A STUDY OF THE DAY=USER AT SELECTED.
MICHIQAN STATE PARKS

Thesis Ior the Degree of M. A.
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
IULIA. HIDEGKUTI JONES
1969

IIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII II II II II III III II L

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF THE DAY-USER AT SELECTED
MICHIGAN STATE PARKS

BY

Julia Hidegkuti Jones

Leisure time, especially that part spent in out-
door recreation, has increased rapidly in the United
States. In recent years numerous recreation studies in
various fields have been undertaken, but few have been
concerned with those who use the park for a part of the
day (day-user) even though they constitute over three-
fourths of all outdoor recreationists in the parks. The
day-user, as contrasted to the camper, spends all or part
of a day within the park but does not stay over night.
This important and mobile group has remained an enigma
since they are difficult to question or investigate on
the park premises.

This thesis constitutes a description and analy-
sis of the day-user in three Michigan outdoor recreation
areas, Tawas Point State Park, Waterloo Recreation Area
(Big Portage Lake), and Holland State Park, which were
selected as "typical" of the entire state park system.

Questionnaires were distributed by park personnel in the

Julia Hidegkuti Jones

three test parks to systematically selected visitor groups
as they entered the parks. These groups completed the
forms and voluntarily deposited them at the exit. The
information obtained from the questionnaires was analyzed
on several levels: by complete or aggregate data, by a
division of parks, and by a distinction between day-users
and campers within a particular park. It was then pos-
sible to make generalizations about all park users and
about the differences and similarities between day-users
and campers and between parks.

The day-user attendance pattern was related to:
(1) travel distance to the park, by mileage and by county,
from the user's permanent residence; (2) the socio-economic
background of the park visitor based on age, occupation,
and total income of the head of the household; and (3)
the variable park use including frequency and duration
of park visits and the participation in different activi-
ties while in the park.

Special emphasis was placed upon the spatial as-
pects of park use in describing the hinterland of the
parks and in correlating travel distance, through chi
square analysis, with (1) total family income, (2) fre-
quency and duration of park visits, and (3) the number
of different activities participated in while at the park.

From the total analysis, it was possible to des-

cribe the day-user in some detail. The majority of the

 

 

day—users
traveling

reach the

on a ratio
total coun
model in t.‘
larly with

users were,
significant
daYS a year
Young, betw
longed to a
Of these fa;
Professionaj
average educ
When the day
a limited am
actiVities, .
expected the:

V .
adlng, IQIay

It wa
ddY‘USer's ho:
tionship basec
investigated.

greatest dist

Julia Hidegkuti Jones

day-users lived in close proximity to the park, generally
traveling either less than 100 miles, or two hours, to
reach the facilities. The hinterlands of the park, based
on a ratio of the number of visitor groups per county to
total county population, compared favorably to an idealized
model in that the proportion of use decreased fairly regu-
larly with increased distance from the park. The day-
users were, in general, not regular park visitors; yet a
significant number were repeaters who attended over 24
days a year. The sample group proved to be relatively
young, between the ages of five and twenty-five, and be-
longed to a middle or upper middle class family. The head
of these families was a relatively young male.who had a
professional or highly skilled occupation, an above
average education, and a better than average income.

When the day-user arrived at the park, he seemed to have

a limited amount of time or inclination to participate in
activities, averaging only 3.5 different activities. As
expected these activities were the ones most closely
associated with park attendance: swimming, sunbathing,
wading, relaxing, and picnicking.

It was found that the travel distance from the
day-user's home to the park did have a significant rela-
tionship based on chi square tests with those variables
investigated. The wealthier day-user traveled the

greatest distance to the park, while at closer distances

 

a more even
The frequen
ties also v
less than 5
more often
travel dist
tended less
and beyond
frequencies
approached
In
were Simila
noted; (1)
"55 Slight}
did not PIC
CamPer, in
ties while
tame trave
Correlatte s
nurbel. of
There was r
th’EEn traVe
cases, the:

Parks than

Julia Hidegkuti Jones

a more even distribution of income classes was represented.
The frequency of park use and number of different activi-
ties also varied with distance traveled. At distances
less than 50 miles from the park, the day-users attended
more often but participated in fewer activities. At
travel distances between 50 and 100 miles, the user at-
tended less often but engaged in more numerous activities
and beyond 100 miles the distribution of the observed
frequencies and the theoretically expected frequencies
approached a random pattern.

In most aspects the day-users and the campers
were similar although some significant differences were
noted: (1) the head of the household of the camper group
was slightly less educated and wealthy, (2) the camper
did not provide as many repeat visitors, and (3) the
camper, in general, participated in more numerous activi-
ties while in the park, the average being 5.5. The dis-
tance traveled by the campers to the park was found to
correlate significantly with frequency of use and the
number of activities, as occurred with the day-user.
There was no significant relationship found, however, be-
tween travel distance and total family income. In most
cases, there were more observable differences between
parks than between the two user groups at a particular

park.

 

Th
a beginninl
done in on
needed to I
what is ha}
and confirr
graphy and

policies fc

Julia Hidegkuti Jones

This paper represents, the author contends, just
a beginning stage of the growing research that is being
done in outdoor recreation. Research such as this is
needed to help: (1) provide an accurate description of
what is happening in outdoor recreation areas, (2) develop
and confirm basic principles and concepts both in geo-
graphy and in recreation, and (3) establish fruitful

policies for governmental and administrative agencies.

A STUDY OF THE DAY-USER AT SELECTED
MICHIGAN STATE PARKS

BY

Julia Hidegkuti Jones

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Geography

1969

 

This
Michigan Ste
the help anc
Um overall
inter-depar-
Of Michigan
he Departm
“he Coordl
abOUt the d
They Cooper
Partment of
VersitY (fc
Deve lopmem
day~USerS V
the Planni,
was decidec
nu technig

would b e m

or avalilab]
lnerefOIEa
accurate a1“

uf terial

G 533 A?
/(‘/22/r}9 “’7

P REFACE

This thesis concerning day-users within three
Michigan State Parks would not have been possible without
the help and cooperation of many people. The history of
the overall project itself is quite complex and involved
inter-departmental contacts. The personnel in the State
of Michigan, Department of Natural Resources (formerly
the Department of Conservation) and the Office of Plan-
ning Coordination recognized the importance of learning
about the day-users within the entire state park system.
They cooperated with, and supplied a grant to, the De-
partment of Parks and Recreation at Michigan State Uni-
versity (formerly a part of the Department of Resource
Development) in conducting a statewide analysis of the
day-users within all Michigan State Parks. But before
the planning of this statewide survey was completed, it
was decided that a more restricted study on the methodology
and techniques of gathering information from the day-users
would be more valuable since relatively little was known
or available about conducting valid recreation research.
Therefore, a procedure was designed and tested to provide
accurate and reliable data at the least expense in terms
of material and manpower. The final survey was limited

ii

to six state parks. In three of these parks, tests were
conducted on different survey techniques, questionnaire
formats, and dispersal-retrieval methods. In the other
three parks, a system approaching the original planned
study was tested to determine if reliable data could be
obtained under actual park conditions.- The data, acquired
at the latter three parks, Tawas Point, Waterloo, and
Holland State Parks, was used in this thesis.

The cooperation of the State of Michigan agencies
and their representatives connected with various aspects
of the study was most valuable. Special thanks are given
to the permanent and summer personnel of the test parks
for their assistance in conducting the survey in a profes-
sional and concerned manner.

The support, in terms of a summer (1968) graduate
assistantship, from the Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion, Michigan State University, was greatly appreciated.
Dr. Michael Chubb, Douglas Crapo, Ron Hodgson, and others
of the survey staff were congenial associates in the de-
velopment of the entire study and in the formulation of
this thesis. They provided untold assistance in the cod-
ing, programming, and computer analysis of the data. Also,
this staff helped greatly in providing ideas for the draft
of this paper.

During the period of writing and thesis prepara-

tion numerous people aided my progress. The author is

iii

 

 

deeply indeI
Research Bu:
to their fa<
coffeepot, (
Dr. James O.
valuable con
direction.

offered valu
cern and bac
preciated.

of my husbanI
0f the first

diffiCUlt to

deeply indebted to the personnel of the Social Science
Research Bureau of Michigan State University for access
to their facilities, desk, typewriter, calculator, and
coffeepot, during the writing stage. Many thanks go to
Dr. James 0. Wheeler, as thesis advisor, who provided
valuable comments and criticisms as well as appreciated
direction. Dr. Harold A. Winters, as second reader,
offered valuable criticism and guidance. Parental con-
cern and backing throughout the endeavor were most ap-
preciated. Finally, without the aid and understanding
of my husband, David, who provided a thorough critique
of the first drafts, this thesis would have proved most

difficult to complete.

iv

 

Chapter

I. THE

II. THE

N, pm

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM AND BACKGROUND . . . . . . .

Previous Research in Park Use . . .
Factors Significant to
Recreation Choice . . . . . .
Research and Methods in the
Field of Recreation . . . . .
Geographical Research in
Recreation . . . . . . . . . .
The Need for Continued Research . .
Use of Michigan State Parks . . . .
The Statement of Purpose . . . . . .

II 0 THE STUDY DESIGN 0 O O O O O O O O C O .

Survey Deve10pment . . . . . . . . .
Choice of Survey Method . . . .
The Questionnaire . . . . . . .
Questionnaire Validation . . . .
Implementation of the Questionnaire
Park Selection . . . . . . . . .
Procedures in the Parks . . . .
Interview Phase . . . . . . . .
Questionnaire Analysis . . . . . . .

III. PARK ATTENDANCE RELATED TO DISTANCE . .

County of Permanent Residence . . .
Distance Traveled to the Parks . . .
Conclusions and Generalizations . .

IV. PARK ATTENDANCE RELATED TO SOCIO-
ECONOMIC STATUS O O C O C C O C O O C

Group Characteristics . . . . . . .
Socio-Economic Characteristics . . .
Occupation . . . . . . . . . . .
Education . . . . . . . . . . .
Income . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusions and Generalizations . .

Page

12
15
16
18

20

20
21
22
23
25
25
27
28
29

33
35
45
48
51
52
54
55
56

63

 

Chapter

V. PAP.

 

 

 

VI. CON:

BIBLIOGRAPII

APPENDICES

Chapter

V. PARK ATTENDANCE RELATED TO PARK USE

VI.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

APPENDICES

Number of Days of Park Use
The Type and Number of Activities
Conclusions and Generalizations

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

vi

Page
66
66
74
81

84

93
100

 

Table

10.

ll.

12.

14.

Samp.

 

 

 

 

 

Numbe
rem
T as
Pa:
ReprI
gr.

DlSt
co

Mile

Time
Pop.

Des

OCC

Edl

Fe.

Co

Table

1.

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Sample park designation . . . . . . . . .

Number of questionnaires handed out,
returned, and judged complete within
Tawas Point, Waterloo, and Holland
Parks, including interview data . . . .

Representation of the three test parks in
the survey (based on the number of
groups participating in activities) . .

Distribution of park use: Michigan
counties and non-Michigan residents . .

Miles traveled to the three test parks .

Time spent traveling to the park:
campers and day-users, total sample . .

Population representation by age
categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Description of the visiting groups . . .

Age of the head of the household of the
vehicle's driver . . . . . . . . . . .

Occupational classification . . . . . . .

Education levels: national and sample
data for head of household . . . . . .

Percentage variation in education of
park users, by years of schooling of
the head of the household . . . . . . .

Comparisons of family income levels . . .

Percentage variation in income levels
at the test parks . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

Page
26

30

31

44

46

48

53

53

54

55

57

58

61

62

 

Table

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Days
sy'

Perc:
of

PerCo
V15
str

Relat
of
the

Perce
bet
tes

Perce
act
Pop

Relat
of
Squ

 

Table

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Days of reported use of various park
systems, total sample . . . . . . . .

Percentage variation in number of days
Of park use 0 O O O O O O I C O O C 0

Percentage variation of the number of
visits at variable distances from the
state park, total sample . . . . . .

Relationship of distance and the number
of days of park use, computed with
the chi square test . . . . . . . . .

Percentage variation in activities
between campers and day-users at the
test parks . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Percentage variation of the number of
activities reported by the sample
population . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Relationship of distance and the number

of activities, computed with the chi
square test . . . . . . . . . . . . .

viii

Page

67

69

71

72

75

77

79

Map

1.

Michigan state parks and recreation

areas

LIST OF MAPS

Visitor groups - sample parks . .

Michigan county population . . . .

Visitor

Visitor
Area

Visitor

groups

groups

groups

Tawas Point State Park

Waterloo Recreation

Holland State Park

ix

Page

24
36
37

40

41
42

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM AND BACKGROUND

Outdoor recreation has become an integral part of
the leisure pattern in the United States. In 1960 outdoor
recreation accounted for 3.5 percent of total national
leisure time and is expected to reach 10 percent of that
total by the year 2000.1 The actual number of visits to
all major outdoor recreation areas has increased by an
average of 10 percent annually since World War 11.2 This
rapidly expanding use of recreational facilities is pre-
dicated upon a growing population, increased leisure time,
larger real incomes, and greater mobility.

One of the largest providers of facilities for
outdoor recreation is the nationwide state park system,

which during 1966 accommodated an estimated 425 million

visitors.3 "In recent years Visits to state parks on a

 

1Marion Clawson, "How Much Leisure, Now and in the
Future," Leisure in America: Blessing or Curse?, (Phila-
delphia: The American Academy of Political and Social
Science, 1964), p. 14.

2Theodore G. Enger and B. Ross Guest, "The Response
of a State Park to Demand for Recreation: Yankee Springs,
Michigan," The Professional Geographer, Vol. 20, No. 3,
(May, 1968)] p0 17]..

3

 

Ibid.

per acre basis have averaged more than fifteen times the
average rate of national parks and 100 times the average
rate of use of national forests."4 In light of this popu-
larity, it is reasonable to predict a continued and grow-
ing demand for the facilities now provided by state parks.

State park visitors may be divided into two groups:
campers and day-users. Camper characteristics have been
relatively easy to gather since registration for an over-
night stay is mandatory and pertinent information can be
collected at that time. In contrast, the day-user (a
visitor who does not stay overnight within the park) has
remained an enigma, although generally considered to
represent more than 75 percent of the total park users.
The day-user is part of a highly mobile, elusive group and
can not be easily stopped or questioned since use of the
recreation area for a day or part of a day does not require
formal registration. Due to the numerical superiority of
this group, however, it is essential to know more about
the day-user for the understanding of, and planning for,
total park use.

The purpose of this paper is to describe and
analyze the characteristics of the day-user, his place of
residence, his social class, and his outdoor activities

while in sample Michigan State Parks. In addition,

 

Ibid.

 

various day-user traits will be compared with those of the
camper, in an attempt to locate significant differences
and similarities. The basic data for this analysis was
obtained from a study conducted by the Park and Recreation
Department of Michigan State University for, and in coop-
eration with, the State of Michigan Department of Natural
Resources. The general study was designed primarily to
establish the best methodology for gathering information
about the day-user. The following analysis is one of
several possible in-depth studies which could be derived

from the contracted study.

Previous Research in Park Use

 

Few tested methods exist for conducting park re-
search. Because recreation is a relatively new field, a
limited number of substantive studies have been made on
which to base an investigation of park user characteristics.
In addition, the research has been done in widely separate
fields by peOple interested in specialized aspects of out-
door participation.

Factors Significant to
Recreation Choice

 

 

The interaction between age, socio-economic status
and available leisure time is important in the choice of
recreational activities. The choice of leisure activities,

based largely on membership in a particular social class,

begins in adolescence and becomes more pronounced in
maturity. "As people get older and settle into the ways
of the class in which they belong, they choose leisure
activities which are congenial to their class."5
The age distribution of the population is important
since the "amount and type of recreation one pursues is
related to his age."6 A rather obvious but important ob-
serVation results: the older person most often engages in
passive activities while the younger person tends to par-
ticipate in more active past-times. The median age of the
total United States population is decreasing producing a
more youthful population. At the same time the average
United States life span has continued to lengthen from 48
years in 1900 to 65.5 years in 1950, and is estimated to
increase to 73-5 years by the year 2000.7
The type of activity also depends on when and how

much leisure is available. "By the year 2000, the total

population may well spend 33 percent of its time in leisure

 

5R. Clyde White, "Social Class Differences in the
USe of Leisure," Mass_Leisure, ed. Eric Larrabee and Rolf
Meyersohn, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1958), p.
200. '

 

6Douglas H. Sessoms, "New Basis for Recreation
Planning," Parks and Recreation, Vol. 48, (January, 1965),
p. 17. I . ,

7Marion Clawson, Land and Water for Recreation,
(Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), p. 2.

 

activities."8 The actual amount of leisure time has in-
creased, due in large part to the deCrease in the average
length of the work-week, from 60.2 hours per week in 1900,

9 If and

to 43.4 hours in 1940 and to 39.7 hours in 1960.
when a shorter work week becomes universal, its scheduling
will influence the choice of outdoor recreational activi-
ties. With shorter work days one might expect, for exam-
ple, more activities in yards, more picnics in nearby
parks and more driving for pleasure. Shortened work weeks
could mean longer weekends which might provide opportuni-
ties for more time at beaches and lakes, greater partici-
pation in hunting and fishing, and more visits to scenic
areas within an easily reached distance. Transcontinental
tours and stops at historic sites and scenic areas would
increase with longer vacations.lo
Social class has a direct relationship to leisure
activities, although children.and adolescents are less
aware of or habituated to social class behavior than those

11

eighteen or older. Two indicators of social class are

 

81bid., p. 4.

