FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR RECREATION ENTERPRISES IN MICHIGAN Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DONALD RUSSELL ‘HEHN 1968 , an... {£30. £3} Ua’wcrmy .‘ III III III IIII II III III III III III IIIIIIIIIII L 319123 1022 ,~ , e . at? ~~4‘11, v‘; Ova-'1 1 ABSTRACT FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR RECREATION ENTERPRISES IN MICHIGAN by Donald Russell Hehn‘ This study focuses on commercial, outdoor rec- reation enterprises in Michigan in an attempt to establish credible fundamental concepts of the size of this industry; types of activities; location of enterprises; types of enterprises; types of land used; sources of financing; availability of enéerprise facilities to the general public; the degree of government competition that such enterprises must meet; and the current, effective economic demand for certain specific activities. The study was conducted with the help of the Soil Conservation Service, whose work—unit conservationists in Michigan were polled for information pertinent to the objectives just stated, by means of a mailed questionnaire. They were also asked to rate the "use" status of outdoor recreation enterprises in their districts according to a three—category rating scale. The mailing resulted in a questionnaire return rate of one hundred per cent. The data was summarized according to fourteen Planning and DevelOpment Regions originally defined by the Office of Planning coordination of the State of Michigan. A series of tables and maps of recreation enterprises prepared directly from summarized data, and a basic statistical interpretation are used to Donald Russell Hehn derive the study's conclusions. The research reveals that there are 1,5A6 commer— cial, outdoor recreation enterprises operating in Michigan outside of Wayne County, representing 3,027 separate enterprise-types or sets of facilities. This situation is brought about by the extreme diversification of tradition— al, outdoor recreation enterprise—types, resulting in the appearance of new complex-activity enterprises that offer three or more different sets of outdoor facilities, and represent twenty—three per cent of all such recreation enterprises. Complex-activity enterprises are also dem- onstrated to differ from the norm in terms of general levels of use, availability of accommodations, and sensi— tivity to the presence of water. A map of the percentages of water—oriented enter— prises indicates that enterprises are sensitive to the presence of good water and access to it. Day-use activ— ities tended to be offered in the heavier population regions of Southern Michigan, while overnight facilities tend to locate in the more sparcely populated Northern regions of the State. HOpes of balancing farm surpluses by promoting farm land into recreational uses are diminished, in that the study reveals that 73.N per cent of the recreation enterprises are located on land of low agricultural prod- uctivity, and present Federal Government financing aid Donald Russell Hehn designed to promote these developments only reached 1.68 per cent of all Michigan's recreation enterprises. A factor that might be giving impetus to a trend toward complex—activity enterprises is suggested in the findings that fourteen per cent of all recreation enterprises are confronted with similar government facilities located within fifteen miles, and 102 such enterprises were ident— ified to be in a state of direct competition with public facilities for users. "Use" ratings are used in terms of ratios to il- lustrate the current, effective economic demand for a selected group of specific outdoor recreation activities. Using this system, the study points out that a strong demand exists for golf facilities, cabins or cottages with access to water, and skiing, but certain regions of Michigan differ, and these differences are noted. The method also indicates that enterprises offering activities traditionally associated with government offerings such as campgrounds, picnic areas and hunting reserves, had a very difficult current market situation. FUNDAMENTAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR RECREATION ENTERPRISES IN MICHIGAN By Donald Russell Hehn A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Author would like to express his sincere thanks to the men of the U. S. Soil Conservation Service in Michigan, whose willing help and cooperation made this study possible. I should also like to express my deep appreciation for the invaluable help and guidance extended to me by my Academic Advisor, Professor Louis F. Twardzik, and my Minor Advisor, Dr. John Collins. I would also like to thank Dr. Raleigh Barlowe, Chairman of the Department of Resource Development, and Dr. Milton H. Steinmueller, of the Department of Resource DeveIOpment, whose help and counsel have deeply been ap- preciated throughout my studies. Finally, I would like to express my deep apprecia— tion, and gratefully acknowledge the endless patience, help, encouragement and understanding of my wife, Mary, whose help made this entire university venture possible. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES Chapter I II III IV INTRODUCTION The Interdependence of Man Incipient Automation The General Problem Area The Problem Purpose and Objectives Delimitation, Definitions and Assumptions THE LITERATURE IN REVIEW Inventory Studies Social Survey Studies The Present State of Knowledge DEVELOPING THE STUDY Developing the Questionnaire RESULTS OF THE STUDY . . Scoring the Replies The Analysis The Findings SUMMARY: IMPLICATION CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . Summation Implication Conclusions Recommendations BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES iii ii iv 96 96 105 112 llN 119 Table om»: 0'11ij LIST OF TABLES Summation of Outdoor Recreation Data for Planning Regions of Michigan with State Totals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aspects of Complex—Activity Enterprises Heavy Use Activities in Michigan Light Use Activities in Michigan Data Summation, Regions 1 — 3 Data Summation, Regions A — 6 Data Summation, Regions 7 Data Summation, Region 8 Data Summation, Region 9 Data Summation, Regions 10 and 11 Data Summation, Regions l2 — 1A iv Page 70 73 85 86 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 Figure LIST OF FIGURES Map of the Study Area Numerical Distribution of Enterprises by Counties Fourteen Planning and Development Regions of Michigan Showing Numerical Distribution of Recreational Enter— prises . . . . . . . . . Map Showing the Percentage Distribution of Water—Oriented Enterprises Map Showing the Activities Offered and Priority for Fourteen Planning Regions Page 61 63 6A 77 79 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION: THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF MAN Throughout the universe of discourse comprising the social sciences, there is no more basic assumption than that man is a social animal. Indeed, man is born into an ongoing society. From his social setting, each individual receives in the course of experience, a program of conditioning leading to the development of his individ— ual personality. He learns how to perceive himself and others; to know what is expected of him, and what he can expect of others. In short, all that a man is, or may ever hope to be, is largely dependent upon his experiences within his society. Man lives, then, in a state of mutual inter- dependence in a society. Man's inclination and wants, physical and moral, irresistably impel him to associate with others of his kind. Accordingly, man has rarely been found to exist in any age or country, in any state other than a social state. Those rare exceptions where man has existed outside of society have occurred at the expense of his being void of all those moral and intel— lectual capacities which would identify him as man. In short, he existed only as a brute creation in the physical shape ofman.l 1The Works of John C. Calhoun, ed. by Richard K. Cralle (3 vols.; New York: Appleton and 00., 1853—1855), I, p. 11. l Today, the interdependent nature of man is an omnipresent fact of modern life. The dynamic way of life in western civilization is one of extreme specialization and acute interdependence among individuals and peOples. Each man, therefore, seeks to fulfill his separate, special function within his society and, in return, seeks from his society the ability to exchange the fruits of his special efforts for all his other needs. This state of mutual interdependence in which modern Americans live gives rise to a commonly accepted, yet largely fallacious concept among the general American populous. This concept puts forth the idea that most of one's basic needs are fulfilled in the United States by the commercial, industrial complex. In one sense, most of man's basic needs are indeed fulfilled in one way or another by the industrial, commercial complex which com— prises the backbone of American life. Yet, realistically, this complex only appears to provide a part of man's present needs, relating mostly to his physical needs for food and fiber and the auxiliary support of such emotional needs as security, association and happiness. In truth, the industrial commercial complex, like the individual citizen, is almost wholly dependent on tangible society, namely government, to provide those basic conditions or materials that give rise to an atmosphere wherein man and his corporate entities can survive and prosper. In the final analysis, then, it should be clear that all of our rights and responsibilities as individuals are defined, enforced and protected by government. To government falls the long—term stewardship of our society and way of life. As society becomes ever increasingly more complex, so does government's task of providing for the intangible emotional needs so essential to the socio—economic success and well being of our people. The issues of national de— fense, law and order, education, health, welfare, trans- portation, communication, and a host of other problems, are divided and subdivided among the various levels of government in the United States. These problems and their many facets have, during the industrialization of this nation over the last century, become extremely com- plex. The minor governmental concerns of fifty years ago, such as air rights or water quality, are today central issue—areas of entire departments of the Federal Govern- ment. Our scientific and technological advances have, in short, facilitated a need for a highly complex and com- prehensive government capable of successfully managing our society and providing for those needs without which neither the individual nor the corporate entity can function. The future happiness and social well being of the American people require government action to assure that the necessary psychological relief of outdoor recre- ation will always be available. ’Incipient Automation Since the end of World War II, the United States has been experiencing the most phenomenal expansion of scientific advance ever known to man. We stand today at the brink of an entirely new way of life — a life which promises to free men of the shackles which bind them to long hours of endeavor in the pursuit of food and fiber in order to meet their physical needs. The automation of our industrial efforts has become a practical reality toward which our society is constantly moving. Yet the possible advent of a fully automated society holds in it the threat of social disaster. While we may look forward eagerly to the increased leisure of the future, we must ever be mindful of several problems attendant to its development. The most obvious problem being created by advanc- ing automation is connected to the future activities of much of the present—day labor force. In a fully automated industrial society such as ours might be, only a small percentage of the present working class will be needed to operate our industrial complex. In this society, strongly permeated as it is with the protestant work ethic, it becomes painfully clear that our future in an automated society will vastly change some of our basic social in— stitutions. Even today we can look back and perceive the strong evidence of advanced change. Over the past twenty years the United States has been experiencing some of the initial effects of the trend toward automation. The aver- age work-week in private industry has diminished from “0.3 hours in 1947, to 38.2 hours in 1967. The general pOpu- lace has become more affluent — the disposable income has increased from 169.8 billion dollars in 19A7, to 5AA.7 billion dollars in 1967. This is a society of unprece— dented mobility, as indicated by the increased number of registered passenger vehicles from 31,035,A2O in 1945, to 97,527,000 vehicles in 1967.1 Industrial labor unions have sharply noted the trend to automation, with its ac- companying technological displacement of workers. Union bargaining has turned toward seeking guarantees designed to limit one of the harmful side effects of automation, namely: unemployment.2 This increased leisure, mobility and affluency has created a demand for outdoor recreation which has exper— ienced almost unbelievable growth since 19A5.3 The lU.S., Department of Commerce, National Industrial Board, Economic Almanac 1967—1968 (Washington, D.C.: Gov— ernment Printing Office, 1967), p. 15A. 2For an expanded discussion of this tOpic see Wendell French, The Personnel Management Process: Human Resources Administration (New York, N.Y.: Houghton—Miffen, 196D), pp. 380—uoE. 3C. Frank Brockman, Recreational Use of Wild Lands (New York, N.Y.: McGraw—Hill Book Company, Inc., 19595, p. 138. Federal Government has, of course, been cognizant of these changing social conditions. In fulfilling its public trust of "insuring domestic tranquility and promoting the general welfare,"1 as well as meeting the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness requirements of the Declaration of Independence,2 the Federal Government has been actively working toward understanding and resolving these social problems created by the incipient effects of automation. The General Problem Area For the purposes of this discussion at this moment the specific interest is government's efforts to provide for the present demand for recreation and insure that the future will meet all of the needs of a populace which will seek to gain a meaningful life, largely in the pursuit of leisure-time activities. The first major attention of the Federal Government to the demand for recreation in this post World War II era came rather indirectly. Immediately after World War II, the National Park Service experienced a rapid increase in the number of lU.S., Constitution, Preamble. 