a. PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this check TO AVOID FINES return on or below duo due. ,_ FDATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE out from your record. DAY USE IN MICHIGAN STATE FOREST CAMPGROUNDS: CHARACTERISTICS OF USE AND USERS BY SZ-RENG CHEN A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park and Recreation Resources 1983 ABSTRACT DAY USE IN MICHIGAN'S STATE FOREST CAMPGROUNDS: CHARACTERISTICS OF USE AND USERS By Sz-Reng Chen This pilot study focuses on day use in Michigan's State Forest Campgrounds. Data were collected from randomly selec- ted day use visitors in 57 selected campgrounds via a post card sized questionnaire left on vehicles parked in day use areas of the campgrounds. Data were analyzed for the entire system and were grouped and analyzed by forest region and by the type of water body (i.e. lake, river, lake/river). Some key findings include the following: 1) most day use parties came from Michigan, 2) average distance traveled was 76.7 miles, 3) fishing, swimming and nature observation were the three most popular activities, 4) the Pere Marquette and Lake Superior forest regions were statistically different in distance traveled and in average number of different activi- ties pursued, 5) nature of water body present had a signi- ficant influence on activities pursued, 6) differences for day of the week, week within the season were slight and generally not statistically significant. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I wish to thank my major Professor, Dr. Donald F. Holecek, and the members of my graduate committee, Mr. Charles Nelson and Dr. Dennis Gilliland, for their great assistance. The suggestions provided by David Feltus and Hideo Kikuchi, Ph. D candidates, have also been much appre- ciated. Thanks also to Professor Theodore J. Haskell for advi- cing and assisting in my study in my Master program. Finally, I wish to thank my parents. Without their yearly support and understanding, my Master's program here at Michigan State University would not have been possible. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES.. ......................................... .Vi LIST OF FIGURES ........................................... .x CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1. Significance. I I I I I I I I I I I I ...... I 000000 I I I I I I I I I2 I Definition Of TermSI I I I I I I ..... I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I4. Study Objectives. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I5. Limitations to the Study.......................6. II REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE .................... 8. III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY ............................ 12. Study Population........ ............ . ..... ....12. Study Areas I IIIIIIII I IIIIII I I I I I I IIIII I I I I I I I I 13 I Data Collection......... ................... ...14. Analyses of Possible Related Factors..........16. HypotheseSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII16I Analyses Of RGSUltS. o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0170 Method Used to Analyze Site Characteristics...18. IV RESULTS ......................................... 20. State Forest Campground System..................20. Characteristics of Day Use Parties............20. The Origin of Day Use Parties.................20. Day Use Party Size......... . ....... ... ...... ..25. Frequency of Party Visits to Campgrounds......25. By Week within the Season.....................25. By Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground..29. Participation Characteristics of Individual Activities.............. ................ ......31. By Day of the Week...... ...... ................33. By Week within the Season.....................33. By Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground..37. Frequency cf Participations in Different Activities................ .............. ..42. Packages of Recreation Activities ............. 42. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page Tests of Hypotheses........................... . Null Hypothesis 1: Frequency of Participations in Individual Recreation Activities. ...... ................46. Null Hypothesis 2: Number of Different Activities a Party Participated in vs. Day of the Week.........48. Null Hypothesis 3: Number of Different Activities a Party Participated in vs. Week within the Season..48. Null Hypothesis #: Number of Different Activities a Party Participated in vs. Distance Traveled.......52. Null Hypothesis 5: Average Number of Party Visits (Weekday vs. Weekend).......................52. Four State Forests.... ..... . ...... ....... ...... ..57. Characterisitcs of Day use Parties. ......... ..57. The Origin of Day Use Parties......... ...... ..57. Frequency of Party Visits to Campgrounds......57. By Day of the Week............................59. By Week within the Season.....................59. By Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground..62. Participation Characteristics of Individual ACtiVitieSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII65I Tests of Hypotheses...........................71. Null Hypothesis 6:A: Distance Traveled vs. Four State Forests....71. Null Hypothesis 6-B: Distance Traveled vs. Pairs of the Four State forests.. ...... .......... ..... ........74. Null Hypothesis 7-A: Number of Different Activities a Party Participated in vs. Four State Forests......77. Null Hypothesis 7-B: Number of Different Activities a Party Participated in vs. Pairs of the Four State Forests............ ...... .............77. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Pa e Three Types of Campgrounds......................BO. Characteristics of Day Use Parties............80. The Origin of Day Use Parties.................80. Frequency of Party Visits to Campgrounds......80. By Day of the Week............................80. By Week within the Season.....................83. By Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground..86. Participation Characteristics of Individual ACtiVitieSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII86I Tests of Hypotheses..... ..... ... ..... . ..... ...95. Null Hypothesis B:A: Distance Traveled vs. Three Types of Campgrounds.................................95. Null Hypothesis 8-B: Distance Traveled vs. Pairs of the Three Types of Campgrounds........................98. Null Hypothesis 9-A: Number of Different Activities a Party Participated in vs. Three Types of Campgrounds......................... ..... ..101. Null Hypothesis 9-B: Number of Different Activities a Party Participated in vs. Pairs of the Three Types of Campgrounds.......................101. V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................... 104. summaryIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlou. Research Recommendations.....................118. LITERATURE CITED. ....................................... 121. APPENDICES.... ......................... .... ............. 124. APPENDIXI -I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I IIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIII I125I A. survey IDStrument. o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0126. B. Table B‘lo o o no no... u too. on. I DID. 0.. no... on no.0 0128. Table B-Zoococoon.ooooocoooooooooooooooooo0000.129. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Page List of 57 State Forest Campgrounds by Forest......15. Distribution of Party Visits to State Forest Camp- ground System by Region of Day Use Parties' originSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZZI Distribution of Participations in 5 Individual Selected Recreation Activities by Region of Day use Parties' originSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIZLFI Distribution of Day Use Party Size.................26. Frequency of Party Visits to State Forest Camp- ground System by Week within the Season............28. Frequency of Party Visits to State Forest Camp- ground by Distance Traveled to Reach the Camp- ground.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBOI Frequency of Participations in Individual Recrea- tion Activities in State Forest Campground System..32. Relative Frequency of Participations in Individual ACtiVi-ties by Day Of the weekIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBLI'I Percentage of Participations in Individual Recrea- tion Activities by Week within the Season..........35. Percentage of Participations in Individual Recrea- tion Activities across Week within the Season......38. Distance Traveled to Participate in Individual Recreation Activities in State Forest Campground systemIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIuO. Percentage of Participations in Individual Recrea— tion Activities by Distance Traveled to Reach the campgroundoooocoooooncoco.coococoo-coco-0000000000041. Percentage of Total Participations in 15 Recrea- tion Activities in State Forest Campground by Indi- vidual Recreation Activity and by Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground............................45. Pearson Correlation Test for Significance of Rela- tionship between Individual Recreation Activities..47. vi Table 15. 16. 17. 18. 190 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Page Cochran Q Test for Frequencies of Participations in Individual Recreation Activities in the State Forest Campground System...........................49. Number of Different Activities which Day Use Party Participates in by Day of the Week.................50. Analysis of Variance Test for Number of Different Activities which Day Use Party Participates in byDay Of the weekIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII51I Analysis of Variance Test for Number of Different Activities which Day Use Party Participates in by week Within the seasonIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII53I Analysis of Variance Test for Number of Different Activities which Day Use Party Participates in by Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground.......54. Frequency of Party Visits on Weekday and Weekend in Individual Weeks within the Season..............56. Mean Responses Comparison Results..................56. Distribution of Party Visits to Individual State Forests by Region of Day Use Parties' Origins......58. Distribution of Party Visits by Individual Day of the Week across the Four State Forests..........60. Distribution of Party Visits to Individual State Forests by Week within the Season..................61. Distribution of Party Visits to Individual State Forests by Distance Traveled to Reach the Camp- groundIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII63. How Total Party Visits from Individual Distance Traveled Groups Are Distributed across the Four State ForeStSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII65I Number of Campgrounds Offering Canoeing, Swimming and Boating Opportunity by Individual State ForeStSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII00066I Percentage of Day Use Parties Participating in Individual Activities while Visiting an Individual State ForeStIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII67. vii Table 290 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35- 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Page How Total Participations Occurring in the Indi- vidual Forests Are Distributed among Recreation ActiVitieSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII69I How Total Participations in Individual Activities Are Distributed across the Four State Forests.-----72- Distribution of Total Participations across Indi- vidual Activities and State Forests................73. Analysis of Variance Test for Distance Traveled to Visit Individual State Forests.....................75 Student's t Test For Distance Traveled to Visit IndiVidual Paired State ForeStSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII76I Analysis of Variance Test For Number of Different Activities which Day Use Party Participates in bystate ForeStIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII78. Student's t Test for Number of Different Activi-T ties which Day Use Party Participates in by Paired State ForeStSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII79I Dsitribution of Party Visits to Individual Types of Campgrounds by Region of Day Use Parties' originSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII81I Distribution of Party Visits by Individual Day of the Week across the Three Types of Campgrounds.....84. Percentage Distribution of Party Visits to Indi- vidual Types of Campgrounds by Week within the seasonIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII85. Distribution of Party Visits to Individual Types of Campgrounds by Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground.........................................87 Distribution of Total Visits from Each Travel Distance Zone Among the three Campground Types............. 00000000000000!Cocooooooooooo0000000000000...0.0000890 Number of Sampled Campgrounds by Type Listed in the State Forest Campground Directory as Offering Canoeing, Boat1ng and Swimming Opportunities.......91. viii Table 42. 43. an. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. LIST OF TABLES _Tcont.) Page Percentage of Day Use Parties Participating in Individual Activities by Types of Campgrounds......92. Percentage Distribution of Total Participations among Individual Activities by Types of Camp groundSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII94I Percentage of Participations in Individual Acti- vities across the Three Types of Campgrounds.......96. Percentage Distribution of Total Participations by Type of Campground and by Individual Activities.97. Analysis of Variance Test for Distance Traveled to Visit Individual Types of Campgrounds...........99. Student's t Test for Distance Traveled to Visit Individual Paired Types of Campgrounds............100. Analysis of Variance Test for Number of Different Activities which Day Use Party Participates in by Types of Campgrounds..............................102. Student's t Test for Number of Different Activi- ties which Day Use Party Participates in by Indi— vidual Paired Types of Campgrounds................103. Summary of Results of Key Variables...............115. ix Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Page Michigan State Forest Campground System Day Use RegionSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII21I Cumulative Percentage of Day Use Parties by Party Sizeoooooooo ...... o oooooo oo00000090000000.0000oooooooooooo0027. Comparison of Participations in Individual Acti- vities __ Fishing, Boating and Swimming __ by Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground..........43. Comparison of Participations in Individual Acti- vities __ Just Looking, Picnicking and Nature Observation —— by Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground.........................................44. Comparison of Party Visits to Individual State Forests by Distance Traveled to Reach the campground-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII6L". Comparison of Party Visits to the Three Types of Campgrounds by Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground.........................................88. