I‘D.

:“uet

9'.

1..

to co‘c'frfi‘

I
D
. ~
a
I
~...
I O
I I
-a
ao-r.
,.
..
~ I
.0
I o
g .
....
I
I.
g I
I
.u .
I
.
In
.-

‘1 "

 

 

        
 
  
   

 

       
   
   
 

   

  
 

  
 
  
    
   

  
    
    

 

 

:7 A A‘ --"‘T~.\v F". . ‘_.'a
,,_,n~~11”x.~-ommm V - \' -'~ 1 .. . .
on. .W."W “O... .‘ ' ' ' \ ' . ‘ 0 '.
_.,.w..~vo¢«"~'-~“ . .
_ “-.-H coo.-.’va 7-7 . . _ .
.--~..-m‘~0rfi-V‘ v o a - ~ .
Q 5 -
Q U ‘ ‘ n 6
c s I ,i‘ ’ -- '
o — ' ‘ '-
. I . .
‘ .
. o
40-. - Q~
I . ’
II
‘ . - o
O. ‘
. .
. . - -
U . - --—‘
I. ~ ~
V
O ' 7 h
i .l .
. r
A ‘ '
. I -III I
' ‘ I . o \
.
II
‘3.
3‘ )
.-
0 1 ' - ‘ ' '
I ‘ - , . ~ _
I .
' . ...
c I ' . ‘ . .
_ ‘ . .I I .I I
x. I - - » -
I . 9 0 - -
I 1
’
- . ~ I
n. . ' . .
. . . I < *-o I . 0 .-
- I D‘
.. . o ' . .
. . u
. .. . o - - .. -
a. .
I I Q I ' A .-\V. . I
. . . u _
o . , - , .. .
C ‘ O. '
. o . .0. . I ,- -.4 ~ -‘
. . ,. -. .
n I I ' . Q
. . . a " ‘O- ¢.. - 0- .
. v o-, - I V . . . o-
, . v - — - ,' o ' ‘9. 6 a .
- I ' - o
.
a' . . o . .,. . .. . .
- .,.-- . o . . , v. . . o
.. I C - O I
~ 0 - - a 00—9. - O
' I I o c
. . . g -n—. I - -. 0 . o -o .
. — c .n .n‘ J - 4 .. o .g-ry. '0 -I u , .0
- .p n. .’ .0.. vv n '.; .‘ . -- .n .‘ . v
. .. , _- -. o . - _
D o - so . . o . -o o O o - I 'o . 0- ‘
I A . . l O ‘ _ . .
. .- ~-- ’ . I . ' ‘ " ' . >o.. ‘ I... '
u _’ - . . _ . . - . .
I . , o .. . .a_ 0 ~00- ' " I r o I .' -.. .D .. .-‘
. a , .. n o. . - .- I- .
. . . . u o .. ~ ' g - - . - -. . ’ ' --‘o , 4‘ O
n .. - 901- I
o .' .. g . o . . . ‘ . '. o — 0". O -0 ’ r -. ,.,-- ‘
-. . ... , . .o-o . - -. - - — . r I.
a .. . . , . .. ... . ... .. J' D I a .’ - a! .- ‘40-... d
- I - ..,v‘ ’- .;-~ , ' ' ' -
. . O . ... _ - .--< .. 9‘. ‘1’ - . ‘- . 0- , p .. 9...... - ‘
- . a. . . -. . .. -u‘ . o
. . - u ' - .. .. . 'n... - aro-- 0 o - .. n o r . av ~ . ..
u o . . ‘ ..'.‘-.,,- .u o ‘o. - - .ao '
n . - _n . n o. ., I , . , . u. v — v - - -. . ,.,. ..',I .'.
‘ 0- . .. ,.. 0.. In. - . - .. . . c. _
a O ° . ‘ . - ,- L '5 0' ' I -~ " 9 " a! . O r ---" 0 Tao: C
.‘ ' - o I - o 0 - - . o-~ ¢ . , . .u ,.,..‘
‘ ' - P -a‘ . . ----- .- n " - --. .- .4! c. 00’ -
.. . , . .. l , -. . .. . . -. o- I ‘ -.’
.. . - ‘. _ . . 't . .’~ _ o n"-b-O-- o, . .-. -- up '- 'I.-.: . o—
. - . . - . n 1 a. '0. . . -- 6‘0 '0 On . rn‘ ~ v ' (-0
u n V m . . ,i.- p o... .0 o I-d ' n ..- 40>‘-,_—._ V"
I g . .,— .» .n . ... .. o' .. q. n- -t -' ‘ ‘0 0’0 9 ° .01’
v - . . .. , , - .r . ,r . g- , ..-— o o- n s --.‘ ... -40.
I . _ 1 I ,_ ’-. ,. 11.1,..,.d...l. 0’ .o’ .-.I . . 9.9: - '.- » I 3.. .04 . f--- -. ~
. ' O at ' - -— Q ~ . . ’, It .Or‘ - . u ~r”.p- .v . ’1‘ , - y..o C .p-.—
.. . I .. a . u o . . - .’. - "' \. . , .. u ‘9’. . ‘-. .. '. o‘r' . - I II..- o ..‘-. o ‘ v‘ I~ .'
o . . . - . p. . o . . o. - . .' ..‘. ,...,-.g- .- n. o. .o c ‘ o.’.(or.
.. p - .-- o. .. f-'.'v‘-.‘.-I—.-I' 1‘ e,’-'—4-"vl"— . - -'
' . . . - , .-.Ao . ... -. 0- ‘co .4
I - I ' _v ‘ 0' ‘ - v I
o . . . . I . -- > o .9
. - I v- .' .. o-
' ' .oo - - '0 '4' - f' "f I
I l 0' I I .— .v- . I r: O '
; .. .0. .. .- 'o . , ‘ o ---.‘_l:o-:;v;:.
. . o o. .1. I ' - . -_,_ . ,, .;,,I’.“,, ,. .. -¢ ,‘5 O ‘
. I .. .a. u _ g o o . . ~- 9 " '.. 'I.....‘.-: I.- o -’ G 5’ I- .-
. . o o' - . I - a. o. o p. ~ o. ,7 OI... - . ¢_al ’, .- uy' ¢a -'I
I , . ' o . . ‘ ’ o .. ' ’ . . o-..',I' _ , ". .’ a o. '- ..’..... a P. ’; "r-v-')"-'r"’r--'°-'. :Ir’,‘ .. . -
, o . uua-‘O a, .. . ,'¢ 3“. “", a .4 oaoI-’-l'-.'.J_1.JI v—(I .. ' , , g'..d‘,‘uy 2
I; I o .1 0., a. 1 a. ,, r J..:_..I'".~.‘r .v‘ - .5 ‘pgll. ’ ‘ ~ -9 -t'-‘r ‘
. . . . v .- ,.._-- . . . .. ,5. -‘ :3, J"z-.-. .a-t.".-On-I' I - 4 fi- -."' ‘ g (o ,A'A"'
_ I a o ' I . ...,g Jol.‘fl....,f‘ ' '- - . . -cI .,.z:.—"- - .q' ~‘c-I' vc'rwr
._ ‘, ‘ _ (4,. . ".. ...I. ..al _,I- '."§¢“ .(-fl|\o. I- . '1 -’1v'-"N
. .. I . I - . u .- o - 0...:n..-.'.I.‘.'v-g.-’.’.'.ooo '-"'.- ‘- 'J I -c’_ — - 75...»? "’F'w‘
. v .. . ..‘. ‘-.- . . 4‘;.-..' I 0 ,our’,.' rnol-’ .o..0, I'-I-I'JD- Iv. '. - r. p.96" "-.. -" 'J'o.'3-..t
- 0 n0. . . a - n. a .. I ...-—'oon_ I .-, (.I-I'W..’..,,-_~ ..- oo- 0- O . ' ._ V‘ ‘0 -
~. 7 ~Io. - ‘ .. I-‘4- . - ‘r. 'A 9A- ‘ I.. . .' ..,1;"p.’. ,-..DI-P.:Oool ‘ I
t .a o - .u. ~o | a! ' ;.. o . ., ’1‘. ".‘." ...,.‘,l..‘., , r, f . ...,..
. .. I . . I I I " - 44 I, '{.l tn -!."" 17-1.}.0’
- '. ‘ I o ‘ -- ' ' 7’ .l - .a o 'pIIAI .4... VoI-lrif '
‘0 n' J "l' a'.- -C' —o l..." '4' --A-I4"--o"
u .o .. . .. ‘. ' n.‘.‘ ’ . ' ..- ... '. lod.n. .1 If)"
.. . . a .0 I ‘. .o'no I . . f ‘. '1. 'o.: ‘ O"’l a ’ 9:”, .0" O,‘ .5
. . ... 5 . . 1 . A . “Ho'o- . o 3.0; v“. . -o'-I~' ,’
. I... ~ . I . o . . ‘, _ . . r . '- 1". I- ‘1’ ’ ." -’ ,_’0.ro,vgt’0’odt;2.4:r6°~Ila--
- a lo . -'o In 1..... ' a - o.-«I’ .opcp. '.o-_>'-n4 ( VI," I
. 41 . .- it! . . ‘ 1 I oIJI [- ul I‘Jl‘c' - PI" or? 'a'Oblvv-p'
II .. .,. .- -0.. o 0 0 ...5,.. .. .I ' -.IO.".Q‘¢, .aoo-;: pll'.0."lo.f .V'fiz’O‘ ,
- ‘ n 00' 'l -“ I ,’ I; o‘a '. - ..',, ' .IQO-Ot I '0’,
--o - I . o . ‘up. -. '1‘ up...» ‘a’a , , I.."’, .4...' ‘co v ' ~,'-
0- v - a. . no .-. . ' l" '-o-" 0" .I'.-a-' I n r t r-" Di": 3"::~Io:-‘:‘;"';‘J"
' l- Io atu~ - ' '0 v '0' -Dl0' ..va'-’J’.n,’ol‘ ,'I.”’~{l ’/.7£_ .'ir,—a ‘:'l‘li’§fifli'r.5¢'-- _ ’
- - . v: ..I . ..-0 ...t- . . .. T‘JI. .- .J’ . 'l- v Io.-o..
. c . y r I I... w . 04,: ’ . "" -(I’ ’H" .
- I I .. o .I- 'll‘l- .- g..- ' I p, I V b 4 .N lit
. . . . O: 4 .I . " - o‘.0,'.[.o - :‘v;O)OMa'l.""
. | .o- - .4 o v‘ Or I III]! q' .‘ I n on -'J'l-l-arfi .--.-'-"n"
o. . . . _. I. .4 '..'. n- o ’-Il.o" * p ' .‘ “.9 .f'
. - . I ‘1 ..v|. »-.,yio Q. .Itl.'-“I .lt'lyom-‘Il- ' a 0'"),
~ . _ . .pl- . .00.. 8 g-. .4.' .‘I‘cc-I‘l Is (a. .I-a' 5. v?
v ' " ‘4 04.6 - _ u.pI a ’ 01" ‘ v [.4 ' "law,” (‘1.
I . . '. ./ 0.! .I . l - ‘l .‘c‘J‘lr' 0‘:
I 04 - . 1!: n . O I' 1 I - ' “4-1.. Ol~,
.‘ , ’ J - ‘. 0.1 .-.'. 'J' ‘ ‘J’. . .:...’,.'.,.. '
o . . . ,, ... . v ' ' III- 0 o;-o-I_oi'.;..! . . a . A J I'I.¢'O'ao ’
- .'... .... In a I I O 5' It! 1' r‘.."'.o ,- -.... «,.'5
a I .. a, v II..._ . .,. ...4 .u: ‘94 I ‘ Io... ':‘.. A . (I, ‘1. r/g‘: ;fi;’~-! {1"}.
'. I III '. .- I '0 ‘-O."."""-.IflIIOI'.O" .. 0‘ I ’- I}. -0 p.o, v or ‘ :m’c. 9:01"
-- - 0| - a" v-,y‘ - cu ' I I '0‘. OytImlp“ -. .‘..r-- ..r _ o'hw-a l‘ . I y: ,4.‘
- l n c ': .‘n'l".o .c' I: u - I " 4.0.4 o -, J ’ 4 i-""“"I " - ' .p'f'»' '1
... ., .. .I,. .. . 1 . .- 'p ' o“..l, vp'vuo‘I, I.”;..ai.;.“.oo.0t,'- Q‘h
I o A .v . II I 6‘. 'II o - I . a0125
I 'o - I ... q . n‘ 'oII'l I.» ..'.O):.rk.t:.::;¢pO—IH,D 'II' P‘v
.. . O- .1.. - I o ' -" a'd {of/Ira"tl . ‘9
...- o ,I . ... . .n .0.460I40|10'I0I'- ...n nI’ 0 fr"\
0 I:.I 'I . g .. Ir.ll '. -v ..... lM-‘.4... . ,l‘r-AI/,,~ (5
v 9 'I . 4.10. 0| 0..'- v-‘oIIo-OtfiIo-‘A...’-o' . .o A/ 55';o
I ~ . - 00-. . 1.. I I.IO‘-‘.I-’1.l.l‘.('.o"!‘-"( 'OOI""
0' o | t ' ,. J". ~13 'jl'o’Ifgt .on~l,l - . 9‘ ~ 0 .ul
- 'l .. .I' a v.’. .“I -.‘-' 0 on! 0/; ,-..’..’.- olrlool'o»
Q --- 0.0- . I‘ ~ l.~ -ooI:;.'I'.,c"vaI- A'. .’o¢ .-
uo ‘ - 1°. . A' ll ,; ' on . ., '3-) I.“ ' ,o. u . v
- -.~I'u . g y no " 0- 1.... , o~p-’0 » ya: a o 9 ’IP. 'f-DORGI‘ - 7
v“ ‘ O I Q . o'r"'» I10 . uc.~o' 0-0 II 0.1-? It." 3 o .; ‘ ,l.or’rrullu.u-Il OJ - '4.---"1' f gc-o
~n0 . .. I . - --. .It' (I. .. .A'I I I , . . ,,oo. . ., . oov -' - o (In. ""J':‘IJ
-" I - ~~ . II.’ I ~- -llrll.(o~ .- ..-p. ., - ...' o g r o I,‘&’”.”””A.‘§“0.fio.a. O
‘ ' n ‘ - I 4' ; a 5.‘ 4 ‘ ../.....,.. .IJ' . ,l”:,.l~u"\qawo-<u¢d O 0
o . .I . ' ' -....;Ioau.. .........qg.oo¢¢lo-d 0-0-
- . . . . , ‘ ~ "TU'JIZO-OO I'n‘.AO~O§-OCOOQ.' '-
...- n‘ In... A 4.0II'O--'
.. ‘ .. 0.0...I‘

 

m
w.

/..
2m,
MPV W
h m
WU m.

h

R
A
R
B
I
L

 

 

 

 

' :4. “"30”“ “w" ‘ 6‘76?”
fin. '1" ‘ ‘ :3 £~3fixwm~§
kw!) . ‘

n-P ‘- A
A. "1 $131536

ABSTRACT
A STUDY OF MULTIPLE BOAT OWNERSHIP IN MICHIGAN
By

Ronald Kaiser

This study is a portion of a much wider investi-
gation of recreational boating demand being conducted
for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The
objectives of the study are to estimate and determine
first; the number of unregistered boats owned by multi-
ple boat owners; and second the number of multiple boat
owners in Michigan; and third the factors which are con-
nected with multiple boat ownership. The study was further
designed to explore the usefulness of these factors in pre-
dicting future multiple boat ownership patterns.

A sample of 21,76h registered boat owners was drawn
from a list of registered boat owners supplied by the Mich-
igan Secretary of State's Office. The sample was stratified
by county and also by length of registered boats and was
selected on a random basis.

A detailed questionnaire was distributed to the boat
owners in the sample. The questionnaire design requested
information regarding (1) type and size of boats and motors
used by boaters in the state; (2) boat storage, transpor-
tation methods and launching sites; (3) boating use during

the 1968 season for different water bodies; (h) frequency

Ronald Kaiser

and type of use on the various water bodies; (9) origin
and destination patterns; (6) numbers of boats owned; and
(7) socio—economic characteristics of the boaters.

The data was expanded from survey sample information
to statewide estimates by expressing the sample parameter
as a percentage of population parameter data. The factors
hypothesized as being connected with multiple boat ownership
were tested by linear regression analysis.

Analysis of the data indicates that nearly 60 percent
of the respondents owned only one boat and he percent of the
respondents were multiple boat owners. The incidence of
multiple boat ownership among registered boat owners ap-
pears to be greater in the northern counties of Michigan,
while the greatest numbers of multiple boat owners are
located in the southern, urban, counties of Michigan. A
similar trend can be noted for the incidence and number of
unregistered boats and owners.

The characteristics of multiple boat ownership identi-
fied as being significant, within specified levels, were
age, income, education, and occupation of boat owners.
Although significant, these parameters did not account for
a great deal of variation around the mean of the dependent

variable.

A STUDY OF MULTIPLE BOAT OWNERSHIP IN MICHIGAN

BY

Ronald Kaiser

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

1970

..u’-/

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all who
have assisted me with the preparation of this thesis.

I particularly wish to thank Dr. Michael Chubb, my
academic advisor and thesis chairman, for his patience,
encouragement, and guidance during this study. Special
thanks also go to Mr. Paul Fiske, Project Leader of the
1968 Boating Needs Survey, from which this thesis was de-
rived, for his many helpful suggestions and criticisms
during this investigation.

