~~v~mvt . uV .. . CAMPGROUND FEATURES {ATTRACTIVE T0. _ 7 ' ‘ - _ MICHIGAN STATEPARK CAMPERS . v Thesis for the Degrée of M. S. f MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY - RONALD WAYNE'HODGSON ‘ ' 1971 3"... 0:4? r.!.-‘.'.‘:-,r.*.’<".-:-rs;-:-.- dun-tr: ‘ ~v- .. . ABSTRACT CANPGROUND FEATURES ATTRACTIVE TO MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS BY Ronald Wayne Hodgson In 1967, Carlton S, van Doren reported the deve10pment of an interaction travel model for predicting attendance at State Park campgrounds in Michigan, The inadequacies of the attraction index component of the model prompted this investigation, It is heped this study and Others like it might eventually result in an adequate attraction index that, when used with tools such as Van Doren's model, will permit a more efficient use of resources in the provision of facilities for recreational camping, A set of most~attractive State Park campgrounds is compared to a set of least-attractive State Park campgrounds in an effort to identify some of the physical, relatively permanent features that might account for differences in campground attractiveness, .ly State Park camp- grounds in.Rfichigan's lower peninsula are considered, Fbr measurement purposes, the attractiveness of a campground is defined as the average length-of-stay by camping parties registered there, The most-attrac- tive set of campgrounds consists of those with average lengths-of-stay in excess of one standard deviation above the mean, Least-attractive campgrounds were those with average lengths-of-stay smaller than one standard deviation below the mean, Three categories of campground features are Specifically compared with average length-of-stay, The first, named the "services", in- cludes such variables as laundry, boat launch, and camper's store, The second, named "recreational Opportunities", includes variables like the provision of swimming at the campground, trails, and fishing, The third, "the activity potential of recreational water adjacent to the Ronald Wayne Hodgson campground", includes variables like the composition of the wet and dry beach, the provision of life guards, and whether the body of water is a stream, inland lake, or Great Lake, In addition, a general reconnais- sauce of the campgrounds and interviews with users suggested several new hypotheses, Data were arranged in 2x2 contingency tables and apparent relation- ships were tested with the Fisher exact test, The significance level for hypothesis testing was set at ,10, Mapping, crossbreaks, and inSpection of tabled data generated the new hypotheses which remain to be tested using independent data, The hypotheses and the results of the research briefly summarized are: Hypothesis I, Campgrounds in the most-attractive set will score higher on the Recreational Opportunities Scale than will campgrounds in the least-attractive set, The relationship was not significant, (p=,11+), However, there was a significant relationship between the availability of swimming at the campground and average lengthuof-stay, (95.05); Hypothesis II, Campgrounds in the most-attractive set will score higher on the Services Scale than will campgrounds in the least-attrac» tive set, The relationship was not significant, However, most-attrac- tive campgrounds were significantly more likely to have a boat launch than were least-attractive campgrounds, (prOS); Hypothesis III, Adjacent recreational water will have higher indices of Activity Potential for campgrounds in the most-attractive set than for campgrounds in the least-attractive set, The relationship was significant,(pf,005). In addition, it appears that: Less crowded campgrounds may be more-attractive than more crowded campgrounds; Campgrounds built on rolling terrain may be more-attractive than campgrounds built on level terrain; There may be a preference for campgrounds located to the west in Michigan; Ronald wayne Hodgson Campgrounds offering views including little permanent evidence of man may be preferred to those which offer views of more develOped areas; Proximity to the recreation resource may be as important as proximity to the user's home in determining campground attractiveness, The major limitation of the study results from the difficulties of measuring the independent variables, Even where there was relati- vely clear indication in the literature that a class of variables such as services would be related to attractiveness, it was impossible to evaluate the probable relative importance of specific services or to devise a comprehensive list, In addition, the ability of the study design to identify attractive features depends upon the existence of the feature within the p0pulation of campgrounds studied and upon some variation in that feature among the campgrounds, CAMPGROUND FEATURES ATTRACTIVE TO MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS BY Ronald wayne Hodgson A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1971 {$7073 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author is grateful for the advice and assistance of his col- leagues and instructors who have aided in the formulation and execution of the research, It is regrettable that the many campers and State Park employees who generously gave time to assist in the data collection cannot be cited individually, for, without their aid, the study could not have succeeded, To these, the author expresses his appreciation, Special thanks are due the following persons who contributed greatly to the project: Dr, Milton Steinmueller, Chairman of the Guidance Committee and thesis advisor, for the hours Spent improving the thesis, and eSpecially for the advice and encouragement offered throughout the author's graduate program; Dr, Michael Chubb, Director of the Recreation Research and Planning Unit, for his advice and material support, and eSpecially for the 0p~ portunity to work with the Unit, The author's experiences there constituted a most valuable part of his education; Dr, Raleigh Barlowe, Dr, Daniel Chappelle, and Professor Louis Twardzik for serving as members of the Guidance Committee and for their advice and recommended changes in the manuscript; The staff of the Recreation Research and Planning Unit, eSpecially Nflss Sharon Brown and Miss Shirley Cook, for their help in preparing the data for analysis; Mrs, Dawn Morgan for invaluable assistance in the preparation of the manuscript; Mr, J, Paul Schneider for his advice and assistance in the prepa- ration of data and of figures for the manuscript; I Mr. Bill Colburn, Mr, James Oakwood, and Mr, Paul Rearick of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources for providing much of the basic data on which the research is based; ii The personnel of the State Parks visited in connection with this study for their patience in answering questions and their hOSpitality; iMrs, Susan Hodgson for her assistance in the camping surveys, the preparation of data, the preparation of the manuscript, and for the final editing and typing, iii TABLE OF CONTENTS .LISTOFTABLESOOOOOOO0.0.00.0.O... LIST OF FIGURES, , LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . .'; . . . . . Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms , , , . . . . . . . . Scepe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Specific Hypotheses , . . . . . . MEthods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . Structure and Content of Chapters , , , , are" ‘/ II 9' REVIEW OF LITERAmRE o o o o o o a o c o o o 0 (ex/ Introduction . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . . Research About Camper Characteristics , , Research About Camper Likes and Dislikes , III, HYPOTHESES AND METHODS , , , , , . , , , , . . Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research DeSign . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data Collection and Preparation , , , . . Operational Hypotheses , , , , , , . . Calculating the Average Length- of-Stay O 0 IV, ANALYSIS AND RESULTS , , , , , , , , , , , I Assembled Data and Tests for Relationships Iv, OTHER CAMPGRwND VARIABLES PERHAPS RELATED TO CAMPGRGUND ATTRACTIVENESS , , , , , , , , , MEthods of Campground Comparisons , , , , Summary VI. SUMMARY, EVALUATION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS , , , Summary . . . . . .’. . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation , , , . . . . ... . . . . . . Recommendations for Phrther Research , , , REFERENCES CITED . o . o. o o o o o o o o o o o o o. o o o APPENDI CES o a o o a o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o 0 vii viii moooo co \lLfl-I-‘WWNH H x: ha .p UWWNN J-‘r-Iom-P b-L‘ OO 49 49 62 64 64 67 7O 72 74 Table 10, 11, 12, 13. 14, LIST OF TABLES A Summary of Shafer's Findings , , , , , , , , , , , Most Frequent Suggestions for Park Improvement , , Numbers of Camping Parties Turned Away from Selected Michigan State Park Campgrounds for Lack of Space, 1965-69 , , , , , . , . . . . . . . Ten Michigan State Park Campgrounds Chosen at Random and Ranked by Number of Camping Parties Turned Away, 1965-69 , , . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2x2 Contingency Table (Crossbreak) , , , . . . . . . Crossbreak Analyses of Hypothetical Data Demonstrating a Strong and a Weak Positive Relationship Between Two Variables, , , , , , , , , , Average Lengths of Visits of Camper Groups at Different Satisfaction Levels , , , , , , , , , , Assembled Data, Scoring of the Recreational Opportunities Scale for the MosteAttractive and Least-Attractive Sets of Lower Peninsula Michigan State Park Campgrounds, 1969 , , , , , , , , , , , , A Crossbreak Showing Frequencies of High-Recreation Opportunity and Low-Recreation Opportunity Arranged Against High and Low Campground Attractiveness Crossbreaks Arraying Waterskiing, Swimming at Camp, Teen Recreation Centers, and Pavilions Against Campground Attractiveness Assembled Data, Scoring of the Services Scale for the MostwAttractive and Least-Attractive Sets of Lower Peninsula Michigan State Park Campgrounds, 1969 , Crossbreaks Arraying High and Low Services Scores Against High and Low Campground Attractiveness Scores Crossbreaks Arraying Availability of a Boat Launch at the Campground, and of a Near-by Restaurant AgainSt Campground Attractiveness , , , O O O C O O I Assembled Data, Indices of Activity Potential for Recreational waters Adjacent to Lower Peninsula Rfichigan State Park.Campgrounds in the Most- Attractive and the Least-Attractive Sets, 1969 , , , Page 13 17 24 25 29 3O 32 41 42 42 43 44 45 46 Table 15, l6, 17. Page A Crossbreak Arraying Frequencies of High and Low Indices of Activity Potential of Adjacent Recreational Water Against High and Low Campground Attractiveness , , , , , , , , , , 45 A Crossbreak Showing a Relationship Between Campground Attractiveness and Terrain , , , , , , , , , 51 Complaints and Compliments about Campgrounds from Interviews with 29 Michigan State Park Campground User Groups, 1969 , , , , , , . , . , , , , 59 vi LIST OF FIGURES Page The Average Length-of-Stay at Lower Peninsula ‘Michigan State Park Campgrounds, 1964-1967 , . , , 53 Geographic Distribution of Origins of Campers Using State Park Campgrounds in Michigan's Lower Peninsula, 1968 O O O I O O O O C U C O O O C C O O O O O O O O O O 55 Histograms Showing Distribution of Distances from User Origins to Campgrounds in the Most-Attractive and Least-Attractive Sets, 1968 , , , , , , , , , . . . 56 vii Appendix A. B. LIST OFIAPPENDICES Park Inventory State Park.Attractive Features Survey , viii Page 74 76 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Quality, as applied to outdoor recreation, is hard to define and to measure; yet, everyone with any experience, as consumer or as manager of a recreation area, will agree that it exists, ' Purpose In 1967, Carlton S, van Doren reported the develOpment of an interaction travel model with which he sought to explain and predict the Spatial distribution of camping activity among Michigan State Parks,2 One of the critical components of the interaction travel model is a campground attraction index, Mr, van Doren's index included natural resource variables, activity Opportunities, and facilities and services at the park, Elements for the scale were drawn from a number of empirical studies and were ranked and weighted judgmentaltx In Spite of some success in predicting use of State Park camp- grounds, the attraction index proved inadequate and van Doren suggested an extensive revision, It seemed possible there might be some as yet unidentified variable or set of variables the addition of which would Strengthen and simplify the attraction index proposed by van Doren, Consequently, this systematic search was designed with 1Marion Clawson and Jack L, Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1966), p, 164, 2Carlton S, van Doren, "An Interaction Travel Model for Project- ing Attendance of Campers at Michigan State Parks: A Study in Recreational Geography" (unpublished Ph,D, dissertation, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, 1967), 2 the modest aim of identifying some new campground features still un- studied and of determining the way in which they vary with campground attractiveness, ' In addition to the search for new explanations of campground attractiveness, three hypotheses suggested in the literature were tested, Each of the three has been accepted in other areas or with other Operational definitions of campground attractiveness, By re- defining the variables slightly and by retesting the hypotheses in a ,different situation, one achieves a better idea of their external validity, Unfortunately, the design of this study is better suited to searching out new hypotheses than it is to testing old ones, Never- theless, it was possible to demonstrate the existence of relationships and to draw conclusions about the generalizability of the hypotheses to the Michigan State Park system, The results of research such as this used with tools such as those develOped by Dr, van Doren can provide resource managers with information useful in making decisions about the allocation of scarce _resources, Recreation resource managers faced with shortages of funds and growing demand for recreation facilities cannot afford to build unattractive campgrounds, Even more fundamentally, a society, if it does not desire to be wasteful, will try to achieve the greatest satisfaction from the resources it uses, Understanding the determinants of campground attractiveness will help recreation resource planners approximate that end, Definition of Terms Campground Attractiveness,’ To attract means to draw or to make something approach or adhere, An attractive campground would cause campers to visit and to stay, Since the camper must provide the force to move himself to the campground, campground attractiveness must be assumed to be an estimate by the camper of the likelihood of experien- cing utility by making the visit, Campground, Campgrounds are areas where temporary shelters are set up in conjunction with recreational pursuits, Only those areas designated as State Park campgrounds in Michigan's lower peninsula are considered in this study, 3. Campground Features, Characteristics of campgrounds are such things as location, relief, layout, and size,_ Campground features compared in this thesis are the physical, relatively permanent charac- teristics of the campground and its immediate vicinity which can be observed by inSpection, Recreation, Recreation is behavior engaged in for immediate gratification, It need not enter into the production function of any other good, yielding utility to the person recreating though it may, Recreation is engaged in freely without coercion from subsistence needs or social demands, ScoEe The campgrounds studied were those campgrounds in.Nfichigan State Parks and Recreation Areas of the lower peninsula for which data on length-of-stay were reported in 1968, Essentially, these were the main campgrounds in each park or recreation area, Outpost and over- flow campgrounds were excluded, Data from which campground attrac- tiveness scores were calculated were reported by the Michigan Depart- ment of Natural Resources in the "Summary of Camping Information,"1 Data on the independent variables were gathered from the six most- attractive and six least-attractive campgrounds during the summer of 1969, The population of campers consisted of all camping parties registered at State Park and Recreation.Area campgrounds in Michigan's lower peninsula as reported in the "Summary of Camping Information," Data about the independent variables were collected during part of the summer Sf 1969, Specific Hypotheses It was hypothesized that more-attractive campgrounds, 1) offer a greater number of activity opportunities than do less-attractive campgrounds, 2) offer a greater number of services than do 1Michigan Department of Natural Resources, "Summary of Camping Information," Lansing, 1964-1967, (Mimeographed,) 4 less-attractive campgrounds, and 3) are adjacent to recreational water with more activity potential than the water adjacent to less-attractive campgrounds, A campground's attractiveness was measured by the average length- of-stay by camping parties registered there, Activity Opportunities are such things as swings, trails, museums, and waterskiing, Services are such things as laundries, gas stations, and restaurants, The activity potential of recreational water was judged by the type of Shore; whether the water is a stream, inland lake, or Great Lake; and similar characteristics on the basis of the degree to which they restrict the number of recreational uses the water can be put to, Me thods An approach was used that is analogous to panel studies in market research, The panel in this case consisted of all camping parties registered at Michigan State Park and Recreation Area campgrounds in the lower peninsula during 1968, In