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION In planning the use of natural resources for recrea- tional purposes, it is essential that all those factors which influence growth in recreation demand for specific recreation areas be taken into consideration. Two of the most signifi- cant groups of influencing factors are those which influence recreation preferences and characteristics of the site (i.e. location factors and various types of recreation activity opportunities available). In order to detect the statistical relationships between these two groups of factors, it is necessary to study these phenomena periodically by surveying recreation users. Information gathered in this manner is useful to recreation planners and also to those who are charged with recreation area management. Recreation resource managers confronted with shortages of funds and growing demands for recreation opportunities can not afford to build unattractive facilities in undesirable locations. As Wagar (1966; p. 667) has pointed out, "If outdoor recreation is to be managed with effectiveness in proportion to its apparent importance, then simple, readily employed comparisons and outlines are needed to guide both managers and participants". This investigation focuses on Michigan's State Forest Campgrounds and the day use which occurs on these sites. It does not address use of these areas by people who camp in there. For reasons which will soon become obvious, this study might best be characterized as being an exploratory or pilot effort. The background of this study and the methodology employed are presented in the first section, Chapter 1,2 and 3. The analyses of the nature of day use and characteristics of day users and a discussion of the conclusions reached and their implementations are presented in the second section, Chapter 4 and 5. The present study was undertaken with the cooperation and financial assistance of the Forest Management Division of Michigan's Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State University. The field work was carried out by twelves student interns during the summer season of 1982. The author was not invol- ved in the study design, research instrument development, or supervising of data collection. These tasks were performed primarily by Charles Nelson the Project Coordinator. The author is responsible for the analyses of the data which appear herein. Finally, this study was a part of and second— ary to a larger project. Hence, it was necessary to design this study around the multiple objectives of the parent pro- ject which severely limited the methods employed. Significance With the ever increasing number of people using the forest for leisure, it is becoming evident that the forest land manager's greatest task will be to develop his ability to relate to needs of an increasing number of people using the forest. Only by understanding the public he serves, through the knowledge of their needs, desires, characteris- tics and recreation behavior, can the forester provide a more enjoyable experience while maintaining a natural forest en- vironment. Thus, to develop a suitable and adequate operation and management policy for the state forest campgrounds becomes a critical problem facing administrators and recreation researchers and is one of the most promising means of main- taining recreation quality and at the same time increasing output. But, to make such development efficient and effect- ive, it is essential to understand : Who users are, What they are seeking when they come to the forest, What their needs and desires are, Where they are from, What types or packages of recreation activities cause peaking of demand, Where and When it is most likely to occur and What location factors are involved. To provide some answers to the above questions, a ten week study was conducted from June 26 to September 8 of 1982 at 57 selected state forest campgrounds. This study, as will be demonstrated, has contributed to a better understanding of peaking and how it relates to the distribution of summer day use patterns of the state forest campgrounds. It also pro- vides greater understanding of what causes various day use patterns and the distribution of state forest campground use during the summer season of 1982. The results of this study will help to explain the nature of day use and users and what attracts people to state forest campgrounds. As noted, this is a pilot study whose purpose is to ex- plore the potential of alternative strategies with sufficient latitude and flexibility to allow any positive effects to surface (Poister, 1978; p. 315). Thus, the present study may provide a model or direction for future more in depth research investigations of the nature of day use and users in the state forest campgrounds. Definition of Terms The following list of definitions is included since at present there is no commonly accepted glossary of terms in the recreation field. These definitions are given in order to clarify the author's meaning in using the terms in this thesis. Types of Campgrounds. Types of campgrounds are classi- fied by the types of recreational water which the campgrounds are adjacent to. Three types of campgrounds were included in this study : Lake, River and Lake/River campgrounds. State Forests. State forests are classified by the geo- graphical locations of state forests which the campgrounds are located in. There are four state forests included in this study : Lake Superior, Mackinaw, Pere Marquette, and Au Sable State Forests. Location Factors. For convenience, the term "location factors" will be used as a collective term which includes the four state forests and the three campground types. Market Areas. Market areas as used in this study relate to the geographical regions from which day use visitors to State Forest Campgrounds are drawn. In the survey used in this study, respondents were requested to indicate their county of residence. Because of the small sample available, it was necessary to develop multiple county origin zones to facilitate market area analysis. Study Objectives (1). To profile the nature of day use and users of the State Forest Campground System. (2). To identify any differences in the nature of day use and characteristics of day users which exist between the four state forests. (3). To identify any differences in the nature of day use and characteristics of day users which exist between the following three types of campgrounds : those located on lakes, those located on rivers, and those located on both a lake and a river. (1). (2). (3). (4). Limitations The present study is limited in the following ways Data was collected for day use parties only during one summer season (1982). Only 57 (33.7%) out of 169 state forest campgrounds were selected and surveyed in this study. These 57 campgrounds were not selected entirely at random. The following three criteria were used to select camp- grounds : a). Preference was given to the most heavily used campgrounds. b). Campgrounds were grouped to minimize travel cost and time. c). Campgrounds located in close proximity to student interns' living quarters were also selected more frequently. The sample size achieved was too small to support some potential analyses and limits the confidence that can be placed on most of this study's results. Post card surveys were distributed between 10:00 a.m. — 5:00 p.m., but they were distributed in individual camp- grounds at approximately the same time each day since interns followed a similar route each day. Thus, users visiting campgrounds for only a few hours early or late in the day (e.g. fishermen) are under-represented in the population responding to this survey. The existence of this variation should be kept in mind as it may affect the generalizability of the information obtained. (5). (6). Aggregation of day use data to systemwide and location- wide totals was employed in an attempt to average out some of this variation but the results which follow are nonetheless more representative of the day user typi— cally present in campgrounds between 10:00 a.m. and 5: OO p.m. Only information concerning recreation behavior of day use parties was gathered and analyzed. Therefore, an investigation of the pattern of recreation behavior for individual persons was not conducted. Information was not collected to examine whether the visit to the campground was the primary purpose of the travel or incidental to it. It appears for some clues in the data base that both cases are present in these data. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE The following review of selected literature includes only those reports and articles that the author feels are pertinent to the main areas of investigation in this study. Particular emphasis has been given to reports concerning the use of the post-card questionnaire investigation technique for the recreational area day-use survey. One of the first studies that probed the field of day user characteristics and preferences was the report by Crapo and Chubb, entitled, Recreation Area Day-Use Investigation Techiniques (Crapo & Chubb, 1969). This study developed an acceptable day-use investigation technique through the test- ing of a series of self-administered questionnaires. One of the purposes of this study was to provide base information collected by using handback questionnaires in card form continuously through the summer season. The systematic random sampling method was chosen and employed in this study because it could be implemented with the least interference to normal area management operations. Every fourth vehicle parked at a park was selected as a sam— ple. To ensure that every vehicle in the population had an equal opportunity of being chosen, the first sample vehicle was designated through the use of a random choice method such as the use of random number tables or "drawing" from the sample space. After the initial vehicle was identified, every fourth vehicle was automatically included in the sample. Retrieval of cards was accomplished by voluntary deposit in collection boxes placed near the exit gates. The overall return rate was 61.7 percent. Information on the questionnaire included: 1) patterns of day-use, chiefly purpose of trip, length of stay and vari— ous recreation activities participated in, 2) socio-economic data, such as age, income and origin of residence. Crapo and Chubb used open-ended, close-ended and multiple choice ques- tions in the questionnaire. The information obtained would be of value in several ways. First, it would give an indication of seasonal fluctu- ations in park user characteristics and use patterns which would be significant in designing year round sampling proce- dures. Second, it would give an impression of variations in response to a self-administered questionnaire over an extend- ed period; this too could influence sample sizes. Third, it would indicate some of the practical problems that would have to be faced in implementing a year round inventory of a recreation area's use and users. A day-use visitor survey which included 11 provincial parks and one national park in Saskatchewan, was conducted during the summer season of 1969. The survey methodology used to obtain park day user data was similar to that descri- bed by Crapo and Chubb (1969). Handback questionnaires in 10 card form were distributed according to a probability formula to visitors entering parks through access gates during day- light hours. These cards were distributed by either special staff hired for that purpose or by park attendants. Retrieval of the cards was accomplished by voluntary deposit in collec- tion boxes near the park exit gates. The overall response rate was about 56 percent. The information gathered in this park visitor survey can be divided into three categories. The first class of data concerns users' characteristics, such as party composition, family income, occupation, and education. The second deals with facilities used. Examples of these include: the picnic ground, the bathing beach, and the hiking trails. The third pertains to travel characteristics, chiefly visitor origins, purpose of trip, and length of stay in the park. The third category of information collected was used to develop a model to explain and predict day-use visitation. Multiple step-wise regression was used to derive a re- lationship between visitation figures (the dependent variable) and the explanatory variables —— population, distance, alter- native recreation opportunities, and attractiveness. The results of the analysis indicate that a particular combination of the variables, population and distance, explains a large amount of the variance in the day-use data that was collected. An application of the model is given to illustrate that esti- mated use for a proposed site with a known level of develop- 11 ment may be derived when given the characteristics of a popu- lation origin and the intervening opportunities surrounding it. A study which measured the change in the quality and quantity of recreational use of wildlife research areas at times of the year besides firearm deer hunting season was conducted every other year from 1973 to 1978 by Wildlife Management Division, Michigan DNR. Sample days were selected within two strata: weekdays and weekends. A post card ques- tionnaire was employed and left on the vehicle windshield to request name and address and recreational activities parti- cipated in. A mail questionnaire was sent to each of these individuals about 3 months after their visit to the area. Finally, another study which measured the change in the quality and quantity of firearm deer hunting on the research areas was conducted by Wildlife Management Division, Michigan DNR, during every day of the 1972-1979 firearm deer hunting seasons. A systematic sample was drawn by sampling a random hunter in every eighth vehicle. Names and addresses were obtained from camp permits, returned post cards left on ve- hicle Windshields, and from license plate registration checks. The individuals selected were sent mail questionnaires about 3 months after their visits to the areas. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY In this chapter, the technical details of this project are described. These include: the study population, study areas, collection of data by the means of a post card survey, coding and programming of data, checking of data, and the methods used to analyze the data. Study Population Due to the limited research resources available and the large area of the state forests and the correspondingly large number of state forest campgrounds scattered throughout the United States, it was necessary to limit the scope of this study to Michigan State Forest Campgrounds. The day-use post card survey was administered by student interns/hosts. The target population was systematically chosen from state forest campground day users, i.e. every fifth day user encountered as soon as the intern entered the campground. In practice, a post card questionnaire was admi- nistered to a systematic sample of vehicles parked in hosted campgrounds in locations not associated with a campsite, i.e. day use parking area. The intern put a post card question- naire on vehicles which were systematically selected. However, since most sampling took place during 10:00 a.m. 12 13 and 5:00 p.m. some bias was likely introduced. For example, most fishing activity occurs either in the early morning or late afternoon and not during the sampling time. Thus, those day use parties who only participated in fishing might not receive the post cards distributed by student interns, and these users are under-represented in the results which follow. Since there are no mechanical counters in the camp— grounds and since no intern stayed from 11:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. in one single campground, it is not possible to deter- mine the total number of day use parties. Furthermore, response rate can not be considered as a criterion to esti- mate the total visits, because one day use party might use more than one vehicle to travel to that campground and uneven response rates between the four state forests were observed and, as noted earlier, those users visiting camp- grounds for only a few hours early or late in the day (e.g. fishermen) are under-represented in the population respond- ing to this survey. Study Areas Fifty-seven state forest campgrounds were selected as study sample areas. These campgrounds are areas to be used for day use and camping purposes. Three criteria were used to choose campgrounds, 1) preference was given to most used 14 campgrounds, 2) campgrounds located together were also pre- fered to reduce travel costs: 3) proximity to student living quarters was also important. Selection was accomplished jointly by DNR staff, field officers, and MSU personnel. Table 1 lists these campgrounds by the State Forest in which they are located, and the type of water body which it is adjacent to is also provided. These 57 campgrounds were grouped into 12 clusters in order to keep travel time bet- ween campgrounds to a minimun. One intern was assigned to each cluster to perform minor maintenance, to serve as hosts, and to perform research tasks. These 12 student interns worked on every Friday, Saturday and Sunday, and two other days randomly selected from the remaining four days of the week. Data Collection The project was completed in several phases. The first phase was to compile information about summer day use parties' recreation behavior collected via a post card survey administered by 12 interns over ten weeks from June 26 to September 8, 1982. From the 57 campgrounds selected in this study, responses were obtained from 196 day use parties. A total of 490 post cards were placed on vehicles, thus 40% were mailed back as requested. Data was punched onto computer cards for subsequent analysis. 15 Table 1.-— List of 57 State Forest Campgrounds by Forest. Lake Superior State Forest Campground Water Type Campground Water Type Kinston L. Lake Holland Lake N. Gemini L. Lake Pretty L. Lake Ross L. Lake Perch L. Lake S. Gemini L. Lake High Bridge River Canoe L. Lake Mouth of 2 Cusino L. Lake Hearted R. Lake & River Stanely L. Lake Pike L. Lake L. Superior Lake Bodi L. Lake Blind Sucker #1 Culhane L. Lake Blind Sucker #2Lake & River Andrus L. Lake Mackinaw State Forest Shellgrake Dam Lake & River Campground Water Type Campground Water Type Big Bear L. Lake Maple Bay Lake Little Wolf L. Lake Haakwood River McCormick L. Lake Pine Grove River Big Oaks Lake Pickerel L. Lake Avery L. Lake Pigeon R. River L. 15 Lake Round Lake Lake Weber L. Lake Pigeon Bridge River Pere Marquett State Forest Campground Water Type Campground Water Type L. Ann Lake Arbutus #4 Lake L. Dubonnet Lake Shecks P1. River Veteran's Park River Forks River Platte River River Guernsey L. Lake Grass L. Lake & River Spring L. Lake Healy L. Lake Baxter Br. River Old 131 River AuSable State Forest Campground Water Type Campground Water Type Reedsburg Dam Lake & River LaMargrethe Lake Houghton L. Lake AuSable R. River CCC Bridge River Burton's . Upper Manistee Land1n€ R1ver R. River Keystone . Manistee R. Br.River Lansing. R1ver Canoe Harbor River White Pine . Canoe C R1ver 16 Analysis of Possible Related Factors The second phase made use of these patterns to determine what factors might encourage or discourage summer day use at state forest campgrounds. Site characteristics such as recreation activities available and location factors such as the four forest regions in which the campgrounds were located and types of adjacent recreational waters were examined for their effect on summer day use. Hypotheses The specific hypotheses to be tested in the study were formulated. They are stated in the null form as follows: State Forest Campground System Ho - 1: There is no significant difference in the frequency of participations in individual recreation activities. There is no significant difference in the number of different activities which day use parties participate in Ho - 2: by day of the week. Ho - 3: by week within the season. Ho - 4: by distance traveled to reach the campground. Ho - 5: There is no significant difference in the average number of party viists between weekday and weekend. Four State Forests Ho - 6-A: There is no significant difference in distance traveled to participate in day use activities among the four state forests. Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho Ho 6-B: 7-B: 8—A: 9-B: 17 There is no significant difference in distance traveled to participate in day use activities between individual paired state forests. There is no significant difference in the num- ber of different activities which day use par- ties participate in among the four state forests. There is no significant difference in the num- ber of different activities which day use par- ties participated in between individual paired state forests. Three Types of Campgrounds There is no significant difference in distance traveled to visit them among the three types of campgrounds. There is no significant difference in distance traveled to participate in day use activities between individual paired campground types. There is no significant difference in the num- ber of different activities which day use par- ties participate in among the three types of campgrounds. There is no significant difference in the num- ber of different activities which day use par- ties participate in between individual paired campground types. Analysis of Results Data from all completed questionnaires was measured in dichotomous or nominal or interval scales depending on the nature of these data. Therefore, the data were classified into either continuous or categorical classes. Due to the different characteristics and basic assumptions of the two classes of information, the test statistics for each were selected carefully. Non-parametric statistical procedures, 18 Chi-Square test of independence, were used to analyze and test categorical data, while the parametric statistical pro- cedures, analysis of variance and Student's t test, were used to analyze and test continuous data. Hypothesis 1 was tested by using the Cochran Q test. A one-way fixed model of analysis of variance was performed on hypotheses 2 to 9. A .05 level of confidence, which is most commonly employed in social science research for rejecting or accept- ing the null hypothesis, was used throughout the study. The analysis was accomplished by using the Statistical Package for Social Science (Nie, Hull, et al., 1975) on the CDC 6500 computer at Michigan State University. Method used to Analyze Site Characteristics The final phase of the project sought to identify factors which might influence the nature of summer day use at the 57 selected state forest campgrounds. For each hypothesized related variable (characteristic), the 57 campgrounds were divided into 4 categories according to the 4 different state iforest areas, and into 3 categories according to the 3 different types of recreational waters which campgrounds are adjacent to. The comparison of summer day use levels of FMD campgrounds in each of those two sets of categories give an indication that the factor being tested either promotes or discourages summer day use of FMD campgrounds. 19 For example, the state forest campgrounds are divided into the Lake, River and Lake/River campgrounds. If it was most popular to canoe in the rivers, compared with the other two types of campgrounds, then it could lead to a conclusion that the geographical characteristics a type of campgrounds has had significant influence on the nature of day use in that type of campground. Chapter IV Results This chapter consists of three major sections, one for each of the three study objectives. The first sec- tion deals with the profile of the nature of day use and users of the State Forest Campground System. In the second section, the nature of day use and users of the four state forests are examined. The third section deals with the nature of day use and users of the three types of campgrounds. State Forest Campground System Characteristics of Day Use Parties The Origins of Day_Use Parties Before presenting the origin of day use parties, the regionalization for SFC System day use parties to be used in this study will be described. For the validity and conveni- ence of the analysis, 10 regions where day use parties were from were subjectively created. These regions are illus- trated in Figure 1. Note that each of the four study forests are designated as separate regions. Most of the day use parties came from Michigan. Detailed number and percentage of day use parties by region of resi- dence and percentage of State's Population in each county are presented in Table 2. The investigation showed that 33.8 per— cent of all the day use parties who visited the SFC System came 20 21 uncut-an '_ - - - J 1 menu; I r'--'—--.‘- -- L - - ff “‘° fil!“.“:~“ An'lm ' ' I Regions Western Upper Peninsula ----------- Lake Superior State Forest Mackinaw State Forest Pere Marquette State Forest AuSable State Forest West Central Michigan East Central Michigan Southwestern Michigan Southeastern Michigan Out-of-State Regions ‘ l l n An {Guam-1 I --L_- ADIII¢ ' ‘u. _ I luv “"Lu'mnuu’ I O\OCO\‘JO\U\ CWNH - . . a u . I... I r - -_, .. -- ve-u "Lu," IIIIAIA.I ' . . ‘ l , I . _ IG‘ILAI. I HI“. I “I" luv:- “lou- H'l‘liul ' i I : | 9 1 ---‘c:L:r'L--rL--- ---1F‘ “ DWII' “'h mucu- inc-to- , Inn-nun um l u , . 8 . .. - .g - _ _ .. - -.x _ _ en. :"Jo’l'n'",.;,. :mumu l O I l ‘ Ilfllfll' ,. l I 0 I . : Region 10 Out -of-State Figure 1.—- Michigan State forest Campground System Day Use Regions 22 Table 2.-- Distribution of Party Visits to State Forest Campground System by Region of Day Use Parties' Origins Percent of Region Number of . . iiggestigggga— V131ts V1s1ts in the Region 1. Western Upper Peninsula 2 1.0 3.0 2. Lake Superior Forest 6 3.1 0.6 3. Mackinaw Forest 18 9.3 1.5 4. Pere Marquette Forest 33 16.9 3.3 5. Au Sable Forest 19 9.9 4.4 6. West Central Michigan 22 11.0 6.3 7. East Central Michigan 21 10.0 12.3 8. Southwestern Michigan 23 12.1 17.1 9. Southeastern Michigan 33 16.9 51.4 10. Out-of-State Regions 19 9.8 Total T; 100.0 353* This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Note : Region 10 includes Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and Other States. Source: Michigan Statistical Abstract 1981. 23 from the Pere Marquette state forest area and the areas in the southeastern corner of lower Michigan. Ohio was the highest out-of-state origin area with 3.6 percent of day use parties coming from that area. On an individual county basis, it was interesting to find that 12.5 percent of the respon- dents were from Grand Traverse county, 5.4 percent were from Wayne county and 4.9 percent from Kent county, thus nearly 23 percent of the respondents to the day use survey came from only three counties. In general the origins of Michigan day users of the SFC System were distributed throughout the whole state and not clustered into a comparatively small area in the southeastern corner of lower Michigan. Whereas 51.4 percent of Michigan's population resides in Region 9, it produced only 16.9 percent of day use visitors to State Forest Campgrounds. By region of residence, the percentage of day use par— ties participating in five selected individual activities: fishing, boating, swimming, nature observation and picnick- ing, are presented in Table 3. For the fishing activity, east central Michigan (Region 7) generated the largest per- centage of State Forest Campground fishing (16.0%) followed by Region 6 (14.9%), Region 9 (14.9%), and Region 4 (12.9%) Out-of-state origins accounted for about 11.7 percent of State Forest Campground fishing days in Michigan. Further investigation of these five recreation activi- ties shows that the Western Upper Peninsula (Region 1) and the 24 Table 3.-- Distribution of Participations in 5 Individual Selected Recreation Activities by Region of Day Use Parties' Origins. Recreation Activities Fishing Boating Swimming Natrobs Picnic Region N=194 N=56 N=9O N=71 N=56 ----------------- Percent ------—------—---- 1 1.1 0.0 1.1 1.4 0.0 2 2.1 1.8 2.2 4.2 3.6 3 5.4 9.0 11.1 9.8 14.4 4 12.9 19.7 20.0 1.4 21.4 5 9.8 3.6 13.2 16.9 12.6 6 14.9 17.9 7.7 11.2 1.8 7 16.0 12.6 5.5 7.0 12.6 8 11.8 7.2 11.1 15.5 9.0 9 14.9 17.9 17.7 19.6 21.6 10 11.7 10.7 10.4 12.7 3.6 Total 100.6* 100.4* 100.0 99.7* 100.6* * This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. Note Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region Region H\OCD\}O\\n«l-TUJNH : Region 10 includes Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin and other states. Western Upper Peninsula Lake Superior State Forest Mackinaw State Forest Pere Marquette State Forest Au Sable State Forest - West Central Michigan East Central Michigan Southwestern Michigan Southeastern Michigan 0: Out- of- State Regions 25 Superior state forest area (region 2) did not generate a sig— nificant number of day use parties. Region 7 while leading in fishing ranks low for the other four activities. Region 4 is among the leaders in all but Nature Observation while the popular Region 9 is among the leaders in all five activi— ties. Day Use Party Size Seventy-six percent of day use parties were composed of one to five persons. Two persons in one party was most common. There were an average of 4.7 members and a median of 3.6 members to a party. The number of day use parties in the various size of classes is shown in Table 4. Unfortuna- tely, there was no other information concerning socio-economic characteristics, such as age, income and education levels collected in this survey. The cumulative percentage of day use parties in the various size of classes is presented in Figure 2. Frequency of Party Visits to Campgrounds By Week within the Season The distribution of party visits to SFC System by week within the season is presented in Table 5. The largest per- centage of party visits occurred in the 2nd week (July 4-10) followed by the 5th week (14.7%): the 6th week (13.7%) and the 4th week (12.1%). It seems that Independence Day (July 26 Table 4.-- Distribution of Day Use Party Size. Party Size Number of Parties Percent 1 10 6.1 2 49 29.7 3 19 11.5 4 34 20.6 5 13 7.9 6 9 5.5 7 7 4.2 8 2 1.2 9 4 2.4 10 5 3.0 11 3 1.8 12 3 1.8 14 3 1.8 16 2 1.2 25 1 .6 30 __1 .6 Total 165 100.0 196 cases were processed. 3 cases (1.53 PCT) were missing. 27 .oNHm hppmm hp mmflpumm mm: Ame Mo ommPCmopom m>apmaseso I:.m opzmfim msflm hpnwm mm: awn om 8H ma :H nu ma HH OH 6 m A o m s m m H F b n - n n P OOH sitstA fiqaed JO afieiueoaag eAtieInan 28 Table 5.-- Frequency of Party Visits to State Forest Camp- ground System by Week within the Season. Week within Number of the Season Party Visits Percent June 26 - July 3 16 8.4 July 4 — 10 32 16.9 July 11 - 17 13 6.8 July 18 - 24 23 12.1 July 25 - 31 28 14.7 August 1 - 7 26 13.7 August 8 - 14 21 11.5 August 15 - 21 15 7.9 August 22 - 28 5 2.6 Aug. 29 - Sept. 8 11 5.8 Total T96 100.0 29 4) had a positive influencing effect on the attendance figure of that week (July 4-10): however, the Labor Day (September 6) did not have significant effect on the attendance figure of the 10th week. For the further analysis of campground use variation by day of the week and by week within the season, three im- portant factors should be taken into account. First, the sample for each day and for each week is quite small which may be the primary reason for the lack of uniformity in campground use variation by day of the week and by week. within the season. Secondly, weather conditions can greatly influence the amount of use which occurs at a campsite. And thirdly, time of the day to survey for the twelve student interns likewise has a significant bearing upon the amount of campground use reported and recorded. By Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground The investigation showed that 65.9 percent of the day use parties traveled a distance of 1 - 50 miles. This indi- cates that day use parties prefered to go to a campground near their place of residence or temporary residence for enjoying a one-day recreation pursuit. The distribution of party visits to the SFC System by distance traveled to reach the campground is shown in Table 6. One important finding is that there were 37 (20.3%) of day use parties willing to travel more than 150 miles to the SFC System for a one-day visit. Interestingly, 36(97.3%) out of these 37 day use 30 Table 6.-- Frequency of Party Visits to State Forest Camp- ground by Distance Traveled to Reach the Camp— ground. Miles Traveled Number of from Origin Party Visits Percent 1 - 25 miles 100 54.9 26 — 50 miles 20 11.0 51 - 100 miles 14 7.7 101 - 150 miles 11 6.1 151 - 200 miles 17 9.3 200 - more miles 20 11.0 Total 192 100.0 31 parties were from Michigan. On the other hand, only 1 (2.7%) out of 37 was from out-of—state. Furthermore, all of these 36 day use parties were from Southern Lower Peninsula, i.e. Region 6, 7, 8 and 9, and 14 (38.9%) out of the 36 were from southeastern Michigan (Region 9). It seems that state forest campgrounds can attract people to travel a long way in spite of higher energy costs. Also, it was found that 18 (94.7%) out of 19 out-of-state day use parties traveled only 40 miles or less. This could be explained by either one of the following : first, these out-of-state day use parties have a second home in Michigan which is close to the campgrounds visited by them: secondly, the campground they visited was just one of several recreation areas they used on long multiple destination trips. Participation Characteristics of Individual Activities The most popular activities in the SFC System during the summer season of 1982, fishing and swimming, are water- related and emphasize the importance of public access to water resources (Nelson, 1983). The recreational activities which day users were involved in while their cars were parked at a state forest campground are presented in Table 7. "Nature observation", "picnicking", "just looking" and "boating" proved to be the next four most popular recreation activities. In the "other" category backpacking was most popular. 32 Table 7.-- Frequency of Participations in Individual Recrea- tion Activities in State Forest Campground System. Percent of Parties Parti- Recreation Number of cipating in Total Par— Activity Participations the Activity ticipation Fishing 101 51.5 14.4 Boating 60 30.6 8.6 Just Looking 61 31.1 8.7 Picnicking 61 31.1 8.7 Picking 24 12.2 3.4 Visit Campers 17 8.7 2.4 Swimming 96 49.0 13.7 Hiking 33 16.8 4.7 Canoeing 36 18.4 5.1 Photography 46 23.5 6.6 Nature Observation 77 39.3 11.0 Camping 49 25.0 7.0 Rock Hounding 16 8.2 2.3 ORV use 5 2.6 0.7 Other 18 9.2 2.6 Total 736 PET; * This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 33 By Day of the Week Relative frequency of participation in individual re- creation activities by each day of the week is presented in Table 8. On Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays, the most popular activity is fishing followed by swimming and nature observation. On Thursdays fishing is also the most popular activity followed by swimming, boating and picnicking. On Fridays the most popular activity is picnicking followed by swimming, boating and nature observation. Swimming is the most popular activity on Saturdays followed by fishing and boating. On Sundays swimming is still observed to be the most popular activity followed by nature observation and just looking. By Week within the Season Table 9 shows percentage of participations in individual recreation activities by week within the season. In the 1st, 5th, 9th and 10th weeks the most popular activity is fishing. Swimming is the most popular activity in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 8th weeks. However, in the 7th week the most popular activity is nature observation. How participations in individual recreation activities are distributed across the ten weeks study period is Table 8.-- Relative Frequency of Participations in Individual Activities by Day of the Week. Day of the Week Recreation Mon. Tue. Wed. Thu. Fri. Sat. Sun. Activity P=42 P=75 P=87 P=90 P=108 P=174 P=98 Fishing 19.0 14.7 17.2 21.1 11.1 12.6 12.2 Boating 9.5 6.6 10.3 8.9 6.5 11.5 5.1 Justlook 7.1 8.0 8.0 7.8 8.3 9.2 11.2 Picking 2.4 2.7 1.2 5.5 3.7 2.9 4.1 Visit Camper 2.4 6.6 1.2 1.1 3.7 1.7 0.0 Swimming 14.3 13.3 12.6 13.5 12.9 13.3 16.3 Hiking 7.1 4.0 3.4 3.3 6.5 4.0 6.1 Canoeing 2.4 4.0 1.2 5.5 3.7 7.5 9.2 Photograph 2.4 8.0 9.2 7.8 8.3 4.6 6.1 Picnicking 2.4 8.0 6.9 8.9 14.0 7.5 9.2 Rockhunt 4.8 2.7 3.4 2.2 2.8 1.7 1.0 Camping 7.1 2.7 6.9 4.4 7.4 10.9 5.1 ORVuse 0.0 0.0 2.3 1.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 Nature Observation 14.3 14.7 11.6 7.8 11.1 9.2 13.3 Other 4.8 4.0 4.6 1.1 0.0 2.9 3.1 100.0, 100.0 '100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total 100.0, P indicates the number of participations in individual recreation activities. 