m 0 9 ”’4
(w? (199’

A96 0;; 993

LANDOWNER WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW PUBLIC ACCESS FOR THREE
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES: A STUDY OF RURAL LANDOWNERS

IN KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

BY

Richard Dennis Westfall

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Parks and Recreation Resources

1975

ACCEPTED

Committee Chairman

Z/WW 74/1 4 KQLW3{\
.7/

Committee Member

Committee Member I

 

 

 

Gad?

,d'

. ”.9
' 04...;

ABSTRACT

LANDOWNER WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW PUBLIC ACCESS FOR THREE
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES: A STUDY OF RURAL LANDOWNERS
IN KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

BY

Richard Dennis Westfall

As Americans' desire for open space increases, coupled with
rising land prices and tightening governmental land acquisition
budgets, there has been a growing interest by various governmental
agencies in opening up private land to public recreational use with

less than fee simple land acquisition methods such as leasing and

easements.

Before any large scale programs are initiated, information
about the receptiveness of landowners to allow public access to their
land is desirable. This study was designed to provide some of this
information to better utilize private land for public recreation to
the benefit of both the public and the private landowner. The basic
objective of the study was to examine the private landowner on the
urban fringe, his land and public access to his land for recreation.

The data analyzed in the study was obtained from personal
interviews with 195 private landowners in Kent County, Michigan.
Information collected involved characteristics of the landowners,

characteristics of their land, the landowners' willingness to allow

Richard Dennis Westfall

public access to their land for three recreational activities; hiking,
hunting, and snowmobiling, and the landowners' positions on several
public access issues, including public access programs. Responses to
questions dealing with public access concerned a specific parcel of
land identified with each landowner.

It was found that the respondent sample landowners tended to
be older, have an average amount of education and above average family
incomes. The highest percentage of owners were employed in farming.

A majority of the respondent sample landowners hiked on their land
whereas only a minority hunted or snowmobiled on their land. Approxi-
mately half of the owners held their land for amenity oriented reasons
such as recreation or rural environment. Over two-thirds of the
respondent sample landowners lived on or adjacent to their land.

It was found that the sample parcels of land owned by the
respondent sample landowners tended to be small in size. As a whole,
almost half of the parcels had land covers suitable for recreational
use. Over one-third of the sample parcels were posted, with "hunters"
being the most often cited reason for posting.

It was found that a majority of the respondent sample landowners
do allow, or would allow if requested, public access for the three
recreational activities; hiking, hunting, and snowmobiling. "Damages"
was the most often given reason by owners who did not allow, or would
not allow if requested, public access for the three activities. It
was found that landowner willingness to allow public access for a
recreational activity was negatively related to the intensity of the
activity. No difference was found between respondent sample landowners

who allow two or all three of the recreational activities ("high"

Richard Dennis Westfall

Public Access level) and owners who allow none or only one of the
three activities ("low" Public Access level) in terms of several
identifying characteristics.

For owners that did allow public access for the three
activities, estimates of public use were relatively light.

A majority of the respondent sample landowners indicated that
damages, control, liability and number were "very important" issues.
A negative relationship was found between a landowner's Public Access
level and the importance placed by the landowner on damages, control,
liability and number, although the relationship between Public Access
level and liability was not significant.

Less than one-third of the respondent sample landowners would
favor participating in public access programs for the three recreational
activities. Of those owners that would favor such programs, a
majority indicated they would require only reasonable payment per
acre per year to open their land for public recreational use. No
difference was found between respondent sample landowners who would
favor participating in public access programs for one, two, or all
three of the recreational activities ("high" Program Acceptance level)
and owners who would not favor participating in any public access
programs for the three activities ("low" Program Acceptance level) in
terms of several identifying characteristics.

A series of policy and research recommendations are presented
in the hope that the findings of this study will be utilized by

recreational and landuse policy makers and planners.

LANDOWNER WILLINGNESS TO ALLOW PUBLIC ACCESS FOR THREE
RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES: A STUDY OF RURAL LANDOWNERS

IN KENT COUNTY, MICHIGAN

BY

Richard Dennis Westfall

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

1975

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge the assistance of the individuals who
contributed their time to this study.

First, I would like to express my appreciation to Dr. Donald
Holecek, my advisor and committee chairman, for his guidance,
suggestions and encouragement throughout the study.

Second, I wish to thank my other two committee members,

Dr. Francis Domoy and Dr. Connie Shapiro, for their interest and
assistance during the study. I want to thank Dr. Lewis Moncrief, the
overall project director, and Bob Manning, the overall project
coordinator, for so easily and helpfully including my study in their
project. Special thanks go to Ed Mahoney, Charles Toy, and Rod Young
for their many hours of interviewing. I am indebted to the staff of
the Recreation Research and Planning Unit, particularly Mrs. Jean Geis,
for their assistance. I sincerely thank the 195 respondents who
donated their time, knowledge, and experiences and whose cooPeration
made this study possible. ,

Finally, I am deeply grateful to my parents and my wife, Lynn,

for their love, support, and faith during my entire graduate program.

ii

LIST OF
LIST OF
Chapter

I.

II.

III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLES C O O O O O O O O O O O O O

FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODU m I ON 0 O O O O O O O O O O O

The Study Area: Michigan. . . . . . . .
Objectives of the Study . . . . . . . .
Limitations to the Study. . . . . . . .
Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . .

PREVIOUS RESEARCH. . . . . . . . . . .

Landowner Characteristics . . . . . . .
Public Access . . . . . . . . . . .

HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH METHODS . . . . . .
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hypothesis 1: Recreational Activity . . .
Hypothesis 2: Landowner Concerns . . . .
Hypothesis 3: High Public Access Owners vs.
Public Access Owners. . . . . . . .
Hypothesis 4: High Program Acceptance Owners
Low Program Acceptance Owners. . . . .

Research Methods . . . . . . . . . .

Sample Area . . . . . . . . . . .
Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . .
Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . .
Response Rate. . . . . . . . . . .
Analysis of the Data . . . . . . . .

iii

Low

VS

Page

ix

l-'

GUI-bub

17

17

18
19

21
23
25
25
27
32

32
33

Chapter Page

IV C GMRAL FINDINGS O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 5
Characteristics of the Sample Parcels . . . . . 35
Characteristics of the Respondent Sample

Landowners. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Public Access 0 O O O C O O O O O I O O 42

V. TESTING THE HYPOTHESES . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Hypothesis 1: Recreational Activity . . . . . . 61

Hypothesis 2: Landowner Concerns . . . . . . . 64
Hypothesis 3: High Public Access Owners vs. Low

Public Access Owners . . . . . . . . . . 68

Discriminant Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 69

Hypothesis 4: High Program Acceptance Owners vs.

Low Program Acceptance Owners . . . . . . . 74

VI. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . 79

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . 83

Research Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . 84

REFERENCE LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
APPENDICES

Appendix

A. Variable Transformations . . . . . . . . . . 90

B. Introductory Letter . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

C. Survey Instrument. . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

iv

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

LI ST OF TABLES

Land Use in Kent County, 1970 . . . . . . . . .

Regional Breakdown, Region Description and Township
Selected for Sampling in Kent County . . . . . .

Sampling Summary by Township . . . . . . . . .
Response and Non-Response to the Interview by Township.
Sample Parcel Acreage Distribution . . . . . . .
Land Cover for Sample Parcels in Total . . . . . .

Total Acreage Held by Respondent Sample Owners in
Kent Coth 0 O O I O O O O O O I O O 0

Sample Parcel Posting Activity. . . . . . . . .

For Sample Parcels Posted, Percentage of Property
Post& 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O

For Sample Parcels Posted, Primary Reason for Posting .
Age Distribution for Respondent Sample Owners. . . .

Years of Education Distribution for Respondent Sample
owner 8 O C O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

Total Family Income, 1974 for Respondent Sample Owners.

Occupational Distribution for Respondent Sample Owners.

Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of Their Personal
Use of Their Parcels for Hiking, Hunting, and
SDOWObiling O I O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0

Respondent Sample Owners' Primary Ownership Objective .

Type of Sample Owner . . . . . . . . . . . .

Page

27

30
31
33
36

37

37

38

38

39

40

40
41

41

43
44

44

 

Table Page

18. Respondent Sample Owners' Willingness to Allow Public
Hiking, Hunting, and Snowmobiling on Their Parcels . . 45

19. Respondent Sample Owners' Willingness to Allow Public
Hiking, Hunting, and Snowmobiling, if Requested, on
Their Parcels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

20. Respondent Sample Owners' First Reason for Not Allowing,
or Not Allowing if Requested, Public Hiking, Hunting,
or Snowmobiling on Their Parcels . . . . . . . . 48

21. Respondent Sample Owners' Second Reason for Not Allowing,
or Not Allowing if Requested, Public Hiking, Hunting,
or Snowmobiling on Their Parcels . . . . . . . . 49

22. Respondent Sample Owners' Estimates of the Numbers of
Public Hikers, Hunters, and Snowmobilers They
Observed per Week on Their Parcels During the
Appropriate Activity Season. . . . . . . . . . 50

23. Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Importance
of Damages to Them in Relation to Public Recreational
Use of Their Parcels . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

24. Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Importance
of Control to Them in Relation to Public Recreational
Use of Their Parcels . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

25. Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Importance
of Liability to Them in Relation to Public Recreational
Use of Their Parcels . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

26. Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Importance
of Number to Them in Relation to Public Recreational
Use of Their Parcels . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

27. Respondent Sample Owners' Positions on Participating
in Public Access Programs for Hiking, Hunting, and
Snowmobiling with Their Parcels . . . . . . . . 54

28. Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Payment
They Would Require to Participate in Public Access
Programs for Hiking, Hunting, or Snowmobiling with
Their Parcels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

29. For Respondent Sample Owners who Favor Participating in
Public Access Programs for Hiking, Hunting, or
Snowmobiling with Their Parcels, the Type of Payment
They Would Prefer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

vi

Table Page

30. Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of Their Positions
on the Issue of the Public Asking Permission Before
Using Private Land for Hiking, Hunting, and
Snowmobiling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

31. Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of Their Positions
on the Hypothetical Issue of Governmental Payment of
all Damages over $25 Caused by the Public While Hiking,
Hunting, and Snowmobiling on Private Land . . . . . 58

32. Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of Their Positions
on the Issue of the Environmental Effect on Private
Land of Large Groups of Public Hikers, Hunters, and
Snowmobilers versus Small Groups . - - - - - . . 59

33. Respondent Sample Owners' Willingness to Allow, or Allow
if Requested, Public Hiking, Hunting, and Snowmobiling

on Their Parcels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
34. Mean Responses Comparison Results. . . . . . . . . 64
35. Cross—tabulation of Public Access Level with Damages . . 65
36. Cross-tabulation of Public Access Level with Control . . 66
37. Cross-tabulation of Public Access Level with Liability. . 66
38. Cross-tabulation of Public Access Level with Number. . . 67

39. High and Low Public Access Level Owner Discriminant
Analysis Group Means by Discriminating Variables . . . 70

40. Summary of Discriminant Analysis for High and Low Public
Access Level Owners. . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

41. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients for High
and Low Public Access Level Owners Discriminant

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

42. Classification Results for High and Low Public Access
Level Owners Discriminant Analysis. . . . . . . . 73

43. High and Low Program Acceptance Owners Discriminant
Analysis Group Means by Discriminating Variables . . . 76

44. Summary of Discriminant Analysis for High and Low
Program Acceptance Level Owners. . . . . . . . . 76

vii

Table Page
45. Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients for High
and Low Program Acceptance Level Owners Discriminant

Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

46. Classification Results for High and Low Program
Acceptance Owners Discriminant Analysis. . . . . . 78

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Kent County Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

ix

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Encouragement and incentives should be provided for public
use of private lands where it will not cause undue hardship to
the property in terms of liability, vandalism, or interference
with . . . uses of the land. This should include governmental
arrangements with private owners of idled farmland and woodland
to permit public use of such lands for outdoor recreation
activities, such as hunting, hiking, fishing and picnicing.

There are several factors which have contributed to such an
imperative. Perhaps the most important is Americans' increasing
desire for open space. As Americans' leisure time, affluence and
mobility increase, the need for recreational land will increase. At
the same time, however, there are serious availability problems
developing.

Most of the publicly owned land suitable for recreation is
located at a considerable distance from the majority of Americans
living in urban areas. This is true on the national, as well as state,
level. The current use of such remote recreational land is

diminishing as travel costs increase. According to James Watt, former

director of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,

 

1Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, The_
Recreation Imperative: A Draft of the Nationwide Outdoor Recreation
Plan Prepared by the Department of the Interior (Washington: U.S.
Government Printing Office, September 1974), p. 369.

 

 

The energy crisis has already altered lifestyles, motives,
attitudes, and operations; already it has had dramatic impacts
upon recreation. Visitation to rural parks, forests, and
recreation areas has dr0pped drastically . . . but recreation
use is greater at close-to-home, energy-saving places, because
pe0ple are changing their lifestyles to fit economic necessity.

Of America's 204 million people, 140 million live in

metropolitan areas ranging from central cities to suburbs.
Clearly they must have recreation opportunities and the closer
to home the better, because the energy problem could be with
us for many years.2

Therefore, it would appear that Mr. Watt is saying that it is
necessary to acquire more open space suitable for recreation near major
population centers, but there are problems in acquiring urban fringe
land. Land values are rising with increasing urbanization. At the
same time, local, state and federal land acquisition budgets are
decreasing or are seriously being reconsidered for reductions. Thus
such "governmental arrangements" mentioned above are becoming more
attractive. These arrangements usually consist of leasing agreements,
easements or other land acquisition methods short of "fee simple"

3
purchase.

There are many recreational activities that can be accommodated
on private land because they require little, if any, development or
supervision. Activities such as hunting and fishing have traditionally
been associated with private land. Activities with more recent

pepularity, such as snowmobiling and nature photography, can be

pursued on private land as well as publicly owned land.

 

James Watt, "Public Recreation on Private Lands," Outdoor
Recreation Action, No. 35 (Spring 1975), p. l.

 

3Fee simple purchase refers to the acquisition of all property
rights associated with a piece of property resulting in complete
ownership.

Various programs to open up private land for public recreation
are presently being tested on a trial basis in different areas of the
country. Under the Cropland Adjustment Program, authorized in the
Food and Agriculture Act of 1965, and administered by the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service, some 4 million acres of crop-
land have been diverted to use for recreation and conservation. Uses
include hunting, fishing, and hiking for which public access agree-
ments are, or have been, in effect on some 800,000 acres.

The Agricultural Act of 1970 provided authority for a public
access program on certain types of farmland. Under a pilot public
access program, operated in 50 counties in 10 states in 1972, 1.3
million acres of farmland were opened to the public for hunting,
fishing, and hiking. This program was again offered in 1973 and 1974
on a pilot basis in 50 counties.4

Before more permanent and larger scale programs can be imple-
mented, basic information about the receptiveness of landowners to
allow the public recreational use of their land is necessary. This
information is needed because the scale of any public access program
depends on the amount of land owned by persons receptive to public
recreation on their land, and also because the success of any program
depends, in part, on how the concerns of landowners regarding public
use of their land are handled by the administrators of the program and

the behavior of the public while using private land for recreation.

 

4Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Outdoor Recreation: A Legacy for America (Washington: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973), p. 62.