the course of seeking recrea— tion, the campers chose from among the fifty-two campgrounds Operated by the parks division in the study area and registered their approval or disapproval of the facility by the length of time they stayed, It was assumed on the basis of theory and empirical evidence that the longer a party stayed, the more satisfied it was, Campgrounds registering the longest average length-of-stay were considered to be most-attractive, while those registering the shortest average length-. of Stay were considered least-attractive, I The six most-attractive campgrounds were compared with the six least-attractive campgrounds, Those things that differed more between the two sets than they did among the campgrounds in either set were considered to be important in determining campground quality and were designated attractive features in the hypotheses proposed in Chapter V, The hypotheses described in Chapter III were tested in a similar manner, the difference being that relationships were proposed in advance of data collection and data Specifically sought on the variables involved, The latter method is, of course, the usual approach, '5 _ Limitations The campgrounds in either of the extreme sets were not of a single type, On a great many variables, there must have been as much variance within the contrasted sets as there was between them, Fbatures thus distributed may have been unimportant in determining attractiveness, This design permits no conclusions about them, One should not assume, however, that because two campgrounds appear in the most-attractive or the least-attractive set they are similar in more than a few regards, In fact, members of both sets are not at all of a single type, _ The number of features and combinations of features available among the State Park campgrounds is limited and the range of values is fairly short, Such is to be exPected, for over time in reSponse to indications of user satisfaction, managers have made what changes in the physical plants they could to maximize user satisfaction, The physical plant of a campground, however, is largely fixed by its loca- tion on the resource base,. If the campground is not adjacent to a lake, for example, the managers can do little abOut that, Therefore, because the reSource base is not homogeneous, some variation will exist, . The ability of this investigation to identify attractive features depended first upon the existence of the feature within the set of campgrounds studied, and, secondly, upon some variation in the quality of the feature among campgrounds in the set, Furthermore, the effects of some features may have counteracted the effects of others, thus making identification by this method difficult, The interviews with users described in Chapter V were an attempt to circumvent this problem, I . In the strictest sense, the results reported here only apply to the twelve campgrounds studied, At best, they may be generalized to the campgrounds used by the populatiOn of campers studied, The use of average length-of-stay as a measure of campground attractiveness can be criticized on the basis that the campers made their decisions to stay or move on with imperfect knowledge of the options open to them, On the other hand, average length-of-stay is better than.the‘ commonly used total attendance figures as a measure of attractiveness 6 because it has been shown to be related to satisfaction and requires fewer assumptions about the extent of prior knowledge of Options, The dual purposes of this study were, first, to seek new hypo- theses about parameters of campground attractiveness, and, secondly, to "test" several hypotheses about campground attractiveness suggested in the literature, ‘The research design is incompatible with hypothesis testing in a statistical sense because it does not meet the requirements of random sampling, The sample was intentionally biased to include only the most-attractive campgrounds and the least- attractive campgrounds in order to maximize variation on relevant variables so that new explanations would be as obvious as possible, Nevertheless, the hypotheses are subjected to tests which,it is heped, will reveal important insights for helping guide future research efforts, . The null hypothesis, that the most-attractive set is the same as the least-attractive set for a given variable, was rejected if the observed results would occur ten times out of one hundred by chance or less often were the two sets in fact the same, The Fisher exact probability test for 2x2 contingency tables was used to test the hypotheses, To seek new hypotheses is an honorable pursuit for a scientist, The advancement of a field of scientific study is made through the pr0posa1 and testing of hypotheses, Scientists generate hypotheses from experience and the best experience for those purposes is not that haphazardly gained, but that systematically sought, Systematic design can either minimize or maximize variation on the dependent variables, and thereby control the variation of associated values, The author’s systematic search for further explanations of campground attractive- ness, reported in Chapter V, in effect resulted in a number of sug- gestions for further research, The hypotheses presented are not claimed 32 be truth, rather,they m§y_bg_truth, Maybe campgrounds on rolling terrain are more-attractive than those on level terrain, Whether that statement is to be accepted as true will depend on the results of a number of further studies designed to test the hypothesis using data independent of that which Spawned the idea, 7 Structure and Content of Chapters As a consequence of the dual aims of the work reported here, the thesis is uniquely organized, The literature reviewed in connection with the study is discussed in Chapter II, The hypotheses generated by the literature review, the methods of measurement, and those methods associated with collecting data about the variables and testing of the hypotheses are presented in Chapter III, These. assembled data and the results of the analysis are in Chapter IV,' The methods and results of the search for further explanations of camp- ground attractiveness are reported in Chapter V, There are two parts to Chapter V, The first concerns a park inventory and inSpection and describes the results, The second part describes an interview with campers, the results of which add to the analysis in Chapter IV and suggest support for another hypothesis about campground crowding from the literature not discussed in Chapter III. In addition, data from the interviews suggest further explana- tion of campground attractiveness, Both sections are preceded by discussions of methods employed in the investigation, A summary of the research and a discussion of the findings make up Chapter VI, Disclaimers about truth and generalizability will be repeated as good faith with users of the study results demands, Such insistence on , the weaknesses may discourage some who would use the work, Hopefully, it will make cautious those inclined to put too much faith in the D results of individual scientific studies, CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction The literature reviewed contained little that applied directly to attractive features of campgrounds, It was necessary to infer the relative attractiveness of different campground features from what has been reported about camper social and economic characteristics, their activity preferences and behavior patterns, Consequently, the reviews that follow present information peripheral to the subject of the investigation, There are two categories of literature described in this review, that concerned primarily with the social and economic characteristics of campers and that concerned with campers' likes and dislikes, The various articles describing research into camper characteristics are reviewed first, Each article is reviewed individually and both sections are followed by summaries that compare and contrast the. reported findings, Research About Camper Characteristics Abbott L, Ferris, assisted by Betty C, Churchill, Charles H, Proctor and Lois E, H, Zazove, National Recreation Survey, Ferris, et a1,, assumed participation in a given outdoor activity to be predictable from selected socio-economic characteristics and lAbbott L, Ferriss, et al,,Nationa1 Recreation Survey, ORRRC Study Report 19, 1962 (washington, D, 0,: Government Printing Office, 1962,) ' investigated several hypothesized relationships, Data were collected and tabulated by the Census Bureau, The confidence interval was sixty- eight per cent, 'Backwoods recreation which included camping was discussed in Chapter Five of ORRRC Study Report 19, Westerners were found to camp at nearly_three times thewgatewofmpeOplewfrgm other regions, Phles participated more often than females, Camping decreased with age, with participation dropping off sharply §¥E2}'S§e sixty five, Camping increased with income except in the highest ($15, 000+) Category, In the South and Northeast, participation peaked in the $8,000 to $9,999 class, Participation increased with education except that it began ‘to decline among those who had completed high schoolp In the E2££h_ Central States which include Michigan, the peak group was_ the college _graduate ‘Non-whites camped infrequently, Rural res1dents camped more often. def-4“ than urbanites except in the North CentralSStates, Professional and 'technical workers, craftsmen, and kindred workers participated more often than did other groups, Participation in camping was associated with preference for water activities and hunting, It was negatively 1 associated with the milder forms of outdoor activity such as attending ‘1‘ outdoor Sporting events or sightseeing, Eva Hueller and Gerald Gurin assisted by margaret Wood, Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults,f Two purposes guided the research reported by Mneller, et al,' The first was to gather new statistical information about outdoor recree ation that would provide a better picture than did the current practices, The second was to analyze the data to identify important factors predicting recreation demand, Data were collected through person to person interviews with a representative cross section of 1 . . . . Eva Mueller, et a1,, Part1c1pation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults, ORRRC.Study Report 20, 1962 (washington, D, 0,: Government Printing Office, 1962), 10 the United States' adults, A cluster sample was chosen at random, For data from the whole sample, sampling error ranged from about 2,6 per cent where estimates of participation were around 50 per cent to about 1,1 per cent where estimates were near 5 or 95 per cent with a .95 probability, Campers are described in Chapter Six of ORRRC Study Report 20, Most camping was done by pe0p1e in the middle age group, 25 to 54 years of age, Camping increased with income to something over $7, 500, then deg11ned, Campers were most frequently single adults under 45 and married adults under45 with children under 18, Almost one half of the yesterners sampled, camped; frequencies were much less in other sections of the nation, Activities associated with camping included: outdoor swimming (43 per cent), boating or canoeing (31 per cent), {gshing (46 per cent), automobile riding for sightseeing (62 per cent), picnicking (59 per cent), hunting (23 per cent), and hiking (22 per cent), Campers were much more likely than non-campers to "like to rough it," Only 2 per cent of those who indicated they prefered comfort camped often, while 30 per cent of those who indicated they "liked to rough it sometimes" camped often, People indicating a preference for "roughing it" most often said they liked camping because it was a i change from the usual way of life or because they liked being out- of-doors, Michael E, MbGuire and Ronald W, Hodgson, State Park Camper Behavorial Patterns,1 The testing of several hypotheses using data collected by the Parks Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources during 1967 is reported in State Park Camper Behavorial Patterns, Location~ quotients were calculated for each county and the results mapped, It was apparent that the upper peninsula produced fewer campers than one might expect on the basis of pepulation, Southwest Michigan and the 1Michael E, MtGuire and Ronald W, Hodgson, "State Park Camper Behavorial Patterns" (unpublished Recreation Research and Planning Unit Technical Report 4, Michigan State University, 1968), ll southern tier of counties, except Monroe County, constitute a distinct "camperless" zone, Only the central part of southern Michigan produces more campers than would be expected on the basis of pOpulation, A comparison of location quotients and selected county statistics produced the following, County ingome explained about 9 per cent of the variation in location quotient, As income increased, so did the location quotient, indicating the ratio of campers to non-campers increased, There was a negative relationship between water surface area in the county and the county's location quotient, water surface area explained 7,8 per cent of the variations in the location quotient, It was hypothesized that the length-of-stay varied directly with campground distance from a major highway, Straight line distance was used, It was found that average length-of-stay varied inversely with the distance from a limited access road and that the independent variable explained about 18 per cent of the variation in average length-of-stay, Michigan campers stayed significantly longer than did non- Michigan campers, Users of more-mobile car and pickup campers were found to stay shorter periods than less—mobile tent campers, Crowding did not seem important in reducing the length-of-stay, David A, King, Socio-economic variables Related to Campsite Use, 1 King sought to identify Social and economic variables of family camping in National Forests and to compare identified camper characte- ristics with those of the general pOpulation in the areas that genera— ted the campers, Five hundred sixty—four groups were interviewed at campgrounds on the Huron-Manistee National Forests in Michigan between April 28 and September 14, 1962,. All campgrounds in the forests were 1David A, King, Characteristics of Family Camp ners Using the Huron- ‘Manistee National Forests, Forest Service Research Paper LS-19, 1965 (St, Paul, Minn, : U ,S ,D ,A,, 1965); and Idem, "Socio-economic variables Related to Campsite Use," Forest Science, XIV: 1 (March, 1968), 46- ~54, 12 sampled, each on twenty-four days Spread over the study period, Occupied campsites within the campgrounds were sampled at random, The data were corrected for the bias introduced by varying lengths-of- stay, Reported relationships were significant at p5,05, Census Bureau data for 1960 from the regions from which the greater part of the campers came were used as general population data, Camping families were generally overrepresented in the middle income classes when compared to the general population of their area of origin, White collar occupations were underrepresented in the sample, Among the white collar group, the professional class was most overrepresented, Among the blue collar group, craftsmen and ffiremen were overrepresented, Forty-one per cent of the sample were white collar; fifty-two per cent were blue collar, figamily_groups, eSpecially families with children, were the primary users of forest campsites,~_Camping.families hadrmore children than did the general population, Forty-nine per cent of the children were- between6 and 12 years old} twenty-five and twenty-six per cent were 1 to 5, and 13 to 18 years old reSpectively, The mean family size was about 4 persons, Well over seventy per cent of the families were of between 2 and 5 members, Heads of camping households were overrepresented in the 35 to 44 year old bracket, On the whole, campers were more educated than the general pOpulation, About eighty per cent of the campers surveyed came from areas designated as urban in the 1960 census, About one half had had more than ten years camping experience, Tents were the most frequent shelter, but forty-one per cent used house or tent trailers and two per cent used pick-up campers, station wagons, or some other shelter, In a concluding note, King observes that camp- grounds with beaches tend to be overused, suggesting a preference among campers for riparian sites, 13 Elwpod L, Shafer, Socio-economic Characteristics of Adirondack Campers, Shafer sought to determine whether New York State campers at two Adirondack areas differed in either income class or resident zone, Data collected incidently to camper permits were analyzed, The Tax Bureau provided aggregated information on income from their files, Sampling was such that results were within plus or minus 1 per cent with a 95 per cent confidence interval, A summary of Shafer's findings regarding the income of Adirondack campers is shown in Table 1, Shafer finds campers to be predominately from middle income categories, Table l, A Summary of Shafer's Findings Income Category Per Cent of Sample 0 - $3999 . . . . . . . . . 