‘II."J‘DI' '.:I."I "- I ‘. .' ‘ .. ._._II a. I ’ 9 DIkl'... . ‘. ' I. I :‘.‘I .0 I. .f" o I ._"(.".H {‘.’ “I "I?“ '9 . ‘ . O .. .II'IIII II‘ 'I o ‘I:_; ' I ‘ II ' -‘ '. IO\I‘.II|I...1I‘ I .I“II'I '.' '. l“. ‘6‘": ‘ OJ , I' I I II' 0"." .I " "1’ . ' ' - . ~ ‘ . C ‘. ‘c I 0'1.U.|':_|;:l':“:.1t:‘: '.Sfib: '. |I. I_l‘..‘ .'|;.'I‘I}.‘"..::;‘.:fi q. M g ' ‘ m 0! . '.,..‘I' 1 , I' .2 ‘. 'v H r'II'II _, I II I - II I I . I .~ I» '. ‘IT'I'IILI I II: I' '2: ”331.“: :II I “ate :J-ztI I :III' $4.”. '2“ t R‘ TI ' Q I . . 9! ‘l " . ‘ I‘ ‘.‘I. I . 4'- . . . H ' ‘.' .- IIII'JI'NI’II'“I’ ‘.'.qu. :, “If INN." . 9;! I’:":.':'.'I'\"I"I u I -|- Iota. I III . 0" ' LII”; . I ‘ VII-IE1: HI I'l h II Ir. '.I‘I'Ill‘. II...|.I(I\;F Hi} . P‘Il -I1HI . V. f ':L I. ’.'..2 ,g . P.‘. ‘I I.‘ '.'.‘0 0 ( .I..'.:-t.~'l"|“' ‘1‘" >'\II I. .0 IN“I: .' '.‘. . . I. II- ..I ' " .‘.-"‘ ‘. ‘u I" ..H I)" -. --... :¢.~.:.; --..I .- -:2::-.;. ' III firm-M ‘ .' in“... ‘ l ‘." .. . Vii“: ‘0 31"flIJI; ‘I"._J."_ 'I . ’.'.tu '.‘ .I’Wflr‘ !‘ fl.” . I. "l ' ' 'II‘I I". '. ' .' I ‘K'I-II I I 'I ‘.1..‘ I' V“ ' -II I’!‘ I" . . i ‘ "’ .. .'.("~ I. .II '1 '00- -' ‘.l' 'I ".‘. ‘. r .. ' \‘ q -% QI." f I III!' ' I' '2 II " ' II ‘ Iy.“ I "" {'"u'l ' II ‘I'.’.‘ I. III I H 'I ' U ' f ' . II". I. ‘ '.’"I 'II .‘I fiIIIII'III ".o- ' ”‘.‘... 0' ).‘.Ir" ' ‘ .. . . If” I . .._I I" ‘ , 1"... {9.0.0 .'.I I”? .I“':_ b‘,“ . .‘. ‘ .\|",. “\ ”III“... .‘w‘. . I. 'I ' ”“3“ I ' I” I'I‘I '&.'II""" '2 I'ofl' DJ". >" .'.‘..‘.'-'I,III~' III '('\'I I‘:“'I J I I". I' I '.'...I II ‘ ’1. I ’3‘ .I.“'.'.‘I'i,- I I. n. I "£I.‘I.l.~‘.'..l' '.‘".‘I .{ O‘.‘. ‘.‘4t¢“ ‘ . I IDH‘ *0 . '. .. ' "'.' '1 . .- aha-Isl . |"( '.’" In. L I I...“ I '9 J. .‘. \ I '., "II.‘. III I. ‘ (I. . I." ’. O ‘ l’Q‘-Q‘O “" I I. L ' .~‘ I II" ”~L- -‘ 2.‘ ~ . II -- 2' .I II'Iy'fII,“ 5-. . "I” ll ,3‘IWHIIIII _ Jul, '1 I | IYI I I I,“ “l ' III"’. 'I IIII 2-03.”: .“1:HI I‘Idz- "I." “'IJ‘I‘IIIKII II (I'II‘I'; 'I'I' .1 I II: I II‘Q'. ‘.‘:I‘J.'J:;‘“ 'I'. lr‘tyx. j::'.' I‘.1"".'.'III._:.tI' I'I' ‘3‘”. “‘3‘: k“ (‘.‘... I-‘IIIOH “ I .l I. I II. I ":I'I “‘9‘. ‘.‘! AII I-Ir I . 1" ’.'-":I W1 0‘: '.Ii.‘ lad” 2-1.5. ’.“'."I. It. .I'I'I.' 9. Il :" “xi- ‘.zl:t.ol‘l'll;.l.t." \ . ‘.‘v 33): I ca';.’ 1.:‘. ’0 _- h .J ‘.' I‘.“;.. 9'.‘ -‘I";.I. ;.:"1 ‘.‘-V I’ II I.1.I-.'II , l '.‘” 1...: ‘OWI‘II hit Lt. I"l I. . . "'."I."I".I.‘;::;IuhIInI£I: “'9‘ ”I‘M“ I‘ISJI\,.. . ' ' ’ I I I i , I I I '\' I II 'I ‘. I I; : )I' I'lIVI‘I'I w“: I0'I.'I:'HI‘III.;'I 3"4'IVV‘II‘»‘I‘‘\' :"¥$5$;. :I{:‘ OI .‘Q..' 3 .' '.t‘. ‘it: I'm; '(2‘;'t“:)..."vll.:.. .- C 93"....'..Q:'.0 I. ‘. ‘I.| \‘I"c;.:-.|‘I II II'. .dIII ‘. :IIIII‘ . 'I 'II ". . I. ‘ I!‘ . . 4 ’.‘, ' . 'VV '.‘: '.'.I‘I' ’ . °‘ Nfi,‘ I hf; ..'.\:I"" ‘II'I'I' :I-II,_ I I‘.:"\ 'I‘.‘ III. I???» I. . '.t'I v.53". It) PP: I'I‘I' \I.v:'\.’:'2\_':‘-I‘-:¢;3 {5:953 ° \';'\':;'; I 1":\S‘E:‘.o ‘2:{23'§:'-I~:.':.“:'171 ‘II-\I}.‘. .' 1. : mi. “2.. gm, 1‘ Im- 2243-. 423225922 -' I2; 1- ° -. .3. ‘.3 'n'g-(hti'hh‘x‘yav ' 2295422" 2?? “ 2"“ "$139" {2; 32322“ or .. ,‘I_' II 9 . '.1§‘ ' I ..i- .I ‘.' I. I"II . q I'. .,9 . ., .5 .‘k. 4. .,.. -0 I I. I . t .I I ‘I If 9“ :' :II' ‘I ‘ I Ififlr’. .' ‘.“I ‘ hilt} . 4;]: I‘IIIIIA. 5r... . " .. ‘I‘$'.“.. I l\': :‘c:~"!:::.$I II. H".-;“.'.§JI:Q;QI:§;I‘°;.J.r-:p:‘:1":‘.‘-R .::‘:‘:rg .‘ "filtm 3:5 J‘L‘ '.' VI!" 9:" . '.': 9 .' . ‘.'-Ir ‘ ;_._ ‘.‘ .I. '.'” "L... .,'\C II... _..I ‘2 .12.?) '.' I. v - MI. . ’u leg}? 1""; .1 - '0 '.V'R‘OI'A." 2&9. 0‘1 . '.'y'l . I".1I'I':‘I." Ii?‘ fio€€>lzxi3mhg . H ‘.'..."Y I. |‘ . I'~4 I "v ‘. .II .I I I‘I" I'I‘ I‘ III 1"I ‘I " -'I “I‘. WI.‘ Wakr' I 5““ ‘.‘).I ‘ I?" 1‘5.” (Ev-In '1... -' '.'I“ 0.5. L“ I 5‘ I ogh 15¢“. 4'3“""2‘ ' “"r' . \ ‘ . ' .I ‘JI _ ‘.'! ’.' "I“ .l'. ‘.'h‘* ‘.' a .0 _ '.', 0. {‘.' W)? I‘ ‘ .§ 3 I '.',I'" ;. ‘.‘\" I "O..2.I‘;.I.. . '.' ‘fq .NI’.‘ . .VJ '.u‘\.o‘f‘I.'. '.'. .‘.."‘T':'w . 1. A0: ('0. 1‘ . ‘.“;" 3}. "‘I .OiI‘OC ""'...o.q’ S. ' ‘.;_ I. I I. I' J ‘.'?" ‘.‘:r I .' I; ;OI~. '.': IC.‘ .I IV \‘I II;':.:: | 'I" ' Ia" ;‘ ‘.III:.‘;I| .‘ '.1". ‘H .\ 30%.... .‘.:.".:.' '0‘; .'.'I$.‘.T§..It. O. .‘b\".\.' '.‘ W’s... " '5 ‘}’z:‘ ‘.‘“): OI" :TI‘:":"1:“":'.~:‘ . . ‘J‘;4;'y.g.:\ <{“: : fluke..." I‘. . III - -'OSII"; II‘ " '. ‘ I“ I" 'III’I fflf II' .‘II | " II‘ "I .| "'1' I.I. L I I'I' III I'I°I‘I' ' '.‘:‘IIII "" " ‘.‘ ‘.I' "I'.'II"‘..\:1II'. . 6' I_ 5"? '. ' ’1‘4.""I ‘-' II I .I ' I III I .I. ‘ . ‘ ’ .".II.' H ‘I .II-.|‘ICI‘ '."-|h IWII‘IW. I'.‘O'”. . 'I’I" ‘ ‘ ‘.‘."f “I..::.“ .I 0 3“ .II'tI1001‘3‘. ‘.'.:,1. '.."0. “'2 . 2 2:22.242 Wm I; Iuw v-.-!\*.2«I-.~' 'I-W 32-.- 'UA ‘ ”I" ~. ‘ 3"‘2 I've—2;: .,. .. 221,6? '22.. W» 2 .4222? the; :‘z';:~ W 2 II I '.'. I I' .’ “\HI‘II‘I PI' 0"” .I.'.I.o"I$ I ’.'.I "I1 ‘.I '.‘IIBI'H- if 'I I LI‘I Inca.” ”’1‘ (I ' ISA" 'I‘\\" " c H '7‘ QI' ":‘II “I Itffi. "- ‘t-OH\~’ I‘II" ”um. ‘J'W‘ ‘.‘III' ‘ WI.” II I I II “H'IIIII'IIIHAA‘IJ .‘fIV‘I ’.‘I '9' 5". I 'I\'2III.°I‘-'H I" 'II‘R'.‘ ‘ I:I‘ 0:0‘95||'|I I 'H'H '.'.'.‘h M” ')'\.%II.OIQ‘.Q ‘O:"".'::I~:.. '. '4'. It. ' 230.92%va ‘k‘ .'..o1\l'l'\ ‘.'-55? .83" I. I». I 5 ‘ 'I I .l‘. WW“ 'I.' '.‘“. .lI ' '2‘. o‘ ' "1" ’.' ‘.‘1 ”3.”. ‘ ”‘3'. :6" Jr?!” " .I' I '.' I I"\ III I‘v'vI!‘ | |I “.5 .0: ‘.V‘V'J '.‘:0II\“.'.‘ 3- " ' i'ytI‘I‘” " ' I'a“:'..|":'. ...‘~I"I:.. ';':’ "fl."’\ v?" .I" V I' ' 'IO" l'I ll L‘.’ ' I II'I ' II -H 0.“"9 .- O I. . '.o‘i‘ I - . II’H' --L.".'—.o..v-.‘-.QI II 0: .1". I : ', LI. ;:' IF. . I“ IN”. 1".‘:;:| I I'IOD ‘.'} ‘.‘:IHO II I'V'. .. .:\{:. :'I:'.. ‘.‘QII 0 :E:'.:.I:'CI -:I:;:' . +0. 2‘19? :.II\ LEE: :gc‘. .' ::.: {’.‘b‘q Ikinj: |.\_ “tuft. ' :‘..::."‘o :ynkchcl. 3":OI'? "".$;;',:'""‘ ‘.‘ .I ". . '. '.'.II‘. ”I‘lli'I-. I 1'. . IIl fz. . 'i':‘.I'. I .:.'.0‘I U. .l .l I ‘.' I ". .“..:'.' ' ‘.<.-u. .o-It..' . . I! .. w . .- I. ,.. . .II . ~ ;.: "’I' ' .3262: I 222.22% ‘ +323.- 222227: .2 _ ,- ...;:-.-\"i .2221“. . J :32; . 2 2;.32'1'233: ..::;:~2‘!-:-.;;,2:..~-n23: .,,~,..-é.:;_I:-:~:;~:-:; . ’ ‘ .HI_ .I . ‘l'l '.' I" 'II‘I. ':. :14. . '|'-.-“\ .1 . ' O.\' 0“ .. ':‘..' u 99' I . I o - 0:; air: A' II . Ryan,» - 09")" ‘.‘ ' :. ‘ . '9”... .."'.:I:‘:I: OHIO :1 .':.r.‘..;l:'“‘. .l?‘ ‘- r.“ an?" ;;T',:2'.L .II.'::1£°,'.‘.'.:..II ‘ . . '.'. . ‘.' ;, I ‘.‘ . IQ; ..; 2. .' .. ..:' ”M I I II" .I.. :‘ 9‘}. at“). ‘t'l.::. I I“::I .I'; ., “I '91“ . .I.¢' ”I“ |‘ O ’.‘.- I'. ." .:4 '.‘ .:l‘b' 1.0;.1 W'P’\'.o to... I-‘illzi... '.‘ .: .4... "}'_I“r.:.'g'." '.’...” I I . ~WI.I I ‘l -IMI+' 'I 3I! 'I'II “I“ ’I‘I' II 333' I' I 3" I .I I I . 2| ”tho 'I :J: |:I I I :‘E It». I 3:: hf}: :> ”‘32:; " ‘II‘I'I;:“ ix”. ‘ L1\2‘..;‘I‘I“'lqo;I".\:.}II?III I"!I‘IJI'I"".'I;r'1:II-I.I‘.':‘.".33.. {‘03 'I . 3.5" IQ": 'nl" . II... . ‘.'I ;‘_.,I 1?” '.' ‘O: I . . 'OIW . l‘. I '. ‘.‘. .0.0‘." '.4 0‘ IL“...- I 0‘. .I.I."' VI.‘..I..IltI. 032'. I. I :.I -. r 3. .;:.I:I‘ 'L'..' .2. . I“: '.':f " It. . ' I‘. -« .. " 3' 1.7: .f-I .2332 M :94“ '3' 2:; '.I.' .3222-5-1; 2.2922222, 93°11; 322-2“ ~. .:;1~‘:~;-.~ _.,, 2.153‘3";-.vté.’"'1'193'-=°fZ; I :::'. '; I ‘ I ‘ I . I I“ ‘.: ;'.r'; 'r:|' 1'}... :: I;‘:I":".:‘ .:...\I I I. i...‘.I.:':".:f::_:|.:.':‘1::".‘f‘ H. .I". :1‘; .:|.;:{.; ‘.;| I‘. :.;‘:.' '.‘...1’ '.'...\\O :‘. :.:‘-.' H". ’ x.“ '. ‘.‘ . 1% 1'9 )g~:| .. I‘~. :::'. .‘."' '.‘ .‘L‘ ‘.‘ .f..‘ ‘1‘.:‘:.I‘. l. t ' .I . " ;' I .- o 'l ' I I '.‘. I I.I I . ' .!I.' I‘l I..I .I‘ I ' II '.' O. ' .. . OI... I .7. .‘ '.‘... .II'I'I 7"; ." . II I.) IIIIIIP‘IIII'I'I' I "v. I‘III'I'I'. III" M" ”4:. I III" .." I."I.:" ‘.'“ “ant“. U" ’29... II xv:Iv‘hI'IVfil'flfh;:.'.I:II"'I ':::'-‘.1." H. ':I‘ I'I'If': “"2_:',: ‘.' ' 1‘2?“ I" {‘II I1 . l E || I 0'... ‘1'. .' ' H . 1 0 . LI. 3“. :I' ”Im‘ II"... . H" ' . LN '- I. 9" '. . '.‘ '.'... ‘. '| no ‘9'.) - v ‘.'J‘ .-..I....0.0|. “0. .9‘1' . I: . ‘ '.‘..C.0.“...‘._I.. v" an". - I I)..-:|:'. . ' . 2 D ' _"‘. '3; '*"I o I“ ".‘9'.':'.I.'|:"' .5. ,q; ‘.‘ .. 9;. g I .,"‘ Jib-I I'II'O. 0:"..I‘...'.'-"JOO|.".'l‘...’"Ip.l I'l”"{9‘.u‘h.I\"Hutu}. '.‘ J... . I i I. . I-b ".0" ‘1‘. .' “I I . I'"';' '. -."" .. '.l| ‘.'. '..4 4‘ .‘ ,,.|l I'.‘.4‘t.‘“0|‘ . .,- .000; "'.‘. 41|0"".' ‘.ggui."".-.. 0'.“ Owl .'." I I . I I I ' . 7': I I 0". '1. '1'.“ II.I 0‘ II. I‘I\I.Iu' ‘I .':' ‘ II I I I. :: ‘.' .:I :‘. “finial.“ I“ '; .gI I. ' . V .‘ I 1 “"3. 0.0: ' I 'I‘: I I I I ‘I. "-’ "'4" 7.1.,“ I“ . '.‘ It“ .' ' ‘IAIIZ' :':'| g I II. OIOILI'1'IE q I .I I I II I' I II. "II. H 'I I‘-I;. ‘ ‘I. ’ ° ‘. .:I.II '. I- I I. " 'z' I-O‘H‘FI II '.O‘d .'I'\"I‘|II( .4.) a." .. I‘II)‘. l? o O! "1' :I'-}'TO Q ' '.‘:I"{ .I I' (an; .I 0" I. “:3. I .‘-‘Ir-"‘I‘ 0":' "I" "b1 I!“ I\.| . ‘I‘ I I ":‘ 1.. no : I1“O.OO. ‘ ’.' )II‘I.:QI'I.II%-I'-':III.‘I '..‘.‘:‘:I_'51. “:I'III:I.I “Hf" I“."...:; \‘ol‘ L". ’ '. M. 350‘}. .:l 'q-fitgl‘ "3:_|_.‘.‘:I '1'?" 3...". “In.” 3.2:..3‘ ‘.',afi’J I .I I‘ ‘0 . l I I. I... ' I'l‘. ‘ .' . .. °. ' .y I .-." . p- . 01.... :I:I\II‘_. I . :9 I ,I ‘~ I'. . “. .I‘ I o I P";- '.II':‘ :35 |: .‘z' 2":th 04" f. ‘1‘..“.I :‘J- ‘.' A. F"; 'I'.'I';i:: Ic I‘c‘fif‘stI. in]... h} “:51. I. I! ”#th I" '1‘.‘I\:":r:':‘-.I\."c KIWI“... 'I"' -::\II 50“... II \zfl :95. 3' .‘ I I ’ h I I '33:. ‘1 ;:I.'_ I .III' I“ I '. I II ‘5 1:4 1.); b‘iv?‘ '.I I." O. I! .IIC’I" ”I~‘:II'.‘.I: 'I’HI.I“II:I.‘I IzIzbeivufiqu' '.II"'I':':\\V"I‘.. 32:39»; .xhdJ .' 5"sz ‘I I' III. ' :I:":‘.:I.“ I OI'.:" ‘.‘. 3:3: :I. I‘“‘\/ I\ III)! I.I l ‘..' _ ' .l _‘ . .I O.OI| I.. .,.. .II. .'.'_ . ‘.' '. ‘.'... .. .. '.'..IO‘ ' ‘2...) ..II’| '.'..-. .'o:..~.l o “." . ....’ I. _"I:‘ ’. H‘ .1 . I ‘.‘ '0' ' ' _“"\..g-II '. . 2 I' . I-I 'Il.‘..:>." ' . . -l\ ‘ ""2 "‘1‘: '.': ‘1‘ 0" I“.)’. ‘.‘o "."::::”"| ';“ . f I..|l. II“ I... ‘1... .II ;' I'-..".I..h ‘ "II.'I'..\ .1 " ,II[' 'I' V>'\.I.\"~. ‘JOII'.|I' .".’1II ll "I.I H‘ I...‘1'I NV [.00 3:?(0 . ‘ | I .‘I II II. '-.I"‘... .I '.i 'y. "..‘ f""". .;;1 ' OII'I'I" ', '.‘ " ‘. ‘ .. "W“.X'I.I‘:1.‘\“.'h..i. ‘.'I.‘ '.‘: l Isz II‘I' ”k“ I‘ III I “S"! II I’lrzf} I: |‘_ ,:'I. :II '0‘“. :::'. .l ‘QW I" ‘3'." :‘ II. I... W??? I: 1;: :tl'; ‘ ”3&4 '.‘. .‘Qm: I:;1~(I}‘{,Q:II :{II'Izh' 2:,“ IXI U‘I~:.:I%‘.>qu.. .:"u'-‘:':‘ :‘q‘h ' ‘ 35‘?1:|:\1:.I|:\| :..: I a- I“ I” .' I . ‘.'... ’JI I, _|‘ g. .. '.’. K 3.0.; ‘.'“ _-II" .‘.'“:.'.I 0‘ '1‘.“ '9 4...“. ":_.I In. ICIIIOO o. ‘ '. c.“g|ol4.. l."1‘.":“I.IH lzl‘ : I".I"I' .‘ l . - _ . ""1 I ‘.‘I‘I- '3‘. I..I."Il '.\.::’ ‘0‘... 'II':IIA":W;:.1‘::‘: 4.¥ml:l‘.. ._l‘:| :' "'4‘“. I I 'h'gsg; "“|.‘ .0 at" ... ‘.1.'1..I|‘:OO)..I."’ _ II‘~"‘ Cl 0' I. .| I 0. ' . II.“ ‘. I ‘.1'. F:;' I I..‘...' .. .I..... 1‘ ‘N; I .:k ‘I:::::‘! H‘ .3.‘:,. '.‘. 'l;:l (.0 . 1‘5’04. \‘.“'....I I . .l. . I. ‘0 ‘:.""".. “.I.I'1.:‘..‘H).“‘;I;:I <.l'. L....‘”"I.I:'.I:II‘I l,;..W “3‘ e'“: :‘\‘.I .‘ ”'.‘; 'II‘:I;.‘W :, IIh ' H‘h’ \ ‘3’“ ‘.'..U . . . I . . ‘ l I . h. o I I. . 6| 'I:_:' .: I- '.‘:‘A;$'Hg.; |p ‘P' “III..." {N (:f Pkrrgp’ ”I? "_:‘ :‘O‘I:.I;~.I;::.:II‘. I . II;.I"\|"§ fl.:t~‘;‘ :hlz‘gl: a" :11: .z‘ “ “'.': '4 13W .32,“ I. ',_I;.:.' NJ? 2",. :‘fl. “1; .' ' I982". .3 W ' ‘ 2211"2;9I:I3;5§‘$'”'3 ”Man 2 2" I.I ”'3‘ ' ' .' IAI- ‘ “$IIIII'IV;...II 262:1. 32;; 'h; M :Ir:1":’.r‘:~ (II- .32; \‘v‘ .$(.$<‘ .. ""I'I'JII .5222 I3." . é, ' W“ I‘ CI ‘ '.'| . II I OI. . " . I '|-|"IO I I I“ I’fi?‘ I '1 U. ‘.'. I .' i "u I“. .. I J“; .I‘ I I. It. ;:;::‘, Lg! III ‘ l." :1}. ' {I‘IIIII' 'I,. ..l i-fik‘ L ”.4“: l'! 3"}I ILL. II II I. 1 . ‘ § .1P:..‘;.': "I :(‘I\‘ Y‘S“ ‘.’. ‘6“ ‘.al‘[ }.r:‘\; O?13.II'I':5K¢"~V. ':.I"'IFE:Q\: I .;I §\ (hi; '3“ ‘ I II‘ 0| ' °' | . . ‘ I}~'..l:""|4 W. ' .. - 2 II " . "m" .I‘ \I‘ ‘ ‘ " m2. " 'I‘ .I' FRI {MT-2:? (I " {'I'h‘ 2"l3'.:..‘.'-‘ '- ..- , ‘J I'.'I . ‘3 ‘.’ "91;, " ’M “(19% Fifi-PW ' '1. “2-“! 'I' " " “3?! w“ M- :I. «III»; .::..» 23'2". ”I v‘; qfiufig :; 33.322422 .2 ':£: H. ‘ M I 5“- I. |:III. Jfb .I:I.RI |:'qll ‘1 .t;'l.’ L31: '.‘IJ'§.‘I\I}.' Huff ' ‘{\ wg$ '.’? ' :kgt :3 lif‘fiII ‘:'I‘ m I‘ll I'II‘ I“ II| M" I III 3“". I':II" t‘é'l ”It” '49:, 3;": "‘11:; I131: “"1. {It “11‘": -j‘: H. Ir'.I‘_'I :L". 1.. {m} . I. 1:.Ip ‘1“ u,§‘.), 'l.‘1‘.\ :- I'I.)IIIIIII “43¢" {Irgh I}. ' ‘2‘ a}: I.|:|;".:I"1L,'}I r'lp' - 'P.'. .;.1. :.I¢"|.. If'fl $1;“ 5'. ;l | I I... .L.I.‘.{I.rh"-.'kl"l._'.“..:‘l. d I " . . 'fil ‘1'...‘I.“ N ‘ '.‘ wa " .' '.' V "42. 'I ‘ C I" ' I} ‘ ‘ N . M In; 'I n' .- III “ rI'.-:;i:.s""r$1.‘-y IIII' I L LIBRARY Michigan State. ‘ University This is to certify that the thesis entitled TRENDS IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN SNOWMOBILE OWNERS presented by Kevin Ralph Szcodronski has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of Science degree in Park and Recreation Resources Dip/Q $1; Majoémresso/ Date May 18, 1978 0-7639 -p-1&..-. ”I_~.* on» .-... m‘.’—M.M.¢W ’I‘ "I TRENDS IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN SNOWMOBILE OWNERS By Kevin Ralph Szcodronski 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 1978 F ‘b C‘\\v5\ 3 ABSTRACT TRENDS IN THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN SNOWMOBILE OWNERS By Kevin Ralph Szcodronski There are indications of a possible downturn in the popularity of snowmobiling in Michigan and forecasts of future participation in the activity are needed to aid Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the snowmobile industry in decision making. As a first step in developing forecasts of snowmobiling, this study tests whether or not Michigan snowmobiler characteristics have remained stable over time. Three characteristics are examined; socio-economic, snowmobiling participation, and snowmobile ownership. Two approaches are used to assess the changes in characteris- tics: (l) a longitudinal study between registered snowmo- bile owners in 1970 and 1977 and (2) a cross-sectional anal- ysis among snowmobile adoption groups. Results indicate that socio-economic characteristics of snowmobile owners have remained relatively stable over time. The average amount of snowmobile activity by registered ma— chine owners has decreased from 48.0 days of participation in 1970 to 23.7 days in 1977. During the same time however, snowmobile investments have been increasing. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am most of all grateful to Dr. Daniel J. Stynes, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, for his con- tinual support and constructive criticism throughout the entirety of the study. I am also indebted to him for making this study financially possible. In addition, I would like to extend my appreciation to Dr. Francis Domoy, Department of Park and Recreation Re- sources, and Dr. Robert I. Wittick, Department of Geography, for their inputs toward the successful completion of the study and for serving on my graduate committee. I am also appreciative to Mr. John Kennedy, Recreation Services Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, for his assistance and cooperation in acquiring and lending us a copy of the current Michigan snowmobile registration list from which the sample was taken for the survey. Finally, undue recognition must be given to my wife, Holly, for her faithful support and understanding during the more demanding times of the study. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES. CHAPTER 1. CHAPTER 2. CHAPTER 3. CHAPTER 4. INTRODUCTION The Problem. Objective. The Approach LITERATURE REVIEW. Snowmobile Studies The Lanier Study . . Diffusion of Innovations DATA COLLECTION. The Questionnaire. Sampling Procedures. Survey Administration. . . Return Rate and Follow- -up Procedures Data Processing. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Potential Nonresponse Bias . ' Description of the 1977 Michigan Snowmobile Population. Socio- Economic Characteristics. Snowmobiling Participation Characteristics . Snowmobile Ownership Characteristics. Synopsis of the Typical Michigan Registered Snowmobile Owner in 1977.. Estimation of 1977 Michigan snowmobile Participation. . Comparison of the 197O and I977 Snowmobile Populations. . . . . Results of the T- Tests. . Descriptive Comparisons of Selected Variables iii vi ~q oun¢~ r4 l3 l6 l6 18 20 26 28 29 35 35 36 39 4O 4O 41 42 45 CHAPTER 5. APPENDIX A. APPENDIX B. APPENDIX C. APPENDIX D. Family Income of Snowmobile Owners Type of Snowmobiling Participated In . . . . Activities Undertaken in Asso- ciation with Snowmobiling . Summary of the 1970 and 1977 Snowmobiler Comparisons. . . Comparisons of Snowmobile Adoption Groups Snowmobiler Adoption Groups. . Analysis of the Snowmobile Adoption Groups . . Analysis of Variance Results. Chi Square Results on Total Family Income . . . . T- Test Results. . . Summary of the Comparisons Between the Snowmobile Adoption Groups CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Trends in Socio-Economic Characteristics. Trends in Snowmobiling Participation Characteristics Trends in Snowmobile Ownership Characteristics Recommendations . Forecasts of Future Snowmobiling Activity . . . Continuous Data Collection . Mbnitoring Adoption and Dropout to Measure Marginal Changes MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE SURVEY. INTRODUCTORY LETTER USED IN THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE STUDY . THE CONVERSATION GUIDE AND QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE TELEPHONE FOLLOW-UP OF NON- RESPONDENTS OF THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNER- SHIP AND USE SURVEY. . . . . . . . SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES TO THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE QUESTION- NAIRE. . . . . . . . . LIST OF REFERENCES. iv 46 46 48 51 52 55 6O 6O 67 69 7O 71 72 73 73 74 75 76 82 83 87 97 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE 10. ll. 12. 