Q WIN!!!H“NW\IHIWIHHIWIIIHHWIIHIHHIHI

   

885

THESIS sm uaaARIES

‘ Ill'llllllllll‘lllllllmlu

31293 01712 9002 c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.1

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Campers in Rustic Campgrounds: Characteristics of non-senior
Supporters and Opponents of Differential and Higher Fees

presented by
Paul R. Johnson

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment l
of the requirements for ‘

Master of Sciengedegree in

 

Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

 

Major professor

6,17%

0.7639 MS U is an Afﬁrmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

' LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE MTE DUE

 

§E__P 1:; 20E

’3‘: 7

c—b

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1]” WWW“

CAMPERS IN RUSTIC CAMPGROUNDS: CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-SENIOR
SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF DIFFERENTIAL AND HIGHER FEES

By

Paul R. Johnson

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources

1998

ABSTRACT

CAMPERS IN RUSTIC CAMPGROUNDS: CHARACTERISTICS OF NON-SENIOR
SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS OF DIFFERENTIAL AND HIGHER FEES

By
Paul R. Johnson

Since 1979, the Michigan state forest campground (SFCG) system has
increasingly relied on user fees and less on Michigan’s general fund for ﬁnancial support.
Campground managers are considering (I) a differential campsite fee system, and (2) a
$1 increase in the nightly camping fee to provide needed operations revenue. Managers
desire to make these user fee policy decisions with an understanding of the characteristics

of campers who support or oppose the proposals.

To gather this information, self-administered questionnaires were distributed to a
sample of summer 1995 SF CG campers. Campers rated their support of selected fee
proposals. Additionally, campground attributes were rated, demographic proﬁles and
information concerning their camping background was collected. Statistical tests

examined whether characteristics of fee proposal supporters and opponents differed.

Opponents to the waterfront fee differential camp more nights in SF CGs than
supporters. Supporters as compared to opponents of the $1 fee increase proposal camp
fewer nights in SF CGs and spend a greater proportion of developed camping nights in

developed campgrounds other than those of the Michigan SF CG system.

DEDICATION

To everyone that assisted in this process by supporting me, providing invaluable
advice, listening, being patient, being a friend, providing much needed distractions and
by just being there. Especially my major professor Dr. Charles Nelson, other committee
members Dr. Dan Stynes and Dr. McDonough. I would also like to thank my parents
Mark and Marilyn Johnson, my grandparents Dr. Glenn and Sandy Johnson, and Ralph
and Trixie Moulton. My good friends also deserve much appreciation including Andrea
Behling, Ray Wagester, Chris Hand, Chris Fink, Emiko Kobayashi, Dave Schleissman,

Ken and Amy Elwert, Joel Lynch, Robert Allan and Pastor David Dressel.
Thank you and God Bless,

Paul R. Johnson

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. v
LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................... ix
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Introduction to the Michigan State Forest Campground System .................................... 2
Problem Statement .......................................................................................................... 4
Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 5
Hypotheses ...................................................................................................................... 5
Statistical Tests ............................................................................................................. 12
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction to the Michigan State Forest Campground System .................................. 14
Review of Recreation Facility User Fee Studies .......................................................... 17
CHAPTER 3
DATA COLLECTION
The Questionnaire ......................................................................................................... 32
Sampling Procedures .................................................................................................... 33
Data Processing ............................................................................................................. 34

iv

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
Response Rate ............................................................................................................... 3 8
Description of 1995 Registered Michigan State
Forest Campground Campers ....................................................................................... 40
Comparison of Policy Proposal Respondents ............................................................... 46
Comparison of Respondents who are Undecided
Versus Those Who Either Support or Oppose the Policy Proposal ........................ 54
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 61
Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 64
APPENDIX
STATE FOREST CAMPER STUDY .......................................................................... 69
LIST OF REFERENCES .................................................................................................. 76

TABLE 1.

TABLE 2.

TABLE 3.

TABLE 3.

TABLE 4.

TABLE 5.

TABLE 6.

TABLE 7.

TABLE 8

TABLE 9

TABLE 10

TABLE 1 1

TABLE 12

LIST OF TABLES

Survey schedule for the 1995 Michigan state forest campground camper
study.

Response rate for the 1995 Michigan state forest campground camper
study.

Distribution of mean 1994 camping nights in and out of Michigan by
registered summer 1995 Michigan state forest campground campers.

Camping equipment used by registered summer 1995 Michigan state
forest campground camping.

Participation in selected recreation activities and activity groups by
registered summer 1995 Michigan state forest campground camping
parties during their current visit.

Percentage of respondents who rated the quality of selected SFCG
attributes very poor, poor, average, good or very good during summer
1995.

Percentage of registered summer 1995 Michigan state forest campground
campers supporting selected policy initiatives.

Two independent sample t-tests of supporters and opponents of a
waterfront differential in camping fees at all Michigan state forest
campgrounds to improve campground maintenance.

Measures of association between supporters and opponents of differential
campsite fees at all Michigan SFCGs during summer 1995.

Two independent sample t-tests of supporters and opponents of a $1
increase in camping fees at all Michigan SF CGs to improve campground
maintenance.

Measures of association between supporters and opponents of a $1
increase in camping fees at all Michigan SFCGs during summer 1995.

Two independent sample t-tests comparing characteristics of undecided
respondents to supporters and opponents of a differential campsite fee
proposal at Michigan SFCGs during summer 1995.

Measures of association between supporters and those who are undecided
concerning a the differential campsite fee proposal at Michigan SFCGs
during summer 1995.

vi

TABLE 13

TABLE 14

TABLE 15

TABLE 16

Measures of association between opponents and those who are undecided
concerning a the differential campsite fee proposal at Michigan SFCGs
during summer 1995.

Two independent sample t-tests comparing characteristics of undecided
respondents to supporters and opponents of a proposed $1 increase in the
nightly camping fee at all Michigan SFCGs during summer 1995.

Measures of association between supporters and those who are undecided
concerning a proposed $1 increase in the nightly camping fee at all
Michigan SFCGs during summer 1995.

Measures of association between opponents and those who are undecided
concerning a pr0posed $1 increase in the nightly camping fee at all
Michigan SF CGs during summer 1995.

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1. Michigan state forest campground system funding history fiscal years
1971-72 to 1994-95

FIGURE 2. Michigan state forest campgrounds sampled in summer 1995

viii

LIST OF DEFINITIONS

Differential campsite fees — higher fees for waterfront campsites and lower fees for non-
waterfront campsites.

Rustic campgrounds — developed campgrounds which are characterized by their lack of
modern improvements. Facilities provided include: hand pumps for water,
outhouses, picnic tables and level tent pads.

ix

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The proportion of public recreation facilities charging user fees and the
importance of these fees in agency budgets is increasing (Han'is and Driver 1987;
Manning, Callinan, Echelberger, Koenemann and Douglas 1984; Nelson 1995b; Nelson,
Holecek and F eltus 1984; White 1993; White, Cobus, Manning, Seffel and More 1995).
Due to political concerns and a widespread view by managers that public recreation
should be free or nearly free, decisions on charging user fees are challenging for many
public recreation agencies (Manning and Baker 1981; Manning et al. 1984; White 1993).
Even after an agency is accustomed to the practice of charging a user fee, difficult
decisions arise when it becomes necessary to increase or change its structure. One
potential fee structure is the differential fee system. In this system, managers charge

higher or lower fees based on facility or individual site attributes.

When managers are making decisions concerning increased or differential user
fees, it is beneﬁcial to understand the characteristics of fee supporters and opponents. A
signiﬁcant amount of research has been conducted to study the effects of increased and

differential user fees on campsite use and users. However, little research has been carried

2
out which studies the characteristics of supporters and opponents of differential and

higher fees.

Introduction to the Michigan State Forest Campground System

The Michigan state forest campground (SF CG) system has been in operation
since 1929. It is administered by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR),
Forest Management Division (FMD). For the majority of the SFCGs history, its
programs have been funded entirely by general fund monies from the State of Michigan.
This funding relationship began to shift in 1972, when nightly camping fees were
initiated at some of the campgrounds. By 1980, all campgrounds charged fees.
However, as campground users were charged new and increased fees from 1980 on, the
services provided to them have been decreased. Understandably, campground use
declined by more than 50% from 1979 to 1981 (Nelson, Holecek, Feltus, and Sandell

1984).

The mandatory nightly camping fees are collected by the honor system.
Campground managers are not present at the campgrounds on a regular basis. Campers
are asked to deposit their payments into locked depositories (McTavish 1995) commonly
known as the “fee pipe” or “iron ranger”. These depositories are rarely checked for
camper compliance. A 1984 study found that during weekend days 83.3% of occupied
campsites in unhosted campgrounds were registered properly with fees paid (Nelson,

Holecek, Feltus and Sandell 1984).

In 1990, the DNR proposed the closure of nearly one-third of the SFCGs as a way

to cut costs and consolidate services. In response to widespread public concern about the

3
pr0posed loss of recreation opportunities, the Michigan legislature created the Michigan

State Forest Recreation Advisory Committee (MSFRAC) in 1990. MSFRAC was
established to review this closure recommendation and develop a strategic plan for

recreation within the Michigan state forest system.

MSFRAC’s review showed that the Michigan state forest recreation system is the
largest state forest system of its kind. This system provides numerous recreation,
ﬁnancial and ecological beneﬁts to the people of Michigan. However, the inherent
values of the system are not reﬂected by an appropriate level of stable ﬁnancial support.
As a result, the system’s campgrounds and pathways are deteriorating. Data and
information collection related to forest recreation facilities, use and the preferences of
forest recreationists is only carried out on a sporadic basis. This entire situation was
deemed by MSFRAC to be inappropriate (Michigan State Forest Recreation Advisory

Committee [MSFRAC] 1995).

In order to remedy the situation, MSFRAC developed a strategic plan entitled
“Forest Recreation 2000”. The plan includes many ‘action elements’. Among them is
the call for a funding partnership of users paying fees and the people of the state of
Michigan contributing to forest recreation programs through a constitutionally
established and protected Forest Recreation Endowment Fund. Users were to pay their
‘fair share’. The plan also calls for regular monitoring of state forest recreationists to

support marketing initiatives (MSFRAC 1995).

In order to fulﬁll Forest Recreation 2000’s goals, managers were particularly
interested in (1) a $1 increase in the nightly camping fee to increase revenue, and (2) a

differential fee system where those beneﬁting ﬁom waterfront sites pay more than those

4

camping away from the lake or river. Direct information from SF CG campers
concerning these management proposals was lacking. No marketing information

concerning SF CG campers had been gathered since 1987.

In 1993, the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station (MAES) initiated the
Status and Potential of Michigan Natural Resources (SAPMN R) project. SAPMNR’s
goal was to establish baseline information concerning the status and potential of
Michigan’s natural resources. Furthermore, it proposed a research agenda which would
enhance appropriate resource uses, while safeguarding their productive capability for
current and future generations (Bralts and Keisling 1995). In order to facilitate key
research proposals, MAES and Michigan State University (MSU) made funding available

through a competitive grant process.

Through the SAPMNR project, Drs. Charles Nelson, Daniel Ferguson and Daniel
Stynes from the MSU Department of Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources submitted
a proposal to study forest recreationists including state forest campground campers. They
were successful in receiving funds. In addition, the F MD provided ﬁnancial, logistical,

housing and transportation support.

Problem Statement

Since ﬁscal year 1980-81, the Michigan state forest campground system has
undergone many signiﬁcant changes with its funding system. Users have had to support
a greater amount and percentage of the operations budget. At the same time, campground

stafﬁng and services have been reduced (Nelson et a1. 1984). Currently, managers are in

5
the process of focusing on the quality rather than the quantity of campgrounds (Nelson et

a1. 1994).

. Campers in the Michigan SFCG system are partners with the pe0ple of the State
of Michigan in its ﬁnancial support. Managers desire to assess the opinions of SF CG
campers concerning selected user fee proposals so that they can make policy decisions

with the aid of user input.

Objectives

The overall objective of this study is to identify the characteristics of supporters
and opponents of differential pricing and increased user fees. Hypotheses will be created
and tested to identify which characteristics are associated with this support and
opposition. Test results will be analyzed in order to determine their signiﬁcance to the
Michigan SFCG system and for other rustic campground systems. As a result of this
research, a series of management recommendations concerning pricing will be developed.

Additionally, suggestions for future pricing and marketing research will be provided.

Hypotheses

The initial research hypothesis states that differences exist between Michigan
SFCG campers who support and who oppose either a differential fee or an across the
board increased campground fee. Additional hypotheses, describing potential
differences, were created after a review of related literature. If related literature did not
provide guidance in potential relationships, the author’s personal knowledge and
reasoning conceming Michigan SFCG campers were used. Logical explanations for each

hypothesis are provided.