7 $ 4000 - 6999 . . . . . . . . .37 $ 7000 - 9999 . . . . . . . . .39 $10000 + . . . . . . . . .17 William R, Burch, Wilderness Recreational Choice,2 The Life Cycle and Forest Previous research projects had produced as a by-product a census of users of the Three Sisters' Wilderness Area and adjacent easy access campgrounds, This census constitutes the pepulation of the study, Mail questionnaires with a cover letter succeeded by two follow-ups were mailed to 997 sampled users, Eighty~nine and seven tenths per cent reSponded and a telephone check of a sample of non- reSpondents indicated they were essentially the same as those who replied, Relationships reported are significant at least at the 5 per cent level, The results are summarized as follows, 1Elwood L. Shafer, Jr,, "Socio-economic Characteristics of Adirondack Campers," Journal of Forestry, 63:9 (September, 1965),690-94, 2William R, Burch, Jr,, "Wilderness - The Life Cycle and Forest Recreational Choice," Journal of Forestry, 64:9 (September, 1966), 606-10;and William R, Burch, Jr,, and Wiley D, Wenger, Jr,, The Social Characteristics of Participants in Three Styles of Family_Camping, Forest.Service Research Paper PNW-48, 1967 (Portland Oregon: U,S,D,A,, 1967), 14 Persons over 65 years old who camp were most likely to be easy access only campers, Persons under 30 years of age most often did some easy access and some remote camping, Those who were remote area campers only were most likely to be young or between 45 and 64 years old, Rural residents were unlikely to go camping and when they did, they were overrepresented among wilderness campers, City residents were more likely than rural residents to be forest campers, but suburban residents were underrepresented among campers, Remote campers and combination campers had, for the most part, had early experience as campers, Easy access campers generally had had no youthful experi- ence with camping and related activities, Camping families had significantly higher incomes than the general pepulation, Almost 27 per cent of heads of households among the campers had done post-graduate work, There were only about 5 per cent of the males in the general pOpulation who had had as much schooling, Campers Came from all occupations, but were more likely to be profes- sional, technical, clerical, and sales workers and less likely to be 'managers, proprietors, factory operation laborers, or farmers, Campers had more children than were expected on the basis of occurrence in the general population, The majority had two or three children, Whether one had children or did not did not seem to affect the style of camping done, but the ages of the children did, Remote and combination camperis children were very young, Easy access camper's children were overrepresented in the ten to fourteen year class, Remote campers were overrepresented among the childless and those with children over twenty-one years old, Easy access campers were most likely in the middle or post-retirement stages in the family life cycle, Remote campers appeared usually to be families with very young children or with children about to leave home, The combination camper was usually in the early stages of family life, Wilderness, easy access, and combination campers may not be different kinds of peeple, Rather, they may be the same people at different stages in the life cycle, ' 15 Summary Camping increases with income except in the highest category where it falls off, It increases with education up to the college graduate in the North Central States, then falls off, Camping increases with age up to about 65 years old, The majority of campers /” are blue collar, but white collar occupations are overrepresented and. blue collar are underrepresented, Professionals are eSpecially overs_u represented, Camping is a family affair, Easy access campers, typical of those using state parks, have children between about 5 and 14 years old, These families most often have 2 children, seldom more than 6, Campers are not often from non-white racial groups, A study of the life cycle and camping suggests easy access campers are new campers or those in the early stages of raising a family or are retired, These same campers may be remote area users and combination campers at the d“ ,. other stages in the life cycle, Research About amper Likes and Dislikes Barnal L, Green and H, A, Wadsworth, Campers:_ What Affects Participation and What Do They Want? The population studied is the Indiana membership of camping associations, Participation is defined as the number of nights camped, Swimming was found to be the most preferred activity associated with ~“camping, followed by fishing and boating, Playground equipment for childten and hiking were the remaining two of the five most papular activities, Boating was the least often chosen among the five and was chosen 103 times, The next highest item was chosen only 30 times, Being out-of-doors (23 per cent), opportunity to meet peOple (20 per cent), physical exercise (17 per cent), relaxation (11 per cent), and change of pace (9 per cent), were the five most frequently reported, most desirable aSpects of camping, Restroom facilities (18 per cent), and a lack of facilities (15 per cent) were the most frequently 1Barnal L, Green and H, A, wadsworth, Campers: What Affects Participation and What Do They Want?, Agricultural EXperiment Station Bulletin No, 823, 1966 (Lafayette, 1nd,: Purdue University, 1966),‘ 16 mentioned undesirable aSpects of camping, ReSpondents were asked who made the group's decision about where to camp, 1Ninety per cent indi- cated the decision was a group decision, Thomas L, Dahle, Michigan State Park.Users Survey, 1956,1 PBrsonal interviews with 894 users were made at thirty-one state parks and additional data were collected at permanent stations where users filled out a questionnaire if they wished to, Where interviews were taken, an attempt was made to stratify the sample approximately as use was distributed that day between campers and day users and among campers according to equipment type, No statistical estimates of accuracy are possible, Data reported here were contained for the most part in the section "Description of Park Users," pages six, seven, and eight, No break- down between campers and day users was made, The data are nearly fifteen years old, The most common group size was 4,5 persons with very few single persons or groups of eight or more members, The majority of those interviewed were between 21 and 50 years old, The 31 to 40 year old group made up about one half of these, Forty-one per cent of the users had homes in the three-county Detroit area, Other southeastern counties generated 6,4 per cent and other counties below the Bay City, Muskegon line generated 29,5 per cent of those sampled, The upper lower peninsula and upper peninsula generated only 6 per cent, Sixteen and six tenths per cent were from out-of-state, When asked why a particular park was chosen, the most frequent reply was that it was closest to home, Other reSponses included the possibility of camping near water, less crowded, cleanliness of park, and greater safety for unsupervised children at play, Camping, swimming, picnicking, relaxing, and fishing were the most frequently reported activities, Table 5 in Dahle's report is printed here as Table 2, 1Thomas L, Dahle, Michigan State Park Users Survey, 1956, Bureau of Business Research Research Report Number 19, 1956 (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1956), 17 Table 2, Most Frequent Suggestions-for Park Improvement —— ' Suggestions Personal Survey Voluntary ReSponse More restrooms , 55 142 More electric outlets 43 39 Better laundry facilities 35 ‘ 57 Cleaner restrooms 40 34 Too crowded (expand park) 33 . 4 Boat launching facilities 23 30 Fire places or stoves 34 38 Hot water service 23 43 More water service 20 - Expand camp area 23 58 Mbsquito control 17 8 More tables 16 61 Better parking facilities 30 63 Running water 16 42 More recreational facilities 13 - Extend beach ' 24 16 Showers 16 68 Diving platform 11 20 Clean it up ‘ 13 14 Miscellaneous 17 - Leslie M; Reid, Raleigh Barlowe, and James H, Hall, The Quality of Outdoor Recreation as Evidenced by User Satisfaction, Study Report 5 to the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Com- mission defines quality of outdoor recreation as a set of procedures and management techniques consistent with a sustained yield of recre- ation meeting Specified human needs and desires and evaluates expres- sions of satisfaction by users as a measure of area quality, In the process, a wide range of recreation areas and their users are studied, Among the results is a compilation of user satisfactions and dissatis- factions, Those results, pertinent to the subject of this thesis, are 1Leslie'M, Reid, Raleigh Barlowe, and James H, Hall, The Quality of Outdoor Recreation as Evidenced py User Satisfaction, ORRRC Study Report 5, 1962 (Washington, D, 0,: Government Printing Office, 1962), 18 summarized here, Data were gathered from questionnaires distributed at twenty-four different recreation areas ranging from national parks to state parks, No estimate of accuracy is reported,. Relaxing is the first activity reported among those associated with camping, Over half of the groups reported this activity, Hardly anyone reported dissatisfaction with relaxing, Picnicking was reported by slightly more than half of those surveyed, There were no reported dissatisfactions with picnicking, Swimming was done by 43,2 per cent of those surveyed, Right and six tenths per cent of these reported dissatisfaction, usually because of a lack of facilities such as a sand beach, rafts, or diving boards, dirty conditions, crowding, and bad weather, Sightseeing and walking to scenic points caused little negative comment, What there was referred to bad weather and lack of time to participate, The only complaint of photographers was bad weather, In most cases, complaints about concessionaire services were that they were too expensive,‘ These services included equipment rental, horse- back riding, guided tours, etc, Fishermen complained of lack of success, Campers complained of too much crowding, inadequate faci- lities, and bad weather, Trail hikers objected to bad weather, a lack of time, and very infrequently, to a fear of animals, The following objections were made in reference to the conditions of facilities associated with camping,. water supplies were sometimes inadequate in number or poorly distributed, Campgrounds were too crowded and had dirty or inadequate facilities, Toilets were "dirty" which_most often meant they smelled bad rather than that they lacked washing and cleaning, The activities most enjoyed by the user group typical of state park users, the family with children, were, in order of most frequent choice: sightseeing with steps, swimming, camping, picnicking, trail hiking, sightseeing from a car, relaxing, walking to scenic points, snow skiing, and water skiing, Games and team Sports were not reported among the five most popular at any site studied, but complaints about the non-availability of such activities were sometimes made at state parks, 19 Wilbur F, LaPage, SucceSSEul Private Campgrounds: A Study of Factors that Influence the Length and Frequency of Camper Visits; and The Role of Customer Satisfaction in Managing Commercial Campngunds, LaPage reported a number of generalizations from a continuing series of studies in New Hampshire, Those which are pertinent to the 'subject of this thesis are listed below, These two papers are parti- cularly important as they suggested the operation for campground attractiveness by reporting the relationship between camper satisfac- tion and longer and more frequent visits, 1) The length-of-stay and frequency of visit vary directly with the number of sites in a campground, the age of the campground, and the dollar investment made in it, 2) The presence of swimming or boating at or near the campground is associated with longer and more frequent visits, water was found to be almost always necessary to high quality camping eXperiences, Still waters of lakes and ponds were preferred to streams, Length of visits, frequency of visits, and number who intended to return decreased steadily from lake-front campgrounds, through river and stream-front campgrounds, to campgrounds with no recreational water, The importance of riparian location is lessened if recreational water is accessible within.easy drive of the campground, 3) Campgrounds in regions offering a number of activities are more popular than campgrounds in regions where the number of activities are limited, An increase in the number of activities engaged in at the campground is associated with an increase in reported camper satis- faction, 4) Length-of-stay drOps as crowding increases, 5) Campers using highly mobile equipment tend to stay for shorter periods than campers using tents, 6) Trip plans are fairly flexible, permitting considerable change in the length-of-stay at any given place, 7) It is apparently impossible to identify a single main purpose for camping or campsite choice, 1Wilbur F, LaPage, Successful Private Campgrounds: A Study of Factors that Influence the Length and Praguency of Camper Visits, Forest Service Research Paper NE-58,'l9b7 (Upper Darby, Pa,: U,S,D,A,, (1967); and . Idem, The Role of Customer Satisfaction in Managing Commercial Campgrounds, Forest Service Research Paper NE-lOS, 1968 (Upper Darby, Pa,: U,S,D,A,, 1968), ' 20 8) Superior facilities and better maintenance are most often given by campers as reasons for preferring public to private or private to public campgrounds, LaPage combines the variables related to greater frequency of visit and longer stays into three factors, The first is variety, which is an interest in many and varied recreational.activities, and in the choice of situations that they represent, The second is service which is defined as a desire for individual services, personal interest, convenience, and the ego satisfaction that these things represent, The third variable is that of less rational reasons such as habit and prejudice, William R, Burch Jr,, Two Concepts for Guiding Recreation Management Decisions, Burch suggests that recreation is a group rather than a solitary behavior and that the decision about what to do and where to do it is a collective decision, Data from an exploratory study are used to il- lustrate the points,’ Twelve campgrounds in three Oregon national forests were observed and a non-random but systematic sample of campers were interviewed, No estimates of accuracy are possible, Camping groups were most often complex aggregates of a wide range of ages and both sexes, Consequently, it was unlikely that any main purpose exists for camping or even for making a campground choice, iMore likely, a suite of activity preferences might be identi- fied, Burch discusses the user's "resource system" and contrasts it to the land manager's "resource system," Results of the conflict are pointed out and solutions suggeSted, To illustrate the user's resource system, he presents the reSponses to the question, "Is there anything about this area that members of your group would like to see changed? (Please describe,)" About one half the reSpondents reported variables of the campground setting, especially "scenic atmOSphere" in reSponse 1William R, Burch, Jr,, "Two Concepts for Guiding Recreation 'Management Decisions," Journal of Forestry, 62:10 (October, 1964), 707-12, 21 to this question, One third volunteered comments about variables dealing with comfort, Toilets, firewood, and water supply dominated this category, J, Alan wagar, Relationships Between Visitor Characteristics and Recreation Activities on Two National Forest Areas,1 wagar sought to identify the segment of the population which users of outdoorrecreation areas represent, their preferred activities and something of their attitudes, Data were collected using a question- naire at two National Forest Recreation Areas, A non-random, systema- tic sample of area users over fifteen years of age was selected, Five hundred twenty-seven questionnaires were distributed at the Stuart Recreation Area in west Virginia; 56,7 per cent were returned, Four hundred sixteen questionnaires were distributed at the Twin Lakes Recreation Area in northwestern Pennsylvania; 67,1 per cent were returned, Strictly Speaking, the failure to use random sampling makes statistical statements of accuracy invalid, However, if one assumes the sample to be random, the reported relationships would have been observed by chance only five times in one hundred, Some form of active recreation was participated in by 69,2 per cent of the surveyed users at the Stuart area and by 85,7 per cent at the Twin Lakes area, Activities most frequently engaged in were swimming, sitting and watching, picnicking, and sightseeing, Swimming and sunning, picnicking, and a preference for some Specific trait of the area were listed as the most important reasons for visiting, Un- fortunately, no detail of the area traits preferred was reported, The sample of users was about one half male and one half female, Over half were married, About 75 per cent were between twenty and sixty-four years of age, Campers were not reported separately from day users, making this information less useful than it might have been, At TWin Lakes, a higher percentage of married users camped than did not, Campers came from further away than those who did not camp at both areas and campers were most often from professional occupations, 13, Alan wagar, Relationships Between Visitor Characteristics and Recreation Activities on Two National Forest Areas, Forest Service Research Paper NE-7, 1963 (Upper Darby, Pa,: U,S,D,A,, 1963), 22 Gordon L, Bultena and Lowell L, Klessig, Satisfaction in Camping: A Conceptualization and Guide to Social Research,1 Bultena and Klessig propose the hypothesis, ", , , ,satisfaction with camping is a function of congruency between aSpirations and the perceived reality of experience," Unfortunately, such a hypothesis promises little and delivers less in the way of identifying campground characteristics associated with satisfaction, However, their review of previous research yielded five continua of motives to camp, These serve to illustrate the diversity in the camping pOpulation and are listed below, 1) A primitive and simple style of camping as Opposed to a Style of comfort and convenience, 2) Camping motivated by a desire to use a Specific resource or by a desire for a change of setting Or routine, 3) An activist versus a reflective