The Study Area: Michigan

 

These general trends are present in many areas of the country,
most notably in the states East of the Mississippi River with
relatively little land in public ownership. The State of Michigan
provides a useful study area because its land ownership patterns are
similar to many states in this region. While most of the public land
suitable for recreation is located in Michigan's Upper Peninsula and
Northern Lower Peninsula, the majority of Michigan's people live in
Southern Lower Michigan (identified as Region III by the Michigan
Department of Natural Resources).5 There is a significant amount
(approximately 25%) of private land suitable for recreation in
Region III now utilized for only a few recreational activities such
as hunting.6

With increasing land prices, long delays in acquisition and a
tightening state budget, methods short of fee simple purchase are
being considered to open up this private land for public use.
Michigan's Department of Natural Resources has operated since 1972 a

land leasing program for snowmobiling on a pilot basis.

Objectives of the Study

 

The basic objective of this study was to examine the private

landowner on the urban fringe, his land and public access to his land

 

50.5. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Census of Population: 1970

Number of Inhabitants, Final Report PC(l)-A24 Michigan (Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971).

 

 

6Clarance Chase, Ray Pfeiffer, and John Spencer, The Growing
Timber Resource of Michigan, 1966 (Forest Service Research Bulletin
NC-9, 1970). PP. 29-30.

 

 

for recreation. It is exploratory in nature, intended to provide some

of the information necessary to better utilize private land for

recreation to the benefit of both the public and the private landowner.
The specific objectives were to,

1. determine the extent to which landowners in the urban fringe
area of Michigan are willing to allow public access to their
land for three recreational activities; hiking, hunting, and
snowmobiling,

2. determine the importance landowners place on damages, control,
liability, and number with respect to public recreation on
their land,

3. identify characteristics of the landowners and their land and
determine the relationship between such characteristics and
the landowners' willingness to allow public access to their
land for the three activities above,

4. determine the landowners' receptiveness to governmental
incentive programs designed to increase public access to
private land in terms of the above three activites on their
own land, and

5. identify characteristics of the landowners and their land
and determine the relationship between such characteristics
and the landowners' receptiveness to governmental incentive

programs.

Limitations to the Study

 

A basic limitation on the depth to which the above five

objectives could be pursued was a lack of survey funds. As a result,

the data analyzed herein was collected in conjunction with a related
research effort conducted by the Department of Parks and Recreation
Resources, Michigan State University which attempted to identify the
ownership objectives of rural landowners. This was done due to the
above mentioned lack of survey funds and because there existed a basic
similarity between the two studies in terms of area requirements and
time schedules. Such a consolidation had its drawbacks, however. The
combined study survey instrument which was finally assembled turned
out to be quite lengthy. The number of specific questions pertaining
to the study reported had to be kept to an absolute minimum in order
to keep the combined study survey instrument to manageable length.

A fairly large number of factors were examined, but in almost
all cases this examination was only cursory and consisted of only
one question on the instrument. Many factors that influence landowner
decisions were not dealt with.

Due to the above limitations, this study is not a complete
analysis of the public access issue. It is intended to provide
information for future researchers, but it is hoped that it will also

prove useful to recreational and landuse policy makers and planners.

Organization of the Thesis

 

The remainder of the thesis is divided into five chapters.
The next chapter (Chapter II) reviews research pertinent to this study
and provides background information on the general public access
issue. Chapter III outlines the hypotheses postulated concerning
public access and also discusses the research methodology of the

study. Chapter IV presents the general findings of the study and

contains the basic information from the survey of landowners.
Chapter V concerns the specific testing of the hypotheses outlined
in Chapter III and the results. Chapter VI summarizes the thesis and

includes specific recommendations for policy and future research.

CHAPTER II

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

In this chapter, pertinent research on small private landowners
and public access to private land for recreation is reviewed. Much
of the research on public access to private land concerns forest
industry lands usually located at a considerable distance from the
majority of public recreationists.1 There is relatively little
research on public access to smaller private ownerships which typify
much of the urban fringe areas of Michigan.

Because of this inadequacy, the studies discussed below are
presented in two sections. The first section deals with owners of
small holdings in general. This section was included to provide some
background information on this group of owners even though, in almost
all cases, such information has not been related to public access in

any manner. The second section deals with public access specifically.

Landowner Characteristics

 

In a study of 180 small private forest landowners in central

Wisconsin in 1958, Sutherland and Tubbs found that most of the owners

 

1For a useful overview of this type of research, see "Public

Recreation on Private Lands," Outdoor Recreation Action, No. 35,
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior (Spring
1975).

 

were farmers (52%), 9% were classified as business or professional, 26%
were wage earners and 8% were retired.2

Less than half of the owners were under 50 years of age (42%),
27% were 50 to 59 and 31% were 60 or more. Eighty-four percent had
held their land for five or more years, 64% for 10 or more years and
21% for 25 or more years.

Most of the holdings were small, 64% were less than 50 acres,
23% were from 50 to 99 acres and 13% were 100 acres or more. Twenty-
four percent of the owners indicated they used their land for such
amenity oriented uses as recreation and residence.

In a study of 198 small private forest landowners in Michigan's
Upper Peninsula in 1961, Quinney found that 17% of the owners were
farmers, 10% were classed as business or professional, 18% were wage
earners, 10% were retired and 25% were classed as absentee.3

Less than half of the owners were 50 years of age or younger
(33%), 25% were 51 to 60 and 42% were over 60. Twenty-seven percent
of the owners indicated recreation as their main ownership objective,
19% indicated residence and 54% had economic objectives.

In a study of 207 small private forest landowners in the urban

fringe area of Michigan in 1962, Schallau found that 39% of the owners

 

2Charles Sutherland, Jr. and Carl Tubbs, Influence of Ownership
on Forestry in Small Wbodlands, Lakes States Forest Experiment Station
Paper No. 77, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(November 1959).

 

3Dean Quinney, Small Private Forest Landowners in Michigan's

Upper Peninsula, Lake States Forest Experiment State Paper No. 95,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (February 1962).

10

were employed in farming, 16% were classed as business or professional,
19% were wage earners and 16% were retired.4

The average holding was 23 acres. Fifty-two percent of the
owners indicated "forest products" as their main objective in holding
their land, another 19% indicated other economic objectives and only
6% indicated recreation or residence.

In a study of 1927 forest owners in Berkshire County,
Massachusetts in 1963, Babeu, Rhodes, and MacConnell found that 9%
of the owners were farmers, 41% were in business or professions, 18%
were wage earners and 14% were retired.5

Less than half of the owners were under 50 years of age (43%),
27% were 50 to 59 and 30% were 60 or more. The owners were well
educated and had good incomes. Sixty-nine percent of the owners had
graduated from high school and 28% had obtained one or more college
degrees. Forty-four percent of the owners had gross family incomes of
$8,000 or more in 1963 and 11% had incomes of $20,000 or more.

A majority of the holdings were 100 acres or more (70%), 13%
were under 50 acres and 17% were 50 to 99 acres. Fifty percent of the
owners lived on their land.

Babeu, et al. found that the majority of owners considered
amenity oriented uses (personal recreation, residence, etc.) to be

their most important reasons for owning woodland. Sixty-six percent

 

4Con Schallau, Small Forest Ownership in the Urban Fringe Area
of Michigan, Lake States Forest Experiment Station Paper No. 103,
Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (August 1962).

 

 

SRichard Babeu, Arnold Rhodes, and William MacConnell, Forest

Owner Characteristics and Attitudes in Berkshire County, Massachussetts,
Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 549, U.S.
Department of Agriculture (November 1965).

 

11

of the owners indicated they hiked or walked on their land and 65% hunted
on their land.

In a study of 394 Pennsylvania woodland owners in 1968, Larsen
and Gansner found that for the 224 owners in the small acreage class
(1 to 99 acres which constituted 57% of the holdings), 21% of the
owners were farmers, 32% were classed as white collar workers, 20%
were classed as blue collar workers and 15% were retired.6 Of the
small owners, 29% were under 50 years of age, 29% were 50 to 59 and 42%
were 60 and over.

Forty percent of the small owners had attended high school and
25% had attended college. Thirty percent of the small owners had
gross family incomes of $10,000 or more in 1968 and 13% had incomes of
$20,000 or more.

Of the small owners, 27% had owned their land 10 years or less,
20% had owned their land 11 to 20 years and 53% had owned their land
more than 20 years. Eighty-six percent of the small owners indicated
amenity oriented uses (recreation, residence, etc.) of their land in
the preceding five years, but this figure decreased to 71% in terms of
their intended uses of their land in the next five years.

In a study of 455 rural landowners in the Finger Lakes Region

of New York in 1970, Wilkins and Erickson found that the average age

 

6David Larsen and David Gansner, Pennsylvania's Private Wood-
land Owners: A Study of the Characteristics, Attitudes, and Actions
of an Important Group of Decision Makers, Northeast Forest Experiment
Station Paper 219, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture
(1972).

 

 

12

of the owners was 53 years.7 Fifty percent of the owners had incomes

above $10,000 per year.

Public Access

 

Several studies conducted by the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources in the 25 counties of the Northern Lower Peninsula
during thezperiod from 1929 to 1955 found that the overall percentage
of "wildland" posted had increased from 5% in 1929 to 11.4% in 1948 to
15% in 1955.8

In a study of 261 farms in 24 counties in Southern Michigan in
1958, Zorb found that 79% of the farmers allowed pheasant hunting.9
Twenty-two percent of the farms were posted, but 58% of these posted
farms still allowed hunting. Fifty-one percent of the 105 farms that
did not allow hunting the first day of pheasant season had previous
trouble with hunters.

In the Babeau, et a1. study mentioned earlier, it was found
that 35% of the owners allowed the general public to use their land
for recreation. Thirty-two percent posted their land to prevent

access by hunters and 34% posted their land to prevent various other

recreational activities. Posting was found to be less prompted by

 

7 o o 0

Bruce Wilkins and Eugene Erickson, Rural Non-farmed Lands and
Their Owners: A Study of Three Central New York Counties (Cornell
University Office of Regional Resources and Development, 1971).

 

8Paul Barrett, "Number 9 Wire: Symbol of a Trend," Michigan
Conservation, Vol. 24, No. l (1955), p. 20.

 

9Gordon Zorb, Hunting Permission Survey Pheasant Season 1958,
Game Division Report No. 2128 (Michigan Department of Conservation,
January 1959).

 

13

concern for the activity per se than for possible damage to person or
property. As age, educational level and earning capacity increased,
the percentage of posting increased for owners.

In a study of 1,772 Southern Michigan landowners in 1965,
Queal found that 52% of the landowners permitted deer hunting (up from
35% in 1960).10 The granting of permission was found to be partially
related to crop damage by deer and the deer population density.

In a small study in Northwestern Indiana in 1968, Machan and
Feldt found that improved regulation of hunters was needed on those
farms participating in the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service Cropland Adjustment Program.11

In a study of 1,684 residents in 28 rural towns throughout New
York in 1972 and 1973, Brown and Hill found a 67% increase in posting
of private land during the 10 year period from 1963 to 1973.12 The
reason for posting given by 55% of the landowners who posted was that
they had encountered bad experiences with recreationists. Of this
number, 56% cited hunters; 27% snowmobilers; 7% fishermen; and 11%

with others. It was found that the majority of posting landowners

post against trespassing of any kind, not against a specific

 

10Leland Queal, Attitudes of Landowners Toward Deer in Southern

Michigan, 1960 and 1965 (Michigan Department of Conservation Research
and Development Report No. 101, February 1967).

 

11Wayne Machan and Robert Feldt, "Hunting Results on Cropland

Adjustment Program Land in Northwestern Indiana," Journal of Wildlife
Management 36 (January 1972):192-95.

 

 

12Tommy Brown and Gregory Hill, "The New York Snowmobiler and

the Private Land Owner," Proceedings of the 1973 Snowmobile and Off

the Road Vehicle Research Symposium (Michigan State University
Recreation Research and Planning Unit Technical Report No. 9, September
1973). pp. 33-39.

 

14

recreational activity. The landowners' reasons for such restriction
was unclear.

In response to the type of recreation activity landowners
would not allow on their land, 42% indicated they would not allow
snowmobiling, 19% would not allow hunting and 83% would not allow
motorcycles.

In a study of 295 farmers in the "thumb" area of Michigan in
1974, Parker found that 93% of the farmers allowed some public hunting
on their land.13 Control of hunters was a major concern of the owners
as evidenced by the finding that 58% of the owners agreed that land-
owners should be able to exclude discourteous hunters.

In terms of the economic return on their land for allowing
hunting in a standardized program, 22% (of 45% responding) wanted up
to $5/acre per year income before permitting public use. In terms of
intensity of use, 44% (of 49% responding) thought they could accommodate
up to 10 hunting parties per week.

Fifty-seven percent of the farmers thought liability an
important consideration. Sixty-three percent were concerned with
possible damage to their prOperty. The majority of farmers listed
enforcement of trespass and game laws as concerns with participating

in any stanardized program.

With the exception of the Babeu, et a1. study, most of the

studies tended to have similar findings. Usually a majority of the

 

13 . . .
Jon Parker, "Hunting Attitude Study" (unpublished, Department

of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 1974).

15

owners were over 50 years of age. Given this average age, it is not
surprising that a significant percentage of the owners were retired.

The most stable occupational class seemed to be wage earners,
generally around 20% of the owners. Usually the majority of owners
had holdings of less than 100 acres. Generally a minority of owners
indicated non-economic land uses or ownership objectives.

In general, a minority of owners posted their land although
some of the studies indicated an increasing trend in posting. In terms
of public access for hunting, it appears that the percentage of owners
allowing hunting varies widely, but there does seem to be some indi-
cation of increasing public access for deer hunting in Michigan.

This research has been of great value in specifying many
important areas of study in terms of public access to private land.
It appears that owners may be amenable to economic incentives to open
up their land in view of their general socioeconomic characteristics.
Such factors as controlling the public, possible liability, possible
damages, the type of recreational activity, etc., are concerns of
owners and may have an effect on public access. The size of the
ownership and the objectives of the owner for the land may have an
effect on its availability for public recreation.

However, there are several limitations to this research. As
indicated by the breakdown of the studies into two sections, the
research has not related owner and land characteristics to public
access. The research has usually focused on only one recreational
activity. In many cases the research is quite dated. Much of the

research deals with a sample of owners not representative of landowners

16

in the urban fringe areas where the lack of recreational land is most
pressing.

This study was designed to take advantage of and elaborate on
some of the findings of this research and also to address itself to

some of the limitations.

CHAPTER III

HYPOTHESES AND RESEARCH METHODS

Hypotheses

The first half of this chapter outlines the hypotheses dealing
with public access to private land that represent both those tested
under differing circumstances in previous research and essentially as
yet untested hypotheses of consequence in the consideration of
increasing public access to private lands in the future. Each hypothe-
sis is briefly discussed and then presented in its conceptual and
operational forms. In the second half of this chapter, the research
methods of the study are discussed.

The data analyzed herein were obtained from interviews with
195 private landowners in Kent County, Michigan. Information collected
included characteristics of the landowners, their land, the owners‘
willingness to allow public access to their land for three recreational
activities and the owners' positions on several public access issues.
Responses to questions dealing with public access concerned a specific
parcel of land identified with each owner, although many of the

respondents owned more than one parcel.

17

18

Hypothesis 1: Recreational Activity

With the dramatic increase in recreational pursuits in recent
years, from such extremes as nature photography to motorcycling and
the wide differences in effect of such activities on landowners and
their land, it was decided to investigate the relationship between the
type of activity and the owners' willingness to allow public access to
their land.

Without attempting to analyze owner perceptions of the many
possible recreational activities, a simple "activity intensity
continuim" was developed for this study. Activity intensity refers
to how an owner perceives an activity and also how the activity
affects the owner's environment. It involves the degree to which such
factors as noise, visibility, and environmental or property damage
characterize an activity. The continuim consisted of three recreational
activities; hiking, hunting, and snowmobiling, selected to represent
increasing intensity, from low intensity (hiking) to medium intensity
(hunting) to high intensity (snowmobiling). These three activities
were chosen because most landowners are familiar with them and because
previous research lent some support to this particular intensity
ordering.