2The second paragraph of the Declaration of Inde- pendence specifies and enumerates that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, and it is to secure such rights that governments are instituted among men. annual Visitors to the National Parks. In 19A6, our National Parks received 21,752,315l visitors, which set an all—time record attendance. By 1955, the number of annual visitors had swollen to 50,007,838, nearly 2.5 times the 19A5 figure. National Park Service facilities were never designed to withstand or accommodate such a rapidly growing public interest as the incipient effects of advancing automation were causing. An acute need to rehabilitate, modernize, develop new facilities and train more personnel became painfully apparent. A dramatic ef— fort was needed to correct this state of affairs and, in 1956, the National Park Service responded to the need by instituting the "Mission 66" Program. This program set forth eight basic goals which they planned to im- plement in a synchronized ten-year plan ending in 1966.2 The "Mission 66" Program was an ambitious under- taking, but the ambitious nature of this undertaking was quickly outstripped by the ever accelerating demand for outdoor recreation. By 1958, the demand for outdoor rec- reation had become so pressing that a clear need for a full—scale Federal Government inquiry into outdoor rec- reation was deemed necessary. Toward that end Congress, lC. Frank Brockman, op. cit., p. 138. 2Ibid. on June 28, 1958, passed Public Law 85—A70, establishing the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission, charging it with a three—fold mission; 1. To determine the outdoor recreation wants and needs of the American people now and what they will be in the years 1976 and 2000. 2. To determine the recreation resources of the nation available to satisfy those needs now and in the years 1976 and 2000. 3. To determine what policies and programs should be recommended to insure the needs of the present and future are adequately and efficiently met.l After nearly four years of study, which produced twenty—seven separate volumes of O.R.R.R.C.2 study reports, the Commission, on January 31, 1962, presented to the President and Congress, a report of its review with a sum- mation of data, findings, and fifty—two specific recom— mendations covering eight subject areas in the field of recreation. This report, Outdoor Recreation for America, and the twenty-seven volumes of study reports to which it relates, have, since 1962, come to be recognized as out— standing foundation authorities in the field of recreation. 1Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission, Report of the Outdoor Recreation Review Commission to the President and the Congress, Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 2. 2O.R.R.R.C. is a widely accepted abbreviation of Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission, and will be used to refer to that Commission throughout this text. In response to this report, Congress acted swiftly to implement its major recommendations.l Among the fifty-two specific recommendations of the Commission's report, five recommendations were directed at stimulating and expanding the role of private endeavor, individual initiative, voluntary groups 1On April 2, 1962, Secretary of the Interior Udall established in the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, and on May 28, 1963, the President signed Public Law 88-29, the Bureau's Organic Act. The establishment of this act was one of the direct results of the O.R.R.R.C. Report. Another direct result of the report was the establishment of the Land and Water Con- servation Fund Act of 1965 by Public Law 88-578, which is administered by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. These two Acts authorize and require this new bureau to: "Prepare and maintain a continuing inventory and evaluation of the Nation's outdoor recreation needs and resources. Formulate and maintain a comprehen- sive nationwide outdoor recreation plan._ Provide technical assistance to and c00perate with States, their political subdivisions, and private outdoor recreation interests. Sponsor, engage in, and as- sist in outdoor recreation research. Promote co— ordination of Federal outdoor recreation plans and activities. Administer a program of financial assistance to the States, and through States to local public agencies, for planning, acquiring, and developing public outdoor recreation resources. Coordinate a program of recreation land acquisition by the National Park Service, Forest Service and Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wilflife. Provide outdoor recreation planning assistance at Federal water projects. Provide the Executive Director to the President's Council on Recreation and Natural Beauty." For an expanded discussion on the effects of these two Acts, see U.S., Department of Interior. Bureau of Out- door Recreation, Federal Focal Point in Outdoor Recrea— tion (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966). 10 and commercial enterprise, in providing outdoor recreation opportunities to augment and complement government's ef— forts. Chapter 11 of the O.R.R.R.C. Report is devoted to "The Private Role" and, in the preamble, says in part: Outdoor recreation, unlike such a service as police protection, cannot be the responsibility of govern— ment alone ... Government can help make Opportunities available and carry out projects in the public inter- est that cannot be done privately, but it does not, cannot, and should not provide for all outdoor recreation needs of every citizen. In keeping with this concept, the Commission made the following recommendation regarding commercial recre- ation enterprises: Government agencies should stimulate diversified commercial Secreation investment on private lands and waters. In support of this recommendation, the Report argues that government assistance and technical guidance to private recreation development is essential to the sound development of good commercial facilities. While there were strong indications that future recreation demands warranted numerous types of recreation develop— ment, many enterprises, particularly small ones, were experiencing financing difficulties which served as an important limitation to expansion. Technical assistance by governmental agencies in promoting, establishing and .R.C., Outdoor Recreation for America, 5 ll improving present operations, was also deemed necessary.1 In response to these findings and recommendations regarding commercial recreation enterprises, Congress enacted the Food and Agriculture Act of 1962, Public Law 87-703.2 This Act authorized the U.S. Department of Agriculture to offer assistance to farmers, ranchers and other land owners in develOping recreation resources for profit. The Act also amended the Consolidated Farmers Home Administration Act of 1961 to permit the Farmers Home Administration to loan financing funds to recrea— tional enterprises which could not otherwise obtain needed credit for development from other sources on reasonable terms. This Act was hailed as a milestone achievement "on a New Frontier in Conservation" by Secretary of Agriculture, Orville L. Freeman. Secretary Freeman explained the unique advantages of the Act in a speech to a group of conservationists in May of 1962, 1Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission, Study Report No. 11, Private Outdoor Recreation Facilities (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 19627, p. 145. 2U.S., Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Technical Helpffor Rural Recreation (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, May, 19637. 3Ibid. 12 with the following commentary: "We have the unique opportunity to bring together two problems of great concern to this nation —- an abun— dance of food and a shortage of recreation -— and to find that in solving one we also can solve the other . . . . We can balance the productivity of our farm land with the ability of this nation to use food and fiber effectively and efficiently by applying more fully our land and water resources in sound conserv- ation programs to meet the growing non—farm demands on land and water made by an increasingly urban and metropolitan nation. Clearly the Department of Agriculture feels that commer- cial, outdoor recreation enterprises can be used to offset excessive farm production. Toward that end, the U.S. Department of Agriculture assigned its Soil Con- servation Service the leadership task in promoting the develOpment of rural recreation enterprises on private land by providing guidance, information, technical as— sistance and acting as liaison with other governmental agencies assisting with recreation development. The Problem Since 1962, the Soil Conservation Service in Michigan has diligently worked toward fulfilling its mission to rural outdoor recreation enterprises on private land. Planning materials and information 1Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman, "Multiple Use: A Concept for Private Land" (a paper presented before a conference on Conservation, in Washington, D.C., on May 2“, 1962). 2U.S., Department of Agriculture, Technical Help for Rural Recreation, op. cit. l3 bulletins regarding various types of recreation enter- prises have been published promoting outdoor recreation enterprises to both users and operators.1 Technical as— sistance has been extended to land owners in appraising for recreational development, the suitability of their land's soils, building, flora and fauna, etc. Construc— tion information and plans for artificial water impound- ments, buildings and park equipment have been extended to land owners in need of such information. The basic aim of all this activity has been to promote an outdoor recreation industry which serves to complement and augment public recreation facilities in effectively meeting present and future recreation demands, while aiding in the maintenance and further development of a strong, healthy rural economy in Michigan. In order to intelligently meet that aim, answers are required for such questions as: — What type of commercial recreation deve10pment should be encouraged? Where in Michigan are these developments needed? What time, labor, capital and management qualities and quantities are required? This information, coupled with a knowledge of the physical or lWhile a detailed list of such publications is not practical here, the following publications, in the writer's opinion, can be considered typical: U.S., Depart- ment of Agriculture, Rural Recreation (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Misc. Information Bulletin No. 930, June, 1963). U.S., Department of Agriculture, Rural Recreation Enterprises for Profit (Washington, D.C.: Gov- ernment Printing Office, Agricultural Information Bulletin No. 277, 1953)- 14 or environmental and esthetic qualities of land such as the Soil Conservation Service presently has, would provide a sound basis for working toward the basic aim. The in- formation required to answer these first three questions with regard to Michigan, however, is largely unavailable - either never having been satisfactorily established, or never gathered at all.1 In order to know what type of commercial recrea— tion development should be encouraged, it must be con— clusively established what facilities presently exist, including both public and private operations. What is the present demand for these facilities, and what probable future demand will there be?2 While progress has been made toward providing such demand information, it is not 1The general lack of such information was noted years ago, and review of current literature in the Mich— igan area indicates that by and large this basic informa— tion is still lacking. For an expanded discussion of this phenomenon, see: Clawson, Held, and Stoddard, Land for the Future (Baltimore, Md.: John HOpkins Press, 1960), p. 125. ”Further, we emphasize . . . little or no data exists as to its extent, location, and forms of use." 2By so doing, it can be determined where signifi- cant demand exists, or might exist. Then, by evaluating the appropriateness of meeting such a demand by private investment, one could make intelligent predictions of what type of commercial recreation enterprises should be en— couraged. For a further discussion of this concept, see: North Star Research and Development Institute, Developing and Financing Private Outdoor Recreation in the Upper Midwest (Minneapolis, Minn.: Upper Midwest Research and Development Council, Oct., 1966), p. 23. 15 presently available in a comprehensive form. Nor is there available a current or perpetual inventory of private out- door recreation enterprises. In order to determine where commercial recreation developments are needed in Michigan, a planner would first need to know the geographical location of present enter— prises which could be equated against effective demand. But, no map of Michigan showing the geographic distribu- tion of recreation enterprises is presently available. Questions relating to time, labor, capital and manage- ment requirements for Michigan's recreation operator requires in—depth descriptive research of the direct interview type. At present, research of this type is also lacking since basic information on the research population has not been available, giving rise to severe methodological problems in obtaining good research samples.l Purpose and Objectives of the Study The purpose of this study, then, is to define the basic aspects and characteristics of private outdoor 1Failure to properly define a population from which a representative research sample can be drawn gives rise to sampling biases which often invalidate the results of such research project. For an expanded discussion of this problem, see: Water R. Borg, Educational Research: An Introduction (New York, N. Y.: David McKay Company, Inc-, 1963), pp- 176-179, 330. 16 recreation enterprises in Michigan which will provide the basic data and understanding essential to future research in this area. To accomplish this, an attempt to answer the following basic objectives seems warranted: 1. 10. Who are Michigan's rural recreation entrepreneurs, and what is their numerical significance? Where are these rural recreation businesses loc- ated in Michigan? What type of rural recreation businesses do we have, and what are the major activities they offer? How are these businesses financed? What type of land are they using? To what extent are they available to the general public? What types of recreation are in the most demand at present? Does government offer facilities similar to those offered by rural recreation enterprises in the same vicinity? Are government recreation facilities competing with private recreation enterprises? From a summation of the findings, what pertinent recommendations can be made regarding future action for wise development of Michigan rural recreation enterprises? 