orientation, 4) A search for "personal experience" or for "social experience," 5) Camping as an end in itself or camping for the social status values associated with it, Summary , ConSpicuous among the catalogue of campers'rlikes is the absence of organized activity, All the frequently mentioned activities, swimming, hiking, picnicking, fishing, and relaxing are unorganized activities, the pace and duration of which can be varied in a moment to suit a mood, Apparently campers seek a range of optional uses for their leisure and a minimum of obligation, If this is so, attractive campgrounds will offer many activity Opportunities appealing to the range of needs represented in the typical family camping group, and they will offer services fhat free campers from necessary housekeeping f and child-rearing taSks, .Among the most frequently mentioned wants is E proximity to water and swimming, Apparently, non-riparian campgrounds { “ 1Gordon L, Bultena and Lowell L, Klessig, "Satisfaction in Camp- ing: A Conceptualization and Guide to Social Research," Journal of Leisure Research, 1:4 (Autumn, 1969), 348-54, 23 are at a serious disadvantage in the competition for users, One ex- planation of the camper's affinity for water might be water's ability to provide activity for both sexes and all ages, One would expect water to be attractive in proportion to its ability to support a vari- ety of activities, CHAPTER III HYPOTHESES AND METHODS Hypotheses Introduction Why do campers prefer one campground to another? It is assumed, because some parks cannot meet the demand for Space year after year, a set of physical, relatively permanent features accounts for the variability observed, The numbers of camping parties turned away from selected Michigan State Park campgrounds for lack of Space from 1965 through 1969 are shown in Table 3, The excess of demand over supply varies from one campground to the next, suggesting that popularity also varies, The ranking of ten randomly chosen campgrounds listed in Table 4 varies through the years from 1965 through 1969, With one or two exceptions, the campgrounds maintain fairly constant relative 4 positions, Such consistency from year to year suggests some relatively - permanent feature or set of features is responsible for the observed differences in popularity, Table 3, Numbers of Camping Parties Turned Away from Selected Michigan State Park Campgrounds for Lack of Space, 1965-69a Campground Turn Away 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Sleeper 237 531 251 264 985 Holland 3301 3223 1405 1929 2304 Holly 177 124 95 174 410 Wilderness 5097 2737 1148 1087 1644 White Cloud 23 - 35 19 241 8Data provided by Parks Divison, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, The accuracy is somewhat in question due to problems in data collec- tion, but it suffices for illustrative purposes, 24 25 Table 4, Ten Michigan State Park Campgrounds Chosen at Random and Ranked by Number of Camping Parties Turned Away, 1965-1969 Campground Rank 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Wilderness 1 2 4 4 4 Holland 2 l -2 2 2 Otsego Lake 3 3 1 1 1 Muskegon 4 4 8,5 5 7 Pinckney 5 5 3 6 6 Mitchell 6 7 5 3 3 Sleeper 7 6 6 7 5 Holly 8 8 8,5 9 8 Benzie 9 9 7 8. 10 White Cloud 10 10 10 10. 9 A review of the literature suggests three testable hypotheses explaining variations in pOpularity among campgrounds, These hypotheses are presented in detail below and are tested by methods described later in this chapter, It was not the intention of this work only to test three hypotheses, Rather, it was hOped a systematic exposure to attractive and relatively less'attractive campgrounds would generate new hypotheses or provide some novel insight into the question of why some campgrounds are more attractive than others, The hypo- theses, however, serve to structure the investigation and in that way are useful beyond any direct significance, Hypothesis I More-attractive campgrounds offer a greater number of activity opportunities than do less—attractive campgrounds, Attractiveness and its measurement are discussed more completely later, For now,.it may be thought of as a campground's power to attract and hold recreationists deriving from the recreationist's expectation and realization of satisfaction through use of the camp- ground, Camper grOUps are primarily families with children of five to fourteen years of age,1 Such a diverse group can be expected to have a 1Burch and Wengar, The Social Characteristics of Participants; and Dahle, Michigan State Park Users Survgy, p, 7, 26 wide range of activities they find most satisfying, For the father, the favorite activity may be fishing; for thermother, it may be. collecting or painting; for the children, it may be playing at the . beach or playing with other children, If only one of these activities is available, the majority of the group will not be well satisfied, and if the other members of the group are compassionate, the group as a whole will be dissatiSfied with the camping experience, On the other hand, if all members of the group find entertainment at the same campground, the group will be satisfied and find the camp- ground attractive, Ideally, one would hypothesize a range of activi- ties on a male-female, young-old pair of axes to be related to camp- ground attractiveness, Unfortunately, no such Scale of outdoor activity preference was available, Therefore, it is assumed that the greater the number of activities available, the higher the probability that. some will be apprOpriate and satisfying to each member of the camping group, Bkasuring only numbers takes no account of non-substitutability among activities, In effect, it assumes all activities within the sets appropriate to a given camper type are equally desirable, In fact, that is probably not so, A campground with a large number of relatively undesirable activities may be less attractive than a campground with a small number of generally p0pular activities apprOpriate to a wide range of campers, Nevertheless, it is hypothesized that more-attrac- tive campgrounds will provide a greater number of activity Opportuni- ties than will 1ess-attractive campgrounds, Hypothesis II _ More-attractive campgrounds offer a greater number of services than do less-attractive campgrounds, LaPage found campers to have",,,,a desire for individual services, personal interest, convenience, and ego satisfaction that these things represent,"1 A desire for services can be explained without an appeal to Freud, however, Recreation by definition is activity not required ._1 l . - - Wilbur F, LaPage, The Role of Customer Satisfaction in Managing Commercial Campgrounds, Forest Service Research Paper NE-lOS, 1968 (Upper Darby, Pa,: U,S,D,A,, 1968), 27 of the individual by subsistence or social demands, A recreational experience is enjoyable to the extent that it offers choice and freedom of activity, Services which free more time for optional behavior can be expected to be popular,- . Spartanism1 is undeniably a part of the motivation to camp, but, like the idea of wilderness, it is relative, To some, camping in a self-contained house trailer may be roughing it, Bultena and Taves found campers, even among wilderness users, want improvements such as showers, hot water, and flush toilets,2 Hypothesis III Campground attractiveness varies directly with the activity potential of adjacent recreational water, water is apparently so important that a campground without it is at a serious disadvantage in the competition for users,3 _Recreationa1 water is defined as any body of surface water, still or flowing, natur- al or man-made, from which individuals directly derive enjoyment beyond that associated with the fulfillment of such needs as drinking, waste diSposal, irrigation, etc, Recreational water is adjacent to a camp- ground if it is within one-fourth mile and is accessible by vehicle or on foot, I The importance of recreational water probably results from its ability to support a variety of activities interesting to both sexes and to a wide range of ages, Children can play in the sand and shallow water, often without involving the parents if the beach is protected by a lifeguard, Teens will find boy and girl watching exciting, and may water ski, sunbathe, swim, boat, or fish, Adults will enjoy a similar set of activities, - 1 John C, Hendee, et al,, Wilderness Users in the Pacific Northwest Their Characteristics. Values. and Management Preferences, Forest Ser- vice Research Paper PNW-6l, 1968 (Portland Oregon: U,S,D,A,, 1968), 2Gordon L, Bultena and Marvin J, Taves, "Changing Wilderness Images and Forestry Policy," Journal of Forestry, 59:3 (March, 1961), 169, 3LaPage, Successful Private Campgrounds: A Study of Factors Influencing the Length and Frequencygof Camper Visits, p, 9; and Dahle, Michigan State Park Users Survey, p, 8, 28 water appeals to both passive and active interests, It provides Opportunity for contemplative walks and for water-skiing, The beach is a vast sandbox to children, It provides a setting for romance and it is an aesthetic place with rocks, driftwood, and other curiosities to inSpect and collect, The quality of water for recreation increases with the number of and variety of activity options it presents, It would be difficult to count the number of ways people might use water for recreation, but certain characteristics of the water and the land adjoining it influence the number and kinds of activities that will be pursued there, Research Design Introduction The general research tactic was to observe the preferences of a pOpulation of state park campers exposed to 52 different combinations of campground parameters, The study is a field investigation and the 52 combinations are the combinations found in State Park campgrounds in the lower peninsula, User preference was indicated by length-of- stay, The apprOpriateness of length-of-stay as a measure of satisfacr tion is discussed later, Once the ranking of campgrounds on the basis Of user satisfaction was accomplished, only the most-attractive and least-attractive camp- grounds were inspected, The primary objective Of this study is to attempt to uncover new possible explanations of campground attractive- ness, The testing of already propOsed hypotheses is secondary, Therefore, a design maximizing variation in the dependent variable and consequently in the independent variables was chosen instead of a random sampling design, Tests for Relationships The research design, then, is to identify a set of most- attractive campgrounds and a set of least-attractive campgrounds, to compare the two sets, and to test the hypotheses by comparing the re- lative frequencies with which variables appear in the two sets, Some sort of decision rule must be Specified in order to determine when the data support or do not support the hypotheses, 2 9 Tests for relationships are made using the Fisher exact probabi- lity test, The Fisher exact test is particularly useful in analyzing discrete nominal or ordinal data when two independent samples are of small Size, Table 5, 2x2 Contingency Table (Crossbreak) A B A+B C D C+D A+C B+D N Data are arranged in a 2x2 contingency table, The exact probability of observing the resultant matrix is found by taking the ratio of the product of the factorials of the four marginal totals to the product of the factorials of the cell frequencies multiplied by the factorial of the sum of the cell frequencies, p= (MB): (C+D)! (A+C): (Mn: N! A! B! c.‘ D.‘ In order to test a hypothesis, one must calculate the probability of the observed contingency table and all less likely results and sum the probabilities, If the resulting probability is less than the stated critical level of‘X3, the null hypothesis is rejected, For further details on the test, one should refer to Siegel,1 For purposes of this research, the.critical value ofccwill be p=,10, The author has no basis on which to establish the relative risk of accepting a false hypothesis as compared to rejecting a true hypo- thesis, It is argued, however, that since a major task here is to discover new hypotheses for further Study, that the chance of being wrong one time out of ten in not rejecting a hypothesis of "no rela- tionship" is acceptable, A 10 per cent significance level is not unusual in the social sciences, In Table 6, hypothetical data are arranged in crossbreak tables, “A crossbreak is a numerical tabular presentation of data, usually in frequency or percentage form, in which variables are juxtaposed in S, Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences (New York: McGraw Hill, 1956), pp, 96-101, 30 order to study the relationship between them,"1 Crossbreaks are use- ful primarily with nominal data, but may be employed wherever data can be logically dichotomized, as is the case here, If a line drawn connecting the high numbers in the table lepes to the right, a posi- tive relationship between the variables is demonstrated, If the line SIOpes left, the indicated relationship is negative, If the line is level, no relationship is indicated, The greater the difference between the sums along the diagonals, the stronger the indicated relationship, In Table 6 are illustrated a strong positive relation- ship and a weak negative relationShip, Table 6, Crossbreak Analyses Of Hypothetical Data Demonstrating a Strong and a Weak Positive Relationship Between Two variables m j m variable A variable B High Low ‘ High 1 Low variable B High 85 15 variable B High 49 51 Low 10 90 Low 52 48 A Strong Relationship A Weak Relationship 7 , Data Collection and Preparation Only the methods relative to testing of the hypOtheses are ' described in this chapter, Those methods pertinent to identification of possible new explanation of campground attractiveness are described in Chapter V, Each campground in the least-attractive and the most- attractive sets was visited on one Of two trips made in July of 1969, The first trip included Hartwick Pines and Cheboygan, The second trip, made one week later, included the remaining campgrounds beginning at Tawas Poinézand circling south, then west and north again, Both trips originated and ended in Traverse City, Campgrounds were visited in the following order, Starred campgrounds are in the most-attractive set, 1Fred N, Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc,, 1964), p, 625, 2T'awas Point was first included in the least-attractive set,.butg was drOpped because data on length-of-stay was available for only one year, 31 l, Hartwick Pines 7, Holland* 2, Cheboygan 8, Grand Haven* 3, Gladwin 9, White Cloud 4, Bay City 10, Silver Lake* 5, Metamora-Hadley* 11, Ludington* 6, Island Lake 12, Interlochen* Data pertaining to the independent variables were collected by interviewing park personnel and by inSpecting the campground and its environs, The items asked about in the interview relevant to the testing of the hypotheses and items on the check list of services, activities, and recreational water characteristics are collected in Appendix A, Wherever characteristics not included on the check list but falling within the domain of the independent variables were obser- ved, they were recorded, Observations were recorded on the Park Inven- tory Form or on magnetic tape for later transcription, assembly, and analysis, Operational Hypotheses A research hypothesis states a relationship among concepts, The relationship prOposed between "attractiveness" and "index of activity potential" is an example, In this form, no test of the hypothesis can be made, ”Attractiveness" and "activity potential" must be measured, That is, they must have numbers assigned to them according to some set of rules, In order to assign numbers, each concept must be paired with an Operation which is a measurable thing that serves as a proxy ' for the concept in the test of the hypothesis, This section first describes the measurement of the dependent variable, "attractiveness," then the measurement of the independent variables, and states the hypotheses in Operational or measurable terms, Attractiveness as the Average Length-of-Stay A thing that is attractive has the power to draw other things to itself, When applied to campgrounds, attractiveness refers to the campground's ability to draw users, Of course, when applied to things like campgrounds, attractiveness is not a real force exerted upon a potential user, Rather, it refers to a set of characteristics of the campground that motivates the potential user to visit it, The power to attract derives from an expectation on the part of the potential. visitor that he will be pleased or satisfied as a result of the visit, 32 Both empirical evidence and psychological theory support the contention that the length-of-stay at a campground will vary with the satisfaction experienced by the user, MCClelland has develOped a theory of motivation based on the results of several years of labora- tory experimentation,1 A motivation can be described as a need to approach or avoid a class of situations based on a subjective proba- bility that the class of Situations will arouse positive or negative affect, (pleasure or pain), The individual assigns the probability on the basis of experienced association between the situation and affect, Individuals strive to maintain contact with situations associated with pleasure and to break contact with those associated with pain or unpleasantness, This definitely suggests that campers would Stay longer at pleasant places than at unpleasant places and that the average length-of-stay at a campground is a measure of its attractiveness, Empirical evidence from research by LaPage associating the length- of-stay by a camping party at a campground with the level of satis- faction they reported is summarized in Table 7,2 1 Table 7, Average Lengths of Visits of Camper Groups at Different Satisfaction Levelsa Satisfaction Level Length-of-Stay Highly