13. LIST OF TABLES COMPARISONS OF THE ORIGINAL AND FOLLOW-UP RESPONDENTS. . . . . . . . . . . COMPARISONS BETWEEN MAILED AND TELEPHONE RESPONDENTS. . . . . . . . . . COMPARISONS OF THE 1970 AND 1977 SNOW- MOBILE POPULATIONS . . . . . TOTAL FAMILY INCOME OF SNOWMOBILE OWNERS IN 1970 AND 1977 . . . . . . . TYPES OF SNOWMOBILING PARTICIPATED IN DURING 1970 AND 1977 . . . ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN IN ASSOCIATION WITH SNOWMOBILING IN 1970 AND 1977. . ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SELECTED SNOWMOBILER CHARACTERISTICS AMONG ADOPTION GROUPS. COMPARISONS FOR 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME OF SNOWMOBILE OWNERS . COMPARISON FOR 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: PRESENT AGE OF SNOWMOBILE OWNERS COMPARISONS OF 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: AGE OF OWNERS WHEN SNOWMOBILING WAS FIRST TAKEN UP. COMPARISONS OF 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: AVERAGE AGE OF SNOWMOBILES COMPARISONS OF 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: PERCENT OF SNOWMOBILES PURCHASED NEW . COMPARISONS OF 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE OF SNOWMOBILES. 32 34 43 . 47 . 49 50 59 6O 62 63 65 66 67 FIGURE 1. FIGURE 2. FIGURE 3. FIGURE 4. FIGURE 5. FIGURE 6. LIST OF FIGURES GROWTH PATTERNS OF REGISTERED SNOWMOBILES IN MICHIGAN AND SNOWMOBILE RETAIL SALES IN THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . ADOPTER CATEGORIZATION ON THE BASIS OF INNOVATIVENESS . . . . . . . DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE WINTER REGISTERED OWNERS IN 1977 ADOPTED SNOWMOBILING . . . . . . . . . . FIVE SNOWMOBILER ADOPTION GROUPS THREE SNOWMOBILER ADOPTION GROUPS. vi 14 23 38 54 56 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Snowmobiling began gaining interest as a recreational activity in the early 19605. Interest continued to grow throughout the sixties and into the seventies, making snow- mobiling one of the most popular outdoor winter recreation- al activities throughout the northern United States and Canada. Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) re- ports that "snowmobiling is the most popular outdoor winter activity for Michigan residents and the time spent in it is substantial" (Michigan DNR, 1977a, pp. 5-6). However, re- cent national snowmobile sales and registrations in Michi- gan indicate a possible downturn in the popularity of the sport (see Figure l). The snowmobile industry marketed 250 machines in 1960 (Robertson and Bishop, 1975). Annual retail sales increas- ed to 425,000 by 1970, with over 100 snowmobile manufac- turers in existence. Sales rose to 450,000 by 1973, but the number of manufacturers decreased to an estimated 38 companies. Many of the sales during this time were thought to be distress sales by those companies which were dropping out of the snowmobile manufacturing business. Retail sales dropped to 243,000 during the 1975-76 winter, with only 13 500- 400- Number of 300‘ Snowmobiles (in thousands) 200~ 100- 0 Retail Sales in the United States Michigan Registrations l 1 T I T r T T T I1 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 Calender Years lSales figures were taken from Doyle (1976). 2Registration figures were taken from Manning and Holecek (1975) and information forwarded by Michigan's Secretary of State. FIGURE 1. GROWTH PATTERNS OF REGISTERED SNOWMOBILES IN MICHIGAN AND SNOWMOBILE RETAIL SALES IN THE UNITED STATES 3 manufacturers remaining in the market. Three more compa- nies discontinued snowmobile production in 1976, leaving just 10 manufacturers for the 1976-77 season (Doyle, 1976). The number of registered snowmobiles in Michigan fol- lows a similar growth pattern. In 1969, the first year snowmobiles were required to be registered, there were 68,000 registered machines in the state. Registrations in- creased more than fourfold by 1972 to 290,000 (Manning and Holecek, 1975). The number of registered machines peaked at over 392,000 in 1974 and then declined to under 370,000 by February 1977. The above sales figures demonstrate how the snowmobile industry responded rapidly to provide recreationists with snowmobiles during the activity's emergence. Providers of snowmobile services also responded to the ”snowmobile move- 'ment." Michigan DNR was called upon to provide public trails and open areas for snowmobile use on public lands. As a result, Michigan has about 1,800 miles of marked snow- mobile trails within its 3.7 million acres of state forests. Also, in addition to the state forests, Michigan provides approximately 100,000 acres within its state parks and rec- reation areas for family-style snowmobiling (Michigan DNR, 1976a). Michigan DNR also implemented a private land leasing program during the 1972-73 season in an attempt to better meet the needs of Michigan snowmobilers (Manning and Holecek, 1975). The Problem The snowmobile industry and Michigan DNR are presently being confronted with the uncertain future of snowmobiling. The industry has to decide how many snowmobiles to place on the market during upcoming seasons and Michigan DNR needs to know if the services and facilities they are providing will be adequate. In both instances, accurate forecasts of the future participation in snowmobiling will be useful for decision making. Mest recreational forecasting techniques relate future consumption of an activity to socio-economic variables, such as income, education, occupation, age, sex, and lei- sure (ORRRC 1962). A basic assumption with these tech- niques is that the relationships between the socio-economic variables and consumption will remain constant over time. There is considerable evidence that this assumption may not be true (Meeller and Echelberger 1974, Burton 1971). We are living in an era of rapidly changing be- havior patterns. This phenomenon is readily ob- served in outdoor recreation where both new and old activities experience periods of rapid growth followed by plateaus in participation (for exam- ple, snowmobiling and cross country skiing). Such changes in recreation behavior frequently impose pressures to change existing policies and management procedures. However, according to Chubb (1974), there are only a few studies that appear to have the detection of change as a major goal (Lanier 1974, pp. 157—158). As a first step in developing forecasts of snowmobiling activity, this study tests whether or not snowmobiler 4 characteristics have remained stable over time. If the characteristics are found to be unstable, the changes are documented so that conventional forecasting techniques can be replaced with alternative methods which compensate for the changes. At the same time, descriptive information is gathered on the characteristics of 1977 Michigan snowmobil- ers. This information will be useful in identifying who snowmobilers are and in designing programs, facilities, and policies to suit them. Objective The objective of this study in accordance with the previously defined problem is to identify the nature and extent of trends in the characteristics of snowmobilers in Michigan. The following characteristics are analyzed in this study: (1) socio-economic, including income, education, present age, and age when snowmobiling was first taken up. (2) snowmobiling participation, described by the number of days snowmobiled during a season. (3) snowmobile ownership, including number of snow- mobiles owned, horsepower of the snowmobiles, age of the snowmobiles, new or used machine pur- chases, and the dollar investment in snowmobiles. The Approach A statewide survey of registered snowmobile owners in Michigan was used to gather data describing the 1977 snow- mobile population. Two approaches were then taken to as- sess the changes in the characteristics of snowmobilers. First, a longitudinal (trend) study was conducted to iden- tify trends in the Michigan snowmobile population over time. This trend study utilized data collected in past surveys of Michigan snowmobilers and the data from the 1977 survey. Second, a cross-sectional study was conducted by using only the data which describes the 1977 snowmobile popula- tion. Snowmobiling adoption groups were defined according to the number of years the person had been snowmobiling. Analyses between the adoption groups determined whether or not significant changes in characteristics occur with re- spect to the number of years a person snowmobiles. Induc- tive statistics (hypothesis testing) were used in both the longitudinal and cross-sectional studies to determine if the changes in the characteristics of the snowmobile popu- lation are statistically significant. CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Past snowmobile research is reviewed in this chapter in order to describe past snowmobile populations and deter- mine if comparable time series data exist on the character- istics of snowmobilers. Similar information on the current snowmobile population can then be combined with the previ- ously collected data for the analysis and assessment of the changes in snowmobiler characteristics over time. Diffusion of innovations, a concept which describes the adoption rates of new products or activities, is intro- duced at the end of this chapter and examined for its ap- plicability for identifying changes in snowmobiler char- acteristics (i.e., early adopters of snowmobiling may have significantly different characteristics than late adopters). Snowmobile Studies The amount of research on snowmobiling has paralleled the rapid growth of the activity's popularity. Bury et a1. (1976) presents an extensive bibliography (188 entries) on off-road recreation vehicle research, classifying the lit- erature into six categories: (1) economic, (2) behavioral, (3) safety, (4) technological, (5) environmental, and 7 8 (6) administrative. There have been two national snow- mobile and off-road vehicle symposiums held at Michigan State University which included presentations and discus- sions on each of the above categories (Chubb, 1971, Holecek, 1973a). A 1973 market study of 5000 snowmobile owners in North America provides a good general description of the national snowmobile population.1 Holecek (1973b, p.5fi9 summarizes the results of the study as follows: Demographics: Average age is thirty-eight (38) years old. Nearly nine of ten (86%) are married. There are an average of 4.2 persons per house- hold. Seventy percent (70%) of the households have a total annual income of over $10,000. There is an average of nearly two (1.9) snowmobiles per household with two-thirds (2/3) of the households owning two or more machines. Mere than one-half (52%) of the sample purchased a snowmobile last season (1972-73). Each snowmobile is used an average of just over eleven (11.2) hours per week in an average season lasting fifteen and one-third (15.3) weeks. The Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission has sup- ported a number of snowmobile studies within portions of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (Eddie, 1971, Gogebic Community College, 1974, Robertson and Bishop, 1975). This 1Questionnaires were mailed to 5000 snowmobile owners throughout North America. However, only 31% of them.were returned, resulting in a sample size of 1545. 9 research focuses primarily on economic impact, facility needs, and preferences of snowmobilers, but also reports socio-economic, snowmobiling participation, and snowmobile ownership characteristics of the surveyed populations. There have been statewide snowmobile surveys conduct- ed in Minnesota (Kuehn, 1971), Vermont (University of Ver- mont, 1970), Ontario (Vila, 1971), and Michigan (Lanier, 1974, Michigan DNR, 1976b, Michigan DNR, 1977a). Studies conducted by Michigan DNR (1976b, 1977a) are primarily concerned with law enforcement, rules and regulations, and political questions. Some data on socio-economic and snow- mobiling characteristics of Michigan snowmobilers are docu- mented in the reports. Lanier (1974) gathered extensive data on socio-eco- nomic, snowmobiling participation, and snowmobile owner- ship characteristics of Michigan snowmobilers in 1970. He reports frequency counts, percentages, means, and standard deviations for many variables which describe the above three types of characteristics. All of the above studies were designed to meet the specific needs of the agency or firm which conducted them and very limited comparable data exist among the different studies. In addition to many studies being designed for a single purpose, the problem of examining change, as Chubb (1974) goes on to point out, is further complicated by study designs being changed from one study to another to such an extent that 10 comparisons of data are impossible. Such a situa- tion makes it difficult to determine trends in behavior (Lanier, 1974, p. 158). Since Lanier (1974) best documents the characteristics of Michigan snowmobilers, portions of his survey are repli- cated by this study in order to examine trends in snowmo- biler characteristics between 1970 and 1977. The following section summarizes the methods used by Lanier and presents the characteristics of the 1970 snowmbbile population. The Lanier Study Lanier (1974, p. 5) states the objectives of his study as follows: As Michigan is composed of three rather distinct geographic regions (the Upper Peninsula, the north- ern Lower Peninsula, and the southern Lower Penin- sula), it was of particular interest to determine if there were differences between snowmobilers in these regions, and if so, in what ways they differed. Whereas Lanier concentrates on comparing the snowmobile populations of three geographical regions at one point in time, this study combines the regions to form one geograph- ical area and compares the statewide snowmobile population at different time periods. A self-administered, mailed questionnaire was used by Lanier to gather the main body of information. The follow- ing categories of information are pertinent to this study: (1) Information describing the snowmobile make, year of manufacture, horsepower, and number of years owned. 11 (2) The amount of snowmobiling done in the 1969-70 season, measured in days. (3) The number of years the registered owner had owned a snowmobile. (4) The socio-economic characteristics of the household. (5) The kinds of activities pursued by the owner or members of the household while using the snowmobile(s) and also those activities as- sociated with a snowmobile trip (Lanier, 1974, pp. 23-27). The sample was drawn from the April 1970 registered snowmobile list maintained by Michigan's Secretary of State. A disproportionate random sampling method was used to select the snowmobile owners to be included in the survey. This type of method helped alleviate the problem of drawing a very small sample from the less densely popu— lated Upper Peninsula and an extremely large sample from the densely populated southern Lower Peninsula. ”Since little was known about the characteristics of snowmobilers, it was necessary to arbitrarily set the sample size for each region as: 1,000 from Region I, 1,500 from Region II, and 2,500 from Region III" (Lanier, 1974, p. 31).1 The questionnaires were mailed on May 26 and June 1, 1970. From the original sample of 5,133 registrations, 129 were deleted due to: unknown addresses, snowmobiles not being used, snowmobiles no longer being owned, because the snowmobiles were 1Region I is the Upper Peninsula, Region II the north— ern Lower Peninsula, and Region III the southern Lower Peninsula. 