Also, I wish to thank Professor Louis Twardzik,
Chairman of the Department of Park and Recreation Re-
sources, for his guidance and suggestions throughout my
Masters Program.

I wish to thank the staff of the Recreation Research
and Planning Unit for their major contribution on the coding
and data preparation of the survey information.

Lastly, I wish to acknowledge the assistance of my
wife, Darlene. If it were not for her patience and under-

standing, this thesis would have not been possible.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Chapter Page
I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Boating Growth
Statement of Problem
Hypothesis
Definitions
Significance of the Study
Review of Literature

II. STUDY DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Methods of Survey Research
Advantages of Mailed Questionnaire
Disadvantages of Mailed Questionnaire
Design of the Questionnaire
Question Type and Order
Coding of the Data
Sampling Procedures
Evaluation of Bias
Study Limitations

III. DATA ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

INTRODUCTION

Characteristics of Boat Owners
Income of Respondents
Occupation of Respondents
Education of Respondents

Boats Owned by Multiple Boat Owners
Distribution of Multiple Boat Ownership
Size and Distribution of Unregistered

Fleet

iii

Chapter

IV.

APPENDIC
Appendix
A.

B.

E.
F.

BIBLIOGR

HYPOTHESIS TEST . . . . . .
Analysis and Results
Statistical Model
Procedures and Results
Interpretation of Results
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Conclusions
Recommendations

ES

Michigan Recreational Boating Needs
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . .

County Breakdown of Mailed and
Returned Sample . . . . . . . . .

Number of Multiple Boat Owners
and Types of Boats Owned by
County of Returned Sample . . . . .

Expansion Estimates of Unregistered
and Multiple Boat Ownership . . . .

Statistics on Transformed Variables
County Identification Code. . . . .

APHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

iv

50

SS

62

67

69
7b.
78
79

Table

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Sample Selections and Returns - 1066

Boating Needs Survey . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Sample Selections and Returns - 1968

Boating Needs Survey . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Study Design for Control Test of Survey

Bias . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2h
Distribution of Respondents to 1068

Michigan Boating Needs Survey by

Income Categories . . . . . . . . . . 28
Distribution of Respondents to Mich-

igan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study-

Boating Survey-by Family Income Cate-

gories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Percentage Distribution of Respondents

to 196U and 1068 Studies by Family

Income Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Distribution by Income Categories of

Respondents Owning Two or More Boats

to the 1968 Michigan Boating Needs

Survey and a Comparison with the

Total Distribution of Respondents

to the Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Occupations of Boaters Responding to

the 1968 Michigan Boating Needs

Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Distribution of Respondents to 1068

Michigan Boating Needs Survey by

Educational Classes and Comparison

with the Distribution of Respondents

to the M.O.R.D.S. Boating Survey . . . . . SS

Table

10.

11.

A Comparison of Greatest Percent

Distribution of Multiple Boat
Owners with Greatest Numerical
Distribution of Multiple Boat
Owners in Michigan by Counties
of Residence

Comparison of Greatest Percent
Distribution of Unregistered Boat
Owners with Greatest Numerical
Distribution of Unregistered Boat
Owners in Michigan by Counties of
Residence

vi

Page

28

38

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Percentage Distribution of Multiple Boat
Owners by County as Reported by Re-
spondents to the 1968 Michigan Rec-
reation Boating Needs Survey . . . . . . . . 39

2. Numerical Distribution of Multiple Boat
Owners by County as Reported by Re-
spondents to the 1968 Michigan Rec-
reation Boating Needs Survey . . . . . . . . NO

3. Number of Registered Boats by County as
Reported by the Michigan Secretary of
State. 0 0 O O 0 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O M1

h. Percentage Distribution of Unregistered
Boats by County as Reported by Re-
spondents to the 1968 Michigan Rec-
reation Boating Needs Survey . . . . . . . . h?

5. Number of Unregistered Boats by County
as Reported by Respondents to the
1968 Michigan Recreation Boating
Needs Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N3

vii

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Boating Growth

 

The growth of recreational boating in the United
States and in Michigan has been phenomenal. In the IN
year period from 1950 to 196A, the number of recreational
watercraft in the U. S. increased by nearly 120 percent.1
The number of people boating has also increased. More than
hl million Americans went boating in 1967 compared to 38.5
million in 196A, an increase of 11 percent in the 3 year
period.2 The State of Michigan has experienced a similar
trend and ranks in the top five states in the country in
boat registrations and percentage of the total marine pro-
ducts market. Several factors have played a significant
role in the growth of recreational boating as they have in

the case of many other recreational activities.

 

_ 1National Association of Engine and Boat Manufacturers,
and Outboard Boating Club of America, Boating 196A - A Sta-
tistical Report on America's Top Family Sport,"New‘York:“_
NatIonal Association ETIEngine afid'BOat‘MEnufacturers, and
Outboard Boating Club of America, 1965, p. 8.

 

2Boating Industry Association, The Marine Market
(Chicago: Boating Industry Association, AnnualIMarket Re-
search Notebook, 196?) p. NB.

 

The increase in disposable income in the United States
and Michigan undoubtedly accounts for a portion of this in-
crease. The amount of discresionary time periods are in-
creasing as the length of the work week decreases and the
paid vacations and holidays increase. Changes in desires
and preferences at the societal and cultural level are in-
volved. This is one of the areas where assumptions are
usually made that have little quantitative justification.
This preference level change is partially indicated by
the shift to family-oriented outdoor recreation character-
ized by large investments in convenience and comfort faci-
lities for family groups. Technological advances in the
boating industry and better marketing techniques have faci-
litated distribution of boats to a large segment of the
population. The unique water resourCes of Michigan have
also been a factor in this boating explosion. These are
some of the interrelated factors which apparently account
for part of this increase, along with other more numerous
minor factors.

As both the number of people participating in boating
activities and participation rates in terms of hours per
user per year increase, the demand for more access sites,
launching ramps, docking facilities, and marinas corre-
spondingly increases. Providing for this demand is a
difficult problem compounded by the embryonic stages of the
statewide planning process. Basic data on recreational

boating still is at a minimum with only two statewide

surveys of boating use being made up to this present study.
These were the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study,

l96h Recreation Boating Survey;.1 and the 1966 Boating

Needs Survey of the Michigan Waterways Commission.2

Statement of Problem

 

Cognizant of the need for current, basic, statewide
data, the Waterways Commission of the Michigan Department
of Natural Resources requested that the Recreation Research
and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Re-
sources, Michigan State University, undertake a new study
of Michigan's recreational boating needs. This study was
designed to provide data for RECSYS-SYMAP, a computer
simulation model for statewide comprehensive planning.

The overall project was divided into four phases. The
gathering of data was the first phase. The computer sim-
ulation was another phase. An analysis of transportation
methods and selected characteristics of owners transporting
boats was the third. Lastly, an attempt was made to determine

the characteristics of multiple boat owners and formulate a

 

1Michigan State University, Department of Resource
Development, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study
(Lansing, Michigan: State Resource Plannfng Program,
Michigan Department of Commerce, June 1966) Vol. II.

 

2Department of Conservation, Waterways Division,
Transportation Predictive Procedures: Recreational
Boating and CommercfaI Shipping (Lansing, Michigan,
Department of Commerce, April 1967, Technical Report
No. 9c).

 

predictive model for multiple boat ownership.

Two basic objectives guided the research on the fourth
phase of the study: first, a need to estimate the number
of unregistered boats owned by multiple boat owners and
secondly, a desire to determine the factors which are con-
nected with multiple boat ownership and explore their use-
fulness in predicting future multiple boat ownership

patterns.

Hypothesis

 

The hypothesis of this study is that multiple boat
ownership is positively related to selected socio-economic
characteristics of boat owners and to the supply of boating
opportunities. The independent socio-economic variables
considered are: income, age, education, occupation, and
family size. The supply of boating opportunities is defined,
for the purpose of this study, as the amount of inland water
per county plus the amount of Great Lakes water per county,
if applicable, considered safe for the majority of boats
under 20 feet in length.

The hypothesis expressed mathematically is:

=b+b f X =o..b +E.
Y1 o lxlj b2 23 nxnj

Where: Y1 is the observed dependent variable, multi-
ple boat ownership.

X1 is the observed independent variables:
socio-economic characteristics and supply
of boating opportunity.

b is the constant, the point where the line
intersects the x-axis.

E is the observation of the random error term.

Definitions-

 

The following are definitions of terms used in this

study:

registered boat: (owner) The Michigan Legislature

 

in 1958 enacted a law requiring all boats that are pro-
pelled by auxiliary mechanical power and operated on waters
of the State be registered with the Michigan Secretary of
State.

legally unregistered boats: Boats not powered by

 

mechanical means but by cars or sail does not legally re-
quire registration. Often in this classification are
boats that legally should be but for some reason are not
registered. In this study, unregistered boats refers to
legally unregistered boats.

multiple boat owner: A person owning two or more

 

boats.

Significance of the Study

 

One of the goals of the study is to derive an esti-
mate of the number of unregistered boats in Michigan owned
by registered boat owners. Since the study was based on
data from a sample of registered boat owners, this number
will be only an approximation. The owners of many un-

registered watercraft were not included in the sample;

however, since some boat owners owned both a registered
boat and an unregistered boat, some relevant data was
gathered from this sample. This data on unregistered
watercraft owned by registered boat owners will be ex-
panded to provide information on the probable number of
unregistered watercraft per county and then expanded to
give statewide estimates.

The data from this study will not yield any informa-
tion on the amount of boating done in these unregistered
boats. This was one of the constraints of the study ques-
tionnaire in that information on the use of a specific
registered boat was sought. Data on the use of additional
boats was not gathered. In an analysis of the 1965 boating
survey, Chubb indicated that a controlled use of judgment
was used in estimating that unregistered boats amount to
some 15 percent of the total number of registered boats
in each county and that they received two-thirds as much
use as registered boats.1

Although use figures for unregistered boats are not
yet available, a more accurate estimate of the ratio of
unregistered to registered boats per county can be ob-
tained from this study. This information could be uti-
lised for an estimation of boat use periods. The re-

sultant use estimates could be used as input to the

 

1Michael Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Mich-
igan by a Systems Analysis Approach: Part III - The
Practical Application of "Program RECSYS" and "SYMAP"
(Lansing, Michigan: State Resource Planning Program,
‘Michigan Department of Commerce, December 1967, Techni-
cal Report No. 12), p. 129.

 

RECSYS-SYMAP simulation in the statewide comprehensive
planning process, a major objective of the investigation
presently being done by the Recreation Research and Planning
Unit for the Waterways Commission.

The provision of data for the comprehensive planning
of recreation is one of the goals of the survey. Hope-
fully this study will prompt further investigation of the
characteristics of people owning more than one boat and the

implications for planning boating facilities.

Review of Literature

 

The fact that the planning of statewide recreational
boating facilities and related research in Michigan is in
its infancy is illustrated by the limited amount of infor-
mation concerning this topic. The boating chapter of the
Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study (MORDS) was the
first general appraisal of recreational beating in Mich-

1

igan. The study found that 28 percent of the sample re-

spondents were multiple boat owners and that 16 percent
of all the respondents owned one or more unregistered

boats.2

This figure was then applied to the 1965 esti-
mated total registered boat population of 398,902 and re-

sulted in the estimate that these registered boat owners

 

1Further discussion of the sc0pe of the MORDS Recrea-
tional Boating Study can be found on page 10.3 of that report.

2Michigan State University, Department of Resource
Development, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study,
Vol. II, p. 10.IT4IOTI2.

 

could be expected to have some 80,000 boats not requiring

registration.1 Only the percentage of respondents with

one or more unregistered boats in the total statewide
MORDS sample of registered boat owners was calculated.
The report gave no breakdown of unregistered boat owner-
ship on a county basis.

The second study of recreational boating in Michigan
was the 1966 Boating Needs Survey by the Waterways Commis—
sion of the Michigan Department of Conservation.2 This
study was similar to the MORDS Survey in that it only
reported the overall statewide percentage of multiple boat
owners. However, it was significant and different in that
it asked the respondents to list how many watercraft they
owned. Analysis cf these data indicated that 65 percent
of the respondents owned only one boat and 35 percent of

q
the respondents owned two or more craft.' The findings

of the two studies are similar; however, the 1966 study
includes more unregistered craft and therefore higher
multiple boat ownership.

Each of these studies reported percentage of multiple
boat ownership but neither attempted to relate the charac-

teristics or develop a possible predictive method for

 

1Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
System Analysis Approach, p. I29

 

 

2The Michigan Department of Conservation was renamed
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in 1968.

3Department of Conservation, Waterways Division,
Transportation Predictive Procedures, p. 27.

 

determining multiple boat ownership. The present study
will be focused on these aspects of multiple boat owner-
ship and also on a more detailed estimate of unregistered

watercraft on a county basis.

CHAPTER II

STUDY DESIGN

Methods of Survey Research

 

One of the basic functions of recreation planning
is the forecasting of probable future recreational demand.
To be able to relate the distribution of magnitude of
future demand for recreational boating requires basic data
regarding:

(1) Participation rates.

(2) Distribution and extent of current demand.

(3) Socio-economic characteristics of users.

(h) Use (purpose, type and amount of use.)

(5) Relevant resource supply data.

When information such as this is gathered over a
period of time, use trends become evident and can be uti-
lized in forecasting future demand. Gathering this data
is one of the principle purposes of recreation survey
research.

I A variety of methods can be employed for survey
research. The more common methods used by recreation
researchers are: (l) observation, (2) personal inter-
views, and (3) self-administered questionnaires. Each

method has different requirements and yields different

10

 

ll

quantities and qualities of data. A discussion of the
advantages and disadvantages of each method is given by

Grape and Chubb.1 The scope of each method and infor-

mation desired should be carefully considered with re-
gard to the research situation, before a method is
selected. Consideration should be given to:

(l) The type of information desired.

(2) Characteristics of desired information.

(3) The administrative framework within which the
research is to be attempted. (The amount of funding,
staff level and competence, and time period available
for data collection and analysis should be evaluated.)

(A) Alternatives or method combinations should be

included in the decision process.2

Based upon these considerations and previous studies,
the mailed questionnaire was the survey method decided upon
by staff of the Waterways Division and the Recreation Re-
search and Planning Unit. The study objectives required
information that could be supplied only by the boaters
after the boating season, thus eliminating the handout
and early mail methods. Time and funding constraints

precluded the use of observation and personal interview

 

1Douglas Grape and Michael Chubb, Department of Park
and Recreation Resources, Recreation Research and Planning
Unit, Recreation Area Day-Use Investigation Techniques,
(East Lansing, Michigan: Technical Report No. 6, April,
1969). Chapter II.

2IbId., p. 9-10.

1?

methods. The mailed questionnaire had certain advantages

and disadvantages for this study.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Delayed Mailed Ques-
ronnaire

 

This method of survey research had these advantages
for this study compared to those previously mentioned:

(1) It allowed a larger, more statistically re-
liable sample to be drawn.

(2) Stratified sampling could be readily adopted
by this method.

(3) The geographically scattered sample population
could be easily reached.

(h) Semi-skilled staff could handle the adminis-
trative duties in the preparation of the questionnaire
for mailing.

(5) In-depth questions regarding boating use could
be answered by the respondent after consulting with other
members of the boating group.

(6) Respondents believe that their answers will
remain anonymous.

(This method also had disadvantages, the most impor-
tant of which are:

(1) There were problems of recalling data. (The
questionnaire requested data from the respondent concerning
the 1968 boating season but was not mailed until the start

of the 1969 season.)

 

13

.a

(2) Lower response rates, unless follow-ups are
conducted. (Short questionnaires usually have better
rates of return, while the longer in-depth questionnaires
have lower rates.)

(3) The answers to mailed questionnaires normally
have to be accepted as final. (There is no Opportunity
to probe beyond the given answer or to clarify an ambiguous
one.)1

(A) Follow-ups for non-respondents were not possi-
ble due to the large sampling size which would require a
complicated checking system beyond the budget of the study.
The decisions as to the type of survey method will be dis-
cussed in a later publication of the Recreation Research
and Planning Unit.

(5) Mailed questionnaires are often exposed to
different types of bias resulting from: (a) the respon-
dents' misunderstanding of the questions, resentment of
interference in their personal affairs, or falsification
for reasons connected with the subject of the survey;
and (b) non-response to the questionnaire, which raises
the problem of differences between respondents and non-

respondents in the characteristics under investigation.2

 

1C. A. Moser, Survey_Methodl in Social Investi-
ation (London: Heinemans EducatIBnal Books Limited,
, p. 177.

2M. A. El-Badry, "A Sampling Procedure for Mailed
Questionnaires," Journal of the American Statistical
Association LI (1955) p. 209:227.

 

 

 

1h

The problem of low response rates and the possible
resulting bias was the biggest disadvantage. The methods
used to evaluate the extent of this bias will be discussed
in a later section of this chapter. entitled "Evaluation
of Bias".

Design of the Questionnaire

 

The design of the questionnaire was based on the
objectives of the survey. The primary purpose, as ex-
plained in previous sections, was to provide basic data
to be used in state recreation planning. The basic data
needed to fulfill the objectives concerned: types and
size of boats and motors used by boaters in the state;
boat storage, transportation, and launching; actual use
during the 1968 season for different water bodies - inland
or Great Lakes; frequency and type of use on the various
water bodies; origin and destination patterns; in-state
use by out-of-state boaters and out-of-state use by in-
state boaters; boat ownership euui socio-economic char-
acteristics of state boaters.