satisfied , , , , , 4% Days Well satisfied , , , , , , 3% Days Satisfied , , , , , , , , ,3% Days Dissatisfied , , , , , , , 1% Days 8After LaPage, (1968), Op, cit,, p, 3, A camping trip does not always include a visit to just one camp- ground, Iore Often, the camper makes a circuit, stOpping several places on his way, ZMight this not suggest that in view of the limited time available to most vacationers, the length-Of-stay for any camp- ground is fixed in advance? Evidently, that is not the case, LaPage found the schedules of campers he studied to be sufficiently flexible to permit changes amounting to several days in the time they planned to stay at a given campground,3 1David C, McClelland, et al,, The Achievement Motive, (New York: Appleton-Century-CroftS, 1953), Chapter 1, 2LaPage, The Role of Customer, p, 3, 3Ibid,, p, 7, 33 Michigan State Park policy requires that camping parties register ‘ and pay a fee in order to use campsites in develOped camping areas, As a result of fiscal control, there are accurate data available on the number of visitors and their length-of-stay extending back several years, It is possible, therefore, to Operationalize attractiveness as the average number of days registered per visit at a given campground by camping parties if the set of campgrounds studied consists of those developed campgrounds in State Parks in Michigan's lower peninsula, Average length-of-stay is a good measure of campground attractive- ness, Even good measures have their weaknesses, however, For example, significant relationships have been observed between length-of-stay and the type of equipment a camper uses,1 Users of more mobile equip- ment tend to Stay for shorter periods, Thus, campgrounds which have a relatively high prOportion of their use by such campers compared to other campgrounds would score lower, perhaps, than normally expected, Out-of-state users don't stay as long in one place as do Michigan campers on the whole,2 Campgrounds used by out-of-State campers in greater than usual prOportion might appear less-attractive than they really are, Attractive campgrounds near camper origins may be used for weekend and over-night trips, making them appear less-attractive than they really are, Attractive campgrounds near camper origins may be used for weekend and over-night trips, making them appear less- attractive when average length-of-stay is the measure, On the other hand, observation at such campgrounds as Holland State Park suggests there may be a tendency to camp for longer periods of time and commute to work from the campground, Finally, there may be a number of kinds of campgrounds in the Michigan State Park system, Using average length-of-stay assumes all campgrounds to be "destination" or "resort" type campgrounds to which the user goes and at which he plans to recreate, In fact, there may also be "motel" campgrounds used as overnight stOps on the way to somewhere else, This latter type would expect a short length-of-stay and "attractivenesS" would have to be measured by some other indicator, 1Mchuire and Hodgson, "State Park", p, 42, 2Ibid, 34 Some campgrounds such as South Higgins Lake State Park-may serve as both, The result may be an average length-Of-Stay that underestimates the real attractiveness, The degree to which average length-of-stay works as a means of ranking campground attractiveness depends upon the degree to which campers are aware of alternative places to camp, Campers who have not adequately sampled the system of campgrounds are uninformed judges and their decisions are suSpect, In this time of rapid expansion of the number of campers, there must be a large portion of inexperienced campers, ignorant of the alternative combinations of resources among which they may choose, Calculating the Average Length-of-Stay Whenever groups are chosen for comparison on the basis of their extreme scores, there is a danger of assigning elements to the extreme sets which do not really belong there,1 The average length-of-stay at a given campground is the result of a camper's assessment of the attrac- tiveness of that campground and a number of other unknown, and presum- ably random effects, During a given year, a number of unusual events may occur at a campground affecting the average length-Of-stay, If one were to use the average length-of-Stay calculated from the data from a single year, an alewife die-off or bug infestation might drOp a truly attractive park out of the extreme set, In order to guard against this, the average length-of-stay is calculated from data collected during four years, 1964 through 1967, 2 For each of these years, for each park in the lower peninsula, the Parks Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources was able to provide the total camp-days and the total number of camps (parties) from which the average length-of-stay was computed, The mean and standard deviation of the resulting distribution were calcu- lated, The mean average length-of-stay for all lower peninsula state 1For further discussion of the regression phenomenon, see Donald T, Campbell and Julia C, Stanley, Experimental and QpasimExperimentgl Designs for Reseapph (Chicago: Rand McNally &'Co,,1963), pp, 10-12, 2Michigan Department of Natural Resources, "Survey", 35 park campgrounds was 2,52 days, The standard deviation was ,67 days, The set of most-attractive campgrounds consists of those where the average length-of-stay was equal to or exceeded 3,19 days; 3,19 days is equal to the mean average length-of-stay plus one standard deviation, The set of least-attractive campgrounds consists of those with average lengths-of-stay equal to or less than 1,85 days, the mean average length-of-stay minus one standard deviation, The most-attractive set of campgrounds included Interlochen, Ludington, Silver Lake, Grand Haven, Holland, and Metamora-Hadley, The least-attractive set included Bay City, Cheboygan, Gladwin, Hartwick Pines, White Cloud, and Island Lake, Tawas Point was origi- nally included among the least-attractive campgrounds, but was drOpped because data on length-of-stay were available for only one year, Activity Opportunities A check sheet of activities likely to be found in a state park campground was designed, Each of the campgrounds in the most-attrac- tive and the least-attractive sets was inventoried, and the sum of activities marked on the check list constitutes the score for the independent variable in this hypothesis, Activities included in the check list are: interpretive service (three times per week or more), trails for hiking, hunting in area (less than one half hour drive), fishing in area (less than one half hour drive), utility play field, playground equipment, water-skiing, swimming, library, teen recreation center within one half mile of campground, and a pavilion, Number of Services There are two service scores, Score A is the sum of values assigned to toilets, their condition, and to showers, ‘A flush toilet is scoredl, a box toilet, 0, If they are generally clean, an additional score of l is awarded, If generally dirty, they are scored 0, If the campground is equiped with showers, it is awarded an additional point, Score B is the sum of the reciprocals of the distance from the camp- ground to a laundry, Store, gas station, restaurant, boat launch, and boat rental, 36 Activity Potential of Recreational Water The activity potential of recreational water is defined as the number and range of recreational activities it can support, No direct measure was possible, but certain characteristics may be assumed to be associated with greater activity potential than others, The characteristics of the wet and dry beach compose the first set, Sand is most desirable, It is most comfortable to walk and lie upon, It provides the Opportunity for child's play and it usually is clean, A grassy dry beach is good except that it limits the opportu- nities for children and is cooler for sunbathers and perhaps less clean, Gravel is less comfortable than sand or grass, harder to walk or lie upon, It provides more Opportunities for the collector and is good for children, but is inferior to sand, Rock is uncomfortable to walk and lie upon unless-it is massive, and organic soils are dirty, uncomfor- table to walk upon, usually wet, and are often dangerous to swimmers when they are part of the wet beach, Beach composition, both dry and wet, is rated as follows, . - sand-40 grass-30 gravel-20 rock-10 organic-0 Observation suggests that the water-land interface provides the focus of most kinds of water-based recreation with the exception of cruising and sailing, waterskiers show off to those on shore, fisher- men depend on the shallows and weed beds, swimmers, collectors, and walkers use the edge of the water, The important feature of a shore, then, is probably its usable length rather than its area, The second element of the activity potential score is the length of the beach measured in yards, ' ‘ It is assumed that except in the extreme cendition where swimming is prohibited, the prime water quality criteria are those the user can estimate with the unaided senses, These are‘clarity, temperature, and odor, Color is subsumed under clarity, water that looks dirty probably will not appeal to users, Water was judged to be relatively clear, intermediate, or dirty, Clear is assigned 30 points, intermediate is assigned 20 points, and dirty is assigned 10 points, water color did not vary among the campgrounds sufficiently and was therefore dropped, from the scale, Good estimates of the average water temperature were unavailable so that variable too had to be_dr0pped, 37 vegetation growing on and off shore reduces the desirability of a recreational water body by making swimming, wading, or sunbathing less comfortable, Except in extreme cases, however, such growths have little negative effect on other types of water Sport, Therefore, it will only be scored if it occurs in the designated swimming area or on the desig- nated beach, If there is vegetation on the dry beach, ten points will be subtracted from the score and if there is vegetation on the wet beach, another ten points will be subtracted, Vegetation means woody shrubs on the dry beach and any bottom anchored plants on the wet beach, A lifeguard provides protection and a measure of supervision of children, In effect, this protection Opens the way to a greater range of activities for the parents of young children, Protection is entered in the score of activity potential as ten points if there is such pro- tection and no points if there is none, "The still waters of lakes and ponds are apparently more attrac- " according to LaPage,1 If attractiveness tive than streams and rivers, of recreational water depends on its ability to support numerous and varied activities, one would eXpect this finding, The current of streams makes them more dangerous to children, The stream banks, for the most part, in Michigan are overgrown with woody plants, so that Opportunities for walking, collecting, and sunbathing are restricted, Banks are usually composed of organic soils and except on the very large streams, water-skiing and power boating are not feasible, Great Lakes beaches are most likely to be Open and composed of sand, but the inland seas_are often stormy and dangerous to small craft and water-skiers, Inland lakes are somewhat less likely to have fine sandy beaches, but they more often permit other activity, The type of water body will be scored thus: inland lake, 30, Great Lake, 20, and river or stream, 10, The magnitudes of the numbers assigned represent the author's estimate of the relative importance of the factors, In the absence of empirical evidence, these estimates can only be made on the basis of personal judgement and experience, Errors in weighting should not be 1LaPage, Successful Private Campgrounds, p, 9, 38 serious enough to affect the testing of the hypotheses, but scores should not be taken as authoritative evidence of the relative impor- tance of factors, The Index of Activity Potential for Recreational water is the sum of the coefficients assigned to the characteristics just described, Operational Hypotheses Operational Hypothesis 1' Campgrounds in the most-attractive set will score higher on the Recreational Opportunities Scale than will campgrounds in the least- attractive set, Operational Hypothesis II Campgrounds in the most-attractive set will score higher on the Services Scale than will campgrounds in the least-attractive set, Operational Hypothesis III. Adjacent recreational waters will have higher indices of Activity Potential for campgrounds in the most-attractive set than for camp- grounds in the least-attractive set, Summary It is hypothesized that a campground's attractiveness is related to the number of activity Opportunities it presents, the services available to campers, and the activity potential of adjacent recrea- tional waters, The hypotheses, the operations for the variables, and a study design for testing the hypotheses which compares a most-attrac- tive set of campgrounds with a least-attractive set are discussed in this chapter, Had the entire thrust of the study been to test three hypotheses, a design incorporating random sampling would have been more apprOpriate, This study, however, seeks some new, perhaps subtle, variable or combination of variables to explain differences in camp- ground attractiveness, The comparison of extremes is expected to magnify the differences, increasing the likelihood that new variables will be found upon inSpection, The process and results of the search 39 for new explanations are described in Chapter VI, Pertinent assembled data from the study and the analysis and results of the test of the hypotheses are presented in the next chapter, CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Assembled Data and Tests for Relationships Introduction This chapter concerns the presentation and analysis of data pertinent to the testing of the three hypotheses discussed in Chapter III, Other data which pertain to the search for new explanations of variability in attractiveness will be introduced and analyzed in Chapter V, This chapter is organized by hypothesis, The overall score for each independent variable will be analyzed and then those components which appear promising in the assembled data will receive attention, Assembled data are presented in sections, that pertinent to each hypo- thesis under that hypothesis, These data are analyzed through the use of 2x2 crossbreaks, ”A crossbreak is a numerical tabular presentation of data, usually in frequency or percentage form, in which variables are juxtaposed in order to study the relationship between them,"1 Crossbreaks are use- ful primarily with nominal data, but may be employed wherever data can be logically dichotomized, as is the case here, The Fisher exact test is used to calculate the probability of occurrence for the observed crossbreak, Operational Hypothesis I Campgrounds in the most-attractive set will score higher on the Recreational Opportunities Scale than those in the least-attractive set, 1Kerlinger, Foundations, p, 625, 40 41 O H OH mamuoa ucaoawaamo OOHHOOOOOOO N HHHHHHOOHOO 1x OHHHHHOOHOH Ix OHHI—‘OHHHOOO \o HHHHHv—IHv—IHHO OHHHHHOHOOO \o COOHHHHHHHH a: k Grand Haven OOOHHHOHHHu—l xx WhiteCIOUdoquHQHooHoF-q in Island e Hartwick Pines Gladwin Cheboygan Bay City Metamora- Hadley Holland m Silver Lake OHHHOI—IHHHHO co H aoaaw>mm H umunmo cowummaomm Gama hamunaq dame um “meweawzm meaaxmyuoumz unmaawavm Ocaouwmmam Sara 22 3:3: O>Hun use: mamaanmwm m>wua use: wwwawucsm «:2 HNflaSe was; mofi>umm O>HumuaumuaH lLudington HHHHHHHHHOH s Interlochen HOHHHHHHH mpcsouwaamo m>wuomuuuwuomuuuauomuuuauomuuu<.umoz man How oamom mmwuficauwoaeo Hmcofiummuocm ecu mo waauoom .38 33533 .m 033. 42 The median total score for recreational Opportunities is 7,5, There are four most-attractive campgrounds with scores of 7,5 or more and one least-attractive campground with a score of 7,5 or more, These data are arrayed in crossbreak form in Table 9, Table 9, A Crossbreak Showing Frequencies of High- Recreation Opportunity and Low-Recreation Opportunity Arranged Against High and Low Campground Attractiveness Campground Attractiveness High ,Low Recreational High 4 1 Opportunipy Low 2 5 The crossbreak indicates a positive relationship between camp- ground attractiveness and recreational Opportunity as it was measured here, The relationship is not significant at the 10 per cent level, however, (p=,ll+) InSpection of Table 9 suggests important differen- ces may exist between the two sets of campgrounds in the activities, waterskiing and swimming at the campground, the availability of a near- by teen recreation center, and the presence of a pavilion at the camp- ground, in Table 10, These activities are analyzed separately on crossbreaks shown Crossbreaks Arraying Waterskiing, Swimming at Camp, Teen Recreation Centers, and Pavilions Against Campground Attractiveness Table 10, Campground Attractiveness Campground Attractiveness High Low Teen High Low Water- Yes 4 2 Recreation Yes 4 ‘2 skiing No 2 4 Center No 2 4 Campground Attractiveness Campground Attractiveness High Low High Low Yes 6 2 . . Yes 4 2 Swimming No 0 4 Pav1lion No 2 4 L//Results The null hypothesis could not be rejected in favor of the hypo- thesis that campgrounds in the most-attractive set will score higher on i 43 the Recreational Opportunities Scale than will campgrounds in the least- attractive set at the 10 per cent significance level, The relationships between waterskiing, a pavilionz or a close-by teen recreation center and campground attractiveness were not signifipant at the 10 per cent significance avel, A significant positive relationship between the availability of‘swimming at the campground and campground attractiveness was observed, (pf,05) This finding reinforces the frequent observation in the literature that the Opportunity for swimming is important to campers, Operational Hypothesis II Campgrounds in the most-attractive set will score higher on the Services Scale than will campgrounds in the least-attractive set, Table 11, Assembled Data, SCOring of the Services ;Scale for the MestwAttractive and Least- Attractive Sets of Lower Peninsula Michigan State Park Campgrounds, 1969 SCORE A MosteAttractive Set Least-Attractive Set a m a 'c '3 555g; a: .2333 o u :§ 'u H u u) a o t) sewage: 59:31.12 O -a > a .4 mva .o 'U u m u m 22:22:13“ amass“: Pl ,5 a: (D :=:E:E m: {3 :5 :SIM lg 1a Toilets 1 1 1 1 1 l l O 1 l l 0 Condition 1 l l 1 1 1 l l 1 l 1 0 Showers 1 l 1 ‘ 1 l 1 'l 0 l 1 1 0 Campground 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 0 Totals SCORE B 5 ‘MosteAttractive Set Least-Attractive Set '58 0.0%: at 3:014 Eaafiafififi w: 5 .fi 8 m '2 5 .3 5.3 " .8 -§ 5 3 8'3 5 m 1: 52:23:32: *1 5:35 fizz—:2 14 )4 tn.a (5:: a: 2:33 a: fig t9 a.eu 25:: 14.4 Laundry 1 .07 .5 '.5 .125 .05 1 .143 1 .07 1 ,25 Store 1 1 1 .5 1 1 l .33 1 l 1 .125 um Gaiistatign l .125 l .5 .25 .1 .5 ,25 l .07 1 .125 (Restaurant: 1 1 1 1 1 .05 .25 .125 1 .07 1 .25 ,Boat Launch 1 l 1 ,25 1 l l .33 O O .125 .167 1...; fine: Rental (1 1 ,25 0 1 ,167 .33 ,,125 0 :.125 1 Campground 6 3.2 5.5 3 3.4- 3.2 3.9 1.5 4.1 1.2 4,2 1.9 Totals (rounded to one decimal place) - 44 There are four possible total scores for Services Score A: 1, 2, 3, and 4. The median possible score is 2.5. 