17 The major hypothesis underlying this investigation is that private, rural outdoor recreation enterprises in Michigan are largely characterized by overnight accommoda— tions on marginal agricultural lands in northern Michigan, with financing extended by commercial credit sources. Delimitations, Definitions and Assumptions So that the reader may gain a frame of reference consistent with the definition of terms to be used in this study, as well as the study's delimitations, the following concepts are set forth: Delimitations: 1. This study deals only with commercial outdoor recreation. 2. This study includes only private, rural, out- door recreation enterprises in Michigan which are present- ly in operation and familiar to Soil Conservation Service field staff; or, in the case of Oceana County, to the County Extension Director. 3. Private, rural, outdoor recreation facilities which do not seek to gain a profit or maintain their fac- ilities from user or membership fee are not included in this study. 4. This study does not include the heavily urban- ized Wayne County (City of Detroit). 18 Definitions Private. Neither owned nor operated by the public via government. Rural. For the purposes of this study, rural shall be understood to include all areas of Michigan out- side of heavily urbanized Wayne County (City of Detroit). Outdoor Recreation. Any activity that serves to rejuvenate body, mind or spirit, and takes place outdoors. Recreation Enterprise. A venture, undertaking or operation which pursues a commercial motive seeking to gain a profit or sustain itself from user fees or member- ships, by offering an outdoor recreational Opportunity as a principal product of that venture. Recreation Industry. In general, this would refer to all recreation enterprises as defined above. Recreation Operator. Any entity engaged in offer— ing recreation facilities. Competition. Is said to occur when two or more recreation Operators seek, by offering similar services, to attract a similar set of users. Prime Recreation Product. 1) An outdoor recreation activity that may be used to engage in numerous other rec- reation activities (e.g., Swimming — skin diving, high diving, water skiing; or Horse Riding - racing, polo, chase hunting, jumping, etc.) 2) or any activity which serves as the basis of a recreation enterprise. l9 Complex-Activity Enterprise. Any outdoor rec— reation enterprise classified by the research subjects under three or more recreation enterprise-types, as est- ablished by the National Association of Conservation Districts. 2) Any enterprise offering three or more prime recreation products as defined above. Classification Number. The number of Prime Outdoor Recreation Products an enterprise offers, or the number of enterprise—types that an outdoor recreation enterprise can be said to represent. Water-Oriented Enterprise. A recreation enter— prise which offers an opportunity to participate in an activity which takes place on or in water. Assumptions: The basic assumption underlying this study is that work unit conservationists of the Soil Conservation Service are familiar with most of, or all significant recreation enterprises in their respective operating areas, and will conscientiously complete the question- naire on the basis of such information. CHAPTER II THE LITERATURE IN REVIEW Before beginning this analysis of current research in the field of private, outdoor recreation enterprises, the reader should be aware of certain unusual conditions presently existing within this study area. While a great many publications are available dealing specifically with the private recreation industry as a whole, very few of these publications represent original research. Further- more, there seems to be a significant number of articles available which use simple causal observations of spec- ific enterprises as a basis for discussion, and are simply orientated toward promoting.1 Such general inform- ation is naturally of great general interest, but tends to create a rather incoherent picture of the outdoor rec- reation industry as a whole. Studies exhibiting accept- able scientific methodology and oriented specifically toward develOping a sound basic understanding of the nature of the private, outdoor recreation industry as a lU.S., Department of Agriculture, Rural Recrea- tion, op. cit.; and Rural Recreation for Profit, op. cit. 2O 21 whole are extremely scarce and difficult to locate.1 While there is no completely comprehensive re- search index available in the outdoor recreation study- area, the Department of the Interior annually publishes an index of selected outdoor recreation literature.2 The March, 1968, edition of this Index cites forty—nine current research articles under Item 70790-78839, none of which relates to this study's central concern. This only serves to demonstrate the dearth of information encountered in the problem area. I deeply regret that these prevailing conditions may have led to the exclu- sion of certain relevant research articles from the following review. 1On February 2, 1967, a discussion on "Current Research on Outdoor Recreation" was given by Gale H. Lyon, of the Extension Research and Education Division of the Federal Extension Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to a national workshop of COOperative extension staff at the University of Georgia. In a paper based on that discussion, Lyons cites 179 current published and unpublished research projects compiled from a survey of forty-eight agencies and universities dealing with recreation research. Of these 179 articles, only five specifically dealt with the private, outdoor recreation industry as a whole. See items 6, 21, 81, 164 and 174 of Gale H. Lyon, "Current Research on Outdoor Recreation" (paper presented at the National Workshop of Cooperative Extension's Role in Outdoor Recreation, held at the University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia, Jan. 30 — Feb. 2, 1967). 2Department of the Interior, Index to Selected Outdoor Recreation Literature, Vol. II (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., March, 1968). 22 Inventory Studies Perhaps the most pertinent study conducted in recent years regarding the determination of the basic aspects of private outdoor recreation Was instituted in 1965 by the National Association of Soil and Water Con— servation Districts, in cooperation with the U.S. Soil Conservation Service. This study was basically an at- tempt tO gather a nationwide inventory of all private outdoor recreation facilities, their number, capacity, physical size, types, and the major activities Offered at each. The overall purpose of the study was aimed at providing basic information for economic feasibility studies of private outdoor recreation enterprises for the Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. To facilitate this study, N.A.C.D.l pre- pared a questionnaire which was distributed to all State Soil and Water Conservation Committees who supervised the study within their respective states. In Michigan, the results of this N.A.C.D. Invent- ory were summarized by Emmanuel T. Van Nierop, of the State Soil Conservation Committee, in a ten-page report.2 lN.A.C.D. is a common abbreviation for National Association of Soil and Water Conservation District, and will be used during the rest of the text to indicate that association. 2Emmanuel T. Van Nierop, Inventory - Private Out- door RecreatiOn Enterprises in Michigan (East Lansing, Michigan: Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State University Publication No. PR500, Jan. 10, 1966). 23 This Inventory includes all of Michigan except heavily urbanized Wayne County (Detroit), and was the first of its kind conducted in Michigan. Today, this Inventory is still the only one available. Included in the Van Nierop Report is data for three regions of Michigan: the Upper Peninsula, Northern Michigan and Southern Michigan,1 which was summarized according to twelve enterprise-categories or enterprise— types develOped by N.A.C.D. Major findings indicated that in 1965, private outdoor recreation facilities in Michigan could be profiled as follows: 1. The Upper Peninsula had 749 enterprises, using 126,078 acres of land and 1,117 acres of water. Of the 749 enterprises recorded, 396 (over half) offered overnight accommodation in cabins, cottages, campgrounds or vacation farms. An additional 233 enterprises were classified as hunting areas. 2. Northern Michigan had 702 enterprises on 106,798 acres of land and 2,191 acres of water. These enterprises included 461 operations classified as cabins, cottages, campgrounds and vacation farms offering overnight accommodation. lThe dividing line between Upper and Lower Michigan was set at Township Line 15. 24 3. Southern Michigan had 861 enterprises on 58,145 acres of land and 5,515 acres of water. Distrib- ution among the twelve categories was more even, with 199 golf courses being the most frequently cited single category. 4. The State Summary of this data indicated that 1,049 operations (nearly half) of Michigan's 2,312 enterprises offered overnight accommodation in cabins, cottages, campgrounds and vacation farms. Michigan's private, outdoor recreation facilities used 291,071 acres of private land and 8,823 acres of private water. 5. Recreation activities most frequently offered by these enterprises, in order of significance, in- cluded: rural living, fishing or boating, and swimming. It is perhaps significant to note that Wisconsin's Soil and Water Conservation Committee also published the results of their N.A.C.D. Inventory.l This Wisconsin Inventory indicated that a total of 5,754 private, outdoor recreation enterprises were operating in that state in 1965. lWisconsin Soil and Water Conservation Committee, Private Outdoor Recreation Facilities (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin, Publication No. 3000-41, 1967), p. 3. 25 About fifty-seven per cent of the enterprises were classified as cabin-resort type enterprises. Fish— ing waters, the second largest type in terms of numbers, accounted for about nine per cent of the total. The total acreage . . . 267,154 acres. Cabin-resorts, group camps and hunting areas control twenty-five, nineteen, and seventeen per cent of the total, respectively. About thirty-four per cent, or 2,069 enterprises, have access to public waters. In addition, there are about 2,700 acres of water in private ponds. This report shows that in Wisconsin, the recreation activ— ities most frequently offered by their private enterprises were the same as those in Michigan, in the same order of priority: rural living, fishing or boating, and swimming. Michigan has, in the past, been sample-inventoried for various purposes. O.R.R.R.C. researchers used a random sample of Michigan counties to make projections about the significance of private recreational offerings in Michigan. In June of 1965, even while the N.A.C.D. was collecting inventory data for the Department of Agriculture, the Department of the Interior through the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation had contacted the Chilton Research Services of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, with regard to producing an inventory of private recreation facilities.2 This inventory was also based on a random llbid. 2Chilton Research Service inventory-sample in- cluded Michigan's Oceana County. A letter from County Extension Director Lawrence W. Stebbins advised that this inventory was largely made with the use of telephone directories. Since no publication is available regarding this study, further information can only be obtained from the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation by referring to Private Sector Contract and Budget Approval #42-6509. 26 This inventory was also based on a random sample of counties and projected for the rest of the State. The purpose of this inventory was to obtain a profile of private recreation which could be used by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in its National Outdoor Recreation Plan.l Michigan is not the only state where a chaotic scramble for basic descriptive information on private recreation has taken place. A 1961 study of the private outdoor recreation industry in Berkshire, Hampshire and Hampden Counties, Massachusetts,2 expressed the purpose of the study as "developing basic descriptive information on the private, outdoor recreation industry in Massachus— etts."2 The study was conducted much as a census would be. Since no list of private enterprises was available for the study area, each area had to be indiVidually in— vestigated and enumerated by the researchers. Data gathered was divided into twelve categories or types of enterprise, which led to some difficulties in classifying 1A call to Mr. Robert Myers of the Bureau of Out— door Recreation, Ann Arbor office, revealed that nothing was reported from this particular sample—inventory, at least so far as could be determined. 2John H. Foster, The Private Outdoor Recreation Industry in Berkshire, Hampshire and Hampden Counties, Massachusetts: Part 1 (np: Cooperative Extension Service, University of Massachusetts, Publication No. 393, March, 1963), p. i. ' 27 operations with combinations of activities. The study determined that there were 366 private recreation opera- tions in the three counties on 44,500 acres of land. Only half of these operations were directly profit-oriented, and only sixty—five per cent of the profit-oriented opera- tions showed positive profits. Of the 366 enterprises, 101 were classed as private parks, which was the most common type of Operation, featuring combinations of picnicking, hiking, swimming, boating or fishing areas. An additional seventy enterprises were classified as res- idential camps, the second most common type of operation. They did not, however, elaborate on the features of their resident camps. This study also concluded that sixty-five per cent of the users were in—state residents and seventy- eight per cent of the day-use enterprises were located within a ten-mile radius of the five major cities1 where first class access was readily available. How represent- ative or applicable these findings were in making general- izations for the rest of that state, however, is an open question. Social Survey Studies Among the most extensive of descriptive research studies, are those studies which may be referred to as social surveys. Such studies usually involve the use of 1The major cities referred to are: Pittsfield, Northampton, Holyoak, Springfield and North Athens, Massachusetts. 