*Msu LIBRARIES m RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES wiII be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ‘ 1 II‘ V ‘. I Q '- ‘J t i ‘ ‘5 3E R l J ' v '5. -," I ' a; ‘4“: A .1 v 9 F ,_ De; A PROFILE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK USERS WITH PROMOTION IMPLICATIONS BY KATHERINE K. BEATTY 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 1988 l ({‘f 3. 7"" Copyright by Katherine Kay Beatty 1988 ABSTRACT A PROFILE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK USERS WITH PROMOTION IMPLICATIONS BY Katherine K. Beatty This study is only one part of a project funded by Parks Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. An on-site survey was conducted May-September 1985 and focuses on both campers and day users. Camper parties were found to be mainly resident fami- lies spending 4.7 nights, participating in swimming, hik- ing/walking, and sightseeing and were content repeat users. In addition, the average camper party spent $45.92 within twenty miles of the park. Conversely, day users were resi- dent families on a five hour trip participating in swim- ming, picnicking, or hiking trails and were also content repeat users. Also, day user parties, on average, spent $18.16 within twenty miles of the park. Users of state parks rely heavily on recommendations from friends and relatives for information about parks to visit. This finding is the basis for a set of recommend- ations for improved targeting of promotional activities. I 1 P931318 1 through< ment. r Eajor p: mittee, I would for the State P. Se Student ing of . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to dedicate this Thesis to a number of people who have shown a tremendous amount of support throughout the various stages of the writing of this docu- ment. First, I would like to thank Dr. Don Holecek, my major professor, and the other members of my graduate com- mittee, Mr. Chuck Nelson and Dr. Dale Wilson. In addition, I would like to thank Drs. Joe Fridgen and Edward Mahoney for their time in sharing their individual insights on the State Park Project. Secondly, I would like to thank a number of graduate students who helped me in my daily activities in the writ- ing of this document: Barry Peterman, Abas Said, and Janet Lee. Third, I would like to thank some very important friends who have helped me in my higher education pursuits: Ruth Martin has been a tremendous amount of support through all of my years of education, Anne Pulley, Steve Burman, Julie Levy, Kathy Nichols, and John Cooper have all aided me in my pursuits. Lastly, I would like to thank my parents, my grandpar- ents, my sister and my brother for their yearly support and confidence in my work. Without their confidence in me, my education would not have been possible. ii CHAPTER \ LIST OF TAE LIST OF Fm I INTROI A A-A H r l H I \ H II LITER} h— o- I- 0‘ H H H H1 533 Hfmmnrnr‘rn.‘ TABLE OF CONTENTS EEAEIEB 259E LIST OF TABLESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO ..... O... ..... 0.... Vi LIST OF FIGURES.. ............ . ...... ........ ..... . I INTRODUCTION.... ............................. Problem Statement..... ..... ............. Objectives.. ............................ Expected Outcomes....................... Justification.......... ..... ............ Use of the Study........................ Limitations............................. Organization....... ......... . ......... .. II LITERATURE REVIEW ............................ Summary of Relevant Studies.. .......... . State Park Marketing Studies............ Studies of Similar Markets.............. Michigan State Parks......... .......... ,. III METHODS.......... ........ . .................. Introduction.... ..... ...... ............. Systemwide User Survey ..... . ..... ....... Questionnaire Development............... Sampling Design......................... Camper Methods.......................... Day user Methods .............. . ..... .... Return Rate............................. Weighting Procedures....... ..... ........ Data Analysis........................... IVRESULTSOOOOOOOOOOOO00....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... CMPERCCOCOOOO .......... .0. ......... 0... Introduction................. ...... ..... Participation Patterns.................. Information Sources Used and Reservation BehaViorOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... iii QQQGO‘UI-b 10 15 17 22 26 26 26 28 29 31 32 33 34 35 36 36 36 45 49 O magmmmmmnm 'UH'UH Tor—{J’R'UT'I’UDU ER PAGE Eguipment....... ....... ........ ....... .. 55 Campground Attribute Importance ......... 57 Recreation Activity Importance and Participation ..... . ............ . ........ 59 Fall, Winter, Spring Activity Participation....... .................... 61 Expenditures......... ................... 63 Motor Vehicle Permit Purchases.......... 65 Camper Satisfaction..................... 68 Summary............... ...... . ......... .. 73 DAY USER... ............. ... ............. 75 Introduction....................... ..... 75 Participation Patterns............. ..... 84 Information Sources and Reservation Patterns.......... ........ .............. 88 Recreation Activity Importance and Participation........................... 91 Fall, Winter, and Spring Activity Participation........................... 93 Spending...................... ......... . 96 Motor Vehicle Permit Usage.............. 