'All six most-attractive campgrounds scored above 2.5 while four of six least-attractive camp- grounds scored above 2.5. Table 12, Part A, presents this data in crossbreak form. No relationship is indicated, The mean score for Services Score B is 3.433. TWO most-attractive campgrounds are above the mean, while three least-attractive campgrounds are above this score. Table 12, Part B, is a crossbreak of this data, Again, no relationship is observed, There is some indication, however, that attractive campgrounds may be more remote from services, while proximity to services makes no difference with regard to less-attrac- tive campgrounds, Table 12, Crossbreaks Arraying High and Low Services Scores Against High and Low Campground Attractiveness Scores ========= r =_ m High ' Low Hi g3 Low Services High 6 4 Services High 2 3 Score A Low 0 2 Score B Low 4 3 Campground Campground Attractiveness . Attractiveness Inapection of the assembled data in Table 11 reveals most items to be about evenly divided between the two sets of campgrounds, The near- by availability of a restaurant or coffee shOp and a boat launch appear to be exceptions, A restaurant was available within one mile of the campground in five of the six most-attractive campgrounds and in only two of the least-attractive campgrounds, Boat launches were available at five of the six most-attractive campgrounds, This data is arrayed in crossbreak form in Table 13. There is no evidence of a relationship between either services score and campground attractiveness, There is apparently a positive relationship between campground attractiveness and the availability of a restaurant near-by, The relationship is not significant at the 45 10 per cent level, however, (p2. 11+) There is a significant positive relationship between the availability of a boat launchiand campground attractiveness. (p-,05) Table 13. Crossbreaks Arraying Availability of a Boat Launch at the Campground, and of a Near-by Restaurant Against Campground Attractiveness 1 1 J .3 Campground Attractiveness Campground Attractiveness High F Low High ’ Low Boat Yes 5 1 Restaurant Ygs 5 2 Launch NO pj_ l 5 Near-by No _l, 4 Operational Hypothesis III Adjacent recreational waters will have higher indices of Activity Potential for campgrounds in the most-attractive set than for camp- grounds in the least-attractive set, Please see Table 14, The six most-attractive campgrounds had scores equal to or greater than the median on each item, The median total number of item scores above the the median for the item was 5.5. All least-attractive camp- grounds scored below the median;.all most-attractive campgrounds scored above the median, Table 15. A Crossbreak.Arraying Frequencies of High and Low Indices of Activity Potential of Adjacent Recreational water Against High and Low Campground Attractiveness mm Campground Attractiveness High Low Activity Potential ' High 6 0. of.Adjacent Recre- Low 0 6 ational water A Special comment should be made concerning the failure to score the length of recreational beach, Originally, the intention was to score only the protected portion of the beach. However, the amount of protected beach tended to be more or less uniform from campground to campground, and bore little relation to the length of beach actually used by campers and day users in many cases, Several of the Great Lake 46 .amwwws one m>onm can Ou Hence m.m o o o m n a o o o o o o. eonoom mama“ Hmuoa OH o o o 0 0H 0H OH OH 0H OH OH OH. . . . . . pause emwu o o o o 0 OH- 0 o o o o o o . .nomwm co aofiumummm> on o o 0 cm om OH on on on on on on. . . . .muanmao Henna semen A.%H«uouommm«umm muoom ou mHnmch nonmawwmmm mo suwaoq oq o o O CO oq oq oq oq ca oe oa ca cowuamoeaoo semen um3 oe o o o ca as on oq oe oq cs 05 ca aoauamoaaoo gamma awn uo>Hm no “oxen ON 0 o o OH om om om on ON on on om. . sumac .oxwa eamHaH a a n a n a o n . We a n .m .L .1 .k a v. a a .L o c C C n 00 t r d .H t 0 N” .d .1 .1 v. .1 o v. n r "5 11 me n a a: .m c S. a a w .m a um m .1 FE e a. an a m u a m wmeu 71 mm “Marne mw nu wwnu nu nu no .L .1 mvcsouwdawu o>wuomuuuwuomuuu¢rumoz EmuH El '1' EH aema «meow m>auomuuuHuomuuu< numoz mau a“ meadowweamo xnmm wumum amwwSOHz adamawamm uo3oq ou unmomne< mumuwz Hmcoaummnomm Mom Hmaucouom suasauoe mo mmoaena .uuwa emanammm< .eH manna 47 parks had almost limitless beach available to those who wished to walk it. At other campgrounds, there were no measures of total, usable shoreline, Results There is evidence of a significant positive relationship between the Index of Activity Potential for adjacent recreational waters and campground attractiveness, (p-. 005) .1 InSpection of the data in Table 14 reveals that three of the least- attractive campgrounds have no adjacent recreational water and in one of the remaining cases, the campground is riparian to a river, The river is small and does not permit swimming to much extent. It is useful only for wading and sunbathing. The composition of the wet beach is uniform in all cases where there is adjacent recreational water, There is only one case of vegetation on the beach, and of no lifeguard with recreational water, The type of water body seems most ff,” VMN -- i. n— - -,A—-v"r-~— rmh.~'w‘~.'~_ 9"" important. All but one most-attractive campground provides close access M---“ _ . ”-1 . to an inland lake; none of the least-attractive do, Four of six most- attractive campgrounds provide access to both Great Lakes and inland lakes. Water clarity,suffers at two of the three least-attractive campgrounds where there is adjacent recreational water. Summary The null hypothesis could be rejected in‘favor of the alternate only in the case of Hypothesis III, In Hypothesis 1, the recreational Opportunity of swimming at the campground was significantly related to campground attractiveness, In Hypothesis II, the availability of a (”boat launch at the campground was significantly related to campground attractiveness. Apparently adjacent recreational water is important to campground attractiveness as measured by the average length- of-stay of camping parties registered there, Mere importantly, the evidence suggests that the ability to support a large number and diverse range of recreational activities is the important determinant of the attrac- tiveness of recreational water,~al 48 The practical consequence of the apparent importance of the activity potential of adjacent recreational water in determining camp- ground attractiveness may be evident at Holland State Park. Recent efforts to accomodate demand and protect the Lake Michigan frontage resulted in the establishment of an inland campground remote from Lake Fuchigan and across a busy street from Lake Macatawa, Lake Macatawa has a highly develOped shore line and would score low on activity potential, As a result, it is possible to predict the average length~ Of-stay at Holland State Park campground will decrease, eSpecially so if only inland campground sites are included in the calculations, An Opportunity exists here for testing the hypothesis that activity poten- tial of adjacent recreational water is important to campground attrac- tiveness with a fairly tight quasi-experimental design at small cost, CHAPTER V OTHER CAMPGROUND VARIABLES PERHAPS RELATED TO CAMPGROUND ATTRACTIVENESS Introduction Scientific theories grow and are validated through the prOposition and testing of hypothesized relationships among variables, Hypotheses for testing are generated by scientists on the basis of experience, An important part of the scientific investigation of a field of study is the acquisition of eXperience by systematic exploration of the subject matter. This chapter describes such an exploration and advances new hypotheses about campground attractiveness subject to testing at an- other time with independent data. Two approaches were used, The first was the comparison of campgrounds thought to be most-attractive with campgrounds thought to be least-attractive. The second approach used Open-ended interviews with a sample Of state park campers in which they were asked to talk about what they liked and disliked in campgrounds. Mathods of Campground Comparisons The existence of some as yet unidentified variable or variables explaining the apparent differences in campground attractiveness was suSpected from the incomplete explanations offered by other works reviewed in Chapter II. Because the variables sought had escaped detection by earlier investigators, it was surmised that they would be relatively obscure, It was necessary, therefore, to maximize the variance when choosing campgrounds for observation so that differences between relatively attractive and relatively unattractive campgrounds would be as marked as possible. In order to accomplish this, a 49 50 most-attractive set of campgrounds as measured by average length-Of- stay was compared with a least-attractive set. The strengths and weaknesses of the average length-of-stay as a measure of attractiveness are discussed earlier in the thesis, The most-attractive campgrounds were those with scores higher than plus 1 standard deviation from the mean, The least-attractive campgrounds had scores lower than minus 1 standard deviation from the mean, Having identified sets of state parks at Opposite ends of an attractiveness continuum, it remained to systematically explore their differences, This was done by making on-site inventories, Upon arriving at a campground, a brief reconnaissance was made by driving around the camp where permitted, and by walking, Next, park personnel were contacted, Permanent personnel were interviewed when- ever it was convenient, but in many cases the short time available made it difficult to contact them and experienced seasonal personnel were questioned instead, The interviews were Open-ended and comments pertaining to visitor satisfaction or peculiarities of use were followed up with closer questioning. The interviews had as their core the Park Inventory. (see Appendix A) After completing the interview with the ranger, a more detailed reconnaissance of the campground facilities and surrounding area was made, Bathhouses were inSpected, the water was tasted, topography, shading, and screening were noted, The swimming beach was inSpected and service facilities, public and private, were visited where practi- cal, The latter were often located some distance from the campground. Records Of Observations were made on the Park Inventory Form and on magnetic tape from which they were later transcribed, In addition to the on-site inventories, descriptive material from the Michigan Pictori- al Campground Guide1 and the files of the Department of Natural Resour- ces contributed to the data from which the following hypotheses were generated. . The process of arriving at a hypothesis out of the collection of raw data is largely intuitive. Had time and other resources permitted, 1Dirk C, Bloemendaal, Michigan Pictorial Campground Guide (Grand Rapids, MHchigan: Royal Lithographing, 1969). 51 factor analysis might have contributed to the combination of variables, However, mapping and the use of the crossbreak table to systematize the data must suffice as aids to intuition here, Analysis of Inventory Data Campgrounds built on rolling terrain may be more attractive than campgrounds built on level terrain, Campground attractiveness is arrayed against type of terrain in the crossbreak in Table 16. A ne- gative relationship is indicated by the upward slope of an imaginary line through the high numbers in the table. The probability of obser- ving a situation this extreme or more so if there were no difference between campgrounds on rolling and level terrain with regard to attractiveness is p=,ll+, This is not significant at the 10 per cent level, but seems unusual enough to warrent further testing. Therefore, it is suggested the above hypothesis be tested in some further research where more adequate measures of terrain are employed. Table 16. A Crossbreak Showing a Relationship Between Campground Attractiveness and Terrain fi_- :- Campground Attractiveness High Low Terrain High 2 5 Levelness Low 4 l Rolling terrain may permit a camper a longer and more varied view than does level terrain, It also provides better drainage, if camp- sites are not located in hollows, It is likely, too, that a rolling terrain forces a less regimented lay-out with winding rather than straight roads, unequal site sizes, and irregular building alignment, All this may add to the change of scene sought by the typically urban- suburban camper,1 There may be a preference for campgrounds located to the west in iMichigan. Only one of the most-attractive campgrounds was located east of the center line Of the lower peninsula, while only one of the 1Mueller, "Participation", p, 63. 52 least-attractive campgrounds was located west of the center line, The approximate locations of lower peninsula Michigan State Park camp- grounds and the average length-of-stay recorded there are shown in Figure 1. The average length-of-stay at campgrounds in eastern Michi- gan is 2.43 days, while in western Michigan it is 2.79 days. The means of the two sets are separated by more than one half the standard deviation of the pOpulation.1 Campgrounds which offer views including little permanent evidence of the presence of man may be preferred to those which offer views of more developed areas, Of the least-attractive camp- grounds, all are inland except Cheboygan and Bay City which are located on Lake Huron, Only two most-attractive campgrounds are located in- land, Interlochen and Metamora-Hadley. This would seem to indicate a preference for Great Lakes over inland lakes, contrary to eXpectation based on activity potential. However, of the four most-attractive campgrounds on Lake Michigan, only Grand Haven does not have an inland lake as well, I Few who have eXperience in Michigan State Parks will deny the attractiveness of a campground with a Great Lakes vista, Still, two campgrounds on the Great Lakes are among the least-attractive and two inland campgrounds are among the most-attractive. InSpection of these campgrounds revealed the two most-attractive inland campgrounds, Meta- mora-Hadley and Interlochen, to be located on lakes the shores of which appeared to be relatively undeveloped. The two least popular Great Lakes campgrounds, Cheboygan andBay City, on the other hand, look out upon bays at least one side of wiich are commercially deve- laped. It is hypothesized, therefore, that an "uncivilized" vista is preferred to a view of the works of man. It is perhaps less important what the campground looks like than what it looks at. The vista and not the vantage point is the focus of the visual experience. Even though Grand Haven State Park Campground is only a strip of sand at the edge of town, it borders the untamed wilderness of Lake Michigan that stretches without permanent mark of Again, statistics presented are descriptive, No tests of significance are possible or needed for the whole pOpulation is used, l I1 rd :IAIOUETYE I LUCE : - -| I 0 :— - — -I I I IALetR r _ _. I [CHIPPEIM .. I {mum-”i: L- _ _ JSCHOOLCRAFT :_“RKT~& _| L b I I IrOtLTA 1. I " - ' ’ 1 r -— 1" J ' I D (Q . I" LI '1 O J I' ' 0 00 L ”W usuoumtt Q < 5 'an GmIpacsoue l IISLE Q CHARLEVOIXL _._II : 4 1:5- - ”L _ 1075363 Lia-031.7012 ALPINE QLAN u "r l a ANTS”! I 4 ‘ 3 : 14 I fi-MOST - ATTRACTI v E 0 _ InaaaIg,;,;,;,Tozcarn.2,},- CAMPGROUND {BENZIEFRDS TRAV: {Q @2 : 3 I 4 I © LEAST- -ATTRACTIVE -7- - ________ I _____ CAMPGROUND MANISTEEWExFORD Isszuzm ROSCOM. 'oczqu I Iosco I I I 2 : 5 I 11 16 — --------------- '- -- ‘75“ LAKE ”50‘0“” CLARE 'GLAOWINTAntuAc : 5 : 2 ' 10 :@11 : all? nunou on“;Tut-wAYG-o-:thogT;:E‘;EtL:;w10:A-I:oI @ L_11 _ _ __ : 6 : 23 : 29 I 106 3% TUSCOLA I “ML” -____ I_____ __ __ “3"" I “USKE.: :NONTCALL“ TGRA'YIOT-rszclfl"- : 39 I 14 h _ —J- 1 r -45 22 ,qur’" . 27 1 42 . 187 .- -'- - .-Iwes‘n._ _ _ —-J l I—— ---I-- —--r---1°E"ESEEI IsT. CLAIR fi OTTAWAl IouIA ICLIIIIOIIISHIAIIA.I 0 l 85 165 I 420 I 41 : 38 I59 I 361 J#——'— _..I _ _ __ L __ _:_ _ __ _ ,_ __ _ _._ roAxLAuo luAcouaI “LE,“ run" I “7:6." I meant :LIVINGSTONI I 365 I I | --31.__L-1_9-I__31_I_' 235 '39‘ (foul- r I I VAN BUREN I‘M-“‘Z- CALHOUN I 'JACKSGN Twang“ WAYNE I u. 29 '123 I 98 j 102 I 143 '1010 ossamu I I I _ l— — -—-& —————— _..|. ._ .. I _________ I “33 '3”°5""‘asnucu :fl'LLS‘J‘uILENAuE Iuounoe l 79 g 20 . 