28 interviews, observations and questionnaire techniques to make a broad analysis of some social phenomenon or problem.1 Studies of this type dealing specifically with private, outdoor recreation industry should normally be preceded by studies which develop a basic understanding of the nature of private, outdoor recreation industry. Such studies allow the introduction of random sampling techniques and stratification of the sample subjects within a research population. When such methodological requirements are met scientifically, credible generali- zations can be drawn from a random sample and projected for the entire research pOpulation and other populations similar to the research pOpulation. A social survey of the type just discussed was conducted during the summer of 1963 in New York State by Donald M. Tobey, Jr., and Harlow B. Brumsted,2 but experienced some difficulty because of the lack of good foundation data. The study was expressly undertaken to aid public and private agencies in advising the establish- ment and operation of commercial recreation business. No comprehensive listing of commercial recreation businesses was available, however, when the study was undertaken. 1Walter R. Borg, op. cit., pp. 203-u. 2Donald M. Tobey, Jr., and Harlow B. Brumsted, Characteristics of Seventy—Two Commercial Outdoor Recrea— tion Enterprises in New York (Ithica, N.Y.: Cornell University, Leaflet C-40, Feb., 1964). 29 It was necessary, therefore, to inventory the operations. This was accomplished in an abbreviated form, aided by the judgment of county agricultural agents. Having so deter- mined the research population, a representative sample of 189 enterprises was established on the basis of six spec— ific, yet general requirements. From these 189 enter— prises, seventy-two enterprises located in thirty-three counties were selected for the study. Each enterprise was personally visited by Donald M. Tobey, who observed the enterprise in Operation and recorded impressions on an observational rating form, then conducted a personal interview with the owner or owners over a one hundred- question schedule. The researchers, on considering their findings, felt it necessary to preface their findings as unsuitable to generalize to the total population of com- mercial, outdoor recreation enterprises in the State since the survey sample selected was what they referred to as a "judgment" sample.1 The major findings of this report, however, are of enough significance to warrant mentioning here because the basic aim of this researcher was to obtain a cross— section representative sample of the industry. The major generalizations arrived at for these seventy—two Operations lIbid., p. 5. 30 are summarized as follows: Operators are usually middle-aged peOple with children who operate the business as a family undertaking, with all members of the family working in it. Scenic sur- roundings, the presence of water, and easy accessibil- ity are key attractions for customers, but holding a clientele requires an ability to deal effectively with people in a pleasant manner. Most Operations ini- tially start as an integrated aspect of a farming op- eration, and slowly expand. Formal advertising was normally used to start the enterprise. Later, word- of-mouth advertising was deemed sufficient. Financial and technical assistance from various public and private sources has aided the deve10pment of many enterprises, yet credit and weather are still the two most troublesome problems encountered. These are dynamic enterprises, continually undergoing expansion and change, which often causes difficulty in classify- ing the enterprise. Competition is provided by some private and public recreation facilities, while a complementary effect results from some of these sources. Another study having some relevance here was an interview study conducted by Jeanne M. Davis of the Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, on New England farm vacation businesses.1 This study presents an interpretation of data gathered in interviews with owner-operators of some forty—six vacation farms. Unfortunately, the researcher does not say how the forty— six operations were selected and, therefore, there is no way of knowing how representative the sample was, or how valid its generalizations are for other similar popula- tions. lU.S., Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, New England Farm Vacation Business: Character- istics and Owner Experiences, by Jeanne M. Davis, Agri— cultural Economic Report NO. 60 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, Oct., 1964). 31 It is interesting to note that the Davis study's findings regarding characteristics of farm vacation busi- nesses includes several points which agree with Tobey and Brumsted's study of characteristics of commercial recre— ation in New York. Major agreement between the two studies appears to exist on such points as financing and weather problems, advertising, and the need to deal ef- fectively, yet pleasantly, with customers. In 1964, a very revealing study into the economic aspects of commercial, outdoor recreation enterprises in Southern Indiana was conducted by John C. Callahan and Douglas M. Knudson.:L Their research led them to conduct personal interviews with all the profit-oriented, private recreation enterprises located South of U.S. Highway 40 in Southern Indiana during the summers of 1964 and 1965. The expressed purpose of this study was to obtain a des- cription of the outdoor recreation industry, the factor most important to its financial success, and compare profit-oriented recreation to other land uses. Their investigation showed there were 109 truly commercial enterprises in the study—area in 1964. Of this number, fifty—five firms offered fishing lakes, 1John C. Callahan and Douglas M. Knudson, Economic Aspects of Commercial Outdoor Recreation Enter— prises in Southern Indiana (Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press, Research Bulletin No. 814, May, 1966). 32 seventeen firms were recreation complexes, and ten firms offered swimming areas. Of the remaining firms, seven offered cabins; five, campgrounds; five, hunting preserves; four, picnic areas; four, riding stables; and two firms were classified as "other activities." Their study of these firms revealed: 1. The much publicized, government-sponsored credit assistance offered by Farmers Home Administration had such specialized requirements for loans that few operators were able to qualify for considera— tion, and no one received such loans. Only eighteen of the 109 operations received their primary source of income from the operation, and all but eleven were owner-operated. Most Operators used family labor, and sixty oper— ators also required hired help during the busy season. Income information for 1963 revealed that financial returns were generally low. Only twenty Operations had conversion surpluses of five thousand dollars or more, while forty—one firms showed earnings of less than five hundred dollars. The average return was $2,702; the median return, seven hundred dollars; and the modal return, zero. Location is only secondary to experienced, capable management as a key factor to success. Most day— use areas are within fifty miles of major popula— 33 tion concentrations. While overnight facilities can be located at greater distances, accessibility is a crucial factor. 6. Promotional advertising was used very little, and most Operations rely on word-of-mouth promotion. 7. Areas most in demand are those having swimming facilities, a restaurant or snack bar, plus fac- ilities which can stand high intensity use and offer a multiplicity of activities. Supply trends indicate that the new, larger firms orientated toward providing recreation complexes rather than individual activities are the most probable future development efforts. 8. Successful recreation enterprises, such as the twenty operations showing returns in excess of five thousand dollars annually, can be more profitable than either timber or agricultural land uses.1 One of the indirect results of this research was to stimulate a new surge of interest in the private rec— reation industry in Indiana. This aroused interest led to the development of a set of minimum standards for certification of private campgrounds.2 These standards llbid. 2Department of Natural Resources, State of Indiana, Minimum Standards for Certification of Private Campgrounds (Indianapolis, Ind.: State Printing Office, 1968). 34 have been officially adOpted by the State, and went into effect on January 1, 1968. The Present State of Knowledge The studies just discussed should not be considered entirely unique.l However, they are typical of the studies available. Their findings generally coincide with the con- census views of informed opinion in this study-area.2 The general state of knowledge in this study-area might, I believe, best be described as sketchy, yet con- sistent. This review generally indicates that we might lThe NACD Inventory studies were completed for all fifty states and social-survey studies dealing with various aspects of outdoor recreation enterprises, in general, are available for selected areas in the United States. However, these studies are not usually acquired easily. For instance, the writer wrote for COpies of ten different studies. More than four months later, only one reply had been received. 2See for example: Hugh A. Johnson, "Opportunities and Limitations in Private Recreation Development" (Paper presented at a Recreation Workshop for Federal and State Employees in Pennsylvania on April 6, 13, 20 and 27, 1966, at Greens- burg, Penn.) Mr. Johnson is in charge of research on outdoor recreation and natural beauty for the U.S. Depart— ment of Agriculture's Economic Research Service, Natural Resource Economics Division. Karl F. Munson, "Income Producing Opportunities in Recreation" (Paper presented at the 43rd Annual Agri- cultural Outdoor Conference, Washington, D.C.: November 16, 1965). Mr. Munson is in charge of the Resource Development and Public Affairs Division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Federal Extension Service. 35 anticipate Michigan's outdoor recreation industry as having some of the following characteristics: 1. Day—use facilities normally located within one hour's drive of major population concentration. Overnight accommodation located at much greater distances, with good roads affording easy ac- cessibility being crucial to any operation's success. The owner—operator's personality and ability to manage a business while dealing effectively, yet pleasantly, with people is the single, most crucial factor of success. Recreation enterprises are usually family oper- ated, using family labor and often requiring additional hired help. The presence of attractive scenery, access to water, and good supporting services such as a restaurant or snack bar, are typical of success- ful operations. Usually the two most difficult problems an oper— ation will face are found in obtaining credit for capital financing, and the weather. Commercial advertising and promotion are largely by-passed in favor of word-of—mouth references. The presence of similar facilities in an area can either be complementary or competitive. 36 8. Only a small percentage of operations provide the major source of income for the owner. The typical enterprise shows low returns on investment, but truly successful enterprises can yield much more profit per acre than either farming or timber operations. 9. There is an emerging trend toward the development of recreation complexes rather than single- activity areas. 10. There is a clear need for coordinated, comprehen- sive analysis of effective economic demand for outdoor recreation to afford better investment choices among operators. These ten points, then, might be used as rather sweeping generalities concerning recreation enterprises. Yet these are general characteristics gained from studies in other states which may or may not be applicable to the Michigan industry. The question remaining unanswered is, "What specific information is available regarding Michi— gan's outdoor recreation industry?" In all candor, there is very little known about the commercial recreation in- dustry in Michigan. There is simply no scientifically acceptable information available on the industry as a whole, since no studies of this specific kind have ever 37 been conducted in Michigan.1 If this is so, it would seem relevant at this time to question what information on commercial recrea- tion has been used by such agencies as the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, the Soil Conservation Service, and the Michigan Conservation Department, in preparing such studies as the State-wide and Federal Comprehensive Rec— reation Plans. Innumerable publications coming from various gov— ernment sources refer to"directories, inventories and special studies" on private recreation enterprises.2 The writer sought to find an answer to the question posed above by calling directly on these governmental agencies to find the source of these references. In an interview lThe N.A.C.D. Inventory, as well as the two random-sample inventories, were, in fact, not aimed at commercial recreation enterprises, per se, but rather at the entire field of all private recreation offerings, including: church camps and other non-commercial, quasi public groups like the Boy Scouts, Y.M.C.A. and Junior Chamber of Commerce. 2 For examples of such references, see: U.S., Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Federal Focal Point in Outdoor Rec— reation (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1965), pp. 59-61. Michigan Department of Conservation, Recreation Resource Planning Division, Michigan's Recreation Future (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, Sept., 1966), p. 10. Michigan Department of Conservation, Your Michi- gan Department of Conservation: What it is and What it Does (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, April, 1966), p. 38. 38 with Mr. Harry A. Doehne and Mr. Forrest J. Wicke, of the Recreation Resource Planning Division of the Michigan De- partment of Conservation, the writer asked the gentlemen to which directories or special studies they were refer- ring.l They revealed that the "Study of Private Lands and Commercial Facilities to Determine their Present and Future Role in Providing Public Recreation"2 had never been completed because of budget cuts, and was not presently being contemplated for the immediate future. 