DIFFERENTIAL CAMPSITE FEES

The majority of differential campsite fee literature concerns campsite choice
selection under differential campsite fee policies. Even though this study does not
investigate campsite choice selection; the literature which will be discussed in the
following sections has proved useful in developing testable hypotheses. Those who
support differential fees will be designated as “D5”, opponents will be designated as

“D0,,

Camper ratings of campground attributes

(1) Respondents who rate the natural setting of the campground higher will be
associated with support for the fee proposal.

(2) Respondents who rate the cleanliness of the campsites higher will be associated
with support for the ﬁre proposal.

(3) Respondents who rate the cleanliness of the restrooms higher will be associated
with support for the fee proposals.

(4) Respondents who rate their sense of safety and security higher will be associated
with support for the fee proposals.

In lieu of previous research investigating a camper’s rating of campground
attributes and their opinions concerning differential campsite pricing policies, it is felt
that a camper who is more satisﬁed with the management of campgrounds will be more

supportive of proposed management actions.

Demographics

(5) Current age of respondent: 55 = 50
Previous research (Manning et a1. 1984) conceming campsite selection with

differential fee proposals indicates that a camper’s age is not a factor with differentially

priced campsites.

7

(6) Respondents in higher income categories will be associated with support for
diﬂ'erential pricing.

Bamford et a1. (1988) found that campers with lower incomes were less favorably

inclined toward the concept of fee differentials.

(7) Gender of the respondents will not be associated with support for the fee
proposal.

Previous research does not provide any indication concerning relationships
between support or opposition of differential campsite pricing policies and gender; the

author is unable to provide any rationale for a hypothesized association.

Camping behavior
(8) Number of nights spent in SF C Gs during the previous year: 53 > Do
Research within the Vermont State Park system (Bamford et a1. 1988) indicates
that there is a positive relationship between a campers willingness to pay the premium
prices for prime campsites and the number of days annually camped in the type of
campground where surveyed.

(9) Number of nights spent in non—SF C Gs during the previous year: 155 > 130.
Previous research is unavailable describing the relationship concerning a
camper’s support or opposition of a differential campsite pricing policy and the number
of nights camped in other types of campgrounds. However, it is felt that those who camp

more in non-SFCGs will be more apt to support differential pricing policies due to a
higher likelihood of becoming acquainted with the differential fee systems which are

charged at many other developed public and private camping venues.

8

(10) Percentage of nights during the previous year spent in SF C Gs versus non-
SFCGS.‘ Ds < Do.

Previous research investigating the relationship between a camper’s support for
differential fees and the percentage of nights they spend in a particular type of
campground was unable to be located. However, the previous hypothesis states that Ds >

Do for the number of nights spent in non-SFCGs during the previous year. It is believed
that campers who spend a greater proportion of their camping nights in non-SFCGs will
be more apt to come in contact and therefore become accustomed to differential fee

systems.

(I I) Number of nights camped where surveyed this trip: 53 > 50.
Previous research by Bamford et a1. (1988) and Manning et a1. (1984) found a

positive relationship between higher priced campsite selection and length of stay.
(12) Age ﬁrst camped in a campground: 55 = 50.
Manning et a1. (1984) found no relationship between the number of years

camping experience and campsite selection with fee differentials.

(13) Campers with self-contained sleeping equipment, as compared to tents, will be
associated with support for diﬂerentially priced campsites.

Bamford et a1. (1988) found that campers with lower incomes were less favorably
inclined toward the concept of fee differentials. The more expensive self-contained
camping equipment may indicate a higher level of investment in camping and a camper’s
higher level of disposable income. Hence, campers with self-contained camping

equipment may be associated with support for differentially priced campsites.

 

9

A ONE DOLLAR INCREASE IN CAMPING FEES ATALI. STA TE FOREST
CAMPGROUNDS T O IMPROVE CAMPGROUND MAINTENANCE

Literature on which to directly base hypotheses concerning user opinions of fee
increases is limited. Those who support a one dollar increase in camping fees at all

SFCGs will be designated as “Is”, opponents will be designated as “10”

Camper ratings of campground attributes

(14) Respondents who rate the natural setting of the campground higher will be
associated with support for the fee proposal.

Previous literature does not address how a camper’s rating of campgrounds
natural setting is related to their support or opposition to increased fees. While this
information is lacking, it is thought that campers who rate the natural setting of the
campground higher will be more willing to pay an increased fee than those who respond

with a lower rating.

(15) Respondents who rate the cleanliness of the campsites higher will be associated
with support for the fee proposal.

(16) Respondents who rate the cleanliness of the restrooms higher will be associated
with support for the fee proposals.

White et a1. (1995) contend that in order to build customer support for fees
managers need to provide services which are most desired, i.e. clean bathrooms.
Therefore, those who rate the cleanliness of the campsites and restrooms higher may be
more likely to support an increase in the nightly fee than those who rate the cleanliness

lower.

10

(17) Respondents who rate their sense of safety and security higher will be associated
with support for the fee proposals.

Research by Driver (1984) and Fletcher (1984) tends to suggest that a visitor’s
sense of safety and security may increase when user fees are charged. However, it should
be noted that literature is unavailable which investigates whether campers who feel safer

and more secure are willing to pay increased user fees.

Demographics

(18) Current age of respondent: I; < I;
The National Park Service [NPS] (1986) nationwide survey indicates that an

inverse relationship exists between the amount a camper is willing to pay for a nights
camping and their age. Survey results from Feltus et a1. (1983) indicate that campers
who are younger and older are willing to pay more for a nights camping than those who

are middle aged.

(19) Respondents in the higher income categories will be associated with support for
the fee proposal.

The nationwide National Park Service survey (N PS 1986) indicates that the

maximum price campers are willing to pay has a positive relationship with their income.

(20) The gender of the respondents will not be associated with support for the fee
proposal.

Previous research does not provide an indication concerning relationships

between support for or opposition to differential campsite pricing policies and gender.

1 1
Camping behavior

(21) Number of nights spent in SF CGs during the previous year: 1;< I;
It is believed that the users who annually camp more nights within the SF CG

system will be less supportive of an increase in the nightly camping fee. By following a
demand curve it is expected that those campers who want to camp more nights will be
willing to pay less for each individual nights camping.
(22) Number of nights spent in non—SFCGs during the previous year: I; > I;
By following a demand curve it is expected that those campers who want to camp
fewer nights within the SF CG system will be willing to pay more for each individual k

nights camping.

(23) Percentage of nights during the previous year spent in SF CGs versus
campgrounds other than SF CGs: 15 < 10

It is hypothesized that campers who camp more nights annually in SFCGs will be
more likely to oppose increased fees; and those who camp more nights annually in non-
SF CGs will be more likely to support a $1 increase in the nightly camping fee. Also, all
other state and federal public systems in Michigan are more expensive than the SF C05.
(24) Number of nights camped where surveyed this trip: I; < 18.

McCurdy’s (1970) study of user groups of the Crab Orchard National Wildlife
Refuge found that the more people camp the more nights in a particulthey will withhold
their support for increased nightly camping fees.

(25) Age ﬁrst camped in a campground: I; < 13.

Previous literature does not reveal any indication of how the age at which a

camper ﬁrst camped in a campground affects his or her support of or opposition to a

proposed fee increase. In the absence of this information, it is felt that those campers

12

who began their camping experience at earlier ages will be more likely to support a fee

increase due to their desire to see the campgrounds well maintained.

(26) Campers with self-contained sleeping equipment, as compared to tents, will be
associated with support for a one dollar increase in the user fee.

The National Park Service 1982-83 survey indicates that the maximum price
campers are willing to pay tends to increase with income (N PS 1986). Since the
expensive self-contained camping equipment may be indicative of a camper’s disposable
income it is believed that a camper’s use of this equipment may be associated with their

support for a one dollar increase in the nightly camping fee.

Statistical Tests

An alpha level of .05 will be used for all statistical tests. The .05 alpha level is
being used due to its use in the vast majority of research that was reviewed for this study.
In order to compare the ﬁndings of this study with previous studies, it is beneﬁcial to use

a similar level of signiﬁcance.

Data used in this study are being analyzed with three statistical tests: the two-
independent samples t-test, lambda test of association and Somer’s D measure of

association.

For the independent variables which are of ratio or interval levels of
measurement, the two-independent samples t-test is used. The two-independent samples
t-test is designed to examine whether the means from the two independent populations

under investigation are signiﬁcantly different, based on the observed results.

For independent variables which are of the nominal level of measurement, the

lambda measure of association is used. The lambda measure is a proportional reduction

13
in error method (PRE). PRE methods investigate how much better a dependent variable

can be predicted when the values of the independent variable are known. Unlike chi-
square based statistical procedures, PRE methods can be compared to other methods by
observing the statistical level and signiﬁcance. PRE methods are capable of describing a
relationship between two variables from —1 to +1. A statistical level of —1 describes a
perfectly inverse linear relationship, while a statistical rating of +1 describes a perfectly
positive linear relationship. A statistical rating of 0 shows that the variables have no

linear relationship (N orusis 1993).

For the independent variables which are of the ordinal level of measurement, the
Somer’s D measure of association is used. Somer’s D is interpreted using the same

methods as the lambda measure of association.

CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction to the Michigan SFCG System

The Michigan SF CG system currently provides rustic camping experiences at 148
campgrounds. They are located in the mostly rural, northern two-thirds of Michigan.
The average SFCG has 22 sites (Johnson and Nelson 1996b). This is relatively small,
when compared to the average Michigan campground which has 72 sites (Nelson 1995b).
All Michigan SFCGs are located adjacent to an inland lake, Great Lake or river. Annual
visitation is approximately 125,000 camp nights (1 party camped on 1 site for 1 night)
(Johnson and Nelson 1996b), and 500,000 camper nights (1 camper camped on 1 site for

1 night) (MSFRAC 1995).

MICHIGAN SFCG SYSTEM 1 929 T0 1 989

The ﬁrst Michigan SFCG was created in 1929 at Spring Lake (Sandell 1996).
From this the system grew to a peak of 180 operating campgrounds in 1979 (MSFRAC
1995). Campgrounds were primarily established at locations where informal camping
was already a traditional use of the land (Nelson, Holecek, Feltus, and Sandell 1984).

The initial rationale for campground construction was the prevention of wildﬁres

14

15

resulting from camping. These campgrounds were not located with the guidance of a
systematic plan. Today, the system has environmental, managerial, social, and ﬁnancial

difﬁculties as a partial result of this inadequate planning and direction.

From 1929 until 1972, those camping at Michigan SFCGs could do so free of
charge. All operating and maintenance costs were covered by general fund
appropriations. In 1972, a nightly camping fee of $1.50 was introduced at the four
busiest campgrounds. In effect, this was a differential user fee based on historical
campground use. This fee provided 1% of the ﬁscal year (FY) 1971-72 $1.4 million
operations budget. FY 1976-77 was the peak year for general fund support (Nelson,
Holecek, Feltus, and Sandell 1984). From then until 1990 general fund appropriations
decreased (Nelson 1995b). As general fund appropriations decreased, user fees were
raised and campground stafﬁng was reduced from ﬁfty-four full time equivalent positions
to eleven (MSFRAC 1995). Please see Figure 1 for further details concerning the

ﬁrnding history of the Michigan SFCG system.

MICHIGAN SFCG SYSTEM 1 990 TO THE PRESENT

In 1990, MSFRAC was created by statute. It was established to provide input to
the Michigan DNR and the Michigan legislature concerning forest recreation matters.
The speciﬁc impetus behind MSFRAC’s creation was a budgetary crisis with SFCGs. As
a result of this budgetary crisis, the F MD considered closing 1/3 of its campgrounds. The

public reacted negatively to this proposal.

l6

.mnunamh we engages

mnldnma uh you oanwaao>oaa ow aoauoauowaq wdﬂvaam unmanned van nowvan Houoa Ana
aoama>aa unoaowoamz umouom .moousomom Hmuaumz mo uaoauuomon auwanoax "oouaom Adv

80> .aooE

 

2.55m ooh. . I . I

22532.3(
25.... 5300......

883m .92."

 

 

 

 

1' ' QL‘LL

91:91.

‘. -

.f

{ VL'SL

F

' 3/311

1

I

r

L

l
I

I

 

l

a
8.80.88
888.83
8.8888
868.88
86858.;
888.08.;
0080068.;
880.08.;

oodoodom. 3

8+8. 8 «58.. $8218.88 583m 8:28an 82a”. 38» 52%.:

3"311°C!

17
MSFRAC worked successfully with the Michigan legislature to increase general
fund appropriations, while retaining all fee revenue and decreasing the size of the
campground system by 12%. This action permitted the managers to focus on the quality
of the existing system (Nelson et a1. 1994). The public responded positively as state
forest camping nights increased the following year, in spite of a reduction in the number

of sites available.