The questionnaire and cover letter used for the
1968 Michigan Boating Needs Survey appears in Appendix
A. The development of this design was a cooperative
effort of the Recreation Research and Planning Unit and
the Waterways staff and will be reported in detail in

forthcoming publications of the Unit.

 

15

Question Type and Order

 

The arrangement and order of questions in a survey
has an effect on response. The type of question - open-
ended, precoded, or fixed alternative - yields a certain
type of answer. Jackson found that response rates for
fixed alternative questions were higher than for open-
ended questions.1 The staff of the 1968 study recognized
these and other factors in the construction of the ques-
tionnaire.

The majority of the questions in the survey were
fixed alternative or closed. Selltiz found that where
the possible alternative replies are known and limited in
number, the questions are more efficient.2 The order of
the questions proceeded from easily answered closed type
to the more in-depth fixed alternative to the closed type
regarding personal information.

The initial questions concerned type of power system
and horsepower of the boat, where it was registered, where
it was kept during the boating season and the method and
frequency of transport of the boat. These questions were
basically of the closed type. The first in-depth, fixed

alternative question, concerning the county where the boat

 

1Robert Jackson, "Differential Value of the Mailed
Questionnaire and the Interview in a Follow—up Study of—
High School Graduates," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Wisconsin, 1959, p. 110.

 

 

2Claire Selltiz, et.al., Research Methods in Social
Relations, (New York: Holt, Rinéhart, and Winston, I967),
p. 262.

 

 

16

was launched from most and the type of facility used, was
also on the first page. This question was designed to
provide data for an analysis of boating destinations.

The second and third pages of the questionnaire
asked for information concerning boating on inland lakes,
Great Lakes, and out-of-state. The question regarding
boating on inland and Great Lakes also asked the county
and the activities, expressed in boating days, of most
use. This was to determine the destinations for boat use
on inland and Great Lakes waters and the types of boating
activities and total boating use period on these waters,
for use in later RECSYS-SYMAP simulation. The question
regarding out-of-state boating furnishes data for analysis
on the amount of out-of-state use generated by in-state
boaters.

The following pages of the questionnaire contained
fixed alternative and closed questions requesting infor-
mation on boat ownership, origin of the boater, and socio-
economic characteristics. The previous Michigan boating
studies indicated a sizeable percentage of boat owners
owned more than one boat. The question regarding boat
ownership was designed to provide data for analysis on
the number of multiple boat owners in Michigan and the
number of unregistered boats owned by these boaters.

The question regarding place of permanent residence and
zip code is structured to provide information on the

origins of boaters in the state. The socio-economic

l7

characteristics of the boaters made up the final question
asked of the respondent. The question asked information
regarding age and sex of head of family and each member.

size of family, occupation, family income, and education.

Coding of the Data

 

The data from the questionnaire was coded on mark
sense optical scan forms. These forms were designed so
that the information could be taken directly from the
questionnaires and placed on the forms. The need to pre-
code questions was significantly reduced by this procedure.
The forms were then run through optical scanning equipment
which transferred the information to computer punch cards.

Equipment limitations and questionnaire length
necessitated the use of five mark sense forms and punch
cards for each questionnaire. The specific data coded on
each form from the questionnaire is as follows:

Form I. 1. Type and horsepower of the boat.

2. County where boats were regis-
tered and location of boat

during the boating season.

9. Method and frequency of trans-
porting the boat.

u. Use of the boat outside
Michigan location.

5. Number of boats owned.
6. Length of boat.

Form II. 1. County where boat was launched
the most.

2. Type of facility where launched.

18

U»)
0

Other counties of uses and
facilities used for launching.

Form III. 1. Use of boat on Great Lakes.
2. County of use.
3. Activities boat was used for.

u. Number of days the boat was used
on each activity.

5. Total days of boating on the
Great Lakes.

Form IV. 1. Information on use of the boat
on inland waters - same infor-
mation as on Form III, only
dealing with inland waters.

Form V. 1. County of residence of boater.

2. Zip code.
3. Socio-economic data.

The data cards punched by the optical scanner were
then run through an IBM MO? Accounting Machine in order
to obtain a listing that could be checked for errors.
The errors were corrected so that the data deck infor-
mation was the same as the information on the questionnaire.
This procedure was used as a quality control check on the
accuracy of the coding process and the coders. The data

was then programmed for analysis on Michigan State Uni-

versity's CDC 3600 computer.

Sampling Procedures

 

The sample procedures of the two previous boating
surveys in Michigan were studied. The 1966 study had
advantages over the MORDS survey in that the sample was

larger and was stratified by boat length as well as by

19

county. The MORDS Boating Survey stratified the sample
only by county; 3 percent of boaters in each county were
sampled.1

The sample size for the 1968 study was determined
by experience with the sample size and procedures of the
1966 Boating Needs Survey and by budgetary constraints.

The latter eliminated the use of follow-up reminders to

the respondents on the original questionnaire. Indications
from the two previous studies and other sources were that

a 38 percent response rate could be expected without the
use of follow-up procedures. Realizing the limitations

of the response rate in attempting to obtain 5.000 to

6,000 usable questionnaires, the Research Unit's statis-
tician recommended a sample size of 21,76h.

The waterways Commission requested detailed infor-
mation by boat length which necessitated stratifying the
sample. The use of stratification, as indicated by
Cochran, is a common technique and if intelligently used
will nearly always result in a smaller variance for the
estimated mean or total than is given by a comparable
simple random sample,2 Two other major considerations
dictated the use of a stratified random sample: (1)

The small number of boats in the over-20-feet class

 

1Michigan State University, Department of Resource
Development, Demand Study, Vol. II, p. 10.7.

PWilliam Cochran, Sampling Techniques (New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,_l953), p. 76.

 

 

20

compared to the entire registered boat population. (Boats
over 20 feet in length numbered 2h,068 out of the total
population of N38,0l7 registered boats according to the
Secretary of State's Office. Complete random sampling
would not yield adequate representation of boats over 20
feet in length.) (2) All the counties should be included
in the sample, but some counties with a small number of
registered boats would not be adequately represented in
a simple random sample.

Relying on data concerning response rates for the
1966 study, the desirable stratified sample size for boats
over 20 feet was determined to be approximately 10 percent
of the total population or 2,u06 out of 2h,068 boats. Boats
under 20 feet in length required a stratified random sample
size of approximately 5 percent of the total population or
20,700 out of h13,9h9 registered boats. Problems in trans-
ferring registration tape information from one of the com-
puter systems utilized by the Secretary of State's Office
to the CDC 3600 used by Michigan State University resulted
in some sample mortality. The final mailed sample con-
tained 2,296 in the over 20 feet boat length strata and
19,h68 in the under-20 strata, a relatively small loss.

' The sample was also stratified by counties. In

each county 10 percent of the registered boats over 20
feet and 5 percent of the registered boats under 20 feet
were sampled. A detailed county breakdown of the mailed

sample is contained in Appendix B.

21

The stratified sample was in fact a stratified
random sample. Once the strata were determined, the com-
puter was programmed to fill the sample cells by a random
selection process. The following tables indicate the
sample selections and returns from the 1966 Boating Needs

Study and from this study. The response rate was approxi-

TABLE 1

SAMPLE SELECTIONS AND RETURNS -
1966 BOATING NEEDS SURVEYa

 

 

 

 

Boat Size No. of No. Ques. No. of % Usable
Class Regist. Boats Mailed ‘ Usable Returns Returns
20' or 1938 337,763 9hhh 3,6h3 38.6
Over 20' 21,139 U226 1.575 37.3
TOTAL 398,902 13670 5,218 38.1

 

aDepartment of Conservation. Waterways Commission.
Transportation Predictive Procedures, p. 19.

 

mately as anticipated with 5,6h7 questionnaires returned or

a 25.9 percent response rate.

TABLE 2

1968 BOATING NEEDS SURVEY -
SAMPLE SELECTIONS AND RETURNS

 

 

 

Boat No. of Ret. Ret. Used

Size No. of No. Ques. Used In % Usable In Socio-

Class Reg. Boats Mailed Analysis Returns Econ. Anal.
20' or u13,9u9 19,u68 5.0u0 25.9 n.376
less

20' and 2A,O68 2,296 598 26.0 N39
over

 

TOTAL 4381017 21,76u 5,6h7 25.9 h,815

 

22

The discrepancy between number of returns used in
socio-economic analysis and returns in the final analysis
(columns 6 and h in Table 2) resulted from funding con-
straints and administrative organization. The counties
of Wayne, Kent, and Macomb were represented by large
numbers of returned questionnaires and to code all these
returns was beyond the initial means of the Unit's staff
and budget. These county returns were randomly sub-sampled
and a smaller number were coded and run through the com-
puter for analysis. At a later date, the remaining ques-

tionnaires were coded and utilized in the final analysis.

Evaluation of Bias

 

Designing a questionnaire to limit the extent of
bias resulting from respondents' misunderstanding of the
question is a difficult procedure, complicated by the
human nature of the respondents. One of the more im-
portant sources of possible bias is non-response. Non-
response in most cases arises from differences in the
characteristics under investigation between respondents
and non-respondents. Moser found that the greater the
extent to which non-respondents differ from those who
respond, the greater will be the bias from non-response.

Increasing the rate of response is the best method

to reduce this possible source of bias. Grape and Chubb

 

BlMoser, Survey Methods in Social Investigation,
p. 12 .

 

P3

discuss the techniques by which this can be accomplished:1
The problem of non-response bias could be eliminated en-
tirely by obtaining 100 percent returns but then the study
changes from a survey to a census. Even then, the achieve-
ment of "bias-free responses" from questionnaires and in-
terviews is not certain.

It should not be inferred that survey research is of
no value due to possible bias from non-response. Moser is
emphatic on this point: "it would be wrong to imply that
non-response vitiates the scientific nature of sampling.
Mail surveys included, it is usually possible to keep non-

response down to a reasonable level and to estimate roughly

 

what biasing effect it may have on the results.".3

 

This 1968 Boat Needs Survey study design, recognizing
the low response rates of mailed questionnaires without
follow-ups, attempted to estimate not only the bias effect
of non-response but also the possible bias introduced by
misunderstanding of questions in the questionnaire by the
respondents. A follow-up study design was formulated using

the interview method of research as a control. Three

 

1Crapo and Chubb, Recreation Area Day-Use Investi-
gation Techniques, p. 27:3I.

2Elwood Schafer, A Comparison of Four Survey Techni-
ques Used in Outdoor Recreation Researéh. UnpubIIShed Ph.D.

DISsertation, Departmentof Forestry, Syracuse University,
1967. p. 13.

3
p. 127.

 

 

 

Moser, Survey Methods in Social Investigation,

 

2h

counties were selected as the control group: Ingham

county because of its urban orientation and Grand Traverse
and Leelanau counties because of their supply of boating
opportunity. The initial design called for a total of

200 interviews: 100 from Ingham county, of which 75 were
non-respondents and 25 respondents; and 100 total from

Grand Traverse and Leelanau, of which 75 were non-respondents
and 25 respondents. The original design was altered after

a consideration of the budget and staff. The following

table illustrates the number of interviews used as a

control in the final design.

TABLE 3

ACTUAL SAMPLE FOR TEST OF SURVEY BIAS

 

 

 

 

Interviews‘af ‘Infervigws of
County Non-respondents Respondents
Ingham 3h 13
Grand Traverse 36 20
Leelanau 15 2
TOTAL 85 35

 

The program for the study analysis was used on the
control portion of the survey. This output was then
analyzed for any gross biasing effects. The analysis
was comparative in nature in that the results of the
control for bias were matched with the original analysis
to determine if there was a percentage difference be-
tween the figures. The findings of this analysis in-

dicated that the percentage difference was minor.

25

Study Limitations

 

The limitations of the data from the questionnaire
survey when used for the present study fall into two areas.
The first area of limitation is in the structure of the
questionnaire itself; and the second is in the survey
sample.

The respondents (registered boat owners) were asked
to list any other registered and unregistered boats owned
by them or members of their immediate family. The question
did not ask the respondent to specifically identify his
unregistered boats but only to list any additional boats
owned. This complicated the procedure used to identify
registered and unregistered boats. After review of a
number of the returned questionnaires, it was decided that
any of the boats listed in response to this question that
did not have a motor listed would be classified as un-
registered. This is in accord with the definition of an
unregistered boat expressed in Chapter 1 and with the re-
quirements of the Secretary of State's Office regarding
boat registration in Michigan.

The question of use generated by these additional
boats was not included in the questionnaire. More pre-
cise data on the use of these boats would be helpful in
reducing human judgments for the input data in the RECSYS
SYMAP computer simulation. Data on activities and desti-
nations of these boats would also increase the reliability

of the information yielded by this method.

26

A limitation of the sample is the inclusion of only
registered boat owners. The sample, compiled from data
furnished by the Secretary of State's Office which con-
tained only registered boat owners and is the only record
on boat owners in Michigan. The computations of the pre-
sent study, therefore, can only be based on this sample.
The implication is that the total number of unregistered
boats in the state cannot be accurately estimated since
some unregistered boat owners do not own a registered boat,
however, the total number of unregistered boats owned by
registered boat owners can be estimated which will obviously
be less than the size of the total unregistered boat fleet.

This partial data is useful for statewide planning
in that it provides information, limited as it may be,
for a more complete understanding of boating than if it
were ignored. It also provides for estimation of un-
registered boats on a county basis rather than the crude

estimates used in the 1966 running of the computer model.1

These limitations should not seriously invalidate

the findings of this study. It will provide data to fill

the information vacuum currently existing in statewide

planning and will hopefully be used in that manner.

 

l
Supra, p. 129.

CHAPTER III

DATA ANALYSIS

INTRODUCTION

 

The next two chapters will be devoted to an analysis
of the information gathered by the survey. Chapter III
will involve an analysis of selected characteristics of
boat owners. The presentation of material in this chapter
will be in the following sequence: (1) Characteristics
of single and multiple boat owners, (2) Analysis of the
types of boats owned by multiple boat owners, (3) Distri-
bution of multiple boat owners, and (A) Size and distri-
bution of the unregistered boat fleet in Michigan. Chapter
IV will involve the analysis of the determinants of multi-
ple boat ownership; more specifically, it will be a descrip-

tion of the hypothesis testing procedures.

Characteristics of Single and Multiple Boat Owners

 

The income, age, and education characteristics
of the respondents will be analyzed and compared with
1
similar characteristics of the l96h Boating Survey.

This will be a crude type of comparison for respondent

 

1Michigan State University, Department of Resource
Development, Demand Study, Vol. II, p. 10.8-10.11.

 

27

28

characteristics. Chapter IV will deal with the more

specific relationships between characteristics.

Income of Respondents

 

The distribution of respondents by income categories

is reported in Table A. The majority of respondents (63.6
percent) fall in the total family income range of $8,000
to $2h,999. The majority of respondents under the $8,000

range have total family incomes from $3,000 to $7,999.

TABLE h

DISTRIBUTION OF 1968 MICHIGAN BOATING NEEDS SURVEY
RESPONDENTS BY INCOME CATEGORIES

 

 

 

 

Total Family Income Number Percent
Under $3,000 230 5.2
$3,000 - b.999 DUO 10.2
$5.000 - 7.999 598 13.6
$8,000 - 9,999 688 15.6
$10,000 - 1u,999 1,390 - 31.5
15,000 - 2u.999 729 16.5
25,000 and over 328 7.h
TOTAL U,h09 100.0

 

In comparing this distribution to the income distri-
bution observed in the 196A MORDS Boating Survey, (Table

5) a dissimilar distribution is evident.

29

TABLE 5

DISTRIBUTION OF 196k MICHIGAN OUTDOOR RECREATION
DEMAND STUDY BOATING SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY FAMILY
INCOME CATEGORIES a

 

 

 

 

Total Family Income Number Percent
Under $3,000 168 u.9
$3,000 - 5,999 500 1b.?
$6,000 - 7,999 7SU 22.1
$8,000 - 9,999 69h 20.h
$10,000 - 1A,999 8h0 2A.?
$15,000 and over hh9 13.2
TOTAL 3,805 100.0

 

8Michigan State University, Department of Resource
Development, Demand Study, Vol. II, p. 10.1.

 

The major distribution differences are illustrated
in Table 6. Closer scrutiny is complicated by the lack

of uniformity in classifying income ranges in the two studies.

TABLE 6

PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS T0 196M
AND 1968 STUDIES BY FAMILY INCOME CATEGORIES

 

 

 

Total Family Income 196A Percentage 1968 Percentage
Under $3,000 h.9 5.2
$3,000 - 7,999 36.8 23.8
$8,000 - 9,999 20.h 15.6
10,000 - 18,999 28.7 31.5
15,000 and over 13.2 23.9

 

TOTAL 100.0 100.0

 

30

i

It is the contention of this author that this dis-
similar distribution can be explained by two major factors.
(1) the different sampling techniques used in the surveys,
and (2) the time periods (A years) between the two surveys
in which total family incomes increased.