23 .14 I 22 I 39 : 93 l I I I *— Figure 2. Geographic Distribution of Origins of Campers Using State Park Campgrounds in Michigan's Lower Peninsula, 1968 54 man as far as the eye can see. From those shores one experiences, per- haps, some of the vastness of the earth, some of the freedom of Open country. But turn around or look across a bay at buildings, smoke stacks, or traffic, as one does from Bay City, and the feeling is gone, The eXperience is changed although the vantage remains the same. Proximity to the recreation resource may be as important as proximity to the user's home in determining campground attractiveness, The distribution of origins from a sample of campers using lower peninsula State Park campgrounds is mapped in Figure 2, The numbers on this figure represent about one fiftieth of the camping parties registered at lower peninsula State Park campgrounds during the months of June, July, and August, 1968. Data were collected by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, A discussion of procedures and results can be found in McGuire and Hodgson, "State Park Camper Behavioral Pat- terns,"pages sixty-seven and sixty-eight. On this map are plotted the locations of the most-attractive and the least-attractive campgrounds, There appears to be no relationship between camper origins and campground attractiveness as measured here, Additional support for this point is supplied by the distribution of distances traveled to the campgrounds in each set. Histograms of these. data presented in Figure 3 are similar for both sets except that the least-attractive campgrounds have lower attendance than the most- attractive campgrounds. Interview Methods In about one half Of the campgrounds: Cheboygan, Gladwin, Holland,‘ Grand Haven, White Cloud, Silver Lake, and Interlochen, a random sample of six camper groups was interviewed. A series of random numbers were chosen from a table of random numbers and the sites with correSponding numbers were visited, If a chosen site was unoccupied, the next on the list was visited. Only five interviews were made at Grand Haven due to an error in counting. Of the six made at White Cloud, only four were usable because of a malfunction in the tape recorder, and equip- ment difficulties left time for only two interviews at Gladwin, One of these was a joint interview with two camper groups who had met at the 55 Q 00 Q3 90 2.10 .151 cue-sore“ 0 I 2.57 '2.“ 2.11 Q 3.06 : 2.112 DQ LIN 2.6? I fir MOST - ATTRACTIVE 2.00 'IMRTI'ICK CAM PGROUND , ,, I ”m 2.77 ' filflftfltOC‘flENOlfiO O LEAST-ATTRACTIVE 3-57 I CAMPGROUND :2." I” 2.27 2.“ l3 0’ ' 1.25 l. uawo 7011/ 12. 04 2.34 ' GLADI'III : O "'3 3.013'00 2.77 | 1’55.” 1 "”7". 1.71 11.03 mm: crow | 1.1100 . I I 2.111 I I AIETAAIORA I HADLEY 2,59 I 3.23 HOLLAND 2.07 I 73141110 231 2.10 | l \ 2.07 3.15 342 I.” : 190 2,, 2.42 I 2.39 2.70 l I 2.32 I l 1 __ I Figure 1. The Average Length~of-Stay at Lower Peninsula . Michigan State Park Campgrounds, 1964-1967 561 m1: _ T N m 1.- m pr. m n uv m TI nnnmm no A Du T T A_H 1 T. S _ nu. m _ mm m .m 0 w 0N¢1.0¢ oovuohm 0501.00 OnnImNn 0N01.00 OOMIwhN 05N1.0N 00~10NN 0NN1.ON OONION. 0h... .0. 00.10N. 081 .0. 00.1 0h. 05.. .0 00 1 ma 0N 10 Onnooum 0.0.01.0» 0001?“ 05N1.0N Onuuouw 0-1.0N 00N10h. 00.10N. 0N.I.o. 00.105. 0.. 1.0 00 Icu 0N I 0 N , m nun” D M a m FIIII. m mm u m E W MWWWWWWW m _ w T . OouomNN 0~N1.0N oouoo: 05.1.0. 00.103 3 021.0. 00.10.. 051 .0 001 on ma 1 0 00N10NN 0-1.0N OONImh. 05.1.0. 00.10N. 021.0. 00.10.. 0 51.0 0010N 0N10 n~n1_On oon.o»« ns~-_n~ oo~-o- 3N- .ou oo~-m~_ ns_-_n_ On_-u«. n~_-_o_ 02. 3. at.-.» onqu nu..o Histograms Showing Distribution of Distances from User Origins Figure 3, to Campgrounds in the Most-Attractive and Least-Attractive Sets, 1968 ISLAND LAKE CHEBOYGAN LEAST -ATTRACT1VE SET E 922-102 2| 1 911-191 002-911 3 091-921 911-191 3 l . 921-101 3; 091-921 a 0 001-91. 3 921-101 ,-;-‘_’ . 91-19 001-91 2 I 09-92 I 91.- 19 r * 09-92 ‘ I 92-0 I 009-922 C 912-192 _ I - 913- |93 092-922 A. f I 092-922 922-102 5: f | 922-102 ‘ 002-921 g I 002-911 m a 911-191 V _ - m :3 m m 921-191;» 0 091-9213 0 ' I .J 0- g, 091-9212 of 921-101: a — 921-101 11.1 001-91. 1:: “- , I- x I: 001 -91. 5 91-19 g 97. - 19 5: 09-92 E I: 09-92 92-0 4 I ngz-Ioz I: 002-911 C 099-929 91.1- 191 929-109 _ | 091-921 002-912 F 921- 101 3 922-192 3"} __ f . 001- 91 g . 092-922 E C I 91-- '9 922-102 8 09-92 002-911 E; 92-0 (1) ' 58 campground and were visiting when asked for an interview, Only one party refused the interview, a trailer camper at Grand Haven, The interviews were made in an effort to discover what it is about campgrounds that campers look for, As much as possible, therefore, the campers interviewed were encouraged to talk about likes and dislikes, not only concerning the particular camp in which the interview took place, but concerning campgrounds in general, A set of questions (see Appendix B) was constructed in advance and served as a structure for the interview, As in the interview with park personnel, appr0pri- ate comments were followed up with a series of probes, seeking state- ments about what makes a good or a bad campground, A tape recorder was used to record the conversations, The inter- viewers asked permission to record, and no one refused, There was no apparent timidity about being recorded, and, in fact, after a few minutes, the recorder was ignored and apparently forgotten, Analysis of Interview Data The data gathered in the interviews were categorized according to whether the reSponse was a complaint about what was found in a camp- ground or a statement of characteristics sought when choosing a camp- ground, Please see Table 17, Data are further divided according to the campground characteristic with which the comment dealt, and according to the attractiveness of the campground in which the subjects were interviewed, Although every attempt was made to interview a1 random sample of users registered at the time the campground was visited, neither the campgrounds nor the days of the visit were chosen at random; therefore, no confidence intervals for the data can be calculated, 59 Table 17, Complaints and Compliments about Campgrounds from Interviews with 29 Michigan State Park Campground User Groups, 1969 Comments Number of Parties MOST-ATTRACTIVE CAMPGROUNDS COMPLIMENTS~ l-i .§ Flush toilets Showers Clean restrooms Hot water Running water Good drinking water H hthah-h>c~ Clean campsites Larger campsites Campsite near lake/beach Campsite close to home Campsite shaded Screening between sites Remote campgrounds Grassy campsites Car access to site h‘h‘h‘h)h)$‘U1G>Q> Fawer pe0p1e/not too crowded facilities Lots of teenagers around Family atmOSphere Quiet HN-l-‘UI Beach facilities/swimming water 1 Sand Shallow water for children Large lake for boats/lake Fishing Boats (in ship canal at Holland) Boats for rent HHNWUUVQ Nearer points Of interest Teenage and children's activities/Sports Naturalist/movies at night (SJ-\Ul Trees Nature trails Wild life Picnic Spots 0"wa MOSTeATTRACTIVE CAMPGROUNDS COMPLAINTS Overcrowding 7 60 Table 17 (cont'd) Comments Number of Parties Noise (Teens and traffic) Dissatisfied with new campground at Holland Not enough parking New trailer no-renting rule at Grand Haven Fee too high Lack of reservation system Campsite's boundaries poorly marked Dirty grounds and facilities Campsite not grassy/sand drifts Unenforced rules Curfew objected to hdhik3U1kthh3hnv k~xs LEAST-ATTRACTIVE CAMPGROUNDS COMPLIMENTS Showers Clean sanitary facilities Flush toilets Running water Laundry Mirror Big lavatories HHHWWNW Town near-by Store in park Firewood available NNJ.‘ Rustic, isolated park - 1 Clean park Cover Quiet Friendly pe0ple Small park Scenery Large Sites P‘F‘PINDNJUDU1F‘ Swimming Beach/Campground on lake Fishing Sound of water lib-b3 Play areas Teen activities F‘P‘ 61 Table 17 (cont'd) a Wfi 1 W Comments Number of Parties LEA ST-ATTRA CTIVE CAMPGRQJNDS COMPLAINTS Too crowded (park or campsite) 1 Too noisy Being turned away for lack of Space Pe0ple cutting through campsite Local kids' mischief in campground Hl-‘J-‘ko “ 8Comments by campers concerned all camping eXperience by user and are not necessarily Specific to the campground in which they were inter-‘ viewed, Although campsites were sampled at random in those parks where interviews were made, the selection of parks for interview and the non- random choice of interview times make estimates of sample validity impossible, Results The responses to the interview catalogued in Table 17 support the hypothesis that flush toilets and showers are services important to campground attractiveness, Only two campgrounds did not provide showers and flush toilets, Both were in the set of least-attractive campgrounds, Because these services were so uniformly offered, com- parison of the two extreme sets of campgrounds failed to demonstrate important differences on the variable, However, about one half (17/29) of the parties interviewed said flush toilets were important to them, while about two thirds (23/29) felt showers were important, Recreational water was mentioned as important in making camp- ground choices by 27 of 29 parties, ReSponses frequently contained references to activity opportunities such as places to see or things for adults, children, and teenagers to do, These support the general idea that it is potential for supporting appr0priate activity that determines much of a campground's attractiveness, A relationship between crowding and campground attractiveness is suggested in the literature,1 No test is attempted here, however, 1LaPage, The Role of Customer Satisfaction, p, 7; and Reid, gt a1,, The Quality of Outdoor Recreation, p, 30, 62 MCGuire and Hodgson1 attempted to identify such a relationship using data similar to that used here and found, contrary to expectations, a positive relationship between crowding and length-of-stay, They suggest the attractiveness causing crowding also promotes longer stays, more than compensating the negative effects of greater numbers, If that is the case, the design used here would be inappropriate to make further tests, Results of the interviews suggest, however, that crowding is an unattractive campground feature, Of the parties interviewed, over half mentioned crowding as undesirable, On these grounds, it is suggested that, other things being equal, less crowded campgrounds will be moreeattractive than will be more-crowded campgrounds, W The this chapter, the results of a search for new hypotheses explaining variation in campground attractiveness are reported, Inter- views with campers and inSpection of a set of most-attractive camp- grounds and a set of least-attractive campgrounds as measured by the average length-of—stay provided data, The results of the interviews and the on-site inSpection suggest the following hypotheses, Hypothesis A, Less crowded campgrounds are more attractive than are more crowded campgrounds, Hypothesis B, Campgrounds built on rolling terrain are more attractive than campgrounds built on level terrain, Hypothesis C, Campgrounds located in western Michigan are more- attractive than campgrounds located in eastern Michigan, Hypothesis D, "Undeve10ped" vistas associated with campgrounds are preferred to vistas including the permanent works of man, Hypothesis E, Proximity to the recreation resource is as impor- tant as proximity to the user's home in determining campground attrac- tiveness, These hypotheses are suggested t0pics for further research, Acceptance or rejection depends upon the results of tests of lMccuire and Hodgson, "State Park Camper", p, 49, 63 independent data, Some, like Hypothesis C, may be conservatively stated, It is possible there exists a general preference for recre- ation in north and western Michigan, However, the data from‘which these untested hypotheses are generated do not justify, by themselves, greater generality, CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, EVAIUATION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS W Results of Hypothesis Testing It was hypothesized on the basis of evidence reported in the literature that the average length-of-stay at a given campground would be directly related to the number of activity Opportunities of- fered to users of the campground, the number of services available to users of the campground, and the activity potential of recreational waters adjacent to the campground, “Average length-of-stay" at a campground by camping parties regis- tered there is prOposed as a measure of campground attractiveness, “Activity Opportunities" are such things as trails, libraries, play- ground equipment, and water-skiing, "Services" are such facilities as gas stations, laundries, and boat launch ramps, The "activity potential" of recreational water describes its ability to support numerous and varied recreational activities, The potential is mea~ sured by ranking some of the physical characteristics of a body of water according to the degree to which they restrict recreational use, The more a characteristic restricts use, the lower the score awarded that aSpect of recreational water, - Hypotheses are tested using crossbreak tables and the Fisher exact test for significance, The significance level was set at 10 per cent because the primary purpose of the study was to identify possible new explanations of campground attractiveness for future testing with independent data and improved measures, It was felt the chance of being wrong approximately one time in ten by rejecting a true null hypothesis was acceptable under these conditions, In any case, 64 65 statistical testing is not strictly applicable under the design used here, Sampling was deliberately biased to include only the mos t- attractive and least-attractive of lower peninsula State Park camp- grounds, Generalizations cannot be logically made to all State Parks, therefore, Readers of this report are advised that results are ex- tremely tentative and require further careful testing before they are accepted, It is h0ped these results and the conclusions reached will motivate and help direct further research in the area of campground attractiveness, .The relationship between average length-of-stay and the number of recreational opportunities a campgroundgoffered was not significant at the 10_per cent level, (p=.llf) However, there was a significant relationship (pf,05) between the availability of swimming at the camp- ground and campground attractiveness, All most-attractive campgrounds offered swimming, but some campgrounds offering swimming were among the least-attractive, The opportunity for swimming cannot alone assure a campground's attractiveness, There was evidence that average length-of-stay increased with the activity potential of adjacent recreational water, The relationship was significant at the 10 per cent level (p5,005), Half of the least- attractive campgrounds have no adjacent recreational water, One of the remaining three is riparian to a small stream, The remaining two are on a Great Lake, but have only swampy inland waters or none at all, Four of the six most-attractive campgrounds are riparian to both in- land and Great Lakes, Other parameters of activity potential did not vary sufficiently between the two groups of campgrounds to distinguish one from the other, There was no evidence to suggest that the availability of services in general is important in determining the avergge length-of-stay at a campgroggg, However, relatively more-attractive campgrounds were sig- nificantly more likely to have a boat launch than were relatively less- attractive campgrounds, (p5205) Summary note The literature and the results of the hypothesis testing both emphasize the likely importance of a large number of activity 66 Opportunities appr0priate to a wide range of ages and to both sexes, This is particularly true with regard to determining the quality of water for recreation, Less crowded campgrounds may be more attractive than more crowded campgrounds, This relationship was suggested in the literature reviewed, However, a test of the hypothesis was not practical within the design used here, The data collected in interviews with camp- ground users suggest that the hypothesis should be tested, Over one half of the camping parties mentioned crowding as undesirable, Campgrounds built on rolling terrain may be more attractive than campgrounds built on level terrain, Only two of the six most-attrac- tive campgrounds were located on level terrain while five of the six least-attractive campgrounds were on level terrain, There is enough evidence of the existence of such a relationship to warrant testing of the hypothesis in further studies, There may be a preference for campgrounds located to the west in Michigan, Only one of the most-attractive campgrounds was located east of the center line of the lower peninsula, while only one of the least- attractive campgrounds was located west of the line, The average length-of-stay at eastern Michigan campgrounds in the lower peninsula was 2,43 days while in western Michigan the average length-of-stay was 2,79 days, Campgrounds which offer views including little permanent evidence of the presence of man may be preferred to those which offer views of more develOped areas, All the most-attractive campgrounds either look out over the expanse of Lake Muchigan or are on inland lakes with very little shore line develOpment, The least-attractive campgrounds generally look out upon permanent and visible works of man, Proximity to the recreation resource may be as important as proximity to the user's home in determining campground attractiveness, The distribution of camper origins and of the sets of most-attractive and least-attractive campgrounds appear to be unrelated, Campers are, apparently, willing to travel to a resource and wish to camp near it, They do not necessarily use the nearest attractive resource, Campers from Grand Rapids go to Holland, Grand Haven, Silver Lake, Ludington, and Interlochen; they