9Raleigh Barlow and Milton H. Steinmueller, "Trends
in Outdoor Recreation," A Placejto Live - Yearbook of Agri-
culture - 1963, (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department 0
Agriculture, Government Printing Office, 1963), p. 299.

10

 

Barlow and Steinmueller, 9p. cit., p. 301.

11White, op, cit., p. 200.

total family income and the education level of the head of
the family. "Total participation in outdoor recreation
generally rises as the educational level of the partici-

12 With increasing education, one is exposed

pant rises."
to a larger number of recreation possibilities and tends
to conform to the recreational choice of social class
peers. Income serves as another indicator of recreational
choice. There is "scattered evidence to suggest that par-
ticipation in outdoor recreation rises as family income
increased up to some middle income level; after this there
are no further increases, and decreases often take place."13
As the median family income rises, from $3,031 in 1949 to
$7,436 in 1966, and as it continues to rise, a correspond-
ing increase in disposable income can be expected, permit-
ing people to pursue more and varied recreation activities
and to travel both greater distances and more frequently.14
The influence of social class on recreation choice

may be decreasing, however. The use of advanced advertis-

ing techniques in magazines and newspapers and on radio

12Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of
OutdoorlRecreation, published for Resources for the Future,
Inc., (Baltimore, Maryland: Johns Hopkins Press, 1966)
p. 111.

13

 

 

Ibid., p. 127.

14United States, Department of Commerce, Statis-
tical Abstract - 1968, 89th ed., (Washington, D.C.: Gov-
ernment Printing Office, 1968), p. 324.

 

and television has in many ways made the varied possibili-
ties open to all. Another equalizing factor is increasing
mobility. The comparative ease in transportation through
the family car, or cars, helps explain the tenfold national
increase in the miles traveled per person since 1900.15
With overall rising incomes, outings can be more numerous
and farther from the place of residence. The individual
can now temporarily adjust his environment to find suit-
able recreational activities.

Research and Methods in the
Field of Recreation

 

Most of the existing data on recreational use has
been indifferently collected, difficult to assess, and al-
most impossible to compare, although recently there has
been a concerted effort to "measure actual use of outdoor

recreation facilities."16

Many previous recreational
studies have been of a survey nature, compiling statistics
on the number of facilities, potential resources, attend-

ance, or maintenance expenditures.

 

15Marion Clawson, Statistics on Outdoor Recrea-
tion, (Washington, D.C.: Resources fOr the Future, Inc.,

_)'1958 , p. 12.

16Daniel M. Ogden, "The Role of Research in the
Federal and State Recreation Services," Recreation Re-
search, (Washington, D.C.: American Association for
HeaItH, Physical Education and Recreation, 1966), p. 28.

Examples of specific recreational studies are not
entirely lacking, however. As early as 1935, Iowa park
administrators felt a need to conduct a survey at several
major state parks for the "determination of the distribu-
tion and development of these areas and the protection of
the natural assets which they contain."17 The results of
the survey gave the Iowa State Planning Commission some
indication of the age range of park users, the hourly at-
tendance figures, the origins of the users, and the rela-
tionship between daily weather conditions and park use.
Although this information proved highly useful, few inves-
tigations of a similar nature appear.

In 1958 the United States Congress authorized the
creation of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com-
mission which had as goals the determination of the out-
door recreation wants and needs of the American people,
the recreation resources of the Nation available to satisfy
those needs, and the policies and programs which should be
recommended to ensure that the needs of the present and

future are adequately and efficiently met.18 One of the

 

17Iowa, State Planning Board, Recreation and His-
toric Division, Survey Methods Manual of Recreation Facil-
ities in Iowa, (Iowa, 1937), p. 4.

18United States, Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission, Outdoor Recreation For America, (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 2.

 

 

 

 

investigations, the National Recreation Survey, was under-
taken by the Bureau of the Census. Approximately 16,000
persons were questioned concerning their economic status,
their present outdoor recreation, their desires for dife
ferent facilities, and their reasons for not participating
when the facilities are available. Among the many results
of this survey are that: 1) simple activities are the
most pOpular, 2) outdoor opportunities are most urgently
needed near metrOpolitan areas, 3) water is a focal point
of outdoor recreation, 4) outdoor recreation brings about
economic benefits to an area, and 5) outdoor recreation is
a major leisure time activity and is gaining in impor*
tance.19 Twenty-seven detailed reports and a comprehensive
final report were published giving the conclusions of the
various investigations. The commission's findings not only
summarized the work to that time but spurred future and
continuing studies.

Limited research related to recreation has been
conducted by colleges and universities, by local community
organizations and by state and federal agencies. In spite
of this research activity

only since about 1960 have professional recreation
practitioners and recreation educators become vitally
interested in research as an undergirding and vital

aspect of recreation and park services. Only recently
has there been a real interest in studying the effect

 

l9rbid., pp. 3-4.

10

of recreation upon individuals, the impact of leisure
upon society and the contribution of organized research
to meeting community and individual needs--and in
utilizing research to develop more effective opera-
tional procedures and in participating in interdisci-
plinary research endeavors.

Current investigation concerning park use deals
with methods of obtaining greater accuracy in attendance
counts, determining the activities of the visitors, speci-
fying user preference and satisfaction, and interpreting
the behavioral characteristics of park users.21

One organization which has produced significant
work has been the U.S. Forest Service. Its administrators
have become increasingly aware 0f the need to learn about
the visitors to the areas under their management. The
number of visitors has become so great that it is necessary
to develOp sampling procedures to obtain the desired data.
A convenient way of determining a sample population is to
employ readily available lists of some total population,
i.e., all persons who apply for a specific license, or the
registration lists of campers. In this method every nth
entry, based either on systematic or random sampling pro-

cedure, becomes part of the sample population and is

questioned.

 

, 20"Foreword," Recreation Research, (Washington,
D.C.: American Association for Health, Physical Education
and Recreation, 1966).

21Leslie M. Reid, "Utilizing User Preferences in
Predicting Outdoor Recreation Demand," Recreation Research,
p. 86.

 

11

Another sampling method employs a grid system
which is superimposed over a selected area or park. Those
people found in randomly selected areas of the grid are
then questioned. This technique was used by D. King in
choosing those campers which he interviewed during his
successive visits to Huron-Manistee National Forest. In
this way any bias in favoring one particular campsite or
group of campers in the analyzed data was avoided.22

All or a portion of users can be sampled as they
are engaged in an activity or as they leave the park area.
This method was used successfully to determine use of both
the Quetico-Superior area and the Ocala National Forest.23
A modification of this procedure proved useful in an inves-
tigation of the relationship between the use of a particu-
lar facility in a park and total park attendance. By

establishing a ratio for one park, it was planned to esti-

mate the use of similar facilities in different parks by

 

22United States, Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Characteristics of Family Camoers Using the Huron-
‘ManistegNational Forest, by David A. King, (Washington,
D.C.: Government Printing Office, Forest Service Research
Paper LS - 19, September, 1965).

23United States, Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Recreation Use of the Quetico-Superior Area, by
Robert C. Lusas, (Washington, D.C.: Forest Serv1ce Re-
search Paper LS - 8, April, 1964).

 

 

 

 

knowing or
though thi
much work,

Pa
of learnin
most studi
informatio
the day-us
Geo ra hie;

ReI
whiCh exis:
Although ‘12}
today, The
recreation

12

knowing only the attendance figures for that park.24 Al-

though this system would relieve park administrators of
much work, it did not prove successful.

Park administrators seem aware of the importance
of learning about the total park using populationzs, but
most studies are concerned with techniques of collecting
information about campers. Few investigations have treated
the day-users as an important group.

Geographical Research in
Recreation

 

 

Recreational geography is a "relatively new field,
which existing literature covers in scanty fashion."26
Although this statement was made in 1954, it is still true
today. The primary interest of geographers in outdoor

recreation has been in its contribution to the economy of

a region, with emphasis given to tourist attractions.

 

24United States, Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Instructions for Using Traffic Counters to Esti-
'mate Recreation Visits and Use, by George A. James and
Thomas H. Ripley, (Ashville, North Carolina: Forest Serv-
ice Research Paper SE-3, 1963).

25United States, Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, Relationship Between Visitor Characteristics and
Recreation Activities on Two National Forest Areas, by Alan
J. Wagar, (Washington, D. C.: Forest Service Research
Paper NE-7, 1963).

26K. C. McMurry, "Recreational Geography," Ameri-
can Geography - Inventory and Prospect, ed. Preston James
and Clarence F. Jones, (Syracuse, New York: The Associa-
tion of American Geographers, 1954), p. 252.

 

 

13

Because of this interest, recreation has been considered a
branch of economic geography.

Most investigations have dealt with the monetary
benefits which would accrue to an area through increased
tourist traffic. Case studies showing the benefits from
the development of the tourist industry in various loca-

27

tions were presented by E. Prophet in 1947. Few studies

however, have concentrated upon small areas but rather
treated recreation on the county or regional level.28
In addition to dealing with the economic impact on
an area, some studies have focused on the hinterland of a
tourist facility. Wolf was interested in summer cottage
owners in Ontario and their principal place of residence.29
Comparisons between an idealized hinterland and the actual

hinterland of two tourist attractions showed that although

the concept of a hinterland is valid, existing conditions

 

27Edward C. Prophet, "The Tourist and Resort
Industry," Annual Report of the Michigan Academy of
Science, Arts and Letters, (1947). PP. 141-151.

28George F. Deasy, "The Tourist Industry of a
'North Woods' County," Economic Geography, Vol. 25,
(1949), pp. 290-306. See also Roland B. Greeley, "Part
Time Farming and Recreational Land Use in New England,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 18, (1942), pp. 145-152.

29Roy I. Wolfe, "Summer Cottagers in Ontario,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 27, (1951), pp. 10-32.

 

 

 

 

 

14

30

do much to modify the idealization. The origin of the

tourist is important in both of these papers but the actual
characteristics of the visitors were not.

While most investigations in recreation geography
have been concerned with outdoor recreation in terms of
tourist attractions, some are interested in park use. One
article reported on the recreation demand of a state park,
but the emphasis was not on the park user so much as on

the facilities found in the park and suggestions for their

31

improvement. A study which did deal with the character-

istics of the National Park user was reported by D. Volk:

Various recreation areas exhibit different character-
istics with regard to the numher and type of recrea-
tionists who utilize the facilities. . . . attendance
data from several National Parks [was] investigated to
determine how far people are willing to travel to dif-
ferent recreation areas, and what effect certain social
and geographical factors have on intensity of use.

The distance between the recreation area and the place
of residence of the potential recreationist is found
to be the most importnat factor affecting intensity of
use. The income-urbanization factor is found to be
second in importance but considerably less important
than distance. Some insight is also gained into the
effect of the quality of the recreation resource and
the availability of alternative recreational oppor-
tunity.32

 

30George F. Deasy and Phyllis R. Griess, "Impact of
a Tourist Facility on Its Hinterland," Annals of the Asso-

ciation of American Geographers, Vol. 56, No. 2, (June,
1966). PP. 290-306.

31Enger and Guest, 92, cit., pp. 171-176.

32Donald J. Volk, "Factors Affecting Recreation Use
of National Parks," abstract, Annals ofithe Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 55, No. 4, (December, 1965), p.
653}

15

In most respects it is the economic geographer who
is interested in outdoor recreation, although the popula-
tion geographer has become interested in the phenomenon
of traveling for leisure. "Travel for leisure in developed
countries means vast movements of population and has major
influences upon regional economies and population distribu-

33 As increased interest is placed upon the recrea-

tion."
tionist, important insights into our mobile society should

be forthcoming.

The Need for Continued Research

 

Information about the park user is too limited in
most cases to be extremely helpful. Even the available
data is often based upon estimates and is mainly about
campers. It seems apparent that reliable, specific data
about day-users would be useful in many respects.

Detailed and pertinent information could be used
by park administrators and planners in improving park
facilities or in allocating monies for the most benefit.
Accurate data would be an aid in budget preparation to
substantiate requests for capital and operating appropri-
ations. The data could also be incorporated into the state

wide recreation plan. Data, collected over an extended

 

33John I. Clark, Population Geography, (New York:
Pergamon Press, 1965), p. 131.

 

16

period of time could delineate trends in park use and
provide a sound planning base for future projects.
There is clearly a need for factual data on which
hypotheses, theories, concepts, principles, and other
meaningful generalizations may be based, both by geograph-
ers and others.
The goal of geography is the codification of relation-
ships between objects . . . in earth space. Attention
is focused on economic or social relations promoting
tangible interchange as measured by flow of goods or
people, trade areas, or regional grouping, . . .
The basic assumptions [in a geography of spatial in-
teraction] are: l) the closer things are in space the
closer are their relationships, or 2) that there are
definite categories of spatial relations not following
the proximity rule, but exhibiting degrees of inter-
connection in response to varying degrees of spatial
complementarity and mobility. 4

The investigation of the park user, especially the day-user,

and his relationship with the park could indeed develop and

confirm basic principles and concepts and establish the

foundation for fruitful policies.
Use of Michigan State Parks

The Michigan Department of Resource Development
recognized a lack of knowledge concerning the users of

their state park system. "Great steps forward have already

 

34Edward L. Ullman, "Geographical Prediction and
Theory: The Measure of Recreation Benefits in the Meramec
Basin," Problems and Trends in American Geography, ed.
Saul B. Cohen, (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1937). P.
128.

 

17

been taken in gathering data on Michigan State Park camp-

35 but little progress had been made with

ground users,"
the large number of day-users. The department officials,
therefore, initiated and funded a study in cooperation with
the Department of Parks and Recreation at Michigan State
University to determine the best method of obtaining ac-
curate and reliable information about the day-user in the

36 A staff was assembled and given the task

state parks.
of developing a survey methodology within the Michigan
State Parks. Questionnaires and techniques for their im-
plementation were tested in selected parks to find the one
method which would produce the greatest amount of day-user
response. It was hoped that the finalized survey method
would provide a year-round system for collecting data in
the parks. (The data collected during one phase of the

study has been used in this paper for describing day-user

characteristics.)

35Michigan Department of Conservation, Recreation
Ikesource Planning Division. Outdoor Recreation Planning
13;.Michigan by a Systems Anaiysis Approach. By J. B.
Efillis, (Lansing, Michigan, 1966), p. 13.

36For a complete and detailed accounting of the
study consult: Douglas M. Crapo, Recreation Area "Day-
gse" Investigation Techniques: A Study of Survey Method-
glpgy Within Michigan State Parks, M.S. thesis, Department
of Resource DevelOpment, Michigan State University, 1969.

18

The Statement of Purpose

 

The main objective of this paper is to analyze
geographically selected characteristics of Michigan State
Park day-users. Special attention is placed upon distance
factors and the socio~economic background of the park users
and generalizations about the park use pattern are formu-
lated. Specific questions investigated are:

1. Are the hinterlands of the sample parks limited

and describable?

2. Does the greatest proportion of use come from
areas in proximity to the park or from the
areas with high population concentrations?

3. Are all socio-economic classes, based on educa-
tion and income, represented in the park inde-
pendent of distance traveled from the place of
residence?

4. Does the park user residing near the park visit
it more frequently and participate in a greater
number of activities than do individuals who
live at greater distances?

The day-user population is compared to the camper
‘population in various aspects: 1) location of permanent
residence or origin, based on the number of miles traveled
to the park and the county of permanent residence; 2)

I O 0 i . 0 O
socuo-economic background of the users 1nclud1ng occupation,

19

education, and total income derived from questions directed
to the head of the household; 3) frequency or duration of
visits to the sample parks; and 4) the number and type of
group activities while in the park.

The distance factor is especially important in a
geographical analysis. Much has been written about dis-
tance factors and their importance in describing the inter-
actions between groups.37 Searching for better understand-
ing between the relationship of distance traveled by park
users and their patterns of park attendance, correlations
will be made with income class, the frequency or duration
of park visits, and the number of different activities
which are participated in while in the park.

The type of analysis which will be attempted will
provide: 1) a description of the hitherto enigmatic day-
user and his behavior in the park, 2) day-user-camper dif-
ferences and similarities, and 3) an indication of the
effect of travel distances on the sample park users. This
investigation should be useful to park personnel and plan-
ners and should clarify and describe previously unknown
characteristics of the day-user. In addition, the study
should indicate some of the contributions recreation geog-

raphy can make toward the study of outdoor recreation.

 

37Gunner Olsson, Distance and Human Interaction:
A Review and Bibliography, Bibliography Séries, No. 2,
(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Regional Science Research
Institute, 1965).

 

 

CHAPTER II

THE STUDY DESIGN

A data collection system was designed to gather
information about day—users in the Michigan State Parks.
Since little was known about methods for questioning the
day-user, appropriate survey techniques were formulated
and tested under actual park conditions. Once a suitable
system was established, it could be initiated in all state
parks in order to obtain information about the complete
spectrum of state park users.

The development of the study was a cooperative
endeavor between state park officials and personnel hired
by the Department of Parks and Recreation of Michigan
State University and funded by the State. The following
will be a brief description of survey techniques and
their implementation and testing. The data that will be
analyzed later in this paper was gathered from the

finalized survey.