The MORDS Boating Survey employed a randomly selected
sample of boat owners. This sample was stratified by
county but not by boat length. (For planning purposes
in Michigan, boats are divided into two major classi-
fications: those over 20 feet in length and those 20
feet or under in length.) Those boats over 20 feet in
length comprise a smaller proportion of the total popu-
lation than those 20 feet and under. The significance
of this is that a random sample of all the boats would not
yield an adequate response from the boat class over 20
feet in length. Other studies have found that income
is closely related to the type of boat owned. The im-
plication of this is that respondents with higher incomes
own longer, more expensive boats; and that because of the
random sampling methods employed by the MORDS Boating
Survey, these boaters were not adequately sampled. Hence,
lower numbers and percentages of respondents. Even if
there is no major difference in response rates between
income levels, as illustrated by the percent response by
boat sizes in Tables 2, the numerical distribution of
respondents will be less in those boat size classes and

income classes. Therefore, as implied from Cochran,

31

stratification by boat size will nearly always result in
a smaller variance for the estimated mean or total, in
this case respondents by income distribution, than a com-
parable random sample.1

Although no quantitative figures could be produced
by this author relating to the increase of family incomes
in the time period between the two surveys, it is intuitive
that this has occurred.

A major part of this study is to determine the char—
acteristics of multiple boat owners. The following table
indicates the distribution of multiple boat owners by in-
come categories in relation to the distribution of all
respondents.

TABLE 7
DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS OWNING TWO OR MORE BOATS
TO THE 1968 MICHIGAN BOATING NEEDS SURVEY BY INCOME

CATEGORIES AND A COMPARISON WITH THE TOTAL DISTRI-
BUTION 0F RESPONDENTS TO THE SURVEY

 

 

Distribution of Multiple Boat Owners All Respondents

 

Total Family Income Number Percent Number Percent

 

 

Under $3,000 76 3.9 230 5.2
$3.000 - b.999 183 9.5 hU6 10.1
$5,000 - 7.999 226 11.7 598 13.6
$8,000 - 9,999 266 13.8 688 15.6
$10,000 - 1h.999 602 31.2 1.390 31.5
$15,000 - 2h,999 380 19.7 729 16.5
$25,000 and over 197 10.2 328 7.H
TOTAL 1,930 100.0 h,hO9 100.0

 

1Supra, p. 76.

32

The basic percentage distribution between the two is
similar. The distribution for multiple boat owners above
$15,000 is higher (29.9 percent) than the distribution for
all respondents (23.9 percent). The distribution of multi-
ple boat owners under $10,000 is less (38.9 percent) than
the total for all respondents (hh.5 percent). The greatest
incidence of M.B.O. was in the $10,000 - lh,999 income

range, as was the distribution of all respondents.

Occupation of Respondents

 

The respondents were originally classified into 18
occupational categories; however, many of these categories
contained a small number of respondents and were reclassi-
fied into the categories listed in Table 8.

The figures in this table show that nearly 60 percent
of the respondents were employed in the professional or
technical occupations. Of this percent, the skilled crafts
category accounted for nearly 50 percent, or 26 percent of
the total for all respondents. The second and third most
indicated occupations were managerial and professional
respectively, and the retiree category had a high proportion
at 13.8 percent. The farm (1.7 percent) and service (h.6
percent) groups had very low indications.

The occupational distribution of multiple boat owners
was almost identical with that for the total distribution
of the respondent population. The two categories which
differed by more than 3 percent were skilled craftsmen

and managers (including elected officials.) The

33

DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY OCCUPATIONAL
CATEGORIES TO THE 1968 MICHIGAN BOATING NEEDS SURVEY

 

 

Distribution of Multiple Boat Owners All Respondents

 

 

 

Occupation Number Percent Number Percent
Professional 321 16.6 687 15.6
Farmers 22 1.2 75 1.7
Managerial M21 21.8 791 18.0
Sales & Clerical 150 7.7 335 7.6
Skilled Crafts hhl 22.9 1,1h9 26.0
Operative 129 6.7 325 7,h
Service '77 h.O 20h h.6
Labor 13 .7 31 .7
Housewife 7 .h 13 .3
Retired 271 thO 606 13.8
Other M3 2.2 111 2.h
Refused 35 1.8 82 1.9
TOTAL 1,930 100.0 U,h09 100.0

 

aOccupational classes were derived from U. S. Census
classifications.
distribution of multiple boat owners in the skilled crafts
group was 3 percent less than in the same category for all
respondents. In the managerial group, the distribution of
multiple boat owners (21.8 percent) was almost 8 percent
more than in the same category for all respondents.

These minor percentage variations are not partic-
ularly significant when the entire range is considered.
Overall, the two distributions are similar. A con-
clusion of the MORDS which seems equally applicable in
this case is that:

the average incomes associated with

38

the different occupation groups appear

to affect the extent that these gr ups

are represented among boat owners.'
A comparison of occupational distributions between the two
studies would be misleading because of the lack of definition

of competence making up the MORDS occupational classifi-

cations.

Education of Respondents

 

In general, the educational attainment of boat owners
responding to this survey does not vary significantly from
that of the MORDS. The lack of uniformity between the
two classification systems makes a more detailed compari-
son impossible. The educational classifications of the
MORDS were 13-15 years and 16 plus, whereas this survey
had the classifications indicated in Table 9.

The general trend of the two surveys, however, are
substantiated by the results as indicated in Table 9.

In general, the author concludes that the findings
of this survey with regard to socio-economic character-
istics of registered boat owners are representative of
the Michigan boating population because of the comparisons

with the findings of the MORDS Boating Survey.

 

1Michigan State University, Department of Resource
Development, Demand Study, p. 10.11.

 

35

TABLE 9

DISTRIBUTION OF MICHIGAN BOATING NEEDS RESPONDENTS
SURVEY BY EDUCATIONAL CLASSES AND COMPARISON WITH
THE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS TO
MORDS SURVEYa

 

—.—-.

 

% Distribution of ¢ Distribution of
Education Pesp. to MEN Survey Resp. to MORDS Qurvey

 

 

“0.“ “fl_

 

1-5 7.7

6-8 10.7 10.0
9-12 h6.8 “7.6
13-16 2h.M 23.9
17+ 10.h 18.5
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

 

8Michigan State University, Department of Resource
Development, Demand Study, Vol. II, p. 10.21-10.22.

 

Boats Owned By Multiple Boat Owners

 

The previous studies of boating in Michigan have indi-
cated percentages of multiple boat ownership but have neg-
lected to show the types of boats owned as second, third,
or fourth boats. The findings of the current survey with
regard to types of boats owned by multiple boat owners in
Michigan are presented in Appendix C.

The boats were classified into the following types:
inboards, outboards, sailboats, canoes, inboard-outboards.1
rowboats, and others. The 2,300 Michigan multiple boat

owners in the sample owned a total of h,562 additional

 

1Inboard-outboards are boats with the engine con—
tained in the boat, not mounted on the transom, with a
drive system resembling in appearance an outboard system.

36

boats. The outboard type was most frequently listed,
closely followed by the inboard. Outboards number 1690
and inboards 1520 for a total of 3210 or 70 percent of the
boats owned by multiple boat owners. Sailboats, canoes,
inboard-outboards, rowboats, and others comprise the re-
maining 30 percent of boats owned. One possible problem
with the use of these findings is that these boats listed
as additional may not be the primary boat in terms of boat
use. The survey requested that the respondents provide
information on boat use for the boat identified by regis-
tration number and length. (This information was on the
address label of the questionnaire.) This problem may

not be significant if we accept the assumption that the
boats in the sample are unbiased representation of the

boating fleet.

Distribution of Multiple Boat Ownership
The survey sample information was expanded by a ratio

method1 to statewide data concerning response rate ratios,

number of multiple boat owners per county, and the per-
cent of registered boat owners with unregistered water-
craft. The expanded county and statewide information
can be found in Appendix D.

The percent distribution of multiple boat ownership
to total boat ownership is illustrated by Figure l on

page 39.

 

1Expansion method explained in Appendix D.

37

There appears to be no specific trend; however, a
higher percentage of multiple boat ownership is indicated
for the counties in the northern lower peninsula of Mich-
igan. This could be misleading if one assumes that the
greatest number of multiple boat owners are in this region.
Actually, the opposite is true: the gross number of multi-
ple boat owners is highest in the urbanized counties of
Michigan due to the greater number of boat owners in those
counties. Table 10 and Figure 2 on page ho, illustrates
this trend. These counties may have a lower percentage
of multiple boat ownership, but because of the large
numbers of registered boats the number of multiple boat

owners is also larger.

Size and Distribution of the Unregistered Boating Fleet
This estimation is based upon a sample of regis-
tered boat owners and as such is probably an underestimate
of the total unregistered boat population of Michigan.
The statewide projections for the number of unregistered
boats by county are illustrated in Appendix D. The per-
cent distribution of unregistered boat owners per county
and the number of unregistered boats per county by quin-
tiles are illustrated by the Figures U and S on pages
h? and MB. A comparison of percentage and numerical
distribution of unregistered boats by counties is

illustrated in Table ll.

38
TABLE 10

A COMPARISON OF GREATEST PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF MULTIPLE
BOAT OWNERS WITH GREATEST NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION OF MULTIPLE
BOAT OWNERS IN MICHIGAN BY COUNTIES OF RESIDENCE

mm

Counties with Counties with Counties with
Greatest No. Greatest % of Greatest No.

 

 

 

 

of Regist. Boats MBO of MBO

County Number County Percent County Number
Wayne 68,h05 Cass 77 Wayne 23,9hl
Oakland 36,922 Mackinac 69 Oakland 1h,797
Kent 2h,O87 Gladwin 69 Kent 11,320
Genesee 23,u09 Emmet 68 Genesee 10,065
Macomb 22,279 Crawford 67 Macomb 6,68h
Ingham 13,351 Alcona 66 Ingham 6,5h2
Kalamazoo 11,793 Baraga 6h Kalamazoo 5,668
Jackson 10,280 Presque Isle 63 Cass 5,270
Saginaw 10,108. Delta 62 Jackson h,523
Muskegon 8,882 Otsego 60 Saginaw h,lhh

TABLE 11

A COMPARISON OF GREATEST PERCENT DISTRIBUTION OF UNREGISTERED
BOAT OWNERS WITH GREATEST NUMERICAL DISTRIBUTION OF UNREGIS-
TERED BOAT OWNERS IN MICHIGAN BY COUNTIES OF RESIDENCE

 

 

Counties with
Greatest No.
of Regist. Boats

Counties with
Greatest % of
Unregist. Boats

Counties with
Greatest No. of
Unregist. Boats

 

a.

 

 

County Number County Percent County Number
Wayne 68,h05 Kalkaska hO Wayne 8,209
Oakland 36,992 Mackinaw 35 Oakland 5,179
Kent 2h,O87 Manistee 3h Kent h,095
Genesee 23,h09 Crawford 33 Genesee 3,227
Macomb 22,279 Emmet 32 Ingham 1,870
Ingham 13,351 Lapeer 29 Muskegon 1,776
Kalamazoo 11,793 Presque Isle 28 Saginaw 1,617
Jackson 10,280 Lake 27 Kalamazoo 1,533
Saginaw 10,108 Wexford 26 Ottawa 1,h19
Muskegon 8,882 Benzie 22 Berrien 1,1uu

 

 

39

 

   
     
 

   

  

  
 
  

    

I.
.00.
.00.

     
 
 

-
.........
IIIII

........

 
 

   

    

Percent of Multiple
Boat Owners

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0 - 10
ll - 21
22 - 32

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5”

B

Figure l.--Percentage Distribution of Multiple Boat Owners
by County as Reported by Respondents to the 1968
Michigan Recreation Boating Needs Survey

ho

 

 

    

' ".1. .,u.:

r . .‘. ..- 2.....:_:......':-.:::::-.,:..:,".
ac "MCIAIY L... ,3 3'. ., _J'.:;.?.-.§;;-‘-‘;:E 3E5:'-':':3:-',-j-_'-:-‘
'3q99““.9?-';':35J;3'"-1?-}-;.;._;;'

   
 

       
 
 

u----...__

Number of Multiple
Boat Owners

 

      
 

0-1000

I
I . '
- — b — - - - - T - - -
osccou Tu"; :euuml "In:
I I

 

 

 

       
     
   

1001-2001

 

2002-3002

 

' o
.......
0..

 

F303 3 0 0 3 - 1+ 0 0 3 , 515-1; Jug!

 

 

 

. on . 1'3... ‘

~ -t-- 0 IA A.
m 40011-50014 o... “2:“, .10.: N I

- ‘ 005+
I5

Figure 2.-4Numerical Distribution of Multiple Boat Owners
,by County as Reported by Respondents to the 1968
Michigan Recreation Boating Needs Survey

ul

 

0 0m
«'5 . O
"'.. . 3.3:“...0... 03...“. : 01“ OLOII
o . . .. e. .:. 9’
~..,._. agnMOuF 3.2:: :05:- '— fir. '.' +3.1

  

: -'. 1‘
'--a fig?§§&W§'

 

Number of Registered
Boats

 

0-1000

 

 

 

 

REE 1001-2001

 

2002-3002

 

 

 

 

4} 3003-4003

 

4004-5004

5005 +

    
       

we: 9‘
I l'

ififififi I3
I 31:51 W129." .k.:. .0 . Q

ficpdoicufi 1 ) .°::o° 0:" ° 5
£55. .2 . 0-,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.
........

...'. c.4-
451“ umuc

Figure 3. --Number of Registered Boats by County as Re-

ported by Respondents to the 1968 Michigan Rec-
reation Boating Needs Survey

h2

 

 

Percent of Unregistered
Boats

 

Figure h.--Percentage Distribution of Unregistered Boats
- by County as Reported by the Michigan Secretary
of State

AB

0%

' 0.7M“

 

      

‘3
”u.“ I--.‘

Number of Unregistered
Boats

 

0-200

 

 

-
n

n" '
' o'-

 

 

201-401

uuuuu

402-602

6E3 603-803 y, ..... fifégfi

 

SHIA'A.

Figure S.--Number of Unregistered Boats by County as Re-
ported by Respondents to the 1968 Michigan Recrea-
tion Boating Needs Survey

CHAPTER IV
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The hypothesis of this study, discussed in Chapter
I, is that multiple boat ownership is related to selected
socio-economic characteristics and the supply of boating
opportunity. The hypothesis is a statement regarding the
parameter value that will be accepted or rejected on the
basis of a statistical test.1 This study employed a linear

regression procedure for testing the hypothesis. This

method of analysis has certain advantages over other
methods. Manderscheid found that a linear regression
model is useful not only for identifying the independent
variables exerting an influence on the dependent variable
but also for estimating the effects of independent vari-
ables on a dependent variable.2 Use of this technique
for testing the hypothesis has the advantage that only
can those socio-economic and supply characteristics which

exert a significant influence on multiple boat ownership

 

1A parameter is a characteristic which helps describe
the population being investigated.

2Lester Manderscheid, An Introduction to Statistical
Hypothesis Testing, Revised Syllabus fOr AgriculturaI'Econo-
mi03‘867,‘MiEhigan State University, East Lansing, Winter,
1969.

 

 

Uh

M5

be identified but the extent of their influence can be

estimated.

Statistical Model

 

One of the aims of regression analysis is to find
an equation expressing the relationship between the depen-
dent variable Y and the independent variable X. A mathe-
matical model is a method of representing this relationship
and is usually divided into two broad types: a linear
function and a non-linear function. Equations that have
coefficients raised to powers other than the first, or
are combined by multiplication or division are non-linear.
Equations that have coefficients combined by subtraction
or addition and are raised only to the first power are
classified as linear.

The mathematical model selected in this analysis
was linear and was as follows:

= B O O .
YMBO BO + 1 1 + B2X2 ann

Y = conditional probability of the respondent
MBO
owning two or more boats

x1 = age of the head of the family

x2 = total family income

X3 2 educational attainment of head of family
xu = size of family

x = occupation of head of family

06

x = units of boating opportunity per county of
residence

Procedures and Results

 

The supply of "boating opportunity per county" data
was punched on computer cards. This supply data was
linked to the survey data by the following procedure.
Respondent information to the survey was identified by
a code obtained from the county of residence of the
respondent. (For example, all the respondents residing
in Alcona County - 01 - were ordered into the classification
identified by the number 010001.) The computer input card
containing boating supply data was linked to the survey
data from a specific countyby coding it with that county's
identification number. This supply card was combined with
the five other cards per respondent from the survey and
was recorded on a magnetic tape.

A least squares deletion (LSDELI computer program

was used for the regression analysis.3 This routine is

a multiple regression program that utilizes a stepwise

deletion of variables to calculate an initial least

 

Michigan Department of Conservation, Recreation Re-
~source Planning Division, "Michigan Lake Frontage 1965"
unpublished computer print out dated October 26,‘1966
quoted in Michael Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning
in Michigan by a Systems Analysis Approach: Part III,
op.cit., p. 150-152.

 

 

2The production of the survey punch card decks has
been described in Chapter II.

3Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment
Station, LSDEL: Stepwise Deletion of Variables from a
Least Squares Enuation. (East—Lansfng, MIchIgan: SEE-
tiStical Services‘Description No. 8, November 1969), p. 1.

 

 

 

U7

squares equation. The independent variable that least
reduces the variance around the mean of the dependent
variable is the deleted and a new equation is estimated.
A second independent variable is deleted following the
same criteria. This procedure continues until a variable
meets the stopping criteria. A 5 percent significance
level was specified as the stopping criteria.

The data for this part of the study (hypothesis
testing) was prepared for the ISDEL routine by computer
programmers at Michigan State University's Computer Center.
The program was run on the University's CDC 3600 computer.

The statistics on transformed variables and simple
correlations are illustrated in Appendix E. The indepen-
dent variables and related statistics that were identified
as being significant in the final equation are also listed
in this Appendix.