3 The directories to which they referred were make-shift, incomplete directories published by the American Auto- mobile Association and a list of campgrounds inspected by the Michigan Department of Health. Mr. Doehne stated that inquiries regarding commercial recreation were re- ferred by their office to the Soil Conservation Service. The Soil Conservation Service's prime responsib- ility in this field is to provide guidance and technical information, and act as liaison with other governmental agencies.LI Their day-by—day operating experiences pro- vide them with what guidance information they can offer, but they readily give technical information on soils, lIbid. 2Your Michigan Department of Conservation, op. cit., p. 38. 3 Michigan's Recreation Future, op. cit., p. 10. “Supra, p. 12. 39 pond construction and the physical factors relating to the suitability of a given parcel of land to sustain physically a recreation development. In an interview with Mr. Robert Myer and Mr. Bruce F. Botsford, of the Lake Central Regional Office of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, these men confided that reference to directories in their publication re- ferred to either the N.A.C.D. Inventory or a sample projection estimate completed for the O.R.R.R.C. Report in 1959. In the course of the discussion they stated that they had just received a reply from the Michigan Department of Conservation to a request for information on commercial recreation. The reply included a copy of a Conservation Department publication, "Michigan Camp- ground Directory,"1 and referred them to Mr. Palmer G. Skulland, State Soil Conservationist, Soil Conservation Service, East Lansing, Michigan. In summation, it might be concluded that what scientifically acceptable information exists on Michigan's outdoor recreation industry, on a whole, is extremely limited. While the N.A.C.D. Inventory of 1965 is the best information available on outdoor recreation enter- prises, the inventory itself was never published. Van Nierop's summary of results does not include any specific 1Michigan Department of Conservation, Michigan's Campground Directory (Lansing, Mich.: Department of Con- servation, n.d.). 40 reference to commercial recreation enterprise.l There— fore, one can only conclude that commercial recreation enterprises do exist in Michigan, but their number, loc— ation, availability, activities, problems, demand trends and future plans in providing public recreation are only a vague concept of probability at the present time. The O.R.R.R.C. Report called for a National outdoor recreation plan coordinated with state-wide recreation plans. Such plans were meant to consider seriously, promote and prepare the way for private rec— reational offerings, so that they might play a major role in meeting the outdoor recreational needs of tomorrow. Michigan, today, has a state-wide recreation plan which the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation accepted on a revised basis in March of 1967. A summary of that plan calls for a one hundred and fifty million dollar expend— 3 iture over ten years for State parks, but consideration for the part that private recreation offerings will play in this plan is indeed very vague. lThe Emmanuel T. Van Nierop Report of the N.A.C.D. Inventory was, in fact, a statistical summation of the Inventory, but the inventory itself was never published. It is also pertinent to note that this was an inventory of the entire private sector, and made no attempt to pro- file commercial recreation enterprises, per se. 2Supra, pp. 10, ll. 3Michigan's Recreation Future, op. cit., p. 19. CHAPTER III DEVELOPING THE STUDY In the previous chapter, the discussion focused on the void of information in this study—area and the lack of comprehensive and coordinated, previous research. It is relevant to note, however, that this state of af- fairs is normal in a develOping discipline. "In a new science, the body of knowledge is relatively small and we are often confused with conflicting claims and theories. Under these conditions it is often of great value merely to know the current state of the science." Hence each new study-area tends to undergo a period when descriptive research is a necessary first step to advanc— ing knowledge in the study—area. It establishes "what is" and provides the starting point for further study. "We need not justify descriptive research, however, merely as a preliminary step to the use of more objective research techniques. A great many descriptive studies are the direct source of valuable knowledge concerning human behavior."1 1 Walter R. Borg, Educational Research, op. cit., pp. 202, 203 41 42 The approach and method used in conducting this study is descriptive research of the questionnaire—survey type. Its aim is to establish "what is" and in order to accomplish that end, a means of obtaining basic data had to be established. If one could clearly label a single source as being the best source of data on outdoor rec— reation enterprises in Michigan, that source would have to be the Michigan District of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service. This agency is charged with providing the technical leadership and guidance for developing private recreation enterprise by the Federal Government.1 The Soil Conservation Service in Michigan is rep- resented by seven area, and seventy-two work-unit conserv— ation offices distributed throughout the State. These offices serve every county of Michigan, with the excep- tions Of Wayne County (City of Detroit) and Oceana County, where it was never noted into service.2 The personnel manning these offices actually perform and carry out the Federal charge to their agency as a whole. In completing their assigned tasks, they must become lSupra, p. 12. 2A county must ask the Soil Conservation Service to serve the county, and the voters of that county must approve before the Soil Conservation Service begins ser- vicing the county. 43 familiar with recreation enterprises in their areas. Therefore, it can be concluded that the sum total of all work-unit conservation in the State, when polled for information, can provide the best available, comprehensive information on Michigan's recreation industry. However, as was just pointed out, the Soil Conservation Service is not represented in Oceana County. This necessitated that the basic data from Oceana County be obtained from some source other than the Soil Conservation Service, which was later arranged through the Cooperative Exten- sion Service.1 In April, 1968, a meeting was arranged with Mr. Verne M. Bathurst, State Conservationist; Mr. Palmer G. Skalland, State Soil Conservationist of the Soil Con- servation Service; Professor Louis F. Twardzik, Recrea- tion Specialist, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State University; and the writer. The purpose of this meeting was to Obtain the help and cooperation of the Soil Conservation Service in conducting this study. 1It was initially suggested that even though the Soil Conservation Service did not have a work—unit conservationist serving Oceana County, nearby work units had enough information to complete the questionnaire. Later this idea was discarded and arrangements were made with Oceana County Extension Director, Mr. Lawrence W. Stebbins, to have him complete a questionnaire for Oceana County. Mr. Stebbins had cooperated in the Chilton Re- search Service survey of recreation enterprises mentioned in the previous chapter. See Supra, p. 25. 44 Discussion revealed that the Soil Conservation Service was interested in the proposed study which, at that time, had been set forth in a thesis proposal by the writer. As a result of this meeting, an agreement was reached wherein the Soil Conservation Service would direct its field personnel to COOperate in the study by filling in a proposed questionnaire regarding commercial recreation enterprises in their respective areas. In return for their cooperation, they asked that the study findings be made available to them, that any catalogue or in- ventory of Operations which might be compiled from the study not be sold or used for any commercial purpose, and that the questionnaire must be fitted to information which area wOrk-unit conservationists had readily avail- able. In order to meet the final requirement, both gentlemen suggested that a trip be made to a work-unit office to appraise the readily available information which could be included in the questionnaire. As a final requirement, they asked that the Soil Conservation Service be allowed final approval of the proposed ques— tionnaire. These general requirements, then, became the basis of the research agreement under which this study was conducted and, therefore, some discussion of their effect on this study is warranted at this time. Since there really was no underlying commercial motive in 45 conducting this study, it was agreed to waive any commer— cial value that might arise from developing a catalogue. However, it has since been brought to the writer's atten— tion that various publishing houses and direct-mail advertising firms will pay significant sums for use of such data. The most limiting and generally difficult requirement, however, was the restriction of data gathering to information which area work—unit conserva- tionists had readily available. This requirement is one that persons contemplating similar studies should defin- itely avoid, if at all possible, as it sharply restricts the scope of the study. In this case, it lead to the direct deletion of information on acreage used, user fees and user capacity, which could have given a more comprehensive picture of the industry and been used in future studies of economically effective recreation de— mand. This requirement also places some doubt on how comprehensive the inventorying process was in the field. The work-unit conservationist being clearly directed to use only the best readily available information, will use just that, and not go out and check on new develop- ments for which he has no "readily available" information. Realistically, however, even with these restrictions, a great deal of information can be gathered by this method. Including the data for Oceana County and the area of the State serviced by the Soil Conservation Service, a 46 comprehensive, yet basic description of Michigan's out- door recreation industry was possible. This is possible not only because the study is very geographically compre- hensive, but because of the cooperation of a research population that includes the best informed professional opinion with reference to commercial, outdoor recreation enterprises in Michigan. DevelOping the Questionnaire One of the direct effects of researching in a problem area where little previous research has been conducted is a lack of accepted research procedure for conducting a study. Previously tried research tools yielding acceptable results are not available for the most part. This, of course, necessitates the develop- ment of a suitable measurement device by the researcher. As a result, evidence on the reliability and validity of such a measure is not readily available, not having previously been established. This study required the development of a ques— tionnaire. In order to give the reader some concept of its reliability and validity, it is essential that we now consider its development. As a preliminary step in develOping the questionnaire, ten basic research objec— tives were established.1 lSupra, p. 16. 47 Basically, the need was to establish: the number of operations; their location and type; the kind of recrea- tional activities they offered; user entrance requirements; the type and amount of land used; and the capacity of the operation. In View of an early reading program, it also seemed desirable to try to establish some concept of the competitive nature of similar government—operated fac- ilities, the effective role of F.H.A.l financing, and some concept of current demand patterns. In order to establish this needed data, a prim- arily closed—answer questionnaire was developed which included the following questions. First, it asked simply for the name and post office address. Then it asked the respondent to rate the previous agricultural productivity of the land being used. Area work-unit conservationists are used to rating land in this way according to a margin- al, good, or excellent scale. Since he deals with soils and agricultural productivity on a regular basis, results could be considered highly reliable. It then asked for the acreage used, user capacity, and source of investment capital financing. To determine the type of recreation enterprises in Michigan, a scheme of classifications developed by lF.H.A. is the commonly accepted abbreviation for Farmers Home Administration, Department of Agriculture, and will be used throughout the remainder of this text to refer to this agency. 48 N.A.C.D. seemed most appropriate for our purpose.1 This classification scheme classifies each recreation enterprise according to a twelve—category system. A question asking the work—unit conservationists to class— ify the enterprise by this system was included. To identify the enterprise's major recreational activities in specific terms it became evident that a closed-answer question would be difficult to write, as it would require a long list of specific activities and still might not cover all possibilities. Therefore, an open question was included asking the work-unit conserv- ationist to list the two or three major, specific rec— reation activities offered. This question, of course, introduces an element of personal judgment on the part of the respondent, resulting in possible low objectivity for the results of this question. Since not all commercial recreation enterprises are open to the general public, a question was included 1The classification scheme to which we refer was originally developed by the N.A.C.D. as a means of as- signing a recreation type to private enterprises, and was included on the reverse side of their 1965 questionnaire. It was also used for an N.A.C.D. study aimed at apprais- ing the potentials for outdoor recreation developments. This study is primarily aimed at physical, social, en- vironmental factors conducive to a recreation development, but at this time its findings have not yet been made public. For a complete explanation of how the classifi- cation scheme works, and its categories, see: U.S. Depart— ment of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Guide to Making Appraisals for Outdoor Recreation Developments Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1966), pp. l—72. 