12 demonstrators owned by retailers, or because the owners resided outside Michigan. This resulted in a net sample of 5,004 registrations. Of the total 3,705 returned questionnaires, 178 were rejected due to respondents' refusal to fill out the ques- tionnaire, duplicate returns, and residence in another state. This resulted in a net response of 3,527, or a response rate of 70 percent (Lanier, 1974, p. 40). Upon return, the questionnaires were coded and placed on a computer file for analysis. Tables were constructed to compare "(1) socio-economic characteristics, (2) snowmobile ownership characteristics, (3) attitudes toward regulations governing snowmobiling, and (4) patterns of use of snow- mobile owners resident in each region" (Lanier, 1974, p. 45). Lanier's data presents the following picture of Michi- gan snowmobilers in 1970. The head of snowmobile-owning households averaged 42.5 years of age and 12.1 years of completed education. The gross annual family income was $13,500 and there were an average of 1.8 children under the age of 19 years in the household. Each household owned an average of 1.4 snowmobiles with an average horsepower of 20.3 per machine. The sport was still relatively new in Michigan with one-third of the respondents reporting that they made their first snowmobile purchase in 1969. The registered snowmobile owner used the machine an average of 48 days during the 1969—70 season, which demonstrated the activity's popularity among the snowmobile population in 1970. Fifty-eight percent (58%) 13 of this use consisted of trail riding, 31% of scrambling, and 1% of competitive racing. More details on the Lanier results are presented in Chapter 4 where the 1970 data are compared with 1977 figures. Diffusion of Innovations "All individuals in a social system do not adopt an innovation at the same time. Rather, they adopt in an or- dered time sequence, and they may be classified into adopt- er categories on the basis of when they first begin using a new idea" (Rogers, 1971, p. 175). Rogers (1962, 1971) contends that the adoption distribution over time is either normal or approaches normality. The following five cate- gories are defined as areas under the normal curve: (1) Innovators, (2) Early Adopters, (3) Early Majority, (4) Late Majority, and (5) Laggards (see Figure 2). A synthesis of a variety of research studies indicates that the characteristics of individuals are different among the adoption categories.l With this in mind, Michigan snowmobile owners in 1977 can be segmented into adoption categories based on the year they first began participating in the activity. Trends in characteristics of snowmobilers can then be identified by approximating a longitudinal study with a cross-sectional analysis among the adoption 1See Rogers (1971, pp. 183-191) for a description of the general characteristics of each of the adopter cate- gories. 14 N' p———-—--————-———— I I . EARLY : : ADOPTERS : : . EARLY . INNOVATORS : : MAJORITY MAJORITY :LAGGARDS 2.57. i 13.5%; 347. 34% g 167. X-st i-sd X+sd The innovativeness dimension, as dividual adopts an innovation or this variable may be partitioned off standard deviations (sd) from *This figure has been reproduced p. 182). measured by the time at which an in- innovations, is continuous. However, into five adopter categories by laying the average time of adoption (X). in its entirety from Rogers (1971, FIGURE 2. ADOPTER CATEGORIZATION ON THE BASIS OF INNOVA- TIVENESS 15 categories. There are two dangers in using a cross-sectional survey for approximating the study of process or change. First, there is the danger that respondents may not be able to report such information accurately. The farther back they are forced to reach into their memories, the less accurate the information is likely to be. Second, the researcher should not be misled into interpreting the earlier-year data as a cross section of the population at that time, since his sample is limited to the present population (Babbie, 1973, p. 65). For instance, early snowmobile adopters who have since dropped the activity will not be included in the 1977 sur- vey and their characteristics may not be represented in the cross-sectional data. This study employs both cross- sectional and longitudinal designs in order to balance the advantages and shortcomings of each. CHAPTER 3 DATA COLLECTION Information on the characteristics of the 1977 Michi- gan snowmobile population was gathered in a statewide sur- vey of registered snowmobile owners administered by the Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University. This information is compared with that presented in Lanier (1974) in order to identify the trends in the character— istics of Michigan snowmobilers. The Questionnaire A self-administered mailed questionnaire was selected to collect the main body of information for this study. A mailed questionnaire was chosen because of the following advantages as described by Crapo and Chubb (1969, pp. 22- 23): (1) Several individuals in a population may be questioned simultaneously, with no increase in research staff. (2) Questionnaires tend to be less expensive to administer than interviews. (3) A mail questionnaire survey can obtain infor- mation from people located in scattered geographic areas. 16 l7 (4) When information concerning several members of a group or necessitating the checking of records is required, questionnaires permit consultation and discussion during the completion. The primary disadvantage of a mailed questionnaire is the problem of low response rates (Crapo and Chubb, 1969). However, since this particular survey is directed towards a specific interest group (snowmobilers), it was antici- pated that the response rate would be high due to the participant's inherent interest in the survey subject. The questionnaire was designed to collect information within the following five categories: (1) How and when the participant got started in snowmobiling. This information is used to iden- tify snowmobiling adoption groups for the cross- sectional analysis. (2) Participant's snowmobile activities during the past winter (1976-77). (3) Other winter outdoor recreation activities which snowmobilers participate in. (4) Snowmobile ownership history. (5) Socio-economic characteristics. The questionnaire used by Lanier in his 1970 snow— mobile survey was referred to before designing the specific questions. Comparable questions were designed to permit a longitudinal analysis to be conducted between the 1970 and 1977 snowmobile populations. The research committee held various meetings at which each question was critiqued in l8 terms of clarity and its importance to the study. Recrea- tion planning specialists from Michigan DNR were also con- sulted for additional feedback concerning the design of the questions. Most of the questions were closed-ended to allow for easy coding. Questions asking for the respondent's opinion or reasons influencing a particular answer were left open- ended. After all revisions were finalized, the questionnaire was taken to a local printer. It was printed on both sides of 11" by 25" paper which folded into six 8%" by 11” size pages. Blue paper was selected since it has been shown to result in a higher response rate than alternative colors (Crapo and Chubb, 1969). A copy of the questionnaire is included in Appendix A. Sampling Procedures Michigan's Secretary of State maintains a list of all registered snowmobiles in Michigan. Since the individual listings include the name, street address, city, state, and zip code of the snowmobile owner, the registration list provides a convenient sampling frame. However, there are some disadvantages in drawing the sample from this list. First, only registered snowmobile owners can be included in the sample. Those owners who are not required by law to register their machines, plus those who simply do not l9 choose to register theirs even though it is required, 1 Second, those who would not be included in the survey. registered their machines after the list was last updated (February 1977) would also be excluded from the sample. Third, it is possible to include people in the sample who no longer snowmobile. Past snowmobile owners who did not properly notify the Secretary of State when they sold, destroyed, or abandoned their machine(s) will still be in- cluded on the registration list until the end of the cur- rent three-year registration period.2 And last of all, multiple machine owners have a higher probability of being included in the sample than single machine owners. The registration list includes separate listings for every snowmobile, which means the same person may be included on the list more than once. As an example, a person having three snowmobiles registered under his name is included in three separate entries on the list. Therefore, this 1All snowmobiles which are operated in the State of Michigan must be registered by the owner with Michigan's Secretary of State, except under the following two circum- stances: (1) snowmobiles which are operated exclusively on lands owned or under the control of the snowmobile owner, and (2) snowmobiles which are operated exclusively in spe- cial events of limited duration which are prearranged under a permit from the governmental unit having jurisdiction (Michigan DNR and Michigan Sheriffs Association, 1973). 2The owner of any registered snowmobile must notify Michigan's Secretary of State within 15 days if a snowmo- bile is destroyed or abandoned, sold or traded to another person, or if the address appearing on the registration no longer conforms with the owner's present address. Upon notification, Michigan's Secretary of State enters such fact in its records (Michigan DNR and Michigan Sheriffs Association, 1973). 20 person has three times more of a chance of being included in the sample than does a person having only one regis- tered snowmobile under his name. Even though the possible effects of the above dis- advantages were recognized, the registration list was used as the sampling frame. When possible, subsequent proce- dures attempt to correct for possible bias and/or indicate the magnitude and direction of the potential bias intro- duced by the sampling frame. An analysis of the potential bias in the survey sample is conducted in Chapter 4. The most current registration list (updated February 1977) was loaned to the Recreation Research and Planning Unit in the form of a computer tape. This loan was made possible through the cooperation and assistance of the Recreation Services Division, Michigan DNR. The list in- cluded a total of 369,880 registered snowmobiles. A sys- tematic sample with a sampling interval of 350 was used to draw the names from the list, resulting in an initial sample size of 1,056. After the deletion of duplicate names, snowmobile owners residing outside of Michigan, and machines which were registered by snowmobile retail deal— ers, the final sample size was 1,027. Survey Administration An introductory letter, to be mailed to everyone in the sample a few days prior to the mailing of the 21 questionnaires, was written and printed at the same time as the questionnaires. The introductory letter informed the survey subjects of the following: (1) The purpose and need of the study. (2) The fact that they would be receiving a ques- tionnaire in the mail within the next few days. (3) How their name was selected. (4) The importance of their response toward the suc- cessful completion of the study. (5) The confidentiality of their responses. The intention of mailing the letter in advance was to stimulate the snowmobile owners to complete and return the questionnaire. Walker and Burdick (1977, p. 380) found "that groups receiving an advance postcard or an advance letter had significantly higher response rates, at the .01 level, than the group receiving no advance correspondence." A copy of the letter which was sent to the snowmobile owners in advance is located in Appendix B. Three mailing labels were printed for each subject in the sample, one for the introductory letter, one for the questionnaire, and one for record keeping. The introductory letter was mailed on Wednesday, June 22, 1977. They were sent by bulk-rate mailing at the cost of 2.1¢ per letter, as compared to 13¢ per letter if mailed first class.1 1"To take advantage of bulk-rate mailing, the research- er must send a minimum of 250 pieces, and these must be arranged in bundles according to zip code. Thus the post office is able to transmit bundles of questionnaires to a given zip code without separating and sorting them” (Babbie, 1973, p. 161). 22 The questionnaires were mailed on Monday, June 22, 1977, five days after the mailing of the letters. A pre- addressed stamped envelope was included with the ques- tionnaire for the convenience of the survey respondents. The questionnaires were also sent by bulk-rate, but a first class 13¢ stamp was placed on the return envelopes. Each of the survey subjects was given a unique code number which was placed on the backside of the return envelope. By using the code numbers, the respondents could be identified so that they would not be included in the follow-up pro- cess . Return Rate and Follow—up Procedures Figure 3 shows the distribution of returns. Initial returns were received on July 1, just four days after the questionnaires were mailed. Returns continued to come in steadily throughout the next 2% weeks at an average rate of 23 per day and then dropped sharply to 5 per day begin- 1 A telephone follow-up was initiated on ning on July 20. July 25, four weeks after the mailing of the questionnaires. The purpose of the follow-up was threefold. First, a higher response rate was desired, so the follow-up was used to reemphasize the importance of the subject's response towards the successful completion of the study. Second, 1The average return rate is based on a five day mail- ing week. 23 Questionnaires were mailed 140‘ on June 25, 1977. 130* 120‘ 110- 100- 904 Total Number of Responses = 406* Number 80« of 70a Returns Follow-up Conducted 60‘ July 25 — 501 August 4 40-4 30- 20- 10- o L 27 l 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 June F—July =!~ August—"I Time (Bars are weekly intervals) *Twelve (12) questionnaires filtered in between August 29 and October 7, 1977 and were included in the analyses, resulting in a total of 418 responses. FIGURE 3. DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE 24 the follow-up would aid in the identification of possible nonresponse: biases. And third, the follow-up would indi- cate the percentage of the sample which never received a questionnaire due to mail loss and/or incomplete or incor- rect addresses. A systematic sample of 100 was drawn from the subjects in the original sample who as of Friday, July 15 had not returned a questionnaire.1 Budget limitations ruled out more extensive follow-up procedures. Seven of the subjects included in the follow-up sample returned the questionnaire before they were telephoned, resulting in a sample size of 93 nonrespondents. Telephone numbers were located in the telephone books shelved in the Michigan State University library. The telephone information service was used to locate numbers not listed in the library books. Of the 93 in the non- respondent sample, 30 (32%) had either unpublished numbers or could not be located under the address as listed on the snowmobile registration list. This left 63 telephone calls to be made in the follow-up process. A telephone conversation guide and questionnaire were developed to use during the follow-up process (see Appen- dix C). The telephone calls were made on weekdays (Monday- 1There were 100 pages of address labels for the orig- inal sample. The systematic sample of nonrespondents was drawn by taking the first snowmobile owner which did not return a questionnaire beginning at the top of each page. 25 Thursday) between 6:00 and 8:00 P.M. It was thought that the chances of the registered snowmobile owner being home would be highest during this time. The telephoning pro- cess was completed in eight evenings of phoning. Four families were not at home throughout the two weeks and an- other had their phone disconnected. This resulted in a to- tal of 58 nonrespondents being talked to in the follow-up. Ten of the 58 'nonrespondents (17.2%) indicated.that they were not interested in completing the questionnaire, so they were asked to answer a few questions while on the tele- phone (see Appendix C for the questions which were asked). Only one refused to answer any of the questions, while another would not divulge any socio—economic information. Forty-eight of the 58 nonrespondents expressed an interest in completing the questionnaire. Those still having the questionnaire agreed to complete and return it within the next few days. Those who did not have one, either because they had disposed of it or had never re- ceived one, affirmed their current address and a question- naire was mailed to them the following day. Of those agree- ing to complete a questionnaire, 32 (66%) actually returned it. Thirteen of the nonrespondents (22.4%) never re- ceived the original questionnaire. This indicates that approximately 230 of the 1,027 questionnaires which were mailed never reached the homes of the survey subjects. A 26 total of 418 questionnaires were returned, resulting in a final response rate of 52.4% (418/797). The response rate may have been larger if the survey had been conducted in the late winter or early spring while the snowmobilers were still participating in the activity. However, the timing of the survey was dictated by the project's funding and the student program within the university. The results of the telephone follow-up and an analysis of the potential bias in the sample is located in Chapter 4. Data Processing The data from the survey were processed and analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) com- puter program. SPSS variable names and numerical codes were assigned to describe the data taken from the question- naires. The questionnaires were coded and the data placed on standard computer data forms by staff members of the Rec- reation Research and Planning Unit. After all the coding was completed, the data were keypunched and verified from the coding forms by the Data Processing Laboratory at Mich- igan State University. Prior to placing the data on the SPSS file, the computer cards were reviewed for coding and 1The SPSS variable list and codebook for the 1977 Snowmobile Ownership and Use Survey is available at the Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University. 