98 Day user Satisfaction................... 101 Summary............... ...... ............ 106 COMPARISONS BETWEEN DAY USERS AND CAMPERS .........COOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOO0.0... 107 Introduction............................ 107 Information Sources... ........ .......... 107 Activities.............................. 111 Expenditures............................ 116 Attributes.............................. 116 Summary................................. 122 V STATE PARK USERS: CENSUS COMPARISONS......... 124 Age............................ ....... .. 125 Marital Status.. ...... .................. 128 Race.................................... 129 Education............................... 130 Income......................... ........ . 131 Conclusion.............................. 133 iv CI'LIPTER VI 8 VII CHAPTER PAGE VI SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS ........... . ........ . 134 CAMPER. ................................. 134 IntrOduCt ion 0 O O O O O O O O ..... O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 3 4 Information Sources ...... . ............ .. 135 Attributes. O O O O O O O O O O I O O ......... O O I O 0 O O 139 ActiVity Ratings 0 O I O O I O O ..... O O I I I O O O O O O 14 1 Attributes/Facilities....... ............ 142 sumamoooooooooooooooo ...... ... ..... .0. 147 DAY USER. O O O O O O O O O O O ........ O O O O O O O O O O O O 148 Information Sources..................... 148 Activity Ratings........................ 152 Attributes/Facilities................... 155 Summary................ ..... ............ 158 Conclusion......... ..................... 159 VII PROMOTIONAL STRATEGY...................... 161 Marketing 0verview...................... 161 Promotional Strategy.................... 164 Personal Selling........................ 166 Advertising............................. 170 Publicity............ ..... .............. 172 Sales Promotions ........ ..... ........... 175 APPENDIXOOOOO......OCOOOOCOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOO 179 A: Camper Questionnaire and Sampling Procedures... 179 B: Day User Questionnaire and Sampling Procedures. 193 C: Figure 1 Camper and Day User Parks Used in Survey................................ ....... .. 205 Figure 2 Sampling Plan for Group 1 Parks....... 206 Figure 3 Sampling Plan for Group 2 Parks....... 207 Figure 4 Sampling Plan for Group 3 Parks....... 208 Figure 5 Camper Response Rate per Park......... 209 Figure 6 Day User Response Rate per Park....... 210 REFERENCESCOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 211 10. ll. 12. 13, LIST OF TABLES TABLE NUMBER PAGE 1. INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERSOOOOCOOOOOOOCOOO......OOOOOOOCOOOOO0.0... 37 2. PARTY RELATIONSHIP OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CMPERSCOOCCOCCOOCOOOO............OOOOOCOOCOOOOO 38 3. AGE DISTRIBUTION BY SEX OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CMPER PARTIESOOOOOOOOO.........OOOOCOOOOOOOOOOO 39 4. STATE OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPER PARTIESOOOOCCOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOO 41 5. SIZE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPING PARTIESOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 43 6. DISTRIBUTION OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPER NIGHTSOCCOOOCCOC....0..........OOOCOOOOOOOOOCOOO 46 7. HOW STATE PARK CAMPERS DISTRIBUTE THEIR ANNUAL CAMPING ACTIVITY BY LOCATION/PROVIDER........... 48 8. INFORMATION SOURCES USED BY CAMPERS BEFORE THEIR FIRST VISIT TO THE MICHIGAN STATE PARK WHERE THEY WERE INTERVIEWEDOOCOOCOOO......OOIOOOOCOOO0....O 50 9. SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN THIS STATE PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS.................. 52 10. RESERVATION BEHAVIOR OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CMPERSCCOOOOOOO00.0.00.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 54 11. EQUIPMENT TYPES USED BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CMPERSOCOO0.000000.........OOOOOOOOOCOOO...... 56 12. CAMPGROUND ATTRIBUTES RANKED IN ORDER OF MEDIAN IMPORTANCEOCOCOOCOCOO000......0.000.000.0000... 58 13. MICHIGAN STATE PARKS CAMPER'S IMPORTANCE RANK- ING OF AND PARTICIPATION IN SELECTED ACTIVITIESOOOO00.00.0000.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 60 vi INIELEEEEEB 14. PERCENT I 15. 16. 17. 18. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27, 28. 29, 30. SPRING AC MICHIGAN MEAN EXP! CAMPING I ANNUAL VI PURCHASE CAMPERS . . VEHICLE 1 om: cmpc BY HICHIC . THE cam BY MICHIc THE ONE 1 DECISION DAY uszm FARTE! RE] DAY USER: AGE DIST] DAY USER: TA LE NUMB R PAGE 14. PERCENT OF PARTICIPATION IN FALL, WINTER, AND SPRING ACTIVITIES CHOSEN BY SUMMER SEASON OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS.................... 62 15. MEAN EXPENDITURES PER MICHIGAN STATE PARK CMPING PARTYOCOOOOOOCOOCOOOOOC......OOOOOIOOOO 64 16. ANNUAL VEHICLE PERMIT USE AND DAILY PERMIT PURCHASE BEHAVIOR OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CMPERSCOOOOC......OOOOOOOOCCOO......COOOOOOOOO 67 17. VEHICLE PERMIT COST PER USE FOR CAMPERS........ 68 18. ONE CAMPGROUND ATTRIBUTE/FACILITY LIKED BEST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS................. 70 19. THE CAMPGROUND ATTRIBUTE/FACILITY LIKED LEAST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS................. 71 20. THE ONE MOST IMPORTANT REASON/THING BEHIND DECISION TO CAMP AT THIS PARK.................. 72 21. INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAYUSERS...’