In 1995, MSFRAC completed its strategic plan for forest recreation on state forest
lands. This plan is entitled “Forest Recreation 2000”. Of the plan’s ﬁve elements for

action, one focused on the need for

A commitment by the voters, the Legislature, the Executive office, the DNR and
the forest recreationists to provide appropriate stable funding to operate the
system. The funding would be ﬁ'om a partnership of users paying fees and the
people of the state of Michigan through a constitutionally established and
protected Forest Recreation Endowment Fund. (MSFRAC 1995 p. 1)

In FY 1995-96, $1.7 million was available to the forest recreation program
(Figure 1). The general fund provided 52% of the funding. Camper fees, which were
raised to $6.00 per night in 1991, provide 48% (Forest Management Division 1996).
When adjusted for inﬂation, this funding represents approximately 2/3 of the total dollars
available in 1979. Funds provided through the general fund were less than 1/3 of those
appropriated in 1979. FY 1994-95 funding supported 22 full time equivalent positions,

40% of those in 1979 (MSFRAC 1995).

Review of Recreation Facility User Fee Studies

Available literature suggests that campers are willing to pay at least a portion of

costs associated with managing the recreation facilities that they use (Driver 1984; Feltus

18
et al. 1983; Godin 1984; NPS 1986). In addition, those who have traditionally paid fees

for particular services are more supportive of fees than those who haven’t (Driver 1984;
Harris and Driver 1987). Information programs appear to help increase the acceptability
of user fees among users (McCarville et a1. 1993; McCurdy 1970; Reiling et a1. 1988). In
particular, if the revenues from fees are being directed towards making quality
improvements, it is important to communicate this to users (Driver 1984; Laarman and
Gregerson 1994; Williams and Forbes 1939). Additionally, making large or irregular
increases in user fees may have a detrimental effect on the number of users visiting the
particular site. Therefore, it is advantageous to make small, regular fee increases so that
users become accustomed to the fee structures and use levels do not decrease (Driver

1984; Laarman and Gregerson 1994; Reiling et a1. 1995).

ARGUMENTS PRO AND CON CONCERNING USER FEES

The debate concerning whether or not user fees are desirable, the extent to which
they should be utilized, and the amount that should charged has been the topic of many
papers. The following is a review of arguments which support and oppose the existence
of user fees. This is intended to provide some rationale as to why this topic of debate is

worthy of study.

Arguments Pro

There are four main categories of arguments that support the policy of user fees at

public recreation sites:

(1) user fees provide frnancial support for public land management that would

not be available otherwise

 

19
(2) user fees help to reduce congestion and control vandalism
(3) those who directly beneﬁt from the resources and facilities pay for their
use while those who do not receive direct beneﬁts from the resources and
facilities do not have to contribute as much to their management and

operations.

financial support

In Michigan, support from general tax dollars for forest recreation is decreasing
(Nelson 1995b). User fees can be utilized to help recover at least a portion of lost
revenue by charging fees (Harris and Driver 1987; Manning et al. 1984; White et al.
1995). Indeed, general fund dollars available to the Michigan SFCG system declined
precipitously during the steep recession of 1980-83 (Figure 1). Without user fees, layoffs

and campground closures in the forest recreation program would have been more severe.

crowding and vandalism

Crowding may be reduced by implementing or raising user fees for a recreation
facility. This can occur when the demand curve for a recreation experience is elastic
(Clawson and Knetsch 1966). The act of raising the user fee may reduce the demand for
a facility; thereby helping to control negative impacts associated with crowds and overuse
(Harris and Driver 1987; Manning and Baker 1982; White et al. 1995) which may lead to

environmental damage (Manning et al. 1984).

equity
In some cases user fees have had positive impacts on site users. User fees can

create a sense of ownership in the users (White et al. 1995; Williams and Forbes 1939).

20

In addition, if the collected revenues are invested into the management and operations of
the recreation facilities, the users can beneﬁt from improved management practices.
These may include litter pick-up, facility cleaning and the removal of hazard trees
(Binkley and Mendelsohn 1987; Harris and Driver 1987; Manning and Baker 1981).
Where the implementation of user fees has resulted in an increased presence of
management personnel, a reduction in vandalism and other depreciative behaviors by
facility users has been noted (Driver 1984; Fletcher 1984). In addition, a signiﬁcant
amount of literature is available which indicates that reasonable user fees do not
discriminate against those who are poor or are members of minority groups (Clawson and

Knetsch 1966; Harris and Driver 1987; Manning et al. 1984; Reiling et al. 1992).

It has been noted that user fees can have positive impacts on those who don’t even
use the facilities for which a user fee is being charged. Many public recreation providers
are supported by general fund tax revenues. These facilities are able to price their goods
and services at a level which is substantially lower than the private sector. This creates
an environment of unfair competition. By raising user fees so that the prices charged are
comparable to those of similar commercial recreation providers, a more competitive
situation may exist between the public and private sector (Binkley and Mendelsohn 1987;
Harris and Driver 1987; Manning et al. 1984; White et al. 1995). As public recreation
providers raise user fees their reliance on tax supported general funds may decrease. This
may reduce potential discriminations against tax payers who don’t use the facilities which
they have been supporting (Congressional Budget Ofﬁce [CBO] 1993; Driver 1984;

LaPage 1968).

2 1
Arguments Con

It has been argued that charging user fees for public recreation programs is
inequitable, has negative inﬂuences on society and that managerial and political support

may be lacking.

inequity
Charging user fees for tax supported programs is asserted to be unfair because it
may result in double taxation. Users ﬁnancially support the program when they pay their

taxes and again when they pay to use the facility (Williams and Forbes 1939; Harris and

Driver 1987; White et al. 1995).

Charging user fees for tax supported programs may be inequitable because it has
the potential to discriminate against those who cannot afford to pay the fees. Potential
visitors who lack the ﬁnancial resources to pay the entrance fee will be excluded from the
area which is covered by that fee (CBC 1993; Harris and Driver 1987; Reiling et al.

1992)

negative inﬂuence on society

Many people feel that the social beneﬁts which result from outdoor recreation
opportunities are enough to outweigh any inequities that might arise from using general
fund tax revenues for the programs (Clawson and Knetsch 1966). Frederick Law
Olmstead felt that public recreation has positive inﬂuences on society, including social
cohesion and an increased ability of society to self govern (Harris and Driver 1987). The

charging of a user fee is often associated with an increase in management personnel and

22

entrance restrictions which are designed to increase compliance to the user fee system.
These actions may create an authoritarian and intrusive atmosphere that is incongruous
with the ideal of freedom during leisure (Cockrell and Wellman 1985; Driver 1984;

White et al. 1995).

lack of support

Even though user fees for public recreation facilities are an obvious source of
revenue, many park and recreation professionals view user fees with ambivalence
(Manning and Baker 1981). This ambivalence may be due to additional administrative
demands associated with fee collection activities (White et al. 1995). These demands
may increase the cost of fee collection to the point of exceeding revenue collections
(Manning et al. 1984). In addition, reliance on fees for partial support makes securing tax
based funding more difﬁcult ( Brademas and Readnour 1989; Reiling et al. 1988;
Williams and Forbes 1939) because legislators may feel that the programs are already
provided for. There is also a high level of political resistance to charging fees for goods
and services that have traditionally been provided free of charge (Laarman and Gregerson

1994)

WILLINGNESS To PA y- CONTINGENT VALUATION

The contingent valuation method for studying the value which recreationists place
on their activities has proven useful to managers and researchers. This method is
implemented by asking survey respondents how much they would be willing to pay for a

speciﬁed unit of recreation. The results are used to construct a demand curve by which

23

managers can estimate the number of users and the amount of fees which will be

collected when they charge a speciﬁc user fee.

During the summer of 1982 F eltus et al. (1983) conducted approximately 800
personal interviews of systematically selected Michigan SFCG registered campers. A
key component of the study was a contingent valuation / willingness to pay study of
registered campers. At the time of the study, the current nightly camping fee was $3.
Respondents were given a set of questions exploring their willingness to pay nightly fees
from $4 to $10. A realistic bidding environment was created for the respondents. They
were informed that if they overbid their willingness to pay, a higher fee than they are
willing to pay might be charged. On the other hand, if respondents under bid their
willingness to pay, the campgrounds the might be closed. A registered camper’s mean
willingness to pay was $4.85; with nearly 90% of respondents indicating that they would
be willing to pay at least $4 per night. It was predicted that if the FMD increased its
camping fee from $3 to $4 per night, a 19% increase in gross campground receipts was to
be expected while at $5 a decrease of 3% and at $6 a decrease of 59% was to be expected
(F eltus et al. 1983). Based on these conclusions FMD raised the nightly camping fee to
$4 in 1983. Revenues increased 21.7% from the previous year (Nelson, Holecek, Feltus,
and Sandell 1984). This suggests that modest increases in user fees may be met with

favorable reactions from program users.

REFERENCE PRICE

McCarville et al. (1993) experimented with different messages that might alter the
amount that people may be willing to pay for a given recreational program. Results

indicate that this amount can be inﬂuenced by the information that is supplied to the user.

24

It appears that the most effective messages was to describe the program and how much it
costs per participant to operate. This suggests that an agency’s efforts to raise user fees
may be strengthened by communicating how much it costs to manage the program.
Examples of these efforts may include the distribution of interpretive materials describing

how much it costs to maintain the current program and the source of the funding.

LI T ERA TURE RELA TING INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
TO DIFFERENTIAL FEE STRUCTURES

It has been well established that the use of recreation facilities are highly uneven
over space and time (Johnson and Nelson 1996a; Manning et al. 1984; Stynes 1978).
These uneven use patterns may lead to an inefficient use of resources, needless crowding
and negative environmental impacts (Clawson and Knetsch 1966; Manning et al. 1984).
For these reasons, the practice of differential campsite pricing has been developed.
Managers charge a higher rate for certain campsites, often based on historical campsite
use or site quality. These sites are often associated with their proximity to water. This
practice has been shown to redistribute campsite use patterns so that they are more
efﬁcient and result in fewer negative social and environmental impacts (Bamford et al.

1988; Canavan 1973; Driver 1984; Manning et a1. 1984).

However, redistribution is not guaranteed by differential pricing. Differential
pricing in the New Hampshire State Parks did not alter campsite use patterns; however, it
was credited with raising total revenue 61% (LaPage et al. 1984). Differential pricing
studies within the Vermont State Park system resulted in a more even distribution of

campsite use and a small increase in revenue (Manning et al. 1984).

25
LaPage et a1 (1975) investigated differential campsite pricing within the New

Hampshire State Parks. By using existing campground permit data before and after the
start of differential campsite pricing, LaPage investigated the inﬂuences of a differential
campsite pricing system on the camper’s length of visit, camper origin, and the
occupancy rate of waterﬁ'ont and non-waterfront sites. The 1982 Manning et a1. (1984)
study served as a pilot project studying the effects of a small price differential on a
campsite user fee system. This was accomplished by close observation on campsite
selection and a user survey in the Vermont State Parks. This study was expanded in 1988
by Bamford et al. (1988) to include additional parks and an increased range of differential

prices. The results from these research efforts will be discussed in the following sections.

Most research on user fee differentials has concentrated on the effects of
differential campsite user fee policies. Little research is available concerning the support
or opposition of campers to these policies. However, available research is presented here

in order to provide some insight into available differential user fee research.

Camper ratings of campground attributes

A review of the above and other literature did not locate previous research
investigating relationships between camper ratings of campground attributes and their

Opinions concerning differential campsite pricing policies.

Demographics

current age of respondent

Manning et al. (1984) found that age was not a factor in campsite selection with

differential fees. However, it appears that Manning et al. did not have a preexisting

26

differential fee system based on age (senior citizen discount in SF CGs) to cope with.
Research investigating camper opinions of differential fees as related to age was not

available.

respondenm income category

Manning et a1. (1984) found that when relatively minor fee differentials were
used, income was not a factor in campsite choice selection. The 1988 Bamford et al.
(1988) study found that campers with lower incomes were less favorably inclined to
support the concept of user fee differentials. Consequently, lower income campers had a

slightly higher tendency to select lower priced campsites than higher income campers.

gender of the respondents

Available literature concerning the relationships between a camper’s gender and

their opinions concerning differential campsite pricing policies was not available.