27 keypunching errors. All of the numbers which were out of the acceptable range with respect to each of the variables were located and the corrections were made after reviewing the original questionnaire. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS The analysis is divided into three distinct parts. First, descriptive information is presented for the 1977 Michigan registered snowmobile population. Socio—economic, snowmobiling participation, and snowmobile ownership char- acteristics are discussed and compared (when applicable) with Michigan's general population. Second, data from the 1977 snowmobile survey are com- pared with the results of Lanier's 1970 survey to determine if changes have occurred in the above characteristics. T-tests are used to ascertain whether or not the changes are statistically significant. Third, 1977 registered snowmobilers are categorized into adoption groups according to when they first began participating in the activity. A cross-sectional analysis is then conducted to examine the differences between the groups. Prior to the above analyses, the results from the tel- ephone follow-up of nonrespondents are summarized and re- viewed for potential nonresponse biases in the sample. T-tests are again used to identify the significant differ- ences between the original respondents to the questionnaire 28 29 and those included in the follow-up process. Potential Nonresponse Bias Since the response rate of the 1977 snowmobile survey was only 48.3% (excluding the returns from the subjects in the telephone follow-up), the respondents are compared with the nonrespondents to identify the differences between the two groups. "If persons who respond differ substantially from those who do not, the results do not directly allow one to say how the entire sample would have responded —— certainly an important step before the sample is general— ized to the population” (Armstrong and Overton, 1977, p. 396). According to Armstrong and Overton (1977), there are three basic methods which can be used to protect against nonresponse bias within studies. They are: (l) reducing nonresponse itself. (2) taking a sample of nonrespondents and comparing them with respondents. (3) estimating the effects of nonresponse by using comparisons with known values for the population, subjective estimates, or extrapolation methods.1 All three of the above methods are used in this study in order to reduce and/or analyze nonresponse bias. One of 1See Armstrong and Overton (1977) for a description of the ways to estimate the effects of nonresponse. 30 the purposes of the telephone follow-up was to reduce the nonresponse rate by reemphasizing the importance of every- one returning a completed questionnaire for the successful completion of the study. Another reason for the follow-up was to gather data on a sample of the nonrespondents so that they could be compared with the respondents. The questionnaires returned by the snowmobile owners in the nonresponse sample were given a special code on the SPSS computer file so that they could be differentiated from the original respondents. By keeping the two groups separated, nonresponse bias can be identified based upon extrapolation methods. The most common type of extrapolation is carried over successive waves of a questionnaire. "Wave" refers to the response generated by a stimulus, e.g., a followup postcard. Persons who respond in later waves are assumed to have responded be— cause of the increased stimulus and are expected to be similar to nonrespondents (Armstrong and Overton, 1977, p. 397). The data collected over the telephone from the ten nonrespondents who indicated that they were not interested in completing the questionnaire were not included on the SPSS file. However, the data are summarized and discussed at the end of this section. T-tests are conducted to determine if the differences between the original respondents and those included in the follow-up sample are statistically significant. Only those in the follow-up sample who returned a questionnaire are included in the t—tests. It was anticipated that the 31 original respondents are more interested and involved in snowmobiling than those who had to be prompted to return the questionnaire.1 Therefore, the following variables were selectedtx>examine nonresponse bias since they measure the degree of interest or commitment that snowmobile owners have in snowmobiling: (l) The year snowmobiling was first taken up. (2) Number of snowmobiles owned. (3) Age of snowmobiles. (4) Average cost of the snowmobiles. (5) Number of days snowmobiled during the 1976-77 winter. Table 1 summarizes the results of the t-tests by giving the sample sizes, means, t-values, and two-tailed probabil- ities for all of the above variables. The results indicate that there is a significant difference (.05 level) between the original respondents and the follow-up respondents for when snowmobiling was first taken up. The follow-up sub- jects appear to have begun snowmobiling somewhat earlier than the original respondents. The differences of all the other variables were not statistically significant (.05 level) with respect to the two groups. Overall, the tests 1This anticipation is based upon the "interest hypoth— esis.” The hypothesis assumes that people who are more in- terested in the survey topic will be more likely to return the questionnaire than those having a lesser interest. See Armstrong and Overton (1977) for more details and further references pertaining to the "interest hypothesis." 32 TABLE 1 COMPARISONS OF THE ORIGINAL AND FOLLOW-UP RESPONDENTS Type . , Sample T 2-Tailed Variable 0f Size Mean Value Probability Respondent The year . Original 381 1971 snowmobil1ng 2 49 013 "39 firSt Follow-up 32 1970 taken up Number of Original 372 2.00 snowmobiles .17 .869 owned Follow-up 30 2.03 Ori inal 363 4.57 Age Of . g .50 .620 snomeblles Follow-up 30 4.77 Average cost Original 349 $861 of 1.49 .138 snowmobiles Follow-up 28 $740 Number Of days Original 308 23.8 snowmobiled 23 821 during the ° ' 1976-77 winter Follow up 26 23.0 33 indicate that nonresponse bias is at a minimum in the sur- vey sample. However, caution must still be taken during the interpretation of subsequent analyses since data were not gathered on almost half of the original registered snowmobile owners included in the sample. Table 2 compares the characteristics of the respon- dents of the questionnaire with the ten nonrespondents who expressed over the telephone that they were not interested in completing and returning the questionnaire. A review of the table indicates that there are some differences between the two groups. The nonrespondents have the fol- lowing characteristics when compared with the respondents: (l) a little older in age. (2) about the same education and income levels. (3) the same average year of snowmobile adoption. (4) a smaller percentage snowmobiled during the 1976-77 winter and those who did snowmobile aver- aged a lesser number of participation days. (5) owned more snowmobiles, but the average age of them is older. In summary, the above comparisons show that the non- respondents have similar socio-economic characteristics, but are less involved in snowmobiling than the respondents. However, the above comparisons are relatively weak general- izations and should be interpreted cautiously because of the small sample size of the nonrespondents. 34 TABLE 2 COMPARISONS BETWEEN MAILED AND TELEPHONE RESPONDENTS Variable Mailed Telephone n=368* n=9* The average adoption 1971 1971 year of snowmobiling Percentage who snowmobiled during 87.1% 77% the 1976-77 winter Average number of participation days 23.7 13.8 in snowmobiling Average number of snowmobiles owned 2'0 2-4 Average age of snowmobiles owned 4.6 6.0 (in years) Age of snowmobile 41 7 44 7 owners (in years) ' ' Average years of completed education 12.5 13.0 by snowmobile owners Average annual family income of $19,300 $19,000 snowmobile owners *The sample size may vary as much as 110% with respect to the individual variables due to different number of nonresponses to individual questions. Description of the 1977 Michigan Snowmobile Population Highlights of the 1977 snowmobile survey are presented in this section. The reader is referred to Appendix D for a more detailed description of the 1977 snowmobile popula- tion. Socio-Economic Characteristics The socio-economic characteristics of Michigan snow- mobile owners are as follow: (1) (2) (3) Their average age is equal to 41.7 years, with 72% between the ages of 30 and 60 years. Almost 9 of 10 (89.4%) are married, with 80% of the spouses also participants of snowmobiling. 81.7% have at least graduated from high school. Snowmobile owners have completed an average of 12.5 years of education, which is slightly higher than the 12.3 median school years com- pleted by Michigan's general population (Bureau of the Census, 1977b). The socio-economic characteristics of snowmobile- owning families are as follow: (1) There is an average of 1.93 children per family, with 72.7% of the children 10 years of age and older. Of those 10 years and older, 87.8% partic- ipate in snowmobiling. 35 36 (2) Almost 9 of 10 (89.5%) of the families have a combined gross income of at least $10,000 a year. Close to half of the families (45.6%) have an income of $20,000 or more. (3) 93.6% of the families own their permanent place of residence and 6.4% rent their homes. In com- parison, 74.4% of the Michigan families in the general population own and 25.6% rent their homes (Bureau of the Census, 1972). (4) 28.8% also own a second home, as compared to 4.3% of the general population in the North Cen- tral Region of the United States (Bureau of the Census, 1977a). Seventy-three percent (73%) of the snowmobile owners used their second home for snowmobiling an average of 13.6 days during the 1976-77 winter. (5) Almost half (49.6%) of the families stated that they live in rural areas. In contrast, the Bureau of the Census (1972) classifies only 26% of the general population of Michigan as living in rural areas. SnowmobilinggParticipation Characteristics The following are highlights of the snowmobiling par- ticipation characteristics of Michigan snowmobile owners in 1977: (1) (2) (3) (4) 37 Only 8.7% took up snowmobiling during the past three years (1975-1977), whereas 78.8% began snowmobiling between 1969 and 1974 (see Figure 4 for more complete figures). 87.5% of the owners snowmobiled during the 1976- 77 winter and averaged 23.7 days of participa- tion. Reasons cited by the 12.5% not partici- pating in 1976-77 included health (29.4%), weather (21.6%), and the family's snowmobiles were inoperable or had been sold (15.6%). Of the owners who snowmobiled during the 1976- 77 winter, 51% snowmobiled less than the pre- vious winter and 15.2% snowmobiled more. Weather conditions (53.4%) and the amount of available time (25%) were cited as the primary reasons for the change in participation rate. Michigan DNR (1977b) reports that 26% of Michigan resi- dents have participated more in outdoor recrea- tion activities because of more available free time and 22% have participated less because of a lack of free time. Most snowmobiling occurs during the weekend with 75.1% of the snowmobile owners indicating that at least half of their participation is during the weekend. quAHmozzozm mmemom< smmfi zH mmmzzo ommmemHumm mmesz .8 mmpon Apmnawomo sufi3 wmumwoommm munch uwwcwamo awv mumuafiz as me as me as He ca as we so as no as me No HGAH m rNo.o o O O NN. so H_ Na.a Na. .N Na.N NN.N o . IQ ”w as m Na.a am.m .8 -w Nm.m -oa Na.aa [Na Na.ma Na.ma .aa .aa N . a Nm.aa N a .ma Aucmouwm CHV muoczo mHHnoESOGm mo Hosaaz (5) 39 During the 1976-77 winter, 19.6% snowmobiled closer to their permanent residence than during the previous winter. Michigan DNR (1977b) in- dicates that 49% of Michigan's general popula- tion has been recreating closer to home over the past three years (1974-1976). Snowmobile Ownership Characteristics The following are highlights of the questions dealing with snowmobile ownership: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) There is an average of 2.0 snowmobiles per family, with 69.2% of the families owning at least 2 machines. 75.2% of the snowmobile owners bought their first machine before 1973. The average age of the snowmobiles currently owned per family is 4.6 years, with only 17.8% of all the machines in Michigan being 1975 models or newer. An average of 35.1% of the snowmobiles owned by each family were purchased as used machines. The average purchase price of the machines (both new and used) is $847. 46.4% of the families still own all of their original snowmobiles, not having sold, traded, or junked any of them. 40 Synopsis of the Typical Michigan Registered Snowmobile Owner in—I977 The typical Michigan registered snowmobile owner in 1977 is middle-aged, married, and has two children. The owner has at least a high school diploma and a total family income of about $19,000 a year. He/she owns their permanent place of residence which is located in a rural or suburban area and will often times also own a second home at which a lot of the family's snowmobiling takes place. The snowmobile owner commonly owns two machines which are an average of 4.6 years old and were purchased at an average price of $847. The owner does most of his/her snowmobiling during the weekend with the amount governed by available free time and weather conditions. Estimation of 1977 Michigan Snowmobile PartiCipation There were a total of 1,338 snowmobilers in the 1977 Snowmobile Ownership and Use survey who snowmobiled during - .7“ —. the 1976-77 winter, 392 registered owners, 304 spouses, 3kg“ and 642 children. These snowmobilers used a total of 806 machines, which is 1.66 participants per snowmobile. When this 1.66 conversion factor is applied to the 369,880 reg- istered snowmobiles in Michigan, the results are 614,000 snowmobilers in the state during the 1976-77 winter. Snowmobile owners in 1977 averaged 23.7 days of par- ticipation in the activity during the 1976-77 winter. 41 Assuming all snowmobilers averaged the same amount of participation, the total amount of participation in snow- mobiling by Michigan residents was L46 million days. Mich— igan DNR (1977c) reports that Michigan residents partic- ipated in snowmobiling 14.8 million times for an average length of 3.2 hours during 1976. Comparison of the 1970 and 1977 Snomebile PopuIations One of the purposes of this study is to determine if the characteristics of the 1970 and 1977 snowmobile popula- tions are significantly different from one another. Lon- gitudinal surveys (trend studies) were conducted to gather the data needed to examine the differences. The 1970 Mich- igan Snowmobile Use survey provides the information on the 1970 population and the 1977 Snowmobile Ownership and Use survey collected the data on the 1977 population. As noted earlier, some of the same questions were included in both surveys so that comparisons can be made between the two populations. The first half of this section includes the analysis of those variables for which sufficient information is 1 available to conduct statistical t-tests. The second half is a descriptive comparison of those variables which could 1The information needed to compute the t-values is the sample size, mean, and standard deviation of the vari- able for both the 1970 and 1977 snowmobile populations. 