Interpretation of Results

 

The independent variables deleted by the LSDEL rou—
tine and identified as not significant at the specified
level were the supply of boating opportunities and the
size of the boaters family. It would seem that supply
.of boating opportunity would be a significant variable,
however, the manner by which the data was used could be
faulty. Instead of linking supply at the origin with the
data it may have been more significant to relate cottage
ownership to multiple boat ownership. This may have given

a better indication of supply of boating opportunity than

R8

an enumeration of acres of water per county. The wording
of the questionnaire negated the possibility of this
method of linking boating opportunity with multiple boat
ownership.

The independent variables of age, income, education,
and occupation were found to be significant at the 5 per-
cent level. The R2 (coefficient of determination which
estimates the percentage of variance in the dependent
variable that is explained by changes in the independent
variable) for the final equation was .029. This would
seem to indicate that these variables, although signi-
ficant, explain approximately 3 percent of the variance
leaving 97 percent to be explained by other factors.

The unexplained factors comprising the remaining variance
could be identified with further study. As one would
suspect, these variables are related to other factors

not directly within the socio-economic characteristics
currently tested. Such factors as, public access to
boating waters, cottage ownership, methods of trans-
portation and recreational uses of water could affect
multiple boat ownership. To attempt to identify the
significance of these factors without quantifiable data
would be difficult.

The identification of other characteristics and their
inclusion into the linear model could possibly raise the

coefficient of determination. It would appear that the

he

range of variables affecting multiple boat ownership is

large and that more study is needed in this area.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This study was guided by two basic objectives: a
need to estimate the number of unregistered boats owned
by multiple boat owners, and secondly a desire to determine
the factors which are connected with multiple boat owner-
ship and explore their usefulness in predicting future
multiple boat ownership patterns. This second objective“
was expressed as the primary hypothesis of the study.
The basic data for the study was provided by a questionnaire
survey of registered Michigan boat owners. The data gath—
ered consisted of socio-economic characteristics of state
boaters, boat ownership; types and sizes of boats and
motors used by boaters in the state; boat storage; trans-
portation and launching; boating preferences for different
water bodies-inland and Great Lakes; frequency and type of
use; origin and destination patterns; in-state use by out-
of-state boaters; and out-of-state use by in-state boaters.

The survey sample information regarding boat owner-
ship was expanded by a ratio method to statewide data con-
cerning number of multiple boat owners and the number of
unregistered boat owners and boats. The socio-economic

characteristics of boaters, together with a supply of

50

51

boating opportunity, were then related to multiple boat
ownership by means of a least squares procedure.

The conclusions of the study are outlined below.

Conclusions

 

l. The distribution of respondents by selected
socio-economic characteristics (income, age, and edu-
cation) was similar to the distribution of the 196h
Boating Survey. The distribution by income and occu-
pational classes of respondents owning two or more
boats compared to single boat owners was also very
similar.

2. Analysis of the data indicates that 59 percent
of the respondents owned only one boat and M1 percent
owned two or more boats. This figure, when applied to
the 1968 tabulated registered boat total yields an esti-
mate of some 180,000 boat owners that can be classified
as probable multiple boat owners.

3. There appears to be a greater incidence of
multiple boat ownership in the counties in the northern
lower peninsula of Michigan. The greatest numbers of
multiple boat owners are not located in the northern
_rural counties but are in the urbanized counties of
southern Michigan.

0. Outboards and inboards comprise 70 percent of
the total boats owned by multiple boat owners. Sailboats.
canoes, inboard-outboards, rowboats and others comprise

the remaining 30 percent owned.

52

5. The analysis indicates that 12 percent of the
respondents owned one or more unregistered boats. It is
therefore estimated that registered boat owners in Mich—
igan have nearly 60,000 additional watercraft not re-
quiring registration.

6. The percentage and numerical distribution of
unregistered boat owners is similar to that of multiple
boat ownership. The percentage distribution of unregis-
tered boats is the greatest in the northern counties of
the lower peninsula of Michigan, however, the largest
numbers of unregistered boats are in the urbanized
southern counties of Michigan.

7. The characteristics of multiple boat ownership
identified as being significant at the .95 level of confi-
dence were age, income, education, and occupation. Al-
though they were statistically significant, they did not
account for a great deal of the variation around the mean
of the dependent variable. The coefficient of determina-
tion (R2) for the final equation was .029. A model to
accurately predict multiple boat ownership in Michigan
must include other variables in addition to those of a

socio-economic character.

Recommendations

 

1. The phenomena of multiple boat ownership is in
need of further research. Emphasis Should be placed on
identifying the factors which account for multiple boat

ownership and their significance. Further study is also

53

needed to determine the best statistical method that can
be utilized for the identification of these factors.

2. The data gathering techniques employed should
answer the following types of questions. Of the boats
owned, which boat is the primary one in terms of gross
amount of use? What is the total amount of use of each
boat owned and the type of use? This type of informa-
tion would identify not only primary and secondary boats
but would indicate the amount of use generated by each.

3. The 1968 Boating Needs Study did not ask the
respondent to specifically identify the boats not requiring
registration. So the absence of an indication that a boat
had a mechanical propulsion system was used as an indicator
that it probably did not require registration. Positive
identification of unregistered boats was not determined
by this study. If the data obtained from future studies
is to be utilized in the "RECSYS-SYMAP" approach to plan-
ning, then the amount and type of use generated by unreg-
istered boats should be determined.

h. The estimation of the size of the unregistered
boating fleet in Michigan was based upon a sample drawn
from registered boat owners and as such results in an
'under-estimation of the total size of the fleet. Methods
and procedures need to be devised to include in future
studies a sample of unregistered boat owners who do not
own registered boats. For planning and other purposes,*

it is desirable that all watercraft should be registered.

Sh

Investigation of the administrative and political feasi-
bility of the establishment of this procedure should be
instigated.

5. The decision makers in the recreation field of
resource management should be more aware of the methods
and techniques of planners. Conversely, planners should
be concerned with devising, interpreting and utilizing
quantitative methods to provide reliable data for decision
makers. If unreliable processes are used and the ensuing
data is furnished to decision makers, less than desired

provision for recreation opportunity results.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

MICHIGAN RECREATIONAL BOATING NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE

.”-__—

. _.. -_-‘a_o— w—~.~_-._~. ,.

 

mm m COMMISSION

HARRY Ii. WWII."
Choir-Ion

cm 1. JOHNSON

E. M. LAITALA

ROIIR'I’ C. MdAUOHUN
A0005? scwouc

Rosa! 1. nmoue
My '0 II. Commission

r.

k.

55
STATE OF MICHIGAN

@ WATERWAYS commnow
cmus A core-

GEORGE ROMNEY, Governor Chairman
DEPARTMENT or NATURAL RESOURCES Vifi‘zhtxfi“
RAW! A. MC MULIAN. Director LEONARD H. THOMSON

ROBERT F. KING
FREDERICK O. ROUSE, JR.

 

Stevens 1’. Mason luilding
hinting, Michigan “926
373-0626

W
J

Dear Boat Owner:

At this time of year, when boats are out of the water, the Waterways Com—
mission, like everyone else. is making plans for the coming season and
seasons ahead. We want to make sure that the rivers and lakes of Michigan,
including the Great Lakes, offer safe and accessible recreation to all who
love the water.

To help us in our job, we need your assistance in finding out more about
the kinds of facilities you and other boaters require. If there are
shortages in certain areas, we would like to know about them. We are,
therefore, sending you this questionnaire with the request that you take
a few moments to fill it out and send it back to us. This study is one
of several research projects being undertaken for the Waterways Division
by the Recreation Research and Planning Unit at Michigan State University.

Your name was taken at random from the list of boat registrants, and your
reply need not be signed. It will be used with all the other replies to
show us the pattern of boating in Michigan and indicate where we should
be providing new or improved facilities. Simply place your completed
questionnaire in the stamped, pre-addressed envelope and mail it back to
us at your convenience.

Thank you very much for your help.

Hith best wishes for a good season in 1969.

$1 erel ,

5‘”

Keith Wilson

Director

Kszaw
Enclosures

ma...

56

FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE:

A COUNTY AND HIGHWAY MAP
OF MICHIGAN

 

      
        
         
   

II Ll ROYAL!

 

 

IEIOMIIEE

‘ I

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

0":an1“: """" “ —
I
______ l— _ _ .. ...
“IcRAwroRo' 03““ I now“
I "an?"
I I
n _ _I__ _ _ _ _
u I moo I
I
, l
.. -L-
auuc / warm
‘ O
ave/urea ' L __
luv, '
3 I ’r' '---\J
' " I
I l. L 0'1 I
Iuourcau 7" no“ new 1‘}: um I : .
' I a I -4 a
- - _J -1 I I R' I r 1
P am: ' | a , u “é-|-IUPEE . _ _ __
untrue - -J I r- -+- P " - "Ira: t I IIT.¢LAI \
07"“ WM .cuurowl ”NM“ run P90? .
° I I an“
par/pa" I I I I
I I " r- L’" “l -_1
__ __.'. ‘ffi’fl". _--'.'. ouuuo . can...
'uvmurcu
own '0 I 5 I /
I I I f I
' ‘ ——
------ _. — — i T' ‘
”Insure I; "V" ’
. an ‘
z; 1": anon '
une I- - ------ .- - - - fl
"MO" I c .. ISINOERNI.R‘~c"-:;IILLID‘LE L£~"EI 'MONNOI
' I I I “-
I | I I I“
L. I I I I
I I I I ,
I I I l I

'57
MICHIGAN RECREATIONAL BOATING NEEDS QUESTIONNAIRE

 

PLEASE ANSWER OUESTIONSTTHROUGHB FOR THE BOAT IDENTIFIED
BY THE REGISTRATION NUMBER AND BOAT LENGTH WHICH
APPEAR UNDER YOUR ADDRESS ON PAGE 1

 

WHAT TYPE OF POWER SYSTEM DOES THIS BOAT HAVE? (Check one)

D Outboard motor E] Inboard motor ‘ D Inboard motor with outboard drive
D Sailboat with motor C] Other (write in)

 

WHAT IS THE HORSEPOWER RATING OF THE PRIMARY MOTOR (OR MOTORS) USED ON II1I§ BOAT?
__Hp. Hp.
Indicate horsepower of any other motors used on this boat: , ,

 

 

WHAT COUNTY IS 11113 BOAT REGISTERED IN? County

 

WHERE DO YOU USUALLY KEEP 11113 BOAT DURING THE BOATING SEASON? (Check one)

D At my permanent home, which is not on a lake or river.
At waterfrontage located at my permanent home Iot.
At a commercial marina-berth.

C] At a summer cottage.

C] At a publicly-owned marina.

D At a boat or yacht club.

C] Other (Specify)

 

 

WAS IfllfiBOAT TRANSPORTED FROM YOUR HOME OR OTHER LOCATION TO PARTICULAR LAUNCH~
ING SITES DURING THE PAST BOATING SEASON (calendar year 1968)?

E] YES [:1 NO If ”NO" skip over questions 6, 7, and a, and proceed
with question 9. ' '

 

WAS nus BOAT TRANSPORTED av: E] trailer C] car-top carrier

 

PLEASE INDICATE THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TIMES YOU TRANSPORTED IIilSBOAT FROM THE PLACE
OF STORAGE OR MOORING TO THE PLACE OF USE. Number of times

 

 

IN THE TABLE BELOW, NAME THE COUNTIES WHERE YOU MOST OFTEN LAUNCHED IHI§ BOAT: AND
INDICATE THE NUMBER OF TIMES THE BOAT WAS LAUNCHED AT EACH BOATING ACCESS POINT.

 

vvv-v‘r
T717 '1

Number of Times This Boat Launched lt-

 

 

County .
I (Write in) PubI'c WWII“ 0' “0W Co cm Prlvete
Merlne pr I I
‘, City, County State or other

A k‘ i_

or Township Facilities “W"

 

Most Launches: nip

 

2nd most Launches: III-P

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All other Launches: q?

 

 

'58

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9 DID YOU USE THIS BOAT ON ANY OF THE MICHIGAN SECTIONS OF THE GREAT LAKES. 0R CONNECT-

ING WATERS“, DURING THE PAST BOATING SEASON (calendar year 1968)?
'(Great Lakes and connecting waters are Lakes Huron, Superior, Erie, Michigan, and St. Clair;
St. Mary's River, St. Clair River, and Detroit River.)
D NO --- If "NO". please proceed to question 11.
CI YES --- If "YES" please continue with question 10.

‘0 IN THE TABLE BELOW, NAME THE THREE GREAT LAKES OR CONNECTING WATERS COUNTIES WHERE
Ifllfi BOAT WAS USED DURING THE PAST BOATING SEASON. Give the number of days that the boat was
actually in the water under power or sail in each county: and give the number of boating days spent on particular
activities. (See map on page 2.)

USE OF THIS BOAT ON GREAT LAKES AND CONNECTING WATERS ONLY
Note: Count each part day spent boating as a full day. Count each part-day spent on
The number of days spmt on specific boating activities a particular boating activity
may not eQuaI the total number of days shown in the as a full day for that activity.
lefthand column. 1
Boating Activities
1. otel No. days you used this boat for—
a”. C0 nty Trout/Salmon Other Water
or (Write In) tibiae “shine ““"I‘W Ikilns c'""'“' °"‘°'
INo. (No. (No. (No. (No. (No.
. . - Deva) Deva) Days) Dew) Days) Days)
EXAMPLE i I7 W ll 2 0 9' 8’ 0

 

 

County of
most u”: #

 

 

County of
2nd moat use: I?

 

3rdmoatuee:

 

eoeting in ”All d}
Other" Counties:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘I'
.‘I
+ come...
{i

 

 

DID YOU USE THIS BOAT ON ANY INLAND LAKES OR STREAMS IN MICHIGAN DURING THE PAST
BOATING SEASON (calendar year 1968)?

E] NO --- If "NO” please proceed to question 13.
D was --- If "YES" please continue with question no. 12.

 

EXAMPLE[[‘ 5

 

‘2 IN THE TABLE BELOW. NAME THE THREE MICHIGAN COUNTIES WHERE THIS BOAT WAS USED MOST ON
INLAND LAKES AND STREAMS DURING THE PAST BOATING SEASON' Give the number of days that this boat
was actually In the water under power or sail In each of these counties; and give the number of boating days spent on

various activities. (See map on page 2.)

 

 

USE OF THIS BOAT ON INLAND LAKES & STREAMS

 

left-hand column.

)

l'l’ 'r

I Note: Count each part day spent boating as a full day. ,
. The number of days spent on specific boating activities .
I may not equal the total number of days shown in the

 

 

I

 

I Count each part day ment on
a particular boating activity
as a full day for that mivity.

_1‘ A A h L _A

 

 

Boating Activities

 

 

 

'Totel No. days you used this boat for—
Days Caunty Trout/Salmon Other Water ,
I “I IWrite in) fishing fighim I'IUIIIII'III skiing Cruising Other
Boating (No. (No. (No. (No. (No. (No.
- Days) Days) Days) Days) Days) Days)
2 ’7 j Z 0 O

 

 

, County of
a most USO:

 

. County of #
,l I , 2nd most use:

V

 

County of
3rd most use: 'I

 

II? : Boating in "All
L ‘. C Other” Counties: S

T

V

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ L
‘ Luann.

 

 

'3 DID YOU USE IBIS BOAT IN ANY CANADIAN PROVINCE OR A STATE OTHER THAN MICHIGAN DURING
THE PAST BOATING SEASON (calendar year 1968)?

[I] NC
C] was ---

If “NO", skip over the remainder of this question and proceed with question 14.
If "YES," please complete the table below.

 

OtherStates: GivetheNumberofDeysBoetwas

 

 

 

 

in theWeterUnderPowerorSeil
COunty or nearest Name of State or Nurrber of
city (if known) ' Canadian Province beating ays"
County of most use: -'
County of 2nd most use: e...
County of 3rd most use: d»

 

 

 

 

'lf unknown, please consult a highway map.
"INOTE: count each part day of beating as a full day).

 

 

c 60

rw—r—v vv v T—1 fl w. "v

THE FOLLOWING QUESTION CONCERNS OTHER RECREATIONAL BOATS OWNED IN ADDITION
TO THE ONE IDENTIFIED BY THE REGISTRATION NUMBER ON PAGE I.

(Note: If you own no other boats, please check here E] erel skip over to Question 15)

 

‘4 IN THE TABLE BELOW, GIVE THE NUMBER OF OTHER REGISTERED AND UNREGISTERED BOATS OWNED
BY YOU, AND BY THE MEMBERS OF YOUR IMMEDIATE FAMILY RESIDING WITH YOU. Also, give the boat
length and horsepower rating of the motor used on it.

 

Type of boat' Length Horsepower rating at the motor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“Include other inboards, outboards, sailboats, canoes, inboard-outboards, rowboats, etc.

 

 

W ~— .1. We r—v-‘v
e

IN ORDER TO FORECAST THE FUTURE DEMAND FOR BOATING FACILITIES IN'MICHIGAN,
IT IS NECESSARY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO TIE IN FAMILY CHARACTERISTICS
WITH BOATING USE PATTERNS. PLEASE ASSIST US BY ANSWERING THE
VOUESTIONS IN THE FOLLOWING SECTION.

4.1 A a; .4‘ L. '.J .._ ‘

I5 PLEASE GIVE YOUR COUNTY AND STATE OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE, AND WRITE IN YOUR POSTAL ZIP
CODE.

County name State Postal Zip Code

 

 

‘6 WHAT IS THE AGE AND SEX OF THE "HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY?"