Camping behavior

number of nights in campground of focus
during the previous year

Within the Vermont State Park system Bamford et al. (1988) found a positive
relationship between prime campsite choice and the number of days annually camped in a

Vermont State Park.

number of nights in spent in campgrounds other than the
focus campground during the previous year

A review of available literature was unable to locate previous research

investigating relationships between the number of nights a camper spent in campgrounds

27
other than the type that was the focus for a particular study and their opinions concerning

differential campsite pricing policies.

percentage of nights spent in campgrounds other than the
focus campground during the previous year

Research was unavailable describing the percentage of nights spent in
campgrounds systems other than the focus campground and camper opinions concerning

differential campsite pricing policies.

number of nights camped where surveyed this trip

Bamford et al. (1988) and Manning et al. (1984) found that higher priced
campsites were selected at a signiﬁcantly higher rate by visitors spending three or more

nights at the park.

age first camped in a campground

Manning et al. (1984) found no relationship between the number of years

camping experience and campsite selection with fee differentials.

LI T ERA TURE RELA TING INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
TO FEE INCREASES

A signiﬁcant amount of research has been performed related to the reactions and
perceptions of users to fee increases within public camping facilities (Driver 1984; Feltus
et al. 1983; Fletcher 1984; Laarman and Gregerson 1994; NPS 1986; Nelson et a1. 1996;
White et al. 1995; McCarville et al. 1993; McCurdy 1970; Williams and Forbes 1939).
The majority of these research efforts concern equity issues (who has been impacted by

an increased fee and how). Other research efforts concentrate on a camper’s willingness

28

to pay. Research concerning a camper’s support of or opposition to increased user fees,

before they have been increased, is in limited supply.

In general, campers are more likely to support new/increased user fees if they
perceive that improvements are being made with the increased revenues (Laarman and
Gregerson 1994; Nelson et al. 1996; White et al. 1995; McCurdy 1970; Williams and

Forbes 1939).

Camper ratings of campground attributes

the natural setting of the campground.

A review of available literature was unable to locate previous research which
investigates the relationships between a camper’s perception of the campgrounds natural

setting and their opinions concerning an increase in the camping fee.

campground cleanliness

As a result of an extensive review of past outdoor recreation fee literature. White
et al. (1995) contend that in order to build customer support for fees, managers need to

provide services that users desire the most, such as clean bathrooms.

sense of safety and security.

Research by Driver (1984) and Fletcher (1984) suggests that visitors experienced
an enhanced sense of safety and security and that there was a reduction in depreciative
behaviors with the initiation of user fees. However, they state that this may be due to an
increased presence of fee collection personnel and the conversion of parks with

uncontrolled access to controlled access. While it appears that the visitor’s sense of

29

safety and security may increase when user fees are charged, research which investigates
whether campers who feel safer and more secure are willing to pay increased user fees is

unavailable.

Demographics

current age of respondent

In 1982-1983, the National Park Service conducted a nationwide recreation
survey (NPS 1986). Survey results indicate that the maximum price campers are willing

to pay for a nights camping declines with age.

Michigan SF CG campers were the subject of a 1982 willingness to pay study
(Feltus et al. 1983). This study found that those 65 and over were less willing to pay
higher fees than those under 65. It should be noted that those campers aged 65 and over
already had a senior citizen discount and paid less than those under the age of 65. Thus,
campers aged 65 and over are already accustomed to paying less than those younger than
65. Therefore it is assumed that they are less willing to pay higher fees when compared

to campers under 65.

income of the respondents

The National Park Service 1982—1983 survey indicates that the maximum price

campers are willing to pay tends to increases with income (N PS 1986).

3O
gender of the respondents

A review of available literature was unable to locate previous research
investigating the relationships between the gender of a camper and their opinions

concerning an increase in the camping fee.

Camper behavior

number of nights spent in campground of focus
during the previous year

McCurdy (1970) in a study of 283 camper parties found that the users who had
been visiting Crab Orchard National Wildlife refuge in southern Illinois for less than ﬁve
years were more likely to support fees than those who have been visiting for more than
ﬁve years. These ﬁndings are similar to McCarville et al. (1993) who found that
respondents who participate more oﬁen in an activity have a lower willingness to pay

fees than those who participate less often.

other camper behavior studies

A review of available literature did not reveal previous research which
investigates the relationships between the following variables and a camper’s opinions
concerning an increase in the camping fee: number of nights spent in campground other
than the focus campground during the previous year; percentage of nights spent in
campgrounds other than the focus campground during the previous year; the number of

nights camped where surveyed this trip; age ﬁrst camped in a campground.

CHAPTER 3

DATA COLLECTION

The data for this study were collected as a part of a summer 1995 study of
Michigan SFCG campers. Data were not collected for the speciﬁc purpose of this
investigation; however it was designed to address the speciﬁc questions which are being

investigated in this study.

The Questionnaire

A self-administered 29-item, 78-variable questionnaire was used to gather data
from registered campers (Nelson 1995a; Appendix). A registered camper is deﬁned as the
individual on a campsite who has completed the written registration for that site. The
questionnaire was designed to collect data concerning the respondents camping history
and their current trip characteristics. It was also designed to explore camper preferences
for a number of alternative courses of management action, including (1) support for
increased fees (2) support for differential fees for selected facilities and services, (3)
visitor security issues and (4) issues related to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Additionally, certain demographic information about the respondent and their camping

party was collected.

31

32

The questionnaire was designed to address current management concerns and
permit the investigation of trends by asking selected demographic, trip activity, and
spending questions which have appeared on previous studies of Michigan SF CG

campers. These studies took place in 1982, 1983 and 1987.

Sampling Procedures

Sampling was performed in 24 geographically stratiﬁed campgrounds, with 12 in
the Upper Peninsula and 12 in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan (Figure 2). Survey
administrators distributed the survey to a maximum of 7 registered campers (if that many
sites were occupied and the registered camper were present). Registered campers were
systematically selected with a random start. Sampling of campers was undertaken during

lunch or dinner times, when campers were most likely to be present and available.

Aﬁer a brief introduction to the research project, the data collector would leave
the questionnaire with a pencil and a promise to return to collect the completed
questionnaire. Typically, respondents reported the survey took about 20 minutes to
complete (Nelson et al. 1996). After distributing questionnaires to the remaining sample
for that campground, the researcher would return to collect the completed instrument,
check it for omissions, clarify any points on which the camper was unsure and receive
any comments. Those sampled who had not completed the questionnaire were given the

option to place it, when completed, in the campground fee pipe.

When compared to previous studies of Michigan SFCG campers, the methods
described above are considered to be an improvement from the personal interview

methods used in 1982, 1983, and 1987. Compared to these studies, one-fourth the

33

number of survey administrators were able to complete twice as many surveys (pers.

comm. Charles Nelson).

Data Processing

Data were entered onto diskette and analyzed using the Statistical Package for
Social Sciences version 7.5. The data were weighted to correct for two potential biases.
The ﬁrst bias was campground/forest use bias. There were sizeable variations among the
number of camp nights (1 party camped for 1 night on 1 site) in the respective

campgrounds and forests. Large, busy campgrounds oﬁen were proportionally

Table 1

Survey schedule for the 1995 Michigan SF CG camper study.

 

 

 

Survey Route (a) Number of Weekdays Number of Weekend Days Total
Surveyed Surveyed Days
Cluster 1 (b) 7 7 l4
Cluster 2 (c) 5 5 10
Cluster 3 (d) 6 6 12
Cluster 4 (e) 6 6 12
Total 24 24 48

 

(a) Upper and Lower Peninsula campgrounds were surveyed by different survey administrators.
(b) Cluster 1
Upper Peninsula: Squaw Lake; Pike Lake; Ross Lake
Lower Peninsula: Arbutus #4; Garey Lake; Platte River
(c) Cluster 2
Upper Peninsula: Mead Creek; Hog ls. Point; Fox River
Lower Peninsula: Goose Lake; Lake Margrethe; Houghton Lake
(d) Cluster 3
Upper Peninsula: Lake Superior; Blind Sucker #2; Pretty Lake
Lower Peninsula: Bear Lake; Canoe Harbor; Shupac Lake
(e) Cluster 4
Upper Peninsula: Mouth of the Two Hearted; Andrus Lake; Shelldrake Dam
Lower Peninsula: Haakwood; Pigeon River; Town Comer

34

Upper Peninsula

11
0 5 8 10

4 12

Map Key

Upper Peninsula
Squaw Lake
Pike Lake

Fox River

Mead Creek
Lake Superior
Blind Sucker #2
Pretty Lake
Mouth of the Two Hearted
Ross Lake

10. Andrus Lake

11. Shelldrake Dam
12. Hog Island Point

 

Lower Peninsula

 

wrssueww—

 

Northern Lower Peninsula
13. Haakwood

l4. Pigeon River

15. Big Bear Lake

16. Town Corner

17. Arbutus #4

18. Platte River

19. Garey Lake Trail Camp
20. Goose Lake

21. Shupac Lake

22. Lake Margrethe

23. Canoe Harbor

24. Houghton Lake

Figure 2. Michigan state forest campgrounds sampled in summer 1995

35

Undersarnpled due to the upper limit on the number of registered campers sampled in a
given day while lesser used campgrounds could be oversampled. To correct for this bias,
responses were weighted by the proportion of camp nights in each campground, forest
and the system as a whole, using FMD fee receipt data to estimate campground use. This
was done by multiplying the percentage of FY 1994-95 camp nights the sample
campground accounted for when aggregated with other sampled campgrounds in the
forest (district) times the number of survey respondents in the forest (district). The
product was divided by the number of survey respondents for that sample campground.
Hence, a respondent from a campground with a high percentage of the camp nights
among the sample campgrounds in a district and a lower percentage of responses for the
district, would have the weight of their responses increased. Conversely, a respondent
from a little used campground that had a higher proportion of the total responses that
would have been expected based on the number of camp nights would have the weight of

their responses decreased.

A second bias related to the number of state forest campground nights camped by
the respondent. To use a “one person, one vote” rule in reporting the responses of
campers, it is necessary to consider one’s possibility of being sampled. A registered
camper who camps one nights in a state forest campground annually, versus one who
camps many nights, has a much smaller chance of being sampled. Hence, the responses

of frequent registered campers dominate the data without a correction for this bial.

This frequency of visit bias is corrected by weighting the responses of each
camper by the reciprocal of the number of nights camped in state forest campgrounds the

previous year (1994). This assumes their camping behavior in the year sampled (1995)

36

was similar to that of the previous year. If the person did not camp in a state forest
campground the previous year, the length of stay on the current visit was used as the
measure of use. So, the responses of the person with one night camped in 1994 would be
weighted 1/1, while a person who camped 5 nights would be weighted US, because they

had a 5 times greater chance of being sampled.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The results and analysis of the data are divided into two distinct parts. First, basic
descriptive data from the 1995 Michigan state forest camper survey are presented;
speciﬁcally data describing the camping history of SF CG campers, their current trip
characteristics, demographics, ratings of selected attributes, and their opinions concerning

selected SF CG policy proposals.

In the second major section, campers are categorized independently by their
support or opposition to the two user fee policy proposals: (1) a one dollar fee increase in
camping fees at all SFCGs to improve campground maintenance; (2) a differential
campsite fee policy. Statistical tests are carried out in order to determine if the

characteristics of supporters and opponents are statistically signiﬁcant, and how.

Response Rate

During the time period that respondents had an opportunity to record their
opinions concerning the selected user fee policy proposals, a total of 988 self-
administered questionnaires were distributed. Of the 988 distributed questionnaires 796

(80.5%) completed questionnaires were returned (Table 2).

37

 

38
While 19.5% of the sample did not respond, the author is not greatly concerned by

the potential for a non-response bias. It is felt that the majority of nonrespondents were
surveyed at a time when they could not immediately complete the survey and chose to
deposit it into the fee pipe (as requested). Many logistical difﬁculties existed in the
collection of these surveys. It is not felt that these campers are signiﬁcantly different
from those who successfully responded to the questionnaire. However, data is

unavailable by which this can be tested.

 

 

 

Table 2
Response rate for the 1995 Michigan SF CG camper study.
Survey Questionnaires Number of Percent
Region (a) Distributed Responses Responding
Upper 542 451 83%
Peninsula
Northern 446 345 77%
Lower
Peninsula
Total 988 796 80.5%

 

(a) The Upper and Lower Peninsula campgrounds were surveyed by different survey

administrators

39

Description of 1995 Registered Michigan State
Forest Campground Campers

The following are highlights of the 1995 Michigan SFCG camper study. Please
refer to Nelson et al. (1996) for a more detailed description of the 1995 Michigan SF CG
camper population. These include all respondents including senior campers (those 62

and over) who are not included in hypothesis testing as will be later discussed.

CHARACTERISTICS OF REGISTERED CAMPERS

Registered campers tended to be male (60%), with a mean age of 42 years and the
vast majority (98%)were white. Of the registered campers 11% were senior campers.
The most common non-white campers were Native Americans. Nearly 40% of registered

campers had 1994 household incomes within the $20,000 to $39,999 category.