Each owner was asked if he allowed the public (not family or
friends) to use his parcel for each of the three activities, or if he
had received no requests for the activities, if he would allow public
use. The responses to these questions were then combined to reflect
if the owner did allow public use, or in the event of no requests, if

the owner would allow public use for each of the three activities.

19

The combined responses will be compared utilizing frequency

statistics and the t—test with a significance level of .05.

Conceptual Hypothesis.--Landowner willingness to allow public

 

access (combined responses) for a recreational activity is negatively

related to the intensity of the activity.

Operational Hypothesis.--Higher proportions of owners will

 

allow public access for hiking than for hunting and higher proportions

of owners will allow public access for hunting than for snowmobiling.

Hypothesis 2: Landowner Concerns

 

There are many possible reasons for a landowner to refuse the
public access to his land for recreation. They may be categorized as
legal, economic, social, psychological, etc. At the level of this
study, it was decided not to fully investigate the many possible
reasons and their interactions, but rather to focus on four specific
owner "concerns." These four concerns, identified as important in
previous research, are: damages, control, liability, and number.

For the purposes of this study, damages refers to potential
destruction to an owner's land, property or person by public recre-
ationists. Damages involves not only destruction of physical
structures such as buildings and fences, but also destruction of
natural features such as trees and even animals.

For the purposes of this study, control refers to an owner's
ability, or the lack of it, to regulate the public while they are
using his land for recreation. Control not only involves regulation,
but also involves the owner's knowledge of where and when the public

uses his land for recreation.

20

For the purposes of this study, liability refers to the
owner's potential legal liability resulting from injury to the public
user while using the owner's land for recreation.

For the purposes of this study, number refers to the number of
public recreationists that might use the owner's land for recreation.

The general meaning of damages, control, liability, and number
was explained to the owners, and then they were asked how important
they felt these issues were with respect to public use of their
parcels ("very important," "somewhat important," or "not at all
important").

A composite measure of the owners' willingness to allow public
access was developed because it was decided that responses to the
above questions might vary depending on the particular recreational
activity under consideration. This composite measure, labeled Public
Access, was valued "high" for owners who do allow, or would allow if
requested, either two or all three of the activities on their parcels
and "low” for owners who do allow, or would allow if requested, none
or only one of the three activities on their parcels.

The variables will be compared utilizing the chi-square and

Kendall's tau statistical techniques with a significance level of .05.

Conceptual Hypothesis.--Public Access (composite measure of
the owners' willingness to allow public access) is negatively related
to the importance a landowner places on damages, control, liability,

and number

Operational Hypothesis.--Higher proportions of owners at the

"low" Public Access level will respond that damages, control, liability,

21

and number are "very important" than owners at the "high" Public Access
level. Higher proportions of owners at the "high" Public Access level
will respond that damages, control, liability, and number are "not at
all important" than owners at the "low" Public Access level.

Hypothesis 3: High Public Access Owners
vs. Low Public Access Owners

 

 

Because of the small amount of information available on land-
owners and their land in relation to their willingness to allow public
access, it was decided to examine some identifying characteristics of
the owners and their land and determine if there was a difference
between those owners who do allow, or would allow if requested, two or
all three of the recreational activities on their parcels ("high"
Public Access level) and those owners who do allow, or would allow if
requested, none or only one of the three activities on their parcels
("low" Public Access level) in terms of the identifying character-
istics.

The identifying characteristics included: (1) a measure of an
owner's socioeconomic status (SES), (2) the owner's age, (3) the
owner's primary ownership objective, (4) the owner's residence
location, (5) the number of years the parcel was owned, (6) the per-
centage of the parcel in crops, and (7) the percentage of the parcel
in woods.

SES was an index developed from the owner's occupation, edu-
cation, and family income (see Appendix A). Values ranged from 0
(low SES) to 6 (high SES). Specific findings on the owners' occupa-
tional distribution, years of education distribution and family

income distribution are included in Chapter IV.

22

The owner's age was measured directly in years. The owner's
primary ownership objective was originally categorized into one of
fourteen objectives which were then regrouped into either economic or
amenity oriented objectives (see Appendix A).

The owner's residence location was originally categorized into
one of six classes and then regrouped into either onsite/adjacent to
the parcel or not at the parcel (see Appendix A).

The number of years the parcel was owned was measured directly.
Each owner was asked in what year he acquired his parcel and this
figure was converted to years of ownership.

The size of the parcel was measured directly in acres and was
obtained from county property records. The percentage of the parcel
in crops was arrived at by dividing the number of acres in crops for
each parcel by the total acreage for each parcel. The percentage of
the parcel in woods was arrived at in the same manner as the variable
above.

The composite measure of the owners' willingness to allow
public access to their parcels ("high" Public Access level for owners
who do allow, or would allow if requested, either two or all three of
the activities and "low" Public Access level for owners who do allow,
or would allow if requested, none or only one of the three activities)
was again utilized because it was desired to examine the variables in
relation to the owners' willingness to allow public access for
recreation in general, as opposed to the owners' willingness to allow
public access for one specific recreational activity. The two groups
of owners ("high" Public Access level and "low" Public Access level)

will be compared utilizing the multivariate statistical technique of

23

discriminant analysis using a significant level of .05. The dis-
criminating variables will be the seven identifying characteristics

described previously.

Conceptual Hypothesis.--There is a difference between those
landowners at the "high" Public Access level and those landowners at
the "low" Public Access level in terms of their identifying character—

istics.

Operational Hypothesis.--There is a significant statistical
difference between owners at the "high" Public Access level and owners
at the "low" Public Access level in terms of the discriminating
variables; SES, age, primary ownership objective, residence location,
years of ownership, parcel size, percentage of parcel in crops and
percentage of parcel in woods.

Hypothesis 4: High Program Acceptance
Owners vs. Low Program Acceptance Owners

Because of the increasing interest in governmental incentive
programs designed to increase public access to private land and the
lack of information on landowners and their land in relation to their
positions on such programs, it was decided to examine some identifying
characteristics of the owners and their land and determine if there was
a difference between those owners favoring such programs for at least
one, two, or all three of the recreational activities under study and
those owners not favoring such programs for any of the three activities
in terms of the identifying characteristics.

The identifying characteristics were the same seven variables

listed for the preceding hypothesis and were measured in the same manner.

24

A composite measure of the owners' positions on public access
programs was developed because it was desired to examine the variables
in relation to the owners' position on public access programs in
general, as opposed to their position on public access programs for
specific recreational activities. This composite measure, labeled
Program Acceptance, was valued "high" for those owners who would favor
a public access program on their parcel for at least one, two or all
three of the recreational activities and "low" for those owners who
would not favor a public access program on their parcel for any of the
three activities.

The two groups of owners ("high" Program Acceptance level and
"low" Program Acceptance level) will be compared utilizing discriminant
analysis using a significance level at .05. The discriminating
variables will again be the seven identifying characteristics described

previously.

Concepgual Hypothesis.--There is a difference between those
landowners at the "high" Program Acceptance level and those landowners
at the "low" Program Acceptance level in terms of their identifying

characteristics.

Operational Hypothesis.-—There is a significant statistical
difference between owners at the "high" Program Acceptance level and
owners at the "low" Program Acceptance level in terms of the dis-
criminating variables; SES, age, primary ownership objective,
residence location, years of ownership, parcel size, percentage of

parcel in crops and percentage of parcel in woods.

25

Research Methods

 

The research methods used in this study involved five major
steps and are discussed below. In brief, the methods consisted of
(l) selecting an apprOpriate sample area in Southern Michigan,
(2) selecting an acceptable sample of landowners in that area,
(3) developing a survey instrument to obtain the data, (4) administering
the survey instrument to the landowners, and (5) preparing the data for

analysis.

Sample Area

 

Because of budget constraints on the study, it was decided to
survey only one county in Southern Michigan, Kent County, in order to
obtain more precise results for a small area rather than less precise
results for a larger area. The clustering of sample points in one
nearby county allowed for more observations to be taken than would
have been possible in an expanded study area because travel costs
could be minimized.

As mentioned in Chapter 1, Southern lower Michigan (Region III)
was the area of interest for this study because of its scarcity of
public land. Kent County, in the Western portion of Southern lower
Michigan, was selected for study essentially by a process of elimination.

The most important consideration was a reasonably large urban
population in the selected county. Even though Region III has a large
urban population as a whole, many counties in this Region are predomi-
nately rural. Such rural counties do not have the recreational land
availability problems that exist in more heavily urbanized counties.
Therefore, these rural counties were eliminated from the selection

process.

26

Other counties in Region III do provide the necessary urban
population, but were eliminated due to their own special character—
istics. Almost all urbanized counties in Eastern and Central lower
Michigan have specialized industry (automobile, government, education,
etc.) which diminishes their generalizability to the rest of Michigan.

Kent County was selected from the five urbanized counties in
Western Southern lower Michigan (Berrien, Calhoun, Kalamazoo, Kent,
and Muskegon) for several reasons. First, it was not located on Lake
Michigan. Urganized counties on Lake Michigan experience different
recreational usage and were eliminated because of their limited
generalizability. Second, of the remaining three counties (Calhoun,
Kalamazoo, and Kent), Kent County had the lowest percentage of land in
agriculture (43.9% as compared to 51.5% for Kalamazoo and 63.7% for
Calhoun).2 Finally, Kent County had the highest percentage of forested
land (23.5% as compared to 21.8% for both Calhoun and Kalamazoo
Counties).3 Both of these latter factors assured at least some private
land suitable for recreation. Though no one county in Southern Michigan
is entirely representative of the Region, it was concluded that Kent
County was as good as any within a limited distance from East Lansing
which was the residence of the study team.

A breakdown of the land uses in Kent County is given in

Table 1.

 

2Countyand Regional Facts, State Planning and Development
Regions 3 and 8 (Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State
University, no date), pp. 48, 49, and 73.

 

3Ibid.

27

Table 1.--Land Use in Kent County, 1970.

 

 

Use Acres Percent
Inland Water 6,976 1.3
Land Surface 548,544 98.7

Forested 128,700 23.5
Agriculture 241,107 43.9
Transportation 31,696 5.8
Recreation 11,716 2.1
Urbanization 61,727 11.3
Other 73,604 13.4

Total 555,520 100.0

 

Source: County and Regional Facts, State Planning and Development
Region 8 (Cooperative Extension Service, Michigan State
University, no date), p. 73.

 

Sampling Procedure

 

Kent County was divided into seven "regions" for the purpose
of selecting the sample population. One representative township was
chosen from each region for sampling purposes. This cluster sampling
technique was used for two reasons. First, the budget constraints on
the study did not allow a large sample and as a result, a 10% sample
from representative townships in specific regions seemed more appro-
priate than a much smaller sample from Kent County as a whole.
Secondly, such a technique assured a more accurate representation in
the sample of the different types of land and landowners in Kent
County.

Kent County can be viewed as comprising seven fairly distinct
regions (shown in Figure 1). These regions are not official designations

but were used solely for this study. They were arrived at using

28

u .-

it).

9 women M‘

C0.

IE IAYGO

.00

'0.

a...“

-
Illa.

 

‘
._-P I
V“

.

.-
III
I’-
.‘.-
.1:-
VII

.—
r
u
-
I
o
.
-
1);
Id".
m
I
0
c
a
m
a
r»
l . n '0.
.. u . . ,
-..xrc:.ur.-
I . . _ . .. .
. . a .V .. , _
. 4r. . . V m.

P

ito

5"- "
'0-

Kant County Regions.

Figure l .

29

information obtained from the West Michigan Regional Planning Commission,
the Soil Conservation Service, and the Kent County Cooperative Extension
Service.

One of the regions is predominately urban and includes the
cities of Grand Rapids, East Grand Rapids, Walker, Grandville, Wyoming,
and Kentwood and Grand Rapids Township. This region was not included
in the selection process because the focus of the study was on rural
land and this region contained a much smaller number of rural owner-
ships. The six remaining regions, a brief description of each and
their representative townships are shown in Table 2.

Three steps were involved in selecting a sample from the
population of all owners in the six sampled townships. The first step
was to compile a list or sampling frame of all parcels of land 11 acres
or more in the six townships using property plat maps from the Property
Description and Mapping Department of the Kent County government. The
11 acre limit was used to exclude purely residential lots and because
Michigan's statute on subdivision of large tracts of land into
residential lots requires all parcels under 10 acres to be platted
(Michigan Subdivision Control Act of 1968). As a result, many land-
owners subdivide their land into 10 acre parcels to avoid the cost and
bother of platting. Since Kent County contained many such 10 acre
parcels, the 11 acre limit was used to eliminate their disproportionate
effect.

The list compiled included the permanent parcel number and the

4
exact acreage.

 

4
Permanent parcel number refers to a standardized identifi-
cation system used in Kent County.

3O

 

.musuasoflnmm mfioocfl EdwUmE

 

6:30m nuw3 mono Hanan haemfim mcsom o
moddmmuo>
.Hmocomm .soaom
.mawom Hoom .oawflmxmo .dowamz
ou moo wusuaooaumm decode .Ham3oa .cmuumuu
camflmxmo 30H nufl3 mono Hanan magmflm .ocmHuuoou .coccmu m
.musuasoflumm museum
mocflmo meooca Esflome nuw3 mono annex .mflcoomamu .coumm v
.msuouumm mflnmumc30 owNflHflnmum
use .Aufisumv ousuasoflnmm msouma
muummm omuwamwoomm nua3 mono Hausa .muummm .0:HQH¢ m
.mowmmm ocmuo
once >m3nmws mmmoom oouwsaa
3m: ou woo :0flmdmmxo QHQMH
mfiomad sues mono awash wamumumooz oaoflmsmem .msomae N
.moammm ocmuw ou
omoao .moocwowmmu moaw> swan
mod sues mono Howdy mamumumooz oomommu .mo< H
omamsmm mwnms3os :Oflmmm mo newumwuommo coammm Ga mmflnmdzoa doflmmm

 

.hucsoo usoM cw mswamfimm How oouooamm mwzms3oa one mQOHumfiHomwo cowmmm .c3ooxmmum Hononmmlu.m magma

31

The second step was to randomly select 10% of the parcels. Ten
percent was chosen because it was a reasonable compromise between
budget constraints and acceptable validity in the results.

The third step was to crossreference the permanent parcel number
from the pr0perty plat maps with the property tax rolls and record the
owner's name and address.

A summary of the sampling procedure by township is given in

Table 3.

Table 3.--Sampling Summary by Township.

 

 

Sampling Original Duplicate Final
Township Frame Sample Owners Sample
Ada 407 41 1 40
Algoma 476 48 6 42
Gaines 376 38 0 38
Sparta 428 43 1 42
Oakfield 426 43 0 43
Bowne 365 36 2 34
Total 2,478 249 10 239

 

Once the name and address of each owner was obtained, an
introductory letter was developed and sent to all owners. The letter
contained a brief description of the combined study and information
concerning the interview procedure. A representation of this letter
is included in Appendix B.

After mailing the letters, each owner was contacted by tele-

phone, if at all possible, to set up an interview time and place.

32

Instrument

 

The survey instrument (see Appendix C) was developed in the
Spring of 1975. Because of the many open-ended questions that
required either clarification or probing, the personal interview
technique was utilized. Other advantages of using personal interviews
are the higher response rate (compared to other methods of data
collection such as mailed questionnaires or telephone interviews), the
lower number of "no" responses and the possibility of interviewer
observation.