Survey Development

 

Appropriate survey techniques were investigated
in order to select the method most adaptable to the re-

quirements and limitations imposed by the study. Among

20

21

the important restricting factors were: limited funds

and a lack of trained park personnel to carry out the sur-
vey within the parks. The technique chosen, as described
below, was judged to be the most economical and efficient,
i.e., the one yielding the greatest number of responses

per unit cost.

Choice of Survey Method

 

The personal interview is usually judged to be
the most reliable and realistic survey method. Confusing
questions can be explained, non-acceptable responses can
be eliminated, greater depth can be obtained, and a high
percentage of useable information can be gathered. There
are shortcomings, however, which include the introduction
of interview bias, a reluctance of the interviewee to
answer personal questions, and the high cost of personnel
trained to interview.

Direct observation of recreation behavior to
gather impressions of a group and its participation in
activities is a less structured method than the personal
interview. Behavioral patterns are observed and recorded
as they occur, thus eliminating inaccuracies of recall.
This technique is most useful for small groups and for
specialized activities.

The most frequently employed method of obtaining

information from large numbers of people is the use of

22

questionnaires. Most questionnaires require little skill
to administer, are relatively inexpensive, are standardized,
provide minimum disruption, and allow for anonymity among
the respondants. The major difficulties of this approach
are in composing concise,_unambiguous questions and in
motivating peOple to respond. For the proposed study the
advantages of this method considerably outweighed its

disadvantages.

The Questionnaire

 

Preparation and implementation of a suitable ques-
tionnaire was a difficult task. Numerous meetings were
held to formulate the various ideas and opinions of the
park officials and the survey staff into a satisfactory,
workable product. A prototype questionnaire was finally
designed to combine motivational appeal, clear questions,
and a pleasant appearance (Appendix A). Questions were
formulated to provide the state park officials with de-
sired information, i.e., questions concerning the socio-
economic background of the park-user, his place of resi-
dence, and his activities while in the park. Some specific
items requested by park officials were:

1. Group composition--individuals, families, or
group of friends.

2. Number, age and sex of vehicle occupants.

3. Occupation, age, sex, and years of education of

the head of family or vehicle driver.

23

4. Total family income (previous year).

5. Type and the number of activities and the time
Spent participating in each.

6. Time of park entry and length of visit.

7. Frequency of visits during the year.

8. Origin of group--town or city, county, state and
zip code.

9. Reason for the visit.

10. Suggestions for park improvement.

Qgestionnaire Validation

 

In three parks, Dodge Brother's No. 4 State Park,
Pinckney Recreation Area, and Harrisville State Park (Map
1), tests were conducted to find a suitable questionnaire
format and method of dispersal and retrieval which would
overcome the problem of non-response. Testing periods
included both low-use week days and high-use weekends
during July and August, 1968.. Among the variables tested
were: weight and color of paper stock, the use of a slotted
hole for ease of hanging on the dashboard, mail-back and
voluntary deposit retrieval methods, and differences in
question content, format and order (Appendix B). During
each test, a quantity of questionnaires, identical except
for differences in the test variables, were collated and
sent to the parks for dispersal. The questionnaire type

with the greatest return was designated as being the most

24

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS

 

,2”. _,v _,, F
/ [Akf .
- x
_ -~ 0 1‘ 502367909 e
"" ”v I ""‘ x e
r" I . 7 .. -I ‘
L._‘ VF' ' 7-! 1‘ ,.. A v ,
\ ‘ 51 ‘ I 'O ‘ ' ' o. I ‘
\\ ~ ~-_‘_-_-_, 1 — r_-_. _I I \ I
.. 1.... . , -» . . . ~\( ,
\-. ' I . I ,' I . . LANADA
\-. '__ a W '
\~L O f
\“V‘\ I I
s r-‘ I‘
"‘nJ I
C
3' 0.;
1’") n
\ .
,
_. f r
LEGEND
I % V, -
I , . I I . .
I ems USED IN resrmc ' 13 I: -O ' I ' I
A courmuous sunvav § “‘I’_’_‘I'—*'_-"“‘j—‘"f"“
svsrtu _ l I0 . 0 I
I, " O I O I O I rAIIVAs Pomr ,
A PARKS useo m rssrmc 4’ " ’I—‘T‘F"|_I’_"_'“* .'_-I_.. ,.
ouesnomunes . I . Oi : .
’l " ' I I . hat 0 . A
O Lourmorsm’e mans , ,-_I-__t_-__'___I_9A-_I ,
mo «murmurs» ' I I I I ~ I I
I . | I I ’ ‘— -----
I L O ‘ I
’ ‘ '- O L ~—- L, _L -~—4l 1-5--1 I 1
" ‘u (o I... O I I I I
' I '0 "Iri— 1 - I iLI‘r— 1" I
\a , -_, ‘ '— I,_ H.
I I HOLLAND r‘“ I— “ I“"‘1 I | '1
I I ' I
I I I I I I I L...
., . - I
I I __.I-_. _1_I--L_T.I.-_I.._.rO—OO—I I
WISCONSIN I ;. I | I I O I I
---_ .‘ . ' . ' . Io A '0 o
ILLINOIS ' ‘ I0 I IPINCKNEY 001—0 DODGE N04 '
. I —.;._-_.I-._li_.L_.- TL_.-_L”. __ l-.__-.l_._-’ I
I 1 I I ‘
I / . J P WATERLOOd I CANADA
a I F"‘-"“I““I*“p L /
. _' I}. l I l I I I ./' i (
‘\ V. .. --—--J_-- _J--____;____ _j I i f 4*
: . ___.h.————- —- 6:9
I INDIANA Iowa 46
II I K

SOURCE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

 

 

 

Map l

 

 

24

 

 

 

 

MICHIGAN STATE PARKS AND RECREATION AREAS

 

.1 . I [AXE
I.
fl .- O_ I UPE‘VOIO
”‘ "' I I "" ‘K
r . “I I“. I -
I._ '- I r' 1‘ ~ w I
, ' . f N I
.__"| I , O -
\\ O« .‘___ L_~__JO \_ r-_ -l s I ,
.‘\“ -~ . ‘- I I I I . \‘ CANADA
\~~ ; * ““ . I L—-— —t- \‘ ~ -
\L o I '__J_____,_ . ~_ ..... _. ~ ‘ M
\-_¢-‘ I ‘ I I0 I, W L] K «a w.
—~ ‘—‘ —-r-‘ I f , .
r" H II .-~ - . . ~~ g: PO
|_\“-J' . I > . ; \ 3
z '- "’- O ” b
‘- k , O \
’3 O 2 I l O i ' .
It") '1 r 1 u 0 0x .
I. , r r' - T" b _ __ -
\r’ K / I -3 , -_I_ I .1
/ —'—"" ' c
~ f IJ / I 5 .I ‘D
.7 \ I . O
LEGEND I __ IQ . L 2
§ ' T“ o ' I O ' I I
\ g 0 I HAR'RISVILLE ,
I PARKS USED IN resrme a? ‘ . 4 I I AI
A courmuous sunvev .r S , "I‘m ,'— 7‘0'“‘l—‘ "7"“ '
sveru I, . I I . O I
_ .I O I O . O I TAWAS POINT _
A PARKS USEDINTESTING -w—-_-I——-I_r--l-_.-.__ _l_ ,
OUEsnOMIAIREs . I . 0- i - ,.
I' t , I “—i V .
. I I I . O I L , . \
O Loaroouorsrare Imus , I,-_I-__-'__-_'_-_I___.-- . ’ .
m RECREATIONAREAS ' I I I I . I I
1. . I I L‘ . t I A
r ""—J O r—-— L— —-‘ 1“- I ‘
1 3 ' “T " ‘7-" “
f Q Q I C) l I I ' I
( é \ '—--I---‘~—-—I I 'L T'Ifi
I “ I, -—JFI ' . . ‘r—- - I_ I—---' E
I I HOLLAND I— _'I_'— ‘ “‘“I I I '2
I I ' '
I I I I I I I L
. . - - “' I
I I -——_I- -.L_-'--L__Y_I..'I_¢O—CO_1. I I
WISCONSIN I 4' . T I . I 0‘ IO
—-- .‘ I I ' u .
ILLINOIS '_ I0 I ;PINCKNEY 0&0 0006. no.4 ‘
-__.; __|- .I- . L_.__ —r~k'—-" - | —— '- — -L—- I ‘2’}
I 'J 1 ' I ‘
I , . . .l P WATERLOO I I CANADA
\ I I---.—---r~---r--—*o°‘- I .1 /
I. .. ‘ ' _ ‘ v.1 ‘
I. _ I. l I I I I I .1 (4
. ._ _. --—--J_-- ._I--__---'_-_ _j i T the.
i INDIANA IE”; T—"_' ‘ ’94“
II 3 L

g E a gown
SCALE:

SOURCE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION

 

 

 

 

Map l

 

25

acceptable or "best." By incorporating the most success-
ful variables, a final questionnaire and implementation
method were developed which would theoretically provide
the greatest response. The questionnaire in this case

had the following features: (1) a pencil supplied with.
it, (2) printed on heavy blue card stock without a slotted
hole, (3) would have a predominance of closed structured
questions and (4) would be handed out at the park entrance

and voluntarily deposited at the exit.

Implementation of the Questionnaire

 

Implementation of a data collection system within
actual park conditions was restricted by the time, funds,
and trained personnel allotted to the study. Tests of
this system were conducted during the same two month
period as the questionnaire validation phase. Such a ”'
time schedule made it necessary to use the prototype ques-

tionnaire design and dispersal-retrieval method.

Park Selection

 

Three parks, Tawas Point State Park, Waterloo Rec-
reation Area, and Holland State Park, were selected for
the phase of the study to test a data collection system
(Map 1). Tawas Point, the newest and least attended of
the three, is on Lake Huron in Iosco county. Waterloo

Recreation Area is a large and discontinuous park in

26

Jackson county and includes several areas of improved
facilities. Big Portage Lake, with its large beach and
day-use and camping areas was chosen as the site of the
study. .Holland in Ottawa county, a high use park, has
a good beach on Lake Michigan. These parks were deemed
typical or symbolic of the entire state park system and
did not include any special or unusual features.

The three parks were selected to parallel the
parks used in the questionnaire validation phase of the
study. Each park corresponded to a particular recreation
area class as outlined by Clawson:- resource based, inter-
mediate, and user oriented. (See Table 1) In addition,
the parks were matched in the following items: (1) each
park had manned entrances, (2) were located for convenience
in administration, (3) had similar facilities, and (4)

offered similar opportunities for activities.

Table l.--Sample park designation

 

 

 

. Parks Used to Test Parks Used in
Clawson's Categories . . ‘.

. Data Collection Questionnaire
for Recreation Areas System Validation
User Oriented Holland State Park Dodge Brother's No.

4 State Park
Resource Based Tawas Point State Harrisville State
Park Park
Intermediate Waterloo Recreation Pinckney Recreation
Area (Big Portage Area (Half Moon
Lake) Lake)

 

1Marion Clawson, R. Burnell Held, and C. H. Stoddard,
Land of the Future, (Baltimore: The Johns HOpkins PreSs, for
Resources for the Future, Inc., 1960), P. 136.

 

27

Procedures in the Parks

 

Due to the disparity in attendance at the three
parks a sampling procedure was develOped. A sample size
of 385 day-use respondants at each park was needed to give
a .05 estimation of error at the 95 percent confidence
level. Systematic samples were taken by means of a modi-
fied highway traffic counter. A battery powered bell in-
dicated when a predetermined number of axles crossed the
pneumatic tube placed across the entrance. The vehicle
following the one causing the bell to ring received the
questionnaire. Each of the three parks had a different
ratio based on the previous years' attendance. The ini-
tial sample size included every twenty-second at Waterloo,
every eighth at Tawas, and every fifty-sixth at Holland.
Later in the study, the respective sample sizes were
doubled to compensate for the unforeseen number of re-
peaters. Once the study commenced, a continuous sampling
procedure was maintained in each park throughout the
testing period.

After the park attendant stopped the designated
vehicle, the occupants were handed a dated questionnaire.
The attendant would briefly explain the purpose of the
survey to the visitor and ask the group to deposit the
completed questionnaire in the marked box at the exit.

In the eventuality that the designated vehicle was skipped,

the attendant wrote an explanation across the face of the

28

questionnaire and deposited it with those voluntarily
returned. In this way, it was possible to tell what
percentage of the sample was actually reaching the park
users.

Signs at the entrance and exits to the park re-
minded the park-users of the survey. A picnic table
silhouette was used as a symbol to represent the study
on each of the questionnaires, the signs, and the deposit
boxes. It was presumed that a consistent and recognizable

symbol would increase motivational appeal.

Interview Phase

 

It was assumed that the questionnaire respondants
represented the total park using population, including
the non-respondants. To validate this assumption, inter-
views were conducted with the non-respondants at Tawas
Point, waterloo, and Holland State Parks. Although varia—
tions were used to compensate for differences in each
park, a similar procedure was tried in all three. During-
the days on which the interviews were being conducted,
every vehicle entering the park was given a questionnaire.
If the questionnaire was not deposited at the exit, the.
group was stopped and asked many of the same questions
which were found on the questionnaire. The interview
data and the voluntary deposited questionnaire responses

were compared using analysis of variance and the chi

29

square test. On only three questions were there any
significant differences (Appendix C). It was, therefore,
concluded that the information given by the respondants

accurately portrayed the total park using pOpulation.

Questionnaire Analysis

 

The questionnaires, once inSpected by park per-
sonnel andstate park officials, were counted, pre-coded,
and then coded on optical scan coding sheets. Only the
questionniares judged complete or near complete were
coded. The optical scan sheets were finally processed to
make computer key punch cards from which a magnetic tape
was prepared.

The number of questionnaires returned was grati-
fyingly high. (See Table 2) It is noted, however, that
as the park using pOpulation increased the proportional
number of returned questionnaires decreased. In these
cases, the park staff may have been too busy to give
prOper motivation to the relatively small number of ques-
tionnaire recipients who would not feel the need to answer
the questionnaire.

When compared to somewhat related studies-incor-
porating questionnaires, the percentage of completed

forms was quite high.1 Responses to individual questions

1United States, Department of Agriculture, Forest
Service, A Comparison of FourASurvey Techniques Used in
Outdoor Recreation Research, byfilwood L. Shafer, Jr. and
John F. Hamilton, 3?}, (Washington, D. C.: United States
Forest Service Research Paper NE¥86, 1967).

 

30

monflmccoflummsv mumHmEoo mo Hogan: on»

.uso cocoon mmufimccoflbmosw mo Hones: we» on
mcwnmmaoo he wmcflmuno musmflm mfl£Bw

. .xmammumohanfim mmmv am can mm
.mm..m cam m moanme..ommuo .Q mo moanmu 03D so comma ma magma waned

 

m30H>HOHGH EOHW

 

Ham mme hm hmv mmHHMGGOflumoSO
mo nonasz
II . . . .Umumamfioo
m em m be m mv N ucmo mom
woumamfioo
omm.~ mmm th.H mam mouflmscowummso
mo HmnEdz
nu . . . cocusumm
m mm 0 mm m mm usmo mom
cmcusuwm
Hmv.v Hao.a h>¢.m mam mmHHMGsOHummSO
mo Hmnfidz
uso coccmm
Hmm.h vom.~ mam.~ mma.a mmuflmccohummso
mo Honfidz
Hmuoa mem Mudm madam mmnd coaummnomm

mxumm confinsoo

 

I

mumum wamaaom

 

UCHOQ mM3MB

 

mumum ooaumumz

 

 

Hmumo 3mfl>umucfl mcHUSHocfl .mxumm ocmHHom can .ooaumumz .ucflom mm3me

swnuw3 mumamfioo compsn can .Umnusumu .uso wounds mmHHMGGOHumwnv mo Hmnfiszll.m manna

31

also reflect unusual returns. Of the 3,671 questionnaires
coded, the question concerning distance from park to home
received a 100 percent response. More typical, perhaps,
were the reSponses concerning the total number of persons
in the vehicle and the total family income, which produced
total completion rates of 91.7 percent and 88.2 percent
respectively. Such variation in completed responses was
expected and is a "built in" shortcoming of a questionnaire.
A frequency count then indicated the distribution
of response for each question. Since it was impossible
to separate the campers and day-users as they entered the
park, an analysis of the first two questions served to
make this distinction. As was expected, approximately
75 percent of the park using p0pulation sampled were day-
users. The data was further separated by park. (See
Table 3) This division made it possible to compare the
characteristics of both the day-users and campers at each
of the three parks.
Table 3.--Representation of the three test parks in the

survey (based on the number of groups partici-
pating in activities)

 

Number of Coded Questionnaires

 

Park Selected for the Study

 

Day-User Camper
Tawas Point State Park 727 371
Waterloo Recreation Area 850 308
Holland State Park 1,021 222_

 

TOTAL 2,598 882

 

32

Although it would have been desirable to analyze
all variables of the data of the day-users and campers
at each test park, such comparisons were beyond the
limitations of this study, since the amount of programing,
computer, and analysis time would have been prohibitively
high. Therefore, only several questions were selected
for analysis and will be discussed in subsequent chapters.
Although the data was gathered from a limited sample, the
information was proven reliable by concurring interview
data and can be used to indicate ways of analyzing more
complete data when it becomes available. The use of con-
tingency tables helped to synthesize the data and provided
the base from which to draw conclusions about the day-user

within the Michigan State Parks.