Registered SFCG campers averaged 16.1 nights of camping during 1994, with
11.1 nights in Michigan and 5 nights out-of-state. Registered campers camped an
average of 3.8 of their 11.1 Michigan nights in Michigan at SFCGs. State parks and
“other” camping opportunities (e. g. private land, on public land not in a designated
campground, etc.) were also frequently used by respondents. Commercial campgrounds
and other public campgrounds (e.g. national forest, local public, national park) were used

to a lesser extent.

CHARACTERISTICS OF REGISTERED CAMPER ON SAMPLE VISIT

While the majority of respondents had previously visited the campground where

they were sampled, 18 were on their ﬁrst visit to that site. The SFCG where the

4O

respondent was surveyed was the primary destination for 4 of 5 respondents. The mean

length of stay was just over 3 nights.

Over 90% of the respondents originated in Michigan. The majority originating in
Michigan (64%) live in the southern Lower Peninsula, while 30% live in the northern
Lower Peninsula and 6% live in the Upper Peninsula. Residents of the Upper Peninsula
and the northern Lower Peninsula were proportionally more likely to camp in SFCGs
than those from the southern Lower Peninsula. At least 4/5 of Michigan’s population
lives in the Southern Lower Peninsula, while slightly less than 2/3 of the Michigan

resident SF CG campers originate there (Nelson, et al. 1996).

CHARACTERISTICS OF REGISTERED CAMPING PARTY ON SAMPLE VISIT

The mean camping party size was 3.8. The most common camping party size was
2. About 4% of the parties had one or more members qualifying as disabled under the
American’s with Disabilities Act. The percentage of parties with one or more members
qualifying for a handicapper vehicle permit is slightly lower than for those citing a
disability.

Over a third of all camping parties included one or more children under 18 years
of age. Over 10% contain an adult 62 years of age or over, thus making them eligible for

the 50% senior citizen discount rate of $3 per night.

Tents were the single most common sleeping shelter (Table 3). Almost 6 in 10

parties used a tent. Travel trailers, 5th wheels and motor homes provided shelter for
approximately 25% of the camping parties. Approximately 11% of camping parties used

more than one form of shelter on their site for sleeping.

41

Table 3
Camping equipment used by registered summer 1995 Michigan SFCG camping.

 

 

 

Percent
Tent Pickup Travel 5th Motor
Tent trailer camper trailer wheel home Other
59.2 12.1 10.0 9.7 3.2 12.4 5.3

 

Respondents reported that swimming was the most commonly performed activity
while staying in the campground (Table 4). When considered as a group, water based
recreation activities (eg. swimming, ﬁshing and boating) were the most commonly
reported activities. Trail recreation activities were engaged in by 2/3 of the reporting

parties. Social activities were the least common activity group.

REGISTERED CAMPER RA TING OF CURRENT MANA GEMENT

Respondents rated campground attributes from very poor to very good (Table 5).
Most respondents rated campground attributes very good or good. The most highly rated
attributes for the system were the natural setting of the campgrounds, ﬁrst impression of
the registered camper with the campground and the registered camper’s sense of security.

Ratings were lowest for cleanliness of the rest rooms.

REGISTERED CAMPER OPINIONS OF KEY CAMPGROUND
AND FOREST RECREA T ION INI TIA TIVES

When asked if they supported selected campground and forest recreation policy
initiatives, the opinions of registered campers were divided (Table 6). Campers were

most supportive of granting limited law enforcement authority and the needed

42

Table 4

Participation in selected recreation activities and activity groups by registered summer
1995 Michigan SFCG camping parties during their current visit.

 

 

 

Activity groups Activity
Percent Percent

Swimming 72.0
Water 93 .3 Fishing 66. 1
Boating 44.6
Nature observation 69.1
Visit historic site 13.3
Looking 82.8 Sightseeing 57. 1
Pick 15.8

berries/mushrooms
Biking 22.2
Trail 67.0 ORV use 3.7
Hike/walk 60.6
Socializing 41.5 Visit ﬁiends/relatives 27.0

Visit other campers 27.2

 

43

Table 5

Percentage of respondents who rated the quality of selected SFCG attributes as very poor,
poor, average, good or very good during summer 1995.

 

Attributes Very Poor Poor Average Good Very Good
First impression of 0.3% .8% 13% 43% 43%
campground
Natural setting of 0.2% .6% 6% 32% 61%
campground
Cleanliness of campsite 0.1% 3% 17% 38% 41%
Sense of safety and 0.7% 3% 14% 38% 45%
security
Others obeying the 0.3% 0.3% 18% 40% 36%
rules
Helpfulness of 3% 4% 22% 33% 36%
employees
Restroom cleanliness 3% 9% 27% 31% 30%
Overall performance 0.8% 0.8% l 1% 47% 41 %

 

training to campground managers. They also supported raising the minimum age for the

senior citizen camping fee discount from age 62 to 65. Campers were least supportive of

pricing proposals that would create differential pricing for SF CGs on an inter or intra

campground basis.

Opposition was lowest for the limited law enforcement proposal. Only for

differential pricing among and within campgrounds were the majority of respondents

opposed. The ratio of those supporting versus opposing a given proposal was greater

than 1 :1 for establishing limited law enforcement authority for F MD employees, raising

the senior

44

Table 6

Percentage of registered summer 1995 Michigan SF CG campers supporting selected
policy initiatives.

 

Percent (a)

 

 

Policy initiatives Support Undecided Oppose
Limited law enforcement 69.9 15.6 14.5
training/authority for FMD

managers

Half price senior citizen 60.9 5.6 33.6

discount for registered
campers 2 65

One dollar increase in 51.3 6.7 36.6
nightly camping fee

Camping fee for non- 44.8 13.6 41.6
designated site camping

Pathway user annual fee 33.0 17.2 49.8
Intercarnpground differential 27.4 10.0 62.6
pricing based in campground

use level

Intracampground differential 19.1 9.2 66.7
pricing based on waterfront

site

 

(a) Percents in rows may not add up to 100% due to rounding.

45
citizen discount minimum age, increasing the nightly camping fee across the system by

$1 and initiating a camping fee for non-designated site camping.

Comparison of Respondents Who Support or Oppose the Policy Proposals

The main purpose of this study is to determine differences between supporters and
opponents of the waterfront fee differential and the one dollar fee increase proposals.
While analyzing the results, it was determined that those respondents who are eligible for
the half price senior discount on the nightly camping fee represent a distinct group within
the SF CG camper population. Seniors are currently charged $3 per night, and non-
seniors are charged $6. If the fees for each group are increased by $1 this represents a
33% increase for seniors while it is only a 17% increase for non-seniors. Due to these
differences, the hypothesis testing will only include the non-senior respondents. This
does not mean that seniors are an unimportant part of the SFCG system. However, due
different implications of the fee increase for them and their relatively small proportion of

the sample (11%), they are not included in further analysis.

WATERFRONT FEE DIFFERENTIAL

A series of two independent sample t-tests, Somer’s D measures of association
and the lambda measure of association tests were conducted on the data set. An alpha
level of .05 was used in all tests in order to measure association and to determine if
signiﬁcant differences exist between those who support and those who oppose the
waterfront fee differential proposal. Table 7 presents the results from the two
independent sample t-tests. Table 8 presents the results from the Somer’s D and the

lambda measure of association tests.

46

Of the six interval variables being tested for associative relationships (Table 7)
three have statistically signiﬁcant differences. Supporters of differential fees were more
likely than opponents to have a shorter stay at the campground on their current trip and a
smaller proportion of their Michigan camping nights in SF CGs compared to other

developed campgrounds.

Some of the results coincide with the stated hypotheses, while others were
contrary to them. As hypothesized, on an annual basis supporters spent proportionately
fewer nights in SFCGs, than other developed Michigan campgrounds. However, the
relationships concerning the number of nights respondents spent on their current trip and

on an annual basis were contrary to the hypothesized relationships.

Hypothesis testing of ordinal and nominal variables (Table 8) showed only one
statistically signiﬁcant relationship at the .05 level. Those who rated their sense of safety
and security higher were slightly more likely to oppose the waterfront differential. As
hypothesized, the gender of the respondent appears to have no inﬂuence on their support

or opposition to the waterfront differential proposal.

In total, the independent variables tested were not very useful in explaining
differences between differential fee supporters and opponents. Furthermore, in the
variables where statistically signiﬁcant differences were found, the relationships were
weak. This suggests that factors other than those examined are inﬂuencing support or

opposition for differential fees in Michigan SFCGs.

47

ONE DOLLAR FEE INCREASE

As with the waterfront campsite fee differential, a series of two-independent
sample t-tests, Somer’s D measures of association and the lambda measure of
associationtests were conducted on the data set. An alpha level of .05 was used in all
tests in order to measure association and to determine if signiﬁcant differences exist
between those who support and those who oppose the waterfront fee differential
proposal. Table 9 presents the results from the interval level data. Table 10 presents the

results for the nominal and ordinal level data.

Hypothesis testing of ordinal and nominal level variables (Table 9) indicates
statistically signiﬁcant relationships between supporters and opponents of the $1 increase
in the camping fee in ﬁve of the six variables. As hypothesized, supporters of the $1 fee
increase camped fewer nights in the campground during their current trip. Annually,
supporters spent more nights in developed Michigan campgrounds other than SF CGs, and
fewer in the SF CG system. They also spent a greater proportion of their Michigan
developed campground nights outside the SFCG system. Finally, supporters of the $1 fee

increase were slightly younger than opponents.

Hypothesis testing of ordinal and nominal variables (Table 10) showed only two
statistically signiﬁcant differences at the .05 level. Those with higher annual incomes
were slightly more likely to support the $1 fee increase proposal.. Also, those who rated

the cleanliness of the restrooms higher

48

Table 7

Two independent sample t-tests of non-senior supporters and opponents of a waterfront
differential in camping fees at all Michigan SFCGs to improve campground maintenance.

 

 

Independent Supporters H1 Opponents Signiﬁcance Hypothesis
Variable N=114 (a) (b) N=448 (a) <.05 (c) Conﬁrmed
M M

Age ﬁrst camped 13.2 = 12.7 Yes

# nights in SFCGs 2.7 > 3.9 * No (d)
# nights in non-SFCGs (e) 5.7 > 4.9 No

% of nights in SFCGs 36% < 46% * Yes
Total # of nights spent trip 2.8 > 3.5 "‘ No (d)
Current age 38.2 = 38.9 No

 

(a) The sample size may vary with respect to the individual variables due to the different number of
nonresponses to individual questions.

(b) Hypothesized relationship is that supporters would be greater than (>), less than (<), or equal to (=)
those who oppose the waterfront differential in camping fee

(c) signiﬁcance level is <05
((1) Hypothesis not conﬁrmed, but relationship is signiﬁcant.
(e) Number of nights is developed campground in Michigan other than SFCGs.

were less likely to support the $1 fee increase proposal. This may be because the
respondents who were satisﬁed with restroom cleanliness may see less need to increase
the fees for maintenance purposes. As with the differential campsite fee proposal, gender

appears to have no relationship to the support or opposition to the $1 increase proposal

In summary, the independent variables tested were helpful in explaining the
differences between fee supporters and opponents. This was especially true of the
variables which describe a respondent’s camping behavior and demographics.

Supporters of the proposed fee increase are slightly younger and have higher incomes

49

Table 8

Measures of association between supporters and opponents of differential campsite fees
at all Michigan SFCGs during summer 1995.

The value (positive or negative) signiﬁes the relationship between a respondents higher rating of the
independent variable and their support as compared to opposition to the proposal.

 

 

Independent Support Oppose Value Signiﬁcance H. Hypothesis
Variable (d) N= 114 (a) N= 448 (a) (f) (b) Conﬁrmed
Rating of Poor 11 Poor 31 -.064 .36 + No
natural setting Good 102 Good 414
(0
Rating of Poor 28 Poor 88 -.048 .27 + No
cleanliness of Good 85 Good 355
campsites (f)
Rating of Poor 39 Poor 181 .041 .23 + No
cleanliness of Good 70 Good 250
restrooms (1)
Rating of Poor 27 Poor 59 -. 129 .02 + No (g)
sense of safety Good 86 Good 380
and security
(0
Rating of Poor 12 Poor 44 -.010 .77 + No
overall Good 98 Good 399
performance
(0
Gender of Male 62 Male 264 .000 .99 = Yes
respondent Female 48 Female 181
Sleeping Uncontained 63 Uncontained 242 .000 .99 + No
shelter (e) Contained 48 Contained 189
Household Less than $20 21 Less than $20 77 .022 .46 + No
income $20 - $39 29 $20 - $39 119

$40 - $59 37 $40 - $59 85

$60 - $79 4 $60 - $79 32

$80 or more 6 $80 or more 16

 

(a) Response to a $1 increase in camping fees at all Michigan SF C65 is treated as the dependent variable.
(b) Hypothesized relationship is positive (+), negative (-), or none (=).
(c) A .05 level of signiﬁcance is being used.