Age:_yeers Sex: CI Male CI Female

 

l7 GIVE THE AGE AND SEX OF EACH MEMBER OF YOUR FAMILY RESIDING WITH YOU (excluding the "head of
household")

 

Male: ages: , , ,___,_ Female: ages:__,___,_,_.____,_

 

IS WHAT IS THE OCCUPATION OF THE "HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY?" (Please indicate the type of job that you hold,
NOT the organization for which you work).

 

(Write in)

 

‘9 PLEASE ESTIMATE YOUR TOTAL FAMILY INCOME FOR 1968 BY CHECKING THE PROPER BOX BELOW.
(Check only one box). ‘

Cl ‘ Under $3,000 1:] $6,000 to $7,999 D $10,000 to $14,999 [I] $25,000 end over

 

Cl $3,000 to $5,999 Cl $8,000 to $9,999 El $15,000 to $24,999

‘-‘--—..

’61

20 WHICH OF THE ANSWERS BELOW BEST INDICATES THE TOTAL YEARS OF EDUCATION COMPLETED BY

THE ”HEAD OF YOUR FAMILY?" (Check one b0!)

DDDDDDDDDDDD DECIDED

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 13 I4 15 18 17

0f "TOTO

 

2‘ IN THE SPACE BELOW, PLEASE INDICATE ANY SPECIAL BOATING PROBLEMS YOU MAY HAVE:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THANKS FOR YOUR HELP I
If you assidently mlsplace the return elivdope provided. please mail to:

Recreation Research ltd Planning Unit
Room 312 Natmd Resources Building
Michipn State University
East Lansing. Michlun 48823

APPENDIX B

COUNTY BREAKDOWN OF MAILED
AND RETURNED SAMPLE

 

 

 

 

MNH O 0 6 NF mv OM
Oh O O M 0m @N mN
mNN C N m HmH Vm mN
om O O m -w MN RN
HH 0 O N WM MH mN
mNNLH N m mm mmb NFM MN
HOH C 0 w mm FN 6N
mmH O o m NHH mm MN.
mm 0 O O wv N¢ NN
OHH H H H mh NM HN
MN 0 O N NH v 0N
MOH o o ,m mm Mm mH
fin o o m mm «n ma
mma H H OH moa ma ha
hNH O H m OOH ON mH
MOH . O H OH m0 MN mH
HNM O N MH omH VHH ¢H
mam N m mN mbH mmH MH
mmN O O m 55H Hm NH
wH¢ O H MN NNN mmH HH
om o o M wm NH OH
Am” m 0 mm mma no ¢
qu O O m om mm m
Hv O O N QM m h
mN O O O fiN ¢ 0
NHH O O m wh HM m
va .0 0 HH NNH HM v
mCN o O NH . OOH vm M
wv O O N mN 0H N
ow o o 0 mm h H
PHMQOB HmbO MGM .Ow WOW I .OM .OM I EON .ON I .NH mmmH HO .NHI NHZDOU
WEHUZNH BdOm

 

mqmzdm DmflHdfi m0 ZSCoxmmmm MUZDOU

m Nanmmmd

63

 

 

 

N NH hmH mHo.H va
o H N om «m
H H mN mmN omH
H o H NH HN
o o q. Hm NN
H N mm NNH mm
o o H NN OH
o 0 ON mNH mm
o o w HN HN
o o N mm NH
o N m mp HN
o N m mm Nb
0 o w NH NH
m mm mam NNN NNH
H .0 NH mm HH
H o H mN NH
0 o «H mm as
o m mH mmH N»
o o «H mm wH
o o H mm HH
0 o o mH NH
o o H m o
N NH nu mmm 05¢
o o N NH NH
o m mm mNN mmN
.o N mN mmN NON
o o m mm mN
o o H hm mm
o o w up NN
o o m on Nm
N H wN awn Nm
0 N m mw m
. H NH n ma
umpo nun "ow .ov u .om .omu\»0N .om u .NH mmmH no .NH
. a mmeuZMH u<om Aw

AG.QOUV m NHmmemd

64

 

 

 

 

NON.HN OO NON NON.H NON.NNI OOO.O Hmuoa
OHO N N Hm HHO . HNH ON
NN O N N HO NN NO
NNO.N OH ONH NNN HNH.N ONN NO
NHH O O NN NNN OOH HO
NN O O N NHH NOH ON
NN N N O NO HN NN
OOH O O O OOH ON ON
HO O O O ON NH NN
NO O H N ON OH ON
ONN O H NH HNH HNH ON
NON O N NO ONN NO ON
HON O O NH OON HNH NN
HOH O O OH NNH NH NN
NO .O O N HO NH HN
NNN N N Om NNH NOH ON
NH O O m N NN NO
OH O O O N N NO
NO O O H NH ON NO
OH O H N NN NH OO
N O O H NN ON NO
ON H O N NH NH «O
Hmpoa mm umpo ONO .ONII.+OO u .ON leuszN IOON sINNw OOmH no .NH Nazuou

OmauzmH awe»

Ho.couv m xHoszNN

nooHc. mm

; s H «OuoO. . . mm
H oNsaH. HH
H chxc. .. v
H OHHON.O ONW
. H vmumc. . . m
H wvch.n ONH
= .I.H nNnOH.~.-é; HNH
H Omrnm. On
I. H omomn. - s mw.
H «Nucv. mw
.-.H nonNc. - mm
H owpno.n «mu
:.I|: H mNOHn. . OH
H Onch. wn
- -- H mmer. IL- on
H comma. OH
.leI H mnrnH.H.!: .vo ::
H OONNH. Hm
SI. H NOHON. -.s OH
H OouHc.n NH»
.-:.. H monNc. .... On.
H HONON.H no
- H.HNnOv. -;- mm :
H ooncc. um
. H nwOoN. . . c
H envOm. an
.e H OOHNn. . H~-.
H NOOOO. ON
H OOOOO. «w
H oOnOO. . cm
H (NcoH.H . co
H OHNNO.H OOH
. H noroc.H .. no
H hhcnc.w can
.- H mNuHm. . OH
H OnNmN.H ON
-I-!IH oncOO.H L. N
H ONVoH. HH
I: I H OONNH. .. cm
H HmNmO. en
- H nocot. , . on
H onoOO.H Nu
- :1 H anomH. . o
H.meHn. OH
H HONON
. H
. -3-H: - : .I I}:

'II-IIIIUOIIIII--IS--I'.I'I|O.II OIIIOIOIDIJOICOUOIIIOEII----I---‘P-I.l...e.0.l00OICOIIIIIIICDIIUUUIIIICUICI!IIOIIVWICIIOIIICI

H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
.H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H

OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
ONO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OOO.
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0
OO0.0

CH

CCOCOGOCCOCCCOOC-OGC

H

O I O'

ODOCDOODOOOv-‘DODDOOOOOOOOOOOOOODO'I‘OOOCOOOONDODO

H OOo.O O H new.
I H OO0.0 O H OON.
H uao.c O H ouc.c
H OO0.0 O H OOO.H
H on .H H H OOO.n
H OO0.0 O H OOO.c :
H OO0.0 O H OOO.H
I; H OOH.H -.H... H OOO.H.
H OO0.0 o H OON.
H OO0.0 O H NO0.0 .-
H OO0.0 O H OOO.c
- H OO0.0 ; O H OON. ::
H on .H H H new.“
. H on .H ; H H NON.
H OO0.0 O H NON..
.:.H OO0.0 :. O H OOO. .!
H OO0.0 O H OOv.
H onH.H - H H OOO.H.
H OO0.0 O H OOH.

: H ON0.0 O H ON . .
H "an.“ N H OOH.”
;:H uOu.O . O H OOO.H .:
H OOO.O O H OO0.0
! H OO0.0 O H coo.c-:
H OO0.0 O H OOO.c

H OOO.O . O . H OON.

H OOo.c O H Ooo.c

H OO0.0 . O H OH“.

H OO0.0 O H OOO.

H uoc.c o H OOO.c

H OOO.c O H ecu.

H HNH.H H H OOO.

H HHN.~ w H OOO.

H OOO.O O H can.

H OOc.c O H con.“
. H OOO.c O H OOO.¢

H mvn.w v H OOO.

H OO0.0 - O H Occ. .

H OOO.c o H cow.

H uuo.c . O H OO0.0

H OO0.0 O H OOo.c

H HO0.0 O H Oco.

H OO0.0 O H OOO.

H OO0.0 o H OcO.o

H OO0.0 O H OON.

H Ow . On H On .
zrusz H cw

v H vac. Hm
H. H ONO. . nN
O H «OH. .O
O H «HH. O
mH H «OH.v qu
O . H «OH. .- m z
m. H HOm.~ Na
9 -: H moo.H-.. 3‘
n H one. H“
O :H OHn. HH
O H an. mH
H -; H ONO. -- On
HH H «ON.n omH
. H.¢: H mow....--vH
v H cNN. NA
m H ccv.-.::scu,
a H (Hm. HH
m - H HNH.H.o; on s
m H ocv. «H
N H m«n.-:.- Nr
OH H cmo.m Nam
m ---H coo...-- «O.
O H noO.H an
O ..H an. In: mr
a H oHn. an
H.- H vcH. - O
.O H cwm. oH
. H --.H an. .. nr .
m H soc. H“
O H ONO. .-. On
w H «ca. On
n H «NH.H HO
v H cov.H Hm
n H crrow mv
«H H «H¢.n Ho
O H ace. or
w H awn.H cs
1 H noc.H .2 on
H H gnu. o
O H cnn. - c
O H Ova. OH
O H Hon. HO
O H ONN. N«
O. H «OH. ., m
H H Hov. en
Ow H on u «H

H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
H

.
v

H

Humidm szmbhmm ho MEZDOU hm mmfl23o B¢om

m NHQzummd

Nnc
Orv

«mm.

on;
Oxw
one
Nun
rue
mam
Han
Nnc
mam

ONO
One
NON
ovv
HnH
cum
OOO
cnm
HNH
2N1
HON
NNH
an
mno
NNH
NNH
nmc
mam
emu
mmo
vac

H

.c
I c s
.O
.<
.a

.a
.O
.H
.n
.H
.H
.H

NH 243

3 (I .‘~ 1‘
C r

V.‘

1 re-r

F

WOW vsH‘)¢)HL‘(\J‘ :1)

...Jr

"I~‘~ v
r-

V £"J-‘“\l\1",(\H""F ’1'?
R r s-r r-r< a

1'1

h

o-QHPCI—0-1_~—I~M-C—~H—chbw—HK—D—H-‘No-flbd-‘WH—O—H—H—-~_M-C~—C

H

ONOO

HIIEEPBPOUOPOOOSOBOIOSIIOCOBIBBCBIEOUUIIUIICOCIIIIIISI'ICIIOI.IBIECIIO|IIOSBUSIDIIUOIUOPIIOOUUIIUIIISH mum.“

H
H

h f C? t.’ 0 IN":
_v~ '(v‘fi'NNCUI’d

(
n

if
'4

rev
9""

C r“
"Iv-1'"

0’.~:u‘(-h¢o

(\

.\

IIIIOIIJ'IUI-.-I---IIIPII0.7-.--ICI|OIUIIIIII|IIOUIIIIIIIIIIOIIOIJOIIIOIOIQI

.Hmum

>szou

.h-qu-dwo—s—e-su-sO-aMO-IO-IO—h-Hh—O—O—I-reboo—o—u—nbup-ap‘ouqo-”—fiwoqsOsao—e—momwhot-ON-O-IFO-‘O‘Ho-

«vow OH O: Oum on.» . . OOmH H HOHO» Ha

.o.‘l|.|!| .‘.’..-.--‘--.--'-'.l‘l..-llull'U'....---‘.'|-I'I-.'--'.u."-'--'---'-.-‘-"'I--l-.:-|---1'|.-|.'-'."O-'|.II".-‘---.-I.I

J

H 243..“ OOH H OOOO O H OOH; H H OOO.m OH H Smé OH. H H mocH an H .3 H

-----:nz.u|. .: H onnOO.H 2.. HO H OOO.O : O H ”Hm.“ ~ H OO«.H .. 0.: -H mo..H .-.~r H mmO.H . .H H on H
H acres. n‘ H OO0.0 O. H OO0.0 O H OOm. H H .O<. Ha H Onm.H Ho H .O .H

..... . - -- - H OOOOO.O ,. c H OOO.O OM - H OOO.O . O . .H OOO.O O.. H OO0.0.-:.O-.:-H OO0.0 O H no H
H 50.... O H OOO.O. O H OOO.O O H OOH. . H H OH“. O H OOH. _ O H .¢¢ H

- - .-:- -- H OOOOO.O - . O H OOO.O. O . H OOO.O O H OOO.¢ O H OOC.O-. O . H OOO.O O H «O H
H mHymO. n H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H Hmc. m H Hog. H H ac H

:-.- - -- H cnOO‘. Ow H OOO.O O -- H OOH.H H. .H OON. H - H mcn. . OH H ONO. , H HO H
H OO¢OO.HH an» H OOO.O~ m H uvm.o~ on H OO0.0H Oo H (OA.HH non H OOO.O Ham H «O r

a - . H (man.n mun H OOO.O O. - H OOH.H H H OOO.H O H OOH.«. - OH H Ocm.~ O. H HO H
H OO..O.H om H OOO.O. O H OOO.O O H OOO. H H ova. mm H wom.H n H. c H

-- -. -. H «mrnm. an H OOO.O. O . H "Hm.“ N H OOO.O O . H «OO.. 2. «a H NO”. c H on H

H OOHOO.H ‘O H OOO.O O. H OOO.O O H OO..H H H OOO.H mm H mHO.~ w. H OH H

. . H Hmoo«.H . no H OOO.O O H OHO.O o H OOO.. .w H ran.H :.¢.. H Ohm. u H HO H
H mquwn. cm H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OO~.. H H «0O.H an H «on. OH H OH H

- -. H chnn. - . OH H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOO.O,- O . H om“..a o H no“. . q H ms H

.H mnaHn. «H H OO0.0 . O H OO0.0 O H OOH. H H an. mH H HNH. . N H vs H

-:e--. . .- H umqvn.w .-. mmH H OOO.O . O . H OOH.H H H OOO.n .H H «Hc.n. ..mOH: H own.~ OH H «H H
H OOONH. H. H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOO. n H (No. N» H «mm. o H «H H

- -- H nonvn. . .H H OOO.O O . H OO0.0 . O . H OOw. .H : H mvn. 9-- «H.: H «0O. H H HH H

H mHOHH.~ OOH H OOO.OH H H OH0.0 o . H OOO.n OH H moo.H cm H H««.H on H OH H

.gv-.- - -- .... H OOHHH. - OH ..H OOO.O O H OOO.O . O . H OOO. H . H «HH. .z- c .- H ”OH. O H o( H
H mNOOH. o H OO0.0 O H OO0.0 O H OO0.0 O H «me. n H OOH. n H an H

ocuv- . -z- -- H.OOHHO. :z. Hu .. H OOO.O O H OOO.O :. O-z. H OOO. s- H ; H «NH. .1.-o H mam. - q. H.. no H
H omoon. «N H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OO.. O H noq. .H H NO». c H «O H

::-.-:¢-: H OOHOO. Ow H OOO.OH H -. H OOO.O O H OOO.O -e O , .H so“. --I.OH . H «on. AH H «a H

H «OHOO. OH H OOO.O O H HOO.O O H OOv. .w H “Om. OH H OH». O H «o H

. - .H «como.o -. cow H OOO.O~ N ; .H HNO.OH O H OOO.o.-: as H unm4¢-;r no“ H OO..O. wa H ac H

H HmHnO. On H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H H0O. n“ H ONO. ”H H a: H

..I z - . H HOOOO.~ OHH H OOO.O O H OOH.H .H H OOO.H -, O . H «On.« .- nu H OOH.H On H. .¢ H
H H~cng. . OH H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOH. H H HO“. . H H OOH. m H .O H

- . - H mOOOH. - . Hv. : H OOO.O a. O - H OOO.O O - H OOO. n . H Ooc. et. OH H HOu.H w“ H. cm H

H HmnOO.H co H OOO.O O H Ooc.n n H OOO.~ OH H HHo. cm H ONO. O. H «O H

- - - H OoHcH. . u H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOm. H H «NH. O H voO. H H hm H
H Hmnoc.H Oo H OOO.O O H OO0.0 O H OOO.H O H ooO.H on H ~ou. er H (m H

.; . - H more“. .. OH H OOO.O O - H OO0.0 O . H OOO. - - m.-- H «NH. ..: c H OH». n H aw H
H HHO... mm H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOH. H H «O».. vH H ”we. OH H .m H

.- - . - H OOOO‘.. . Ow H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOw. H H 03.. . HH H OHO. m H Hm H
H nHmOo. Hm H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOv. w H cmo. «n H OOO.H HH H am H

--.- - -- H qO.On. HH H OOOHO O H OOO.O O H OOO. n H mvw. . . N. H H~H. w H Hm H
H OOOOO.' Hm“ H OOOHOH H H OOO.mH OH.- H OOv.«H we H am¢.n. OOH H OOH.H On H (O H,

-2--. -1-..e:- H mmnHm. . Ow. H OOOHO. . O H OOO.O O H OprH O H Ovm.. - OH - H on“. o H ow H
H oncoH. HH H OOO.O O H OOO.O O H OOm. H H v... m H «Hm. m H «v H

..c-- I- - ....H onoOO.H . «n H OOO.O O . H OOO.O O H Op..n H H cwo. - m» H OOH.H OH H be H
. H conHH.H no H OO0.0 O H OOH.H H H OOO. v H anHrH H1 H awe.“ Hr H ¢v H

2.I. .. I.Iu0-----.IOOIIIOI‘OIICIC-I--O|-IIIO-..II-OO-.IIlIIIIIICIIo’Il.-lll.|l-|l|l.lllIICI'0...II-'.IIC.IIIIIIIIIIIDI:-IIOOIOIIOIIIC—
H .23... H o a ow H OH. .. 3 H On - 9». H O...“ .. “H H «w 2...; $3 . H

11.32'Ius...|: uUIII‘IIIIIOIOOaltilitlltilIOOIOOUOOolltltlltlll-OOlIlOIIIIOOIIlllltlIOCIIIOOIUIOOOIIOIIIOIIOIIll‘Ilt— WtzuC—MU“ —.
H . xHO2w4 HOOO . . H . He. H

zu‘tI. i . . u ... .. uUi .- . . .. . . . . . . . . . .- .. a *hnrHHOL M

.‘U'.---.-|------UI.‘0"-.‘lII'I-0....-..|l.".l...l.--0II-----I---’0'.-.I-.I---’-l---l.lll'--’l-'I--.-Il’IUIIII|-CII'll--.