35 Aowmg pxo: Co UoSQHpCoov m.m o.m s.m o.m a.oH 5.8 o.aa m.oa a.ma m.a mcagoacoaa m.m H.HH m.o a.m m.o 5.8 m.oH m.m 5.: m.m snamamopoea s.s o.m s.w m.m m.s 3.: a.m o.o s.m :.N meaoocmo 8.6 H.aa m.m m.m m.: H.H m.m w.oH m.m a.m wcaxam s.s H.aa m.ma m.m 5.8a m.ma w.oa m.ma N.oa m.m moaeeHam m.p 0.0 0.0 N.H m.: :.: m.: m.m 0.0 0.0 homsmo ppmp> m.m 6.6 m.m 6.m N.m 3.: m.m N.m 0.6 6.6 wcaxoaa m.aa o.m s.m s.oH m.m 6.6a m.m s.m m.6a 6.aa moagooq puss s.s s.oa m.s o.m m.mH m.s m.oa u.m o.m m.m weapoom m.ma s.oa s.am 6.Ha 3.6a H.Hm a.m s.m m.:a m.om weanmaa 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 pcoohomuuunnnnuununlnuunuannnuunulnll mmum maum oaum amum omum omum mmum mama mofium Nana m .paom mm .ma< Hm .ma< ea .ma< s .ma< Hm sass 2m sass ma sass 6H sass m sass spa>apo< Op op op op op op op Op op Op Coprohoom 6m .msa mm .ma< ma .waa m .ma< a .ma< mm sass ma sass Ha sass s sass mm moss Commom map Cpnppz x003 .comMom map Cpcpps x003 an moppp>ppo< SoapMopoom Hmsvp>pch CH mCOppmmpopphmm Mo oWMpCoohom ::.m manwe 36 .COmMom 05p spnppa mxooz Hmsvp>ppsp Sp mQOHpmmpoppsmm mo hopes: map mopMoHUCp m "opoz .prUssos op was psoopoa 00a Op ppm poc mooc mpne .x. 6.66a N.60a 6.66 6.66 6.66a 6.66 c.66a 6.66 6.66 a.66a aopoe III *II *Ill *1] ll *l: III *II *I *l 6.a o.o m.m 6.: o.a a.a m.m .s 6.6 a.m sospo a.ma a.aa s.m 6.6a m.s 6.6 6.6a a.ma a.ma 6.aa soapswmmmmm 6.6 6.6 6.6 m.a o.a a.a 6.0 6.0 6.6 0.6 oms smo s.s 8.6 6.8 a.6 6.6 8.6 6.6 s.m s.m 6.: msaaeoo 0.0 6.6 6.: 8.6 o.a 6.6 o.a 6.: 6.a 6.: assssoom uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu psoosomuuII:I:1:11:11:qunnluuununununnuln mmua mans 8:16 swna 8616 06u6 m6u6 86.6 means Nana m .paom mm .ms< am .ms< sa .ms< m .ms< a6 sass am sass ma sass 6a sass 6 sass spa>apo< op op op op 0p op op op op op COppwosoom 6m .ms< mm .ms< ma .ms< 6 .ms< a .ms< mm sass ma sass aa sass s sassmm mass Condom onp Cpcpps x003 A.pcOoV .Comwom map Caspps x603 so moppp>ppo< CeppMmsoom Hmsvp>pwsH sp mQOHpmmpoppsmm p0 owmpcoosom 11.0 wands 37 presented in Table 10. Compared with other weeks, the 7th week (August 8-14) was the most popular week to participate in most kinds of recreation activities except that of just looking, picnicking, swimming and nature observation were more popular activities in the 2nd week: photography, boating and camping in the 4th week: fishing in the 5th week. By Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground Average distance traveled to participate in individual activities is presented in Table 11. The "picking" activity involved the longest distance traveled by day use parties, an average of 156.09 miles followed by hiking (152.40 miles), camping (140.66 miles) and rock hounding (123.60 miles). Also, it is interesting to find that water-related activi- ties such as fishing, boating, swimming and canoeing, did not involve travel on average of more than 90 miles. These findings might be explained by the information contained in Table 12. There was a substantial proportion of day use parties who participated in one of following four activities: picking, hiking, camping and rock hounding and who were willing to travel more than 150 miles. For example, 45.5 percent of day use parties who participated in picking activity traveled more than 150 miles on an average. In addition, day use parties prefered to travel a distance of 38 Aowmg pxo: so woSCHpsoov mm 0.06a m.m 6.a 6.8 m.m s.6a 6.0a 6.6a 8.6 a.mm s.6 measoasoaa m: 6.66 6.8 s.s s.o a.aa 6.6a 6.6a m.mm m.m a.aa 6.6 ssassmoposa om 6.66a a.aa m.m a.aa s.6a s.6a a.aa 8.6 6.6 s.oa m.m msaoosso mm 6.66 8.6a 6.8 a.6 w.am m.ma a.m s.6 8.6a s.6 a.6 measam m6 o.ooa 6.: m.m 8.6 o.s 3.6a 0.6a s.sa o.s 6.6a 6.6 weassaam ma m.06a s.o 0.6 6.0 s.o s.om 6.8m 6.8m s.o 0.6 0.6 someoo pamas mm 6.60a 8.6a 6.6 6.6 a.mm a.mm 6.6a 8.6a 6.: 6.6 6.6 msasoaa 6m a.ooa a.6a s.a 6.8 6.6a 6.6 6.6a 6.6 6.8 8.6a 6.6 moasooa pass mm c.00a 6.8 m.m 6.6 6.6 s.om a.ma m.sa 6.8 6.6a .6.8 msapmom s6 6.66 m.s a.m 6.0a 6.0a 6.0a 8.6a m.w a.s 6.6a 6.aa mcasmas uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu psoosomuunuunnnunnun1:111:1111111111111: z & x603 x003 poo; poo; goo; x003 x003 sow; x063 x063 hpp>ppo¢ aopoa spOa sp6 spa cps spo saw gas syn osm pua soapoosoom Commom ozp Cpnpps x003 .commom onp spzppz x003 mmosom moppp>ppo< Coapmopoom HMSUH>HGCH Sp mQOHpmmpopppwm ho onpcoohom Iu.anaoHnme .meUssos op was psoopom ooa op pom poc ow macs oEomuopoz 39 m.06a 8.6 0.0 8.6 m.mm 8.6 8.6 6.8a a.aa m.mm o.m soaps 6.66 6.6 s.m 6.6 6.6a 6.6 6.0a 6.6a 6.6 m.sa s.o soapsssompo oszpmz o.ooa 6.6 0.6 6.6 a.mm 6.6m 0.6m 6.0 0.6 0.6m o.o ous smo 6.66 6.6 a.m s.o m.ma 6.sa 8.6a a.6a 6.6 a.ma m.s msaasso 0.00H 0.0 0.0 m.NH w.wp m.® m.wp N.© m.NH m.NH m.mp pcznxoom uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu psoopomuuuluunusnnulzn1:111:1111:1111:u 6 sows sow; x003 goo; x003 sow; x003 poo; poo; x003 hpp>ppo< aapoe spOa sp6 saw cps coo sow spa can osm pma soapmosoom nonwom map Cpcppz x603 A.pcOov .Commom map Swappz x603 mmosom moppp>ppo< COHpMosoom Hmsop>poca mp msoppmmpoppsmm Mo odecoosom 1:.0a manna 40 Table 11.-- Distance Traveled to Participate in Individual Recreation Activities in State Forest Campground System. Recreation Standard Activity Count. Mean Deviation Percent Fishing 92 87.26 118.1166 13.7 Boating 56 81.51 102.2451 7.8 Justlook 55 104.25 132.8300 9.8 Picking 22 156.09 161.0681 5.8 Visit Camper 12 118.25 141.6006 2.4 Swimming 84 68.78 96.6571 9.9 Hiking 30 152.40 161.6589 7.8 Canoeing 30 64.6 87.8618 3.3 Photograph 40 115.45 159.8321 7.9 Nature Observation 66 85.28 126.4163 9.6 Camping 41 140.66 133.5855 9.8 Picnicking 54 61.29 97.7459 5.6 Rockhunt 15 123.60 177.7602 3.2 ORVuse 5 94.00 112.1695 0.8 Other 16 92.31 112.4863 2.5 Total 638 91.83 99t9* This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding, 41 Table 12.-- Percentage of Participations in Individual Recreation Activities by Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground. Distance Traveled (Miles) 1 26 51 101 151 201 Total Recreation to to to to to to Activity 25 50 100 150 200 More % Fishing 50.0 10.4 8.3 9.4 9.4 12.5 100.0 96 Boating 54.4 8.8 5.3 '7.0 12.3 12.3 100.1 57 Justlook 48.2 7.1 8.9 7.1 7.1 21.4 99.8 56 Picking 27.3 13.6 13.6 0.0 9.1 36.4 100.0 22 gigigr 56.3 0.0 6.3 0.0 18.8 18.8 100.2 16 Swimming 58.9 8.9 7.8 4.4 5.6 14.4 100.2 90 Hiking 32.3 6.5 12.9 3.2 12.9 32.3 100.1 31 Canoeing 51.5 15.2 15.2 6.1 9.1 3.0 100.1 33 Photograph 51.2 7.3 7.3 0.0 9.8 24.4 100.0 41 gifigziigfiu 57.1 10.0 7.1 4.3 4.3 17.1 99.9 70 Camping 25.0 9.1 13.6 6.8 22.7 22.7 99.9 44 Picnicking 57.9 14.0 8.8 1.8 7.0 10.5 100.0 57 Rockhunt 46.7 20.0 0.0 0.0 6.7 26.7 100.1 15 ORVuse 40.0 0.0 20.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 5 Other 56.3 6.3 0.0 6.3 12.5 18.8 99.9 16 Note : Some rows do not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 42 1 - 25 miles to participate in most kinds of recreation acti- vities, for example, 50 percent or more of day use parties involved in either one of these four water-related activities only traveled a distance of 1 - 25 miles. Figure 3 and 4 show the comparison of participations in five selected individual recreation activities: fishing, boating, swimming, nature observation and picnicking, by dis— tance traveled to reach the campground. Table 13 shows the distribution of total participations in the 15 activities by the distance zones of parties' origins. For example, 7.4 percent of the 646 total participations involved fishing and less than 25 miles of travel. Note that 50% of all partici— pations were registered by visitors traveling less than 25 miles while about 55% (see Table 6) of all parties respond— ing reported traveling this same distance. Further compari- sons by travel zones, suggests little relationship exists between distance traveled and share of total participations. Frequency of Participations in Different Activities Packagps of Recreation Activities Most day use parties participated in more than one recreation activity during their visit to a campground. Thirty-one (15.7%) respondents participated in only one recreation activity, 34 (17.2%) in two recreation activities, 29 (14.7%) in three recreation activities, and 103 (51.4%) in more than three activities. Parties participating in only 43 .pcsopmmsmo onp cowom op coao>mse mommpmpm an ll msaeeaam ass weapoom .wcasnas II nmapasapos Hmch>pvsH 2p mcoppmmpoppnwm mo CompnmmEoo 1|.m ossmpm ocsosmmsmo onp nonom op U¢Ho>dpe ooCMpme com 4. a :14; .\ \ oom 06a 06a om b . _ 0! k I O'- O 1 ‘ I ZI I‘ "I'- "'II‘ \ mapsspam IIEIII.|II mapmem IIIIIII msasnam afielueoaeg suctiedtotiaed JO 44 .UCSOHmmemo onp Sodom op ooao>mpe mocmpmpm an II Soapm>pompo os3pmz was WCpxoMCopm .xooa pm5h ll moapa>ppo< Hmsop>pocH Cp mCOpmepopppmm so Comppmmsoo 11.: opsmpm ossosmasmo ocp Sodom op ooao>wae mocmpmpm com com oma sea on mm _ wsasoasoas Cowpm>homno oMSpMZ sooa pass e suctiedtotiaeg JO afielueoaed 45 Table 13.-- Percentage of Total Participations in 15 Recreation Activities in State Forest Camp— ground by Individual Recreation Activity and by Distance Traveled to Reach the Camp- ground. Distance Traveled (Miles) 1 26 51 101 151 201 Total Recreation to to to to to to Activity 25 50 100 150 200 More % N Fishing 7.4 1.5 1.2 1.4 1.4 1.8 14.7 96 Boating 4.8 0.8 0.5 0.6 1.1 1.1 8.9 57 Justlook 4.2 0.6 0.8 0.6 0.6 1.8 8.6 56 Picking 0.9 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.3 1.2 3.2 22 Visit Camper 1.4 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.4 2.3 16 Swimming 8.2 1.2 1.1 0.6 0.8 2.0 13.9 90 Hiking 1.5 0.3 0.6 0.1 0.6 1.5 4.6 31 Canoeing 2.6 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.1 5.0 33 Photograph 3.2 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.6 1.5 6.1 41 Nature 0b- servation 6.2 1.1 0.8 0.4 0.4 1.8 10.7 70 Camping 1.7 0.6 0.9 0.4 1.5 1.5 6.6 44 Picnicking 5.1 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.6 0.9 8.6 57 Rockhunt 1.1 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.6 2.2 15 ORVuse 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.6 5 Other 1.4 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.3 0.4 2.3 16 Total 50.0 9.3 8.5 4.7 9.1 16.7 9873*646 * This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 46 one activity tended to be those fishing or swimming or canoe- ing. In the two recreation activity packages, swimming with picnicking and fishing with boating were most popular. The fishing-swimming-picnicking was the most popular three acti- vity package. Table 14 shows two recreation activity pack- ages which occur most or least frequently suggesting a posi- tive or negative relationship exists between them. In examining the numerical value of the differences between any pairs of recreation activities at the 95% confidence level, it is statistically significant to show that fishing occurred together with boating most frequently but with swimming least frequently. Thus it leads to a conclusion that there was a positive relationship between fishing and boating but a nega- tive relationship between fishing and swimming. Tests of Hypotheses Null Hypothesis 1: Day use visitors participate in the 15 individual recreation activities with equal frequency. Decision: Reject. Cochran's Q test, a non-parametric statistical procedure- was employed to test this hypothesis. It involves comparing the proportions of parties participating in each activity to the proportions participating in the other activities. Refering back to Table 8, it can be seen that fishing received the largest percentage of participations by day use parties (51.5%) followed by swimming (49.0%). In contrast, 47 .szmwpmoponm mopdopvsp oposm 1m:0pp8>sowno opSpMZ mopMopocp mpohpmz ”opoz smo.u6 noospmz a86avz spas cama. msaoosso 8ao.ua opens A86avz spas wmma. wsasspsm moo.um msaasso a86avz spas aoo.u6 oasoaa Ammavz spa; mssm. oposa aoo.u6 msaaeso a86avz spas mssm. msasam mao.ua msasa: a86avz spas N68a. msaEEasm omo.ummcpssp3m nomavz apps woo.um mapmsmo Ammavz Spas mowa. oponm aoo.u6 npospsz a86avz spas 668m. wsasam omo.u6 msaaeso A86avz spas 68sa. gooapnss moo.u6 oasoaa a86avz spas aoo.u6 noospsz A86avz spas os6m.. oposa aoo.um oposm a86avz spa; 66mm. msasam aoo.ua noospsz A86avz spas as6m. sooapnss aoo.u68saseasm a86avz spas soo.um opCopm Ammavz apps 886a.nw:poocmo soo.u6 oasoaa A86avz spas assm. wsassaam aoo.u6 msasam A86avz spa; 86mm. sooapmss aoo.u6 msapmom A86avz spas 8som. msapsom s8sa. soapsom 688a.- msasnas 8s8m.- msasnaa mmmm. measnam spam spam spam spam spam oasoasss massasss massasss oanoasss oaosasos ooQNowppcmpm propopppooo Coppmaoppoo Compton mommo psoaoaspooo .moppp>ppo< Cowpmosoom H838 ua>pUsH soospon mangOHpmaom po oocwopppsmpm sop pmoa soapmaohsoo Comsmom 11.:a manna 48 only 2.6% of visitors took part in the ORV activity. The Cochran's statistic, presented in Table 15, confirms that these differences are significant. Therefore, the null hypo- thesis was rejected. Day users of state forest campgrounds do have clear preferences for some activities available such as fishing and swimming over others such as driving ORVs. Null Hypothesis 2: There is no significant difference in the number of different activities which day use par- ties participated in by day of the week. Decision: Fail to Reject. As indicated in Table 16, day use parties arriving Mon- days participated in 3.23 activities on an average which is lower than Sundays (3.92 activities). Friday visitors parti- cipate in 4.0 activities on average. However, when these differences are subjected to statistical evaluation employing analysis of variance, they did not prove to be statistically significant. Results are presented in Table 17. Thus, the slight differences observed in Table 16 could occur by mere chance, and it is concluded that day of the week has no influ- ence on average number of individual activities visiting par- ties elect to pursue. Null Hypothesisq3: There is no significant difference in the number of different activities which day use par- ties participated in by week within the season. Decision: Fail to Reject. Table 18 shows that day use parties in the 10th week (August 29 - September 8) participated in 4.72 activities on 49 .Umpmmpopppmm mopmopUCp p osam> ”oopmmpopppmm poz mopdopUCp o 05Hm> ” opoz .8 6a ss6.686 86a monsopppcmpm .m.a o cmpnooo mommo 66 8a 8 .a mwa w6a ama o msasam soaps onssmo 8sass 6sa 6aa 88a 88a 68a 86a 6 COppm> wspmewo upomno chapmz camswopozm MCpoocmo pcszoom opCopm 85Hm> 80 6a am am 08 aOa .a sea 6sa msa 86a 86a 86 o meEEpSm pomsmo ppmp> WCpxopm xooapme wCHpmom mapnmpm osam> mCOHpmmpoppnmm p0 mopoCosvosm Eopmsm c::osmmsmo pmopom optpm ocp CH hpp>ppo< COHpMosoom Hmscp>pccH Sp mCOppmmpopphmm Mo mopoCoswopm hop pmoe a copnooo 1:.ma manme 50 Table 16.-- Number of Different Activities which Day Use Party Participate in by Day of the Week. Day of Standard 95% Conf. Int. the Week Count Mean Error for Mean Monday 13 3.23 .6114 1.8987 to 4.5628 Tuesday 28 2.68 .3775 1.9861 to 3.3710 Wednesday 22 3.91 .4601 2.9522 to 4.8660 Thursday 27 3.33 .4065 2.4978 to 4.1689 Friday 27 4.00 .4369 3.1019 to 4.8981 Saturday 48 3.79 .3560 3.0755 to 4.5078 Sunday 25 3.92 .4616 2.9673 to 4.8727 Total I90 3T58 51 808a.ss6 60a aspoa 8086.: 6686.806 88a nasos0 caspas wmwmm. mwm.p momm.8 mmmp.mm 8 mmsopo SooSpom .nopmnm Oppmmum mopmswm S002 mosmswm po 83m .m.m ooSSom 10808.00 a088s.00 a00s0.00 A00aa.00 a008a.00 a888s.av A8s00.0v 06.8 6s.8 00.: 88.8 a606.8 8068.0 80.8 smoSsm swUSSpmm amcppm Amompsce hwomoScoz 8008059 hwoSos AmSOpp0p>oQ osmcSMpmv mSmoz Sacha vopmmpOppSwm moppp>ppo¢ pSoSoppr ho Sonesz om: awn SopSB .xooz oSp po ham an Sp opwmpopppmm appwm moppp>ppo< pSoSoppr Ho Sopesz Sop pmoe ooSMpSm> po mpmhpMS¢ 11.6p opnme 52 an average which is higher than the 4th week (4.13 activi- ties), the 7th week ( 4.0 activities ) and the rest of the weeks within the season. However, as can be seen from Table 18, these numeric differences are not statistically signifi- cant. Hence, there appears to be no relationships between week within the season and average number of activities day use parties pursue. Null Hypothesis 4: There is no significant difference in the number of different activities which day use par- ties participated in by distance traveled. Decision: Reject. Compared with those in the other five distance traveled groups, day use parties who traveled more than 200 miles tended to participate in more recreation activities than other day use parties who traveled 200 miles or less and much more than the overall mean (3.59 activities). Results are presented in Table 19. Also, the statistically signifi- cant differences at the 95% confidence level were confirmed by the one-way analysis of variance test, there is really no pattern to show that the farther the day use party traveled, the more recreation activities it participated, when the 201 miles and more distance traveled group is excluded. Null Hypothesisp5: There is no significant difference in the average number of party visits between weekday and weekend. Decision: Fail to Reject. 53 808a.ss6 60a ampop 6686.: 0s80.060 00a masons caspas 88a8. 08a.a 000s.8 0:00.08 6 masons soospom .nOSm um Oppwm 1m mosmsvm S002 mohmsvm po saw .m.a ooszom a8a0a.8v A8888.av as808.00 a88ss.00 As6as.0v A8888.0v A0888.a0 a060s.av As0a0.av A0080.a0 0a.: 08.8 s0.8 00.: 68.8 a0.8 8a.: 08.8 00.8 08.0 0 .paom 80 .mss a0 .0s< sa .ms< s .0s< a8 sass s0 sass ma sass 0a sass 8 sass op op Op op op op op op op op 60 .0s< 00 .0s< 8a .0s< 0 .mss a .ms< 80 sass 0a sass aa sass s sass 80 msss AmSOppmp>oQ OpmuSmpmv mSOoS QSOSO sopsaaoapsma noapa>apo< psosospao so songsz .Sommom OSp SpSpps x003 89.Sp opmmpOppSmm Sppmm om: smm SOpnz mOppp>ppo< pSoSoppr MO Sonssz Sop pmoe ooSwpsm> po mpmsp0S< nu.wp oppwe 54 s6as.886 a8a aspoe 88ss.s 8s00.as8 8sa nasoso caspas 0000. 