((1) Somer’s D measure of association is used for: the respondents rating of (natural setting; cleanliness of campsites;
cleanliness of restrooms; sense of safety and security; and household income). Lambda measure of association is
used for the gender of the respondent and for their sleeping shelter.

(e) Contained shelter include motorhomes, travel trailers and 5'“ wheelers Uncontained shelters include tents.

(1) Due to the low numbers of very poor and poor ratings those who responded as very poor, poor and average were
grouped into the “poor” category; those responding as good or very good were grouped into the “good” category.

(g) Hypothesis not conﬁrmed but relationship is statistically signiﬁcant.

50

TABLE 9

Two independent sample t-tests of supporters and opponents of a $1 increase in camping
fees at all Michigan SFCGs to improve campground maintenance.

 

 

Independent Supporters H. Opponents Signiﬁcance Hypothesis

Variable N=340 (a) (b) N=232 (a) <.05 (c) Conﬁnned
MD. M

Age ﬁrst camped 12.2 < 13.5 No

# nights in SFCGs 3.1 < 4.4 * Yes

# nights in non-SFCGs (e) 5.3 > 3.6 * Yes

% of nights in SFCGs 39% > 51% "‘ No ((1)

Total # of nights spent trip 3.2 < 3.8 * Yes

Current age 37.4 < 39.7 * Yes

 

(a) The sample size may vary with respect to the individual variables due to the different number of
nonresponses to individual questions

(b) Hypothesized relationship is that supporters would be greater than (>), less than (<), or equal to (=)
those who oppose the waterﬁ'ont differential in camping fees.

(c) "' signiﬁcance level is <.05

(d) Hypothesis not conﬁrmed but relationship is statistically signiﬁcant

(e) Number of nights in a developed campgron in Michigan other than SFCGs

than opponents. Additionally, supports spend fewer nights in SF CGs during their current
trip and on an annual basis than opponents. Satisfaction with restroom cleanliness is

somewhat positively associated with opposition to the $1 increase fee proposal.

Comparison of Respondents Who are Undecided Versus Those Who Either Support

or Oppose the Policy Proposals

An important group of campers to characterize in relationship to supporters and
opponents are those who are undecided on these proposals. No hypotheses are presented
as no literature was found concerning those undecided on fee support or opposition to fee

proposals. As with the testing between supporters and opponents, a series of

51
TABLE 10

Measures of association between supporters and opponents of a $1 increase in camping
fees at all Michigan SF CGs during summer 1995.

The value (positive or negative) signiﬁes the relationship between a respondents higher rating of the
independent variable and their support as compared to opposition to the proposal.

 

 

Independent Support Oppose Value Signiﬁcance H1 Hypothesis
Variable (d) N= 340 (a) N= 232 (a) (f) (b) Conﬁrmed
(C)

Rating of Poor 22 Poor 18 .049 .55 + No
natural setting Good 315 Good 211
(0
Rating of Poor 68 Poor 54 .048 .35 + No
cleanliness of Good 269 Good 175
campsites (1)
Rating of Poor 154 Poor 75 -. 134 .001 + No (g)
cleanliness of Good 174 Good 149
restrooms (0
Rating of Poor 51 Poor 35 -.007 .90 + No
sense of safety Good 285 Good 190
and security
(0
Rating of Poor 38 Poor 18 -.094 .16 + No
overall Good 296 Good 210
performance
(0
Gender of Male 202 Male 137 .000 .99 = Yes
respondent Female 1 34 Female 93
Sleeping Uncontained 214 Uncontained 100 .000 .99 + No
shelter (e) Contained 120 Contained 1 17
Household Less than $20 52 Less than $20 47 .117 .001 + Yes
income $20 - $39 91 $20 - $39 62

$40 - $59 80 $40 - $59 46

$60 - $79 31 $60 - $79 5

$80 or more 18 $80 or more 6

 

(a) Response to a $1 increase in camping fees at all Michigan SFCGs is treated as the dependent variable
(b) Hypothesized relationship is positive (+), negative (-), or none (=)
(c) A .05 level of signiﬁcance is being used

(d) Somer’s D measure of association is used for: the respondents rating of (natural setting; cleanliness of campsites;
cleanliness of restrooms; sense of safety and security; and household income). Lambda measure of association is
used for the gender of the respondent and for their sleeping shelter.

(e) Contained shelter include motorhomes, travel trailers and 5m wheelers Uncontained shelters include tents.

(1) Due to the low numbers of very poor and poor ratings those who responded as very poor, poor and average were
grouped into the “poor” category; those responding as good or very good were grouped into the “good” category.

(g) Hypothesis not conﬁrmed but relationship is statistically signiﬁcant

52
two-independent sample t-tests, Somer’s D and the lambda measures of association were
used to determine it differences exist between those who are undecided concerning the

user fee policy proposals versus those who either support or oppose them.

WA TERFRON T FEE DIFFERENTIAL

Similar to the testing between supporters and opponents to the waterfront fee
differential, the independent variables tested were not especially useful in explaining
differences between those who were undecided and those who either supported or
opposed the proposal (Tables 11, 12 and 13). However, a few interesting results were
found. In Table 11, undecideds reported that they ﬁrst camped in a campground at a
younger age than those who support and those who oppose the differential fee proposal.
Second, those who are undecided camp fewer nights annually in Michigan developed
campgrounds outside the SF CG system than supporters and opponents. They also spend
a higher proportion of their annual camping nights in SFCGs than those who support the
fee differential. In Tables 12 and 13 the only nominal or ordinal independent variable to
have a statistically signiﬁcant result was that those who rated the cleanliness of the
campsites as good were slightly more likely to be opposed to the fee differential than to

be undecided towards it.

ONE DOLLAR FEE INCREASE

Undecided campers were likely to be older than opponents or supporters of the $1
fee increase (Table 14). They were also statistically different than opponents in that they
camper more Michigan nights in developed campgrounds other than SFCGs and were on

a shorter stay when sampled. The only nominal or ordinal variables to show statistically

53
signiﬁcant differences were related to facility cleanliness (Tables 15 and 16). When

comparing those who are undecided to supporters and opponents of the fee increase,

those who were undecided were signiﬁcantly more likely to rate the restrooms as cleaner.

TABLE 11

Two independent sample t-tests comparing characteristics of undecided respondents to
supporters and opponents of a differential campsite fee proposal at Michigan SFCGs
during summer 1995.

 

 

Independent Undecided Supporters Signiﬁcance Opponents Signiﬁcance

Variable N=57 (a) N=114 (a) <.05 (b) N=448 <.05 (b)
_M_ea_n Me_an

Age ﬁrst camped 9.5 13.2 "' 12.7 "‘

# nights in SFCGs 2.7 3.1 3.9

# nights in non-SFCGs (c) 2.9 5.7 * 4.9 *

% of nights in SFCGs 53% 36% * 46%

Total # of nights spent trip 3.0 2.8 3.5

Current age 38.1 38.2 38.9

 

(a) The sample size may vary with respect to the individual variables due to the different number of
nonresponses to individual questions

(b) * signiﬁcance level is <.05

(c) Number of nights in developed campgrounds in Michigan other than Micichigan SFCGs

54

Table 12

Measures of association between supporters and those who are undecided concerning a
the differential campsite fee proposal at Michigan SF CGs during summer 1995.

The value (positive or negative) signiﬁes the relationship between a respondents higher rating of the
independent variable and their undecidedness as compared to support for the proposal.

 

 

Independent Support Undecided Value Signiﬁcance
Variable (d) N= 114 (a) N= 57 (a) (f) <.05 (c)
Rating of Poor 11 Poor 3 .1 19
natural setting Good 102 Good 51
(0
Rating of Poor 28 Poor l8 -.O94
cleanliness of Good 85 Good 36
campsites (1)
Rating of Poor 39 Poor 18 .018
cleanliness of Good 70 Good 35
restrooms (1)
Rating of Poor 27 Poor 13 .003
sense of safety Good 86 Good 42
and security
(0
Rating of Poor 12 Poor 4 .088
overall Good 98 Good 50
performance
(0
Gender of Male 62 Male 42 .000
respondent Female 48 Female 1 5
Sleeping Uncontained 63 Uncontained 30 .000
shelter (e) Contained 48 Contained 27
Household Less than $20 21 Less than $20 7 -.023
income $20 - $39 29 $20 - $39 26

$40 - $59 37 $40 - $59 11

$60 - $79 4 $60 - $79 5

$80 or more 6 $80 or more 2

 

(a) Response to a $1 increase in camping fees at all Michigan SFCGs is treated as the dependent variable
(b) Hypothesized relationship is positive (+), negative (-), or none (=)
(c) " signiﬁcance level is <.05

(d) Somer’s D measure of association is used for: the respondents rating of (natural setting; cleanliness of campsites:
cleanliness of restrooms; sense of safety and security; and household income). Lambda measure of association is
used for the gender of the respondent and for their sleeping shelter.

(e) Contained shelter include motorhomes, travel trailers and 5‘“ wheelers Uncontained shelters include tents.

(1) Due to the low numbers of very poor and poor ratings those who responded as very poor, poor and average were
grouped into the “poor” category; those responding as good or very good were grouped into the “good” category.

55

Table 13

Measures of association between opponents and those who are undecided concerning a
the differential campsite fee proposal at Michigan SFCGs during summer 1995.

The value (positive or negative) signiﬁes the relationship between a respondents higher rating of the
independent variable and their undecidedness as compared to opposition to the proposal.

 

 

Independent Opponents Undecided Value Signiﬁcance
Variable (d) N= 448 (a) N= 57 (a) (f) <.05 (c)
Rating of Poor 31 Poor 3 .021

natural setting Good 414 Good 51

(0

Rating of Poor 88 Poor 18 -.078 *
cleanliness of Good 355 Good 36

campsites (1)

Rating of Poor 181 Poor 18 .032

cleanliness of Good 250 Good 35

restrooms (1)

Rating of Poor 59 Poor 13 -.081

sense of safety Good 380 Good 42

and security

(0

Rating of Poor 44 Poor 4 .028

overall Good 399 Good 50

performance

(0

Gender of Male 264 Male 42 .000

respondent Female 181 Female 15

Sleeping Uncontained 242 Uncontained 30 .000

shelter (e) Contained 189 Contained 27

Household Less than $20 77 Less than $20 7 .007

income $20 - $39 119
$40 - $59 85
$60 - $79 32

$80 or more 16

$20 - $39 26
$40 - $59 11
$60 - $79 5

$80 or more 2

 

(a) Response to a $1 increase in camping fees at all Michigan SFCGs is treated as the dependent variable

(b) Hypothesized relationship is positive (+), negative (-), or none (=)

(c) * signiﬁcance level is <.05

(d) Somer’s D measure of association is used for: the respondents rating of (natural setting; cleanliness of campsites;
cleanliness of restrooms; sense of safety and security; and household income). Lambda measure of association is
used for the gender of the respondent and for their sleeping shelter.

(e) Contained shelter include motorhomes, travel trailers and 5‘h wheelers Uncontained shelters include tents.

(0 Due to the low numbers of very poor and poor ratings those who responded as very poor, poor and average were
grouped into the “poor” category; those responding as good or very good were grouped into the “good” category.

56

TABLE 14

Two independent sample t-tests comparing characteristics of undecided respondents to
supporters and opponents of a proposed $1 increase in the nightly camping fee at all
Michigan SFCGs during summer 1995.

 

 

Independent Undecided Supporters Signiﬁcance Opponents Signiﬁcance

Variable N=46 (a) N=340 (a) <.05 (b) N=29l <.05 (b)
Meat! Mm

Age ﬁrst camped 11.1 12.2 13.5

# nights in SFCGs 3.4 3.1 4.4

# nights in non-SFCGs 8.0 5.3 3.6 *

% of nights in SFCGs 54% 39% 51%

Total # of nights spent trip 2.6 3.2 3.8 *

Current agg 43.0 37.4 " 39.7 "'

 

(a) The sample size may vary with respect to the individual variables due to the different number of
nonresponses to individual questions
(b) "‘ signiﬁcance level is <.05

57

Table 15

Measures of association between supporters and those who are undecided concerning a
proposed $1 increase in the nightly camping fee at all Michigan SF CGs during summer
1995.

The value (positive or negative) signiﬁes the relationship between a respondents higher rating of the
independent variable and their undecidedness as compared to support for the proposal.