42 not be analyzed using t-tests either because of insuffi- cient comparable information or nominal scales of measure- ment . Results of the T-Tests T-tests are conducted to determine if there is a statistically significant difference between the 1970 and 1977 snowmobile populations. The following variables are included in the tests: (1) Age of snowmobile owners. (2) Education of snowmobile owners. (3) Number of days the owner snowmobiled during the previous winter. (4) Number of snowmobiles owned per family. (5) Average horsepower of the snowmobiles owned in each family. A 0.05 level of significance is used to test the fol- lowing null hypotheses: Ho(i): The mean of variable(i) is the same for both the 1970 and 1977 snowmobile populations, where (i) is the variable number as desig- nated in the above list of variables. Table 3 presents the means for each variable for both the 1970 and 1977 populations and the t-statistics. The tests indicate that the differences between the character- istics for the two groups are statistically significant with respect to all of the variables except average age of 43 TABLE 3 COMPARISONS OF THE 1970 AND 1977 SNOWMOBILE POPULATIONS 1977 1970 N 370 N 3400 T 2—Tail T—Test Variable Mean Mean Value Probability Result Age of Fail to snowmobile 41.7 42.5 1.38 .16 reject owner HO Years of completed education by the 12.5 12.1 3.05 .004 ReJeCt H snowmobile owner 0 Number of days the owner Less Re'ect snowmobiled 23.7 48.0 13.08 than H 3 during the .001 0 previous winter Number of Less sn°wm°biles 2.0 1.4 18.75 than ReJec‘ currently owned H .001 0 per family Average horsepower Less of the snowmobiles 28.2 20.3 20.5 than Reject currently owned 001 HO per family *The sample size may vary as much as ilOZ with respect to the in- dividual variables due to the different number of nonresponses to individual questions. 44 snowmobile owners. However, "statistical significance should not be confused with practical significance" (Blalock, 1972, p. 163). Caution must be taken when in- terpreting the results of the above t-tests since the sample sizes are relatively large. "The significance level attained depends on the sizes of the sample used. If the samples are very large, it is generally easy to establish significance for even a very slight relationship” (Blalock, 1972, p. 292). A visual comparison of the two means of a variable being tested may indicate whether or not the relationship is also practically significant. For instance, the mean number of years of completed education by snowmobile owners in 1970 and 1977 are 12.1 and 12.5 respectively. Even though there is a difference of only 0.4 years, the t-test indicates that the difference is significant at the .004 level (see Table 3). This is an example of how "statisti- cal significance does not necessarily imply striking dif- ferences or ones that are important to the social scien- tist" (Blalock, 1972, p. 163). The most significant difference between snowmobile owners in 1970 and 1977 is the amount of participation in the activity during the previous winters. In fact, the average number of days the owners in 1970 snowmobiled is over twice that of the owners in 1977 (see Table 3). Also, Lanier (1974) estimates that Michigan residents snowmobiled 45 a total of 5.5 million days during the 1969-70 winter, whereas this study estimates 14.6 days of participation during the 1976-77 season. Therefore, even though snow— mobile registrations in Michigan have increased by almost 400 percent since 1970, total snowmobile participation (in days of snowmobiling) has increased only about 250 percent. The differences in the means of the number of snow- mobiles owned per family and the horsepower of the machines appear to be practically significant between 1970 and 1977, as well as being statistically significant. The number of snowmobiles and their average horsepower have both in- creased by about 30 percent over the last 7 years. Descriptive Comparisons of Selected Variablés The following portion of the analysis includes de- scriptive comparisons of some of the variables which mea- sure the characteristics of the 1970 and 1977 snowmobile populations.1 The variables selected to be included in the comparisons are: (1) Family income. (2) Type of snowmobiling participated in. (3) Activities undertaken in association with snowmobiling. 1The variables included in the descriptive comparisons are those which cannot be analyzed by using t-tests either because of insufficient comparable data or the variables are reported in the nominal level of measurement. 46 Family Income of Snowmobile Owners The average family income of snowmobile owners in 1970 and 1977 are $13,500 and $19,300 respectively (see Table 4). The differences in the value of the dollar in 1970 and 1977 must be taken into consideration when com- paring these two incomes. Therefore, a 6% per year in- flation factor is used to adjust the 1970 income to 1977 income levels. After the adjustment, the $13,500 average income in 1970 is equivalent to $20,250 in 1977. Now that the incomes are both in terms of 1977 dollar values, it becomes apparent that snowmobile owners in 1970 and 1977 have similar average family incomes. A comparison of the percent of snowmobile owners which fall into the different income categories also indicates that 1970 and 1977 owners have about the same incomes. Af- ter the adjustment of the 1970 income categories into 1977 dollar values, 64% of the snowmobile owners in 1970 have at least a total family income of $15,000. Similarly, 66.5% of the snowmobile owners in 1977 have a total income of $15,000 or more (see Table 4). Type of Snowmobiling Participated In Trail riding and scrambling appear to be the most popular types of snowmobiling for both the 1970 and 1977 snowmobile populations. Snowmobiling families in 1970 in- dicated that 58% of their snowmobiling is trail riding and 47 TABLE 4 TOTAL FAMILY INCOME OF SNOWMOBILE OWNERS IN 1970 AND 1977 Percent of Snowmobile Owners Income Categories 1970 - 1977 Less than $6,000 7 3.5 $6,000 - $9,999 29 6.8 $10,000 - $14,999 35 22.9 $15,000 - $19,999 20.7 21* $20,000 - $25,000 23.7 Greater than $25,000 8 22" MEAN** $13,500 $19,300 *Lanier's (1974) income category is $15,000 - $25,000. **Means were calculated by using the midpoint of each cate- gory and using $3,000 and $30,000 to represent the lowest and highest category respectively. 48 31% is scrambling in open areas. Snowmobile owners in 1977 have similar interests, with 89.7% indicating that they engage in trail riding and 51.7% in scrambling. Competi- tive racing, riding to work, and overnight expeditions all have low percentages of participation by both groups (see Table 5). Special attention must be given to the above percent- ages during their analysis. Lanier (1974) reports each of the types of snowmobiling 2h) percentage of the total amount of snowmobiling per household. The 1977 figures only indicate the percentage of snowmobile owners which participate in the different types of snowmobiling and do not give any indication of the amount of participation. As a consequence, direct comparisons should not be made be- tween the 1970 and 1977 percentages. Activities Undertaken in Association with Snowmobiling Families in 1970 participated in secondary activities in association with snowmobiling 24.1% of the days they spent snowmobiling. Of the 24.1%, ice fishing was under- taken 32%, cook-outs 20%, hunting 14%, and camping 6% of the days (Lanier, 1974). Of all the snowmobile owners in 1977, 30.7% ice fish, 12.2% hunt, 11.9% camp, and 7.3% have cook-outs or picnics while on snowmobile outings (see Table 6). Ice fishing appears to be the activity undertaken the 49 TABLE 5 TYPES OF SNOWMOBILING PARTICIPATED IN DURING 1970 AND 1977 1970 1977 Type of Percent of Percent of Owners Snowmobiling Snowmobiling Who Participate Trail Riding 58 89.7 Scrambling 31 51.7 Competitive Racing 1 2.4 Riding to Work 4 1.3 Other 6 12.4 50 TABLE 6 ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN IN ASSOCIATION WITH SNOWMOBILING IN 1970 AND 1977 1970 Households Participation 1977 Owners Percent of the Total Percent Who Amount of Participation Engage in Activity in Associated Activities the Activity Ice Fishing 32 30.7 Cook-outs (Picnics) 20 7'3 Hunting 14 12.2 Camping 6 11.9 Other 28 10.2 None Not Reported 27.7 51 most in association with snowmobiling by both 1970 and 1977 snowmobile populations. All of the other activities appear to have less popularity among both groups. Overall, the activities seem to have remained relatively constant in popularity over time. However, caution must again be taken when interpreting the above percentages. The 1977 figures only indicate the percentage of snowmobile owners who par- ticipate in the activities, whereas the 1970 percentages indicate the amount of participation in the activities. Summary of the 1970 and 1977 Snowmobiler Comparisons The most significant change in snowmobiler character- istics between 1970 and 1977 was in the number of days snow- mobiled per registered owner. The comparison of the 1970 data with 1977 figures reveals a reduction in snowmobile participation rates from 48.0 days per season by owners in 1970 to 23.7 days in 1977. Also since nonrespondents in the 1977 survey sample seemed to be less active in snowmobiling than the respondents, the 1977 rate may even be smaller. Therefore, the fourfold increase in Michigan snowmobile registrations between 1970 and 1977 has not resulted in a fourfold increase in total days of snowmobiling. With par- ticipation rates cut in half, snowmobile activity (in days of participation) has only approximately doubled over the last 7 years. 52 The large increase in registered machines is partially a result of increased investment in equipment by snow- mobilers. The number of machines owned per snowmobiling family increased from 1.4 in 1970 to 2.0 in 1977. Thus while registrations quadrupled, the number of snowmobilers increased at a slightly lower rate. No significant changes were detected in the age, edu- cation, and family income of snowmobile owners in 1970 and 1977. This indicates that the socio-economic makeup of the snowmobile population has remained the same over time. Also, the popularity of the different types of snowmobiling and activities associated with snowmobiling has remained relatively constant over the past 7 years. Comparisons of Snowmobile Adoption Groups The purposes of the analysis in this section are: (l) to identify adoption groups for snowmobiling; and (2) once the groups are defined, determine if the char- acteristics among them are significantly different. Anal- yses of variance and t-tests are conducted on selected var- iables to determine whether or not statistical differences exist among the adoption groups. Snowmobiler Adoption Groups Most diffusion researchers have classified adopt- ers into categories on the basis of the relat1ve time at which they adopt an innovation or 53 innovations. Respondents are usually asked to recall the date at which they adopted these innovations (Rogers, 1962, p. 160). In order to define the adoption curve for snowmobiling, respondents of the 1977 Snowmobile Ownership and Use survey were asked to indicate the winter they first began snow- mobiling (see Appendix A, Question 2). Figure 5 shows the distribution of snowmobile adopters as defined by the 1977 survey. The five adoption cate- gories, as outlined by Rogers (1962, 1971) are delineated with their corresponding response percentages to allow a comparison to be made with the theoretical normal distri- bution outlined in Chapter 2 (Figure 2). A strong resem- blance between the two curves does exist, which indicates that snowmobiling is an innovation with a typical adoption pattern. The number of 1977 survey respondents in each of the adoption groups is also shown in Figure 5. As can be seen, the number of innovators, early adopters, and laggards are too small for statistical tests. Therefore, the adoption groups are modified somewhat to yield 3 groups: (1) Early Adopters - Winters of 1961-62 through 1968-69. (2) Middle Adopters - Winters of 1969-70 through 1971-72. (3) Late Adopters - Winters of 1972-73 through 1976-77. 54 kmmbomo ZOHHmOQ< MMAHmOZBOZm m>Hm .m MMDUHW .Aammav mumwom he wonfiuommc venues mnu ou wawvuooom wmcwmmv mum mmsouw m>fim ores Auonamoma SuHB vmuMfioommm mumm% Hmucmamu Gav rm TOH rqa mumucwz cm+m m chum unmum on mm as mm mm an as me we no we we so no No .32 p p p p a p P k p n pl p n b . Nk.m “ Ne.am «1 Na.ee " Na.a u. Nn.e cmue " mean: u «want H mm" . man: mmoe<>ozzH mamwv vumvcmum " _ mac n mmfim mamamm HauOH Heuoeaa “ . Axv cowuaowm mo umucHB mwmum>< 10H fiwa Aucmopoa cHV muocso mawpoaaocm mo amassz 55 Figure 6 shows the number of respondents and the correspond- ing percents for each of the adoption groups. Analysis of the Snowmobile Adoption Gropps The purpose of the analyses in this section is to determine whether early, middle, and late snowmobile adopt- ers are significantly different from one another with re- spect to socio-economic characteristics, snowmobiling par- ticipation, and snowmobile ownership. The following vari- ables are selected to measure the above three types of characteristics: (A) Socio-economic characteristics of snowmobile owners. (1) Present age (2) Age when they first began snowmobiling (3) Years of completed education (4) Total family income (B) Snowmobiling participation characteristics. (5) Number of days snowmobiled during the 1976- 77 winter. (C) Characteristics of the snowmobiles which are currently owned by snowmobiling families. (6) Number of machines owned (7) Average age (8) Average horsepower (9) Percent which were purchased new kmmbomu ZOHHmOQ¢ mqumOZBOZm mmmmH .0 mmDUHh .mwSum manu mo mammamam ecu aw vow: mum mesouw mourn douche AnonEmomn LuHB nmumwoommm mums» umwamfimo Gav 56 mucosa: on me an me we on no we no on me so no we HomH — p n P p b b . p Fl - - r b Nm.om Ne.ma No.a~ mNHua omens mane mmmeeoa< mememom< mmmemoo< tN meaa maaaHz sgmam re re rm Auawoumm :«V mumcso 10H mafinoaaocm mo umnasz ----..-..-..-......--- -----..--.l- TNH tea mac n mNHm maafimm amuOH roH er 57 (10) Average purchase price Analyses of variance and t-tests are both used to determine if there is a statistical difference among the three adoption groups. "Analysis of variance offers a single test of whether or not all three types (groups) dif- fer significantly among themselves or, in other words, whether they all could have come from the same population” (Blalock, 1972, p. 328). T-tests are then conducted on those variables which the analysis of variance indicates are significantly different among the adoption groups at the 0.1 level of significance. In other words, the anal- yses of variance are conducted on an exploratory level to determine which of the variables warrant having separate t-tests done on the three combinations of adoption group pairs (early vs. middle, early vs. late, and middle vs. late). The above process of analysis will be used for all of the variables, except total family income of snowmobile owners. Chi square is used to test the income variable, which is measured by an ordinal scale. Analysis of Variance Results The generalized null hypothesis used in the analyses of variance is as follows: Ho(j): The means of variable (j) for the early, middle, and late snowmobile adoption groups are equal to one another, where 58 (j) is the variable number (1 to 10) as designated in the above list of variables. Table 7 summarizes the results of the analysis of variance for each of the variables of interest. The means for each of the three adoption groups are presented along with the F ratio and F probability. Using a 0.1 signif- icance level, there is not a statistical difference among the adoption groups for the following variables:1 (2) Age when snowmobiling was first taken up. (3) Years of completed education. (5) Number of days snowmobiled during the 1976-77 winter. (6) Number of snowmobiles currently owned. (8) Average horsepower of the snowmobiles currently owned. The following variables are significantly different among the three adoption groups at a 0.1 level of signif- icance, i.e., their null hypotheses were rejected: (1) Present age of snowmobile owners. (7) Average age of the snowmobiles currently owned per family. (9) Percent of snowmobiles currently owned which were purchased new. 1The numbers to the left of the variables are the same ones used in the original list of variables. 