CHAPTER III

PARK ATTENDANCE RELATED TO DISTANCE

The origin or permanent residence of the day-user

and camper is important in analyzing the usage pattern of

a park. Each park has a hinterland, or drawing area, from

which it attracts visitors. Normally, the most use would

be from nearby residents and less use would occur with in-

1

creasing distance from the park.

One of the most fundamental . . . generalizations re-
lated to the impact of a tourist or outdoor recreation
facility on its hinterland. The line of reasoning
runs as follows: 1) costs are involved in a visit to
such a facility; 2) these costs include money, time,
and travel distance, all three of which measures are
generally, but not necessarily, highly correlative;

3) the number of visitors from a given pOpulation to a
particular facility is posited to be inversely propor-
tional to the costs incurred and these costs are nor-
mally expressible in terms of the travel distances in-
volved; 4) consequently, a tourist or recreation
facility is surrounded by a series of concentric ter-
ritorial rings or zones, each of which is of uniform
width, and in each successive zone.outWard from the
facility, the number of visitors per unit number of
population becomes progressively smaller. In other
words the degree of impact of a facility on the

 

1A good source of previous studies investigating

this concept of distance decay is: Gunner Olsson, Distance

and Human Interaction:

A Review and Bibliography, BIbliog-

raphy Series, No. 2, (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Re-
gional Science Research Institute, 1965).

33

34
component parts of its hinterland is assumed to be a
function of the friction of distance.2
Specific data describing the hinterland of each
park is helpful for predicting future use, especially if
it is collected over a period of years, thus establishing
trends or constant factors. This information could lead
to predicting change in park attendance, e.g., if the
population within a particular hinterland were to increase,
assuming other factors remained constant, a proportional
increase in park visitors could be expected. The need for,
or benefits of, a new park or facility within the same or
similar areas could also be predicted by employing this
data. The latter method was used in measuring the expected
benefits from the development of the Meramec Basin of
Missouri.3
The questionnaire data of this study related dis-
tance from the park to park attendance in two ways: 1) by
the county of residence and 2) by the estimated miles

traveled to the park. This data, analyzed by total or

aggregate-response, by individual park, and by group

 

2George F. Deasy and Phyllis R. Griess, "Impact'of
a Tourist Facility on Its Hinterland," Annals of the Asso-
ciation of American Geographers, Vol. 56, No. 2, (June,
1966): pp. 290-292.

3Edward L. Ullman, "Geographical Prediction and
Theory: The Measure of Recreation Benefits in the Meramec
Basin," in Problems and Trends in American Geography, ed.
Saul B. Cohen, (New York: ’Basic Bocks, Inc., 1967)? P.
131..

35

classification as day-user or camper, made it possible to
describe and portray individual and collective park use

patterns related to distance.
County of Permanent Residence

The campers and day-users at Tawas Point, Water-
loo, and Holland State Parks represent many parts of Mich-
igan, several states, and even a variety of countries.

The distribution pattern of the Michigan visitor groups,4
mapped by county of permanent residence, shows considerable
differences in county representation. (See Map 2.) Some
correlation can be seen between this distribution and
counties of high total pOpulation. (See Map 3.) As a
generalization, the more populous the county, the more
numerous the absolute numbers of park users from that
county. This type of relationship, described through the
gravity model, has been tested in previous works and was
found to provide a "close fit" to reality in most cases.5

Since only three parks were investigated, many

counties are not represented in the sample population.

The indicated patterns are based only on the test parks

 

4Visitor groups constitute a carload of park users
who completed one questionnaire in the sample.

5Bryan Thompson, "Recreational Travel: A Review
and Pilot Study," Traffic Quarterly, Vol. 21, (November,
1967): pp. 527-542.

36

m on:

 

 

 

 

 

>hzaoo mun mm: n_<zo_._.mon_oma >hzaoo mum maaomo k0 mumiaz

 

5.2.01 m<’¢k

 

    

 

M a“
pad/mam: .

 

  

8N ¢u>o I
QVNI 09 I
mm! on B
at! mm D
tul _ D
3% p.505 02 D

(\s.
L1
«r. 1M-LL. r/T(I..
“this 1 J,/.
_. .....-J-.TJ. /
0‘ m — rIJJ
L mm

mxmcd uni—24m I manomw mo._._m_>

 

 

 

 

37

 

 

 

MICHIGAN COUNTY POPULATION

53.":
I-
M”: L A” SUPER/JR
I rJ ,
.wouooy- ‘1 . 3
g—I ‘m‘u , .. ‘
MIG -' ' . nm‘in
\ ' — -| I I I " "" . Luct
K i I I'. ' 'L - _.l 0. I I F - — - —I I
s. - — - Ilo _ - I“ I. l I /
\ -- T n I “u" I I Imn q
\§‘ ‘ I
'~ \i INTI-5': . I‘mm' Imam-.54 * B
' ‘ adv-A— ’ | ' _ ““““ " U
\ . _ v _ \ I o I . L]
- v I
> " ‘ '1 O o
\_ x ‘ ' 0 .
9’ I 'b
‘uuonmu ' a ' ‘
' uiiiflcm‘."‘.ir (1'
a. I 7' 429
I: . '1 I I than,
I 9.... - ' ' I'Ll
‘ aunuvoul-__ ____r___.
\ 'I J- sour-400mm “1"“ E
“1;;- hgorsuo I J' 1301'
I
_ I I I
L"_"r‘:‘ numb—[$30.3 lm— . AER;
"an: I $35083! I ' -
If ' .4 I ' .
\‘ '.:.':r.;:.:. rah-.2095...“ 37...; .Ioico— -
8° ' I I I I

LEGEND

POPULATION ESTIMATES- I968

   
   
 

   
 
 

  

(THOUSANDS) g.

‘ ".
V -— .

CI] LESS mm 24.9 '°"‘"°' "I:

CI 250- 49.9 I

a 50.0 ' 99.9 —"I'&£:BT .suuwns:

- IOOO- 499.9 i

- OVER 500.0 ' mm

  
    
      

ALL£GAN " ~. Ina-m Lyvmouon

  
  

    

I’l—
sum wmoo—

. 4“. 1'
A's;
5'6

. _

CASS

     
 

“I
SCALE IW

 
   
  

  

llAucn

 

' 37 J0!!!"

 

SOURCE "Mnch-qm sum and Come Populaton, Es‘IsmaIes for 1966, Progehons for I980,"
II THE MICHIGAN SIHE ECQNQMIQRECOQQ 'vOI IO. N09 INOV.I968I. 4-5

 

 

 

 

 

 

Map 3

38

and do not indicate total park use generated by a county.
Many areas, for instance counties in the upper peninsula,
are too distant to provide visitors to the parks studied.
Low representation is, however, not always based on dis-
tance factors. The relative nearness of Newaygo and
Muskegon counties to Holland State Park would suggest a
greater representation in the sample, but each county has
state parks of its own or has access to closer state parks
with the same attractions as Holland. (See Map 2 and Map
3 for county names.) When other parks are within a more
convenient travel distance and provide approximately the
same desired facilities or attractions as more distant
parks, residents use the one most advantageously located.
This pattern is illustrative of the concept of intervening
opportunities.

A different distribution pattern emerges when the
number of groups from each county is related to total
county population. (See Map 2.) Greater concentration of
use is found about the three test parks with less emphasis
placed on large p0pu1ation centers. In most cases the
more distant a county is from one of the three test parks,
the lower the proportion of use. Nine counties are repre-
sented by more than one visitor group per 1000 population.
Of these, three counties, Alger, Montmorency, and Kalkaska.
are noticeable deviants from the expected proportion of

use. Such apparent over representation could be caused by:

39

l) sampling bias resulting from random error due to the
size of the sample, 9, 9, and 6 visitor groups respective-
ly, or 2) the small total population of these counties,
8.3, 4.6, and 4.9 thousand pe0ple respectively. A compar-
ison between the number of groups and county population
would then reveal an unusually large proportion of park
users.

When the distribution of use is mapped by park and
by group classification of camper or day-user, overlapping
of hinterlands can be noted and comparisons between campers
and day-users can be made. (See Maps 4, 5 and 6.) By
comparing sample representation to total county population,
various areas of concentration are represented and the
actual drawing area of a park can be delineated.

Five levels of use concentration are noted, rang-
ing from almost zero representation per 1000 population to
2.4 groups per 1000. Fewer counties are represented by
campers than by day-users in all the parks, although the
outward dimensions of the drawing area of both are approxi-
mately the same. Much use, both camper and day-user, is
generated by the county in which the park is located.

The concept of a hinterland, composed of concentric
territorial rings or zones with the number of visitors per
county decreasing as one moves progressively outward from
the park, is approximated but is not well defined. The

degree of concurrence with the idealized model is skewed

40

v mm:

 

 

 

 

 

#52 m(’(._.

mum: I><o mwm2<o

zo_._.<I_Dn_0m >._.zaoo mo zo_._.mon_omn.

xm<a m._.<.rm ._.Z_Od m<>><._. I mdDOmQ

mad ¢m>o

and I mnd

and I 2.0

9.0 I .06

00.0 241... mmw...
omqn!(m mmnoco Oz

EEK-=59... 000. emu

ozwowq

mo..._m_>

 

 

 

 

41

m mm:

 

 

 

 

mwmzn ><o mwm2<o

 

20....443m0m >._.z:00 “.0 20....m0momn.

<mm< zo_._.<mmomm 004mm._.<>> Imdnomo mo._._m_>

00.! ]00 .u...(0n

00.0 ¢m>0

90.0 I 0nd

and I 2.0

2.0 I .00

no.0 25.: www.‘
ou4m2<m maaozu 02

20.._.<.5a0n. 000. mud

ozwowq

 

 

42

m cm:

 

 

 

 

o 0%0130
_ _ mums->3 $.53 .... .

--..1-.._--« . Iain-4......

. . — . ..r P
... . . ..
_ 5: . - , O | . s
e .
I.-

q

            
            

  

00.0 ¢u>0

00.0 I 00.0

00.0 I 2.0

0.0 I .0.0

00.0 25...... mam-d
oudsa muaoxo 02

  

DBDIII

 

ZOE-(Janoc 000. cum maaoco

ozmomq

20:44.50... >h2300 “.0 20.._.¢0a0ma

xmdd m._-<._.m 0244401 I manomo $0.5m;

 

 

 

 

43

by such factors as intervening and more conveniently
located parks, location of population centers, and existing
transportation Systems.

Park use of Michigan residents at Tawas Point was
most heavily concentrated in the eastern—central section
of the state with scattered counties represented through-
out the rest of the state. The park users at Waterloo
were tightly concentrated about the park in the southern
portion of the lower peninsula. Holland's use was concen-
trated in the southwest section of the state, with use
decreasing in an easterly direction. The visitor groups
to both Waterloo and Holland from the counties in the
upper peninsula and those in the northern section of the
lower peninsula show a high pr0portion of visits because
of the small total county population. Although the dis—
tribution of the counties into areas of concentration does
not conform to the concept of concentric zones, it does
indicate that the proportion of use decreases with in-
creased distance from the park.

The hinterland of the sample parks includes several
states other than Michigan. A grouping of out-of-state
visitors shows their rather surprising importance in total
park use, fifteen percent of the total sample population.
The percentage of non-Michigan residents varies between
the three parks but the largest percentage of these visitors

are campers rather than day-users. (See Table 4.) Holland,

44

.kuou mo ucmouom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m
.mamhamcm
mufl>fluom Umumamfioo cues mmHHMGGOHumev mcflcuzumu masonm nouflmfi> mo HmnEDZN
.mamEMm 0:0 cw concommummu mmflucsoo :mmflnowz mo HmQEDZH
o.ooa Hmoa o.ooa mom o.ooa omm o.ooa mom .o.ooa 5mm o.ooa Hum Hmuoa
«.ma mma o.am mm m.oa mm H.Hm mm m.ma Hm m.ma we mumgm
IMO
luso
m.Hm mmm mm o.mw ova om «.mm wmn Hm m.mh «em hm m.nm 0mm we H.5m mmm mv moan
. 1:500
cam
taco“:
w .02 .00 m .02 .00 m .02 .00 w .02 .00 m .oz..00 mm «.02 H.00_
Homalmmn HomEMU Homaummo HomEMU Homblmmo Hmmamu
sown
camaaom OOAHmumz psaom mMSMB Imnsmm
mxumm umma Iwummm

 

mucmwflmwu cmmflSOHzlcos 000 mmflucsoo comweowz

 

"0mg Mung mo coflusnwuumflQII.v magma

45

easily accessible to the large urban center of Chicago,
draws many out-of-state users because of the area's various
'tourist attractions. Tawas Point receives the least out-
of-state use partially as a result of its relatively iso-
lated location. The non—Michigan residents sampled at
Waterloo were from nearby Ohio or Indiana or from pe0ple

making a stop on their way to the Northern Peninsula.

Distance Traveled to the Parks

The drawing area of a park can also be described by
the stated distance the park users traveled from their
permanent residence. This is a slightly more precise
measurement of the distance than general county data and
can be used to check that data and vice versa. Many park
users often seemed to estimate the travel distances, which
resulted in the peaking of responses at 50 and 25 mile
intervals. (Appendix D.) In most cases though, the stated
number of miles traveled from the place of residence com-
pared favorably to the information supplied as to the
county of origin.

The distances traveled by the campers and day-users
showed a significant difference between parks although each
park had a similar pattern for both groups. (See Table
5.) The travel pattern of the visitor groups at Tawas
Point corresponded well with the extensive hinterland

previously noted. Here over 50 percent of both campers and

46

.mmmmuocfl unmoflmwamfim poz«

.cESHoo cflnufiz usmoumm 0>HDMHSE§0

 

 

 

 

 

m
.QEsHoo cflnuflz Hmuou mo usoouoma
ooa n ooa ma ooa m ooa m ooa n ooa m oom Hm>o
mm e mm 0 mm H mm m mm NH mm 0H mmmloom
mm m Hm m « « em N am am mm mm moanoma
em m mm 0 mm m mm H om ha mm ha mvatooa
mm OH 00 h mm vm am we mv 0H mv ma malom
mm mm do me mm mm mvlo
.ESU w .850 w .850 w .ESU w .Esu usmonmm N.Es0 unmonmm
Ammonmma Hmmfimo Homolmma Hmmsm0 Homblwma H0 500
cm 0 00 H0 0 GAO mw3m Umam>mua
u S m H b 3 u . m .H. 3.32

 

mxnmm mpmum mamfimm

 

E

mxumm ummu owns» map 00 00H0>mup mmHHSII.m magma

47

day-users lived beyond a 100 mile radius of the park.

This contrasted with the pattern found at both Holland and
Waterloo, where over 50 percent of the visitors traveled
less than 100 miles to the park. Of all three parks, the
drawing area of Waterloo is the most contracted with over
90 percent of both the campers and day-users traveling
less than 100 miles.

In addition to, and closely aligned with, the
number of miles traveled to the park is the time spent in
the journey.

The average recreation seeker would prefer to reach [a
regional park] within a thirty minute to one hour
driving time, but many will travel up to two or three
hours to reach a desired destination for a one day
outing.6
This statement of the ideal traveling time corresponds well
with that reported by the sample group. (See Table 6.)
Over 50 percent of the responses indicated a travel time
of less than one hour. Assuming a speed of fifty miles per
hour, this would indicate travel distances of 100 miles or
less. As longer time periods are required to drive to the
park there is a gradual tapering of use. The people who
indicated that they drove five hours or more Were most

often vacationers making a park visit only one point on

their extended trip.

 

6Philip H. Lewis, Jr., Study of Recreation and

Open Space in Illinois, (Urbana, Illinois: University of
IllinSIs, 1961): P. 103.

 

48

Table 6.--Time spent traveling to the park: campers and
day-users, total sample

 

I

Hours
Spent in
Travel-
ing

NP
H
H

NIH
N
N

NIH
0)
w

NIH
..b
b

NIH

5+

 

Percent
of
Total 29.7 25.1 10.2 9.0 3.9 6.2 2.8 4.9 1.6 6.6

Cumu-
lative
Percent 54.8 65.0 74.0 77.9 84.1 86.9 91.8 93.4 100.0

 

 

Conclusions and Generalizations

 

There is a mappable hinterland or drawing area con-
sisting of different, although at times overlapping, areas
for Tawas Point, Waterloo, and Holland State Parks. These
hinterlands for each test park are indicated by zones of
concentrated use, based on a ratio of the number of visitor
groups per county to the total county population. These
zones are not neat, concentric rings, but are discontinuous
and skewed by the location of other state parks and, to
some extent, by the location of population concentrations
and by major highways. The major agreement between an
idealized model and the empirical observations of the
hinterlands in the test parks was that concentration of

use decreased with distance. With increased distance,

 

th

in

hi

pa

an

gr

US

581

al-

Th1

CaI

pr:

as!

am

49

there was less familiarity with the park, less convenience
in travel time, and consequently less use.

There are distinguishable differences between the
hinterlands of each of the test parks although the basic
patterns of each are closely aligned for both the campers
and day-users. The camper belongs to a less numerous
group which drove somewhat greater distances than the day-
user and accounted for the larger percentage of non—Michi-
gan residents. In each sample park the camper is repre-
sented by fewer Michigan counties than the day-user
although this may be the result of the limited sample size.
The day-users were a very prominent group within the park,
came from extensive areas of Michigan and were most
prevalent in areas close to the park.