The questionnaire was pre-tested in the East Lansing, Michigan
area in May of 1975. Based on the results of the pre-test and con-
sultation with project advisors, certain sections of the questionnaire
were modified to improve interview administration.

Five graduate students from the Departments of Parks and
Recreation Resources, and Forestry at Michigan State University were
selected as interviewers and familiarized with the questionnaire and
the study during two group meetings. The actual interviewing was

conducted during June of 1975.

Response Rate

 

The overall response rate was 81.6%. Non-response to the
interview was generally the result of refusals or inability to obtain
telephone numbers. Five out-of-state owners were sent a shortened
form of the questionnaire, but only one was returned. Other reasons
for non-response included sale of property and inability to contact

owner at home.

33

A summary of the response and non-response to the interview is

given in Table 4.

Table 4.--Response and Non-Response to the Interview by Township.

 

 

Township No. Respondents Response Rate
Ada 35 85.4%
Algoma 32 76.2%
Gaines 32 84.2%
Sparta 34 ' 80. 9%
Oakfield 35 83.3%
Bowne 27 79.4%

Total 195 81.6%

Non-Response

 

Refusal 14 7.2%
No Phone Number 13 6.6%
Other 17 8.7%

Total 44 18.4%

 

Interviewing lasted from June 4, 1975 to June 20, 1975 when it
was decided that further effort would not be justifiable in light of
the high costs associated with contacting the remaining owners and

interviewing them.

Analysis of the Data

 

After the interviews were completed, the data was recoded onto

special coding forms. Ten percent of these forms were then spot-checked

34

and no significant or consistant errors were found. The data was then
keypunched onto cards for computer input and verified for accuracy.
The analysis was done utilizing statistical techniques from
the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) and was run on
the CDC 6500 installation at the Michigan State University Computer
Laboratory. SPSS is a system of statistical techniques and procedures
which were amenable to the data. The variable transformation and

recoding capabilities of SPSS were particularly useful.

CHAPTER IV

GENERAL FINDINGS

This chapter presents the general findings of the study. The
information is divided into three areas; characteristics of the sample
parcels of land, characteristics of the respondent sample landowners
and willingness of the landowners to allow public access to their
parcels for recreation.

It should be noted that some of the information involves only
a portion of the 195 owners, due to the non-applicability of questions
or non-response. A small number of interviews were only partially
completed for various reasons such as refusal or lack of time, and
since the questions dealing with public access were in a later section
of the questionnaire (Section VII), these incomplete interviews
constituted much of the non—response for certain questions on public

access.

Characteristics of the Sample Parcels

 

As mentioned in Chapter III, the owners were identified in
relation to a particular parcel of land in Kent County. The sample
parcel acreage distribution is given in Table 5. The median parcel
size was 39.6 acres, the mean size was 47.6 acres. Parcels ranged

from the lower pre-set limit of 11 acres up to 195 acres. Many of the

35

36

Table 5.--Samp1e Parcel Acreage Distribution.

 

 

Cumulative Cumulative

Size Number Number Percent Percent
11-19 acres 37 37 19.0 19.0
20-29 29 66 14.9 33.9
30-39 30 96 15.4 49.3
40-49 41 137 21.0 70.3
50-69 10 147 5.2 75.5
70-89 29 176 I 14 . 9 90.4
90 or more 19 195 9.6 100.0

Total 195 100.0

 

parcels were of a size (almost half were under 40 acres) that would
limit their inclusion in governmental incentive programs, at least as
those programs are presently operated, because the parcels are too
small to efficiently use for many recreational activities such as
snowmobiling.

The sample parcels, as a whole, were classified into seven
types of land cover as shown in Table 6. Almost half of the land
(47.1%), as a whole, was suitable for recreation (woods, open fields,
marsh and brush).

The total acreage for each respondent sample owner is given in
Table 7. This acreage includes the sample parcel acreage plus any
additional acreage owned in Kent County by the respondent sample
parcel owners. This additional acreage was not necessarily contiguous

with the sample parcel. The median total acreage was 76.3 acres, the

37

Table 6.--Land Cover for Sample Parcels in Total.

 

 

Cover ' Percent

Crops 42.8
Wbods 18.7
Open Fields (including pasture) 19.0
Marsh 4.3
Brush 5.1
Buildings and Yard 3.2
Other 6.9
Total 100.0

 

Table 7.--Total Acreage Held by Respondent Sample Owners in Kent

 

 

County.

Cumulative Cumulative

Size Number Number Percent Percent
ll-19 acres 22 22 11.3 11.3
20-29 19 41 9.7 21.0
30-39 16 57 8.2 29.2
40-49 24 81 12.3 41.5
50-69 10 91 5.1 46.6
70-89 26 117 13.3 59.9
90—129 29 146 14.9 74.8
130-169 16 162 8.2 83.0
170 or more 33 195 16.9 99.9

Total 195 99.9

 

38

mean total acreage was 112.5 acres. Total acreage ranged from 11 acres
up to 1,039 acres.

The owners were asked if they posted any portion of their
parcel. Their responses are shown in Table 8. The percentage of the
sample parcel posted and the primary reason for posting are given in
Tables 9 and 10. "Hunters" were the most often cited reason for
posting, but specific objections regarding hunters were not specified

by the owners.

Table 8.--Sample Parcel Posting Activity.

 

 

Posting Number Percent
Posted 65 36.1
Not Posted 115 63.9

Total 180 100.0
Non-Response 15

 

Table 9.--For Sample Parcels Posted, Percentage of Property Posted.

 

 

Percentage Number Percent
100% 59 90.8
50-99% 2 3.1
Less than 50% 4 6.1

Total 65 100.0

 

39

Table 10.--For Sample Parcels Posted, Primary Reason for Posting.

 

 

Reason Number Percent
Hunters 33 51.6
Damages 18 28.1
Privacy 6 9.4
Other 7 10.9

Total 64 100.0
No Reason Given 1

 

Characteristics of the Respondent Sample Landowners

The median age and mean age of the respondent sample owners
was 53.8 years. Ages ranged from 29 to 85 years. The age distribution
is given in Table 11. As found in previous research on small private
landowners, a majority of the owners were 50 years of age or more
(64.1%).

The distribution for years of education for the respondent
sample owners is given in Table 12. The mean figure was 11.6 years.

The respondent sample owner's family income for 1974 distri-
bution is given in Table 13. Over sixty-eight percent of the owners
had family incomes of $10,000 or more in 1974. This is higher than
findings from previous research, but inflation may account for much
of the difference.

The occupational breakdown for the respondent sample owners is
given in Table 14. As with previous research, a significant percentage
of the owners were retired (12.2%) and the largest percentage of owners

were farmers (28.9%).

40

Table ll.--Age Distribution for Respondent Sample Owners.

 

 

Cumulative Cumulative
Age Number Number Percent Percent
20-29 7 7 3.9 3.9
30-39 19 26 10.7 14.6
40-49 38 64 21.3 35.9
50-59 53 117 29.8 65.7
60-69 38 155 21.3 87.0
70-79 17 172 9.6 96.6
80 or more 6 178 3.4 100.0
Total 178 100.0
Non-Response l7

 

Table 12.--Years of Education Distribution for Respondent Sample

 

 

Owners.

Years Number Percent
0-8 36 21.2
9-12 94 55.3
13 or more 40 23.5

Total 170 100.0
Non-Response 25

 

41

Table l3.--Total Family Income, 1974 for Respondent Sample Owners.

._-
.——. _———

 

Income Number Percent
$O-9,999 50 31.6
$10,000-14,999 39 24.7
$15,000-24,999 35 22.2
$25,000 or more 34 21.5

Total 158 100.1
Non-Response 37

 

Table 14.--Occupational Distribution for Respondent Sample Owners.

 

 

Occupation Number Percent
Professional/Technical 19 10.6
Manager/Administrative 21 11.7
Sales/Clerical 9 5.0
Craftsmen 31 17.2
Operative/Laborer 14 7.8
Farmer 52 28.9
Service 1 .5
Retired 22 12.2
Unemployed (includes housewives) 11 6.1

Tbtal 180 100.0

Non-Response 15

 

42

The owners were asked if they hiked, hunted, or snowmobiled on
their parcel. Their responses are shown in Table 15. These results
may help to explain the owners' positions concerning public access to
their parcel for the three recreational activities examined in this
study. One possible explanation is that owners may want to "reserve"
their land for their own recreational use and so restrict public
recreational use. Another possible explanation is that owner partici-
pation in a recreational activity may increase public access for that
activity because the owner is familiar with the activity or for other
reasons. In this study, these possibilities were not investigated.

The owners were asked, in an Open-ended manner, why they
acquired their parcels. Fourteen distinct ownership objectives were
identified and responses were grouped into one of these objectives.
These primary ownership objectives are given in Table 16. Almost half
of the owners (49.2%) had amenity oriented objectives such as residence
or recreation which is a noticably higher proportion than found in
previous research.

The mean years of ownership was 17.6 years, ranging from 1 up
to 70 years.

The sample owners were classified into "types" by the inter-

viewers as shown in Table 17.

Public Access

 

The owners were asked if they allowed the public (not family
or friends) to use their parcel for each of the three recreational
activities; hiking, hunting, and snowmobiling. Their responses are

shown in Table 18.

43

Table 15.--Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of Their Personal Use
of Their Parcels for Hiking, Hunting, and Snowmobiling.

 

Response Number Percent

 

Owners Who Hike on Their Parcel

 

Yes 118 66.3
No 60 33.7

Total 178 100.0
Non-Response 17

Owners Who Hunt on Their Parcel

 

Yes 77 43.0
No 102 57.0

Total 179 100.0
Non-Response 16

Owners Who Snowmobile on Their Parcel

Yes 57 31.8
No 122 68.2
Total 179 100.0

Non-Response 16

 

Table 16.--Respondent Sample Owners' Primary Ownership Objective.

 

 

 

 

 

Objective Number Percent

Farming 61 31.3
Rural Environment 53 27.2
Investment 25 12.8
Family Reasons or Inheritance 13 6.7
Recreation 6 3.1
Other 37 18.9
Total 195 100.0

Table l7.--Type of Sample Owner.

Type Number Percent
Onsite 104 53.3
Adjacent to the Parcel 37 19.0
In Neighborhood 17 8.7
In Nearby City 22 11.3
Absentee 2 1.0
Institutional 13 6.7
Total 195 100.0

 

45

Table 18.--Respondent Sample Owners' Willingness to Allow Public
Hiking, Hunting, and Snowmobiling on Their Parcels.

 

Response Number Percent

 

Owners' Willingness to Allow Public Hiking

 

Yes 89 49.7
No 29 16.2
No Requests for Hiking 61 34.1

Total 179 100.0
Non-Response 16

Owners' Willingness to Allow Public Hunting

Yes 117 65.4
No 58 32.4
No Requests for Hunting 4 2.2

Total 179 100.0
Non-Response 16

Owners' Willingness to Allow Public Snowmobiling

Yes 86 49.1
No 72 41.1
No Requests for Snowmobiling 17 9.7

Total 175 99.9

Non-Response 20

 

46

If the owners received no requests for the activities, they
were asked if they would allow such activities if requested. Their
responses are shown in Table 19. The majority of respondent sample
owners did not allow, or would allow if requested, public access for

the three recreational activities.

The owners that do not, or would not if requested, allow public
access were asked their reasons. Their first and second reasons are
given in Tables 20 and 21. "Damages" was by far, the most often cited
reason for refusing public access.

The owners that did allow public access for the three recre-
ational activities were asked to estimate how many public recreationists
they observed on their parcel per week during the appropriate time
period for the activity. Their estimates are given in Table 22.

Public use is relatively light except for snowmobiling which tends to
be of short duration.

The general meaning of damages, control, liability and number
were explained to the owners and then they were asked how important
these issues were to them in terms of public recreational use of their
parcels. Their responses are shown in Tables 23, 24, 25, and 26. The
high number of "very important" responses may be attributable to the
leading introduction to the questions or their consecutive format,
both of which may have produced like responses for the four questions.

According to these findings, damages and liability are more
important issues to landowners than control and number, although the
latter two issues are somewhat more difficult to convey in a question-

naire.

47

Table 19.--Respondent Sample Owners' Willingness to Allow Public Hiking,
Hunting, and Snowmobiling, if Requested, on Their Parcels.

 

Response Number Percent

 

Owners' Willingness to Allow Public Hiking, if Requested

 

Yes 50 83.3
No 10 16.7

Total 60 100.0
Non-Response 1

Owners' Willingness to Allow Public Hunting, if Requested

 

Yes 2 50.0
No 2 50.0

Total 4 100.0
Non-Response . .

Owners' Willingness to Allow Public Snowmobiling, if Requested

 

Yes 6 37.5
No 10 62.5
Total 16 100.0

Non-Response 1

 

48

Table 20.--Respondent Sample Owners' First Reason for Not Allowing, or
Not Allowing if Requested, Public Hiking, Hunting, or
Snowmobiling on Their Parcels.

 

Reason Number Percent

 

Owners' First Reason for Not Allowing_Public Hiking

Damages 20 57.1
Control 6 17.1
Safety 4 11.4
Privacy/Security 3 8.6
Other 2 5.8

Total 35 100.0
No First Reason Given 4

Owners' First Reason for Not Allowing Public Hunting

Damages 20 35.7
Safety 11 19.6
Control 9 16.1
Moral Considerations 8 14.3
Want to Increase Game Population 3 5.4
Other 5 9.0

Total 56 100.1
No First Reason Given 4

Owners' First Reason for Not Allowinngublic Snowmobiling

Damages 54 69.2
Control 8 10.3
Noise 8 10.3
Privacy/Security 4 5.1
Other 4 5.1

Total 78 100.0

No First Reason Given 4

 

50

Table 22.--Respondent Sample Owners' Estimates of the Numbers of Public
Hikers, Hunters, or Snowmobilers They Observed per Week on
Their Parcels During the ApprOpriate Activity Season.

 

Week Number of Owners Percent

 

Number of Public Hikers Seen per Week

 

1-5 36 67.9
6-10 13 24.5
11 or more 4 7.6

Total 53 100.0
No Estimate Given ' 36

Number of Public Hunters Seen per Week

 

1-5 51 54.2
6-10 26 27.7
11 or more 17 18.1

Total 94 100.0
No Estimate Given 23

Number of Public Snowmobilers Seen per week

1-5 28 40.3
6-10 21 29.2
11 or more 22 30.5

Total 71 100.0

No Estimate Given 15

 

Table 23.-~Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Importance of
Damages to Them in Relation to Public Recreational Use of

Their Parcels.

 

 

Importance Number Percent
Very Important 107 61.1
Somewhat Important 44 25.1
Not at all Important 24 13.7

Total 175 99.9
Non-Response 20

 

Table 24.--Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Importance of
Control to Them in Relation to Public Recreational Use of

Their Parcels.

 

 

Importance Number Percent
Very Important 95 54.9
Somewhat Important 50 28.9
Not at all Important 28 16.2

Total 173 100.0
Non-Response 22

 

52

Table 25.-~Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Importance of
Liability to Them in Relation to Public Recreational Use of
Their Parcels.

 

 

Importance Number Percent
Very Important 111 64.2
Somewhat Important 36 20.8
Not at all Important 25 15.0

Total 173 100.0
Non-Response 22

 

Table 26.--Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Importance of
Number of Them in Relation to Public Recreational Use of
Their Parcels.

 

 

Importance Number Percent
Very Important 89 51.7
Somewhat Important 56 32.6
Not at all Important 27 15.7

Total 172 100.0

Non-Response 23

 

53

The idea of public access programs, i.e., agreements between
governmental agencies and private landowners whereby payments are made
to private landowners who open their land to public recreational use,
was explained to the owners and then they were asked if they would
favor participating in similar agreements for the three recreational
activities under study with their parcels. Their responses are shown
in Table 27. A majority of the respondent sample owners do not favor
such programs even though most owners do allow, or would allow if
requested, public access to their parcels for the three activities.