59 TABLE 7 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SELECTED SNOWMOBILER CHARACTERISTICS AMONG ADOPTION GROUPS ADOPTION GROUPS Early Middle Late N=88* N=170* N=110* F F Variable Mean Mean Mean Ratio Prob. Results A. Characteristics of Snowmobile Owners Present age (years) 43.3 42.2 39.7 2.85 .059 Reject Ho Age when adopted 34 O 36 1 36 7 1 54 22 Fail to snowmobiling (years) ' ° ° ' ' Reject Ho Education (years Fail to completed) 12.4 12.4 12.6 0.33 .72 Reject Ho Days snowmobiled Fail to (1976-77 season) 25.2 23.0 23.8 0.37 .69 Reject Ho B. Ownership Charac- teristics per snow— mobiling family Number of snowmobiles Fail to owned " 2.1 2.0 1.9 1.49 .27 Reject Ho Average age of 4 . snowmobiles (years) 5.1 4.5 4.3 4.0 .018 Reject Ho Average horsepower 27.2 28.3 28.9 0.65 .52 R:§:CEOH 0 Percent purchased new 72.2 72.5 47.9 16.57 ?>.001 Reject Ho Average PurChase $908 $917 $709 10.45 >.001 Reject Ho price *The sample size may vary as much as ilOZ with respect to the in- dividual variables due to the different number of nonresponses to individual questions. 60 Chi Square Results on Total Family Income Since income is reported by categories, a chi square test is conducted on the total family income of snowmobile owners in the three adoption groups. The raw chi square value is 7.36, which results in a significance level of 0.69 (see Table 8). Therefore, the null hypothesis fails to be rejected and it is concluded that there is not a statistically significant difference in the current income of snowmobile owners among the three adoption groups. How- ever, comparisons of means do indicate a significantly lower income for early adopters than that of middle and late adopters. TABLE 8 COMPARISONS FOR 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: ANNUAL FAMILY INCOME OF SNOWMOBILE OWNERS 'Early Middle Late Raw Chi Level of N=90 N=l69 N=112 Square Value Significance Mean Mean Mean 17,900 19,700 19,200 7.36 0.69* *The null hypothesis failed to be rejected at the .05 level of significance. T-Test Results T-tests are conducted on the variables which the analy— sis of variance indicated were significantly different among 61 the three adoption groups. Separate tests are used for each combination of adoption group pairs, including early vs. middle, early vs. late, and middle vs. late. T-tests are also conducted on the age of snowmobile owners when they first began snowmobiling. Even though the analysis of variance indicated that the ages are not significantly different among the three groups, it is in- cluded in the t-tests because of the early adopters ap- pearing to be somewhat younger than the middle and late adopters (see Table 7). The generalized null hypothesis for the t-tests is: Ho(i): The mean of variable (i) for (early) snow- (early) (middle) mobile adopters is equal to the mean of variable (i) for (middle) snowmobile (late) (late) adopters, where (i) is the variable num- bers l, 2, 7, 9, 10 as designated in the above list of variables. Present age of snowmobile owners The results of the t-tests on the present age of snowmobile owners indicate that early adopters are signif- icantly different from late adopters at the .05 level. On the other hand, the differences between early and middle adopters and middle and late adopters are not statistically different at the .05 level (see Table 9). Assuming that 62 snowmobile owners take up snowmobiling at about the same age, the above results are not surprising since the earlier adopters have been participating in the activity longer and will in turn be relatively older. TABLE 9 COMPARISON FOR 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: PRESENT AGE OF SNOWMOBILE OWNERS Adoption Degrees of T 2-Tail Groups Means Freedom Value Probability Results Bahr- 43.3.38' Rita, Eaiizevs° 4333038° 218 2.24 .026 Reject H0 Mitzizvs- ”8335' eta, Age of snowmobile owners when they first take up snowmobiling The above assumption that snowmobile owners have begun snowmobiling at about the same ages appears to be valid. T-tests indicate that the differences in the mean age be- tween all three combinations of snowmobile adoption group pairs are not statistically significant at the .05 level (see Table 10). Rogers (1971, pp. 185-186) indicates that "there is inconsistent evidence about the relationship of age and 63 innovativeness; about half of the 228 studies on this sub- ject show no relationship, 20 percent show that earlier adopters are younger, and 30 percent indicate they are older." The results of this study show that there is no relationship between age and when owners first began snow- mobiling. However, even though it is not statistically significant, there is a slight trend in the early snow- mobile adopters being younger than the later adopters, with the mean ages of the early, middle, and late adoption groups being 34.0, 36.1, and 36.7 years respectively. TABLE 10 COMPARISONS OF 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: AGE OF OWNERS WHEN SNOWMOBILING WAS FIRST TAKEN UP Adoption Degrees of T 2-Tail Groups Means Freedom Value Probability Results E11813 “.213' 3.2.1.1410 as? 34.2.38- £313., “1:21:28- Average age of snowmobiles currently owned per family The average age of the snowmobiles currently owned by families in the early adoption group is significantly 64 different at the .05 level than the families in both the middle and late adoption groups. On the other hand, the difference between the average age of snowmobiles in the middle and late groups is not statistically significant (see Table 11). This indicates that early adopters are either buying older machines or are not selling, trading, or junking their original ones. The latter seems to be the more reasonable explanation since the number of snowmobiles owned per family is not significantly different among the adoption groups and the percent of snowmobiles currently owned per family which were purchased new is considerably higher in the early and middle groups than the late adop- tion group (see Table 7). Also, 46.4% of the snowmobiling families in Michigan still own all of their original ma- chines, not having sold, traded, or junked any of them (see the previous section in this chapter which describes the snowmobile ownership characteristics of the 1977 Michigan snowmobile population). Percent of snowmobiles currently owned per family which were purchased new Snowmobiling families in both the early and middle adoption groups currently own a relatively higher percen- tage of snowmobiles which were purchased new than those families in the late adoption group. The difference in both instances, early vs. late and middle vs. late, is signifi- cant at the .05 level. On the other hand, the difference 65 TABLE 11 COMPARISONS OF 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: AVERAGE AGE OF SNOWMOBILES* Adoption Degrees of T 2-Tail Groups Means Freedom Value Probability Results Egiiglzs' 5.4?538' 269 2.32 .021 Reject H0 Eaiizevs' S'if3gs' 207 2.66 .009 Reject H0 *Comparisons are made only on those snowmobiles currently owned. between the percentage of snowmobiles purchased new by families in the early group is not significant when com- pared to the middle adoption group (see Table 12). The above results show that new adopters of snowmo- biling are likely to purchase used machines while determin- ing the ”attractiveness” of the activity. If the interest in snowmobiling remains high throughout the first few years, then the snowmobile owner will begin investing in new machines. Also, the results may reflect increased availa- bility (If used machines and higher prices for new machines. Average purchase price of snowmobiles currently owned per family Snowmobiles owned by families in the early and middle adoption groups have a higher purchase price than the 66 TABLE 12 COMPARISONS OF 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: PERCENT OF SNOWMOBILES PURCHASED NEW* Adoption Degrees of T 2-Tail Groups Means Freedom Value Probability Results Eaiiyevs. 72A; gs. 213 4.28 Lessoghan Reject H0 Miggiz vs. 72;; gs. 301 5.32 Lessoggan Reject H0 *Comparisons are made only on those snowmobiles currently owned. snowmobiles owned by families in the late group. The dif- ference in the average purchase price of snowmobiles is statistically significant at the .05 level between both the middle and late adoption groups and the early and late groups. The difference between the early and middle groups is not statistically significant (see Table 13). These results correspond directly with the results of the tests conducted on the percent of snowmobiles purchased new. Again the indication is that new adopters of snow- mobiling are hesitant to make large investments in equip- ment prior to assuring themselves that the interest level in the activity will remain high. 67 TABLE 13 COMPARISONS OF 1977 ADOPTION GROUPS: AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE OF SNOWMOBILES* Adoption Degrees of T 2-Tail Groups Means Freedom Value Probability Results Rins- $923.:S- 32:12., Eagigevs- $9ggogs- 199 3.56 Leigoghan Reject no Miigiz vs. $9égogs. 285 4.35 Lesgoihan Reject Ho *Comparisons are made only on those snowmobiles currently owned. Summary of the Comparisons Between the Snowmobile Adoption Groups The most significant differences among the snowmobile adoption groups are the percent of snowmobiles which were purchased new and the average purchase price of all cur- rently owned machines. Results indicate that recent adopt— ers of snowmobiling are hesitant in making large initial investments in the activity. Snowmobilers in the late adoption group purchased a higher percentage of used ma- chines and have a lower average investment in machines than the early and middle adopters. This difference may also be a result of an increased availability of used ma- chines over the past few years. Snowmobile owners have a tendency to keep their 68 original machines, with 46.4% of snowmobiling families not having sold, traded or junked any of their snowmobiles. Also, the average age of snowmobiles owned by early adopt- ers is significantly older than that of middle and late adopters. Late adopters of snowmobiling appear to be somewhat younger than earlier adopters, which is expected since the average age of owners when snowmobiling was first taken up is about the same for the three adoption groups. The socio-economic makeup of the snowmobile population seems to be remaining stable over time, with education levels and family incomes being similar among all three adoption groups. CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS As a first step in developing forecasts of snowmo- biling activity, this study identifies the nature and ex- tent of trends in the characteristics of Michigan snowmo- bilers. An assessment of the changes in the characteristics will allow forecasting models to be developed for snowmo- biling based upon the trend patterns. If forecasts are based upon this information, they will be more accurate and reliable than the conventional recreational forecasting techniques which assume the relationship between the char- acteristics of the users and the amount of participation in an activity is constant over time. Two approaches were used in this study to identify the changes in the characteristics: (1) a trend analysis be- tween 1970 and 1977 snowmobile owners and (2) a cross-sec- tional analysis among the 1977 snowmobile adoption groups which were defined by the year snowmobile owners first began participating in the activity. A .05 level of significance is used in all of the statistical tests for determining whether or not the changes in the characteristics are sig- nificant. This chapter summarizes the findings of the two analyses and then concludes with recommendations on future 69 70 research on Michigan snowmobiling. Trends in Socio-Economic Characteristics The socio-economic characteristics of Michigan snow- mobilers have remained relatively constant over time. The age structure of snowmobile owners in 1970 and 1977 are about the same, with the differences in their means being insignificant. Also, the average age at which snowmobile owners first began participating in the activity has re- mained relatively constant over time. Even though the difference in the educational levels of the 1970 and 1977 owners was statistically significant, it is concluded that it is not practically significant since there is only a difference in the means of less than a half a year of completed education. Also, the analysis among the adoption groups shows that there is no relation- ship between educational attainment and when snowmobiling was first adopted. Snowmobiling families in 1970 and 1977 had an average annual income of $13,500 and $19,300 respectively. After the 1970 figure was adjusted with a 6% per year inflation rate, there was only a minimal difference between incomes of 1970 and 1977 snowmobilers. In addition, the family incomes of snowmobile owners in the three adoption groups were about the same. Thus, the average income level of the Michigan snowmobile population has not increased over 71 time, even though the prices of new snowmobiles have been rising substantially over the past few years. This, plus- the fact that retail sales of new snowmobiles have recently been decreasing, indicates that snowmobilers are purchasing used machines and/or are keeping their original ones. Trends in Snowmobiling Participation Characteristics The average amount of snowmobile participation by reg- istered owners in 1977 was found to be considerably lower than that in 1970. In fact, the average number of days owners in 1977 snowmobiled was less than half that of the 1970 owners. Lanier (1974) estimates that Michigan resi— dents snowmobiled a total of 5.5 million days during the 1969-70 season, whereas this study estimates 14.6 million days of snowmobile participation during the 1976-77 win- ter. Therefore, even though the total number of snowmobile registrations in Michigan has increased by fourfold be- tween 1970 and 1977, the total amount of snowmobile activ- ,/ ity increased at a significantly lesser rate during the same time. As a consequence, the number of registrations by itself is not an accurate indicator of the amount of snow- mobile services and facilities needed for Michigan snow- mobilers. Some measure of the average use per machine is also needed along with the registrations. The popularity of the kinds of snowmobiling and the types of activities associated with snowmobiling are the 72 same among 1970 and 1977 owners. Trail riding and scramr bling in open areas are the most popular types of snow- mobiling, with the snowmobile being used very infrequently among registered snowmobile owners for competitive racing and transportation to work. Ice fishing is the activity associated the most with snowmobiling by both 1970 and 1977 owners. Cook-outs (picnics), hunting and camping are also engaged in while on snowmobile outings, but to a lesser extent than ice fishing. Trends in Snowmobile Ownership Characteristics Snowmobile ownership seems to be the most unstable characteristic over time of those analyzed in this study. Snowmobiling families in 1977 own an average of 30% more machines than families in 1970. Also, the snowmobiles have increased in horsepower from an average of 20.3 per machine in 1970 to 28.2 in 1977. However, both the number of machines per family and machine horsepower are relative- ly constant among the 1977 adoption groups. The analyses among the 1977 adoption groups on the percent of snowmobiles purchased new and the average pur- chase price per machine shows that snowmobilers are unwill- ing to make large investments until they assure themselves that their interest in the activity will remain relatively high. The percent of machines purchased new and the aver- age cost per machine is considerably lower in the late 73 adoption group than in both the early and middle groups. This indicates that new adopters of snowmobiling will buy the more inexpensive used machines at the outset and if their interest in the activity remains high after a few years, they will then invest in newer and higher cost snow- mobiles. The average age of the snowmobiles currently owned per family in the early adoption group is significantly older than that of both the middle and late adopters. This shows that early adopters either purchase a lower percent- age of new machines than later adopters or that snowmobile owners tend to keep their original snowmobiles. Since the early adopters were shown to buy a higher percentage of new