These generalizations partially answer the questions
asked previously, namely:

1. Are the hinterlands of the sample parks limited
and describable?

The hinterlands of the three test parks are des-
cribable and limited to the extent that not every county
within the state is included. The hinterland more real-
istically is a loosely organized area extending great dis-
tances in many directions. A more usable concept of the
hinterland might be the area of great concentration of use.
With this definition, the hinterlands of the three parks

are indeed different, distinguishable,and individual Useach.

I T‘—

 

ar

PO

of

Bu

pa

em

th

sm

Pl"
ab

50

2. Does the greatest proportion of use come from
areas in proximity to the park or from the areas with high
population concentrations?

Based on absolute number of visitors the counties
of high pOpulation provide the majority of visitors groups.
But when the number of visitor groups per county is com-
pared to the total county population a different pattern
emerges: 1) the counties in proximity to the park are
then found to provide the greatest use, 2) counties with
small populations which provide a few visitors become quite
pronounced, and 3) very populous areas which provided large

absolute numbers of Visitors were not well represented.

 

an impor

 

 

 

known-
Use
time
Cor]
pec:
per:
be '
By know
iS pose
Social
number:
attrac
Stanti

exPect

the pa

the s-

outdo
EIEE‘
124.

CHAPTER IV

PARK ATTENDANCE RELATED TO
SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS
The socio-economic background of park visitors is

an important aspect of park use about which little is
known.

Use of recreation may be correlated, over a period of

time, with some reasonable socio-economic factor.

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation es-

pecially for time series analysis. Nevertheless, a

persistent and close correlation of two variables may

be useful for making projections of the future.
By knowing the socio-economic status of the park users, it
is possible to define various dimensions of use. If one
social class is not represented in prOportion to its total
numbers, efforts may be undertaken to make the park more
attractive or more accessible to this class of user. Sub—
stantial change in park attendance might be predicted with
expected changes in the economic status of a group within
the park's hinterland.

Information concerning group characteristics and

the socio-economic status of park visitors at Tawas Point,

 

lMarion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of
Outdoor Recreation, (Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns Hop-
kins Press, for Resources for the Future, Inc., 1966). P.
124.

 

 

51

52

Waterloo, and Holland State Parks was obtained from the
aggregate questionnaire data and that data specifically
directed toward the head of the household or the driver of
the vehicle. This data provided direct comparisons be-
tween the sample and the total state and national popula-

tion, between parks, and between campers and day-users.

Group CharacteriStics

 

Characteristics of the sample group provide in-
sights into the actual composition of the~total park using
population. User age was among the most important of
these characteristics. A distribution by age category in-
dicated a youthful, active park using population. The
majority (53 percent) of park users were between the ages
of five and twenty-five. This figure differed signifi-
cantly from the percentage of the total United States pop-
ulation (33.2 percent) falling within the same age range.
(See Table 7.)

The indicated youthfulness of state park visitors
was consistent with the type of group visiting the park.
Three major classifications of group composition, the
family with children, a couple, and a group of friends,
provided slightly over 80 percent of the total sample
visitors. (See Table 8.) Children and young adults

naturally constituted a large proportion of the groups.

 

 

53

Table 7.--Popu1ation representation by age categories

 

 

 

 

Age Categories United States--1960l Park Sample
(Percent) (Percent)
Below 5 years of age 11.3 11.1
5-14 years 19.8 30.8
15-24 years 13.4 22.2
25-35 years 2 12.7 12.7
Over 35 years 42.8 23.2
Total 100.0 100.0

L

1United States, Department of Commerce, Statisti-
cal Abstract of the United States--1968, 89th ed., (Wash-
ington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1968), p. 26.

2The census and sample age break-downs are not
comparable beyond age 35.

 

Table 8.--Description of the visiting groups

t
J

Group Categories Percentage of the Total Sample

U'l

nwhwamw

One Family with Children
Two Families with Children
One Couple

Two or more Couples
Organized Group

One Person Alone

Group of Friends

Other

#1000.waon

Ia H
O O O O O O

 

[.1
O
O
Q

Total

‘

frv rid-.... finia—

54

A standard number of people per vehicle has often
been used to estimate the total number of visitors when
only a simple vehicular count is available. The average
of 4.2 persons, found in the sample, verified the standard

which is generally used by park officials.

Socio-Economic Characteristics

Various factors are indicative of social status
but those most often used are occupation, income and edu-
cation. Such socio-economic information was gathered
about the head of the household of the vehicle driver,
even though this person may not himself have been a park
visitor. As a general characteristic, it was found that a
male was head of the household in 95 percent of the groups
sampled. The average head might be described as a family
man between the ages of thirty-one and fifty. (See Table 9)

Further specific characteristics will be discussed below.

Table 9.--Age of the head of the household of the vehicle's

 

 

driver
a: W
Age Percent of Sample Age Percent of Sample
Below 20 4.3 41-45 18.3
21-25 8.2 46-50 13.6
26-30 11.0 51-55 7.1
31-35 13.8 56-60 3.6
36-40 16.9 61 and over 3.2

 

Total 100.0

 

 

 

55

Occupation

 

The occupations of the sampled household heads
were varied and involved many degrees of skill. (See
Table 10.) Low representation was noted in many occupa-
tions including those persons engaged in farming, service
work, and domestic help. Although most of the job classi-
fications used were self-explanatory, some discretion was
given the coder. (See Appendix E for an explanation of
the categories used.) Non-specific answers such as

"factory work“ or the name of a particular plant, were

Table 10.--Occupationa1 classification

 

 

 

Occupation Percentl
Omitted 10.0
Professional, technical and kindred workers 23.2
Farmers and farm managers 0.9
Managers, officials, and proprietors 7.2
Clerical and kindred workers 3.2
Sales workers 6.2
Craftsman, foreman, and kindred workers 17.6
Operatives and kindred workers 7.4
Private household workers 0.0
Service workers, except private household 2.9
Farm laborers and farm foremen 1.5
Laborers except farm and mine 3.9
Student 1.6
Housewife 0.6
Retirees 2.1
Military 1.0
Unemployed 0.2
Other 10.4
Total1 99-8

 

1Does not total 100 percent due to rounding error.

 

 

56

Education

 

The head of family of the sample park users re-
flected a slightly higher educational level than might be
expected. The mean number of years of schooling for the
sample was 12.8 years as Opposed to 12.1 years for the
total national population.2 A comparison between per-
centage of population at various educational levels for
the national and sample populations shows an inverse rela-
tionship between the two, although both groups are similar
for the late high school years. (See Table 11.) The
relatively large percentage of people with seventeen years
or over of education corresponds well with the relatively
large prOportion of professional occupations previously
reported.

Some difference between parks, campers, and day-
users was apparent with regard to the educational level of
the head of the family. (See Table 12.) The campers
showed less education than the day-user on the basis of
average years of schooling. An interesting variance from
the expected were the park users from Holland, who had the
greatest number of household heads with less than an
eighth grade or above a college education. The non-Michi-

gan residents averaged higher educational levels than the

 

2"US Population Shows Gains in Education, But
Blacks Still Lag," Higher Education and National Affairs,
Vol. 28, No. 18, (May 23, 1969), p. 4.

 

57

Table ll.--Education levels: national and sample data for
head of household

 

 

Years of Education National Figures Park Sample
Completed (1968)1 (Percent)2
(Percent)
0-4 5.4 1.7
Elementary School 2 and 7 %'3 3'3
8 13.1 5.6
9 5.8 2.4
High School i2 2'? 2'3
12 33.4 33.7
13 3.9 7.8
14 4.8 9.9
College 15 2.3 4.4
16 6.7 8.9
17 or more 3.8 13.7

 

.1"US Population Shows Gains in Education, But

Blacks Still Lag," Higher Education and National Affairs,
Vol. 28, No. 18, (May 23, 1969), p. 4.

2

 

Does not total 100 percent due to rounding error.

total data, but they were consistent with the aggregate
data since the day-users were slightly better educated
than the camper.

There is some indication that educational level
rises with increased distance from the park. For instance,
the non-Michigan resident, who presumably travels greater
distances than in-state visitors, reported higher average

educational levels. There is assumed to be high correlation

 

58

 

Table 12.--Percentage variation in education of park users,
by years of schooling of the head of the house-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hold
Test Parks
Years of Tawas Point Waterloo Holland
Schooling
Camper Day-User Camper Day-User Camper Day-User
(Percent 1
Distribution)

0-7 2.6 2.4 6.8 3.6 2.0 1.9
8 5.8 3.6 5.0 4.2 5.6 8.5
9 2.4 2.8 3.2 1.8 3.1 2.2
10 8.2 6.4 6.8 5.7 4.6 5.9
11 4.5 3.2 2.6 4.2 6.1 5.1
12 35.9 34.9 34.8 37.6 34.7 28.4
13 6.3 8.5 8.0 8.1 7.6 7.6
14 12.7 10.5 12.7 10.1 4.6 8.4
15 4.5 3.6 3.5 5.7 3.6 4.3
16 6.3 9.8 8.5 7.5 10.2 10.4
17 and 10.8 14.1 8.0 11.6 17.9 17.3

more
Mean Years
of School-
ing for
Aggregate
Data 12.5 12.9 12.1 12.7 12.9 12.9
Mean Years
of School-
ing for
Non-Mich-
igan Res-
idents 13.0 13.5 12.8 13.1 13.7 13.9

1

Do not all total 100 percent due to rounding
error.

59

between various socio-economic factors especially educa-
tion and income. In light of this, the relationship of
educational levels attained and distance traveled will be

analyzed below.

Income

Total family income of the park user is an intrin-
sic part of any description of socio-economic status. In
the past, " . . . no data [was] available as to the income
class of users of different types of recreation areas or
types of recreation. Such data would be highly useful for

3 Access to this information is most

economic analysis."
vital since the income of an individual is one of the most
important factors in determining his recreational prac-
tices.4
High average family incomes characterized the
sample park users. Although there might have been a ten-
dency to falsely raise the income category while filling

out the questionnaire in order to raise the prestige levels

or "to put one over on the survey," this did not seem to

 

3Marion Clawson, Statistics on Outdoor Recreation,
(Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1958),
p. 8.

4James A. Wylie, "A Survey of 504 Families to
Determine the Relationship between Certain Factors and the
Nature of the Family Recreation Program," Research Quar-
terly, Vol. 24, (May, 1953), p. 231.

60

occur in many cases. The high incomes reported remained
consistent with the many highly skilled and professional
occupations and the high proportion of visitors with be-
yond a high school education.

The sample indicated higher family incomes than
national or Michigan census breakdowns.have reported.
(See Table 13.) Although income levels of Michigan resi-
dents correspond more closely with national figures than
with the sample population, it is possible to find ample
evidence of the high income wage earner in the state. For
example, the average wage received by workers on manufac-
turing pay-rolls during the second quarter of 1968 was
$162.90 per week of $8,470 yearly.5 Even if there was no
other source of income, the high yearly family income re-
ported by park users can be easily accounted for in terms
of those working only in manufacturing. In addition,
those in the professional and technical fields would be
expected to have an appropriately high income.

The difference in income levels between the three
parks, especially Tawas Point and Waterloo, is slight.
(See Table 14.) The park users at Holland represent both
extremes in income levels. Such wide differences in income

levels compares favorably with both extremes in years of

 

5Michigan State University, "Michigan's Labor
Force," The Michigan State Economic Record, Vol. 10, No.
9, (November, 1968), P. 5.

 

 

61

Table 13.--Comparisons of family income levels

 

1960 National 1960 Michigan Park Sample

 

Income Levels Census1 Census2 (Percent)3
(Percent3) (Percent3)
Less than $3,000 21.4 26.1 2.8
$3,000 to $5,999 32.8 29.7 6.3
$6,000 to $7,999 19.3 18.6 15.8
$8,000 t0 $9,999 11.5 11.5 22.5
$10,000 to $14,999 10.5 10.4 37.0
$15,000 to $24,999 3.3 2.9 11.7
$25,000 and above 1.3 1.0 4.0

 

1United States, Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Census of Population 1960, Vol. 1 (Character-
istics of the Population), (Washington D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1964), p. LXXX.

2United States, Department of Commerce, Census of
Michigan - 1960, Vol. 1, Part 24, Characteristics of the
Population, (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Off-
ice, 1964), p. 206.

 

 

3Does not total 100 percent due to rounding error.

schooling which has been stated. (See Table 12.) The
day-users exhibited a slightly more even distribution
among income levels than the campers. Such a difference
would correspond with the evidence of higher education
levels for the day-user compared with the camper popula-
tion.

Some relationship between total family income and
number of miles traveled by the park users was found. An
analysis of these two factors based on a chi square test,

however, showed no significant correlation for the campers.

62

Table l4.-—Percentage variation in income levels at the

 

test parks
Test Parks
Income Levels Tawas Point Waterloo Holland

 

Camper Day- Camper Day- Camper Day-

 

User User User
Less than $3,000 1.1 2.3 1.9 2.3 3.3 4.3
$3,000 to $5,999 5.6 6.4 6.5 6.2 5.5 6.7
$6,000 to $7,999 15.9 15.2 14.0 15.7 20.3 15.8
$8,000 to $9,999 23.2 22.7 26.7 22.8 20.3 20.8
$10,000 to $14,999 42.2 37.9 40.4 38.9 34.1 32.0
$15,000 to $24,999 11.4 12.0 9.0 10.5 12.6 13.3
$25,000 and above 0.6 3.5 1.5 3.6 3.8 7.0
Total1

 

 

1Does not total 100 percent due to rounding error.

In other words, the income class of the camper made little
difference in the distance traveled to the park. The same
analysis for the day-user did show a significant relation-
ship at a chi square significance level of 0.1. A direct
relationship was especially noticeable for those people
driving over 200 miles from their permanent residence to
the park. Beyond this distance, the observed frequencies
were significantly less than the theoretical expected fre-
quencies in the groups with less than $8,000 yearly family
income and more than the predicted in those groups having
a higher income. Other patterns were not apparent and
those cells producing large chi square values did so on

what seemed to be a random basis.

   

   

63

The comparative differences of the miles traveled
and total family income for the day-users at individual
parks was not as significant as that from the aggregate
park data. The day-users traveling over 200 miles to
Tawas Point varied most from the expected frequencies in
that a larger number of groups with incomes between $8,000
and $14,999 were represented than were predicted. The
frequency distribution at Waterloo was significantly dif-
ferent and higher than expected for those groups earning
over $15,000 and driving over 100 miles. The distribution
pattern at Holland closely followed the pattern for all
day-users. Thus, the most constant variation from the
expected occurred at travel distances of more than 200
miles from the park, when more high income day-users

appeared.
Conclusions and Generalizations

The family groups, commonly consisting of parents
and two children, were the most prevalent group type of
park user sampled at Tawas Point, Waterloo, and Holland
State Parks. The park users were younger than the na-
tional population and came from a high status or upper
middle class family. The head of the family represented
a rather youthful, highly skilled craftsman or professional
who was rather well educated and correspondingly well-to-

do.

64

An investigation of one of the original study
questions lead to some interesting conclusions.

Are all socio-economic classes, based on education

and income, represented in the park independent of

distance traveled from the place of residence?
Income was used as an indicator of social class since it
was assumed to correlate favorably with education. A
correlation between the distance traveled to the park and
the total family income did not produce a significant re-
lationship for the camper. For the day-user, income
level was related to distance traveled at the 0.1 chi
square significance level. There were minor differences
between the three test parks in this relationship for the
day-users, but the most constant variance between the ex-
pected and the observed frequencies occurred for 1) those
visitors with incomes over $15,000 and 2) the users
traveling over 200 miles to the park. Thus, there are
fewer families with higher incomes represented near the
park than at greater distances.

Although some rather weak correlations between
income and travel distance were indicated by this study,
it does seem significant that the analysis showed differ-
ences between the camper and day-user groups. The reasons
for the above differences can only be arrived at intui-
tively at present. Campers seem to be less dependent on
high incomes as a necessity for traveling since by taking

many of their supplies and equipment with them, there is

65

less dependency on extra available income. The day-user,
who traveled a great distance, might need a higher income
to afford motel or other accommodations, thus eliminating

the poorer families.

CHAPTER V
PARK ATTENDANCE RELATED TO PARK USE

Essential aspects of the usage pattern within the
state parks are the frequency, or duration, of park visits
and the type of activity participation. It is generally
considered that users are attracted to a park by its ac-
cessibility and by the facilities and recreational oppor-
tunities provided. By knowing the frequency of use and
the number and type of activities engaged in by the park
users, a measure of attractiveness, or potential drawing
power, of a particular park can be made. Park personnel
might use this information to better structure their park
expansion and improvements. In this manner, the use of
their present facilities could be maximized and new areas

with greater total benefits to the user might be developed.
Number of Days of Park Use

The park users sampled at Tawas Point, Waterloo,
and Holland State Parks were irregular and infrequent
visitors to all park systems. (See Table 15.) Only the
state parks had relatively large numbers of repeat visit-

ors. This indicated preference for the state parks could

66

67

Table 15.--Days of reported use of various park systems,
total sample

 

Government Unit Days of Use During 1968

Under Which

Park was Oper- None 1-3 4-10 11-20 21-30 Over
ated 30

 

(Percent of Total Response to
Individual Questions)

 

 

City Parks 51.8 26.2 11.1 4.6 2.3 4.0
County Parks 49.6 29.8 13.0 3.9 1.8 2.0
State Parks 14.7 25.8 28.5 16.8 7.7 6.5
National Parks 73.3 14.1 7.2 2.8 1.5 1.1

 

1All rows do not total 100 percent due to rounding
error.

be partially explained by 1) the relative lack of city and
county parks within easy reach of many citizens and a
general failure to publicize the existence of these parks
to the potential users and 2) the considerable time and
effort needed to visit the National Parks, since few are
located within easy driving distance of Michigan. The
state parks, however, are apparently better advertized,
:more conveniently located, and more attractive areas for
the sample population.