Those owners that do favor participating in such programs with
their parcels, were asked how much payment per acre per year they would
require to enter the programs. Their responses are given in Table 28.
Most of the respondent sample owners require only reasonable payment
to open up their parcels to public recreational use for the three
activities.

The type of payment preferred by those respondent sample owners
who favor participating in public access programs with their parcels is
given in Table 29. It appears that those owners are most comfortable
with short-term agreements.

The owners were asked to respond to a series of statements
presented in such a way so that responses for the three recreational
activities under study could be compared.1 The sample owners' responses

are shown in Tables 30, 31, and 32. It appears that the effect of the

 

1For an explanation and example of this technique, see G.
David Hughes, "Upgrading the Semantic Differential," Journal of the
Marketing Research Society 17 (January 1975):4l-44.

 

 

54

Table 27.--Respondent Sample Owners' Positions on Participating in
Public Access Programs for Hiking, Hunting, or Snowmobiling
with Their Parcels.

 

Response Number Percent

 

Owners FavoringgProgram for Public Hiking

 

Yes 48 27.9
No 123 71.5
Don't Know 1 .6

Total 172 100.0
Non-Response 23

Owners Favoring Program for Public Hunting

Yes 47 26.9
No 127 72.6
Don't Know 1 .5

Total 175 100.0
Non-Response 20

Owners FavoringgProgram for Public Snowmobiling

Yes 35 26.2
No 137 79.2
Don't Know 1 .6

Total 173 100.0

Non-Response 22

 

55

Table 28.--Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of the Payment They
Would Require to Participate in Public Access Programs for
Hiking, Hunting, or Snowmobiling with Their Parcels.

 

Payment Number of Owners Percent

 

Payment Required for Public Hiking

 

$0-2.00/acre/year 19 50.0
$2.01-4.00 14 36.8
$4.01—6.00 3 7.9
Over $6.00 2 5.3

Total 38 100.0
No Payment Given 10

Payment Required for Public Hunting

$0-2.00/acre/year 15 36.6
$2.01-4.00 19 46.3
$4.01-6.00 6 14.6
Over $6.00 1 2.4

Total 41 99.9
No Payment Given 6

Payment Required for Public Snowmobiling

$0-2.00/acre/year 7 26.9
$2.01-4.00 12 46.2
$4.01-6.00 5 19.2
Over $6.00 2 7.7

Total 26 100.0

No Payment Given 9

 

56

Table 29.--For Respondent Sample Owners who Favor Participating in
Public Access Programs for Hiking, Hunting, or Snowmobiling
with Their Parcels, the Type of Payment They WOuld Prefer.

 

 

Type of Payment Number of Owners Percent
Year-to-Year 54 93.1
Five Year Contract 4 6.9

Total 58 100.0

 

activity is relatively small for these particular statements, although
this may be accounted for by the format of the statements which may
have produced similar responses by the owners for the three recreational
activities.

The sample owners' responses to the statement dealing with
governmental payment of all damages over $25 caused by the public while
using private land for recreation are interesting in view of the
owners' responses to the importance of damages (61.1% indicated "very
important"), the reasons given for not allowing, or not allowing if
requested, public access for the three activities (damages was the
most often cited reason) and the reason given by owners for posting
their property (27.3% specifically mentioned damages). Apparently
damages is a key issue with owners, but they do not want the govern-
ment to reimburse them for damages caused by the public while using
their land for recreation. Since the owners were not asked why they
were not receptive to a governmental program to reimburse them for
damages, it can only be speculated as to what the reason or reasons
might be. However, among the reasons likely are their fear of too

much governmental involvement and a view that such reimbursement will

57

Table 30.--Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of Their Positions on
the Issue of Public Asking Permission Before Using Private
Land for Hiking, Hunting, and Snowmobiling.

 

Response Number Percent

 

Public Hikers Should Ask Permission

 

 

 

Strongly Agree 91 53.2
Agree 51 34.5
Neutral 10 5.8
Disagree 8 4.7
Strongly Disagree 3 1.8
Total i71 100.0
Non-Response 24
Public Hunters Should Ask Permission
Strongly Agree 108 63.2
Agree 55 32.2
Neutral 3 1.8
Disagree 3 1.8
Strongly Disagree 2 1.1
Total 171 100.1
Non-Response 24
Public Snowmobilers Should Ask Permission
Strongly Agree 104 60.8
Agree 51 29.8
Neutral 8 2.7
Disagree 5 2.9
Strongly Disagree 3 1.8
Total 171 100.0

Non-Response 24

 

58

Table 31.--Respondent Sample Owners' Indications of Their Positions on
the Hypothetical Issue of Governmental Payment of All Damages
Over $25 Caused by the Public While Hiking, Hunting, and
Snowmobiling on Private Land.

 

Response Number Percent

 

The Government Should Pay for all Damages over $25 Caused by Public
Hikers

Strongly Agree 20 11.8
Agree 28 16.6
Neutral 18 10.7
Disagree 70 41.4
Strongly Disagree 33 19.5

Total 169 100.0

Non-Response 26

The Government Should Pay for all Damages over $25 Caused bngublic
Hunters

Strongly Agree 21 12.4
Agree 30 17.6
Neutral 19 11.2
Disagree 66 38.8
Strongly Disagree 34 20.0

Total 170 100.0
Non-Response 25

The Government Should Pay for all Damages over $25 Caused by Public
Snowmobilers

 

Strongly Agree 26 15.3
Agree 28 y - 16.5
Neutral 16 ' 9.4
Disagree 68 h 40.0
Strongly Disagree 32 18.8

Total 170 100.0

Non-Response 25

 

Table 32.—~Respondent Owners'

59

Indications of Their Positions on the

Issue of the Environmental Effect on Private Land of Large
Groups of Public Hikers, Hunters, and Snowmobiliers versus

Small Groups.

Response

Number Percent

 

Environmental Effect of Large Group of Public Hikers Same as for

 

Small Group

 

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
Total

Non-Response

8 4.7
19 11.1
13 7.6
88 51.5
43 25.1

171 100.0
24

Environmental Effect of Large Group_of Public Hunters Same as for

Small Group

 

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
Total

Non-Response

7 4.1
19 11.1

6 3.5
92 53.8
47 27.5
171 100.0
24

Environmental Effect of Large Group of Public Snowmobilers Same as

for Small Group

 

Strongly Agree

Agree

Neutral

Disagree

Strongly Disagree
Total

Non-Response

9 5.3
18 10.5
7 4.1
86 56.3
51 29.8
171 100.0
24

 

60

result in "double taxation" (owners paying taxes and those taxes, in
turn, paying the owners back for damages).

The responses to these three series of statements are similar
to the sample owners' responses concerning the importance of damages,
control and number. Most of the owners are concerned about these
issues, but not to the point of refusing access for the three recre-

ational activities under study.

CHAPTER V

TESTING THE HYPOTHESES

In this chapter, the results of the testing of the hypotheses
outlined in Chapter III are discussed. For the reader's convenience,
the hypothesis, in both conceptual and operational form, and pertinent
definitions are included at the beginning of the discussion of each
hypothesis.

Where appropriate, specific statistical techniques and
procedures are explained in general terms. The level of significance
used in this analysis was .05 which, simply stated, means the data

will support a false hypothesis 5% of the times it is tested.

Hypothesis 1: Recreational Activity

 

Conceptual Hypothesis.--Landowner willingness to allow public

 

access (combined responses) for a recreational activity is negatively

related to the intensity of the activity.

Operational Hypothesis.—-Higher proportions of owners will

 

allow public access for hiking than for hunting and higher pr0portions

of owners will allow public access for hunting than for snowmobiling.

61

62

Combined Responses.--A measure that reflects if the owners do
allow public use, or in the event of no requests for such use, if the
owners would allow public use.

As indicated in Table 33, 78.1% of the owners do allow, or
would allow if requested, public access for hiking compared to 66.5%
for hunting and only 52.9% for snowmobiling. The type of recreational
activity is clearly related to the owner's willingness to allow public
access.

To determine the significance of the difference between the
numbers of owners, the combined responses were compared using the
t-test. The t-test is a statistical technique that can be used when
comparing the difference between two sample means to determine if the
difference is significantly large (the "paired comparison" technique).
For this particular comparison, the procedure consisted of assigning a
numerical value of 1 for a "yes" response and 2 for a "no" response.

The resulting mean responses; 1.229 for hiking, 1.335 for
hunting, and 1.480 for snowmobiling were then compared. The results
are presented in Table 34.

While it is inappropriate, in a strict statistical sense, to
assign interval (numerical) values to nominal (categorical) variables,
the large sample size and approximately normal distribution for the
mean responses make such a procedure valuable in indicating the

significance of the difference between the mean responses.

Hypothesis 1 Results.--Supported at the .05 significance level.

63

Table 33.-~Respondent Sample Owners' Willingness to Allow, or Allow if
Requested, Public Hiking, Hunting, and Snowmobiling on Their
Parcels.

 

Response Number Percent

 

Owners who Allow, or would Allow if Requested, Public Hiking

 

Yes 139 78.1
No 39 21.9

Total 178 100.0
Non—Response 17

Owners who Allow, or would Allow if Requested, Public Hunting

Yes 119 66.5
No 60 33.5

Total 179 100.0
Non-Response 16

Owners who Allow, or would Allow if Requested, Public Snowmobiling

Yes 92 52.9
No 82 47.1
Total 174 100.0

Non-Response 21

 

64

Table 34.--Mean Responses Comparison Results.

 

 

Mean T Degrees
Paired Comparison Difference Value of Freedom Sig.
Hiking with Hunting .106 2.60 178 .010
Hiking with Snowmobiling .251 6.04 174 .000
Hunting with Snowmobiling .145 3.55 174 .001

 

Hypothesis 2: Landowner Concerns

Conceptual Hypothesis.--Public Access (composite measure of the
owners' willingness to allow public access) is negatively related to
the importance a landowner places on damages, control, liability, and

number.

Operational Hypothesis.--Higher proportions of owners at the
"low" Public Access level will respond that damages, control, liability,
and number are "very important" than owners at the "high" Public Access
level. Higher proportions of owners at the "high" Public Access level
will respond that damages, control, liability, and number are "not at

all important" than owners at the "low" Public Access level.

Composite Measure.--A measure valued "high" for owners who do
allow, or would allow if requested, either two or all three of the
activities on their parcels and "low" for owners who do allow, or
would allow if requested, none or only one of the three activities on

their parcels.

65

Cross-tabulations of the variables (see Tables 35, 36, 37, and
38) indicate a significant negative relationship between Public Access

level and damages, control, and number.

Table 35.--Cross-tabu1ation of Public Access Level with Damages.

 

Damages Importance

 

Public Access Level

 

"Very" "Somewhat" "Not at all" Total
"low" No. 43 7 2 52
percent 82.7 13.5 3.8 30.4
"high" 63 35 21 119
52.9 29.4 17.6 69.6
Total 106 42 23 171
62.0 24.6 13.5 100.0
Chi-square 14.040 Kendall's tau .262
Degrees Freedom 2
Significance .001 Non-Response 24

 

The variables were compared using contingency tables and the
chi-square statistical technique. The chi-square statistic only measures
the significance of a relationship, not the strength, which was measured
by the Kendall's tau statistic. Kendall's tau is a statistical measure
used to indicate the strength of an association between two ordinally
scaled variables. It ranges from -1 (perfect negative relationship) to
1 (perfect positive relationship).1 For the variables analyzed,
Kendall's tau was reasonably large in light of the complexity of the

issues involved and their "rough" measurement.

 

1Kendall's tau is positive for these relationships only
because of the Tables' format.

66

Table 36.--Cross tabulation of Public Access Level with Control.

 

I r
Public Access Level Control mPO tance

 

 

"Very" "Somewhat" "Not at All" Total
"low" no. 37 11 4 52
percent 71.2 21.2 7.7 30.8
"high" 56 37 24 117
47.9 31.6 20.5 69.2
Total 93 48 28 169
55.0 28.4 16.6 100.0
Chi-square 8.510 Kendall's tau .216
Degrees Freedom 2
Significance .014 Non-Response 26

 

Table 37.--Cross-tabulation of Public Access Level with Liability.

 

Public Access Level Llabllity Importance

 

 

"Very" " Somewhat" "Not at All" Total

"low" no. 34 13 5 52
percent 65.4 25.0 9.6 30.8

"high" 76 20 21 117
65.0 17.1 17.9 69.2

Total 110 33 26 169
65.1 19.5 15.4 100.0

Chi-square 2.778 Kendall's tau .028

Degrees Freedom 2
Significance .249 Non-Response 26

 

67

Table 38.--Cross-tabulation of Public Access Level with Number.

 

Public Access Level

Number Importance

 

 

"Very" "Somewhat" "Not at All" Total
"low" no. 35 12 5 52
percent 67.3 23.1 9.6 31.0
"high" 52 42 22 116
44.8 36.2 19.0 69.0
Total 87 54 27 168
51.8 32.1 16.1 100.0
Chi-square 7.383 Kendall's tau .200
Degrees Freedom 2
Significance .025 Non-Response 27

 

Almost 83% of the

0' low"

Public Access level owners indicated

that damages were "very important" whereas only 52.9% of the "high"

Public Access level owners felt so.

Access owners responded that damages were "not at all important"

compared to 17.6% of the "high" Public Access level owners.

Only 3.8% of the "low" Public

For control, 71.2% of the "low" Public Access level owners

responded "very important" compared to 47.9% of the "high" Public

Access level owners. Less than 8% of the

owners indicated that control was "not at all important" whereas

20.5% of the "high" Public Access level owners felt so.

"low" Public Access level

In terms of number, 67.3% of the "low" Public Access level

owners said that it was "very important" compared to 44.8% of the
"high" Public Access level owners.

Access level owners felt that number was "not at all important"

Only 9.6% of the "low" Public

whereas 19.0% of the "high" Public Access level owners said so.

68

There was a negative relationship between Public Access level
and liability, but the relationship was not significant at the .05
level.

While these results show a negative relationship between Public
Access level and landowner concerns, it should be noted that for each
concern, a sizable proportion of the "high" Public Access level owners
responded "very important." Thus, it appears that owners are con-
cerned about these issues, but not to the extent of refusing public
access for hiking, hunting, and snowmobiling.

Hypothesis 2 Results: Supported for Damages, Control, and Number
at the .05 significance level.

 

Hypothesis 3: High Public Access Owners vs.
Low Public Access Owners

 

Conceptual Hypothesis: There is a difference between those

 

landowners at the "high" Public Access level and those landowners at
the "low" Public Access level in terms of their identifying character-

istics.

Operational Hypothesis: There is a significant statistical

 

difference between owners at the "high" Public Access level and owners
at the "low" Public Access level in terms of the discriminating
variables; SES, age, primary ownership objective, residence location,
years of ownership, parcel size, percentage of parcel in crops, and

percentage of parcel in woods.

The two groups of owners ("high" Public Access level and "low"
Public Access level) were compared using discriminant analysis. This

statistical technique is briefly explained in the section below.

69

Discriminant Analysis

 

Discriminant analysis is a statistical technique that aims to
statistically distinguish between two or more groups of cases. To
distinghish between the groups, discriminating variables are selected
that measure characteristics on which the two groups are expected to
differ. Mathematically, the objective of disriminant analysis is to,
"weight and linearly combine the discriminating variables in some
fashion so that groups are forced to be as statistically distinct as
possible."2

A two-group discriminant function is a linear combination of

the discriminating variables and is of the form,

D = dlzl + d2Z2 + . . . dep.

where D is the score on the discriminant function, the d's are
weighting coefficients and the 2's are the standardized values of the
p discriminating variables used in the analysis. Hopefully the dis-
criminating scores (D's) for cases within a group will be fairly
similar. At any rate, the function is formed in such a way as to
maximize the separation of the two groups.