49 to determine entrance requirements. It asked the work- unit conservationists whether entrance was gained by a simple user fee, membership, members and guests, or groups only. To determine the presence of similar gov- ernmental facilities in the same area, a question was included allowing three answer-choices of: same county, within fifteen miles, or not offered. Having already inquired as to the major recreational activity offered, another question was asked, whether the private enter- prise was under heavy, moderate or light use, yielding some insight on current demand for specific activities. In short, if a majority of operations offering swimming, for example, were all rated as being under heavy use, it would seem reasonable to conclude there is a strong effective demand for enterprises offering swimming. This question could reflect some of the reSpondent's judgment and bias and, therefore, could exhibit some questionable objectivity. It was for this reason that the rating reference table was included in the instruc— tions to the respondents. To establish some concept of the competitive nature of similar government—operated facilities, the respondent was asked to rate the public facility's present use according to a prepared rating reference table included in the instructions, using the three categories of heavy, moderate and light. A final 50 question included, asked the respondent to note whether a state of competition existed between the public and private facilities. This final question may be deemed to be highly subjective, but if such competition were a real source of problem to an Operator, it would seem likely that his counsellor in the Soil Conservation Service would hear of it. It could also be postulated that the area work-unit conservationist, a government employee himself, would not be likely to admit the existence of a state of competition, or to infer one existed, without being clearly aware of it. Having set up this schedule of questions on a single sheet, a hurried and minimal set of instructions were prepared which would leave a respondent with min— imum direction and maximum scope for questions. At this point a pre-test interview meeting was arranged with Soil Conservation Service work-unit conservationist, Mr. Lawrence Tripp, at his office in Mason, Michigan. Mr. Tripp was given the instruction sheet and asked to com— plete a questionnaire for any two enterprises in his area. It was clear that he should ask any questions he felt were necessary to complete the form. This pre—test situation revealed the following information: 1. The Soil Conservation Service offices have on file the name, address and major activities offered on all recreation enterprises (but a 51 location could only be indicated coherently in terms of townships) conferring with the Service. Work-unit conservationists were readily able to rate the agricultural productivity of land used by the enterprise. The actual acreage of a recreation enterprise is not easily established, since some enterprises use only a portion of their land for recreation. Other operations operate on a multiple-use concept where land uses other than recreation are the primary, and sometimes even the second- ary land uses. Only a guess could be made on the acreage. User capacity information was not available. Source of financing presented some problems as well. It became evident that the work—unit conservationist had easy access to information on F.H.A. recreation enterprise loans extended (because it is normal for F.H.A. representatives to share the same offices with the work-unit conservationist, and to confer with him regard- ing loans of this type.) However, he had no information on small business administration loans, and only vague information on commercial loans extended for recreational purposes. Mr. Tripp was familiar with the N.A.C.D. 52 classification scheme for recreation enterprise types and felt his colleagues would also recognize it. 7. Work-unit conservationists are familiar with gov— ernment recreation facilities in their areas. 8. Instructions for rating heavy, moderate and light use have to be very explicit and, to be completely valid, some respondent training in classifying would be desirable. These conclusions drawn from this first pre—test caused some initial revision in the questionnaire make-up. A meeting was arranged with State Soil Conservationist Palmer G. Skalland to discuss the results of this initial pre-test. This meeting led to the exclusion of questions regarding acreage used and capacity. It was concluded that the questions regarding source of finance were valid only for determining F.H.A. loans extended. A revised questionnaire was drawn up at this time which deleted questions on acreage and capacity, and in- cluded a new question asking the respondent to name the township in which the enterprise was located. As a result of questions asked by Mr. Tripp during the pre-test, in- structions for completing the questionnaire were modified and made more comprehensive. The revised questionnaire was again pre-tested and discussed once more in a meeting arranged with work-unit conservationist Wendell A. Sommers 53 of the Soil Conservation Service, Charlotte, Michigan. This pre—test situation largely confirmed the initial pre-test conclusions regarding the questionnaire, and the modifications made seemed to resolve further diffi— culty in completing it. During an interview after the pre-test, however, Mr. Sommers suggested that completing a separate questionnaire for each enterprise would cause a great deal of excess paper handling. Mr. Sommers ap— peared concerned about the amount of time required to com- plete a questionnaire for each Operation. In view of Mr. Sommers' reaction, it seemed nec- essary to develop a questionnaire form which would have all of the questions and reply-choices along the top, while several Operations could be listed down the side of the questionnaire sheet. After some difficulty in accomplishing this, a questionnaire form 16 1/2 inches by 23 1/2 inches was developed. This form allowed the respondent to list nineteen operations on the same questionnaire form. This form was photo—reduced so that it could be printed on standard printing sheets eleven inches by seventeen inches. It should be noted at this time that persons considering similar studies are well advised to use a questionnaire form of similar style, as it offers significant time-saving in scoring, less postage charges, and general reduction in awkward paper handling. In a final appraisal of the form, however, one disadvantage 54 was revealed, in that it initially impresses a responding subject as being complicated. In order to overcome this potential flaw, final instructions to respondents had to be revised to include a description of an example- enterprise which was shown on the top line of the ques- tionnaire. To this point, we have only discussed vaguely the instructions to respondents.l These instructions were, of course, develOped on the basis of what was learned from the two pre-tests. Final instructions included a brief description of what the survey was for; a definition of heavy, moderate and light use; a defin- ition of competition; and a brief, written description of the example-enterprise. At the bottom of the instruc— tions, the due date and return—mailing address were included. Early in the development of the questionnaire it had been planned to place the instructions either at the top of the questionnaire or at the side. The already crowded spacing of the questionnaire and the fact that it was already printed on the largest sized sheet the print- ing machines available could handle, decided the question and the instructions were placed on the back. This was a mistake, as the returned forms clearly indicated that a number of respondents never read the 1The final instructions used in this survey are exhibited on the reverse side of the Questionnaire, in Appendix A. 55 instructions, the effect of which will be discussed in Chapter IV. The top line of the final questionnaire1 included a request to read the instructions on the re— verse side before beginning. Two letters of transmittal directly related to the study — one sent immediately before the questionnaire was mailed, and one sent with the questionnaire - directed the respondent to read the instructions on the reverse side of the questionnaire before beginning. Those persons considering such a study in the future would well be advised to place the instruc— tions where they cannot possibly be missed. As a final consideration regarding instructions, it should be pointed out that future studies conducted using this method should include some pre—training period where respondents can be guided in develOping the same frame of reference for using the rating scales. On June 18, 1968, a transmittal advisory letter was sent by State Conservationist Verne M. Bathurst to all area and work-unit conservationists.2 This letter explained the interest of the Soil Conservation Service in the study, then directed the field staff to read the instructions and complete the questionnaire. Because of 1The final questionnaire used in this investiga— tion is exhibited in Appendix A. 2See Appendix B. 56 administrative requirements Of the Soil Conservation Service, this letter was sent under separate cover. This necessitated that another letter be sent with the questionnaire itself. On June 19, 1968, this second letter and six copies of the questionnaire were sent to each area and work—unit conservationist in Michigan, re— questing the completed questionnaire be returned by July 20, 1968. On July 10, 1968, three copies of the ques- tionnaire and a letter of explanation and appreciation were sent to Mr. Lawrence W. Stebbins, County Extension Director, Cooperative Extension Service, Hart, Michigan, who completed the questionnaire for Oceana County. The research subjects who actually completed the questionnaire are, by and large, action-oriented people who tend to handle their work in a good and workmanlike manner. Their training and background are, as might be expected, largely orientated toward soil science, for- estry and agriculture. Their full cooperation resulted in a questionnaire return rate of one hundred per cent. The results gained in this study clearly reflect the diligent effort of these men in providing basic data. CHAPTER IV RESULTS OF THE STUDY Scoring the Replies The findings of any study are, to a degree, variable rather than fixed or immutable truths. Findings can and do vary. Sometimes the variance is extremely small, but so long as scientific research involves the human element, it will also involve human values, human emotion and, therefore, human error. These factors often lead men to differ in their interpretation of instruments or measuring devices. The scoring and analysis techniques used in any research can indeed have a very decided effect on the results obtained. So that the reader may evaluate the magnitude of possible difference created by the scoring or analysis of this research, a few basic ideas regarding the techniques used seem warranted at this time. Scoring the questionnaire was basically a simple task of adding the check marks under each question- alternative for each county. The research subjects, how- ever, do not always deal exclusively within county bound- aries, and a number of respondents entered enterprises on the questionnaire without trying to list them by county. This required that each questionnaire initially 57 58 be checked to see if the counties were intermingled on the sheet and, if so, clear designations were made. A second problem emerging from the scoring of replies was mentioned in the previous chapter, namely: the failure to read the questionnaire, misinterpreting it, or giving incomplete responses. Three counties gave replies of this type, and they are noted in the upper left—hand corners of the Summation of Data Tables1 in Appendix C, where their effect is recorded. Another difficulty which might have affected scoring was the double or modified response. The double response problem showed up on six replies to Question 3. (Land Productivity) and Question 7. (entrance require- ments). The usual problem with Question 3. was that the respondents in these cases would list land as being marginal, wooded, and non-agricultural, or further des— ignate fractions of the land parcel under each category, Such cases were resolved by accepting the answer which gave the land its best possible agricultural productivity. Question 7., regarding entrance, received several double replies but they were resolved on the basis where the least restrictive reply was accepted. For example, cer— tain enterprises owned by the members may normally be Open to the general public but, on occasion, admit members only. In other cases, a members—only entrance would also be listed as members and guests. The least restrictive 59 replies in the above two cases would be "the general public" and "members and guests," respectively. A last factor which should be considered here was the attachment of various notes on the returned question— naire; publications attached to the reply describing area facilities; and the listing of non—profit oriented facilities. There were notes regarding new and expected future enterprises, as well as notes explaining light use ratings. A number of responses included notations that warrant mentioning here. The Huron County reply notes "innumerable single cabin or cottage sites with access to water exist" in that county. The Oakland County res- ponse noted numerous other golf courses, while Lenawee County lumped the several recreation enterprises of the Irish Hills Recreation Area into one listing. One res- pondent for the Wexford County Area included Tourist Council and Chamber of Commerce publications listing tourist accommodations available from single cabin or cottage owners, along with a listing of canoe liveries, bait houses and riding stables. In all these cases where additional information was included in the reply, it was in no way added or taken into the scoring process, except in the case where notes pointed out that non—profit operations were also 1See Appendix C, Tables A—G 60 included in the reply. This situation occurred in Houghton, CaSSOpolis and Jackson County replies. Such listings were, of course, dropped from the scoring pro- cess . The Analysis The study-area shown in Figure l, on the following page, is a well populated and extensive land mass. The returned questionnaires from the entire study-area represented an incomprehensible mass of information in its initial form. The data was initially gathered on a single—county basis for the entire State. The map in Figure 2, page 63, shows the numerical distribution of recreation enterprises by counties. A single, yet im- portant, aspect of this study. However, even in this condensed form, the reader may find it difficult to readily perceive the distribution of enterprises in the State. A means of dividing the State into study—areas which would allow further condensation of data, yet af- ford some detail and ready comparison to other research projects, appeared to be required. Obviously the state could be divided in any arbitrary manner, but since it is hoped that much of the data gathered by this study will be used in future research, it seemed most desirable to report it in the most readily usable form possible. FIGURE I I! L! ROYAL! THE STUDY AREA cu: m - -I ooourou I I f- - I omouuou I... I H L r4 I nun f... 1 gen": ,_ _ I I mucus": I we: I 1 I I I _ _ _ I l I 1- - 4- - — — 1 0 : | I L - - 1 IRON , nun I I IcIIlncu I I'-- - 1 ' rscIIOOLcun I. _ _ _ l 5 I - -I I I°'°"'”°"I ,- - _ _ .I. 1 I ucmac I_ _ _ _ _ 1 I ' , nun . : t a I f' ‘ r J I £ I-I I‘I H o I I I 0 o ..I I 0 b I "I" :cuuovuu L. Inc-mu Q "new: I ,m. I § CHAILE ouL- ., : -. was-“2"- QLEE- L _ 1° Imam-on, “'5'“ D L“ U “mu , l I I ----'__--.'