886.8 00:6.8a a0a6.s6 8 nasos0 0883888 .Qopmnm Oppmmnm mosmswm S802 mopmsvm po 85m .m.o ooSSOm aas80.0v a808a.0v a88s8.av A0886.00 A860a.0v a888a.0v 88.8 88.8 00.8 00.: 8a.8 a8.8 8002 000 08a 00a 08 80 op op op op op op a00 a8a a0a a8 80 a AmSOpp8p>om OpmcSmpmv mSMoE msopw smpsaaoapssa noapasapos psosoppam so sonesz .OSSOSmmsmo oSp S088m op Oopo>mpe ooSmpmpD an Sp opmmpOppsmm hppmm 889 smo Supp: mOppp>ppo< pSoSopppm po Sopesz pop pmoe ooS8pS8> po mp88p8S< nugwp oppme 55 Since only two out of four weekdays were randomly selected as sampling days while all three days of the weekend (Friday, Saturday and Sunday) were selected as sam- pling days in individual weeks, to adjust for this difference in the number of sampling days and get the means of party visits for weekday and weekend in individual weeks, the num- ber of party visits on weekday should be divided by two and the number of party visits on weekend should be divided by three (see Table 20). To determine the significance of the difference in the average number of party visits between weekday and weekend, the combined responses were compared using the t-test. The t-test is a statistical technique that can be used when com- paring the difference between two sample means to determine if the difference is significantly large (the "paired com- parison" technique). The resulting mean responses; 4.55 for weekday and 3.3 for weekend were compared. The results are presented in Table 21. It was found that there was no statistically sig- nificant difference in the number of party visits on average between weekday and weekend at the 95% confidence level. 56 Table 20.-- Frequency of Party Vists on Weekday and Weekend in Individual weeks within the Season. Weekday Weekend Number of Number of Week Party Visits Mean Party Visits Mean 1 7 7/2=3.5 9 9/3=3 . o 2 13 6.5 19 6.3 3 8 4.0 5 1.7 4 11 5.5 12 4.0 5 19 9.5 9 3.0 6 9 4-5 17 5-7 7 9 4.5 12 4.0 8 10 5.0 5 1.7 9 3 1.5 2 0.7 10 2 1.0 9 3.0 Total 9; 4T5; 99 3T3 Table 21.-- Mean Responses Comparison Results. Mean Paired Comparison Difference T Value D.F. Sig. Weekday with Weekend 1.24 1.63252 9 0.086 57 Four State Forests Characteristics of Day Use Parties The Origin of Day Use Parties In order to provide a general picture of the origin of day use parties visiting individual state forests, the State was divided into nine regions. A tenth origin region was added to include all out-of-state day use parties. As noted earlier this regionalization is arbitrary and boundaries of each were outlined in Figure 1 also presented in an earlier section. How party visits to individual state forests by region of day use parties' origins are distributed is presented in Table 22. It was found that the out-of-state region (Region 10) generates the largest percentage of day use parties to the Lake Superior state forest campgrounds (18.9%) followed by Region 9 (16.2%). Southeastern Michigan (Region 9) generated the largest percentage of day use parties for the Mackinaw state forest area (33.3%) followed by visitors from within the region , Region 3, containing the Mackinaw forest itself. Also, both the Pere Marquette and Au Sable state forests drew most heavily from within their boundaries. Frequency of Party Visits to Campgrounds Of the 420 questionnaires distributed, 196 (46.9%) were returned in an usable condition by the cut-off date (Septem- ber 15, 1982). There were 39 (70%) respondents from the Lake Superior, 57 (38.0%) from the Mackinaw, 62 (37.0%) from 58 Table 22.-- Distribution of Party Visits to Individual State Forests by Region of Day Use Parties' Origins. Lake Pere Region Superior Mackinaw Marquette Au Sable N=39 N=57 N=62 N=37 ------------------- Percent-------—----------—-- 1 0.0 2.0 1.7 0.0 2 13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 5.4 27.4 1.7 0.0 4 2.7 2.0 41.3 10.8 5 8.1 6.0 1.7 32.4 6 13.5 6.0 17.1 2.7 7 8.1 6.0 6.8 19.9 8 13.5 11.7 10.2 13.5 9 16.2 33.3 6.8 10.8 10 18.9 5.9 12.1 8.1 Total 99.9 100.3 99.4 98.2 Region 1: Western Upper Peninsula Region 2: Lake Superior State Forest Region 3: Mackinaw State Forest Region 4: Pere Marquette State Forest Region 5: Au Sable State Forest Region 6: West Central Michigan Region 7: East Central Michigan Region 8: Southwestern Michigan Region 9: Southeastern Michigan Region 10: Out- of- State Regions 59 the Pere Marquette and 37 (30.0%) from the Au Sable state forest area. The nonresponse rates for and uneven response rates between individual state forests should be noted, which would introduce biases into the analyses of results. By Day of the Week Compared with the other three state forests, the Pere Marquette's campgrounds were relatively more popular on Mon- days, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and especially on Sundays, though the Lake Superior campgrounds captured the largest percentage of party visits on Wednesday because of its highest response rate and number of campgrounds surveyed among the four state forests. The Mackinaw state forest campgrounds were more popular than the other three's on Fridays and Saturdays (see Table 23). By Week within the Season Table 24 shows the differences in frequencies of party visits to individual state forests by week within the season. Compared with other weeks in the season, the 7th week accounted for the largest percentage of party visits in the Lake Superior state forest area (22.2%), the 2nd and 4th weeks accounted for the largest percentage of party visits to the Mackinaw (18.2%), and the 5th week accounted for the largest percentage of party visits to the Pere Marquette state forest area: the Au Sable received the most party visits (19.4%) during the 2nd week of the season. Additional analysis comparing the four forests suggests 60 Table 23. -- Distribution of Party Visits in Individual Day of the Week Across Four State Forests. State Forest Day of Lake Pere Total the Week Superior Mackinaw Marquette AuSable % N Monday 23.1 23.1 30.8 23.1 100.1* 13 Tuesday 21.4 25.0 35.7 17.9 100.0 28 Wednesday 36.4 22.7 27.3 13.6 100.0 22 Thursday 11.1 29.6 40.7 18.5 99.9* 27 Friday 25.9 29.6 22.2 22.2 99.9* 27 Saturday 12.8 34.0 29.8 23.4 100.0 47 Sunday 12.0 32.0 44.0 12.0 100.0 25 This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 61 Table 24.-- Distribution of Party Visits to Individual State Forests by Week within the Season. State Forest Lake Pere Week within Superior Mackinaw Marquette Au Sable the Season N=36 N=55 N=62 N=36 -------------------- Percent--------------------- 1st 11.1 7.3 4.8 13.9 2nd 13.9 18.2 16.2 19.4 3rd 5.6 5.4 8.0 8.4 4th 5.5 18.2 11.3 11.1 5th 11.1 12.7 17.8 16.6 6th 8.4 16.4 11.3 16.7 7th 22.2 9.1 11.2 2.8 8th 13.9 7.2 6.5 5.5 9th 5.5 1.9 3.2 0.0 10th 2.8 3.6 9.7 5.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note: 1st week: June 26 - July 3 2nd week: July 4 - July 10 3rd week: July 11 - July 17 4th week: July 18 - July 24 5th week: July 25 - July 31 6th week: Aug. 1 - Aug. 7 7th week: Aug. 8 - Aug. 14 9th week: Aug. 22 - Aug. 28 62 that the Mackinaw was most popular in the 2nd and 9th weeks: the Pere Marquette in the 6th, 8th and 10th weeks, though the Lake Superior captured the equally largest percentage of day visits during the 9th week because of its highest response rates and number of campgrounds surveyed among the four forests: the Au Sable was most popular in the lst week (see Appendix B, Table B-1). ByrDistance Traveled to Reach the Campground It is obvious from the data presented in Table 25 that the first distance zone (1 - 25 miles) was the origin of the largest percentage of day use party visits to each of the four state forests. It is also interesting to note that day use parties who traveled more than 200 miles accounted for a significant percentage of party visits to the Lake Superior (24.3%) and Mackinaw (16.7%) state forest, second only to that generated in the 1st distance zone. Figure 5 further illustrates the distribution of party visits to individual state forests by distance traveled to reach the campground. Compared with the other three state forests, the Pere Marquette state forest campgrounds were relatively more popu- lar with parties who traveled less than 50 miles and those traveling between 151 to 200 miles. Parties traveling between 101 to 150 miles chose the Pere Marquette and Au Sable state forest campgrounds relatively more frequently. Between them the Lake Superior and Mackinaw captured about 90% of all parties traveling more than 200 miles (see Table 26). 63 Table 25s-- Distribution of Party Visits to Individual State Forests by Distance Travelled to Reach the Campground. State Forest Distance Lake Pere Traveled Superior Mackinaw Marquette Au Sable (Miles) N=37 N=54 N=57 N=33 ------------------- Percent-------------------- 1 - 25 48.6 55.6 64.9 45.5 25 - 50 25.0 11.1 12.3 6.1 51 -100 8.1 7.4 0.0 21.2 101 -150 0.0 3.7 7.0 12.1 151 —200 11.8 5.6 14.0 12.1 200 -More 24.3 16.7 1.8 3.0 Total 99:9* 100.1* 100.0 100.0 This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 64 .OSSOSMSEMU oSp Sodom op Oopo>mSB ooSdpmpo mp mpmosom opmpm p030p>pOSp op mppmp> sppmm p0 SomppngOo 11.8 osSme OSzopmmsmo 0Sp Sodom op Oopo>8SB ooSmpme opnmm s< oppozupmz whom 38prowz lllllll SOpSomSm oxmp on sitstA K1125 JO afieiuooaed 65 Table 26.-- How total Party Visits From Individual Distance Traveled Groups Are Distributed across the Four State Forests. Distance Zone (Miles) 1 267— 51 101 151 201 to to to to to to State 25 50 100 150 200 More Forest N=100 N=20 N=14 N=10 N=17 N=20 --------------------- Percent---—----------------- Lake Superior 18.0 25.0 21.4 0.0 11.8 45.0 Mackinaw 30.0 30.0 28.6 20.0 17.6 45.0 Pere Marquette 37.0 35.0 0.0 40.0 47.1 5.0 Au Sable 15.0 10.0 50.0 40.0 23.5 5.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Participation Characteristics of Individual Activities It is essential to examine the number of recreation opportunities for individual activities available in indivi- dual state forests and to compare these data to what users reported they did while visiting these campgrounds. Obvi- ously what is or is not available will influence what acti- vities visitors can and do participate in. Unfortunately, little of this information is currently available. Canoeing, boating and swimming Opportunities are the only activities listed in the Michigan State Forests Campground Directory, Michigan DNR. These data are summarized in Table 27. 66 Table 27.—- Number of Campgrounds Offering Canoeing, Swim- ming and Boating Opportunity by Individual State Forests. State Forest Lake Pere Recreation Superior Marquette Mackinaw Au Sable Total Activity N=20 N=12 N=14 N=11 N=57 Canoeing 3 6 1 9 19 Swimming 16 5 4 2 27 Boating 15 6 7 3 31 Total 34 17 12 14 77 . References from Michigan State Forest Campground Directory. It should be noted that swimming is available in all 57 campgrounds but in 30 (52.6%) out of 57 campgrounds is not recommended by the Forest Management Division, Michigan DNR because of inadequate facilities or potentially unsafe con- ditions. . The most popular activities during the summer season of 1982 as previously noted, fishing and swimming, are water- oriented which is not surprising given that all 57 camp- grounds are located on water bodies. Table 28 shows the percentage of day use parties involved in individual recrea- tion activities while their cars were parked at a state forest campground. When the participation rates and the number of opportunities available are compared, some possi- ble explanation for the differences in participation rates 67 Table 28.-- Percentage of Day Use Parties Participating in Individual Activities While Visiting an Indivi- dual State Forest. State Forest Recreation Lake Pere Activity Superior Mackinaw Marquette AuSable Total Fishing 60.0 41.4 54.1 55.6 51.8 Swimming* 25.0 56.9 49.2 61.1 48.7 Nature * Observation 62.5 39.7 32.8 25.0 39.5 Picnicking 20.0 37.9 27.9 38.9 31.3 Just Look 47.5 25.9 31.1 22.2 31.3 Boating 22.5 34.5 36.1 25.0 30.8 Camping 30.0 24.1 23.0 22.2 24.6 Photography 37.5 24.1 19.7 13.9 13.6 Canoeing 25.0 8.6 23.0 16.7 17.9 Hiking 22.5 19.0 11.5 13.9 16.4 Picking 22.5 13.8 8.2 8.3 12.8 Visit Camper 7.5 15.5 6.6 5.6 9.2 Rockhunt* 25.0 5.2 3.3 2.8 8.6 ORVuse 2.5 3.4 0.0 2.8 2.1 Other 10.0 8.6 14.8 0.0 9.2 * For this activity, differences between the four state forests are statisticall significant at the 95% confi- dence level (Swimmingé X = 12.77782, D.F.=3, P = .0051; Nature Observati n: X = 13.17415, D.F.= 3, P = .0043; Rock Hounding: X = 19.06167, D.F.=3, P = .0003). 68 in certain activities among the four state forests come into focus. For example, only 25 percent of day use parties parti- cipated in swimming while visiting the Lake Superior state forest campgrounds. This is surprising given that swimming is listed as being available at 16 (80%) out of 20 camp- grounds surveyed in the Lake Superior, which is more than for the other three forests combined. This result might be explained by the fact that the temperature of swimming water is relatively lower than that in Northern Lower Peninsula and the use of non-designated swimming areas in the other three forests. This suggestion, if true, illustrates the complexi- ty of completely relating observed use to facilities avai- lable, in particular it demonstrates the need for a more complete inventory of campgrounds to determine recreation opportunities available to include a description of the qua- lity of what is offered. Another example is that only 8.6 percent of day use parties were involved in canoeing while visiting the Macki- naw state forest campgrounds probably because only 1 (7.1%) out of 14 campgrounds surveyed in the Mackinaw offers canoe- ing opportunities. This result is a clear example of the relationship between opportunities available and partici- pation level. Table 29 shows the percentage of participations in indi- vidual recreation activities by individual state forest. 69 Table 29.-- How Total Participations Occurring in the Indi- vidual Forests are Distributed among Recreation Activities. State Forest Lake Pere Recreation Superior Mackinaw Marquette Au Sable Activity P=168 P=208 P=209 P=113 Fishing 14.3 11.5 15.8 17.7 Boating 5.3 9.6 10.5 7.9 Swimming 5.9 15.9 14.3 19.5 Canoeing 5.9 2.4 6.7 5.3 Camping 7.1 I 6.7 6.7 7.1 Just Look 11.3 7.2 9.1 7.1 Picking 5.3 3.8 2.4 2.6 Visit Camper 1.8 4.3 1.9 1.7 Hiking 5.3 5.3 3.4 4.4 Photography 8.9 6.7 5.7 4.4 Nature Observation 14.9 11.0 9.6 7.9 Picnicking 4.8 10.6 8.1 12.4 Rockhunt 5.9 1.4 0.9 1.0 ORVuse 0.6 0.9 0.4 1.0 Other 2.7 2.7 4.5 0.0 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 P indicates the number of participations in individual recreation activities occurring in individual state forest. 70 The nature observation activity accounted for the largest percentage of total participations in the Lake Superior state forest (14.9%) followed by fishing (14.3%) and just looking (11.3%). The three most popular recreation activi- ties are swimming, fishing and boating in the Mackinaw: fishing, swimming and boating in the Pere Marquette: swim- ming, fishing and picnicking in the Au Sable. It is also useful to review the relative popularity of individual activities across the four forests. Table 28 is organized to permit such comparisons. Compared with those in other three state forests, day use parties prefered to participate in fishing, nature observation, just looking, camping, photography, canoeing, hiking, picking, rock hound- ing and "other" activities in the Lake Superior; visiting campers and ORV use in the Mackinaw; boating in the Pere Mar— quette: swimming and picnicking in the Au Sable. The differences noted in activities participation levels across the four forests are only significant at the 95% con- fidence level for the following activities: swimming, nature observation and rock hounding. Possible explanations for the different levels of participations in swimming and rock hounding may be the presence of warmer water in the Lower Peninsula and agates along the Lake Superior shoreline. The difference in nature observation may be related to perceptions that the U.P. has more "nature" to observe (Nelson, 1982). Also, compared with the other three state forests, the 71 Lake Superior captured the largest percentage of participa- tions in the following four activities: picking, photography, nature observation and rock hounding, the Mackinaw captured the largest percentage of participations in the following five activities: swimming, visiting campers, hiking, picnick- ing and ORV use, the Pere Marquette captured the largest per- centage of participations in the following three activities: fishing, boating and canoeing (see Table 30). Yet another way of viewing participation data across activities and across individual forests is presented in Table 31. In Table 31, total participations are distributed among the 15 individual activities and by the forest where the participation occurred. For example, the fishing activi- ty in the Pere Marquette accounted for the largest percentage of total participations (4.7%) followed by swimming in the Mackinaw (4.6%) and by swimming in the Pere Marquette (4.4%). Tests of Hypotheses Null Hypothesis 6-A: There is no significant difference in distance traveled to participate in day use activi— ties among the four state forests. Decision: Fail to Reject. Those day use parties who visited the Lake Superior state forest campgrounds traveled 118.9 miles on average; those visiting the Mackinaw traveled 74.6 miles: those visit- ing the Pere Marquette traveled 51.6 miles: and those 72 Table 30.-- How Total Participations in Individual Activi- ties is Distributed across Four State Forests. State Forest Recreation Lake Total Activity Superior Mackinaw Marquette Au Sable % N Fishing 23.7 23,7 32.7 19.9 100.0 101 Boating 15.0 33.3 36.7 15.0 100.0 60 Swimming 10.5 34.7 31.6 23.2 100.0 96 Canoeing 28.6 14.3 40.0 17.1 100.0 35 Camping 25.0 29.2 29.2 16.6 100.0 49 Just Look 31.1 24.6 31.1 13.2 100.0 61 Picking 36.0 32.0 20.0 12.0 100.0 24 Visit Camper 16.7 50.0 22.2 11.1 100.0 17 Hiking 28.1 34.4 21.9 15.6 100.0 32 Photography 32.6 30.4 26.1 10.9 100.0 46 Nature Observation 32.4 29.9 26.0 17.7 100.0 77 Picnicking 13.1 36.0 27.9 23.0 100.0 61 Rockhunt 62.5 18.7 12.5 6.3 100.0 16 ORVuse 20.0 40.0 20.0 20.0 100.0 5 Other 22.2 27.8 50.0 0.0 100.0 18 73 Table 31.