In terms of this study, the purpose in using discriminant
analysis was to determine if the two groups of owners ("high" Public
Access level and "low" Public Access level) are different. Some of
the measures used to indicate the success with which the discriminating

variables actually discriminate when combined into a discriminant

 

2Norman Nie, C. Hadlai Hull, Jean Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner,
and Dale Bent, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (New York:
McGraw—Hill, 1975), p. 435.

 

function are discussed below.

not statistically different, but the measures do provide some interesting

70

In total, the two groups of owners were

information about the two groups and the discriminating variables.

The "group means" are the respective discriminating variable

means for each group of owners (see Table 39).

The group means show

that, "high" Public Access level owners, compared to "low" Public

Access level owners, tend to have larger parcels, have owned their

parcels longer, have a higher percentage of their parcels in crops and
a lower percentage of their parcels in woods.

variables there is little difference for the two groups of owners by

discriminating variable means.

Table 39.--High and Low Public Access Level Owner Discriminant Analysis

With the remaining

Group Means by Discriminating Variables.

 

 

 

Discriminating Public Access Level
Variable Total
"Low" "High"

Parcel Size 41.44 acres 50.525 47.687
SES 3.622 3.576 3.590
Age 52.822 yrs. 51.707 52.055
Years Owned 15.867 yrs. 17.657 17.097
Percentage in Crops 31.556% 42.323 38.959
Percentage in Woods 27.916% 17.023 20.427
Primary Ownership Obj. 1.556 1.444 1.479
Residence Location 1.289 1.202 1.229
Group Counts 45 99 144

 

71

A statistic that measures the overall success of the analysis
is Wilk's lambda. Wilk's lambda is an, "inverse measure of the dis-
criminating power in the original variables which has not yet been
removed by the discriminating function, the larger lambda is, the less
information remaining. Lambda can be transformed into a chi-square
statistic for (a) test of statistical significance.“3

The final Wilk's lambda, .923, for the analysis of the two
groups of owners, indicates that the "information" in the original
variables has not been used by the discriminating function and the
final lambda is not significant (see Table 40).

Table 40.-—Summary of Discriminant Analysis for High and Low Public
Access Level Owners.

 

Final Wilk's Lambda Chi—Square Value Sig.

 

.923 11.063 .198

 

The standardized discriminant function coefficients are given
in Table 41. Ignoring signs, these coefficients are an indication of
the relative contribution of the discriminating variables to the
discriminant function.4 The most influential variables for this

analysis are age, followed by percentage of the parcel in woods.

 

3SPSS, op. cit., p. 442.

These coefficients, which are similar to beta coefficients in
multiple regression analysis, are "weights" that have to be applied
(multipled) to the standardized values of the discriminating variables
in order to arrive at the scores (D's) discussed earlier.

72

Table 41.--Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients for High and
Low Public Access Level Owners Discriminant Analysis.

 

 

Discriminating Variable Coefficient

Parcel Size .275

SES .243

Age -.632

Years Owned .497

Percentage in Crops .123

Percentage in Woods -.614

Primary Ownership Obj. -.268

Residence Location -.337 ‘

 

A procedure that allows for a check on the adequacy of the
discriminant function and is useful in predicting group membership for
cases with unknown membership, is "classification." By classifying the
cases used to derive the function in the first place and comparing
predicted group membership with actual group membership, the success
in discrimination can be measured by observing the pr0portion of
correct classifications.5

The actual classification process involves separate classifi-
cation functions for each group and will not be explained here because
it is beyond the scope of this discussion.

A classification table for actual group membership and

predicted group membership for the two groups of owners is given in

 

5SPSS, op. cit., p. 445.

73

Table 42. Using the seven identifying characteristics as discriminating
variables, only 62.5% (90 out of 144) of the owners were correctly
classified according to group membership (Public Access level). While
this result is significant, it is of little predictive value since it
would be expected to correctly classify 50% of the owners by a random
process of assigning the owners to the two categories.

Table 42.--Classification Results for High and Low Public Access Level
Owners Discriminant Analysis.

 

Predicted Group Membership
(Public Access Level)

 

Actual Group Membership

 

(Public Access Level) "Low" "High" Total
"Low" 27* 18 45
"High" 36 63* 99

Total 63 81 144

Chi-square 9.000
Degrees Freedom 2
Significance .003 51 owners not used in analysis

 

*Signifys correct classification.

There are several possible reasons for the poor results of the
discriminant analysis. One possibility might be the rather arbitrary
grouping of owners into "high" and "low" Public Access levels.

Perhaps different groupings would produce more separation. For
example, owners not allowing any of the three recreational activities
under study (group 1) and owners allowing one, two, or all three of

the activities (group 2).

74

Another possible reason for the poor results might be the
particular discriminating variables (identifying characteristics)
studied. Perhaps different characteristics would produce greater
separation.

Hypothesis 3 Results: Not Supported at the .05 significance
level.

 

Hypothesis 4: High Program Acceptance Owners vs.
Low Program Acceptance Owners

 

Conceptual Hypothesis.--There is a difference between those

 

landowners at the "high" Program Acceptance level (composite measure of
owners' positions on public access programs) and "low" Program
Acceptance level landowners in terms of their identifying character-

istics.

Operational Hypothesis.--There is a significant statistical

 

difference between owners at the "high" Program Acceptance level and
owners at the "low" Program Acceptance level in terms of the dis-
criminating variables; SES, age, primary ownership objective,
residence location, years of ownership, percentage of parcel in crops

and percentage of parcel in woods.

Composite Measure.--A measure valued "high" for owners who
would favor a public access program on their parcel for at least one,
two or all three of the recreational activities and "low" for owners
who would not favor a public access program on their parcels for any
of the three activities.

The two groups of owners ("high" Program Acceptance level and

"low" Program Acceptance level) were compared using discriminant

75

analysis. The reader should refer to the general discussion of this
statistical technique in the section on Hypothesis 3. The purpose in
using discriminant analysis to compare these two groups of owners was
the same as with the preceding hypothesis, i.e., to determine if the
two groups of owners were different.

Discriminant analysis itself will not be discussed again.

Only the measures, discussed previously, that indicate the success
with which the discriminating variables actually discriminate when
combined into a discriminant function will be reviewed.

In total, the two groups of owners were not statistically
different, but the success measures do provide some interesting infor-
mation about the two groups of owners and the discriminating variables.

The discriminating variable group means are given in Table 43.
The group means show that, "high" Program Acceptance level owners,
compared to "low" Program Acceptance level owners, tend to have larger
parcels, are younger, have a higher percentage of their parcels in
crops, have a higher percentage of their parcels in woods and are less
likely to live on their parcels. The remaining variable means show
little difference for the two groups of owners.

The final Wilk's lambda, .957, for the analysis of the two
groups of owners, indicates that the discriminating function has not
used the "information" in the discriminating variables and is not
significant (see Table 44).

The standardized discriminant function coefficients are given
in Table 45. Ignoring the signs, residence location is the most

influential variable, followed by age.

Table 43.--High and Low Program Acceptance Owners Discriminant Analysis

76

Group Means by Discriminating Variables.

 

Program Acceptance Level

 

 

Discriminating
Variable "Low" "High" Total

Parcel Size 45.348 acres 48.463 46.524
SES 3.506 3.704 3.580
Age 52.977 yrs. 50.870 52.182
Years Owned 17.685 yrs. 16.667 17.301
Percentage in Crops 37.461% 40.367 38.559
Percentage in Woods 19.593% 21.665 20.376
Primary Ownership Obj. 1.506 1.426 1.475
Residence Location 1.168 1.315 1.224
Group Counts 89 54 143

 

Table 44.--Summary of Discriminant Analysis for High and Low Program
Acceptance Owners.

 

Final Wilk's Lambda Chi—Square Value Sig.

 

.957 6.040 .643

 

77

Table 4S.--Standardized Discriminant Function Coefficients for High and
Low Program Acceptance Level Owners Discriminant Analysis.

 

 

Discriminating Variable Coefficient
Parcel Size .250
SES .091
Age -.495
Years Owned .185
Percentage in Crops .318
Percentage in Woods .283
Primary Ownership Obj. -.ll9
Residence Location .775

 

A classification table for actual and predicted group member-
ship for the two groups of owners is given in Table 46. Using these
variables as discriminators, only 58.8% (83 out of 143) of the owners
were correctly classified by group membership (Program Acceptance
level). While this result is significant at the .054 level, it is of
little predictive value because 50% of the owners would be correctly
classified by an assignment procedure using random classification.

The possible reasons for the poor results of the discriminant
analysis are similar to those given for the preceding hypothesis.
Arbitrarily grouping owners into "high" and "low" Program Acceptance
levels may account for the results. If different groups had been
used, perhaps more separation would have been produced. For example,
if only owners favoring public access programs on their parcels for

all three recreational activities (group 1) were compared to owners

78

Table 46.--Classification Results for High and Low Program Acceptance
Level Owners Discriminant Analysis.

 

Predicted Group Membership
(Program Acceptance Level)
Actual Group Membership

 

 

(Program Acceptance Level) "Low" "High" Total

"Low" 59* 30 89

"High" 30 24* 54
Total 89 54 143

Chi-square 3.669
Degrees Freedom 2
Significance .054 52 owners not used in analysis

 

*Signifys correct classification.

not favoring public access programs on their parcels for any of the
three activities (group 2).

Another possibility might be the particular discriminating
variables used. Perhaps different variables would produce greater
separation.

Hypothesis 4 Results: Not Supported at the .05 significance
level.

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter includes a short summary of the study and its

findings. Also included are policy and research recommendations. The

section in the first chapter on Limitations to the Study, should be

 

remembered in conjunction with the recommendations, since the recom-
mendations are given with the understanding that the data are an
accurate representation of the sample respondent landowners and their

parcels.

Summary

Due to the increasing interest in utilizing private land for
public recreation, the basic objective of this study was to examine the
private landowner on the urban fringe area of Southern lower Michigan,
his land and his willingness to allow public access to his land for
recreation.

Specific hypotheses postulated and tested included the
relationship between owner willingness to allow public access for a
recreational activity and the intensity of the activity, the
relationship between four landowner concerns and the owner's willing-

ness to allow public access, the differences between "high" and "low"

79

80

Public Access level owners in terms of their identifying character-
istics and the differences between "high" and "low" Program Acceptance
level owners in terms of their identifying characteristics.

Kent County, in the Western portion of Southern lower Michigan,
was selected as representative of the urban fringe areas of Michigan.
Ten percent of all persons owning 11 acres or more (239 total) in six
representative townships in the county were randomly selected and
contacted for interviews. In June of 1975, 195 personal interviews
were administered to the sample landowners.

Information obtained included characteristics of the specific
sample parcels of land identified with each owner, characteristics of
the respondent sample landowners and willingness of the owners to
allow public access for recreation.

It was found that the sample parcels of land averaged almost
48 acres in size. As a total, almost half of the parcels had land
covers suitable for recreational use (woods, open fields, marsh and
brush). Approximately one-third (36.1%) of the sample parcels were
posted, with "hunters" being the most often cited reason for posting
given by those owners who posted.

It was found that a majority of the respondent sample landowners
were 50 or more years of age. The owners averaged almost 12 years of
education. Over two-thirds (68.4%) of the respondent sample owners
had family incomes of $10,000 or more in 1974. -The highest proportion
(28.9%) of owners were engaged in farming.

Two-thirds of the owners hiked on their parcels whereas less
than half of the owners hunted or snowmobiled on their parcels.

Amenity oriented ownership objectives were given by half (49.2%) of

81

the respondent sample owners. Over two-thirds of the owners (72.3%)
lived on or adjacent to their parcels.

It was found that the majority of the respondent sample owners
do allow, oerould allow if requested, public access for the three
recreational activities; hiking (78.1%), hunting (66.5%), and snow-
mobiling (52.9%). "Damages" was the most often mentioned reason for
owners that did not allow, or would not allow if requested, public
access for the three activities. For owners that did allow the three
activities, estimates of public use were generally small (five or less
public users per week).

Over half of the respondent sample owners felt that damages,
control, liability, and number were "very important" issues to them in
terms of public recreation on their parcels.

Less than one-third of the owners would favor participating
in public access programs with their parcels for each of the three
recreational activities. Of those owners that would favor such
programs, most would require only $4 or less per acre per year to open
their land.

In terms of the specific hypotheses, it was found that land-
owner willingness to allow public access for a recreational activity
was negatively related to the intensity of the activity. A negative
relationship was found between the importance owners place on damages,
control, liability, and number, and the owners' Public Access level,
although the relationship between liability and Public Access level
was not statistically significant. No statistical difference was
found between "high" and "low" Public Access level owners in terms

of their identifying characteristics; SES, age, primary ownership

82

objective, residence location, years of ownership, parcel size,
parcentage of the parcel in crops and percentage of the parcel in
woods. No statistical difference was found between "high" and "low"
Program Acceptance level owners in terms of their identifying

characteristics.

Policy Recommendations

 

Based on the findings of this study, several policy recommenda-
tions are presented below. In some instances, the recommendations are
based, not only on the formal results of the study, but also on
information that the author obtained from the sample landowners
informally during the interviewing process.

All of the recommendations deal with the issue of governmental
incentive programs designed to increase public use of private land for
recreation, hereafter termed public access programs.

It is recommended that thispparticular group of landowners

(small private landowners on the urban fringe) be given a lower

 

priority as a targetggroup for public access programs. This recommen-
dation is given because of two conclusions drawn from this study.

First, it was found that the median sample parcel size was
under 40 acres. This size parcel would tend to be inefficient for
public access program implementation. Unless all landowners in a given
area were receptive to the program, which is unlikely, the resulting
patchwork of small private parcels of land Open to public recreational
use would create administrative problems along with conflicts and

confusion for the public users and the private landowners.

83

Second, this study also found that a sizable proportion of the
sample landowners do allow, or would allow if requested, public access
for the three recreational activities studied. There is no guarantee
that a public access program would open up any more private land for
public recreational use. It is quite possible that such a program

would only be considered by landowners already allowing public access.

It is recommended that public access programs incorporate

different incentives (other than economic incentives) on a trial

 

basis. These other incentives could take the form of liability
protection agreements with owners allowing public access for recre-
ation, publicly subsidized damage insurance for owners allowing public
access for recreation, etc. This recommendation is given because of
two findings of this study.

First, it was found that public access programs using economic
incentives, at least for the three activities studied, had a limited
appeal to the sample landowners. Furthermore, of the minority of
owners favoring such programs, most of these owners would require
little economic recimbursement ($4 or less per acre per year).

Second, it was found that a majority of the sample landowners

were concerned with damages, control, liability, and number.

It is recommended that public access programs focus on less

 

intensive recreational activities such as hiking, cross-country

 

skiing, photography, etc. This recommendation is given because the
first hypothesis investigated showed a negative relationship between
landowner willingness to allow public access for a recreational

activity and the intensity of the activity.

84

Finally, it is recommended that instead of direct public access
programs, indirect methods such as educational and information programs

and campaigns be used with this particular group of landowners. These

 

programs could aim at educating public recreationists concerning the
proper means of gaining access to private land and the proper behavior
while using private land for recreation. This recommendation is given
because it was felt that, in general, formalized, legalistic, con-

tractual "programs" did not appeal to the sample landowners.