machines, the latter seems to be the more reasonable explanation. Also in support of the latter statement, is the findings in the 1977 Snowmobile Ownership and Use sur- vey that 46.4% of snowmobiling families still own all of their original snowmobiles, not having sold, traded or junked any of them. Recommendations Forecasts of Future Showmobilinngctivity This study identifies the trends in the characteris- tics of Michigan snowmobilers. As a follow-up to this study, it is recommended that a forecasting model be devel- oped based upon the findings of this study which will 74 accurately predict the amount of snowmobile activity over time. Based upon the results of this study, it is suggest- ed that the model hold socio-economic characteristics of snowmobilers constant over time and provide for changes in participation rates and equipment ownership of future snow- mobile populations. The forecasts will help both Michigan DNR and the snowmobile industry in making management, pol- icy, and production decisions for the upcoming snowmobile seasons . Continuous Data Collection Probably the most basic problem recreation forecasters are confronted with is the lack of good data. The kinds of data needed for forecasting have not been gathered con- tinuously througout the past. Often times when the data have been recorded, the units of measure vary among the different surveys which makes it difficult to cross ana- lyze. Even today sufficient data collection is often sacrificed as a result of the complexity and expense of gathering it (Archer, 1976, Clawson and Knetsch, 1966, Moeller and Echelberger, 1974, ORRRC, 1962). The only data series in existence today for Michigan snowmobiling is the number of machine registrations and retail sales trends. However, it has been shown that reg- istrations alone are not good indicators of snowmobiling participation. Also, the number of snowmobile sales, especially at the state level, is often quite difficult to 75 find. Therefore, it is recommended that data which is com- parable with this study's and Lanier's be collected period- ically (3-4 years) in order to develop an extensive time series data base. One advantage of using time series data is that it results in more accurate projections than those based upon single cross-sectional surveys (Brown and Wil- kins, 1975). Mbnitorinngdoption and Dropout to Measure Marginal Changes As an alternative to collecting extensive time series data, it is possible to gather information on the character- istics of new adopters and dropouts of snowmobiling to mea- sure marginal changes in the snowmobile population. By using this approach, a statewide survey of registered snow- mobile owners may only be necessary about once every 7-8 years to recalibrate the forecasting model to compensate for marginal changes in the characteristics of the popula- tion. Therefore, it is recommended that a survey of Michi- gan's general population be conducted in order to locate and characterize snowmobile dropouts. This type of infor- mation would enhance the accuracy of forecasts of future snowmobiling activity. Information on adopters and drop- outs is best gathered in a general recreation participa- tion survey. APPENDIX A MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE SURVEY 76 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DtPAIlTMI-‘N‘r OF PARK AND RECREATION RFSOURCES EMT mayo . “[0115“ - mu NA I’URM. RESOCRCILS BLIIDIVG SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE STUDY Dear snowmobile owner, This questionaire, as indicated in the previously mailed letter of transmittal has been sent to you to aid us in a study to forecast future snowmobile participation in Michigan. Your response is important to obtain representative data of past, present, and expected future snowmobile activity in order to assist governmental and private providers of snowmobile products and services in meeting your future needs. We ask that you complete all of the questions to the best of your recollection. All responses will remain strictly confidential and your name will not be associated with your answers. To return the completed questionaire, please use the stamped pre-addressed envelope, which is enclosed for your convenience. Thank you for your cooperation. Recreation Research and Planning Unit Michigan State University FIRST WE WOULD LIKE SOME INFORMATION ON HOW YOU GOT STARTED IN SNOMBILING. How did you first become interested in snowmobiling? Utalking with friends or relatives who snowmobile [jobserving others snowmobiling Dthrough magazines and advertisements [jwatching snowmobile racing events [jother (please specify) What winter did you FIRST start snowmobiling? Please specify by including both calendar years of the winter (e.g. 1971—72). Who's machine did you first begin snowmobiling with? Us friend's or relative's Uyour own De dealer's or rented Bother (please specify) Since first taking up snowmobiling, how many winters have you NOT participated? Which of the following snowmobile activities do you engage in? [jscrambling in open areas (including lakes) [jtrail riding Dcompetitive racing Dover-night expeditions [jother (please specify) 77 NOW WE WOULD LIKE SOME INFORMATION ON YOUR SNOWMOBILE ACTIVITIES DURING THE PAST WINTER. 6. Did you snowmobile this past winter? DYes ——1 UNo———l If yes: How many days did you If no: Briefly explain why not. snowmobile? Please proceed to next question. SKIP T0 QUESTION '13 7. How does the amount you snowmobiled this past winter compare with that of previous winters? This winter did you snowmobile: (check one) Bless than previous winters Dmore than previous winters Dabout the same as previous winters 8. If you snowmobiled more or less this past winter than previous winters, briefly explain why? 9. What percent of your snowmobiling last winter took place during the weekend? D less than 251 0 25-691 050-742 D75-892 090-1002 10. Indicate the percent of your snowmobiling last winter which occurred in each of the following categories. NOTE: The total of the percentages should equal 1007.. at your permanent residence on other land within your neighborhood outside your neighborhood and within a two hours drive from your permanent residence further than a two hours drive from your permanent residence .1.qu my; 11. How does the locations where you snowmobiled this past winter compare with previous winters? This winter did you snowmobile: (check one) Dcloser to your permanent residence than previous winters Dfurther from your permanent residence than previous winters Oat about the same distance from your permanent residence as previous winters 78 12. Did you take a winter vacation last year which involved snowmobiling? BYes—1 BNO (please proceed to next question) If yes: How many days long was your vacation? Where did you go? (City) (State) How many vacation days were spent snowmobiling? Please proceed to next question. 13. Next winter do you anticipate snowmobiling: (check one) Bnot at all Booms, but less than this past winter Babout the same as this past winter Bmore than this past winter 16. Briefly explain the reasons why you anticipate snowmobiling next winter the amount you have indicated in question '13. NOW WE WOULD LIKE SOME INFORMATION ON SOME OTHER WINTER 921293;; 5:9ng3 mzlnfis WHICH YOU PARTICIPATE IN. (Please check each that applies) 15. Which of the following activities have you EVER participated in? Bcross country skiing Bice fishing Bdownhill skiing Bwinter camping B ice skating B ice hockey 16. How many days did you participate in these activities this PAST WINTER? (Write zero if you did not participate.) cross country skiing ice fishing downhill skiing winter camping ice skating ice hockey 17. Which of the following activities do you participate in while on snowmobile outings? B ice fishing B hunting Bcsmping B other (please specify) (PLEASE PROCEED BY COMPLETING THE TABLE ON THE NEXT PAGE) 8: .3333 8. ensues.— amen—b a n . .flr . (Auaaflo on Q00. A _ es: 3 a 2 .am.«. 6 on mw 9 2.... w 03$ 0: no sea es~e> emeuu neeomeum Auexcsq no sound use: no mosesuusm weaom sadness uo pmeueueuueu no sound no use» .veveuu .vuoev eeenuusm men nausea use» Issue: use. use use» saunas. es: moduqee «seemeav as sess! .ednqeeom es haeueusoue we one soon new we wen-wean ou huh .nmo nemeoa on new uses ecu ea moose e>en no» eonASuel Has ueuu 3oz 3% 02 m. 3.3..” 162 at... Z. 3.65 mar . oz no es» on no sea uuhzna Hm¢mnnz< :36 auhzudubu no» vammHIOIIOzm fink 8° Scuhemmmth Exam nuuA Gaza: n3 .eoquusl meauenemouoos use medueuemo msumsuusu .eeeeeom nauseouso so» eesqnoel eeozu ueuu ueuum 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 80 FINALLY WE WOULD LIKE SOME INFORMATION ON YOU AND ZQHB EAMILX. Sea of respondent: B Male B Female Age of respondent: Marital status: B Single B Married 1 If married: Does your spouse snowmobile? CJYes filth) Indicate the number of children in your household within each of the following age groups. Also indicate how many of those in each age group snowmobile. AGE GROUPS THE NUMBER WHO SNOWMOBILE less than 10 years 10 - 15 years 16 years and older Circle the highest education level you have completed. Grade School 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 High School 9 10 ll 12 College 1 2 3 lo 5 6 7 8+ Is your permanent residence: (check one) Ba house Ba townhouse Ban apartment Us condominium Ba mobile home Bother (please specify) Do you 8:2: your permanent residence? Is your permanent residence located in: (check one) Ban urban area on suburban area Us rural area Do you own a second home? Bus-1 BN0 (please proceed to next question) If yes: Where is your second home located? (County) (State) How many days LAST WINTER did you use your second home for snowmobiling? (please proceed to next question) 81 27. What is your total family income? [Jless than $6,000 [336,000 - $9,999 0310.000 - $14,999 [3515.000 - $19,999 [J$20,000 - $25,000 [)greater than $25,000 28. Please write any additional comments you may have in the space provided below. (THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION) If you accidently misplaced the return envelope provided, please mail to: Recreation Research and Planning Unit Room 131 Natural Resources Building Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan 68823 APPENDIX B INTRODUCTORY LETTER USED IN THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE STUDY 82 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT or mu: mo arena-now aesouscrs m1 LANSING . memo“ . «an NATURAL sssouacss sunnmo June 22, 1977 Dear snowmobile owner: Now that the winter of 76-77 is over, it is time to reflect back on it and plan for the future. The Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State would like to have your assistance in planning for future snowmobile trails and related services. You are one of Michigan's snowmobilers selected at random for inclusion in a research study to forecast future snowmobile parti- cipation. This letter is just to introduce you to our study and ask for your cooperation. Within a few days you will be receiving a questionnaire in the mail asking for information about your family's history of snowmobile ownership and participa- tion. The questionnaire will only take a few minutes of your time to complete and will be quite helpful in planning for future snowmobile facilities and pro- grams. Your name was selected from a list of currently registered snowmobile owners maintained by Michigan's Secretary of State. We obtained this list through the cooperation of Recreation Services Division of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources. They are responsible for recreation planning at the state level, including the planning and coordination of snowmobile trail development. We are conducting this study independently of either of these branches of state government. Your responses will be strictly confidential and will be used solely for the purpose of estimating future snowmobile participation. In fact, your name will not be associated with the completed questionnaire. Your cooperation in completing and returning the questionnaire is essential to the successful completion of this study. Your response is important even if you no longer own a snowmobile or no longer participate in the activity. When you receive the questionnaire we ask that you respond to each question as accurately as you can recall the requested information and promptly return the completed questionnaire in the stamped pro-addressed envelope which will be enclosed. Thank you very much for your cooperation. With your help, we hope that our study will contribute to better serving Michigan snowmobilers in the future. Sincerely yours, Sufi: Daniel J. St es Assistant Professor We «)2me ' Kevin Szcodronski Research Assistant APPENDIX C THE CONVERSATION GUIDE AND QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE TELEPHONE FOLLOW-UP OF NONRESPONDENTS OF THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE SURVEY APPENDIX C THE CONVERSATION GUIDE AND QUESTIONNAIRE USED IN THE TELEPHONE FOLLOW-UP OF NONRESPONDENTS OF THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE SURVEY Name of Snowmobile Owner Street Address City Telephone Number Survey Identification # Hello: Is this the residence? ( ) Yes I May I speak with ( ) No-)(If no, confirm the number dialed and terminate the call) ( ) Wrong number ( ) Wrong residence (Snowmobile owner) ( ) No» (If no), Is there a convenient time at which I can call back and speak with him/her? ( ) Yes I [PROCEED TO NEXT PAGE] ( ) Yes:::, Time Day Terminate the call ( ) No (If a time can- not be set up, then ask to speak with some- one that is home and is familiar with the family's snowmobiling activities.) 7 [PROCEED TO NEXT PAGE] 83 84 My name is and I'm calling from Michigan State University in regards to a snow- mobile questionnaire we sent you a while back. I'm calling to find out if you have received it in the mail yet. ( ) Yes:::’ ( ) N0 ‘Ie’p Have you had a chance to complete and return it to us yet? §()Yes ()No LTerminate Cal 1] ¢ Your response is important to us for the successful completion of the study. Will you be willing to complete and return it within the next few days? ()YESP ()No Do you still have the ¢ questionnaire? ()YesP( )No\ PROCEED TO NEXT PAGE Thank you for Will you please your time and give me your pres- we will be ent address so looking for that we can put a your question- questionnaire in naire in the the mail for you mail. tomorrow? [Terminate the call] We are doing a study on Michigan snowmobilers in order to be able to predict future use in the activity. We sent question- naires to a number of registered snowmobile owners throughout the state and our records show that you should have received one. Apparently it got lost in the mail. If we send you another one will you be willing to com- plete and return it to us? ()Yes? (')No Will you please give me your present address so that we can put a questionnaire in the mail for you tomorrow? [Terminate the call] APROCEED To NEXT PAGE 7 85 While I have you on the phone, it will be useful to our study to get a limited amount of information concerning your snowmobile participa- tion. Will you answer a few short questions for me now? ()Yes ()No7 [Terminate the call] 1. What winter did you first start snowmobiling? 2. Did you snowmobile this past winter? ( ) Yes q ( ) No ¢ If no: Can you briefly H explain why not? If yes: ow many days did you snowmobile? 3. Which of the following phrases best describes the amount of snow- mobiling you anticipate doing this coming winter? ) not at all ) some, but less than this past winter ) about the same as this past winter AAAA ) more than this past winter 4. Will you please name off the year and make of all the snowmobiles which you currently own? Year and Make Days Used 5. How many days were each of these snowmobiles used? [PROCEED TO NEXT PAGE] 86 In order to be able to predict future snowmobile use, we need to relate the snowmobile information with some socio—economic information. So will you please answer the following questions concerning you and your family? ( )Yes ( )No? ¢ [Terminate the calf] 6. What is your age? 7. Are you married? §( )Yes ( )No (If married:) Does your spouse snowmobile? ( ) Yes ( )No 8. What is the highest education level you have completed? Grade school 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 High school 9 10 ll 12 College 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8+ 9. Will you please tell me to stop when I read off the range within which your total family income falls? ( ) less than $6,000 ( ) $6,000 - $9,999 ( ) $10,000 - $14,999 ( ) $15,000 - $19,999 ( ) $20,000 - $25,000 ( ) more than $25,000 [Terminate the call] 10. Check the sex of the person talked to. Male Female APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES TO THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX D SUMMARY OF THE RESPONSES TO THE 1977 SNOWMOBILE OWNERSHIP AND USE QUESTIONNAIRE How did you first become interested in snowmobiling? 