-- Distribution of Total Participations across Individual Activities and State Forests. State Forest Recreation Activity Superior Mackinaw Marquette Au Sable Total Fishing 3-5 3.5 4.7 2.9 14.5 Boating 1.3 2.9 3.1 1.3 8.6 Swimming 1.5 4.6 4.4 3.2 13.7 Canoeing 1.5 0.7 2.0 0.8 4.9 Camping 1.7 2.0 2.0 1.1 6.8 Just Look 2.7 2.1 2.7 1.1 8.6 Picking 1.3 1.2 0.7 0.4 3.6 Visit Camper 0.4 1.4 0.6 0.3 2.7 Hiking 1.3 1.7 1.0 0.7 4.7 Photography 2.1 2.0 1.7 0.7 6.5 Nature Observation 3.6 3.3 2.9 1.3 11.1 Picnicking 1.1 3.1 2.4 2.0 8.6 Rockhunt 1.7 0.4 0.2 0.1 2.4 ORVuse 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.6 Other 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.0 2.5 Total 24.8 29.9 29.2 6.0 99.9 * o ThlS does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 74 visiting the Au Sable traveled 75.3 miles. The results of the analysis of variance test presented in Table 32 indica- tes these differences are not statistically significant at the 95% level of confidence. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected, thus resulting in a decision that there was insufficient evidence for concluding that the day use parties visiting state forests as a group differed with respect to the distance traveled. Null Hypothesis 6-B: There is no significant difference in distance traveled to participate in day use activi- ties between individual paired state forests. Decision: Reject only for the paired comparison of the Lake Superior and Pere Marquette. Since the result showed in Null Hypothesis 6-A does not assure that there are no statistically significant differences in distance traveled between any two forests, the responses were compared using the t-test. The t—test is a statistic that can be used when comparing the difference between two sample means to determine if the difference is significantly large ( the Vpaired comparison" technique). Results of this test of pairs of forests is presented in Table 33. The di- fference in distance traveled to visit the Lake Superior and the Pere Marquette is the only one of the six possible pair- ings which was found to be significant at the 95% level of confidence. Thus, considering the four forests together there are no significant difference in travel distances, however, visitors did on average travel further to the Lake 6008.0688600 08a adpop 0a60.880aa 0808.888066a 66a nasoss caspas aa8. a00.8 8a80.600s8 8860.60000a 8 nasosO soospom Nu .nopmum Oppmmum mopmsdm S802 wopwsvm MO 85m .m.Q ooSSOm 18.860 18.080 18.860 10.88a0 8.86 8.a8 8.86 6.8aa oppmm 3< oppozvpmz whom ampromz SOppoQSm 0x89 AmSOpp0p>oQ OHMOSmpmV mSmoE msopm Amoppzv Oopo>8pe ooSmpme .mpmopom opmpm pmsvp>pUSH ppmp> op Uopo>8pe ooSmpme Sop pmoe ooSmpSm> po mpmhp8S< 1|.mm opnme 76 Oap Soospon vopo>mpp .po>op ooSmOppSOO 6mm opp pm mpmopop opmpm ooSMpmpO Sp ooSoSopppO pSmopppSMpm mp OSoSp .pmmppSoo mpSp Som .8 88a. 0.06 mwm. o.ow Nmp. m.30p 88a. 6.08 0N0. N.n: 68a. 0.08 8808.a- 8a80.- 8868.a 8668.a 8808.0 8868.p mom©.wp mmdp.wp 0606.0p 0600.08 Gimp.mm 0880.08 opnmm S< 8686.80- .ms opposvpms whom massm s8 8086.- .ms smprOmS opposvsms opom p6m6.mm .m> BOprOmS mason s8 8808.88 .ms SOpSoQSm oxmp opposvsmz whom 6660.68 .ms *popSomOm 088p BMSpMOmS 8080.88 .m> Sophomzm 0x89 .Qopmle .m.m GSHN> .H. Sopsm OSmOSwpm ooSoSoppr S002 pmmppSoo .mpmopom 68888 sonasa asssasasca panas op soaosssp oosopnas 00% some 8 n.psosspm --.88 oapdp 77 Superior than to the Pere Marquette state forest. Null Hypothesis 7—A: There is no significant difference in the number of different activities which day use par- ties participated in among the four state forests. Decision: Fail to Reject. It can be seen from Table 34 that day users participated on average in 3.32 to 4.33 different recreation activities. Analysis of variance indicates that this difference is not significant considering all four forests as a group at the 95% confidence level. Null Hypothesis 78B: There is no significant difference in the number of different activities which day use par- ties participated in between individual paired state forests. Decision: Reject only for the paired comparison of the Lake Superior and Pere Marquette. Paired comparison tests, which are presented in Table 35 suggest that the only statistically significant difference in the number of different activities pursued occurs between the Lake Superior and Pere Marquette state forests. Thus, while frequency of participations in individual activities does not vary significantly considering the four forests as a whole, visitors to the Lake Superior participated in more activities than those visiting the Pere Marquette. 78 6868.000a 86a ampoa 680a.8 6088.866 a6a masons caspas a88a. 866.a 6060.6 00a0.60 8 masons 0803888 .QOSmum Opp8mnm 00S8svm S802 00S8zvm MO 25m .2.Q 0opsom A0868.0V A868a.0v 20880.00 A8088.0v 08.8 68.8 88.8 88.8 0pp8m S< 0pp0swp82 0S0m 38prO82 SOpS0mSm 028p AmSOpp8p>0o 0p8OS8pmv 0S802 gnopu smpmaaoapssa mmapasapos pawsmssam so sosesz .p00som 0p8pm 2n Sp 0p8mp0pps8m 2ps8m 00: 280 cops; moppp>ppo¢ pS0S08pr p0 S0pssz Sop p009 0oS8pS8> MO mp02p8S< 11.8m 0p£8e 79 .p0>0p 00S08ppSOO 886 0gp p8 mpm0pop 0p8p0 Osp S003p0n 0p8mp0ppp8m 2pp8m 00: 288 QOpSS m0ppp>ppo8 pS0S0ppp8 po S0QESS Sp 00S0S0ppp8 pS8OpppS8p0 mp 0S0Sp .pm8SpSOO mpsp pom 806. 0.88 888. 6.88 888. 0.6aa 660. 8.86 680. 8.86 pep. 6.p6 a860. 0688. 8888. 8086.p 8800.0 6p88.p 8868. 6068. 8688. 6888. 6668. 0868. 8880. 86pm. 606p. 0600. 8N86. 6086. * 08288 :8 .m> 0pp038p82 0S0m mapmm s8 .m> 38pro82 0pp0SUS82 0906 .m> 38pro82 0pp8m 5< .m> SOpS0QSm 028p 0pp036S82 0S0m .m> *SOpsomsm 028p 38pro82 .m> Sopp0msm 028A .Dohmle .m.Q 03p8> B Soppm 8&88S8pm 0oS0p0pppm pm8SpSoo .mpmmpom 0p8pm 80Sp8m 2Q Sp 0p8mpOppS8m spS8m 00: 28m nopsz m0ppp>ppo¢ pS0S0ppr po S0pssz Sop p009 p m.pS083pm 11.88 08989 80 Three Types of Campgrounds Characteristics of Day Use Parties The Origin of Day Use Parties Regionalization was employed to facilitate origin— destination analyses. The reader should refer to the general discussion of the regionalization of the SFC System day use parties and to Figure 1 in Chapter II. The flows of day use parties to individual types of campgrounds are illustrated in Table 36. Southeastern Mi— chigan (Region 9) generated the largest percentage of day use parties for the Lake campgrounds (18.9%) followed by Region 4 (17.4%). For the River campgrounds, the Pere Mar- quette state forest area (Region 4) generated the largest percentage of day use parties (29.1%) followed by Region 9 (16.2%). The Southeastern and East Central Michigan areas shared the lead position as providers of day use parties for the Lake/River campgrounds (16.7%) followed by Region 6 (13.9%)- Freqpency of Party Visits to Individual Types of Campgrounds Thirty-two campgrounds located on lakes, 19 campgrounds located on rivers, and 6 campgrounds located on both a lake and a river were surveyed in this study. Of the responses 126 respondents were from the Lake, 32 from the River and 37 from the Lake/River campgrounds. Since a proportional sample technique was employed 81 Table 36.-- Distribution of Party Visits to Individual Types of Campgrounds by Region of Day Use Parties' Origins. Types of Campgrounds Region Lake River Lake/River All Types Combined N=126 N=32 N=37 N= 195 -s --------------- Percent --------------------- 1 0.9 3.2 0.0 1.0 2 2.7 2.6 5.6 2.7 3 11.2 6.4 5.6 8.8 4 17.4 29.1 5.6 16.7 5 10.3 6.4 11.2 9.6 6 12.1 0.0 13.9 10.8 7 6.9 12.9 16.7 9.7 8 10.4 12.9 16.7 11.9 9 18.9 16.2 11.2 16.7 10 9.3 12.9 13.5 12.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Note Region 1: Western Upper Peninsula Region 2: Lake Superior State Forest Regiln 3: Mackinaw State Forest Region 4: Pere Marquette State Forest Region 5: Au Sable State Forest Region 6: West Central Michigan Region 7: East Central Michigan Region 8: Southwestern Michigan Region 9: Southeastern Michigan Region 10: Out-of-State Regions 82 for selecting campgrounds of the three individual types, analyses from these data can be generalized to the statewide forest campground system. However, when these three types of campgrounds are compared to identify the relative differences in the nature of day use between them, the difference in the number of campgrounds of each type surveyed should be noted. Therefore, in the following analyses of results there are two major phases, one phase is the description of general findings from the data base and implications of these find- ings to the statewide forest campground system: the other phase is to identify any differences in the nature of day use which exist between the three types of campgrounds consider- ing the difference in the number of campgrounds surveyed of each of the three types. Thus, Table 36 also suggests that campgrounds located on lakes attract relatively more day use parties (N=126) than the other two types of campgrounds combined but this is at least partially due to differences in sampling rates between the three types. One way to adjust for this difference is to compare the number of responses returned on average from individual types of campgrounds. The campgrounds located on both a lake and a river were most popular (6.16 parties/camp- ground)1 followed by the Lake campgrounds (3.93 Parties/camp- 1 Number in parentheses is derived from the equation: Number of responses in individual campground Number of campgrounds surveyed in that campground type 83 ground) and the River campgrounds (1.68 parties/campground). By Day of the Week Compared with the other two types of campgrounds using the expected and obtained share of party visits to individual types of campgroundsl, the campgrounds located on both a lake and a river are most popular on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. On Thursday and Friday the Lake camp- grounds are most popular to visit by day use parties (see Table 37). By Week within the Season Table 38 shows the differences in frequencies of party visits to individual types of campgrounds by week within the season. The largest percentage of party visits was generated during the 2nd week for the Lake campgrounds, during the 6th week for the River campgrounds and during the 2nd and 7th weeks for the Lake/River campgrounds equally. Also, Lake campgrounds attract relatively more party visits than the other two types of campgrounds combined. However, compared with the other two campground types, the Lake/River campgrounds are most popular in the 1st, 5th, 7th, The expected share of party visits to individual types of campgrounds are as followings: 56.1 percent for camp- grounds located on lakes, 33.3 percent for campgrounds located on rivers, and 10.6 percent for campgrounds located on both a lake and a river, and is derived from the equation: Number of campgrounds surveyed in individual campground type Total number of campgrounds surveyed 84 Table 37. -- Distribution of Party Visits by Individual Day of the Week across Three Types of Campgrounds. Types of Campgrounds Day of Total the Week Lake River Lake/River % N ------------ Percent--------- Expected Share of Party Visits 56.1 33.3 10.6 100.0 Monday 61.5 15.4 23.1 100.0 13 Tuesday 64.3 14.3 21.4 100.0 28 Wednesday 59.1 9.1 31.8 100.0 22 Thursday 77.8 11.1 11.1 100.0 27 Friday 70.4 7.4 22.2 100.0 27 Saturday 59.6 23.4 17.0 100.0 47 Sunday 56.0 32.0 12.0 100.0 25 85 Table 38.-- Percentage Distribution of Party Visits to Indi- vidual Types of Campgrounds by Week within the Season. Types of Campgrounds Week within Lake River Lake/River the Season N=121 N=32 N=36 --------------- Percent-------——------—-- June 23 - July 3 6.6 12.5 11.1 July 4 July 10 17.4 15.6 16.7 July 11 July 17 6.6 9.4 5.5 July 18 July 24 15.7 0.0 11.1 July 25 July 31 14.0 15.6 16.7 Aug. 1 Aug. 7 13.3 21.9 5.6 Aug. 8 Aug. 14 9.0 12.5 16.6 Aug. 15 Aug. 21 9.1 3.1 8.4 Aug. 22 Aug. 28 3.3 0.0 2.7 Aug. 29 Sept. 8 5.0 9.4 5.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 86 and 10th weeks, the Lake campgrounds are most popular in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th weeks (see Appendix B, Table B-2). Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground Compared with other distance travel zones, the first zone (1 - 25 miles) generates the largest percentage of party visits for all three types of campgrounds (Table 39). Over 60 percent of Lake type campground visits involved travel of 25 miles or less which is about 20 percent more than for the other two types of campgrounds. This indicates that the day use parties tended to visit state forest camp— grounds relatively close to their residence or their tempo- rary residence especially those located on lakes. To further illustrate this findings, Figure 6 shows the comparison of the differences in the percentage of party visits to indivi- dual types of campgrounds by distance traveled. Compared with the other two types of campgrounds, the Lake campgrounds were most popular to those day use parties traveling 25 miles or less, or between 101 to 150 miles, or betWeen 151 to 200 miles: the Lake/River campgrounds were most popular to those day use parties traveling between 26 to 50 miles, or between 51 to 100 miles, or between 201 and more miles (see Table 40). Participation Characteristics of Individual Activities To assess the differences in the popularity of individual 87 Table 39.—- Distribution of Party Visits to Individual Types of Campgrounds by Distance Traveled to Reach the Campground. Types of Campgrounds Tizingg Lake River Lake/River (Miles) N=118 N=28 N=35 ----------- Percent-----------8 1 - 25 62.7 42.9 40.0 26 - 50 6.8 17.9 20.0 51 ~100 5.9 10.7 11.4 101 -150 5.9 3.6 5.7 151 -200 9.3 10.7 8.6 201 -More 9.3 14.3 14.3 Total 99T9* —IO0TI* 100.0 *This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 88 .8SSOS89880 0Sp S0808 op O0p0>8pe 0oS8pme 2n maS:opw 12880 Mo 00929 p8SOp>pOSH op mppmp> 2pS8m mo Sompp8QSoo 11.880S58pm 0SON 0oS8pmpo 008 000 08a S0>pm\ 088p 11' . ll S0>pm IIIIII 0&8Q SlISIA JO afieiueoaed 89 .S0>pp 8 0S8 0288 8 :pon SO 00p8oop 00Szopwms8o 00p Sop pS0oS0m 8.0p .0S0>pS SO 00p8oop 00Ssonmms8o 0gp Sop pS0oS0m 8.88 .m0x8p SO 00p8oop 00S50S8688o 0Sp Sop pS0oS0m p.88 ”mwSpsoppop m8 0S8 mvSsopme8o mo 0092p p830p>p0Sp op mppmp> 2pS8m po 00S8Sm 00po0mx0 0S9 «0poz .x. 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a 0.00a aspoe 8.6a 0.80 8.6a 0.00 8.80 0.88 0.8a 08>am\088a 8.8a 0.00 8.6a 0.0a 8.a0 0.80 0.0a Am>pm 0.88 8.88 6.88 0.06 0.08 0.08 0.86 088a 111111111111111111111111111111111 pS0oS0m111111111111111111111111 66auz 00uz 6auz 0anz 0a12 0012 00auz mass smeaQEoo 0002 000 08a 00a 08 80 sssosmaemo 00229 op op op op op op aa< a00 a8a a0a a8 80 a Am0pp2v 0SON 0oS8pme .00929 0S:opmgs8o 00SSB 00p 8Sos8 0SON 0oS8pme p0>8SB S082 Soup mppmp> p8poe mo SOppSQpSpme 11.08 0pn8e 90 activities between and among the three types of campgrounds, it is first necessary to consider the relative availability of such opportunities. The State Forest Campground Directory currently only provides such information for boating, canoe- ing and swimming, and relative availability of these activi ties is listed in Table 41. If one were to ignore quality di- fferences, most of the remaining activities examined ( see Table 42) are available in all 57 campgrounds. Rock hound- ing is a clear exception and quality picking and ORV use opportunities are limited to only a few campgrounds in the sample. Finally, as noted earlier some participation in, for example, swimming does occur in campgrounds which are not listed as offering swimming opportunities. Table 42 shows the percentage of day use parties involved in individual recreation activities while visiting day use areas of state forest campgrounds. When the participation rate and the relative number of opportunities for participa- ting in individual recreation activities are compared, some possible explanations for participation rate differences in certain activities can be derived. For example, only 6.7 percent of day use parties parti- cipated in boating activity while visiting the River camp- grounds, which is the lowest participation rate for boating activity between the three types of campgrounds. This low participation rate in boating is probably explained by the fact that there are no boating services provided in any of 91 Table 41.-- Number of Sampled Campgrounds by Type Liated in the State Forest Campground Directory as Offer- ring Canoeing, Boating and Swimming Opportunities. Types of Campgrounds Recreation Lake River Lake/River Total Activity N=32 N=19 N=6 N=57 Canoeing 1 15 3 19 Swimming 22 O 5 27 Boating 25 0 6 31 Total 48 I5 I; 77 . References from Michigan State Forest Campground Directory. N: The number of campgrounds of individual types of camp- grounds included in the sample. the River campgrounds surveyed. The size of and currents in these rivers generally are not conducive to boating but are ideal for canoeing. While the above example clearly illustrates the rela- tionship between opportunities available and participation rates, a focus on swimming provides an example of an exception to this general pattern. Swimming is among the four most popular activities in River campgrounds, but the data in Table 41 indicate that the River campgrounds do not offer swimming opportunities. While River campgrounds may not offer facili- ties judged to be suitable for swimming, many visitors appa- water. rantly are able to make do with what is there 92 Table 42.-- Percentage of Day Use Parties Participating in Individual Activities by Types of Campgrounds. Types of Campgrounds Recreation Activity Lake River Lake/River Total Fishing* 67.3 23.3 72.2 51.8 Swimming* 58.9 33.3 25.0 48.7 Nature . Observation 35.7 50.0 44.4 39.5 Picnicking 35.7 23.3 22.2 31.3 Just Looking 29.5 33.3 36.1 31.3 Boating* 38.8 6.7 22.2 31.3 Camping 24.8 26.7 22.2 30.8 Photography 25.6 20.0 19.4 23.6 Canoeing* 9.3 50.0 22.2 17.9 Hiking 13.2 26.7 19.4 16.4 Picking 12.4 20.0 8.3 12.8 Visit Camper* 13.2 0.0 2.8 9.2 Rockhunt 7.8 3.3 13.9 8.6 ORV use 31. 