Research Recommendations
As mentioned in Chapter II, there is relatively little research
on public access to smaller private ownerships that typify urban
fringe areas. Therefore, instead of outlining the many research needs
for this specific area, or the even broader area of public recreational
use of private land in general, this discussion will focus on issues
examined, and issues not examined, in this study and several areas of

research needs related to them.

First, it would be useful to determine if the public access/
activity intensity relationship examined in this study is valid for a
wider range of recreational activities, by investigating more and
different recreational activities in relation to public access. Along
with this larger number of activities, a more in-depth analysis
of the specific conditions, circumstances, etc., that landowners
require or desire before allowing public access could be included in

the research.

85

Second, it would be useful to investigate the landowner con-
cerns examined in this study; damages, control, liability, and number,
and determine if these concerns are related to particular recreational
activities, particular types of public recreationists, particular times

of year, etc.

Third, it would be useful to investigate landowners' positions
and attitudes toward specific kinds of public access programs. Perhaps
several different hypothetical or existing public access programs could

be presented to landowners and then their reactions analyzed.

Finally, it would be useful to examine those landowners beyond
the urban fringe, not examined in this study, to determine if there are
significant or consistant differences between those landowners and the

urban fringe landowners examined in this study.

REFERENCE LITERATURE

REFERENCE LITE RATU RE

Books

Babbie, Earl R. Survey Research Methods. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing,
1973.

 

Blalock, Hubert M. Jr. Social Statistics. 2nd ed. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1972.

 

Clawson, Marion anvaack L. Knetsch. Economics of Outdoor Recreation.
Baltimore: John HOpkins Press, 1966.

Morrison, Donald K. "Discriminant Analysis." In Robert Ferber,
Handbook of MarketingiResearch. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.

 

Nie, Norman, H., C. Hadlai Hull, Jean G. Jenkins, Karin Steinbrenner,
and Dale H. Bent. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences.
2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.

 

Tull, Donald S. and Paul E. Green. Research for Marketing Decisions.
3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1975.

 

Articles

Barrett, Paul M. "Number 9 Wire: Symbol of a Trend." Michigan
Conservation, Vol. 24, No. l (1955), pp. 19-20.

 

Heberlein, Thomas A. "Social Psychological Assumptions of User
Attitude Surveys: The Case of the Wildernism Scale." Journal
of Leisure Research 5 (1973):18-33.

 

Hughes, G. David. "Upgrading the Semantic Differential." Journal of
the Marketing Research Society 17 (1975):41-44.

 

"Hunting Land Vanishing." Michigan Out-of-Doors. December, 1974,
p. 2.

 

Machan, Wayne J. and Robert D. Feldt. "Hunting Results on Cropland
Adjustment Program Land in Northwestern Indiana." Journal of
Wildlife Management 36 (l972):192-95.

 

86

87

Morrison, Donald G. "On the Interpretation of Discriminant Analysis."
Journal of Marketing Research 6 (1969):156—63.

 

Shilling, Charles L. and Richard L. Bury. "Attitudes Toward Recreation
Development Potentials of Non-Corporate Land Owners." Journal
of Leisure Research 5 (l973):75-82.

 

Stuewer, F. W. "How Good is the 'Williamston Plan?'" Michigan Con-
servation, Vol. 22, No. 5 (1953), pp. 23-26.

 

Unpublished Material

 

Freed, Michael. "Hunter Access to Private Lands in Benton County: A
Research Proposal." Department of Resource Recreation
Management, Oregon State University, 1974. (Photocopy.)

Parker, Jon. "Hunting Attitude Study." Department of Fisheries and
Wildlife, Michigan State University, 1974. (Photocopy.)

Thorsen, Loren M. "Wisconsin Trail Program." Bureau of Parks and
Recreation, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
(Photocopy.)

Young, Joel. "Results of A.S.C.S. Pilot Public Access Program, 1974."
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, East
Lansing, Michigan.

Public and Qpasi-Public Agengy Reports

Babeu, Richard G., Arnold D. Rhodes, and William P. MacConnell.
Forest Owner Characteristics and Attitudes in Berkshire County,
Mass. Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station 549,
1965.

 

Brown, Tommy L. and Gregory A. Hill. "The New York Snowmobiler and
the Private Land Owner." Proceedings of the 1973 Snowmobile
and Off the Road Vehicle Research Symposium. Michigan State
University Recreation Research and Planning Unit Technical
Report 9, 1973, pp. 33-39.

 

Bureau of Outdoor Recreation. Outdoor Recreation: A Legacy for America.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974.

 

Chase, Clarance, D., Ray E. Pfeiffer, and John S. Spencer Jr. The
Growing Timber Resource of Michigan, 1966. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service Research Bulletin NC-9, 1970.

 

Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. U.S. Senate. 222.
Recreation Imperative: A Draft of the Nationwide Outdoor
Recreation Plan Prepared by the Department of the Interior.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1974

 

88

Division of Research. Michigan Statistical Abstract. Graduate School
of Business Administration, Michigan State University, 1974.

 

Larsen, David N. and David N. Gansner. Pennsylvania's Private Wbodland
Owners: A Study of the Characteristics, Attitudes, and Actions
of an Important Group of Decision Makers. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Forest Service Research Paper NE-219, 1972.

 

Manning, Robert E. "A Study of the Michigan Program of Private Land
Leasing for Snowmobile Use." Proceedipgs of the 1973 Snow-
mobile and Off the Road Vehicle Research Symposium. Michigan
State University Recreation Research and Planning Unit Technical
Report 9, 1973, pp. 176-82.

 

 

McKeon, W. H. "Public Hunting as a Game Management Tool in South-
eastern New York." Proceedings of the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference, Vol. 31 (1966), pp. 307-21.

 

 

Palmer, Walter L. Non-Hunting Season Public Use of Rpgion III State
Game and Forest Lands Compared to Hunting Season Use. Michigan
Department of Conservation Game Division Report 2412, 1963.

 

 

Queal, Leland M. Attitudes of Landowners Toward Deer in Southern
Michigan's Upper Peninsula. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service Lakes States Experiment Station Paper 95, 1962.

 

 

Schallau, Con H. Small Forest Ownership_in the Urban Fringe Area of
Michigan. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service Lake
States Experiment Station Paper 103, 1962.

 

Sutherland, Charles F. Jr. and Carl H. Tubbs. Influence of Ownership
on Forestry in Small Woodlands. U.S. Department of Agriculture
Forest Service Lake States Experiment Station Paper 77, 1959.

 

 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1969. Census of Agriculture: Volume 1 Area
Repprts, Part 13 Michigan, Section 2 County Data. Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1972.

 

 

U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970. U.S. Census of Population: 1970
Number of Inhabitants, Final Report PC(l)-A24 Michigan.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

 

 

U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission. Potential New
Sites for Outdoor Recreation in the Northeast. O.R.R.R.C.
Study Report 8. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1962.

 

 

. Open Space Action. O.R.R.R.C. Study Report 15. Washington:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

 

 

. Land Acquisition for Outdoor Recreation: An Analysis of
Selected Legal Problems. O.R.R.R.C. Study Report 16.
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

 

 

 

89

Watt, James G. "Public Recreation on Private Lands." Outdoor
Recreation Action, No. 35 (1975), pp. 1-2.

 

Wilkins, Bruce T. and Eugene C. Erickson. Rural Non-Farmed Lands and
Their Owners: A Study of Three Central New York Counties.
Ithaca: Cornell Office of Regional Resources and Development,
1971.

 

 

Zorb, Gordon L. Hunting Permission Survey Pheasant Season, 1958.
Michigan Department of Conservation Game Division Report 2128,
1959.

 

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

VARIABLE TRANSFORMATIONS

APPENDIX A

VARIABLE TRANSFORMATIONS

Socioeconomic Status

 

Socioeconomic status (SES) was created by recoding and then

combining the variables, Occupation, Education, and Family Income.

Occupation

 

Respondents classed as Sales, Clerical, Operative, Laborers,
and Unemployed were assigned a value of 1. Respondents classed as
Craftsmen, Farmers, Service and Retired were assigned a value of 2.
Respondents Classed as Professional/technical and Manager/administrative

were assigned a value of 3.

Education
Respondents having 1 to 11 years of education were assigned a
value of 1. Respondents having 12 to 15 years were assigned a value

of 2. Respondents having 16 or more years were assigned a value of 3.

Family Income

 

Respondents having family incomes, in 1974, of less than
$10,000 were assigned a value of 1. Respondents having incomes of
$10,000 to $14,999 were assigned a value of 2. Respondents having

incomes of $15,000 or more were assigned a value of 3.

90

91

Each respondent's "score" for the three variables was added
together to arrive at SES,

Occupation + Education + Family Income = SE8.

SE5 had values ranging from a low of 3 up to 9. These values

were then recoded to 0 - 6.

Primary_0wnership Objective

 

Primary ownership objective was transformed by classifying the
fourteen separate objectives into either economic or amenity oriented
objective categories. Farming, Inexpensive residence, Investment,
Mining/extraction, and Business/commercial were classified as economic
and assigned a value of 1. Rural environment, Enjoy nature, Privacy,
Recreation, Retirement, Location, Family/inheritance, Pride of owner-
ship, and Education were classified as amenity oriented and assigned

a value of 2.

Residence Location

 

Residence location was created by recoding the variable, Type
of owner. Onsite and Adjacent owners were assigned a value of 1.
Neighborhood, Nearby city, Absentee, and Institutional were termed Not

at the Parcel and assigned a value of 2.

APPENDIX B

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

APPENDIX B

INTRODUCTORY LETTER

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

 

IM‘l’AHI’MFNT 0F RFSOURCE DEVFLOPMEN’I‘ l-AS'I' IANSle ' MICHIGAN ' 48824
NAI'UIIAI. RFXX’RCI‘S BUILDING

As you may know Michigan State University, through its Cooperative Extension
Service and Agricultural Experiment Station, has a long history of research
activity which is designed to help meet the needs of the State's citizens.
This work covers a wide variety of topics including agriculture, home
economics, management of recreational enterprises, and so on. Right now

we are engaged in a study of rural land use and the focus of our study is
Kent County.

The reason we are writing to you is to ask your cooperation in this project.
All that is required is a short interview session with one of the members of
our staff. The interview usually takes about 30—45 minutes to complete, and
the questions are concerned primarily with how you use your property. Most

people seem to enjoy the session.

We should add that your name was selected at random as an owner of more than
ten acres of land in certain designated areas of Kent County. We have pur-
posely selected a very small number of landowners to interview in an effort
to keep down the costs of the project. For this reason it is especially
important that we have your help if at all possible.

One of our interviewers will be calling you within the next few days to
arrange an appointment with you at your convenience. The interview may be
conducted in your home or any other place that you wish. All interviewers
are graduate students at Michigan State University.

If you have any questions about the study or your role in it, please feel
free to call us collect at (517) 353-0823. In addition, you will be provided
with a sample of reports from recently completed research projects showing
the types of information which result from studies such as this and which

may be of interest to you. You may also request a copy of the final results
of this study if you wish.

We thank you for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Robert E. Manning Lewis W. Moncrief
Project Coordinator Project Director
REM:jg

92

APPENDIX C

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

_APPENDIX C

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

MICHIGAN RURAL LAND USE STUDY INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

INSTRUCTIONS TO THE INTERVIEWERS:

The following information should be recorded prior to
administering the questionnaire.

Interview number
Interviewer number
Township

. Number of acres (official)
. Assessed value (official)
. Land use code

 

 

 

 

 

O‘U‘lkwNI-J

 

Please read the following three paragraphs before
beginning the interview.

As we explained in our letter, this interview deals
primarily with questions about your property. There aren't any
"right" or "wrong" answers to any of the questions; we're simply
interested in some facts about your particular piece of property
and how you feel about certain issues which may involve your land.
In order for the interview to be useful, you will have to be as
candid as possible. All of your answers will be held strictly
confidential and neither your name nor your property will be
associated with your answers.

At the outset I should say that these questions refer
specifically to your acre tract of land which is located
in Section of Township. If you have any
questions at any time during the interview, feel free to stop
me and ask them.

The interview consists of eight parts, the first of which
deals directly with this parcel of land-—such as how much you
own, how you use it and so on. Do you have any questions before
we begin?

0.K., the first question is...

93

94

GENERAL

1. Do you live on this property?

yes (Go to question 4.)

 

no

2. Is there a house or cabin on the property?

yes

 

3. How often do you stay at this property?
all summer and some weekends
weekends or overnight only

 

very seldom
never
Other (Specify)

Ill

 

no
(Go to question 4.)

 

4. Now I'd like to know what percentage of your property (or
how many acres) is in various types of uses. For example,
how many acres are in ... (Make sure total equals 1002)

a) crops (including hay)
b) woods

1) natural

2) plantation

c) open fields (including pasture)

d) marsh
e) brush
f) buildings and yard

g) other types of land that I have

not mentioned
(Specify)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. In what year did you acquire the property?

 

6. Could you tell me how you acquired the property?

purchase
inheritance
gift

Other (Specify)

 

 

 

7. Do you rent or lease any of this land (survey parcel only)

to other persons?
yes

 

no

(Go to question 9.)

8. How much land do you rent to other persons and for what

purpose?
Number of acres

 

 

 

Purpose

 

 

 

95

9. Do you rent or lease any property from neighboring land-
owners?
yes no (Go to question 11.)

 

10. How much land do you rent and for what purpose?
Number of acres Purpose

 

 

 

 

11. Do you own any other parcels of land in Kent County?
yes no (Go to question 13.)

 

12. How much land do you own in Kent County and in which
townships? (Record each parcel separately.)
Number of acres Township

 

 

 

 

 

 

13. Can you tell me the current assessed value of your
property?

 

II. OWNERSHIP OBJECTIVES AND INTENTIONS

O.K., that completes the first section. Now I'd like to
ask you a few questions about the reasons you own your land and what
you intend to do with it in the future.

14. I think that it's probably safe to say that people own
land for many different reasons. Some of the most common
reasons include farming or simply as an affordable place
to live. Other people own land in order to live in a
certain location or a certain kind of surroundings; and
some people own land for recreational purposes or because
it brings them pleasure or enjoyment or perhaps they own
land primarily as an investment. If you had to choose the
single most important reason for owning your land, what
would you say that reason is? (PROBE) (Record in Column 1.)

Column 1 Column 2
farming
rural environment
enjoy nature
privacy
recreation
inexpensive residence
investment
other (Specify)

 

 

15. Are there any other important reasons why you own this
property? (PROBE) (Record in Column 2.)

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

96

[Hand respondent Sheet number 1 and a pencil.]

This sheet contains ten pairs of adjectives of opposite meaning.
Please read each set of adjectives and consider how you think
they apply in describing your property. Then check the blank
which best describes your feelings.

Let's take the first set of adjectives as an example. If you
feel that your property is very big, then you would check blank
number 1. If you feel it is very small, you would check blank
number 7. Blanks number 2 through 6 represent choices between
these two extremes. Blank number 4 means that you are neutral
or have no opinion regarding that particular pair of adjectives.

Be sure you consider these adjectives in regard to your own
personal feelings about your property.

(Make sure the respondent understands the instructions. Record
the responses below at the completion of the interview.)

kill-\uNH
OQQNO‘
.0.

. l

 

 

Is your land currently for sale?
yes no

 

 

Do you think that you will sell your land within the next ten
years?
yes no

 

 

If you were to sell your property this year, what do you think
would be a fair price?

 

Have you sold or purchased any land (other than the survey
parcel) in the past five years?
yes no (Go to question 22.)

Approximately how many transactions has this involved?

 

Do you think that land is a good investment?
yes no

 

 

Why do you think that land is (is not) a good investment?