.___|_..__ 'quusnl I oscooa .. - moron I COUNTIES an: EC. "m: I , I I 0F ___ ___I_ "'_-__I____'____ II! THE STATE OF MICHIGAN .. .. L _ .. - - 03“.: IIOITCALLI Ton-norI-N'WW : 1 FEEL-I b :- 1"?“- m: I I POEIIEI;EE-I-L't;." - - - ._ - - - — - - -1 I | I I The Study Area orna: III-'0'". :cau-Tgu-Fm‘". I : '37. cum I I I __-L_ @ Wayne County (City of Detroit _:_ _:_ _ L __ _I _ _ _I_ 4'01“," 'ucon, excluded from the Study) "“1".“ run" I “To. : "m,“ :uvmmu 61 I I I I 'l I I : I I ' ,“CI'W'I usunuv I I T J — .312 JOSEPH: ..‘ucu ‘HI LL Lou I : I I I I I I l A #— 62 Probable future research in this study—area will likely deal with economics, location analysis or recreation problems. Therefore, our basis of dividing the State should be readily compatible with such studies. To accomplish such a goal, the State should be broken into regions about population concentrations on some kind of hinterland concept of economic regions.1 A search to determine if such a regional analysis was available for Michigan revealed that the Office of Planning Coordination, Bureau of Planning and Program Development, of the Executive Office of the Governor of Michigan, had thoroughly studied this problem. Their work defined fourteen Planning and Development Regions for Michigan2 which are to be adopted for all research and planning conducted by the State of Michigan. In view of the above, the findings of this study have all been analyzed according to these State Planning Regions, as depicted in Figure 3, page 64, which also shows the numerical distribution of enterprises by region. 1For an expanded discussion of this concept, see for example Raleigh Barlowe, Land Resource Economics Englewood Cliffa, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1958), pp. 249—264. 2The Executive Office of the Governor of Michigan, Bureau of Planning and Program Development, Planning and Development Regions for Michigan (Lansing, Mich.: Office of Planning Coordination, Technical Report No. 14, Feb., 1968). FIGURE 2 MAP OF THE NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION BY COUNTY OF OUTDOOR RECREATION ENTERPRISES IN MICHIGAN ISLE ROYALE OUOHTON ,- l f- - I ONTOIAOOI L I | ‘l - r'" IIIAIIAIIA .. sou-£1" I IE I-IAROUETTE I . I--l-—-.' . o ;--—-: I3 . L- ”I ”I" I III-OER _I I IcIIInzwA E] b II- rSCHOOLCIAFT I _____ I E OchIIIzoiI I_|_- I 7 I L - - - - -I I I I IAAcIIIIIAc I I "U‘ [24:] ' . _ , E16 . Nb cuuerI :cucoovem' Pusan: ,IsL IENOMINE Mr‘—- 1:1 . I°73E°° :uouruonfiI- “'6'“ I- m-IIELTZI IE] -I__33] {9:1}me .m COUNTIES OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN —h—-—L--—b----|- IASONT U“ :osccoulcu" 'cLonIIIT _ E m; IEI ELIIEEI :“nc IIuIIoII 'r occAIIAI ""4700 InseamII'HEI-I-‘IIIIDLAIID LE" “- m ‘3 “'3 r" as: I- - - - 'L - IuoIIrcALII 3.:1Io':r8AOIIAI I I” -.1. 2m n EI: ---.-tm... .. 1-In -- 4 ,ozuuu In. cLAIII ovum: FIN“ .cLIII'rOIII "In" ”I [E] MHz—6:]: FLT :Cfl‘l gnIE‘i—J -.;,';;-.,: —————————— 1 EO:KLAID | :LLEOAN : Pa‘n'y : :‘TOI :INCHAI :LIVIWSM: m] I l l 22 11 a Li]: LDLEZI iI___I_ W" VAII IIIIIEII '-""-‘I“Z' cALIIouu :J‘CK‘O' vAsIInIIAv O - .’ ......g..-_ E-. @J' LlJI L223 9193 '- deficit-I‘m; n-Auc—N TIIIILJIIAI-z '1‘: ...; -: ;O;IO£ :EIImj' lIlOJII19II L18] :- 63 FIGURE 3 STATE PLANNING AND DEVELOWT muons SIOWING THE NUMBER OF OUTDam RECREATION! ENTERPRISES IN MIG-IICAN M- 73:03": “- a on an nut“ "“04 .+._.1 HITAII mr.u-. o 2‘ I ”nun“ ‘1" m NI I - o . V ‘ . .1... * l L 3.1.40“. ‘ 'OQ I .I I .I . 1,! [3;] Ant“ 1. 'I .' . l/ "' 3" "“I'i: 0 V not an. ' Io .__.. ._. ' LDOIroit \ minim—1"..." a.— "I all ZoJAcluon TRAVERSE BAY J. 1' __ ~r-' - I S-lulnnczoo—Inttlo Crook Inu- “- ....A an- cut-- all“ o' Llonton ”arbor-8t. Joseph " I I“ D. , LFllnt \ IE. ...._.'_.I»-—-:- I“ .‘o o 6- Lin I I no uni: ‘—&;_I;u I. qun 3 __.__‘___ .... 1.1"”.- ..y i l | SAM-[AH T}?- ...... 1...; I-Onnd Input-lushogoa ._.I -—-A ...-34 I ' I “I 9.11pm" I. l. ..J. 1.272 I I 10.Tr|voroo lay 1 "'r—I, ...-I ...-I U.SAIIH an. mm ..'..‘..| I“: ..n- *‘ | 12.E0cnnnbn ‘ augo uAeIos- 0 IE ”I" 1 Udurcuotto—Iron Mountain 4 ._OLUSKEIOI M ". ll-Houohton—lronvood “W“ "I [~‘ I". I® LAISIIO [El—L “I mm. Cl- 9:; o KALAHAIOO— ”1"on CANADA yin ATT-LE ICJEEI __ . ...J.... .‘ITOIT "ti—No.82"; m JACISm _/ \l:l nu INDIANA -'-'-'L"" I \—-I : O H I O I I' L I 6II 65 The Summation of Data Tables shown in Appendix C has also been summarized into fourteen regional and final totals for Michigan, as shown in Table l of page 70. It may be noted by the reader that both the Summation of Data Tables and Table 1 contain several items which were obtained from a further analysis of original raw data. Entries for the number of single, dual, and complex-activity enterprises were obtained by determining the classification number1 of the prime recreation products2 offered per enterprise, and al- lowing that a classification number greater than three was a complex-activity enterprise. To further explain, this was accomplished through analysis of the data in Question 5.3 Question 5, as was the case with all of the questions, was initially scored by adding all the check marks under each alternative. The general in- structions to the research subjects were to check the best answer, and the example for Question 5. showed two alternatives checked. The logic behind this question was to have the respondent check whatever he felt was appropriate to the enterprise without suggesting he lSupra, p. l8, 19 2Ibid. 3See Question 5. of the Questionnaire in Appendix A. 66 check as many classification types as possible, which would surely have distorted the results. With those instructions, all of the respondents except one1 reacted similarly, checking off as many recreation types as they felt were appropriate to the enterprises. At this point, the reader's attention is recalled to the Review of Literature in Chapter II. It may be recalled that the research work of John H. Foster,2 as well as the research on outdoor recreation enterprises in New York by Tobey and Brumsted,3 noted difficulty in classifying enterprises to any recreation enterprise- types. A later study by Callahan and Knudson dealing with economic aspects of commercial recreation in south— ern IndianaLI led them to conclude that there is a developing trend toward what they called "new, larger firms oriented toward providing recreation complexes." It was with this information in mind that Question 5. 1The reply from Kalamazoo County, as noted in Appendix C, Table A, was incomplete. It also shows some error of central tendency and listed all enterprises under only one recreation enterprise-type. 2Foster, Outdoor Recreation Industry in Massa- chusetts, op. cit., p. 3. 3Tobey and Brumsted, Seventy-Two Enterprises in New York, op. cit., p. 2. “Callahan and Knudson, Recreation Enterprises in Indiana, op. cit., p. 16. 67 was prepared in an attempt to further identify the exist— ence of "recreation complexes," which might perhaps ex— plain past classification difficulty. The question was analyzed by allowing each classification-type shown in Question 5. as an alternative, to stand as a "prime rec— reation product," as defined at the end of Chapter I. Then, by defining a complex—activity enterprise as an enterprise offering three or more prime recreation products, it becomes possible to distinguish a rather peculiar set of enterprises that differ from the usual pattern, or norm. Another piece of information entered on Table 1, page 70, is an entry for the number of water—oriented enterprises.l This entry was gained through a combined analysis of Questions 5. and 6. Analysis of this data allowed that any enterprise checked in Question 5. under Type IV, Fishing Ponds and Waters, or Type XII, Water Sports, or listed a water-based activity as a major activity in Question 6., was deemed to be a water- oriented enterprise. A summation of this data was used in the preparation of Figure H, page 77, which shows the geographic distribution of the percentage of water- oriented enterprises. In order to further the analysis of data and resolve the objectives and hypothesis of this study as lSupra, p. 19. 68 stated in Chapter I, two tables were developed from the answers to Questions 6. and 10. These tables - Table 3. Heavy Use Activities in Michigan (page 85) and Table H. Light Use Activities in Michigan (page 86) - are designed to shed some light on current recreation demand as evi- denced by use ratings being converted into rating ratios, which will be discussed further in the next section of the chapter. To further aid in the analysis of current demand, and point out the priority of various specific activities, data from Questions 5. and 6. was used to develop Figure 5, page 79, which relates activity and priority to the fourteen Planning Regions in Michigan. The Findings To begin this discussion of findings, the reader's attention is directed to this study's purposes and objectives,1 as stated in Chapter I. Our first stated objective was to find out who Michigan's outdoor recreation entrepreneurs are. While some future reader of this text may desire a list of names for the now current recreation enterprises, no such listing could possibly be presented in this text for several more or less obvious reasons, the most important of which is the working agreement established with the Soil Conserv- ation Service at the commencement of this study, which lSupra” p. 16. 69 restricts publication of such a list. The names and postal addresses of Michigan's recreation enterprises have been established, however, and may quickly be gathered, stratified or summarized from the returned questionnaires of this study. These returned questionnaires and all other raw data relating to this study have been turned over to the School of Resource Development, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, at Michigan State University. The simple numerical significance of outdoor recreation enterprises in Michigan can readily be de- termined from Table l on the following page. The total number of outdoor recreation enterprises in Michigan is recorded there as being 1,546. However, 1,5u6 enter- prises do not simply represent 1,5U6 golf courses, or riding stables, or picnic areas. Neither do they rep- resent any simple combination of the facilities just listed, or any other similar facilities. In point of fact, there are 3,0271 recreation facilities offered by Michigan's 1,5M6 outdoor recreation enterprises. This situation is caused by the extreme divers- ification which certain recreation enterprises have ex- hibited. It is impossible to say on the basis of the data gathered, whether these diversified enterprises 1This figure represents the sum of all enterprise—types shown in Table l, as the summarized results of Question 5. TABLE 1 SUMMATION OF OUTDOOR RECREATION DATA FOR FOURTEEN PLANNING REGIONS OF MICHIGAN AND STATE TOTALS ’X‘l'NTISS OF IICEIGAN MIED IN'IO WEISS! SOONCMIC WHO REGIOPB Region III Region V Region VII Region VIII Region XII Region XIII H O‘- 20 Golf 3"!- Golf Golf '1 sh t to We“! intern-tun ty. z of than 3101'.“ 960 oactng Govern-ant hpcuuon 71 were originally built and designed to offer such unlikely combinations of prime recreation products as golf, swim- ming, picnicking and horseback riding, or if they are the result of extensive diversification of single—activity enterprises. However, such operations do existland, from a recreationist's point of view, could hardly be considered to fit any single enterprise-type common in the past. To resolve and summarize this discussion on the numerical significance of outdoor recreation enterprises, the following profile based on the data shown in the last column of Table 1, page 70, seems appropriate. There are 1,5A6 recreation enterprises in Michigan. A majority of them, 60.2 per cent, or 931, offer a single, prime recre- ation product such as the traditional golf course. How— ever, 16.6 per cent, or 258 of our recreation enterprises, offer two prime recreation products, which suggests sup- port for the diversification argument; while 357 enter- prises, or 23 per cent of all Michigan outdoor recreation enterprises, offer three or more prime recreation products and are classified as complex—activity enterprises. With these prevailing conditions, we find that we have 3,027 distinct recreation enterprise-types or facilities on 1,5”6 locations throughout the State. 1The response from Iron County, Michigan, shows such an operation. 412, 21a, 25a, “83, 382, 122, 202, 1611, A6, 36, 116, 569, offering offering offering offering offering offering offering offering offering offering offering offering 72 Realistically, this means there are: outdoor living in cabins or cottages campgrounds picnic areas fishing waters golf courses hunting areas scenic nature or historic attractions riding stables or academies shooting ranges or preserves farms or ranches skiing, tobogganing or snowmobile sites either swimming or boating From the above information, we can plainly see there are basically 3,027 different enterprise-types. Obviously questions regarding the numerical significance of rec— reation enterprises are not easily resolved today, unless the question is well qualified. Having introduced the reader to the concept of complex-activity enterprises, it would seem pertinent here to try to further define the basic nature of such Operations before turning back to resolving the stated objectives of this study. Table 2, Aspects of Complex— Activity Enterprises, on page 73, was made for selected regions of Michigan, and reveals a general profile of these enterprises. .mpcoocoamop opHMQQOHpmoSU map mo UoHMHmmMHo was omeonpco COprohooh sooppso cm noHQB hops: moamplomHhahopso mo hopes: map I mooesz COHpmoHMHmmmHo ".m.z* omH mmH mH mm mm s 00H Hm me mH< momeQmopcm pszH mumpoooz m>mom +5 sum :Im mmmthpopsm COHpmooEEooo< popcoHpo , , * popesz mpH>Hpo< pszcpo>o loopmz wsHpmm omb COHpmoHHHmmMHo IonQEoo SOHmom z wmmHmmmmezm wBH>HBommm CH momHhopopcm HmpOB EmHosz msHHsm scum: mchmmeOOB thm LOHHOEB uponoh< mcsm mom mOHHooesosm mmOHm ocso monocmm mesa wcHomm ou5< mowsmm wchoozm msHpcsm wsHscHscHs chapmz OHcoom wcHoocmo mcHOEmo wssssm wQHEEHzm mommom Loom: on mmooo<\z mQHQmo wchmom so mmchmz msHsmHm wsHchc Ammo m>mom,cHV mOHuH>Hpo< Hmpoe :H mH NH HH OH m m 909832 COHwom wchcmHm OHEocoom mZOHomm UZHZZH80< 85 OON H OH O m mm mm OO mm H Om O mm s s OHOOOO OOHmcm H I I I I I I I I I I I I H I sOHOsz H I I I I I I I I I H I I I I msHOsm cpsH m I I I I I I I H I H I I I I OOHOOIOO m I I I I I I I m I I I H I I mwop< OHHnoEBOOm m I I I I H I H H I I I I I I mmop< OHSpmz H I I I I H I m I I I I I I I .opo .OOSQ «mapwm O H m H I I I I I I I I I I I scum: op mmooo<\3 mcHnmo OH I H I I I I H m I I m I I I spam smHHssH HH I I I I H m m I I m I H I I msHOocsm OH I I I I I I I H I O m I I I OOHHOHOOHO HH I .H I I m H H H I I I H I I msHHsm HH I I I I I m N O I I I m I I msHOssm OH I H I I H m O I I m I m I I mOsHssz O wsHsscm HH I I I I I H I HH I s I I I I msHssHsm Hm m H I I O m HH I m I I H I m OOHOOOO so OOOsom Om I I I H m m OH O H H I I m H msHOHOO HH m H m m H O O m I m H HH H I mOssosmcsOO HO H m m I OH m OH O I H I O I H msHsmHm HOOD OsOHH sHV HH OH OH HH OH O O s O O H m m H "tosssz sOHOcm mOHpH>Hpo< Hmpoe wchcmHm OHEocoom monOmm OzHZZHHO OHzozoom OB OzHOmOOOO .mmO BOOHH zH Oszm OH OHHHO HBH>HBOH : mqm. T g H >4 tweets“. angst: «I e D D & s a :3. 