People travel to a particular park for numerous
reasons; and these motives in turn influence the frequency

of visits. Representative responses from the sample group

68

of this study to the question of motive described individ-
ual parks as: 1) located close to home; 2) known to have
the desired facilities, i.e., boat landing, good beach and
swimming, or attractive campground; 3) recommended by
friends; 4) visited previously and favored; and 5) located
within a larger region with desired qualities, such as
attractive landscapes and good tourist or camping facili-
ties. Many of the questionnaire responses were unique to
one group and often defied categorizing, e.g., a family
who visited Waterloo because the husband helped in its
development in 1938—39.

The most prevalent park user, both camper and day-
user, was a first time visitor. Of the total sample, 45
percent visited the park only once during the 1968 season
and an additional 22 percent visited the park less than
four times in the year. Only a core of "regulars" fre-
quented the park over 24 days a year but these "regulars"
are of particular interest to park planners since they are
often Vocal and have definite ideas about changes and im-
provements within the park. The overall view, however,
indicates a constatnly changing clientele for the sample
parks.

The camper and day-user show somewhat different
patterns in the frequency of park use. (See Table 16.)
The majority of the day-users tend to visit the park only

a few times during the year, although there is a small but

69

Table l6.--Percentage variation in number of days of park
use

 

 

 

 

 

 

M
State Parks
Number of -
Visits Tawas P01nt Waterloo Holland
Camper Day-User Camper Day-User Camper Day-User

The first

visit 54.5 69.0 30.7 38.8 31.7 38.1
1-4 days 23.3 18.8 18.4 26.6 12.4 21.6
5-8 days 15.7 6.3 24.7 14.3 17.8 10.5
9-12 days 5.8 2.3 13.8 7.0 12.4 7.4
13-16 days 1.1 0.5 7.1 3.4 11.4 3.2
17-20 days 0.8 0.3 1.8 3.1 2.5 2.1
21-24 days 0.0 0.3 0.7 0.8 1.0 1.0
Over 24

days 0.8 2.5 2.8 6.0 10.9 15.9
Total1

 

1Do not all total 100 percent due to rounding
error.

noticeable group who are "regulars." The camper is likely
to spend more time in the park than the day-user. These
indicated visits by the camper are not necessarily repet-
itive, however, but may reflect a number of consecutive
days camped within the park. The relatively few campers
using the park over 24 days is consistent with normal park
policy limiting continuous camping to 15 days. This policy
effectively reduces the number of campers using the park

more than two weeks unless they return to camp several dif-

ferent times during the year or return as day-users.

 

70

Some interesting differences in the frequency of
visits and the number of visitor days occur between sample
parks. (See Table 16.) The majority of Tawas Point
groups were first time visitors. This phenomenon seems
explainable in several ways: 1) Tawas Point is more iso-
lated from nearby population centers and thus many users
only make the trip once a season and 2) many pe0ple,
traveling through the area, make only a short exploratory
stop on their way to a primary vacation goal. Holland and
Waterloo, on the other hand, have relatively large park
using populations living near the park who are likely to
frequent the park more often during the season.

The number of park visits for all users varies
with the distance from their place of residence. (See
Table 17.) As travel distances increase, there is less
chance that the visitor will use the park numerous times
during the year. The first time visitor, as expected,
becomes more important in over all park use as the travel
distances increase.

There is a strong interdependency between the dis-
tance driven by park users and the number of days spent at
the park. A chi square analysis finds a significance level
of better than .001. (See Table 18.) The actual observa-
tions of day-users vary most from the theoretically expec-
ted frequencies in: 1) people using the park over 13 days

during the year independent of distance and 2) persons

71

..HOHHm OCH-©0090“ Cu. Q56 UGQOHGQ OOH gum-“On. #03 0.0 chBHOU HH/N

 

 

 

 

 

H
0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H Hkuoa
«.0 II II II II «.0 m.0 «.H Hm>o 000 mmHHE 000
0.0 II II II «.0 II 0.0 0.0 mmHHE 0001000
0.0 II II II II «.0 m.0 0.0 mmHHE 0001000
II II II II II «.0 0.0 0.0 mmHHE 0001000
II II II II 0.0 «.0 0.0 0.0 mmHHE 0001000
II II II II 0.0 «.0 0.0 v.« mmHHE 0001000
I: II II II II 0.0 0.0 0.0 mmHHE ammuomm
0.0 II II II II 0.0 ¢.H w.« mmHHE memloom
II II II II II 0.0 0.0 m.« mmHHE mm«|00«
II II II >.« H.« 0.0 0.« 0.0 mmHHE mv«100«
m.H II II 0.0 «.v 0.0 0.0 v.MH mmHHE mmHlomH
«.H II II 0.H «.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 mmHHE.mvH|00H
«.0 0.0« v.0H 0.H« 0.0« 0.0« H.m« 0.0H mmHHE 00100
0.00 «.00 0.00 H.00 0.00 0.00 m.«m 0.0m mmHHE 0010
mama mama mama mmmn mmma mama mama mEHB
v« Hm>o v«IH« 0«IhH 0HIHm «Hum 010 01H umHHm xumm OB
mocmemmm
Humm may um ucmmm when 00 Hmnfisz Edam wosmamHa

 

oHQEMm.Hmuou .xuwm mumum mg»
5000 mmocmumHt mHQMHum> um muHmH> mo nmhssc we» no coHumHum> momgemoummnn.nH mHQme

71

.HOHHm maficasou on $50 uawoumm 00H Hapou nos 00 mchHoo HH¢

H

 

0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H 0.00H

 

 

II I- «.0

N
o o o o o I o
I O

O
OOI‘I‘OOOOOOOO

001

0.0« v.0H
m «.00 0.00

I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
\DKDQ‘KOO‘LQFLONNNN

h «
.H m w
.H I II m.H
.0 m H
.m H m

I‘NNLO
\DN

«
0

O

O
O
O
H

O
NMO‘I‘NOI—IOOOOOOO

LON

MI-IOOKDmQ'I‘anV‘MMM
O

0.00H

I—l

oomcovhmvxo-awooomvm
O.
oommmxommomooooI—I

(fit-I

m 0
Ha p B

H0>O USN meHE 00m
mmHHE mmmloom
mmHHE mmhlooh
mmHflE mm0l000
mmHHE mmmloom
mmHHE mmwloow
mmHHE manlomm
mmHHE mvmloom
mmHflE mm«lom«
mmHHE mvmloo«
mmeE mmHIOmH
meHE.mVHI00H

mmHHE mmlom
mmHHE mwlo

 

In
a
M
Q

mama mama mama mama mama
v« um>o v«IH« 0«I0H 0HIHm «HIm

00
I
In

U)
“'5
I M
FIG

mafia
umnfim

 

xnmm msu um ucmmm mama mo Hmnfisz

 

xumm oa
mocmvammm
Scum mocmumfla

mHmEMm.Hmuou .xumm mumum may
80Hm mmocmumfio manmfium> um muflma> mo HmnEsc may no coflgmflnm> mmmuamoummII.>H magma

72

Table 18.--Relationship of distance and the number of days
of park use, computed with the chi square test

m

Day-Users, All Sample Parks

 

Number of Days of Use
First 1-4 5-8 9-12 Over 13
Time Days Days Days Days

Miles Traveled

(Difference Between Actual and
Expected Frequencies)

 

 

 

 

0-49 miles 42.02 0.02 8.96 11.10 58.06
50-99 miles 0.07 3.96 0.05 0.07 13.58
100-149 miles 13.89 0.06 2.95 4.02 21.56
150-199 miles 25.65 0.54 5.34 8.33 19.76
Over 200 miles 0.55 8.33 12.64 10.68 25.50
Chi Square = 303.44
Significance Level: over .001
Campers, All Sample Parks
L—T. Number of Days of Use

Miles Traveled First Visit 1-4 Days—5-8 Days Over 9 Days

(Difference Between Actual and
Expected Frequencies)

 

 

0-49 miles 8.48 0.35 0.81 13.88
50-99 miles 1.19 0.47 0.39 0.06
100-149 miles 0.09 3.64 0.56 4.42
150-199 miles 5.61 1.71 0.09 5.26
Over 200 miles 18.79 0.03 10.13 7.70

Chi Square = 83.66

Significance Level: over .001

 

73

residing within a fifty mile radius of the park. The day-
users living within a fifty mile radius of the park tend
to use the park more often than the theoretically expected
frequency and represent a correspondingly smaller number
of first time visitors. Beyond fifty miles the number of
repeat day-users is noticeably less than one would expect
on a random basis especially within those groups which
visit the park numerous times. It can be said that at
distances over 50 miles the day-user is conspicuously ab-
sent; there are more first time visitors and fewer multi-
ple users than had been anticipated.

The relationship between distance traveled and
frequency of visits is slightly different for the day-users
than for the camper group. The number of first time and
repeat visits from groups residing beyond a 200 mile
radius from the park produced the highest chi square
values and, thus, calls for further explanation. At dis-
tances up to 200 miles, there are fewer first time visitors
than a random distribution predicts. The camper residing
near the park either visited the park on several different
occasions or spent several days on a previous visit. At
distances greater than 200 miles, there were higher num-
bers of first time campers who were often passing through
and spending one night or at most a few days in the park.
The user group residing relatively near the park visited

it more often and, especially if they were camping, could

74

conceivably spend more of their time at the park site
since little travel time was involved. With increasing
distances from the park, campers seemed to use the facili-
ties as one of numerous planned stOps, and thus more first

time visitors staying shorter periods were included.
The Type and Number of Activities

The main reason for traveling to a state park is
to participate in the activities and use the facilities
which are provided. The sample population engaged in many
and varied activities, but concentrated upon the water
related activities of swimming, wading, and sunbathing,
plus the leisurely activities of picnicking and relaxing.
(See Table 19.) There were responses of "girl watching,"
"cruising," and "looking for the action" which indicated
a type of outdoor activity normally not associated with
those provided by state parks. This type of response was
especially noticeable at Holland, where a large percentage
of teenagers and college students frequent the park.

Although the popularity of activities was rela-
'tively the same at all parks, for both campers and day-
user, some differences may be noted. The percentage of
'total users engaged in particular activities at Tawas
INDint, Waterloo, and Holland ranged widely from over 80
percent of the visitors swimming (Waterloo) to 2 percent

jJrvolved in canoeing (Tawas Point). (See Table 20.)

75

 

 

H m m m H m H.N muses wmoHso mcmea
H m H 0 « m «.« Amchmzv mcHanm
H H « 0 H 0 «.« msHumon3om

« HH m 0 « «H «.v mumpcmo musumz
Ho mfismmnz mcHuHmH>
« 0 0 0« « m «.0 mxHMB Hmmsmm on mchmumHH
H m 0 0H m 0H 0.0 mGHanm umom
« m 0H «H H m H.0 mcHme Hmumz
« HH 0 0H m 0H «.0 mCHAmHm xcwm
m m mH 5H m «H 4.0 mnHumom mono:
« 0H m m« 0 0H m.0 mcHme HHMHB

a n n mH 0H 0H 0.0 Samoa 6 mm mwuHm no
mHmEHc< .mDGMHm um mconoq
HH 0H 0 0 0 0H 0.0 «Hmzuo
m 0H mH mm m MH H.0H museum Emma can mmsmo
HH v« 0H m« 0H 0« 0.0H mammumouoam.
mm mm mH am am ma H.m~ cho “mo scum maHmmmpanm
mm as mH mm as 00 m.mm macflom oHawum op mcHmez
0« H0 H0 mv «0 mm 0.0m mcHxOHQOHm
mm om hm ow 0m Hm m.mm mcHnmz
H0 00 mm mm mm «0 H.00 manumncsm
ow H» mm mu he 00 n.0m qumemm
00 0h 00 00 00 00 0.00 UGHEEH3m

mmcommwm
nmeImma Hmmfimw HmmDIhmo womemm Homblwma Hmmfimo Hmuoa msu
wsmHHom OOHHmumz IucHom mmsma mo usmoumm muH>Huo¢
fig

 

 

 

 

meumm ummu

ms» um mummsImmw 0cm mummsmo cmmspmb mmeH>Huom 0H coHpmHum> mmmgcmonmmII.mH mHnms

 

 

76

=.mcHnopm3 HHHm= mm £05m mmmcommmu mum3 mm mum: meDHocH mmz 0GHQEMU

 

«

.GESHoo cH mmcommmn Hmuou so comma meMHSUHmo mum mucmoumm HH¢H
I- N N m I- N m.H mcHme xomnmmhom
H m « v H « m.H mchocmo
H a m m m m ~.H mcH>Ha mnsom 00 cme

 

mmcommmm
Hmmblmmo HOQEMU HMUOB m3“
ucHom mmzme mo pawonmm

meDINMQ HQQEMU meDIMMQ HGQEMU
UCMHHOE OOHHwfimz

 

 

 

 

 

HBH>HpoH

IInuuuuuuuuuuuuuuunuuuunfluuuu

 

U05GH¢COUII.QH mHQwB

77

Table 20.--Percentage variation of the number of activi-
ties reported by the sample population

 

 

 

 

 

 

i
Nmflmr Sample State Parks
of .
Activities Tawas P01nt Waterloo Holland
Campers Day- Campers Day- Campers Day-
Users Users Users
01 0.3 3.4 1.3 2.2 4.4 6.2
l 6.2 24.3 3.9 12.2 6.9 20.9
2 7.3 14.7 8.1 11.8 4.4 16.0
3 8.4 14.9 8.4 16.1 10.3 16.6
4 11.6 14.2 10.1 18.1 16.7 15.8
5 12.4 8.5 12.7 14.5 15.8 12.3
6 13.7 7.6 12.9 8.5 12.8 5.2
7 12.9 5.1 11.4 6.0 11.3 2.6
8 10.8 2.5 7.8 4.1 5.9 2.6
9 or more 16.4 4.8 23.4 6.5 11.3 1.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Mean Number
of
Activities 5.6 3.4 5.8 4.1 5.0 3.1

 

 

 

 

 

lResponses listed as no actiVities either did not
complete this section of the questionnaire or were not
actiVe in the park.

Fishing and boating were most popular especially to camp-
ers at Waterloo. The inland lake appeared to invite more
water activities, other than swimming, than the sometimes
inhospitable Great Lakes. Other noticeable variances from
the aggregate data are the large percentage of Tawas Point
visitors walking to scenic points or sightseeing from their
vehicles. Such a large group seemed to be drawn to the

lighthouse operated by the Coast Guard within the park

 

78

property. The visitors at Holland are most noticeable
for their relative inactivity, as they reported the fewest
different activities of all groups sampled.

Campers as a group engaged in more activities than
the day-users. An investigation of activity participation
reveals that the camper averaged 5.5 different activities
as compared to 3.5 by the day-user. (See Table 20.) The
camper usually spent longer time periods in a park and
often occupied a campsite for several days; therefore,

more time was available and this probably accounted for
the large number of campers who participated in nine or
more activities. The average day-user on the other hand,
arrived during the early afternoon hours, perhaps driving
in the morning, and normally spent no more than four hours
in the park. The day-user was generally prompted to come
to the park for one purpose, whether it was swimming or
fishing, and engaged in few other pursuits.

Overall, a definite interrelationship between the
number of activities and distance traveled to the park
appeared in a chi square analysis of these two variables.
(See Table 21.) The observed number of activities engaged

in by the day-users differed most significantly from the
theoretical frequencies when travel distances of less than
100 miles were considered. A day-user residing within a
50 mile radius of a park, participated in fewer activities

than was theoretically expected. At distances between 50

 

 

 

 

H00. 00 UmumfiHumMIIH0>0H moGMUHMHGmHm 00.00 H muwsvm H30
H0.0 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.« «v.H 00.0 0H.0 00.0 00.0 mmHHE 00« H0>o

v0.0 0H.0 H0.0 H0.0 ov.0 mm.H 00.0 0H.H H0.0 00.0 mmHHE mmHlomH

q,

7 0«.m H«.H 00.0 00.0 00.0 0H.0 «H.0 00.0 h«.0 00.0 mmHHE mVHIQOH
00.0 00.H ov.0H HH.HH 00.0 00.« m«.H mv.0 H0.0 00.0 mmHHE mmlom
0H.¢ 00.0 00.0 H0.« 00.0 «H.H 00.H 00.0 0m.« 0H.0 mmHHE mvlo

 

m0Hoc05009m 00uommxm 0cm Hmsuod 2003900 0on0u000Ho

a m N m m H m N H o cmHm>mss
mmHHz

 

00H0H>Huo¢ mo amnesz

mxnmm 0Hmfimm HH< .mu0mblmma

0:0 £003 0035800 . il'r'lln

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H00. mm pmumEHum0IIH0>0H moGMUHMHcmHm 00.00 H 0umswm H20
00.0 0H.« 00.0 0H.0 00.0 H0.0 00.0 0H.0 HH.0 00HHE 00« H0>O
% 0«.H 00.0 00.0 «0.H 00.0 00.H «0.0 0«.0 00.0 00HHE 00HI00H
«H.0 0«.« 00.0 00.0 0«.0 «H.0 0H.0 m0.H 00.0 m0HHE m0HI00H
00.« 00.0 H0.0 00.0 00.0 0«.H 00.0 00.« hp.« m0HHE 00I00
H«.« 00.0 H0.0 00.0 H0.0 0«.0 ««.« H0.0 00.0 m0HHE 00I0
00H0c0sv0nm U0uo0mxm 0am HMDHod G003u0m 0UG0H0MMHQ
0 0 b 0 0 0 m « H can 0
meuH>Huo0 mo amnesz
303 3023 H2 .3038

 

 

il/IIIII

00:0
Hpgou--.HH mHQHH

81

and 100 miles from the park, the day-user participation
level increased. It seemed that the day-user who resided
near the park made relatively frequent visits but partici-
pated in fewer activities. Those day-users traveling
farther probably spent more time at the park and, there-
fore, had the opportunity to participate in a greater
number of activities. When travel distances were more
than 100 miles, there was less positive correlation between
distances and number of activities and the observed fre-
quencies approached those of a random distribution.