don't all go to Holland and Grand 67 Haven, It is suSpected that distance within some limits is of very little importance in determining campground choice, In light of the prediSposition to use distance in prediction models, empirical and theoretical work is strongly recommended to improve the understanding of the effects of distance on choice of campgrounds, all other things controlled, These five hypotheses are untested, They are the results of a search for new explanations of variations in campground attractiveness, They may be the result of random error and therefore Spurious, They should be tested with independent data, Until they are more comple- tely studied, the suggested relationships should be used cautiously by planners and designers, Summary of Medhods The study was designed primarily to discover as yet unidentified eXplanations of variation in campground attractiveness, The strategy was to maximize the variation in independent variables by maximizing the difference in the dependent variable, A set of most-attractive campgrounds was compared to a set of least-attractive campgrounds, Data was gathered through field inSpection and from records of the management agency, Campground users were interviewed at half of the campgrounds inSpected to provide clues as to what type of data would be most likely to explain differences in campground attractiveness, Data were analyzed by inspection, mapping, and crossbreaks, In addition to the search for new variables, the data were used to test three hypotheses, Data to be used in these tests were collected at the same time and in the same manner as described above, Analysis was by crossbreak with the Fisher exact test used to determine the significance of observed relationships, Evaluation Length-of-Stay as Attractiveness If one is attracted to something, one is motivated to embrace it, figuratively, to possess it in a physical or mental way, One tends to “approach" it rather than to "avoid" it, Thus, it would be expected that pe0ple would stay longer in places they like than in those they don't, Empirical evidence cited earlier, in fact, demonstrated this, 68 Average length-of-stay is a good measure of campground attractiveness, Even good measures have their weaknesses, however, For example, significant relationships have been observed between length-of-stay and the type of equipment a camper uses,1 Parties with more mobile equipment tend to stay for shorter periods, Thus, campgrounds which have a relatively high prOportion of their use by such campers compared to other campgrounds would score lower in attractiveness than they might have otherwise, Out-of-state users don't stay as long in one place as do Michigan campers on the whole,2 Campgrounds used by out-of-state campers in greater than usual prOportion might appear less-attractive than they really are, Attractive campgrounds near camper origins may be used for weekend and over-night trips, making them appear less-attractive when average length-of-stay is the measure, On the other hand, observation at such campgrounds as Holland State Park suggest there may be a tendency to camp for longer periods of time and commute to work from the campground,° Finally, there may be a number of kinds of campgrounds in the Michigan State Park system, Using average length-of-stay assumes all campgrounds to be "destination" or "resort" type campgrounds to which the user goes and at which he plans to recreate, In fact, there may also be "motel" campgrounds used as overnight stops on the way to some- where else, This latter type would expect a short length-of-stay and 'httractiveness" would have to be measured by some other indicator, Some campgrounds such as South Higgins Lake State Park may serve as_ both, The result may be an average length-of-stay that underestimates the real attractiveness, The degree to which average length-of-stay works as a means of ranking campground attractiveness depends upon the degree to which campers are aware of alternative places to camp, Campers who have not adequately sampled the system of campgrounds are uninformed judges and their decisions are suSpect, In this time of rapid expansion of the 1McGuire and Hodgson, "State Park", p, 42, 21bid, 69 number Of campers, there must be a large portion of campers inexperi- enced and ignorant of the alternative combinations of resources among which they may choose, Independent variables The‘measures of activity Opportunity, activity potential of recreational waters, and services are too arbitrary and crude, They must remain so until further work is done to determine what it is peOple seek in these regards, There had not been sufficient careful Observation reported to permit the develOpment of scales beyond nominative measure, There is not even enough to make decisions about what variables to include in such scales, The Population Just as the study may suffer from inclusion of more than one type of campground, it also suffers from failure to include samples of each type of campground, State Park campgrounds in the lower peninsula were compared, It should be expected, however, that campers will choose among private, state forest, state parks, national forest, county, municipal, and township campgrounds, A better pOpulation would have been all "resort" campgrounds in lower Michigan had there been a way .to identify them and had there been adequate data on length-of-stay, Under the circumstances, limiting the populations to Michigan State Park campgrounds in the lower peninsula was the best choice, The Two-Part Study The most important purpose of the study was to discover new explanations for variations in campground attractiveness,~ Hypothesis testing came second, As a result, compromises were made that signifi- cantly weakened the ability of the design to test hypotheses, On the other hand, time and effort Spent on hypothesis testing might have improved data collection and analysis in the search for neW'explanae tions, Consequently, the tests of hypotheses are of relatively little value, Perhaps very little more would have been gained, however, if resources devoted to hypothesis testing had been applied here, 70 Recommendations for Further Research The difficulties encountered in constructing measures for the independent variables revealed the paucity of information about campers' concepts of campground quality, What information there is frequently is not comparable from one investigation to another because of incon- sistencies among definitions, Too often, research projects are one- time studies from which the researcher goes to other topics without building on his work toward a set of generalizations with wide validity, It is suggested, therefore, that an organization such as the Recreation Research and Planning Unit undertake a continuing investi- gation of recreational quality, The aim should be to provide a continu- ity of definition and a sequencing of investigations that would result in a body of theory about recreational quality, its definition, para- meters, and measurement, Such a research program would naturally require some time before important results are Obtained, The field lacks even a body of syste- matic description from which to theorize, The taxonomy of recreation is primitive; the terminology is not Operational and is vague in empirical reference, The contribution of philOSOphy, art, psychology, and other social sciences have yet to be mustered in a concerted effort, The task of researching recreation quality must begin at the beginning and proceed patiently with the systematic develOpment of the field, At the same time, the need for theory and information is urgent, Planners and managers want answers, Our projecting models need inputs, The first step in this prOposed effort must be the definition of the field and the survey and inventory of the current state of know- ledge, the identification of similar efforts, and the identification of priorities for research, Philosophy and art can provide theory, psy- chology and other social sciences, theory and observation, One of the first tasks may be the unexciting and often maligned empiricism, Data must be gathered and organized, There are many areas where we simply have not had the experience to theorize from intro- Spection, we need systematic experience to guide the development of our hypotheses, Data may be gathered in the field through careful 71 Observation of recreational microcosa such as single campgrounds or day-use areas or through surveys of large pOpulations, It may be gathered in the laboratory with stringent artificial controls, As data and experience suggest them, relationships may be pro- posed and tested with surveys or laboratory, and field experiments, MOdels of real world systems may be proposed, These will suggest areas where testing and data collection should be focused, The sensitivity of the variable can serve as a priority designation to sequence research, Ultimately, perhaps a body of theory with pre- dictive and explanatory power will evolve to which planners and managers can turn for advice, Such a body of theory is desirable because it permits economy and efficiency in resource use, because it is aesthetic to the scientist, and because it reduces uncertainty for managers and planners, The probabilities of ever achieving such a body of theory would seem remote if research in this area continues its variable and haphazard path, Further research in this area needs to be coordinated and systematic, the theme of an institution such as the Recreation Research and Planning Unit that transcends the lives and professional interests Of individual scientists, REFERENCES CITED REFERENCES CITED 22.9.3.9. Bloemendaal, Dirk C, Michigan Pictorial Campground Guide, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Royal Lithographing, 1969, Campbell, Donald T,, and Stanley, Julia C, Experimental and Quasi- Experimental Designs for Research, Chicago: Rand McNally & 60,, 1963, Clawson, Marion, and Knetsch, Jack L, Economicsgof Outdoor Recre- ation, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1966, . Kerlinger, Fred N, Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc,, 1964, McClelland, David C, The Achievement Motive, New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston, Inc,, 1964, Siegel, S, Nonparametgic Statistigs fprdthe Behavioral Sciences, New York: McGraw Hill, 1956, Dissertations Van Doren, Carlton S, ”An Interaction Travel Model for Projecting Attendance of Campers at Michigan State Parks: A Study in Recreational Geography," Unpublished Ph, D, dissertation, Nfichigan State University, 1967, ' Journal Articles Bultena, Gordon L,, and Klessig, Lowell L, "Satisfaction in Camping: A Conceptualization and Guide to Social Research," Journal of Leisure Research, I (Autumn, 1969), 348-54, Bultena, Gordon L,, and Taves, Marvin J, "Changing Wilderness Images and Forestry Policy," Journal of Forestgy, LIX (March, 1961), 169, Burch, William R,, Jr, "Two Concepts for Guiding Recreation Management Decisions," Journal of Forestry, LXII (October, 1964), 707-12, Burch, William R,, Jr, "Wilderness-The Life Cycle and Forest Recre- ational Choice," Journal of Forestry, LXIV (September, 1966), 606-10, King, David A, "Socio-Economic variables Related to Campsite Use," Fbrest Science, XIV (March, 1968), 46-54. 72 73 Shafer, Elwood L,, Jr, "Socio-Economic Characteristics of Adirondack Campers," Journal of Forestry, LXIII (September, 1965) 690-94, MonogLa phs Burch, William R,, Jr,, and Wenger, Wiley D,, Jr, The Social Charac- teristics Of Participants in Three Styles of Family Camping, Forest Service Research Paper PNW-48, Portland, Oregon: U,S,D,A,, 1967, Dahle, Thomas L, Michigan State Park.Users Survey, 1956, Bureau of Business Research Research Report Number 19, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1956, Green, Barnal L,, and Wadsworth, H, A, Campers: What Affects Partici- pation and What Do They Want? Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No, 823, Lafayette, 1nd,: Purdue University, 1966, hendee, John C,; Catton, William R,, Jr,; Marlow, Larry D,; and Brock- man, C, Frank, Wilderness Users in the Pacific Nurthwest--Their Characteristics, Values,gand Management Preferences, Perest Service Research Paper PNW-Ol, Portland, Oregon: U,S,D,A,, 1968, King, David A, Characteristics of Family Campers Using the Huron- Manistee National Forests, Forest Service Research Paper LS-19, St, Paul, Minn,: U,S,D,A,, 1965, LaPage, Wilbur F, Successful Private Campgrounds: A Study of Factnrs that Influence the Length and Frequency of Camper Visits, Forest Service Research Paper NEFS8, Upper Darby, Pa,: U,S,D,A,, 1967, LaPage, Wilbur F, The Role of Customer Satisfaction in Managing Commer— cial Campgrounds, Forest Service Research Paper NE-lOS, Upper Darby, Pa,: U,S,D,A,, 1968, Wagar, J, Alan, Relationships Between Visitor Characteristics and Recreation Activities on Two National Forest Area§,_ Forest Service Research Paper NE-7, Upper Darby, Pa,: U,S,D,A,, 1963, 322223.91 Ferriss, Abbott L, National Recreation Survey, ORRRC Study Report 19, washington, D, C,: Government Printing Office, 1962, McGuire, Michael E,, and Hodgson, Ronald W, "State Park Camper Behavi- oral Patterns," Unpublished Recreational Research and Planning Unit Technical Report 4, Michigan State University, 1968, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, "Survey of Camping Infor- mation," Lansing, 1964-1967, (Mimeographed,) Mueller, Eva, Participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting Demand Among American Adults, ORRRC Study Report 20, Washington, D, C,: Government Printing Office, 1962, Reid, Leslie M,; Barlowe, Raleigh; and Hall, James H, The Quality of Outdoor Recreation as Evidenced by User Satisfaction, ORRRC Study Report 5, washington, D, C,: Government Printing Office, 1962, A PPENDI CES APPENDIX A PARK INVENTORY Park Name Age Last Renovation Improvements: Number of sites Toilets Lotted Pit or Box # Unlotted Flush # Trailor Showers # Tent Sanitary Dump Camp stove miles to Comments: Library miles to Child care service miles to Life guard Restaurant miles to Coffee shOp miles to Boat rental miles to Interpretive service Gas station miles to Trails miles of Recreation equipment, rent or Self-guiding miles of loan Pavilion Utility field Launch ramp launching rate Laundry miles to Campground: Rate of occupancy Z Jan,__% Apr,__% Ju1y__% oct.__z Feb,___7.‘, May___7. Aug,__‘7. Nov,___7. Mar,__% June__‘7. Sep,___7. Dec,___7., Campsite drainage Soil type ASpect Vistas Vegetation type density 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Shade dense none Wind protection Tables at site Fire facilities Water outlets flavor odor number distribution Distance to beach access -—_- Screening Activities: Horseshoes Baseball Children's play area(facilities) Tennis Swimming Shuffleboard Fishing Volley ball Hunting 24 75 Mbvies, commercial miles to how often Movies, camp miles to ‘ how often Swimming pool wading pool Life guard roped area Dock rafts bath house beach grooming ‘Waterskiing v Other Recreational Water: River inland lake Great Lake Dry beach size composition area - Wet beach size composition area - ' or Description clarity odor Spread of flow pollution area obstructions Park in General: TOpography Vistas Special attractions Area Picnic area no, of sites vegetation cooking facilities tables air quality noise Setting: Urban land use within five mile circle 2 Distance to major highway travel on highway water area within twenty-five mile circle Public land area within twenty-five mile circle Topography of twenty-five mile circle Forest types Fbrested land within twenty-five mile circle Comments: 9. 10, ll, 12, 13. 14, 15, 16, APPENDIX B STATE PARK ATTRACTIVE FEATURES SURVEY How many years haVe you been camping? How often do you camp in an average year? Have you always used a (type of equipment)? A, What other equipment? ' B, Which do you prefer? Have you ever done any remote camping where you had to backpack or use horses or canoes? Do you prefer modern or rustic camps? A, How important are showers? Flush toilets? Do you have a favorite campground? What kinds of things do you look for in a camp? Have you camped at any of these parks? A, Interlochen Cheboygan Grand Haven Ludington Gladwin Holland Otsego Lake Hartwick Pines Metamora-Hadley Silver Lake White Cloud Yankee Springs Bay City Island Lake Tawas Point B, Which did you like best? Least? Why? Have you camped in state parks in other states? National forests? National parks? County, municipal, or township parks? Have you camped in Michigan State Parks not on this list? Which? Have you camped here before? How many times? Do you usually camp in state parks or some other kind? Do you like this park in general? A, What do you like about it? What don't you like? Would you stay here longer if you had the time? Do you think you'll come back to this park? Will you stay longer next time? How long do you usually stay at a camp? Now, I have a few questions about your background, 1. 2 \IO‘U'I-L‘w o 8. 90 10, 11, 12, Where do you live now, an urban, suburban, or rural area? How long have you lived there? Where did you live before, an urban, suburban, or rural area? Did you grow up in an urban, suburban, or rural area? Did your parents camp? How did you become interested in camping and decide to try it? What sort of work do you do? Have you always done pretty much the same kind of work? If not, what did you do before? Do you have any hobbies? What is your favorite participant Sport? What is your favorite Spectator Sport? Would you rather be a Spectator or a participant, in general? Do you have children? Boys or girls? What are their ages? 76 77 That concludes my questions, I'd like to hear anything you'd like to comment on about what you like or dislike in camping in general and on Michigan State Parks in particular, "Ilil‘liilllllTills