 

 

97

III. LAND USE

O.K., now I'd like to ask you about some of the things you do with
your property.

24. Have you or your family done any of the following things on
this property?
a) planted a vegetable garden
b) built any fences
c) built any roads
d) constructed any walking or hiking trails
e) maintained a bird feeder
f) put up bird houses or next boxes
g) attempted to attract or retain wildlife by providing
a good habitat (e.g. planted special crops or shrubs)

25. Do you have any books in your household for identifying trees,
wildflowers, birds, or other types of wildlife?
yes no

 

 

26. Do you post any portion of your land?
yes no (Go to question 28.)

 

27. How much of your land do you post and why?
Number of acres Reason

 

 

 

 

28. Can you tell me anything that you have done, or that you would
like to do in the future, to improve your property?

 

 

 

 

Done Plans
a) a)
b) b)
c) c)

 

 

29. Do you hunt on your land?
yes no

 

 

30. Do you hike (walk for pleasure) on your land?
yes no

 

31. Do you snowmobile on your land?
yes no

 

32. Do you have a pond on your property?
yes no (Go to question 38.)

 

33. Approximately how big is it?

 

34. What is its greatest depth?

 

35. Does the pond have any fish in it?
yes no

 

IV.

98

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

36. Was the pond built while you owned the land?
yes no (Go to question 38.)
37. What was the main reason for building it?
38. Have you planted any trees on your property?
yes no (Go to question 41.)
39. Were these primarily ornamental trees for landscaping purposes
or were you interested in promoting the growth of forests or
woodlots?
ornamental (Go to question 41.) woodlot
40. Do you intend to cut portions of this woodlot for sale of
commercial timber products?
yes no
41. Do you intend to plant any (more) trees in the future?
yes no (Go to question 44.)
42. Will these be primarily ornamental trees for landscaping purposes
or are you interested in promoting the growth of forests or
woodlots?
ornamental (Go to question 44.) woodlot
43. Do you intend to cut portions of this woodlot for sale of
commercial timber products?
yes no
44. Have you ever sold any commercial timber products from this
property?
yes no (Go to question 46.)
45. In what year did you make your last sale?
COMMUNITY

O.K., now I'd like to get back to some more general topics. Let's
talk about your community for a minute.

46.

47.

48.

What would you like to see happen to the population of your
community over the next five years--increase, decrease, or stay
about the same?

increase decrease stay about the same

Do you think government should take any definite action to
encourage or discourage population growth in your community?
yes no

 

What is the property tax rate in this area?

 

99

 

 

 

49. All things considered, would you say that the property tax rate
is too high, too low, or probably about right?
too high too low about right
50. Do you know if Township has a township planning
commission?
yes no don't know
51. Does Kent County have a planning commission?
yes no don't know
ENVIRONMENT

0.K., we've finished four sections of the interview and we have
four to go...

52.

53.

54.

Do you belong to any outdoor sports organizations such as
Michigan United Conservation Clubs, National Rifle Associa-
tion, etc.?

MUCC

NRA

others (Specify)

 

 

None

 

Do you belong to any conservation organizations such as the
Sierra Club, the West Michigan Environmental Action Council,
etc.?

Sierra Club

WMEAC

others (Specify)

 

 

None

 

Do you belong to any farming organizations such as the Farm
Bureau, National Farmers Organization, Soil Conservation
Society, etc.?

Farm Bureau

NFO

SCS

others (Specify)

 

 

None

VI.

55.

56.

57.

58.

100

Do you ever have any contact with any of the public agencies
which provide assistance to private landowners such as your
County Cooperative Extension Agent, the Soil Conservation
Service, the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service, etc.?
Extension Service
808
A508
others (Specify)

 

 

None

 

[Hand Respondent Sheet 2 and a pencil.]

Here is a list of seven statements. Please take a moment

to read and consider each of them. After reading each one,
please circle how you feel about it--whether you strongly
agree, agree, are neutral, disagree, or strongly disagree.
(Make sure the respondent understands the instructions.

Record the responses below at the completion of the interview.)

statement no. 1 SA A N D SD
statement no. 2 SA A N D SD
statement no. 3 SA A N D SD
statement no. 4 SA A N D SD
statement no. 5 SA A N D SD
statement no. 6 SA A N D SD
statement no. 7 SA A N D SD

Did you buy a hunting license last year?
yes no

Did you buy a fishing license last year?
yes no

LAND USE POLICY

0.K., now I'm going to ask you a few hypothetical questions about
your property.

59.

60.

As you probably know, many people today are concerned about
cities expanding too fast into rural areas. Because of this,
it has been suggested that some rural landowners, such as your-
self, be granted a lower property tax rate to help you continue to
afford to own your land. In return for this reduced tax rate,
you would not be allowed to sell or develop your land for the
next ten years. Do you think you would favor placing your
property under this type of agreement?

yes (Go to question 61.) no don't know

Why would you not favor this type of program?

 

VII.

101

61. It has also been proposed that in some cases the government
should pay certain landowners for not developing their land.
This would be similar to the type of program I just described,
except that your land could never be developed more than it
now is. In return for this restriction you would be given an
agreed upon payment by the government and you would probably
be given a property tax reduction. Under this type of agree-
ment you could sell your land any time you wished, but it would
have to remain in its present level of development. Do you
think you would favor placing your property under this type
of agreement?

yes (Go to question 63.) no don't know

62. Why would you not favor this type of program?

 

RECREATION

The next few questions deal with how you feel about the public using
your land for recreation. Three separate types of recreational ac-
tivities the public participates in will be discussed. These activi-
ties are:

l) hunting (pheasant, deer, etc.)

2) hiking (recreational walking for such reasons as

photography, bird watching, etc.)
3) snowmobiling

63. Do you allow the public, excluding family or friends, to hunt
on your land?
yes (Go to question 66.)
no (Go to question 65.)
no requests/never occurred (Go to question 64.)

64. Would you allow the public to hunt on your land?
yes (Go to question 67.)
no (Go to question 65.)

65. Why don't you allow hunting?

control

damages
liability
number of users
safety

moral reasons
other (Specify)

 

 

(Go to question 67.)

66. About how many hunters do you allow on your land for an
average week during hunting season?
(Specify)

 

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

75.

102

Do you allow the public to hike on your land?

yes (Go to question 70.)
no (Go to question 69.)
no requests/never occurred (00 to question 68.)

Would you allow the public to hike on your land?

 

yes (Go to question 71.)

no (Go to question 69.)
Why don't you allow hiking?

control

damages

liability

number of users

safety

moral reasons
other (Specify)

 

 

(Go to question 71.)‘fi

About how many hikers do you allow on your land for an average
week in the summer?
(Specify)

 

Do you allow the public to snowmobile on your land?
yes (60 to question 74.)
no (Go to question 73.)
no requests/never occurred (Go to question 72.)

Would you allow the public to snowmobile on your land?
yes (00 to question 75.)
no (Go to question 73.)

Why don't you allow snowmobiling?
control
damages
liability
number of users
noise
other (Specify)

 

 

 

(Go to question 75.)

About how many snowmobilers do you allow on your land for
an average week during the winter?
(Specify)

 

Some landowners have indicated several reasons why they are
hesitant to allow the public to use their land for recreation.
One of these reasons is the possibility of damage to property,
including littering. How important is the possibility of
damages to you?

very important ___ somewhat important ___ not at all important

103

76. Another reason is the problem of controlling the public. How
important is controlling the public to you?
very important somewhat important not at all important

77. Another reason is the possibility of being sued for an injury
occurring on private land. How important is this to you?
very important somewhat important not at all important

78. A last reason is the possible large number of people that would
use private land for recreation. How important is this to you?
very important somewhat important not at all important

79. Presently the government is offering several programs to private
landowners whereby the landowner receives a financial payment for
allowing the public to use their land for certain recreational
activities. Do you think you would favor placing your land under
this type of program for hunting?

yes (00 to question 80.)
no (Go to question 81.)

80. About how much payment per acre would you require?
up to 2.00 4.00 to 6.00
2.00 to 4.00 over 6.00

81. Do you think you would favor such a program for public hiking
on your land?
yes (Co to question 82.)
no (Go to question 83.)

82. About how much payment per acre would you require?

up to 2.00 4.00 to 6.00
2.00 to 4.00 over 6.00

 

 

83. Do you think you would favor placing your land under this type
of program for snowmobiling?
yes (Go to question 84.)
no (Go to question 85.)

84. About how much payment per acre would you require?

up to 2.00 4.00 to 6.00
2.00 to 4.00 over 6.00

[If respondent has answered "Yes" to question 79 or 81 or 83, then
ask question 85.]

85. 0f the following two methods of payment, which would you
prefer?
payment on a year-to-year basis
a five year contract with full payment immediately

86 o -880

104

[Hand respondent Sheet 3 and a pencil.]

Here is a list of 3 statements concerning public recreation on

your land. Please take a moment to read each of the statements
and then circle the response that describes how you feel about

the statement in relation to the three recreational activities

of hunting, hiking and snowmobiling. (Make sure the respondent
understands the question.)

VIII. PERSONAL

O.K., this is the last section. Here I'd like to get some more
personal information about you such as your occupation, how far you
travel to work, and so on.

89.
90.

91.

92.

93.

What is your occupation?

 

How far do you travel to work? (round trip)

 

Where were you born?
in Kent County
outside Kent County but in Michigan
outside Michigan

 

 

 

How long have you lived at your present address?

 

Where did you live immediately prior to your present residence?
in Kent County
outside Kent County but in Michigan
outside Michigan

 

 

 

94.-95. [Hand respondent Sheet 4 and a pencil.)

96.

97.

98.

THANK YOU

Would you please circle the number of years of school you

have completed and the figure which comes closest to your

total family income during 1974. School
Income

How old are you?

 

Do you own your land free and clear?
yes no

 

 

Approximately what percentage of the purchase price of
the land is currently outstanding?

FOR YOUR COOPERATION.

105

The following questions should be filled out by the interviewer:

99. What is the location of the interviewee's residence?
a) on the survey parcel
b) adjacent to the survey parcel
c) in the neighborhood
d) in a nearby city
e) other (Specify)

 

 

100. What sex is the respondent?
male female

101. What race is the respondent?
Caucasian Negro Chicano
Oriental Other (Specify)

 

102. How honest do you feel the respondent was in answering
the questions?
as honest as possible
mostly honest
honesty was somewhat doubtful
dishonest

SHEET l

2)

3)

4)

5)

6)

7)

8)

9)

l0)

Big

Dull

Wild

Work

Produciive

Wooded

Valuable

Affracfive

Fla?

Secure

1136

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LiHIe

Exciting

Civilized

Leisure

Unproduciive

Open

Worfhless

Unaifracfive

Hilly

Insecure

107

00cm00.o
>.m505+m

00cm00.o
>.m505+m

00tm00.o
>.m505+w

00Lm00.o
>.m505+m

00Lm00.o
>_m505+m

00Lm00.o
>.m505+m

005m00.o
>.mcot+m

005900.o

005m00.o

00Lmo0.o

005m00.o

00Lm00.o

00tm00.o

00Lm00.o

_0L+:0z

.05+:0z

.05+:0z

.0L+:0z

.05+:0z

.05+:0z

.05+30z

00cm<

00cm<

005m<

005m<

00Lm<

00Lm<

00cm<

005m<
>.m505+m

0050<
>_mcoc+m

00cm<
>.m50L+m

00Lm<
>_mcoc+m

005m<
>.m505+m

00Lm<
>_ucot+m

00Lm<
>.m505+m

.00530005 .05:+05

5:0 00: 00.505500 050 0.0:0.>.0c.

0>03 05+ L0>0 .0L+500 L0+o0um 00.000x0
+5055c0>0m 05+ +05+ +5o+coas. 0. +.

.>+._0ao _0+502505.>50 +0 50.+00+0tq 0+
0000550 00 5+30Lm 0.505000 .0 50.+0&055
05+ 05 o_:050 >0._0a 0005:0005 .0L:+05

0.>c+c=00 5:0 +0 0.005560 >cns.ta 05.

c0ccoe

0>.+00t++0 50 5. >+L05055 L.05+ 5.0+5.0e
0+ >+.5:ssou 5.05+ +0 0505205 05+ 0+
>+...5.050500L 0 0>05 0L0530050_ 0+0>.cd

.000:
0. can. 50.;3 c. >o: 05+ +uot_n a_o;
0+ 0059.000 050 50.5: 00.0..05 +5000

0+ +5065L0>0m 50+ 0_505.00u 50++0 0. +.

.5+305m
0.505000 5300 30.0 +05 00 >05+ 00 mco. 00
05.+ 0L0 00c0050+0 >+..0:o _0+50scoc.>5m

.000:

05 0+ 0. 050. :05 +3050 050.0.000 m5.xms

505: +530000 0+5. 5050+ 05 0>03_0 0.3050

050.+0t050m 0L:+:+ +0 0+503 050 00005 05h

.050_5055 +50+5055. +005 0.>L+5:00 5:0 +0
050 0. +50s505.>50 05+ +0 50.+00+05d

N kqum

108

SHEET 3

I. The public should ask permission before using

Strongly

HUNTING: Agree Agree Neutral
Strongly

HIKING: Agree Agree Neutral
Strongly

SNOWMOBILING: Agree Agree Neutral

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

your land for recreation.

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

2. When a recreational user damages your property the government should

pay for all damages over $25.

Strongly

HUNTING: Agree Agree Neutral
Strongly

HIKING: Agree Agree Neutral
Strongly

SNOWMOBILING: Agree Agree Neutral

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

3. A large number of recreational users has the same environmental effect

on your land as a small group of users.

Strongly

HUNTING: Agree Agree Neutral
Strongly

HIKING: Agree Agree Neutral
Strongly

SNOWMOBILING: Agree Agree Neutral

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

108

SHEET 3

I. The public should ask permission before using your land for recreation.

Strongly

HUNTING: Agree Agree
Strongly

HIKING: Agree Agree
Strongly

SNOWMOBILING: Agree Agree

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

2. When a recreational user damages your property the government should

pay for all damages over $25.

Strongly

HUNTING: Agree Agree
Strongly

HIKING: Agree Agree
Strongly

SNOWMOBILING: Agree Agree

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

3. A large number of recreational users has the same environmental effect
on your land as a small group of users.

Strongly

HUNTING: Agree Agree
Strongly

HIKING: Agree Agree
Strongly

SNOWMOBILING: Agree Agree

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

108

SHEET 3

l. The public should ask permission before using your land for recreation.

Strongly

HUNTING: Agree Agree
Strongly

HIKING: Agree Agree
Strongly

SNOWMOBILING: Agree Agree

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

2. When a recreational user damages your property the government should

pay for all damages over $25.

Strongly

HUNTING: Agree Agree
Strongly

HIKING: Agree Agree
Strongly

SNOWMOBILING: Agree Agree

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

3. A large number of recreational users has the same environmental effect
on your land as a small group of users.

Strongly

HUNTING: Agree Agree
Strongly

HIKING: Agree Agree
Strongly

SNOWMOBILING: Agree Agree

Neutral

Neutral

Neutral

Disagree

Disagree

Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

Strongly
Disagree

109

SHEET 4

I. Number of years of school completed:

Elementary_school High school College

 

none I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0 ll l2 l3 I4 l5 l6 more than l6

2. Total family income during I974:
less than $I,000
$l,000 - $l,999
$2,000 - $2,999
$3,000 - $3,999

$4,000 - $4,999
55,000 - $5,999
$5,000 - $6,999

$7,000 - $7,999

$8,000 - $9,999
$|0,000 - $|4,999
$l5,000 - $24,999

$25,000 or more

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllIlllllllllllIlllllllllll

 

03345 5538