The same general type of activity pattern is ap-
parent with campers who travel less than 100 miles as
with the day-user, although the difference is not quite
as significant. (See Table 21.) There were fewer activi-
ties reported than expected for campers living within 50
miles of the sample parks and a somewhat greater number of
activities than expected between 50 and 100 miles. At
travel distances greater than 100 miles, the frequency dis-
tribution of the number of activities approached a random
distribution. Those large chi square values which do occur
at greater distances do not form a pattern and in some

cases may be caused by the small size of the sample.
Conclusions and Generalizations

The park users sampled, campers and day-users, were

ruat regular visitors of all types of parks but did appear

 

 

 

will. ...-Luv

I III ..\...l.I.Ill II: III I) Inll\I/I-..III . l

 

82

to visit state parks more frequently than those adminis-
tered by any other governmental agency. The duration and
frequency of visits to the sample state parks, Tawas
Point, Waterloo, and Holland, varied among user groups as
well as with distance. The most "typical" day-user that
traveled to the parks was a first time visitor, although
there was a significant group of repeat visitors. Campers
generally spent several days at the park and thus often
were both first time and lengthy users.

Once at the park the groups engaged in a variety
of activities, with over 50 percent of the total swimming,
wading, and "relaxing." The same activities were popular
in all parks and with both the day-user and camper although
some minor variations in the ranking of activities by per-
cent of participation did occur. The number of activities
participated in during the visit did vary between the day-
user and camper groups. The camper consistently engaged
in more activities, largely because of longer sojourns in
the park with more time to pursue various activities. The
day-user spent less time in the park and concentrated upon
fewer activities.

Visitor travel distances were found to relate
directly to both the number of days of park use and the
trumber of activities. This finding helped to answer one

(Df the questions posed in Chapter I, namely:

83

Does the park user residing near the park visit it
more frequently and participate in a greater number
of activities than do individuals who live at
greater distances?
Day-users and campers use park facilities more often when
the park is close to the place of residence and frequent
visits from homes beyond 100 miles are much less than
theoretically predicted. Camper and day-user activities
vary more with distance than between groups. Thus, for
groups living between 0 and 50 miles from the park fewer
activities are participated in than theoretically expected,
for those between 50 and 100 miles more activities occur
than expected, and beyond 100 miles the results approach a
random distribution. Thus, the park user visiting a nearby
park had a tendency to repeat his visit but engaged in few
different activities while there. Persons driving between
50-100 miles to the park tended to be infrequent visitors
but engaged in relatively numerous activities. Beyond a
driving distance of 100 miles, the sample group became very
infrequent visitors to the three state parks tested. The

number of activities in which this group participated

<developed no discernable pattern.

CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

This study of day-users was conducted in three
Michigan State Parks, Tawas Point, Waterloo, and Holland,
which were selected as representative of the complete
statewide park system. The information collected about
the park users, both day-users and campers, was determined
as reliable and valid for the three test parks and possi-
bly for all state parks.

The day-users are indeed an important group in the
visitor composition at the state parks and include at
least 75 percent of all park users. Campers may be even
less numerous than indicated in the study since, through
repeated entries, they are more likely to be represented
in the sample. Thus, increased information centered on
the day-user is an absolute necessity for park systems.

The hinterlands, or drawing areas, of the individ-
'ual parks were describable by the county of residence and
Lby'tme estimated mileage traveled from the visitor's per-
Imanent residence to the park. The conglomerate hinter-
lands of the three parks differed substantially from each

cyther although differences between the day-users and

84

85

campers at a particular park were minor. The out-of-state
visitors, 15 percent of the total sample, were more likely
to be campers than day-users. Most park visitors (69 per-
cent) traveled less than 100 miles or less than two hours
(74 percent) from their place of permanent residence.
These relatively short distances indicated the rather
limited area of concentration of park use.

The hinterlands were best described by counties
which showed a high prOportion of use to the total popula-
tion. A simple ratio between the sampled number of visitor
groups from a particular county and that counties' actual
population was used. The counties of highest use were
normally located adjacent to the park. Those counties
which provided the greatest absolute number of visitors
were not necessarily the ones providing the greatest pro-
portional use. Thus, the most usable description of the
hinterland in this study was to limit it to these areas of
high proportional use. The delineated hinterlands com-
pared only slightly to the idealized model in which use
decreased outward in regular concentric circular zones
about the park. The zones which were observable were often
discontinuous and skewed by various factors, such as inter-
‘vening opportunities in the form of other parks located in
'the same or more conveniently located areas. The only as-

pect of the conceptualized model of a hinterland which was

86

completely consistent with the observable was the decreas-
ing proportion of use at greater distances from the park.

The age of park users is an important factor in
the choice of recreational activity. The young person
tends, somewhat obviously, to be more active than an older
individual. As compared to the total national population,
the park users sampled were a young group as the majority
were between the ages of five and twenty-five. This
youthfulness was consistent with sample group composition
which included many families with children, young couples,
and groups of teenage friends.

The average park visitor was from a middle or upper
middle class family. The head of the household of the park
users, as reported, was a relatively young male who was a
professional or skilled craftsman, had more than a high
school education (averaged 12.8 years of schooling), and
earned more than the national or state average income (be-
tween $8,000 and $15,000 yearly).

The sample groups generally were not regular or
repeat park users, although they did report visiting the
state parks more often than other outdoor recreational
areas. The frequency of use varied greatly, from the
large percentage of the day-users using the park for the
first time, to the substantial number of repeat visitors,
attending the park over 24 days a year. The campers,

Inawever, included fewer first time visitors, tended to

87

spend several days at the park once they arrived, and did
not have as many repeat visitors. In terms of frequency
of use, there was more difference between parks than be-
tween campers and day-users. Tawas Point had a very large
proportion of first time visitors due to its relatively
isolated location as compared to Holland and Waterloo with
their greater number of repeat visitors.

The activities of the sample groups were quite
varied and reflected the wide range of activities and
facilities provided by the state parks. Ranking activities
by percent participation showed basically the same pattern
in all parks and for both campers and day-users. The most
popular activities were swimming, wading, sunbathing, pic-
nicking, and relaxing. The day-users invariably partici-
pated in fewer activities than the campers who spent longer
time periods in the park and consequently had more time to
be active. The day-users with less time at the park seemed
to concentrate on fewer activities.

Based on chi square tests significant interrela-
tionships appeared between distance traveled to the park
and l) the total family income, 2) the frequency of park
'visits, and 3) the number of activities. The observed
frequencies of the day-users differed most significantly
from the theoretically expected frequencies in the follow-
.ing cases: 1) At travel distances of over 200 miles,

'there were fewer groups than expected with low incomes and

88

a higher proportion of groups with incomes over $8,000 a
year; 2) those day-users living within a radius of 50
miles visited the park more frequently than those groups
living at greater distances from the park. Also beyond
fifty miles, there were more first time visitors than had
been anticipated; and 3) at less than fifty miles from the
park, the day-user participated in fewer activities than
expected and between 50 and 100 miles, a greater number of
activities were engaged in than predicted by theoretical
frequencies.

There were also significant relationships between
the travel distances of the campers and l) the duration of
park visits and 2) the number of activities participated
in while in the park. There seemed to be no significant
relationship between distance traveled by the camper and
the total family incomes as measured by a chi square test
of these two factors. At travel distances near the park
the campers had either frequently visited the park or were
staying a number of days on the present visit. Those
campers traveling over 200 miles to the park, on the other
hand, were predominantly first-time visitors. The number
of activities of the camper related to distance traveled
‘was similar to the pattern found for the day-user. At
distances less than 50 miles from the park, the camper

participated in fewer activities than expected; between

89

50 and 100 miles from the park, he participated in more
activities; and beyond 100 miles, a random distribution
was approached.

It seemed that as park users made more frequent
visits to the park they participated in fewer activities.
Those groups traveling greater distances would make more
preparations, would come less frequently, would spend
longer time in the park, and, therefore, would have longer
time to participate in numerous different activities.

Prior to this study little was known about the
day-user and his behavior patterns within a state park.
The camper groups, however, had been more thoroughly re-
searched. Here, detailed data of the day-user has been
obtained, analyzed, and compared to the camper. In many
park use characteristics, the day-users were found to be
similar to the campers but there were enough differences
to warrant a special and detailed study about the day-
users. It is interesting to note that although there were
differences between the day-user and camper, most differ-
ences occurred between the three test parks.

This study certainly only begins to describe and
analyze the day-user. Other possible directions and re-
finements using the same data could be:

1. To use zip codes to precisely locate the per-

Inanent residences of the park visitors.

90

2. To sample all state parks on a continuous basis
to establish generalizations for all parks, and to deter-
mine if the sample parks used here were truly typical of
all state parks, and also to experiment with various sample
sizes to determine if a smaller sample could be taken with
the same results.

3. To examine the seasonal cycle of park hinter-
lands related to areal extent and the type of visitor
groups.

4. To further refine the analysis of travel dis-
tance or time, e.g., testing gravity models and other more
dynamic measurements.

The overall study, of which this analysis is part,
permitted the involved park personnel to examine the
actual questionnaires for comments and suggestions on park
operation. Hopefully, this present study will provide
reliable information in a concise form to substantiate
previous and new premises of park personnel. Such data
could be useful perhaps as a basis for plans for improving
current facilities, for advertising campaigns aimed at
specific socio-economic classes, and for developing new
parks and facilities to provide universal benefit.

Recreational analysts have been pursuing inexpen-
sive and reliable methods of obtaining information about
all.park users. "Recreation research is an Open field.

In theory and philoSOphy, in group desires and needs, for

91

studies and surveys, in planning, and in all aspects of

organization and administration, more factual knowledge

1

based upon sound research is needed." This study provided

a practical application of dealing with data that was
collected in such a manner.

"Co-operation and independent study of researchers
from various disciplines are necessary if the impact of

the new leisure is to be accurately understood and planned

"2

for. To this end geographers may interest themselves in

the Spatial aspects of outdoor recreation including park
use.

There is great need in the new field of recreational

study for careful analysis of recreational areas for

the purpose of depicting and explaining the patterns

both 3f recreation structure and recreational activi-
ties.

Geographers may interest themselves in recreational
areas of any size but so far have given attention
principally to such units as states, counties, or
cities.

 

1Harold D. Meyer and Charles K. Brightbill, Egg-
munity Recreation - A Guide to Its Organization, 3rd ed.
(Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrentiCe-Hall, Inc.,
1964), p. 73.

2Douglas H. Sessoms, "New Basis for Recreation
Planning," Parks and Recreation, Vol. 48, (January, 1965),
p. 13.

3K. C. McMurry, "Recreational Geography," American
Geography - Inventory and Prospect, Edited by Preston E.
James and Clarence P. Jones, Published for the Association
of American Geographers, (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse
University Press, 1954), p. 255.

4Ibid., p. 252.

 

 

92

This study offers one example of steps which geographers
may take in working within a recreational area the scale

of a state park. Different geographical techniques in-
cluding perhaps distance decay rates, gravity models, and
population flow patterns, may be used and tested within

the park situation. Definition and analysis of such re—
lationships as those between travel distances and various
socio-economic factors may be only one aspect of an applied
and meaningful research area. This study can be a begin-
ning from which geographers can co-operate with other areas

in gaining further knowledge about the increasingly impor-

tant component of leisure activities--outdoor recreation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Books

Barlowe, Raleigh and Steinmueller, Milton H. "Trends in
Outdoor Recreation." A Place to Live. Yearbook
of Agriculture, 1963. Washington, D.C.: Depart-
ment of Agriculture. Government Printing Office,
1963, pp. 299-304.

 

Burdge, Rabel J., Sitterley, John, and So, Frank S. Out-
door Regreation. .A project of the Natural Re:-'
sources Institute in cooperation with the Department
of Agriculture Economic and Rural Sociology and
City and Regional Planning of Ohio State University.
Columbus, Ohio: 1962.

 

Carlson, Reynold E., Deppe, Theodore, R., and MacLean,
Janet R. Recreation in_American Life. Belmont,
California: WadSworth Publishing Company, Inc.,
1963.

Clark, John I. Population Geography. New York: Pergamon
Press, 1965.

 

Clawson, Marion. "How much Leisure, Now and in the Future?"
Leisure in America: Blessing or Curse? Edited by
James C. Charlesworth. Philadelphia: The American
Academy of Political and Social Science. 1964,
pp. 1—20.

. Land and Water for Recreation. Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1963.

 

. Statistics on Outdoor Recreation. washington,
D.C.: Resources for the Future, Inc., 1958.

 

(Slawson, Marion and Knetsch, Jack L. Economics of Outdoor
Recreatigg, (Published for Resources for the
Future, Inc.). Baltimore, Maryland: The Johns
Hopkins Press, 1966.

 

 

(Clawson, Marion and Stewart, Charles L. Land Use Informa-
tion. (Published for Resources for the Future, Inc.).
BaItimore, Maryland: The Johns HOpkins Press, 1965.

93

 

94

Doell, Charles E. and Fitzgerald, Gerald B. A Brief_His-
Eory of Parks and Recreation in the United States.
Chicago, Illinois: The Athletic Institute, 1954?

 

Ferriss, Abbott L. "Types of Recreation Surveys." Reg:
reation Research. Washington, D.C.: American
Association for Health Physical Education and
Recreation. 1966. pp. 160—175.

 

Lewis, Philip H., Jr. Study of Recreation and Open Space
in Illinois. Urbana, Illinois: University of
Illinois. 1961.

 

McMurry, K. C. "Recreational Geography," American Geography-
Inventory and Prgspect. Edited by Preston E. James
and Clarence F. Jones. (Published for the Asso-
ciation of American Geographers) Syracuse, New
York: Syracuse University Press, 1954, pp. 251-256.

 

 

Meyer, Harold D. and Brightbill, Charles K. Community
Recreation - A Guide thts Organization. 3rd ed.
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:‘ Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1964.

 

 

. State Recreation: Organization and Administra-
tion. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1950.

 

Nuemeyer, Martin H. and Esther S. Leisure and Recreation.
New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1958.

 

Ogden, Daniel M., Jr. "The Role of Research in the Fed-
eral and State Recreation Services." Recreation
Research. Washington, D.C.: American Association
for Health, Physical Education and Recreation,
1966, pp. 25-29.

 

 

Olsson, Gunner. Distance and Human Interaction: A Review
and Bibliography. (Bibliography Series, No. 2)
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Regional Science Re-
search Institute, 1965.

 

Recreation Research. (Collected papers from the National
Conference of Recreation Research, Pennsylvania
State University, University Park, Pennsylvania,
1965). Washington, D.C.: American Association
for Health, Physical Education and Recreation, 1966.

 

Reid, Leslie M. "Utilizing User Preferences in Predicting
Outdoor Recreation Demand." Recreation Research.
Washington, D.C.: American AssociatiOn for Health,
Physical Education and Recreation, 1966, pp. 86—92.

 

95

Sielaff, Richard O. The Economics of Outdoor Recreation
in the Upper Midwest. (The Social Sciences—Re-
search Fundf) Duluth, Minnesota: University of
Minnesota, 1963.

 

 

Tilden, Freeman. The State Parks: Their Meaning in Ameri-
can Life. New York: Afred A. Knopf, 1962.

 

 

Ullman, Edward L. "Geographical Prediction and Theory:
The Measure of Recreation Benefits in the Meramec
Basin." Problems and Trends in American Geography.
Edited by Saul B. Cohen, New York: Basic Books,
Inc., 1967, pp. 124-145.

Warner, W. Lloyd with Meeker, Marchia,and Ells, Kenneth.
Social Class in America. New York: Harper and
Row, 1960.

 

White, R. Clyde. "Social Class Differences in the Use of
Leisure." Mass Leisure. Edited by Eric Larrabee
and Rolf Meyersohn. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free
Press, 1958, pp. 198-204.

 

Articles and Periodicals

 

Clark, Colin and Peters, G. H. "The 'Intervening Oppor-
tunities' Method of Traffic Analysis," Traffic
Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1 (January, 1965), IUI-ll9.

 

Clarke, Alfred C. "The Use of Leisure and Its Relation
to Levels of Occupational Prestige." American
Sociological Review. Vol. 21, No. 3,(June, 1956),
301-307.