0.0 0.0 2.1 Other 7.0 20.0 8.3 9.2 * For this activity, difference between the three types of campgrounds are statisticagly significant at the 95% con— fidence 1e el. (Fishing: X = 15.79336, D.F.= 2, P= .0004; Bgating: X = 13.28254, D.F.= 2, P = .0013: Syimming: X = 16.31663, D.F.=2, P = .0003: Can eing: X = 27.92125, .=2,6g§ .0000; Visiting camper: X = 7.23918, D.F.= 2, .02 D. P ""11 93 Furthermore, Table 42 also suggests that there were significant differences, at the 95% confidence level, in the popularity of (activity participation levels in) fishing, swimming, boating, and canoeing when these three types of campgrounds were compared. Fishing was much more popular in impoundments and lakes than in rivers. Lakes were used more extensively for swimming. Boating was most common on lakes, while canoeing was most common on rivers. Levels of swimming, boating, and canoeing participation seem reasonable considering environmental factors such as sandy bottoms in lakes, ability to use power boats in lakes and the excitement of river canoeing. The lack of fishing participation on rivers, however, appears to be more complex. While runs of anadromous fish such as salmon and steelhead do not generally occur during the summer, resident fish such as brown trout are still available. Unlike the other activities , fishing may be more related to the ability of fishermen to capture fish, rather than simply having the resource available. Since sampling generally took place from 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. while stream fishing for trout is generally poor and other stream recreation activities, such as canoeing, are at their highest levels, total stream fishing activity may be under-represented (Nelson, 1983). Table 43 shows the percentage distribution of partici- pations among individual recreation activities for indivi~ dual types of campgrounds. Compared with other recreation 94 Table 43.-— Percentage Distribution of Total Participations among Individual Activities by Types of Camp- grounds. Types of Campgrounds Recreation Lake River Lake/River Activity P=474 P=102 P=122 Fishing 14.3 6.9 21.3 Boating 10.5 1.9 6.5 Swimming 16.0 9.8 7.4 Canoeing 2.5 14.7 6.5 Camping 6.7 7.8 6.5 Just Looking 8.0 9.8 10.6 Picking 3.4 5.9 2.4 Visit Camper 3.6 0.0 5.8 Hiking 3.6 7-8 5-7 Photography 6.9 5.9 5.7 Nature Observation 9.7 14.7 13.1 Rockhunt 2.1 0.1 4.1 ORV use 0.8 0.1 0.0 Other 1.9 5.9 2.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 *- P: The number of total participations in individual activities occurring in individual types of campgrounds. 95 activities, swimming accounted for the largest percentage of total participations in Lake campgrounds (16.0%) followed by fishing (14.3%) and boating (10.5%). The three most popular activities at River campgrounds are canoeing, nature observa— tion and swimming, fishing, nature observation and just look- ing are the most popular Lake/River campground related acti- vities; When the information in Table 42 and 44 are compared, it can be seen that although the Lake campgrounds captured the largest percentage of participations in all kinds of recrea- tion activities occurring in state forest campgrounds, the Lake campgrounds were relatively more popular for only the following activities: swimming, picnicking, boating, photogra- phy and visiting campers after considering the sampling rates (see Table 44). Other information supplementing the above findings are revealed from Table 45 which shows percentage distribution of total participations by type of campground and by indivi- dual activities. For example, the occurences of swimming activity in lakes accounted for about 11.3 percent of total participations followed by fishing (9.7%) and boating (7.2%) in the campgrounds located on lakes. Tests of Hypotheses .Null Hypothesis 8-A: There is no significant difference in distance traveled to participate in day use activities 96 Table 44.-- Percentage of Participations in Individual Activities Across Three Types of Campgrounds. Types of Campgrounds Recreation Total Activity Lake River Lake/River % N Fishing* 67.3 7.0 25.7 100.0 101 Boating* 83.3 3.3 13.4 100.0 60 Swimming* 80.0 10.5 9.5 100.0 96 Canoeing* 34.3 42.8 22.9 100.0 35 Camping 66.6 16.7 16.7 100.0 49 Just Looking* 62.3 16.4 21.3 100.0 61 Picking 64.0 24.0 12.0 100.0 24 Visit Camper* 94.4 0.0 5.6 100.0 17 Hiking 53.1 25.0 21.9 100.0 32 Photography 76.7 13.9 9.4 100.0 46 Nature Observation 59.7 19.5 20.8 100.0 77 Picnicking 75.4 11.5 13.1 100.0 61 Rockhunt 62.5 6.3 31.2 100.0 16 ORV use 80.0 20.0 0.0 100.0 5 Other 50.0 33.3 16.7 100.0 18 '11- For this activity, difference between the three types of campgrounds are statistically significant at the 95% con— fidence level. 97 Table 45--- Percentage Distribution of Total Participations by Type of Campground and by Individual Activi- ties. Types of Campgrounds Recreation Activity Lake River Lake/River Total Fishing 9.7 1.0 3.8 14.5 Boating 7.2 0.3 1.1 8.6 Swimming 11.3 1.4 1.3 13.7 Canoeing 1.7 2.2 1.1 4.9 Camping 4.5 1.1 1.1 6.8 Just Looking 5.4 1.4 1.8 8.6 Picking 2.3 0.8 0.4 3.6 Visit Camper 2.4 0.0 0.1 316 Photography 4.7 0.8 1.0 6.5 Hiking 2.4 1.1 1.0 4.7 Nature Observation 6.6 2.2 2.3 11.1 Picnicking 6.6 1.0 1.1 8.6 Rockhunt 1.4 0.1 0.7 2.4 Other 0.5 0.1 0.0 0.6 Other 1.3 0.8 0.4 2.5 Total 68.—0 1—4.—3 17—2 9379* This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 98 among the three types of campgrounds. Decision: Fail to Reject. Day use parties who visited Lake campgrounds traveled 65.1 miles on average: those visiting River campgrounds traveled 91.4 miles: and those visiting Lake/River camp- grounds traveled 103.2 miles. Data presented in Table 46 suggests there is no statistically significant differences among these mean distances traveled when considering these three campground types as a group. Therefore, the null hypothesis was not rejected. Thus, there was insufficient evidence for concluding that the day use parties visiting different types of campgrounds differed with respect to the distance traveled to reach the campground. Null Hypothesis 8-B: There is no significant difference in distance traveled to participate in day use activi- ties between individual paired campground types. Decision: Fail to Reject. To determine the significance of the differences in distance traveled between pairs of campground types, the responses were compared using the t-test. The t-test is a statistic that can be used when comparing the difference between two sample means to determine if the difference is significantly large ( the "paired comparison" technique"). However, no statistically significant differences were observed at the 95% confidence level for any of the three possible pairings as indicated in Table 47. 99 6088.0688600 08a a8p09 6a86.808aa 6666.8066800 86a nasosu caspas 888a. 600.0 8086.08880 0a88.a8888 0 masoss 0083888 .QOS212 Opp8m12 00S8508 S802 00S8568 po 858 .2.2 00S30m 28.88av 20.0pav 28.86v 0.80a 8.a6 a.88 S0>pm\0x8p S0>pm 028p A0SOpp8p>02 0S80S8pmv 0S802 23OS0 A00pp2v 80p0>8p9 0oS8p0pQ .00SSOS82E80 90 00229 p850p>pOSH pp0p> op 00p0>8S9 0oS8p0p2 Sop p009 0oS8pp8> 9o 0p02p8S< 11.88 0pn89 100 S0>pm\0x8p 086. 6.08 0a68. . 8886.88 a688.aa- .ms S0>pm S0>pm\0x8p 88a. 6.08 8888.8- 6a06.80 088a.881 .ms 028p S0>pm 080. 8.88 868a.a- 8aa8.00 6808.801 .ms 028p .QOS219 .2.Q 0Sp8> 9 Sospm 0p80S8pm 0oS0S0ppp2 p08SpSO0 S802 .00SSOS82E80 8o noase essasa a8s0a>aesa 8888s 08 omaosssp moss8na0 sop 8886 8 n.8soos8m --.68 oapme 101 Null Hypothesis 9-A: There is no significant difference in the number of different activities which day use par- ties participate in among the three types of campgrounds. Decision: Fail to Reject. From Table 48, it can be seen that day use paries par- ticipated in on average of about 3.6 different activities on a visit to a state forest campground. The variation is slight across the three campground types, and statistical analysis confirms that differences are insignificant for the group. Null Hypothesis 9-B: There is no significant difference in the number of different activities which day use par- ties participate in between individual paired campground types. Decision: Fail to Reject. Paired comparison tests, which are presented in Table 49 suggest that there are no statistically significant differ- ences present at the 95% confidence level for any of the three possible pairings of the three campground types. Thus, combining the information from the test of Null Hypothesis 9-A and 9-B, it is concluded that campground type has no influence on number of different activities a day use party participates in on a day use visit to a state forest camp— ground. 102 6868.000a 86a a8809 6600.8 8668.666 06a masosu 080883 8066. a80. 8688.a 8886.0 0 nasoss 0882808 .QOS212 Opp8m12 0088508 S802 00S8568 9o 858 .2.2 008508 A8886.av 20008.00 20888.00 88.8 88.8 88.8 S0>pm\0x8p S0>pm 088p A0SOpp8p>02 0880S8p8v 0S802 2SOS0 088saaoa8086 88a8a>a8o< 8cosoppa0 80 smsssz .00Ssopm2s80 90 00229 2D 0p82p0ppp82 2pp82 000 282 SOpnz 00ppp>pp0< pS0S092p2 90 p0pssz Sop p009 00S8pS8> 90 0p02p8S¢ 11.88 0pp89 103 S0>p2\0x8p p86. p.68 0888. 8888. p88p. .8> S0>pm S0>pm\0x8p 808. 8.68 a008. a088. 0808. .ms 088a S0>p8 008. 8.88 a080. 0868. 000a. .ms 088a .DOS219 .2.2 0Op8> 9 Soppm 0880S8p8 00S0S029p2 p08SpSO0 S802 .00SSoS82E80 po 00229 00Sp82 p800p>p0SH 2n 0p82p0ppp82 2pp82 000 282 :0p:2 00ppp>pp0< pS0S0ppp2 20 809832 Sop p009 p 0.pS00:p8 11.68 0pp89 CHAPTER V SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Due to the ever increasing number of people using the forest for leisure, the basic objective of this study was to investigate the nature of day use and characteristics of day users of the Michigan state forest campgrounds. An examina- tion of these factors is periodically necessary in order to keep up with changes in day users and the way they use the forest. Fifty-seven state forest campgrounds were selected as study sample areas. These 57 campgrounds were distributed among the four forests as follows: 20 from the Lake Superior, 14 from the Mackinaw, 12 from the Pere Marquette and 11 from the Au Sable. Of the 57 campgrounds, 32 are located on lakes, 19 on rivers and 6 on both a lake and a river. The relative mix of campgrounds by type of water body present in the sample is similar to that of the complete SFC System. From June 26 to September 8 of 1982, 420 post-card questionnaires were administered to a sample of day users and 196 (46.9%) were returned in an usable condition by the cut-off date (September 15, 1982). Information obtained included characteristics of day users and day users' recreation behavior in these 57 camp- grounds. The information which was collected was analyzed 104 105 to provide a picture of day use and users across the SFC System, within each of the four forests and within each of the campground types. Key results from these analyses are discussed below and summarized in Table 50. State Forest Campground System Most day use parties came from Michigan. Regionaliza- tion of users' origins indicated that day users were drawn from throughout the state and not only densely populated regions such as southeastern Michigan. Ohio generated the largest percentage of out-of-state day users to the Michigan state forest campgrounds. The day use party in 1982 consisted of 4.7 members on average and the median party size was 3.6 members. It was found that day of the week or week within the season did not have a great influence on the number of party visits registered. The percentage of total party visits is distributed fairly evenly across the week except for the peak Saturday use and low Monday use: across weeks within the season except for the peak in the 2nd week and low in the 9th week use. However, distance traveled to reach the campground did have a great influence on the distribution of party visits with most of day use parties arriving from a distance of 1 - 50 miles. Also, it should be noted that 106 there were substantial proportion of day use parties willing to travel more than 150 miles to a SFC System campground for one-day recreation pursuit, and, interestingly, most of out- of-state day users traveled only 40 miles or less. The latter is probably explained by a portion of users traveling from a second home or other temporary lodging rather than traveling directly from their permanent residence. Participation levels in individual recreation activi- ties were examined and fishing was found to be the activity most often participated in, but swimming, nature observation, picnicking, just looking and boating were also quite popular. It was found that there was no statistically significant difference in the distribution of participations in indivi- dual recreation activities across the days of the week: except for the picking activity which peaked on Fridays, nor across weeks within the season. However, the participation levels in individual recreation activities were greatly influenced by the distance traveled, for example, 45.5 percent of day use parties who participated in picking activity traveled more than 150 miles on average. It was found that the majority of day use parties par- ticipated in two or more recreation activities while visit- ing a state forest campground. Parties participating in one recreation activity tended to choose fishing, swimming or canoeing. In the two recreation activity packages, swimming with picnicking and fishing with boating were most popular. 107 Fishing-swimming-picnicking was the most popular three acti- vity package. Specific hypotheses were postulated and tested concern- ing day use of the SFC System. It was found that there is a statistically significant difference in the participation levels between individual recreation activities. No statis- tical significant difference was found between day of the week or between week within the season in terms of the num- ber of different activities participated by day use parties. A negative relationship was found between the number of different activities which day use parties participated in and distance traveled for the closest and most distant travel distance zones. However, this relationship did not hold for the intermediate travel zones. This coupled with the relatively small sample available for analysis limits the degree of confidence one can place on the relationship between distance traveled and number of different activities day use parties pursue. Four State Forests The out-of-state origin (Region 10) generated the lar- gest percentage of day use parties to the Lake Superior state forest campgrounds. Southeastern Michigan (Region 9) gener- ated the largest percentage of day use parties for the Mackinaw state forest area. Both the Pere Marquette and T . 108 Au Sable state forests drew most heavily from within their boundaries for day use visitors. All four forests, however, drew significant number of visitors from many other regions of the state. Compared with the other three state forests, the Pere Marquette's campgrounds were relatively more popular on Mon- days, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays and especially on Sun- days. The Mackinaw state forest campgrounds were more popular than the other three's on Fridays and Saturdays. Compared with other weeks within the season, the 7th week accounted for the largest percentage of party visits to the Lake Superior, the 2nd and 4th weeks accounted for the largest percentage of party visits to the Mackinaw, the 5th week accounted for the largest percentage of party visits to the Pere Marquette state forest, and the Au Sable received the most party visits during the 2nd week of the season. Compared with other distance zones, the first distance zone (1 - 25 miles) was the origin of the largest percentage of day use parties to each of the four forests. Also, com- pared with the other three forests, the Pere Marquette was relatively more popular with parties who traveled less than 50 miles and those traveling between 151 to 200 miles. Parties traveling between 101 to 150 miles chose the Pere Marquette and Au Sable state forest campgrounds relatively more frequently. Between them the Lake Superior and Macki- naw forests captured about 90% of all parties traveling more 109 than 200 miles. Statistical differences in levels of participation in individual activities across the four state forests were found at the 95% confidence level for the following activi— ties: swimming, nature observation, just looking and rock hounding. In terms of the popularity of individual recrea- tion activities across the four forests, fishing, nature observation, just looking, camping, photography, canoeing, hiking, rock hounding and "other" activities were most pOpu- lar in the Lake Superior, visiting campers and ORV use were most popular in the Mackinaw, boating was most popular in the Pere Marquette, swimming and picnicking were most popular in the Au Sable. However, these differences in realtive popularity of individual recreation activities among the four forests does not necessarily translate into the forest where an activity is most popular capturing the greatest share of systemwide participations in this activity. Variations in questionnaires distributed and differences in response rates also bear on the relative percentage of systemwide partici— pations an individual forest captures. For example, fishing was most popular in the Lake Superior forest, compared with that in other three forests, but the Mackinaw captured the largest percentage of fishing activity occurring in the SFC System. Specific hypotheses were postulated and tested concern- ing the four forests to identify differences among them as a " 1 110 group and between individual pairs of forests. It was found that there was no statistical difference in distance traveled to participate in day use activities