30:; meweasm, 5...... I; .. 3% g . $ H c .,_I -H.I.> o6 ‘F'IQI’IDS Cor—Irma): CD '0‘ m > (no 8 13 :3 +3 :3 :) +3 :3 .. .. t tweeters “sassszsasf ... cs . .. “5 COUHPY 5 fl 8 3:“ < m8 812-5 ”+0.51% .E p-Hoppobsm I. B H B 9‘ *3 "41d- E E“ E E g; 33 :2) one Q) 1: I - El 'U-HQ-ICr-IL‘ ‘Hpsmmmommop w 5355 g fa“ iacH (U "o :20 III "o no ‘0 .. o o o e rt. as set 0.91.223 stemsmmss . meme 0 "m 0‘2 °’ 9 ... °’ ~9 "* °’ ° g 8 LR £3 29 In. oz 000 digests :1: zomdmc§3>03 3 (a) (b) (C) 2: >30 0 3— 20 a: >_ H :I: 2.. ._I >4 z I—I S :1 a :> z: I: E H >< Q Q Regal Golf Club Meridian x x x x Golfing Dancing Swimming x x x x x X R.R.3, Rexville Ingham INSTRUCTIONS INTRODUCTION: This is a survey of existing, private outdoor recreation enterprises: private in that they are not owned or Operated by Government. RECREATION ENTERPRISES are enter- prises that have a commercial motive. Therefore, in deciding if an operation should be included in the survey, simply Egg: sider: Does it seek to make a profit or sustain itself from user fees or memberships? If it does, and if it takes place out—of-doors, include it. 1. To the best of your ability, based on information readily available, you are to check the best answer to each ques- tion in the appropriate space. 2. In Questions (9) and (10), you are asked to appraise how much use the private and public—Operated facilities are receiving. The following is a general guide to heavy, moderate and light use: Heayy Use: the operation under heavy use will be working close to its physical capacity. Therefore, it will oc- casionally have waiting lines to get in or require res- ervations. It will always have at least some users during normal periods of business. Moderate Use: a waiting line occurs very seldom. There are times during normal business hours when no users are present. Light Use: waiting line does not normally occur, even on key holidays. There are times during the normal peak hours when no users are present. EXAMPLE: The Regal Golf Club, R.R.3, Rexville, in Meridian Twp., Ingham County, is on marginal farm land. The course was initially bank financed. It offers golf and has a swime nfing pool. Dances are held on outdoor patio in season. In the same county there is a municipal golf course, and both are under heavy use. Long waiting lines occur occasionally, but these two courses have different fee structures and clients, and cannot be considered in competition. 3. In Question (11), competition can be said to exist when two or more Operators seek, by offering similar services, to attract a sindlar set of users. The DUE DATE on this questionnaire is JULY 20, I968, and it is to be mailed directly to: MR. DON R. HEHN Dept. of Resource Development MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING, Michigan 48823 APPENDIX B QUESTIONNAIRE CORRESPONDENCE 121 MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY aaar Luann . was one mmamnmm-mmamcum June 19. 1968 TO: ma AND m UNIT OWBIWISTS 01‘ T3 HIOHIGAN SOIL WHEN SERVICE Gentle-ens The enclosed Qnesticnnaire is pert at a study being conducted by the De- part-ant of Resource Develolnent. liehigan State University, in coopere. tion with the Iichigan Soil Conservation Service. You may already have received an advisory letter true State Conservaticnist. Verne Bathurst. regarding this study. The Soil Conservation Service is playing an important role in providing the essential data and planning information necessary to this State's de- velopnent or a sound recreation propan on private lands. This study will add to your current study of outdoor recreation potentials in the State of lichigan. as well as provide valuable information to those cmsidering re. creation develoxnent as a land use. ls are. therefore. seeking your cooperation in gathering basic data on rural outdoor recreation enterprises in lichigan. ' It you would read the directions on the reverse side of the Questionnaire. complete and return it to my attention by July 20. 1968. care of the above address. it would costly aid us in conpleting this important study. Should we ferns be needed. they say be obtained directly true the Soil Conservation Service Office. Harrison Road, East Lansing. we appreciate and thank you for your cooperation. Yours very truly. MICHIGAN arm UNIVERSITY Don R. Hehn Graduate Research Assistant 133ch ‘ttCOhOe 122 UNITED STATE DPTARTNE‘H‘ 0? Adam SOIL CQ-ISE‘YRZKTIW BERVICI Room 1.01, 11.05 8. Harrison Rand Bust Tanning, Michigan #8823 June 18, 1968 To : Arc». and Hark Unit Conservationists From? “Verne H. Katmai-st, State Conservationist Ra : Recreation 13 - Enterprises mo dwelogmnt of a sound. mates: of recreation facilities in the Btste of Michigan to meet present and future rewoatiou denim: hinges on email analysis 01' existing public and private rccrentim facilities and mid-rt- tion of the state's recreation potential. The questiazneire fron Don nahn, which you my have received, has been designed to Insure existing prints, mtdo-zrr recreation facilities and their relationship to existing ”110, Outdoor rv-crsai' 1m facilities and swroes of Mat. The: Soil Comervatim Service is p.::Q/ing an impctent role in mid!“ the essantfe). date. and planning infcouzt‘im necessary to this Bistro W of a soul ref-reatim progren or print-e lands. This study will add to an «frighten? study of Jui-toor recreation potentials in the State at mm. It will provide valuable infcmaatirzn to those answering reoreeti. W as u. lair: me. We in the Soil Camel-13131011 fiervice have agreed to work in cmjunotim with the Hmr‘cmnt of Resonant Devulfwmcnt of Michigan State {humanity in e.- pl=n:',.3 this Lindy. Please road the instructicm a the reverse lid. 0! It. q~~.esri;5.-:.rn~x*re and fill it in to the best of your obility, hosed a: readily en'nilz'oir: infomtim lithont further matings or oanvsss. This quationnsire is to be mistod by July 20. 1.968, and niled directly ts: Mr. Don R. Hem Departrmt of Resource Dwemmmt Michigan State universiw East Looming, Michigan 158823 I 1mm: 1‘ can count on your cmmticm in umediting this ingot-tent m. 520/4324 123 APPENDIX C SUMMATION OF DATA TABLES A - G 1211 DATA SUMMATION TABLE A EMC PLANo‘XflG RSGIW h'LanlP t WINTISS OF ECP’JGAN : 3 '3 (0 Oakland County notes my 3 g 3 3 non Golf Courses. but fails a 5 a 3 £9 a to list than. 0' warm 2, g 3 g g E 3 reapmse incomplete.) 5 2 .. .4 g ... g, 5 n 5' r: 2 °° . W Entsrgises 16 20 Number of ty latex-arises _ Rumor of Sample-biotivi ty Number see g IEIEEE mi cultural Good Agricultural Land t 6 - 2 6 Golf Golf Golf .0012 Golf Std. 8113 11 10 e OC‘ ‘1’, to Co-eroial enterprises: vm . ty. t ing of these Similar tar ales 53c Government Cmpeti t ion DATA SUMMATION TABLE B —__.—. Eonscuxc FLA‘:JNG 333m: NYSE? ’X‘UJ'TISS OF MICFJGM.’ Cassopolis Region Totals Oenesee Shiawassee Region Totals Region Totals Clinton ‘1 ‘Y H U! I | | I t I i 1 Enterprises 1 Numbor of Sampler-Activity I I i A) \a) 0‘ NUDE N I? k N #- ks) U\ H 0 Number 3 ter '0 UI :erprises Type 1 Outdoor Li n9 serves scat on an: or ter 91‘ for Act vity t. sci £198 to Connercisl interprisos: vmty. ty. but ng of they) SimiLer toryr sea encing Government G-Inpeti tion DATA SUMMATION C TODD-CHIC TL...‘JM‘: LEGION blan? ’JOI'H'I'ISS OF MICHIGAN Resin |Totals Ch'stiot torn-ire _; Igflngl miculturslfl Good Agricultural Lani £08 to Cmroial Enterprises: ‘3'. nos eucing Government a’upeti I. ion .--—...__. . -.- ‘ ECOMHXC FLuJ-‘HcG 3.13103 MEL-3:? I OOHJ‘X'ISS 0F IICHJGAN (Olnsonplste response fro- a “01.50) o '4 1 l! vity Enter 1 s Uni N b-er of SurpLax-Aotivi-t—y I t ! I a I I terrrises \J : WM Good Agricultural Land 1 an ass 1 Outdoor Liv ing up serves seat on an or ter ts tar ports Act vity ered; Of t. sci it on 13:11 to Connercial int-cruises: vmty. J‘xnty. t so ting of these sums:- 10 ter;r sea periencing, Government Supernova DATA SUMMATION TABLE O - 1 2 ‘ n 18 9 nun: 75'1- l'ish Yilh Fish Boot dost 30 . 16 .. ' 1 5 4 Region Totals §§gir§ DATA SUMMATION TABLE E .—._—.--—____.. ......~. -.__.. Exhale FLA-HUNG 333108 Milo"? I “- -_.! OOL'NTISS OF I} CEIGAN sooda Otsego Alpens Cheboygsn Crawford Picture Isle Region Totals ._...._ .. ”flu-1‘ ._. +-—- -—---L f 8 1 , - 5 . . ' . ; , » .-—-7--+-'-4—-* ' 2 : - _ , ' i or . h - ‘ -.— —h_—‘. _ ._. -- T.” A fl-- «IT————-.— ‘-A 3111.1 1 _.___',_ g L ‘ _J To ta‘. Number A l . ; ~ ‘ - ‘ ' Huber cf lat--r-Orien torrrxsv-s tsimg: As! ion"! sea led an: Outdoor Li ”DICK act or serves 1 on error 3 12 56!; fish Fish dot vity sred: Boat .Boet M 102 6 . t es to Co-aroial Enterprises: VII-3". ty. teryr sea arming Government 3:3th I. i m DATA SUIVIIVIATION TABLE F ”LL—r --.... -_. ---—--.- ._.. _ L.-- _. .r..-_._--- ._...._ --.- ._.—._— TOOMMLC 21¢.---1.\3 333103 Mini? I X W n 1'. . .——— ----- — fi <-- -< 7 ———--~— —-—--.—.- .... su—ss-—- ‘II I i T I I I r - , I ' . i n a 5 If“ ‘I'ILS 0" KICH'JLK I g. . H a: i , ~ . = ' . a 2 . I I d . I ' 2 I: o a z :2 I, , r e g r . a I a ' :3 . e ' a 2 :3 5 I3 5 § 1. g I .‘3 . I: . II I a - a 5. 2 _, 3 g 2;. 3 s o g, i 5.3;sic.1a.:33,.«203;¢ . I : I I I; I P t ——+- --- + 1 I. ”her of Single-Activity I I . I I. I I ‘ 1 . 1 I Enterggises 19+ 6 Ln JTL 7 I -1 5 “ _.8 8 ..y‘. ‘ 85_I 7....___.2 L11 ....3? 4r_-_4.__.,.._._J ‘ Further of Duel-Activity I - i I I i I ‘ Enterxigs +__ ' 5 L 1 1 1 *7 3_'Y 1 h 4.. 8 .'_ 1.1.7. .31“ -_1..- __‘ ._ 'fi -_- 1 _. -.' __.._ | Numb-2r of Super-Activity ' - T I ‘ _ T‘ ‘ awry”, 5P8 I 3 4» _2_ If 1 __e____1_1_ 1o 1 a 56 1 3 2 w 6 L 9 I Total Number of interprisea j ' . I ~—. _I I 25, 19 4 m A. 10 114. 111 15 26 9 3 175 g 5 L5 29 , l I Number of Iat:r-0riented I— : ‘ T Y . I : Enterfrisea 12; 11. 6 5 . h; 11 u 9 16 3 27 I 1‘01” 13 3 2 11 , 1 Number :f F.H.A.-Fine.‘uzed 1 . T I I 7 1| ”En-tyrgises L '4 ' I ' ' i ’ ' ' 1 ' 2 ' ' A " V ' ' 4 Number of Intvrprises L'simn I 2 , 2 ‘ - I E h A I‘mltursl Land __ _9 ‘ I ‘hWL 1 _ I h_1 5 JV: 1 12 r 110 - 1 .l_:__._ 1 3 I P ‘ ' ‘ ; I I «000 Wicultural Land 10 . - I 3 1 ; 5 - r - L 2 2 - 23 h - 1 5 ‘ J, ; milent Agricultural 1411.4 I T p 7 ‘ i 1 1 1 I _' A ’ I ' L ' a ' L ' ' _"___'_ ’ __’_ '__.__._’ --., ._.—...____I. loaded use I 3 D . . ‘ *“ I . 3' 16 I I; 2 : 1: - 3 8 3‘4 _1 £9 -. 3 - 3 . ' Non-d icultursl Land I T I I fit ‘ T I a: 21 1' 3 6 3110 7 16 I. 20 72 III .1 ‘11.”; 19» __ I __ I latex-prises Classified ss: I I I h I 1 7 (Cabins. No.1 5 ' L % _ 9 i 1 1 A h 6 1r 1 J I T" II C-ning Grounds ' - . I J” b l L 1 l 2 I l l I 3 6 6 - l 22 I; I 2 3 9 4 f ' fits III Picnickingi I I — i Ifi I ' I k s anew; 3L ' I ' ' 11 " 12d___2__ ' , 1 26 - I 3 h I 7 1 ' Type IV Fishing Ponds T t I Y _r I . ...“... 11 I 11 5 5 “J 10 II n 3 12 79 1 II II 9 : Type 7 Golf Courses V . Y , T I 3 I 2 I; I 5 3 I 1 3 2 2 2 27 I. I - A 3 74L I I V1 “1an dress Y T Y“ .- T I Ty" ‘ 2 - - ' - 1 L 6 2 5 . h 20 - ' - . . - I I I w f --—-1»—————<-~— A I Type v11 Natural a I ' T f I - Historicsl Areas 2 ' 1 1 2 1' 5 E I h 3 ’ 26 3 h I 5 11 i Tyre VIII Horseback Riding '1' ll Shootin Preserves . I i Y” E 1 - _ - 1 I _ 2 — - - h - - A _ - L I hype X Vocation Fern or I I ' hide Ranch 1 ' " I' 1 'i 2 1 " ' ’ 5 ' ' 2 2 ‘r ._.I.__i__Ii 3 X1 Victor 3 rta ' Y V '- - ' I 13"” °° I. 2 14. 2 - _ 1 3 3 1 6 26 - 1g - 1 4: . I hp: III later 5 rte I f I 3 Do 2 1h 1 I l l 8 £ 1.11 l 15 63 1 3 5 9 I .- E 'I I 1 n It Offered T : A ’ fi- ._.. I fig 0 or c V ' : First Prion: Fish Fish FishJFish Fishgcihin Picnic Fish Fish Boat Fish Golf Fish Fish Fish I J scond Priority ' I j BorseI Boat Ski I001! Golf Swill Cabin Swim Golf Fish Boat Camp , Camp Camp Camp ' fl _ f % ——~-- :2:— ~- —«I Enterprise Intrenoex T ‘ I Caner 1 Public n so '4 17 13 ; 1° 1° I 13 11 22 9 29 158 8 L 5 . 1o 23 . Issue 0 T r. “I, a u D C C I 1 2 l C 1 5 C i - 2 l 2 I 1 £ L 4 m . ’ I " Guests . - 2 1 - 1 I - 2 2 - 3 11 1 - 1 I 2 I I Q‘oups Only ‘1‘“. h ; T.— 9 - - . - - I . .. 1 - - 1 . - 2 2 | No.0! Govt. Facilities Siniler j ‘r T T Y -7 '— '7 to Co-sercial Enterprises: _ . - , _ - 1 _ _ , _ _ 1 2 _ . 1 3 | I In Sass Count); I ' I Av L . _ L I I In Same County. flthin . . T j 15 Miles " 1 '_l ' '+ ' . h ' r - 5 5 2 l 8 fl 1 lot in County. but vithin ‘ I I - n - o - - - a "' - a - I o o I 1 In .. L A J A _- I- I- ‘_ _ I g _ _ up- -_-- Use Rating of these 31mm- . j ' . | . Govt. Fecilitiegt Eiegvx - 1 1 - I_- 1 I - I h 2 - - 5 h - 2 6 I Moderate I I I T - - I - i - - - - 3 - - 3 3 2 - 5 T T . Light ‘ - I - I - - . _ _ 3 - - 3 - _ - - ._i "Lg 1 __ __ >_ __ 4 -___“ __ -__ >_ _ _______ T- Use Rating of Conn-roial I ' . " 9 ‘ - I_ I I :# intern-tees: Heavy 5 1‘ 1 5 h 3 f 3 a 6 5 ' I 1 33 A 1 P 13---“..- —.-——+——I ”m to ‘ I 1 . m e I 16 L7 5 e 11 ' 9 18 II 23 109 2 II 47 13_ _ I ‘ L1 ht ' _ 7| T . R 11 2 2 1 L - g- L - 3 1' 5 9 33 3 - - 3 i _l L , ,7 ‘ 9 ..l-_':‘—. ‘:' _: Entanrisos Experiencing . . r - - | ! Govtrnmnt 3n;:t'\ti‘11 ' 1 ' ' ' - I ' L 8 - 13 L 2 E I J L A _L L L A __J__ g ___ __ _._______‘_- - .——l—— - —i— -.— DATA SUMMATION TABLE G _—----- . ._. ECOMNIC “4.173th 3.2310}; MINI? I ’JOi'.’."TISS 0F IICEIGAL' Region Totals Region Totals Keleenav Schoolcreft F! - vity ._...Sn MIL - Nusbir of anplex-Activity otal terprises terprisas \JIHK: icultursl ‘ Good Agricultursl Land t Wicu loosed Land ing np serves scat on arm or - ' 3’ por 6 ' 2 1o : I 9 set vity ered; . Fieh‘ Golf Fish Fish sh Fish Fish Picnic Fish ‘Fish mu: Fish Cabin Boat Fish PicnicPicni ll 7 . . 15 8 h2 I o . t. eci tee irni to Cos-ercial Enterprises: ty. ty. but ing of these Similar teryr sea ea cg Government Gvrnpvti t ion HICHIGRN STRTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 31293102426545