 

 

Independent Support Undecided Value Signiﬁcance
Variable (d) N= 340 (a) N= 46 (a) (t) <.05 (c)
Rating of Poor 22 Poor 2 .032
natural setting Good 315 Good 41
(0
Rating of Poor 68 Poor 12 -.049
cleanliness of Good 268 Good 30
campsites (1)
Rating of Poor 154 Poor 7 .l 12 "
cleanliness of Good 174 Good 32
restrooms (1)
Rating of Poor 51 Poor 12 -.095
sense of safety Good 285 Good 30
and security
(0
Rating of Poor 38 Poor 4 .021
overall Good 296 Good 39
performance
(0
Gender of Male 202 Male 28 .000
respondent Female 134 Female 1 7
Sleeping Uncontained 214 Uncontained 21 .000
shelter (e) Contained 120 Contained 25
Household Less than $20 52 Less than $20 3 -.007
income $20 - $39 91 $20 - $39 19
$40 - $59 80 $40 - $59 7
$60 - $79 31 $60 - $79 6
$80 or more 18 $80 or more 0

 

(a) Response to a $1 increase in camping fees at all Michigan SFCGs is treated as the dependent variable
(b) Hypothesized relationship is positive (+), negative (-), or none (=)
(c) ‘ signiﬁcance level is <05

((1) Somer’s D measure of association is used for: the respondents rating of (natural setting; cleanliness of campsites;
cleanliness of restrooms; sense of safety and security; and household income). Lambda measure of association is
used for the gender of the respondent and for their sleeping shelter.

(e) Contained shelter include motorhomes, travel trailers and 5"I wheelers Uncontained shelters include tents.

(1) Due to the low numbers of very poor and poor ratings those who responded as very poor, poor and average were
grouped into the “poor” category; those responding as good or very good were grouped into the “good” category.

58

Table 16

Measures of association between opponents and those who are undecided concerning a
proposed $1 increase in the nightly camping fee at all Michigan SFCGs during summer
1995.

The value (positive or negative) signiﬁes the relationship between a respondents higher rating of the
independent variable and their undecidedness as compared to opposition to the proposal.

 

 

Independent Opponents Undecided Value Signiﬁcance
Variable (d) N= 232 (a) N: 46 (a) (f) <.05 (c)
Rating of Poor 18 Poor 2 .063
natural setting Good 211 Good 41
(0
Rating of Poor 54 Poor 12 -.035
cleanliness of Good 175 Good 30
campsites (1)
Rating of Poor 75 Poor 7 .091 *
cleanliness of Good 149 Good 32
restrooms (1)
Rating of Poor 35 Poor 12 -.l 19
sense of safety Good 190 Good 30
and security
(0
Rating of Poor 18 Poor 4 -.025
overall Good 210 Good 39
performance
(0
Gender of Male 137 Male 28 .000
respondent Female 93 Female 17
Sleeping Uncontained 100 Uncontained 21 .000
shelter (e) Contained 1 17 Contained 25
Household Less than $20 47 Less than $20 3 .073
income $20 - $39 62 $20 - $39 19
$40 - $59 46 $40 - $59 7
$60 - $79 5 $60 - $79 6
$80 or more 6 $80 or more 0

 

(a) Response to a $1 increase in camping fees at all Michigan SFCGs is treated as the dependent variable
(b) Hypothesized relationship is positive (+), negative (-), or none (=)
(c) A .05 level of signiﬁcance is being used

((1) Somer’s D measure of association is used for: the respondents rating of (natural setting; cleanliness of campsites;
cleanliness of restrooms; sense of safety and security; and household income). Lambda measure of association is
used for the gender of the respondent and for their sleeping shelter.

(6) Contained shelter include motorhomes, travel trailers and 5th wheelers Uncontained shelters include tents.

(1) Due to the low numbers of very poor and poor ratings those who responded as very poor, poor and average were
grouped into the “poor” category; those responding as good or very good were grouped into the “good” category.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The purpose of this study has been to examine potential differences and
hypothesize reasons for these differences between supporters and opponents of a one
dollar increase in SF CG camping and differential fees for waterfront sites. These results
are intended to aid managers in developing fee policies and in campground marketing
efforts. Recommendations concerning future research of differential user fee policies and

increased user fees will also be presented.

Conclusions

WA TERFRON T FEE DIFFERENTIAL

Only 20% of respondents reported that they support the waterfront campsite fee
differential proposal. The purpose of this study has been to identify distinguishing
characteristics between opponents and supporters of a waterfront campsite fee
differential. Of the independent variables which were tested, several were signiﬁcantly

different. However, these signiﬁcant differences are slight.

Supporters of the differential fee policy camp slightly fewer nights in SFCGs on

an annual basis, were on shorter stays during the trip when sampled and spent a smaller

59

60
proportion of their Michigan developed camping time in SF CGs than opponents. In

Vermont, Bamford et al. (1988) found a positive relationship between choosing more
expensive waterfront campsites and the number of days camped in 3 Vermont State Park
per year. It appears that even though campers who utilize a system more may be willing
to spend more for the prime campsites, they may be less supportive of establishing such a

differential fee structure.

It was hypothesized that a camper’s rating of campground attributes (essentially a
rating of how the managers are performing) would inﬂuence their support or opposition
to the proposal. For the majority of campground attributes, this was not found to be the
case. However, a respondent’s rating of restroom cleanliness was found to have a weak
yet positive relationship with their support for differential fees. This implies that for the
majority of campground attributes, efforts spent on their improvement are not likely to
improve camper support for differential fees. However, as most respondents rated the
campground attributes positively, little discrimination was available in the sample

population between supporters and opponents.

There are a number of reasons why respondents may not be in favor of a
differential campsite fee structure. First, the campgrounds in question are relatively small
and uncrowded. The highly desirable waterfront sites are often readily available. This
results in a situation where campers have little incentive to support a differential fee
structure to obtain desirable sites. In addition, users are accustomed to paying the same
price for all campsites. The results might have been different had the survey presented
information explaining how a differential campsite pricing policy would help the SFCG

system in terms of potential improvements.

61
As seen in New Hampshire (LaPage 1975) and Vermont (Bamford et a1. 1988;

Manning et al. 1984) campers will pay differential fees based on campsite attractiveness.
However, those who do so may not support the policy that requires it. In New Hampshire
and Vermont, increase revenues resulted ﬁ'om the implementation of differential fees.
(LaPage et al. 1984; Manning et al. 1984). However, differential fees may not distribute
SF CG campsite use away from the premium waterfront sites towards the underutilized

non-waterfront sites if occupancy rates remain low.

If managers desire to increase the level of support for the differential fee policy, it
may be useful for SF CG managers to provide information to campers concerning the
prices at other campgrounds. This may be in the form of an informational bulletin
entitled “Area camping options if this campground is ﬁrll”. The bulletin may provide
locations and price structures of nearby campgrounds. These prices will typically be

higher and will illustrate the differential fee structure prevalent elsewhere.

ONE DOLLAR FEE INCREASE FOR
CAMPGROUND MAINTENANCE

F iﬁy-four percent of the respondents support a $1 increase in camping fees at all

SFCGs to improve campground maintenance.

Independent variables concerning a carnper’s experience and behavior were very
helpful in understanding the differences which exist between supporters, opponents and
those who are undecided conceming the $1 fee increase proposal. Generally, those non-
seniors who support the proposal annually camp fewer nights in the SFCG system and
spend a smaller proportion of their Michigan developed camping nights at SFCGs than

opponents.

62

There were few statistically signiﬁcant differences between supporter and
opponents. The exception to this was a camper’s rating of restroom cleanliness.
Respondents who rated the cleanliness of the restroom higher were more likely to be
opposed to the $1 fee increase. This may be due to a feeling that there is little need to
improve maintenance if the restrooms are already clean. Further, those who were
undecided rated restrooms cleaner than opponents or supporters. In conclusion, these
results indicate that stressing additional attention to restrooms as a use for new revenue

may improve support for the proposal.

Recommendations

The purpose of this study has been to examine potential differences between
supporters and opponents of selected Michigan SF CG user fee proposals. Future studies
should be based on the results of this and other studies which examine differential and

increased user fees.

First, it is recommended that managers develop an information program as they
raise or change the fee structure at their campgrounds. Previous studies have shown that
information programs help to increase the acceptability of different or increased user fees
(McCarville et al. 1984; Reiling et al. 1988). McCarville et al. demonstrated that the
types of information included in such a program can affect the price users expect to pay
for a program. It would be particularly effective for managers to provide a description of
management costs associated with the campground and how the increased/differential fee
would improve the campers’ experience in the future. While conducting the interviews
for this study, many of the respondents anecdotally stated that they believed that expenses

incurred by the managers were less than the amount recovered from fee collection. As

63

shown in Figure 1 (page 16), this is not the case. Additionally, managers may want to
include in their information program a description of nearby campgrounds, especially
their price structures. This may increase support for the one dollar increase and the

waterfront fee differential, by showing campers what substitute offerings are available

and how inexpensive the SFCGs are in comparison to other systems.

It is also advised that when fee increases are implemented, they should be small
and occur on a regular basis (Driver 1984; Laarman and Gregerson 1994; Reiling et al.
1992). From a practical standpoint, the ease at which prices may be changed depends on
where the legal authority rests to set prices. In the legislative arena, especially during an
election year, enacting a fee increase is often problematic. In Michigan, the legislature
has delegated the responsibility for setting SF CG fees to the Natural Resource
Commission. This provides a better opportunity to make the case to individuals who may

be somewhat less politically motivated.

Another challenge that public rustic camping programs face is the use of camping
fees for purposes other than to support the camping programs. In order to meet this
challenge, the camping fees may be placed in restricted or earmarked accounts that are
mandated by law to be used only within the campground program. This action may allay
people’s fears that money they thought would support their program might be used for

other purposes.

It is also recommended that future researchers conduct an importance /
performance study concerning the campground attributes rated in 1995. This would

permit researchers to determine the importance of each campground attribute, and how

64

managers are performing. A two dimensional representation with four quadrants would

be created. These quadrants inform the manager whether a campground attribute is:
0 important and they are performing well (keep up the good work)
0 unimportant and they are performing well (pay less attention to this)
0 important and performance is poor (most additional attention is needed here)
0 unimportant and performance is poor (least need to improve)

This information that may aid managers in the design and implementation of information

and maintenance programs.

Researchers could combine this importance / performance study with a complete
willingness to pay study. This willingness to pay study would examine how much
campers would be willing to pay for all sites, waterfront sites and non-waterfront sites.
By combining these studies a three dimensional representation of how importance /
performance varies with a camper’s willingness to pay a selected fee can be constructed.
This would give managers an indication of the type of facilities and the quality of

management necessary at selected fee levels for their current clientele.

This research was limited in a number of ways. It was not a study of how much
campers were willing to pay for a nights camping. Instead, respondents were only asked
whether they supported speciﬁc fee proposals. Additionally, respondents were not asked
if they would still be willing to visit the SF CGs if the proposals were adopted. Finally,
seniors were asked the same questions as non-seniors about fees, even though their
current fee structure is different. This did not allow an appropriate comparison of seniors

and non-seniors.

65
The purpose of this research effort has been to investigate the ways in which

Michigan SF CG campers who support, oppose or are undecided concerning the
differential and higher user fees are different from each other. This is useful for planning
a focused marketing effort which has the purpose increasing the using publics
acceptability toward these user fee proposals. The differences which were found to be
statistically signiﬁcant were slight. In general, campgrounds such as those in the
Michigan SFCG system cater to a fairly homogeneous user group. This indicates that
managers should undertake marketing programs whose efforts are aimed at the range of
campers, not just select groups, since there appear to be few sizeable differences between
those who support, oppose or are undecided concerning the user fee proposals. These
marketing plans should focus on informing campers of the reasons and beneﬁts of higher
and differential user fees. It is believed that if the fee structures makes sense to the users

they will be more likely to support them.

In conclusion, the implementation of fee increases is necessary for the continued
management of the SF CG system and the many positive impacts that it has on it’s users.
First, fee increases are needed to safeguard the resources. The management of the
campgrounds is expensive, it costs money to clean the campsites and restrooms, check
the quality of the drinking water, repair and replace roads, picnic tables, ﬁre rings etc.
Additionally, personnel have to be continually trained for the effective and efﬁcient
management of these campgrounds. Due to budget cuts, many of these operations have

been delayed and are in need of attention.

The fact that differential fees or across the board fee increases may not be popular

with all SF CG campers does not mean the they should not be implemented. The

66

managers are not in a popularity contest, they are there to manage the campgrounds in an
effective manner. This means that when a change in the fee structure is needed it should
be done in a way that is acceptable to the users so that they continue to make use of the

SFCG system, while providing ﬁnancial support.

APPENDIX

10.

ll.

68
APPENDIX

Approximately how many nights did you camp in Michigan in 1994?

 

Approximately how many nights did you camp out of Michigan in 1994?