69.4% - talking with friends or relatives who snowmobile 33.5% - observing others snowmobiling 4.3% - through magazines and advertisements 2.2% - watching snowmobile racing events 7.2% - other 0.5% - nonresponse What winter did you first start snowmobiling? Mean - Winter of 1970-71 See Figure 4 in Chapter 4 for more detail. 1.2% - nonresponse Whose machine did you first begin snowmobiling with? 41.9% - a friend's or relative's 3.1% - a dealer's or rented 54.8% - your own 0.2% - other 0.0% - nonresponse Since first taking up snowmobiling, how many winters have you not participated? 77. 3% - None 9. 6% - One 4. 8% - Two 3. 3% - Three 0.9% - More than 3 4.1% - Nonresponse Which of the following activities do you engage in? 51.4% - scramble in open areas (including lakes) 89.2% - trail riding 2.4% - competitive racing 8.6% - overnight expeditions 5.0% - other activities 0.5% - nonresponse 87 88 6. Did you snowmobile this past winter? 87.1% - 12.4% - 0.5% - 63. If you did mobile? 10.4% - 15.6% - 10.9% - 13.9% — 7.9% - 16.4% - 8.7% - 7.6% - 8.6% - 6b. If you did 29.4% - 21.6% - 15.6% - ONWOO woooooo NNNNN I yes no nonresponse snowmobile last winter, how many days did you snow- 1-5 days 6-10 days 11-15 days 16—20 days 21-25 days 26—30 days 31-50 days More than 50 days nonresponse not snowmobile last winter, briefly explain why not. health reasons poor weather conditions sold their machine(s) or their machines were in non-operating condition lack of time loss of interest in snowmobiling too expensive to participate in getting too old nonresponse 7. How does the amount you snowmobiled this past winter compare with that of previous winters? This winter did you snowmobile: 50.5% 15.0% 33.6% 0.9% less than previous winters more than previous winters about the same as previous winters nonresponse 8. If you snowmobiled more or less this past winter than previous winters, briefly explain why? 53.4% - 25.0% - 9.3% - O NVI—‘WWkO‘ NmVOL‘Nb o\°o\°o\°o\°o°o\°o\8 weather conditions amount of time number of machines health reasons children's age interest in snowmobiling number of snowmobiling partners age of self other reasons nonresponse 10. 11. 12. 89 What percent of your snowmobiling last winter took place during the weekend? 10.1% - less than 25% 28.4% - 75-89% 13.4% — 25-49% 25.7% - 90—100% 21.0% - 50—74% 1.4% - nonresponse Indicate the percent of your snowmobiling last winter which occurred in each of the following categories. Average Percent of Total Amount of Snowmobiling? Land Categories 19.1% - At your permanent residence. 25.7% — On other land within your neighborhood. 26.9% - Outside your neighborhood and within a two hours drive from your permanent residence. 27.6% - Further than a two hours drive from your permanent residence. 0.7% - nonresponse How does the locations where you snowmobiled this past winter compare with previous winters? This winter did you snowmobile: 19.5% - closer to your permament residence than previous winters further from your permanent residence than previous winters 72.6% - at about the same distance from your permanent residence as previous winters nonresponse \l H N I 0.8% Did you take a winter vacation last year which involved snow- mobiling? 36.4% - yes 61.6% - no 2.0% - nonresponse 12a. If you did take a vacation, how many days long was it? 16.4% - 1-3 days 49.3% - 4-7 days 25.7% - 8—14 days 3.6% - more than 14 days 5.0% - nonresponse 90 . If you did take a vacation, how many vacation days were spent snowmobiling? 22.1% 1-3 days 50.0% - 4-7 days 17.1% - 8-14 days 3.6% more than 14 days 7.2% - nonresponse Next winter do you anticipate snowmobiling: 6.2% — not at all 2.4% - some, but less than this past winter 44.3% - about the same as this past winter 45.0% — more than this past winter 2.1% - nonresponse Briefly explain the reasons why you anticipate snowmobiling next winter the amount you have indicated in question #13. - amount of time - weather conditions number of snowmobiles owned - children's age - amount of interest in snowmobiling .8% - health reasons .5% - number of snowmobiling partners .5% - age of self .4% — other reasons .1% - nonresponse MN 0 I HO‘®NU‘I NNNNN I N H L‘NI—‘NLAQL‘L‘I—‘N Which of the following activities have you ever participated in? % - cross country skiing % - downhill skiing . % - ice skating % - ice fishing % - winter camping . % - hockey % - nonresponse 91 16. How many days did you participate in these activities this past winter? cross country skiing - 8.6% participated this past winter an average of 7.6 days downhill skiing — 7.4% participated this past winter an average of 10.1 days ice skating - 19.4% participated this past winter an average of 7.1 days ice fishing - 38.8% participated this past winter an average of 12.3 days winter camping - 9.8% participated this past winter an average of 7.2 days ice hockey - 4.1% participated this past winter an average of 15.5 days nonresponse - 2.0% 17. Which of the following activities do you participate in while on snowmobile outings? 30.1% - ice fishing 3.6% — sightseeing 11.7% - camping 17.2% - other activities 12.0% - hunting 1.7% - nonresponse 7.7% - cook-outs (picnics) 18. Sex of respondent: 84.7% - male 14.6% - female 0.7% - nonresponse 19. Age of respondent: 3.1% - 16-20 years 12.7% - 46-50 years 4.8% - 21-25 years 10.8% - 51-55 years 10.8% - 26-30 years 6.2% - 56—60 years 11.7% - 31-35 years 5.0% - 61-65 years 16.7% - 36-40 years 1.7% - older than 65 years 14.1% - 41—45 years 2.4% - nonresponse 20 Marital status: 10.5% - single 88.5% - married 1.0% — nonresponse 20a. 21. 22. 23. 24. 92 If married, does your spouse snowmobile? 81.3% - yes 16.8% - no 1.9% - nonresponse Indicate the number of children in your household within each of the following age groups. Also indicate how many of those in each age group snowmobile. Average number of Average number of children per snow— children per family A e rou mobiling family who snowmobile Less than 10 0.53 0.35 years old 10—15 years 0.58 0.51 old More than 15 0.82 0.72 years old TOTAL 1.93 1.58 Circle the highest education level you have completed. 17.4% - less than high school graduates 53.1% - high school graduates 14.4% - less than four years of college 7.7% - four years of college 4.8% - more than four years of college 2.6% - nonresponse Is your permanent residence: 91.4% - a house 1.2% - an apartment 4.8% - a mobile home 0.4% - a townhouse or condominium 0.7% - other 1.5% - nonresponse Do you own or rent your permanent residence? 90.9% - own 6.2% - rent 2.9% - nonresponse 93 25. Is your permanent residence located in: 15.8% - an urban area 33.3% - a suburban area 48.3% - a rural area 2.6% - nonresponse 26. Do you own a second home? 28.2% - yes 69.9% - no 1.9% - nonresponse 26a. If you own a second home, how many days last winter did you use it for snowmobiling? 23.8% - none 20.6% - 1-10 days 23.0% - 11-20 days 16.7% - 21-30 days 5.6% - more than 30 days 10.3% - nonresponse 27. What is your total family income? 3.1% - less than $6,000 6.2% - $6,000 - $9,999 20.3% - $10,000 - $14,999 18.9% - $15,000 - $19,999 20.8% - $20,000 - $25,000 20.1% - greater than $25,000 10.6% nonresponse LA) b Snowmobile Ownership Characteristics A. Snowmobiles Currently Owned Number of snowmobiles per family: 2.4% - 27.3% - 42.1% - 18.7% - Model year: .3% - .4% - .1% - 12.8% - 20.3% - 17.7% — \OUIUI Horsepower: 14.8% - 34.2% - 28.9% - Year purchased: .7% .9% - .1% .6% - .7% - .1% O‘U’INNNN I paid None 3.8% l 1.4% 2 0.5% 3 3.8% Mean - 2.0 before 1969 10.4% 1969 7.8% 1970 6.2% 1971 3.6% 1972 1.4% 1973 Mean - 1972.3 less than 20 9.4% 20-29 4.3% 30-39 8.4% Mean - 28.2 before 1969 15.3% 1969 13.9% 1970 15.0% 1971 2.5% 1972 1.2% 1973 Mean - 1973.2 Percent purchased new or used: 34.7% - 65.3% - 0.0% - Used New nonresponse 94 4 5 6 nonresponse 1974 1975 1976 1977 nonresponse 40-49 50 and greater nonresponse 1974 1975 1976 1977 nonresponse 95 Purchase price: 25. I-‘NN O‘NOU‘IQ I 0000\me NNNNNN less than $551 $551-$950 $951-$1350 $1351-$1750 more than $1750 nonresponse Number of days used during the 1976-77 8.7% - none 17.9% 18.3% - 1-9 8.7% 22.4% - 10-19 5.1% 18 o 900 - 20-29 Percent of 9 6. 3. 0. P'PJOJ aseeae Percent of 9 6.1 3.8 0.1 NNN Mean - 20.5 days snowmobiles which are still operating not operating nonresponse Mean - $847 per snowmobile season: — 30-45 - more than 45 — nonresponse in operating condition snowmobiles which are registered with Michigan's Secretary of State: registered not registered nonresponse 96 B. Summary of the Characteristics of Snowmobiles Previously Owned Which Have Since Been Sold, Traded, or Abandoned Number of snowmobiles per family which were owned in the past: 44.5% - none 0.5% - 5 26.6% - 1 0.5% - 6 16.0% - 2 0.4% - more than 6 5.5% — 3 4.1% - nonresponse 1.9% - 4 Percent of Mean = 0.96 owners whose past machines were purchased new or used: 17.5% - purchased all used machines 24.6% — purchased all new machines 57.4% - purchased new and used machines 0.5% - nonresponses Total purchase price of all the snowmobiles per family having owned at least one machine in the past which is no longer owned: 21.4% - less than $551 27.4% - $551 - $1050 15.8% - $1051 — $1550 Mean - $1315 per family having 11.6% - $1551 - $2050 owned at least one past 7.0% - $2051 - $2550 machine 8.8% - more than $2550 Mean - $708 per snowmobile 8.0% - nonresponse Total trade or sale value of all the snowmobiles per family having owned at least one machine in the past and no longer own: 25.1% - less than $250 27.0? - $251 - $550 Mean - $585 per family having 17'74 - $551 - $950 d t least one St 12.12 - $951 - $1450 gzgfiin: pa 2'3% - $1451 - $1950 Mean - $301 er snowmobile 2.3% - more than $1950 p 13.5% - nonresponse Number of snowmobiles per family owned in the past which were not registered: 84.2% - none 10.2% - 1 3.7% - more than 1 1.9% - nonresponse LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Archer, Brian H. 1976. Demand Forecasting in Tourism. Bangor Occasional Papers in Economics. NumBer 9, University of Wales Press. Armstrong, J. Scott and Terry S. Overton. 1977. "Estima- ting Nonresponse Bias in Mail Surveys." Journal of MarketingiResearch, XIV (August 1977), pp. 396-402. Babbie, Earl R. 1973. Survey Research Methods. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., Belmont, California. Blalock, Hubert M. 1972. Social Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. Brown, Tommy L.and Bruce T. Wilkins. 1975. "Methods of Im- proving Recreation Projections." Journal of Leisure Research 7, No. 3: 225-234. Bureau of the Census. 1972. "Housing Characteristics for States, Cities, and Counties." 1970 Census of Housing. Vol. 1, part 24. Bureau of the Census. 1977a. "Current Housing Reports." General Housing Characteristics; Annual Housing Surveyzgl975. Series H-150-75A. Bureau of the Census. 1977b. "Educational Attainment in the United States: March 1977 and 1976." Po ula- tion Characteristics. Series P-ZO, No. 31 . Burton, Thomas L. 1971. Experiments in Recreation Research. Rowman and Littlefield, Totowa, N. J. Bury, Richard L., Stephen F. McCool, and Robert C. Wendling. 1976. "Research on Off-Road Recreation Vehicles: A Summary of Selected Reports and a Comprehensive Bibliography." Proceedings of the Southern States Recreation Research,'USDAIFOrest Service Technical Report SE-9, pp. 234-272. 97 98 Chubb, Michael (Editor). 1971. Proceedings of the 1971 Snowmobile and Off The Road Vehicle Research Symposium sponsored by the Department of Park and Recreation Resources and the Agricultural Experiment Station, both of Michigan State University, and the U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Technical Report #8. Recreation Research and Planning Unit of the Department, East Lansing, Michigan. Chubb, Michael. 1974. "Recreation Behavior Studies: Imperial Indicators of Change." Proceedings of the National Research Symposium on Indi- cators ofChange in the Recreation Environ- ment. Pennsylvania State University, Univer- sity Park, Pennsylvania. Clawson, Marion and Jack L. Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore. Crapo, Douglas and Michael Chubb. 1969. Recreation Area Danyse Investigation Techniques: Part 1, A Study ofiMethodoIOgy. Technical Report #6. Recreation Researchiand Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Doyle, Mortimer B. 1976. An Assessment of the Snowmobile Manufacturing Industry and Sport I976. In- ternational SnowmoBile Industry Association, Washington, D. C. Eddie, Jack M. 1971. "Upper Great Lakes Regional Com- mission Snowmobile Study," in Chubb, 1972 Pro- ceedings . . ., op. cit., pp. 34-45. Gogebic Community College, in cooperation with Upper Great Lakes Regional Commission and Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 1974. Michi- gan Snowmobiler Economic and Preference Sur- v_y. The Commission, DuluEh, Minnesota. Holecek, Donald F. (Editor). 1973. Proceedings of the 1973 Snowmobile and Off The Road Vehicle RESearch Symposium, sponsored by'fhe Depart- ment of Park and Recreation Resources and the Agricultural Experiment Station, both of Mich- igan State University. Technical Report #9, Recreation Research and Planning Unit of the Department, East Lansing, Michigan. 99 Kuehn, Jerome H. 1971. "Minnesota's 1970 Snowmobile Use Study," in Chubb, 1971 Proceedings . . ., op. cit., pp. 19-29. Lanier, Louis Legrand. 1974. An Exploratory Study of Manning, Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Michigan Use Patterns and User Characteristics of Mich- igan Snowmobile Owners. A Ph.D. Dissertatidn, DEpartment of Resource Development, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Robert E. and Donald F. Holecek. 1975. Pri- vate Land Leasing for Public Recreation Snow- mobiling in Michigan. Research Report #282? Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. DNR. 1976a. Michigan Snowmobile Guide. A pamphlet distributed by Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan. DNR. 1976b. Michigan Snowmobile Use Survey 1975-76. Research Section, Law Enforcement D1v1Sion, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan. DNR. 1977a. Analysis of Recreation Partici- pation and Public Opihions on Oer9 fromi1976 Telephone Survey, Recreation Planning Section survey Report #1, Recreation Services Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan. DNR. 1977b. Factors Producing Changes Over Time in RecreationiActivity, Recreation Plan- ning Section Report #5, Recreation Services Division, Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan. DNR. 1977c. Michigan Resident Recreation Activities and Providers. Recreation Plan- ning Section Report #6, Recreation Services Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Michigan. DNR and Michigan Sheriffs Association. 1973. Michigan's Snowmobile Law, Act No. 74, P.A. 1968, as amended. 100 Moeller, George H. and Herbert E. Echelberger. 1974. "Approaches to Forecasting Recreation Con- sumption." Outdoor Recreation Research: Applying the Results. General TechnicaI Report NC-9, North Central Forest Experiment Station, Department of Agriculture. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission (ORRRC). 1962. Prospective Demand for Outdoor Rec- reation. Study Report No. 26, Washington, D C., U. S. Government Printing Office. Robertson, Marc and Richard Bishop. 1975. Off-Road Recreation Vehicles in the Upper Great Lakes States: User Characteristics andiEconomic Im acts. Center for Resource Policy Studies and Programs, School of Natural Resources, College of Life Sciences, University of Wis- consin-Madison. Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Diffusion of Innovations. Free Press of Glencoe, A Division of the MacMillan Company and The Crowell-Collier Publishing Company, N. Y. Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker. 1971. Com- munication of Innovations. The Free Press, N. Y. and CoIIier-MacMillan Ltd., London. University of Vermont. 1976. Snowmobilingin Vermont 1975. Research Report SNR-RMB, Recreation Management Program, School of Natural Re- sources, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont. Vila, J. J. 1971. "Ontario's 1970 Snowmobile Study," in Chubb, 1971 Proceedings . . ., op. cit., pp. 30-42. Walker, Bruce J. and Richard K. Burdick. 1977. "Ad- vance Correspondence and Error in Mail Sur- veys.” Journal of Marketing Research, XIV (August T9777} 379-382. "‘1REED