HGHDOUH m NHnnmmmd

APPENDIX C

NUMBER OF MULTIPLE BOAT OWNERS
AND TYPES OF BOATS OWNED BY
COUNTY OF RETURNED SAMPLE

 

 

.udm24m QMZMDHMK
mo MHZDOU Nu nmz3o mH<om ho mmmrh .mmuzzo H<on mAmHHADZ ho mmnznz

U Nanumm4

:0... l.

.m a a “ a a an a a a a a flu n“
u G I .0 .. h N «lull- . N lull- . ~ . .. '.«In I. . NN . |u1l3l c n .‘c.‘ .. v .o D . i u . n . .. n . l I I. a Is: 0' I. ¢ . I. :nl': l1
‘ n o n a a a o n. c a a w . a
v a - c . o .:I a I- o _:I--I -H ...... . o -- a -,-o ,; a .:.o .-;:.. 21;:c.-!:-;
. an o a“ o n mwm m on n ma ca No es
.. m..- a - wife a 3.-.: m -- a - w i... 7...- - o .c a- «a...
. mm o "w o m “K” v o~ a c m we om
fl“. .0 . n 6.0- n O m 0.. 0 Na“ vI‘ . ~H.. N“ o c O c . n ‘ m 9 on G'.IO.-‘YID
a a w m a - a n o n n h u
N I . O -8 N I .. c O .l A n. . 2 .. KN .ul.... .N . ll n in... D . a . - . C ,l u o l-l’_nH 0|. .31..
v n a a a on n. a o a a n n
. c . a. , . :-: 1c .- a =!-!:,1:: «n .i..: o - . a. ...o w c - nu .-- a".z:e-:
«n o o n w \mdn . a nu w a m“ «cu oo
o : a .2. o ...... o -u. o .-s-z.a m ---: o -. a :..o. .o :o - g m .:- n -;s-::
~ . o a o o~ « u a a a n" «a
n .1: o a «.1;- w i:.oaesi!:3:.v~ -t1:.~ .s! o : a.-u! « . e at; m tl:c«:a:1.
N a a .w a 2 N o o w o n .
‘" til...“ 1' 0 iv. h .0 « III-.10... '. Oh boil . o |.| o -utll o 1'97! Q I O. H .I .o ”Ni-Ia! "n ll.:-9|.l..
m a o . « cu 9 ~_ g a w m m
« ...i:.. In a _ is“ gist... .. mu 2 u . v -- a - .. - .c - s. t: . -. ;.
vv n «a m n n.~ . cu «n c on on co as
. «a a . s n - ~. . w .-s ‘ am -- z---~«.. :.m .- r « ..; ~ ..~ . - m« . - ca -: -
o c n v w mm c u a v m 0H ma
n .s. o . .o a. n -- a .u.-- . mm ..H - s a e a n c a". .c«;:;.
n c o n 9 cm m n o c a a e
a -- a. I a ..s m - a -.- v .- . a -: a. . c a m .. u u . . c -;-:
c n a a g cm a o a a c c o
w w a .u - c o . g «a - . a N a e. a c - c .
“an m a a n a - N w o v c o a
.6 n .. c. - .o , a .. d - 3 - a 2 .m .5 .i. c i I.
H o a v a a an c n o a « OH "H
. S c .2.— “ - .3 z. .3. u a Q n -.:-..a 3. .
. cu a o m n as o 'm a m n o. fim
.w a“ c .. . . m ...|oi. n I..|..v,. a . . -- no I .- - . a -0 N“ . o .. O , n. 1 .. N 06 .. . Ofl .u I! N” ..........
. nu c o a v .5 c an . a c c ow mm
c , a -. «1-----«52... - 1 . a. - N ....o ...~ 0 - m .i- ..
v a a w « Nu m o o a fi 5“ o.
m a . .c n .9- v a .. . as . e - v .. e . c . n . wn ... mw . -
. a c a w a o“ o o a « c o c
a a O . . o a lull?! N a a a o lo - O .Jsl..° ..... H -.|ll .
s c u c o kn a a a c a mu ca
; o_ia-; a . n -c a t: a. -. a - ..o -H a - c . y a : . c«..: v" --I-
o a n m a mo N o a m a mu mu
m .. ..a~.... . .. . .3 a. M .a o u n.......
n a a o o m u a «
Houoa mmsuo unzm oocco. unam .Houoa nosuo. unam. oxH ooqmu gnaw .uonuo;umn:H
. Canon HoBOm doz.

nus.
nan.
can.
flea.
ago.
«mo.
«an.
naa.
0mm.
ocn.
“av.
woo.
¢um.v
«co.
ohm.
gen.
vow.
mco.
mum.
mcv.
act.»
mmo.«
ecu.”
Now.
can.
men.
wcv.
vemw
Rev.
«.0.
«mo.
ono.~
mum."
m<~.«
acs.a
can.
ans.
flaw.»
nmw.
nc«..
«me.
an“.
mmo.a
non.
ccv.

:n

d

uMzmm

N")

on
m«
m
n
mm“
N
«a
no
m“
a
an
.nn
.mOn
w
vs
o
m
. mm
M
an
mnn
cm
on
wuvcfl
nu
v
an
0
an
mu
cn
«o
iv
an
mv

r"
en
a
v
ca
ca
cm
v
«a

on!
.unaaapz

n6

HR'MCU‘OINflO

wagon

 

 

 

 

 

madam umsom :oz

An.coov.o xHQZMLmd

Nah hv mom Nwmv mww on O¢N NmH oawa. ouma ccmm nauuoa
# ¢ .Ju x1u. a \u an o a c a a c a man. n, a.
«s n on mu a. no. on «s m an «~ ova m~w mvc.o an“ no
. on a o . - a u, find. .-- .o on. a cd .- m an . cm..e:.- nx¢.~. «a we
9 c m w m :0 m w~ c a m an “N one.“ n~ cc
. a - c c ‘ w o o" :. a n a a c -:.s .n .tgss-,oum. v" on
«a e o w a fin . 0 am ‘ o a w nu mm Nam.“ .an cu
n .c ..u m 1- a. .-o cw ,:-.: a m ...... a a - c .3: cm. .0“ :u:.:oro. an as
n c a n o nv n «a a e a an ca omo. .. nw . .(~
w u: c m -::: o 1 a o +..- .a m .:s o a a .m . .:¢I::-«co. m . mu
w c N a a o o c c w c w a ecu. 0 cu
ca ---;.e -::--=« .-. o o aw” :.:.o ma n. o - ..n.. 2. mm ~n:.a-:. aco.~ . we n\
c o n m a nu v o.“ o m n on '9 non. mm 2.
..H.suyse . -a v .;-1.= 9 mm ... -o m c o . H .-; o =H...- cc». .. a as
«N c o c o mm“ o v" o o a" c. nc nmfi.~. mm cs
. w :-:n c .. a . . c o N# _; - a n a. o a . .c ..- m . c..- --- «em. . c on
o c o c . a m a a o a e . m n Nmn. e co
m - - c a -- c . a «N o n c a a .- a“ .o .: . can. ,.c so
c c o c a o" a a a a o a m new. 5 co
n .t.! c -.- a - a a \H it: a. m.. . o .a - - « :-.. n .c . ocn. a me
e c a c a ea c o o o a o n mam. n «o
. so a. nu. cu a“ an». ;- m . ~n.-2 m .“n o“ - ~cu....H~. . - nfio.o. so“ no
m m « a a H mm n n. o n w a“ m“ n-. ow .«o
“mm as . c m , an o «o . o o..z: m a" - .nu 5n p~ st.~ mm we
. n o a J o a ea n a a o o c c mam. s cc
7 o a. -n c -....v. -n. u on .2 - .,o .1 c a; o--: a - .. n. : ca n” .5- "mo. . cw om
m c c m « « cm 0 o m a « cu “N “no. cu «m
M. c - . c . . a. 1:- c a. a -. o a o a .: .c -. a c ans. «'9. fl am
1 o a w ~ ~ Hm v n. o n n «N c“ mmo.« ox cm
; n ..... e.g:-..a -zs, « m n” .- .o a z; a .u -. m - m n r- vem. c mm
_ o e o a a mm o a o a u o c. man. a“ vm
e u I- .c .; a .a: a .fi.. a“ . :‘- a a ,-:.c. n -- m o o ,2-.. ace. n“ an
a c m m 9 mm o w a o n n m" an“. sf ~m
n c .,. - . d e g n . cm - - . a a --.o - w ; n.. a .o.- Nev. o" «a
an a o u n one o aw a n v no on «SJ nu cm
on - :.= .-. a" -I. e .e. an .. .:._c a“ - o a .o o" "a -:,. ."e. cm o.
a a e o o n a a o e c n = mud. n . cc
--~ .-e ---u n. ,n, a. .mu ; . v a“ . - a- n ,« nu :-.n :; .--mco.« a“ . “A
o u v o v 00 o o . a a s em .5 can.” cm 3.
Huuoa Hmngo 33m 00cm0.unam Hauoa Hague unsm.O\H condo undm mvnuo unncH 90mm awn: z Mundoo

 

 

 

 

 

NHh hv mom mma mma Nomv ham mww om ovm NaH o¢wa. omma ocmm nacuoa
H Ti. H. w. xxd. am a a c a H c .. a on». RH an
«H n on mH nH new 0H «s m «« Ha ch auH Nev.o Emu . no
. HH n o . - H .. w. . - HHH .-- o H». H cH .- a an .-. cm..e:.- an.~. Ho Ho
o e m a N cc w HN c w . a HH Hm ooo.H Hm cc
a - c c ..... w - o . -i ..... oH .- H n . o . m c -:.H -;‘;n .ulua-.onm. . «H on
HH c o H H HH . o ow o H H HH Hm me.H .an cm
H - a ..5 m 1- H...:- a 4 ..... f.a «v - --- a : m .-n.H.a. H - c ; v~.:. ,cH Li: ,oro. an HH
n c a n H n. n NH a v 0 HH cH omo. .. mm . .cH
H -2 c H ..-: H ..1 H ..=-:.. - o p-. .o - H :. H H c m :z: . : nit: Hco. ,.- H . H“
w c w c o o o H H H c m a Hem. o 'H
cu ----.c - 3-.oH .-- o - o - -. - an -.o «H n. . o , ..H. 2. mm as- Hm..:;:. neo.~ . «a HH
c o n m .— nu v ea c m H OH H» moo. mm 2.
c.n.nnise . -a v .e.‘.= . s e ..: --- mm .o H a o H e o -;:- cH. .- cc». 9 HH
v~ c o c o NHH o VH o 0 HH cc n. HrH.~. mm cH
H :-:: c .- H . . c . H :- «H - a -- H H. H - -. c . m c. - --- «cm. . c on
e c o c . o o a a o a c m n NmH. n co
m - - c H -- c . . H mm a a H c H H - HH 0 -: . can. .c Ho
c c o c a HH a a o a o a m Haw. H co
m s - c - - H - H H . . - HH ;.: H - m - -. o - .H . -. H . ,. n .a::: - ocn. . a me
e c a c H OH H o o e H o H mcm. H .o
no a. nu. cu oH ...... an». m .2 Kn.-: m ; Hn oH - ~cu.. H~H - nHa.o. HoH no
a H H H H an n n. o n H HH NH HHH. 9H .«o
mm Ha . c m HH 0 .- - . . Ho 0 o. -- m - HH - «H H» .: H~ HmH.~ mm .o
H o H J a o oH n H a o o c « mam. H :0
o -- .1 c -.-.:c.. -H.- - H ; :sz1 on .-- ,o :1 v --. o. : H . . m. : eH.;xw nH .i .Hmo. cH om
c c m m H cm 9 o m a H cm HN Hun. «m cm
a - .: c . . o..l.x o :11- o..--- 1-- H - a ,z. o .o a .: H s. H e.: c -st H¢o. H Hm
o e w w w Hm v m o n n mm cH mmo.H ex cm
n ..... o .o.‘.l .. a 6.: I... i ll .‘cIO, ~ . 0‘ I n“ 1 o I: a 1.. c O I! . .. “ l . N A m I ' ll- 'QN . c m“
o c o a a mm o H o o H o m. Han. nH vm
a a t-..c .; o .1: H- -..H. .i-,:-.; oH -- a -: a .:.:c -- a -- w o .- o ,2-.. wee. HH no
a c ~ m e an o w H o a n wH nmn. cH Nm
I o ,-H - H .as H n - 11in -. cm. . . H : - u a. a- H -- n. a o.. Hcv. HH Hm
an a o H n owH o «w o n c He on Hue.“ an em
aH - 2.: .. 9H -I. e .a_. .s.: .. om ..... o -: oH ; o a o oH ..; Hm -:. ch. cm ov
a o o o o n a a o o H n c maH. n . cc
--H --H --;| n.. H - H. - .- ..m. c :- .H. . H- - a .H mm . -HH :, --mw°.H a“ . H:
o H v a v 00 o o . e H c ow en omo.H cm ov
Huuoa umnuo unzx mocao.uaHm Houoa nonuo unam.0\H moauo unHm nunuo muncH aomm ummz 2 Hanson

madam Mason :02

Ho.coov.o xHszmm<

APPENDIX D

EXPANSION ESTIMATES OF UNREGISTERED
AND MULTIPLE BOAT OWNERSHIP

APPENDIX D

Method of Expanding Sample Data to Statewide Estimates

 

The estimates concerning statewide information on
the percentage and number of multiple boat owners and
unregistered boats per county was obtained by expanding

the sample data to total population estimates.

Response Rate Ratio‘s

 

The ratio was obtained by dividing the number of
registered boats per county by the number of usable sample
returns from that county. (For example, Alpena County had
3,278 registered boats and 39 usable returns, 3278/39, for

a 8h/l response rate ratio.)

Number of Multiple Boat Owners

 

This estimate was derived by multiplying the total
number of registered boats in the county by the percent
of multiple boat ownership in the county. (To illustrate,
Alpena had a multiple boat ownership percentage of M6
multiplied by 3278 registered boats, or 3278x.h6, for a

total of 1508 multiple boat owners.)

Percent of Multiple Boat Owners

 

The percentage of multiple boat ownership per county
was estimated by dividing the number of multiple boat

owners per county in the sample bv the number of respondents

69

70

per county in the sample. (Alpena County had 18 multiple
boat owners divided by 33 total respondents, lB/BQ, for

a percentage of multiple boat ownership of M6.

Number of Unregistered Boats

 

The number of unregistered boats owned bv registered
boat owners per county was estimated by multiplying the
percentage of unregistered boats in the county by the
number of registered boats. (Alpena County had 3278
registered boats and an unregistered boat percentage

of 15, 3278x.l§, for a total of MQZ unregistered boats.)

Percentage of Unregistered Boats

 

The percentage of unregistered boats owned by regis-
tered boat owners per county was estimated by dividing the
total number of unregistered boats in the sample by the
number of sample respondents. (Alpena County had 6 un-
registered boats and 39 respondents 6/39. for a percentage

of 15).