How many nights you camped in Michigan in 1994 were spent in each type of camping area?
SF CGs #

 

 

 

State parks #
Other public campgrounds #
Commercial campgrounds #

 

Carnped on public land with no formal campground #
Other (please explain ) #
SECTION II. QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS CAMPGROUND AND THIS TRIP

 

 

Is this YOUR FIRST visit to this campground? Yes No (If no, go to Ques. 7)

If it is your ﬁrst visit, check the most important sources of information that prompted it?

_Commercial camping directory _Michigan Travel Bureau _Highway Welcome Center
_Family/Friends _Road sign _DNR Camping Brochure
_Other (please list

 

Is this area your primary destination this trip? Yes _No

How many nights have you camped here this trip NOT INCLUDING TONIGHT? #
How many more nights, INCLUDING TONIGHT, will you stay here this trip? #

What type of camping equipment is being used for sleeping at this campsite? Please check ALL
that are being used.

Tent _ Truck Camper/Cover
__ Tent Camper __ 5" Wheeler

Motor Home __ Travel trailer
__ Other (please explain )

 

Which ONE of the following best describe the people on this campsite?

ll.

12.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

69
APPENDIX

Which ONE of the following best describe the people on this campsite?

__ All Family _ All Friends _ Friends and Family
_ Camping Alone _ Organized Group (Group name )

Including YOURSELF, how many people camped on your site are in each of the following age
and gender groups?

AGE CATEGORY MALES FEMALES

Number less than 13 years old # #
Number 13 to 17 years old # #
Number 18 to 29 years old # #
Number 30 to 39 years old # #
Number 40 to 49 years old # #
Number 50 to 59 years old # #
Number 60 to 64 years old # #
Number 65 and older # #

Does anyone camped here have a physical impairment that seriously limits at least one major life
activity?

Yes No Not sure

If yes or not sure, please describe their disability.

 

Does anyone on your site have or qualify for a handicapper vehicle permit or license plate?
Yes No

In which of the following activities did or will YOU OR ANY PERSON FROM YOUR
CAMPSITE participate during your stay? Check ALL that apply.

__ Fishing from a boat _ Swimming __ Non-food shopping
__ Boating _ Fishing from shore/wading _ Visit other campers
__ Hiking _ Nature observation __ Visit historic site
__ Mountain biking __ Visit friends or relatives __ Off road vehicle use
_ Road biking _ Canoeing __ Eat in a restaurant

Scout/bait for hunting Picking mushrooms/berries Sightseeing

70
APPENDIX

17. How much did you and those camped at your site spend during the last 24 hours in and within
20 miles of this campground? Please do not leave any blank spaces, write “0” to indicate no
spending for any category.

Vehicle related (gas, oil, trip related repair, etc.)

 

Restaurant and bar meals and drinks

 

Grocery or convenience store food, drink, or ice

 

Sporting goods (bait, camping gear, etc.)

 

Lodging fees (camping fees, motel if you stayed nearby)

 

Recreation activities (golf, canoe rental, etc.)

 

All other items (ﬁlm, souvenirs, clothing, etc.)
TOTAL

 

“99999566956666

 

18. Please rate your experience with THIS CAMPGROUND, THIS VISIT on the following factors.
A 5 is very good, a 4 is good, a 3 is average, a 2 is poor, and a 1 is very poor. Please CIRCLE
your rating for EACH factor.

 

 

RATING

VERY VERY

POOR POOR AVERAGE GOOD GOOD
First Impression of campground 1 2 3 4 5
Natural setting 1 2 3 4 5
Cleanliness of campsites 1 2 3 4 5
Cleanliness of restrooms 1 2 3 4 5
Sense of safety and security 1 2 3 4 5
Others obeying the rules 1 2 3 4 5
Helpfulness of employees 1 2 3 4 5
Your overall rating 1 2 3 4 5

19. Would you recommend camping her to others? __ Yes _ No _ Maybe

20. What could campground managers do to improve your experience at this campground?

 

71
APPENDIX

SECTION III. YOUR OPINIONS ABOUT CAMPGROUND MANAGEMENT ISSUES

21.

22.

23.

Currently, only conservation officers have the authority to enforce state forest recreation rules
such as nighttime quiet hours, payment of fees, restrictions on vandalism and littering, etc. in
campgrounds. These officers typically number 2 per county. They also have other duties
including natural resource , ﬁsh and game and environmental law enforcement on all lands.

The State Forest Recreation Advisory Committee, a citizens advisory group required by law, has
recommended that selected SFCG managers be trained and certiﬁed as rangers (similar to
Michigan State Park rangers) with legal authority to enforce state forest recreation rules as well as
maintain the campgrounds. The committee’s rationale is to increase efficiency and public service.
Campground managers would not be involved in natural resource, ﬁsh and game and
environmental law enforcement. Conservation ofﬁcers would still enforce state forest recreation
rules as their other duties permitted.

Do you support this proposal? Yes No Undecided

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires that public facilities like campgrounds provide
reasonable accommodation for those with disabilities. However, funds to do this are very limited.
All needs cannot be met for many years. Managers have two basic options. Please check the one
you prefer.

Renovate entire selected campgrounds so the range of facilities (bathroom, well, boat
launch, campsites, road system, etc.) are all accessible in that location while doing nothing in
other campgrounds

Regularly replace facilities in any campground as they wear out with new, accessible
facilities whether the rest of the campground or the topography is accessible.

Currently, camping fees provide more than half of the budget for SFCGs. Other funds come from
the gasoline tax on boat fuel that helps maintain the water access sites in the campgrounds and
general tax monies (i.e. State income taxes). The sighed, groomed, maintained non-motorized
pathways in state forests that serve mountain bikers, hikers, horse back riders and others are
currently paid for by campground fees, volunteers and general taxes and no fees are assessed of
pathway users. Those who camp in state forests away from campgrounds also pay no fees. Costs
of clean up litter, repair environmental damage, etc. caused by this camping are paid by
campground campers and general tax dollars.

The amount of general tax money for campgrounds, pathways, and state forest management in
general is likely to be stable or shrink over the next few years. The State Forest Recreation
Advisory Committee has recommended that a fee be charged to those using groomed, signed and
managed non-motorized pathways and those camped in state forests away from campgrounds. All

72
APPENDIX

monies collected would be delegated to the management of these sites and activities and to reduce
the cost to the campground budget. Do you support:

An annual fee for pathway users over 16 to help maintain pathways? Yes No Undecided
A fee for camping outside of campgrounds in state forests to help
maintain this open land. Yes No Undecided

The DNR would also like you opinion on nightly campground fees for SF CGs
like the one you’re in today. Do you support:

A $1 increase in camping fees at all SFCGs to
improve campground maintenance? Yes No Undecided

The 50% camping fee discount for registered campers 65 and over? Yes No Undecided

Higher fees for waterfront sites and lower fees for non-waterfront

sites? Yes No Undecided

Higher fees for heavily used campgrounds and lower fees for

lightly used campgrounds? Yes No Undecided

SECTION IV. QUESTIONS ABOUT YOU, THE REGISTERED CAMPER

 

 

24. Where is your principal home? County State—Zip

25. Are YOU: _Female _Male

26. How old are you? _Years Old

27. Are YOU: _White _Black _Asian ____Native American
_Hispanic _Multi-racial

28. Which ONE best describes YOUR outside of the home employment status?:
Employed Full Time Employed Part Time Unemployed Retired

29. In 1994, what was your TOTAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME (before taxes)?

73

APPENDIX
Less than $20,000 $60,000 - $79,000
$20,000 - $39,000 $80,000 or more
$40,000 - $59,000 Choose not to answer

Thank you. Your responses will help shape the direction of the Michigan SFCG system. If you have any
further comments for me, please write them below. They will become part of the information passed on to
the DNR and will not be connected with your name.

 

If you wish to comment directly to the campground managers please write you comments below, detach at
the dotted line and mail them or call:

DNR Forest Management Division
Forest Recreation Section

PO. 30452

Lansing, MI 48909-7952

(517) 373-1275

LIST OF REFERENCES

75

Forest Management Division (FMD). 1996. Forest recreation program camping budgets
only. Lansing, MI.

Godin, V. 1984. Backcountry user reaction to user fees. Paper presented at conference,
Fees for outdoor recreation on lands open to the public. Conference conducted by the
Appalachian Mountain Club. Gorharn, NH.

Harris, C., Driver, B. 1987. Recreation user fees: I. pros and cons. Journal of Forestry
(85)5, 25-29.

Johnson, R, Nelson, C. 1996a. Estimated summer 1994 watercraft use on the AuSable
River from Mio access site to the upper end of Alcona pond. East Lansing, MI:
Michigan State University, Park Recreation and Tourism Resources Department.

. 1996b. Perceptions of and preferences for security by Michigan SF CG campers.
Proceedings of the 1996 Northeastern Recreation Resources Symposium US Forest
Service General Technical Report GTR-NE-232.

 

Laarman, J ., Gregersen, H. 1994. Making nature-based tourism contribute to sustainable
development: a policy framework no. 5. EPA T /MUCIA policy brief the environment
and natural resources policy and training project.

LaPage, W. 1968. The role of fees in campers’ decisions. US Forest Service Research
Paper NE-l 18.

LaPage, W., Corrnier, P., Hamilton, G., Corrnier, A. 1975. Dijﬁrential campsite pricing
and campground attendance. Forest Service Research Paper NE—330.

Manning, R., Baker, S. 1981. Discrimination through user fees: fact or ﬁction? Parks and
Recreation (16) 9, 70-74.

Manning, R., Callinan, E., Echelberger, H., Koenemann, E., McEwen, D. 1984.
Differential fees: raising revenue, distributing demand. Journal of Park and
Recreation Administration (2) 1, 20-38.

McCarville, R., Crompton, J ., Sell, J. 1993 The inﬂuence of outcome messages on
reference prices. Leisure Sciences (15) 2, 115-130.

McCurdy, D. 1970. Recreationists’ Attitudes toward user fees: management implications.
Journal of Forestry (68)8, 645-646.

McTavish, T. 1995. Audit report: performance audit of the Forest Management Division
Department of Natural Resources October I, 1993 through July 31, 1995. Lansing,
MI: Ofﬁce of the Auditor General 75-152-95.

Michigan State Forest Recreation Advisory Committee. 1995. Forest Recreation 2000: a \/
strategic plan for Michigan ’s state forest recreation system. Lansing, MI.

76

National Park Service. 1986. 1982-1983 Nationwide recreation survey. Washington,
DC: National Park Service.

Nelson, C. 1995a. State forest camper study (questionnaire). East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University, Department of Park and Recreation Resources.

 

. 1995b. Status and potential of Michigan natural resources: camping, trails and
dispersed recreation. (Special Report 78). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station.

Nelson, C., Ferguson, D., Stynes, D. 1994. Study proposal: perceptions, preferences and
behaviors of selected outdoor recreationists concerning Michigan SF C Gs and
pathways. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Park Recreation and Tourism
Resources Department.

Nelson, C., Holecek, D., Feltus, D., Sandell, D. 1984. Michigan SF CG host program.
Fees for outdoor recreation on lands open to the public. Conference conducted by the
Appalachian Mountain Club. Gorham, NH.

Nelson, C., Stynes, D., Johnson, P., Ferguson, D. 1996. Proﬁle, behaviors, spending and
opinions of summer 1995 Michigan SF CG campers. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State
University, Park, Recreation and Tourism Resources Department.

Norusis, M. 1993. SPSS® guide to data analysis. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice
Hall.

Reiling, 8., Cheng, H., Robinson, C., McCarville, R., White, C. 1995. Potential equity
effects of a new day-use fee. Proceedings of the 1995 northeastern recreation
research symposium. Forest Service General Technical Report NE-218.

Reiling, 8., Cheng, H., Trott, C. 1992. Measuring the discriminatory impact associated
with higher recreational fees. Leisure Sciences (14) 2, 121-137.

Reiling, S., Criner, G., Oltrnanns, S. 1988. The inﬂuence of information on users’
attitudes toward campground user fees. Journal of Leisure Research (20) 3, 208-217.

Sandell, Dean. 1996. Conversation with Dr. Charles Nelson.

Stynes, D. 197 8. The peaking problem in outdoor recreation: measurement and analysis.
East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University, Department of Park and Recreation
Resources.

White, C. 1993. The role of fees in the provision of outdoor recreation opportunities.

Proceedings of the I 993 northeastern recreation research symposium. Saratoga
Springs, NY. General Technical Report NE-185.

77

White, C., Cobus, M., Manning, R., Seffel, J., More, T. 1995. Trends in the Economics of
sustainable outdoor recreation and tourism: the future of outdoor recreation fees for
the public sector. Proceedings of the fourth international outdoor recreation and

tourism trends symposium and the I 995 national recreation resources planning
conference. St. Paul, MN.

Williams, J ., Forbes, I. 1939. Fees and charges for public recreation: a study of policies
and practices. Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Ofﬁce.

"‘ltut:tutti:5