among the four forests: however, visitors did on average travel further to the Lake Superior than to the Pere Marquette forest. No statistical difference was found among the four forests in terms of the number of different activities which day use parties partici- pated in; however, visitors to the Lake Superior forest par- ticipated in more activities on average than those visiting the Pere Marquette. Three Types of campgrounds Southeastern Michigan (Region 9) generated the largest percentage of day use parties for the Lake campgrounds. For the campgrounds located on rivers, the Pere Marquette state forest region (Region 4) generated the largest percentage of day use parties. The southeastern and east central Michigan regions shared the lead position as providers of day use parties for the campgrounds located on both a lake and a river. Since a proportional sampling technique was employed in the selection of campgrounds of the three types, there are significant differences in the number of campgrounds selected of each type (i.e. 32 campgrounds located on lakes, 19 on rivers and 6 on both a lake and a river). These sampling 111 rates need to be noted in reviewing some of the findings which follow. It was found that campgrounds located on both a lake and a river were most popular. However, Lake campgrounds attracted relatively more day use parties than the other two types of campgrounds combined because of their dominance in the campground sample. It was found that the Lake/River campgrounds were most popular on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Saturdays and Sun- days. On Thursdays and Fridays the Lake campgrounds were most popular to visit by day use parties. The largest per- centage of party visits was generated during the 2nd week for the Lake campgrounds, during the 6th week for the River camp- grounds and visitation to the Lake/River campgrounds exhi- bited equal peaks during the 2nd and 7th weeks of the season. Compared with other distance travel zones, the first zone ( 1 - 25 miles ) generated the largest percentage of party visits for all three types of campgrounds. After adjusting for differences in sampling rates dis- cussed above, it was found that the campgrounds located on both a lake and a river were most popular on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday, and during the 1st, 5th, 7th and 10th weeks of the season, and to those day use par- ties traveling between 26 to 50 miles or between 51 to 100 miles or 201 miles or more. The Lake campgrounds were most popular on Thursday and Friday, and during the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 112 5th, 6th, 8th and 9th weeks of the season, and to those day use parties traveling 25 miles or less or between 101 to 150 miles or between 151 to 200 miles. River campgrounds cap- tured the least percentage of day visits by day of the week, by week within the season and by distance traveled. In order to identify the popularity of individual recre— ation activities across the three types of campgrounds, the comparisons of percentage of day use parties participating in individual activities while visiting a campground type were calculated and compared. It was found that the swimming, picnicking, boating, photography and visiting campers acti- vities were most popular in the Lake campgrounds, nature observation, canoeing, hiking, picking and "other" activities were most popular in the campgrounds located on rivers, fishing, just looking and rock hounding were most popular in the campgrounds located on both a lake and a river. However, the Lake campgrounds captured the largest percentage of participations in all kinds of recreation activities because of their dominance both in the sample and in the SFC System. Compared with other recreation activities, swimming accounted for the largest percentage of total participations in Lake campgrounds, canoeing and nature observation shared the lead position in participations at River campgrounds, fishing was the most popular activity in the campgrounds located on both a lake and a river. 113 It was found that there were significant differences in activity participation levels among the three types of camp- grounds at the 95% confidence level for the following activi- ties: fishing, swimming, boating, canoeing and visiting campers. Specific hypotheses were postulated and tested concern— ing the three campground types to identify differences among them as a group and between individual pairs of campground types. It was found that there was no statistical difference in distance traveled to participate in day use activities among the three types of campgrounds. Campground type had no influence on number of different activities a party partici- pated in on a day use visit to a state forest campground. From the results of analyses discussed above, some simi- lar and different findings among these three kinds of group- ings of state forest campgrounds, the SFC System, the four state forests and the three campground types, were observed. For example , the first distance zone (1 - 25 miles) was the origin of the largest percentage of day use parties to all these three kinds of groupings of campgrounds, on the other hand, most day use parties prefered to travel a rather short distance of 1 - 25 miles to visit and participate in recrea— tion activities in a state forest campground, however, the most popular time (day of the week and week within the sea- son) for day users to visit a state forest campground were quite different among and within individual three kinds of 114 groupings of campgrounds. Also, the participation levels in individual recreation activities in a state forest campground were quite different and greatly influenced by the geographi- cal location and characteristics of that campground. 115 A0882 px0z So 00SSppSoov 66.88 68.8a 60.8a 68.8a 68.68 66.0a 6a.aa 66.8a a8-80 sass 6a.aa 60.0 66.8a 6a.aa 68.aa 60.8a 68.8 6a.08 80-8a sass 68.8 68.6 68.8 68.8 60.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68-88 sass 66.8a 68.8a 68.6a 68.6a 60.8a 60.8a 66.8a 66.8a 0a-8 sass 6a.aa 68.0a 68.8 66.8a 68.8 68.6 6a.aa 68.8 8 sass-80 msss SO0808 688 0888a; 8883 68.8 60.80 68.aa 68.8 66.6a 68.88 68.8 6a.8a sasssm 60.00 68.88 68.80 68.08 68.00 6a.60 66.8a 60.80 s800s880 66.8a 68.8 66.8a 66.8a 66.6 68.8a 68.6a 60.8a sweats 68.8 68.6 68.68 66.8a 66.6a 68.88 68.8 60.8a ssemssss 68.6a 68.8 66.08 68.8 66.6 6a.6 60.00 68.aa ssomossms 66.88 68.08 66.8a 66.8a 6a.8a 66.0a 66.8a 66.8a smsmmss 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 68.8 ssssos x003 02p 90 282 08ama> spews 68.88 66.0a 68.6 6a.8 60.0a 68.8 66.6a 68.6 88888-80-8s0 68.88 68.68 66.06 66.86 60.06 68.86 68.08 60.86 ss8asoas ca 800 S0>pm S0>pm 028p 0p288 0pp056S82 38pro82 SOpS02§8 E0p028 0p28pS8> \0x8p 5< 0802 0282 028 00229 USSOSm2E80 0p00SO2 0p8p8 .00p28pS82 202 S09 0pp500m 9O 2S82858 11.08 0p289 116 Amwmm mez :0 UmDCHPCOUV 0 0 mm m 0 n ma am wcsvmom 0 0 00 0 0 8 08 60 02855830 0 08 8 6 0 8 0 68 0:800:00 02800800 mccsopmaemo Mo “09832 0.008 8.86 8.00 0.06 0.80 0.86 6.088 6.06 Ammaaev 000s0>0 60.88 60.88 60.6 60.0 60.8 66.08 60.80 60.88 00a8s 0005-800 60.0 66.08 60.6 68.08 60.88 60.0 60.88 60.6 mmaae 000-808 6m.m &©.m 6m.m 6H.NH 60.5 6m.m $0.0 6H.© mmHflE omfilaofi 68.88 66.08 66.0 60.80 60.0 68.6 68.0 66.6 mmaas 008-80 60.00 66.68 60.0 68.0 60.08 68.88 60.00 60.88 00a8e 00 -00 60.08 66.08 66.00 60.08 66.80 60.00 60.08 66.80 0088s 00 -8 00Hm>mse moCMPmflQ 60.0 68.6 60.0 60.0 66.6 60.0 60.0 60.0 0 .8660-60 .mss 66.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 66.8 60.0 60.0 00-00 .ms< WW.W8 Wm.m8 Wm.m m0.0 m0.0 W0.m W6.08 mm.6 80-08 .ws0 . . . . o . . .0 .0.88 08. .0.00 . .88 88-0 . s0 60.0 66.80 60.08 6m.08 60.88 68.08 68.0 66.08 6-8 .ms0 A.p:oo~ Commmm 008 caspas s00; sm>flm um>fim mxmq manmm mppmsvsmz Bmcflxoms soasmmsm Empmhm manmfism> \0808 s< 0006 0sma 000 mwmwe chosmmemo mpmmsom mpmpm .A.PCoov mmapmflsm> 00M 00% mpasmmm go humeesm an.0m manme .mCoapm>pmmno wHSPwZ mmu-MOHUCH "8.10.09sz .x. mwmpm>¢ I O o O O O O O so a...“ m “gm...” “mm 66 6 00 6 00 6 06 6 66 6 80 6 66 8 00 6 s8006 m W08s8swso< pthmmgflo 00 009652 7 n“ 860.080 860.60 A60.08v 868.080 860.080 860.880 866.880 660.880 MooapmSh wcfleeflzm wcfipmom x00cOflm mcflpmom mnoppmz MOOHPwSh mnonpmz 868.680 866.880 866.880 866.680 866.880 860.880 860.880 866.680 0000002 0000802 0080080 0080080 00800830 0080080 0080080 00858830 AmQOHpMQHOHpnmm 00 RM 066.800 066.880 060.080 066.680 160.680 166.080 066.880 068.880 6608 86000> mcflcmflm 0:600:00 wcflseflam mCHESHSm mcflnmflm wcfleeflzm mnoppmz mcflsmflm IHUCH :0 mmflpfl>fipo< * 00Hmmom Pmos mwune 00>6m Mm>6m wxmq manmm 099050002 3026x002 poammmsm Empmzm manmflhm> \mqu 3¢ mpmm mxmg 0mm mmmhg chohmmemo mpmmhom mpdpm 0A.PCOOV mmfipwflhmxw snmvm .HO..H MPHSmwm ..HO hum-$585M II.OW GHQNB 118 Recommendations 1. A replication of this study should be conducted with a larger sample size to facilitate more in-depth analyses, e.g. an analysis of the variations in the package of various recreation activities between the four state forests and/or the three types of campgrounds. 2. A modified schedule of sampling times should be deve10ped in order to obtain information from those day use parties (e.g. fishermen) who visit a state forest campground either in the early morning or the late afternoon. 3. The Forest Management Division has no reliable estimate of total day use in the SFC System, in the four forests, or for individual campgrounds. This information void was a severe handicap in this study. For example, having it aVailable would have permitted development of wei- ghting schemes for adjusting for probable bias introduced in the sampling scheme which was employed in this study. Furthermore, FMD could use this information in many other ways to include simply better accounting for the services it is providing to the day user public. 4. Although a completely revised questionnaire will not be presented here, there are a number of items of information that should be included on future questionnaires. This new information would both greatly aid in the analyses employed herein and permit testing of other useful hypo- theses as well. 119 These additional items are: 1) 2) 3) LP) 5) 6) 7) 8) Campground name, which can be used to identify the dis- tribution of day visits to individual campgrounds. Party size, which can be used to estimate the total day day visitors such as in calibrating traffic counters. The day user's name, address and telephone number, which can be used to reach the day users by telephone or by follow-up questionnaire. Name of alternative campgrounds visited by users, which can be used to determine the number and location of possible competitive substitutes for a campground. If desired, this information can be used to predict the day-use visitation of a state forest campground. Number of days this state forest campground was used in the preceding season and has been used in this season. Time of entgring and leaving this campground; number of hours spent in this campground, which can be used to determine the peaking of day use in campgrounds. Activities participated by the day use party while there, which can be used to determine the levels of participa- tion in individual recreation activities in a state forest campground. Four activities which day use party spend the most time on, and number of hours spent doing each of them. In— formation contained in questions both 7 and 8 can be used to determine the relative popularity of individual 120 recreation activities in a campground. 9) Socio—economic data, such as age, income and education level, of the head of a day use party, which can be used to identify the effect of socio—economic characteristics of day users on their recreation behavior. 10) Travel characteristics, such as purpose of trip, day user's origin of residence, mileage traveled, and travel time. Crapo and Chubb (1969) explained the reason why the respondent should be asked for both "Mileage travel- ed" and "Travel time", that is "If the responses to one of these questions appears suspect, they can be checked against the responses to the other travel question and in this way some measure of their reliability estabili— shed". The information contained here could contribute to a better understanding of state forest campground day users' needs, desires, characteristics and recreation behavior for the purpose of developing a suitable and adequate operation and management policy to provide day users a more enjoyable experience while maintaining a quality forest environment. T—s LI TERATURE C ITED 121 122 LITERATURE CITED Babbie, Earl R. 1979. The Practice of Social Research. 2nd ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc. Bhattacharyya, Gouri K and Richard A. Johnson. 1977. Statistical Concepts and Methods. USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Michigan Statisti- cal Abstract. Graduate School of Business Adminis- tration, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan: 16 ed., 1981. pp. 30-33. Burgoyne, G. E. Jr.: J. L. Cook: J.P. Duvendeck: C.L. Bennett, Jr.: E. E. Langenau: E. M. Harger: R. J. Moran and L. G. Visser, Experimental Management of Michigan's Deer Habitat. Report prepared for the Wildlife Management Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1980. Cheung, Him K. 1972. A Day-Use Park Visitation Model. Journal of Leisure Research # (Spring): 139-155. Crapo, Douglas M. and Michael Chubb. Recreation Area Day-Use Investigation Techniques. Technical report number 6, January, 1969. Recreation research and planning unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, College of Agriculture and Natural Resour- ces, Michigan State University. DeVillez, Robert E. User Profile for a State Forest Campground. Report prepared for the Forestry Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1972. Forest Management Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Michigan State Forests Campground Direstory, 1982. Mullen, Nancy E. 1976. Patterns of Non-Boating Use at Sixteen Access Sites in Michigan. Unpublished Master's Project. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University. Nelson, Charles: Donald Holecek: David Feltus: Sz-Reng Chen. 1982. End of the Camping Season Report. Report prepared for the Forest Management Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. 123 Nie, N. H.: Hull, C. H.: Jenkins, J. G.: Steinbrenner, K: Bent, D. H. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, McGraw-Hill Inc., 1975. Stynes, Daniel J. and Donald F. Holecek. 1980. Michigan Great Lakes Recreational Boating: A Syn- thesis of Current Information. Michigan Sea Grant Publications. Poister, Theodore H. Public Program Analysis: Applied Research Methods. Baltimore, Maryland: University Park Press, 1978. Wagar, J. Alan. Relationships between Visitor Characteris- tics and Recreation Activities on Two National Forest Areas: Research Paper N.E.-7. Upper Darby, Penn.: Northeast Forest Experiment Station, 1963. APPENDICES 124 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT 125 126 APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENT MICHIGAN STATE FOREST CAMPGROUNDS DAY USE STUDY POST CARD QUESTIONNAIRE The DNR is interested in the amount and types of recreational activities that occur in relation to Michigan State Forest . campgrounds. We would appreciate your help by telling us about your activities today. 1. How many people are in your party? people i 2. What activities did your party participate in while your car was parked at campground on I) (Please check All the activities your party participated in) ____ Fishing _____Swimming ____ Camping. ____ Boating ____ Hiking ____ Picnicking ____ Just Looking ____ Canoeing ‘____ Rock Hounding ____ Pick berries, ____ Photography ____ ORV use fruit, etc. ____ Visiting _____Nature .____ other (Please campers observation explain ) 3. Where is your home? County in State or Province 4. How far did you travel to reach this campground today? miles 5. Would you be willing to provide more information about your use of State Forest Campgrounds? Yes No (If no, you are done. Please follow the mailing instruc- tions). If yes, please write your Name Address City, State, Zip Thank you for your help. Please mail this card. The postage is paid. APPENDIX B PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PARTY VISITS IN INDIVIDUAL WEEKS WITHIN THE SEASON ACROSS THE FOUR STATE FORESTS AND ACROSS THE THREE TYPES OF CAMPGROUNDS 127 128 Table B-1.-- Percentage Distribution of Party Visits in Indi- vidual Week within the Season across the Four State Forests. State Forests Week within Lake Pere Au Total the Season Superior Mackinaw Marquette Sable % N -------------- Percent----—------------- lst 25.0 25.0 18.8 31.2 100.0 16 2nd 15.6 31.2 31.2 22.2 100.0 32 3rd 15.4 23.1 38.5 23.1 loo.1*13 4th 8.7 43.5 30.4 17.4 100.0 23 5th 14.3 25.0 39.3 21.4 100.0 28 6th 11.5 34.6 26.9 23.1 1oo.1*26 7th 38.1 23.8 33.3 4.8 100.0 21 8th 33.3 26.7 26.7 13.3 100.0 15 9th 40.0 20.0 40.0 ' 0.0 100.0 5 10th 9.1 18.2 54.5 18.2 100.0 11 This does not add to 100 percent due to rounding. 129 Table B—2.-- Distribution of Party Visits in Individual Week within the Season across the Three Types of Campgrounds. Types of Campgrounds Week within Total the Season Lake River Lake/River % - N ------------ Percent-——--------- Expected Share of Party Visits 56.1 33.3 10.6 100.0 lst 50.0 25.0 25.0 100.0 16 2nd 65.7 15.6 18.7 100.0 32 3rd 61.5 23.1 15.4 100.0 13 4th 82.6 0.0 17.4 100.0 23 5th 60.7 17.8 21.5 100.0 28 6th 64.0 28.0 8.0 100.0 25 7th 52.4 19.0 28.6 100.0 21 8th 73.3 6.7 20.0 100.0 15 9th 80.0 0.0 20.0 100.0 5 10th 54.6 18.2 18.2 100.0 11 HICHI m Usz. m -' n11:11:11))@1111)!”)7) M £3 3 9 0 578592