 

 

Deasy, George F. "The Tourist Industry of a 'North WOods'
County," Economic Geography, Vol. 25, (1949), 240-
249.

 

Deasy, George F. and Griess, Phyllis R. "Impact of a
Tourist Facility on Its Hinterlands," Annals of
the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 56,
No. 2, (1966), 290-306.

 

Dowell, Linus J. "Recreational Pursuits of Selected
Occupational Groups," Research Quarterly, Vol. 38,
(December, 1967), 719-722.

 

96

Enger, Theodore G. and Guest, B. Ross. "The Response of
a State Park to a Demand for Recreation: Yankee
Springs, Michigan," The Profession§l_Geggr§pher,
Vol. 20, No. 3, (May, 1968), 171-176.

Greeley, Roland B. "Part-Time Farming and Recreational
Land Use in New England," Economic Geography, Vol.
18 (1942), 145-152.

Havighurst, Robert J. "The Leisure Activities of the
Middle-Aged," American Journal of Sociology, Vol.
63, (September, 1957), 152-162.

 

Knetsch, Jack L. "Outdoor Recreation Demands and Benefits,"
Land Economics, Vol. 39, No. 4, (November, 1963),
387-396.

Luten, D. B. "Parks and PeOple," Landscape, Vol. 12, No.
2, (1962), 3-7.

 

Michigan State University. The Michigan State Economic
Record. Vol. 10, No. 9, (November, 1968), 4-5.

Murphy, Richard E. "Geography and Outdoor Recreation: An
Opportunity and Obligation," The Professional
Geographer, Vol. 15, No. 5, (September, 1963),

 

Pfantz, Harold W. "The Current Literature on Social
Stratification Critique and Bibliography," Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, Vol. 58, (January, 1953).
391-418.

 

Prophet, Edward C. "The Tourist and Resort Industry,"
Annual Report of the Michigan Academy of Science,
Arts and Letters, (1947), 41-51.

 

Sessoms, H. Douglas. "New Basis for Recreational Planning,"
Parks and Recreation, Vol. 48, (January, 1965),

 

Thompson, Bryan. "Recreation Travel: A Review and Pilot
Study," Traffic Quarterly, Vol. 21, (November,
1967), 527-512.

 

Twardzik, Lewis F. "Urban-Oriented Outdoor Recreation,"
Recreation, Vol. 56, (December, 1963), 470-473.

 

"US Population Show Gains in Education, But Blacks Still
Lag," Higher Education and National Affairs, Vol.
18, No. 18, (May, 1969),’4—5.

 

97

Wolfe, R. I. "Prospective on Outdoor Recreation: A Bib-
liographical Survey," Geographical Review, Vol.
44, No. 2, (1964), 203-238.

 

. "Summer Cottagers in Ontario," Economic Geog-
raphy, Vol. 27, (January, 1951), 10-32.

 

Wylie, James A. "A Survey of 504 Families to Determine
the Relationship Between Certain Factors and the
Nature of the Family Recreation Program," Research
Quarterly, Vol. 24, (May, 1953), 229-243.

 

Volk, Donald J. "Factors Affecting Recreational Use of
National Parks," abstract Annals of the Associa-

tion of American Geo raphers, Vol. 55, No. 4,
(December, 1965), 65 .

Reports

Detroit, Michigan. Detroit MetrOpolitan Area Regional
Planning Commission. Recreation in the Detroit
Region - Parts I and II. February, 1958.r

Illinois. Department of Business and Economic Develop-
ment. Outdoor Recreation in Illinois. Spring-
field, Illinois: 1965.

Iowa. Iowa State Planning Board, Recreation and Historic

Division. Survey Methods Manual of Recreation
Facilities in Iowa, 1937.7

.Michigan. Department of Commerce and Department of Con-
servation. Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand
Study. Technical Report Number 6. Vol. I and II.

y avid M. Mistein and Leslie M. Reid; Lansing
Michigan: '1966.

Michigan. Department of Conservation. Parks and Recrea-
tion Division. Michigan State Pagks - Five Year
Capital Outlay Program 1962-67. 71962.

Michigan. Department of Conservation. Recreation Resource
Planning Division. Outdoor Recreation Planning in
Michigan by a Systems Analysis Approach. By J. B.
Eiiis. Lansing, Michigan: 1966.

United States. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.
A Comoarison of Four Survey Techniques Used in Out-
door Recreation Research. By Elwood L. Shafer, Jr.

and John F. Hamilton,3f. Research Paper NE-86.
Washington, D.C.: 1967.

 

98

United States. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.
Characteristics of Family Campers Using the Huron-
MafiiStee National Forests. By David A. King. Re—-
search Paper LS-l9. Washington, D.C.: 1965.

 

. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
Estimating Recreation Use on a Complex of Develgped
Sites. By George A. James andfi John L. Rich. Re-
search Note SE- 64. Washington, D. C.: 1966.

 

. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.
Forest Recreation - A Bibliography. Washington,
D.C.: 1938.

 

. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.
Instructions for Using Traffic Counters to Estimate
Recreation Visits and Use. By George A. James and
Thomas H. Ripley. Research Paper SE-3. Ashville,
North Carolina: 1963.

 

 

. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.
Outdoor Recreation Surveys: Length of Stay Bias
and Its Correction’by Computer. By Robert C.
Lucas and Dennis L.Schweitzer. Research Note LS-
68. St. Paul, Minnesota: 1965.

 

. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.

 

Recreation Use of the Ocala National Forest in
Florida. By George A. James and Robert A. Harper.
Research Paper SE-l8. Washington, D.C.: 1965.

. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.

 

Recreation Use of the Quetico-Superior Area. By
Robert C. Lucas. Research Paper LS-8. Washington,
D.C.: 1964.

. Department of Agriculture. Forest Service.

 

Relationships between Visitor Characteristics and
Recreation Activities on Two National Forest Areas.
By Alan J. Wagar. Research Paper NE-7. Washington,
D.C.: 1963.

. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census.

 

Census of Po opulation - 1960. Vol.1 - Characteris-
tics of the Populat1on, Part 1 - U. S. Summary.
Washington, D. C.: 1960.

 

. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census.

 

Census of P0pu1ation - 1960. Vol. 1 - Characteris-
tiCs of the Population. Park 24 - Michigan.
Washington, D.C.: 1960.

99

United States. Department of Commerce. Economic Devel-
0pment Administration. Tourism and Recreation.
(Prepared for the Office of Regional DeveIOpment
Planning by Arthur D. Little, Inc.) Washington,
D.C.: 1967.

 

. Department of Commerce. Statistical Abstract
of the United States - 1968. 89th ed. Washing-
ton, D.C.: 1968.

 

 

. Department of Interior. Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation. Index of Selected Outdoor Recreation
Literature. Washington, D.C.: 1967.

 

 

 

. Department of Interior. Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation. Outdoor Regreation Research - A

Reference Catalog - 1967. Washington, D.C.:

1967.

 

 

. Department of Interior. Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation. Outdoor Recreation Action. Report
No. 1. Washington, D.C.: 1966.

 

 

. Department of Interior. Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation. State Outdoor Recreation Statistics
- 1962. Washington, D.C.: 71962.

 

 

. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.
Outdoor Recreation for America. Washington, D.C.:
1962.

 

Unpublished Material

 

Chubb, Michael. A Systems Analysis and Spatial Demand Ap—
proach to Statewide Recreation Planning: A Case
Study of Boating in Michigan. ‘Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Geography, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1967.

 

Crapo, Douglas M. Recreation Area "Day-Use" Investigation
Techniques: A Study of Survey Methodology Within
Michigan State Parks. M.S. Thesis, Department of
Resource Development, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1969.

LMichigan. Michigan State Parks and Recreation Areas.
(Mimeo).

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

THE QUESTIONNAIRE

 

APPENDIX B

101

.00Imm .mm .000H .000000>0:D 00000 :000:00S..0:0EQOH0>0Q 00050000 00 0:08000moa
.000009 00:0000 00 000002 .00000 00000 :0000002 :00003 mmOHo0oa00z m0>0sm 00 00900
0 «0050005300... :00000000950 ..0mDLn0n—s 0000 :00000000m .00000 .2 m0HmHHoa

 

 

 

 

 

H
00000
00000 H0>0:000 0:500 0« :00 0:0 00:000
.:3o00 .05Hn .3oHH00 .00003 00 :000000800 00000 00000 00 00H00 .0
00000 00>00 0000 000:0 x0000 0000 =>>00m= H00
m>
00900
0:000003 0000H00 0000M H0>0:000 0:500 0« 00000 0000 =0£m0qg A0 .m
00000 0000 HH 0 N\HI00000H0000 . 0000 umHm H00
. L m>
umHnmamm 0600 N\Hum x
«\HI0 0 00:0 000H00 00000 00:0 HH 0 «\HI0 0000 000Hom H0 .0

 

 

_

“00:00000000 005000 0000::0000050

 

m0>000:000H<.mo :000000000Q4. 0H00000>

H.00a0m 00:0 :0 000000 0:000 00 0H00
I000 0003 000:3 0:0 0m:omm00 0000::0000090 000000 00008 £0003 00Hn0000>II.m 000:0000

102

 

.0000002

=0000000 000000: 0 0:0:000:00 0000 00:00
000 .0000 0000 000000 000 :0 0:0000050
000 00 00000sv|0:0 00000E0x00000 0:0:000
1:00 0000 0:0 0003 0000 0000 00:0 0 x m 0

0000::0000050 0000 =0000 0000= 000

 

0000 £000 00 x «\0um 0000o0

m>

0000::0000000 0000 000000 00 .0

 

0:0000050 0E00 000 00
00:000000 0:0000000 00000 00 :000000800

00000 :0000050 0:0000000 .0

 

0:0000050 000000:0 000>0000
00 08000 0:0000000 0>00 00 :000000500

 

:0000000 000000:0
000>0000 :0 00 08000 0:0000000 .0

 

0:00:00 0000::0000050

 

00000000 000:00 oz 000

 

00000050 000:0000000

m>

0000::0000050 0003 00000000 000:00 00 .0

 

: MUHEHU : 00.0

0000 0000000 oz 000

 

000:050000000 00 0000 00 000 00000000.

I:0: 0:00:000 00000000 0900 .00:00 0:05
Id000:0 000 8000 0000::0000000 000 0:00050
00 0:00:00000 000 0030000 0000 0000000 0

m>

0000::0000050 00
00:000 0000 00005 :0 000: 0000000 00 .o

 

00>000:00004.Ho 00000000000

 

00000um> ‘

 

0000:00:00V m 000:0000

103

 

.HHQE an ma qusumn

mo mammfi Mano map can cm>ofimu mum3 mwxon
ufimommn .muflxm wmum um cam mocmuunw um
#50 vmvzmm .mowm vmmmmHUUMImamm .vflmmmum
spw3 mmmu =Uumo amen: mm3 whamccowummao

cuuumu xomn
xomn Hana .pflxm mmum um unoccmm

 

.mmmmmma guwmommc

mmmmam= suflz max» =©Hmo umom= mmz mafia:
Icoflummso .hwnum mo mmanm gamc0mmmm=
CH cmma Hm>mfluumulammummmfl© mo wonumz

m>

uflxm um xon coauomaaoo :H uwmom
Imc .monmuucm wand um usoocmm

AHA

.AH .n

 

.coflumooH Ummmmumwm
Imum msu ou woamflcw>aoo man um wumo

may Hana fiasco Ho «mum may puma 0: mm

xon soapomaaoo cw uwmommw Monuam waaoo
ucmuqommmm .mwwm wmmmmuwvmlmawm .cflmmmnm
nufl3 mmmu =©Hmo umom=‘mm3 mnwmccowummso

xomn Hams no paxm mmum
um xon nowpomaaoo aw.uflmommw.mn
Hm>mfluumu .oocmuuam um uaownmm

 

mammmwfi =uflmomww

mmmmamg nuw3 mmau goumo umom= mm3 mufimn
Icowumwso .mwnum mo mmmnm gamc0mmmm=
:a 6mm: Hm>mwuuwuuammuwmmflw mo vosumz

 

m>

uflxm mmum um x09 coHuomHHou
SH uflmommv .mocmuuam um usowqmm

AHH

AH. .H

 

muonumz.HM>0HHumm|Hanmmmfla

 

mm>fiumanmua4 uo.:oaumaaomma....

magmaum>

 

 

635.».nt m 33%?

APPENDIX C

104

Appendix C.--Variables from "day-user" questionnaire in~
formation which show a sigEificant difference
in a comparative analysis. (From use of
both analysis of variance and chi square
techniques.)

 

 

Park Variables

 

Tawas Point State Park None
(low-intensity use)

 

Waterloo State Recreation 1. How many miles, by the most

 

Area direct route, is this park
(intermediate-intensity from your home?a

use)

Holland State Park 1. How many days have you used
(high-intensity use) this park in 1968?b

2. How much time did you spend
traveling to this park
today?

 

 

aThe variance found in questions concerning travel
indicated shorter travel distance and less travel time for
the groups interviewed than for those voluntarily deposit-
ing their questionnaires.

bSince there are no voluntary deposit information
obtained for Holland State Park after the interview phase,
the discrepancy found:h1this question was eXpected.

 

1Douglas M. Crapo, Recreation Area "Day-Use" In-
vestigation Techniques: A Stud of Surve Methodology
w1thin Michigan State Parks. MS THesis, Department of
ResourCe Development, Michigan State University, 1969,
p. 86.

 

APPENDIX D

105

Appendix D.--Number of visitor groups at various distances.

 

 

 

No. of , _ Miles

Miles Groups PerCent Percent No. Percent Miles No. Percent
0a 665 18.1 400 27 .7 800 7 .2
10 332 9.0 410 810
20 222 6.1 420 2 .0 820
30 349 9.5 430 1 .0 830 2 .0
40 202 5.5 440 2 .1 840
50 194 5.3 450 15 .4 850 2 .0
60 182 5.0 460 3 .1 860 2 .0
70 188 5.1 470 1 .0 870 1 .0
80 130 3.5 480 2 .0 880
90 76 2.1 490 2 .0 890

100 120 3.3 500 17 .5 900 3 .l

110 47 1.3 510 910

120 71 1.9 520 920

130 42 1.1 530 1 .0 930

.140 40 1.1 540 ‘ 940

150 107 2.9 550 2 .0 950 2 .0

160 67 1.8 560 960

170 79 2.2 570 970

180 87 2.4 580 980

190 22 0.6 590 1 .0 990 . 21 .6

200 93 2.5 600 12 .3 and

210 15 0.4 610 l .0 over

220 38 1.0 620

230 13 0.4 630

240 .10 0.3 640

250 .37 1.0 650 3 .1

260 5 0.1 660

270 6 0.2 670

280 4 0.1 680

290 690

300 36 1.0 700 6 .2

310 4 .1 710

320 13 .3 720 2 .0

330 4 .1 730 1 .0

340 l .0 740 1 .0

350 11 .3 750 4 .1

360 2 .0 760

370 4 .l 770 1 .0

380 3 .0 780 l .0

390 1 .0 790

 

aEach category of miles represents a ten mile inter-
val. 0 is the miles between 0 miles and 9 miles.

APPENDIX E

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES

0.

l.

106

Omitted (or if say "work")

Professional
Draftsmen~
Engineers, technical
Aeronautical
Civil
Electrical
Industrial
Mechanical
Engineers, technical, n.e.c.
Nurses, professional
Personnel and labor relations workers
Physicians and surgeons
Professors and Instructors
Teachers
Technicians, medical and dental
Technicians, electrical and electronic
Electronic engineers, technicians
Technicians, other engineering and physical
sciences
All other professional and kindred workers

Farm.managers, farmers

Managers, elected officials
Purchasing agents and buyers
Managers and others, n.e.c., salaried
Managers and others, n.e.c., self-employed
All others--owner

Clerical
Bookkeepers
Cashiers
Secretaries
Stenographers
Stock clerks and storekeepers
Typists
Clerical and kindred workers, n.e.c.

Sales
“Insurance agents, brokers and underwriters
Salesmen and sales clerks
All other sales workers

Craftsmen
Carpenters
Electricians
Foremen, n.e.c.
Machinists

7.

8.

9.

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.

107

Mechanics and repairmen

Plumbers and pipe fitters

Toolmakers and die makers

Craftsmen, foremen, and kindred, n.e.c.

Operatives
Assemblers
Checkers, examiners, and inspectors,
manufacturing
Delivery and routemen
Engine lathe Operators
Filers, grinders, and polishers--metal
Numerical control machine--tool operators
Operators, fabricated metal
Truck and tractor drivers
Operatives and kindred workers, n.e.c.
Miners

Private Household

Service
Attendant, hospital and others
Cooks--except private household
Hairdressers and cosmetologists
Janitors and sextons
Protective service workers
Waiters and waitresses
Service workers, n.e.c.
Airline stewardesses

Farm labor

Labor

Student

Housewife

Retiree

Military

Unemployed

Other, factory-

-
..q

Cvu'
....

...: ..9090uov91 .1 .... .7. . A. .. .l
. ...!uqlzffivtrguf 15.3.3... .......r..1.~...:......ried:

. ......... ...v'vns. .
., . . o. .
. .. 0. ....‘vv..‘ I. ...... . -.o- at...-o....q.l ~..¢t.v.x.

.... . ,.. ‘ - .Ir

» ..l’..D.. .7. ,

 

' ICHIGRN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

31293102773573