7l

 

HH re” m: momH H\:s «HcoH
mH mooH as meme H\Ho eunmCH
cH H:H HH mmH H\os copsm
0 cmH. 0: com H.\~.m couswaom
cH mum Hm ssm H\sa oHaemHHHm
«H mam Hm omo H\mmH poHuuue
mm HHNH cm mmsm H\ms unpopune acute
cH :cH Hm one H\mo oHnomou
mH omH no so» H\m> cHscaHo
:H smmm m: moooH H\:s ooaocmc
mm mms mo smmH H\oo Hoses
mH msm as mapH H\om copam
NH 00H 0: smo HVme comconHa
o 40H mo mMHH H :m apHon
Hm mew so Hem H\mo enousuao
mH «mm :m owe H\Hm cochHo
m 0» cm mo: Hxso opaHo
oH pom mm saHH H\H~H azcaaHso
s. moH :m mHsH H\:o cawHonono
mH ppm as :mo H\oo «Ho>oHp¢no
mH FNOH as osmm H\soH ammo
HH onH m: ooom H\Hm csonHao
0H omm om «mom H mm nocapm
mH ssHH .sm mmmm Hp» coHpnom
mm me s: Hm» H\Ho oHucom
o «Hm mm mmmH H\m~ sum
sH sHm mm smoH H\mo human
sH so so Hz: H\mo amunam
mH Ho 0: msm H\Ho cacop¢
cm as; m: FSOH H\oo sHpHc<
mH mo: 0; momH H\:m aconH<
0H cos c: mHom H\>> camoHH<
mm mcH :: oom H\mo nomH<
VFH HNH use 2»: H\om aco0H<
.Apo\mpuom Hpcsoo mop .mpo\m..o.m.z .Hno\m..o.m.x oHpam opam Hucsoo
.panOLcD we we unwom .umfiuohcb 90 acoohom .uo hon—H52 onCOQmom

mHmmmmz3o B<om WHQHEQDE DZ¢ QEKMBmemmZD zo me<ZHme ZOHmzdmxm

Q xHszmm<

72

 

wH oHoH H. 43H: H\mo zmcham
UH no: : mwofi H\©o coEEoomom
om Hmm :o com (:0 onH 0530an
cm oH;H m; omcm H\om ozoooo
cH HHH co ooo H\mHH owomoo
oH co cm «cm H\oo oooooo
cH oo on oom H\oo «Hooooo
o mm mm on H\Hm comocopco
HH oHH oo HHs H\oo :osowo
oH HoH Ho ooo H\Ho «cacao
:H oon co ooooH H\oo ocaHsoo
sH omm Hm ommH H\Ho omoozoz
cm oooH m; soon H\mo comoxoo:
o oo so so: H\oo Hocopoeoco:
mH mos om momH H\oo sHoooooz
mH ooo on moom H\oo conga:
oH mo mH Ho H\oo oossuomHz
cH om: mo oooH H\mo ocoHoH:
Hm oom mo oom H\Ho oocHsocox
mH mom mm mon H\om apnoea:
o pom mo moHH H\00H coma:
oH oos mm ooHH H\oo opposoaax
mm omo om oomH H\omH ooouHco:
o ommH mm omHo H\oo osoou:
mm ooo oo oosH H\mo zucono:
om mmH om oom H\oo mono
NH so: o: oooH H\mo coooonpHo
:H moo Ho oomm H\oo morocco
om com om :NOH H\om scooHooH
om moo o: Hoo H\oo poogag
om :HH m; oom H\om osoq
cH om mm on H\o: zucoozox
:H moon o: ommHH H\oo poem
co mom 0; mom H\ooH asuaxHam
HH «mmH o: ooom H\oo oouosoHom
o mmo o: Hmmo H\mo cooxooe
oH mom H: moo H\sm oHHoooMH
o moH H: Hoo H\oo copH
oH mom o: moo H\mo ooaoH
.Hoo\opoom Hoosoo pom .Hmm\o..o.m.z .Hoo\u..o.m.z oHpom opom .Npcooo
.pmeopcD .Ho mo mpuom .pmHmopcD .Ho pcoohom .Ho .HonEsz onconaom

An.coov Q XHQZWRA<

73

 

 

 

omHHo omoooH noses

om ooo om sooH H\mo choose:

HH ammo om mmoom H\oOH echo:

oH omHH mo moon H\oo :oaoonouz

oH moo o; oon H\oo gonzo cu>

o mmH o; ooo H\mo oHoousa

o HoH o: sooH H\mo oooooonom

HH ooH MH moH H\oo ouonoHoonom

HH HoH Hm mom H\om ooHHcam

HH omo o: MHom H\oo gnomes .Hm

s oom om HooH H\oo “HaHo .pm
.H»o\mooom Hoosoo poo .Hpo\o..o.m.z .Hpo\m..o.m.z oHoom ovum Hanson

.unHmoncD no N. muaom .anwopcD .Ho pcoopom no .3255 omcoHHnom

H.o.oooo a anzmomo

APPENDIX E

STATISTICS ON TRANSFORMED VARIABLES

7D-

I.
1'

ooooHonoanovnnsnau

HaHsH.ooHoH
HoooH.oaoH
«non~.HmoHH
ooooH.Ho~s»
H~ooo.~noo
anoo.~onson
Hnooo.ooo
...oH.HnoHHH

z<wx wzb tack
t0-<u>wa nw¢<aon

no :29

Hanna» 3
on
ooooo.H

auuo.ozH
oH

nonHHHoo

HHHHH.H

oooo.ooHHovooH.Hv~

Hoooo.Ho~ooo
Hosoo.oconH
cocoo.HoHoo
goose.oooooo
eeHHH.°nHHo

ooooo.mooHnneH

HoH°0.HoHH
.Hooe.nmoono

Hmcoaom

Ho :an

zommzcm»

H
oonoo.o
anvo.c.
moooo.p
nmooH.H
HHH~o.o.
oquo.ou
nHHH~.o-
vemHH.o.
ooooo.H

HHHHH.HHH

zHooauuo mHHm :«a Doom mzouz. was om:
oH HH - oH mH n N
Hovoo.H. ,HnHHH.H .OHHH.H. noHHH.H. oHono.a HHH~°.H.
«Hoon.o. HHHH~.H .HHHoH.. HoHoo.H HH¢H~.H. HHoHH.°
HHHOH.H canon... ~H.H¢.H. Hmosm.o. -~on.. coono.oc
oaooo.H H0H~H.° Hooo~.o oomm..o. NHOHH.H
cocoo.H oHHHc.o Hno-.o. vmonc.o
HHHQH.H ooVHn.H. NHoHH.H
ooooo.H HHNoo.o
eaoco.H
. HonH<4wmcou mJoIHm
Hoooo.o~oooooH Noooooo..ovHH omvoo.oHoHH HoooH.Homo~H
cocoo.oooov covoHaH.v commo.HH cocoo.H~
osooo.oooo owanoo.H nnHHH.H cocoa.»
o=°o0.HHoHH nwvnoHH.H How...» cocoa. H
Hooco.oocom oHoHHHH.H HHvH..~H cocoa.
oaooo.ooHHH owoo.on.H HHoHn.o ooooo.H
osooo.noooou oHoHHHo.~H oouon.oo cocoo.no
oucoo.ooHH vHooHav.H HHnno.o HoHQH.H
aeoHH.HH~on voov~.~.nH omovo.H Hooae.oo
tam szHH‘Homa sz: oaoo>
nocorHHm tax—x4:

mudn<HM<> GMZKOMmz<MH zo moHHmHH<Hm

m NHQZNhhd

HaoHo.H
ooooH.H
ooooo.H
ooooo.~
HoooH.H
oocoo.s
oocoo.o
cocoo.o
m=44>
232.:H:

am

on
an

an

on
ow
ow
an
on
on
n

m

a
c<>

>Jambm I
DUUOIUZ~
ZhCazuuo
m-m t<u
Ubom
wrouz~
mot

omr
monm2<rh

sooaom 2
:uuo.oz.
zHoonouo
wHHm you
uaom
wroozH
mo<

omr.
aoamzcah
an<4

Hoono.H HvoH°.°.. Ho~.o HHoH.H nova.

HHoHH.H ucono.o.. Hmo.o oHHo.. oHoH.
Hoomo.o Hoono.o ooo.o HmoH.H. No...
Hoowo.o HoHHH.H HNH.H ~0H~.u HooH.
nmnmo.o ooooo.o Hooo.ov vooo.HH Homo.
oHHHo.o nonnH.o “Hoo.ov nooo.HH “Hoe.
. . HHH.H H.~o.H can».
owowomu. numou axon «Ha on o»
«H ooHHgoo
.OHoNooc.o
wooxHHmm Ho «exam oaoaz.HH
a
S
7 I
oocncoH~.o
HHHH.HV oooH.H~ HooooouHHm
a.” .. . . mzoaoo zoo:

d.
N.
a
N
n

o
no .

oHHH..
«on a

monHo.e
oHoHo.e
ooHHo.o
anHo.e
-oHo.o
HooHo.o

m<~wm no

«cocxw .oum

vowo.o

N «(m c
mumou «moo

snot

unov

o

zoooomu no om:

unoHo.o. cocoooao.o ovoooooo.o. o~ >ouaam 1
ooHvo.o. HVHoonHo.o H~oooono.ou oH 2H¢uauuo
Hcono.o oooHHmos.o Hammoooo.o HH wNHH you
HooH°.° “.mmowoe.c ~c-moao.s oH 03cm
voooH.o Hooooooo.o onHvono.o mH wrouz“
ononH.H m~onHa°H.H nHonmoHH.H. n . we.
«HoHnHHo.o onooonoo.o. o Honmzou

HonHmz «HzmHUHLKmou,uo msz_onumou ¢.>

ona maoaxm .aHm onmmwaamc
HHHH.H oono.o one.

a mu
mJoHHoax HonH<>¢mmoo
Hnoonooo.ooo Hzom: Haoo.. oHHoH
«HoHHooo.moo ooaom
«HNoHHHH.Hn .szx Hooooo onmmmmomc

mw¢<aom no tam

zo.um~oo~o.osocw>o cog >0.

.onH.¢wH. som>m amewaouo HHoamma
.Hw: zo.¢m».¢u o¢.oam szx Homxm z:x_z_z

Ac.coov m KHszmm<

H mmam

nooao.o
vHoua..
ovowa.o
moumo.o
oonHo.H

umrwqwa
. «C

'76

 

«.HH°.H.. HHH.H
ooowa.o ”no.9
HHmHo.H HHH.o
oHHoH.o “099.9.
HHHHH.H nooc.ov

. oHH.o
numou «zoo a.»
JHHong

~n~onooo.o

«non.nu

h

mr¢x~rmw an «exam 914a2¢hm

HHHH.°
«on c

ewnm.o ooNH.~.
cho.». «coo.H
HHHHHH Hoc~n~
HomH on vao H
.oHn.HH Hoon.o
oHn~.~ nuou.Hu
on up
muoncoHHHo
.oHHvHHHHo

wcqaom zomx

~HoHo.o
oouHo.a
vcHHo.o
nooHo.o
NvoHo.o

m<wwm no.
mzocmw

vowo.a

w «<0 x -
muwou cmou

«not

«not
n

roomwxu no omo

.orn

zo.»mm¢omo.44.aw>o «on >OH

.zOHHoowHH .om>m omHomaamm oHoaomo

ooaoo.a. vnmnonHa.o mnoooo~9.9. oH zHHosuuo
anno.° oonHHnoo.o oHHvHooo.o HH wHHm :H.
omono.o anmowoo.H mooHoooa.H oH uoom
oNHHH.o nooncoao.o moommmno.o mH w:ouz.
oHHmH.o noomHooo.H omoovooc.s n was
ocHHHooo.o HHHmhvoH.Ha o HzHHmzou
HHonm: mquHQHuumou-uo mHzm_u_uumon ¢.>
HHmo ozoamo .on onmmmuowx
omaH.H oono.o coo.
m «a
moo—H43: HonHo>¢mmoo
Hmoonooo.ooo .zomz Haooo. ooHOH
HanmonH.ooo . ocean
.HonHNHH.Hn .zoox HsooH. zosmmmoou.
mmu<=om to saw
H~
Hoaaam :

N mMHm

amHmHmo «were 2. mmoooH¢<>

>4m13m 3 How

Ho.oooo m xHoszoo

.H no: H zo.¢m».¢u .a amHuomo.m4.H_¢¢>

 

 

Hoomo.o chno.°-. omo.o cons." ocHH.~. «HoHa.o omHoo.o. connonHa.o Hononono.o. oH zHogauuo

HooNH.o HH.HH.H oHo.H ~HHH.¢ oHHH.~ vaHH.= HoHno.H ow~ao~oo.o novoHooH.° oH gnaw
Hoo~o.o onHoo.o nooo.ov Hooo.on no-.o HooHo.o nHHHH.o voonomoo.o uHooHHno.o nH mroqu
HnHHH.H ~H~HH.H mooo.ov Hooo.HH uoH..o «HHHH.° «n'vH.o vaHoHooH.H owooonoo.a n moo
. Hmo.o vHHH.H «HoH.H. oHoHonoH.H oHcHHoos.o. H HzHHHzoo
ouHmouu Humou coco on an 9H m<Hmm no mHonmz mszHUHLHmoo no msz_uHuawou ¢<>
«a J.HH¢Hn mooamm .aHo «Hum maoomm .nHm onmmwuomx .
. HoHovooc.° HooH.° cowo.o HHHHJM Ho~H.H coco
mHHxHHmm so cooom a¢<azHHm com o . u coo H - x mm
a . women even wooHHoaz - oonH<>¢mmoo
\ Hog. Hnoonooo.ooo .zom: HaomH. HHHOH
.H..H.H~.H Hnoo anooovuo.Hoo . Hooxm
H.H..H. HH.H.HH .HHH.HH.HH . oHHHon.o.o~ .z.w: HsooH. zosmmmaowr
a.» L u¢.aoo zoo: zoamoaa go ems mmuoaam no zoo

ao.omu¢om¢.44¢¢m>o «at >OH

77

.onH.¢oH_ >om>m amHowaHmo mHssmmo
.Hw: zeoowH_¢u muz.u.g_ono

«a om
- mn~u :<u. >4n13m 2
omwwgma «memo z~ mmam<~¢<>

mNHm :(k HNH .x m<3 « zo—zm»_¢u »m awkwamo an<H¢<>

H©.coov w anzmmm¢

m mMHm

APPENDIX F

COUNTY IDENTIFICATION CODE

APPENDIX F

County Identification Code

 

Alcona
Alger
Allegan
Alpena
Antrim
Arenac
Baraga
Barry
Bay
Benzie
Berrien
Branch
Calhoun
Cass
Charlevoix
Cheboygan
Chippewa
Clare
Clinton
Crawford
Delta
Dickinson
Eaton
Emmet
Genesee
Gladwin
Gogebic
Grand Traverse
Gratiot
Hillsdale
Houghton
Huron
Ingham).
Ionia
Iosco
Iron
Isabella
Jackson
Kalamazoo
Kalkaska
Kent

78

M2
h3
ML
h5
h6
LL?
LLB

Keweenaw
Lake
Lapeer
Leelanau
Lenawee
Livingston
Luce
Mackinac
Macomb
Manistee
Marquette
Mason
Mecosta
Menominee
Midland
Missaukee
Monroe
Montcalm
Montmorency
Muskegon
Newaygo
Oakland
Oceans
Ogemaw
Ontonagon
Osceola
Oscoda
Otsego
Ottawa
Presque Isle
Roscommon
Raginaw
Sanilae
Sbhoolcraft
Shiawassee
St. Clair
St. Joseph
Tuscola
Van Buren
Washtenaw
Wayne
Wexford

SELECTED BIBLI OGRAPHY

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books and Periodicals

Cochran, William G. Sampling Technioues. New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., lQSZTw‘

 

El-Badry, M. A. "A Sampling Procedure for Mailed Ques-
tionnaires." Journal of American Statistical
Association, LI ClQSSI, p. 2O74227.

 

 

Moser, C. A. Survey Methods in Social Investigation.
London: Heinemann‘EducatfonaI'Books Ltd.,’l©58.

Selltiz, Claire. Research Methods in Social Relations.
New York: Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, 1967.

Public Documents and Reports

. The Marine Market. Chicago: Boating
Industry Association, AnnualEMarket Research
Notebook, 1967.

 

 

Chubb, Michael. Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan
by a System Analysis Approadh: Part III-The‘
Practical‘AppTicatIOn 6T TrProgram RECSYS" and
”SYMAP”. East Lansing: PDeparfment 0? Far? and
Regreation Resources, Michigan State University,
19 7.

 

Crapo, Douglas and Michael Chubb. Recreation Area Day-
Use Investigation Techniques. IEast Lansing:
RecreatiOn Research and Planning Unit, Department
of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State
University, Technical Report No. 6, 1969.

 

Michigan, Department of Conservation, Waterways Division.
Transportation Predictive Procedures-Recreational
Boating and Commercial Shipping. Lansing: State
Resource Planning Program, Michigan Department of
Commerce, Technical Report No. QC. idea

79

80

Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station:
LSDEL: Stepwise Deletion of Variables from a Least
Squares Equation. East Lansing: SfaEISEfcal Ser-
viEes DescripEIOn No. 8, 1969.

 

 

Michigan State University, Department of Resource Develop-
ment. Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study.
Lansing: State Resource Planning Program, Midhigan
Department of Commerce, Technical Report No. 6,
Volume II, 1966.

 

. Boating 196u — A Statistical Report on
AmericaTs Top Family Sport. New—York: National
AssociatIOn of Engine and‘Boat Manufacturers and
Outdoor Boating Club of America, 1965.

 

 

 

Other Sources

 

Jackson, Robert. "Differential Value of the Mailed Ques-
tionnaire and the Interview in aPFOTTow-up Study of
High School Graduates.w"Unpdb1f§hed Ph.D. disser:
tation, UnIVersity of Wisconsin, Madison, 1959.

 

 

 

Mandersheid, Lester. "An Introduction to Statistical
Hypothesis Testing?" ReGISed syIIabus fOr‘Agri-
cuItural_EconomICS, Department of Agricultural
Ecgnomics, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
l9 9.

 

 

Michigan Department of Conservation. Recreation Resource
Planning Division. "Michigan Lake Frontage 1965."
Unpublished Computer prifit out: Lansing, 19667

 

Shafer, Elwood L. "Effects of Sampling, Location, Period,
and Method on Camper SurveyIResElts.W‘FUnpfiinshed
Ph.D. dissertation, ColIEge of Forestry, Syracuse
University, Syracuse, 1966.

 

 

HICHIGRN STATE UNIV. LIBRRRIES

ll)!
7

3129310252

649