.........OOOCOOOCOOOOOOOIO00...... 76 22. PARTY RELATIONSHIP OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS...‘00............OOOCOOO00.00.0000... 77 23. AGE DISTRIBUTION BY SEX OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSOOOOOOOCOOO.........OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 79 24. STATE OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSOOCOCCOOOOOOOOOOC......OOCOOOCCOO 81 25. SIZE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USER PARTIES... 83 26. TOTAL HOURS SPENT IN PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSIOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC 85 27. LOCATION OF PREVIOUS NIGHT'S STAY FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSOOOOIOOOOCO......OOOOOOOOOO 87 28. INFORMATION SOURCES MOST IMPORTANT IN PROMOTING FIRST VISIT TO THIS PARK............. 89 29. INFORMATION SOURCES USED MOST FREQUENTLY AFTER ARRIVAL AT THIS STATE PARK............... 90 30. MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS RANKING OF PAR- TICIPATION RATES AND IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED ACTIVITIESCOOOOOOOC...O......COOOCOOCOOOOOOOOOO 92 vii 9.122133 E93. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. PERCENT OF PARTICIPATION IN FALL, WINTER, AND SPRING ACTIVITIES BY SUMMER SEASON MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS .......... ................. 95 MEAN EXPENDITURES PER PARTY FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS.0.000000.........OOCOOOOCOOOOIOO 97 ANNUAL VEHICLE PERMIT USE AND DAILY PERMIT PURCHASE BEHAVIOR FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSOO0..........O.........OOOOOOOO....... 99 VEHICLE PERMIT COST PER USE FOR DAY USERSOOOOOO....O....0.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 100 ATTRIBUTE/FACILITY LIKED BEST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSCOOOOOOOOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 102 ATTRIBUTE/FACILITY LIKED LEAST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSCOOOOCO00............OOCCCCOOCCOO 103 ONE MOST IMPORTANT REASON/THING BEHIND DECISION TO VISIT PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSCOOCOO......OOOOOOOOCOOOO......OOOOOOO 104 A COMPARISON OF INFORMATION SOURCES WHICH PROMPTED FIRST VISIT FOR STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERSOOCOOOOOOO ....... ......O... ....... 109 A COMPARISON OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED WHILE VISITING THIS STATE PARK FOR BOTH CMPERS AND DAY USERSOOOO......OCOOCCOOOOOOO.... 111 A COMPARISON OF ACTIVITY RATINGS BY BOTH MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS...... 113 A COMPARISON OF FALL, WINTER, AND SPRING ACTI- VITY PARTICIPATION FOR BOTH MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS MD DAY.USERSCC.........OOOOOOOOOOOO... 115 A COMPARISON OF THE TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTES/ FACILITIES FOR BOTH SAMPLED MICHIGAN STATE PARK CMPERS “D DAY USERSCCCOOCCOO......OOOOOCOOCCO 117 A COMPARISON OF ATTRIBUTE/FACILITIES LIKED LEAST FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERSOOOOOOOC....C..........OOOOCOOOOCOOOOO 119 A COMPARISON OF THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON/THING BEHIND DECISION TO VISIT THE PARK FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS............... 121 viii GDPTER 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 31. 52. 33. . 54. 85. Sa. SEX I LATIC DAY I AGE I LATIC USERE MARI? TIDN DAY 4 RACE POPE? DAY I EDUC. POPE AND INCO POPE AND TOP A VI CHAPTER PAGE 45. SEX DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPU- LATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERSOOOOOOOOCOOO.C......OOOOOOOCOOCCOOOCOO 125 46. AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPU- LATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERSCOOOOOOO......O.......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO... 127 47. MARITAL STATUS OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULA- TION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERSOOCOOO0............OOOCCOOOOOOOOOO.... 128 48. RACE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERSCCO.......00.00.00.........OOCOOCOOOCC 129 49. EDUCATIONAL LEVELS OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS’ AND DAY USERS...O0.0.C......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCO 130 50. INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERSOOOOOO0.00.......OOOOOCIOOOOOCOOOO 132 51. TOP FIVE INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN PROMPTING A VISIT BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS......... 137 52. TOP FIVE INFORMATION SOURCES ABOUT THIS STATE PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS............ 139 53. TOP FIVE CAMPGROUND ATTRIBUTES RANKED BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS.........OOOOOOOOCOO 141 54. TOP FIVE ACTIVITY RATINGS BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERSOOOOOCOOOCOO..........OOOOOOOOOOOOOCCOOO 142 55. TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTES/FACILITIES LIKED BEST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 143 56. TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTES/FACILITIES LIKED LEAST ABOUT THIS CAMPGROUND BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERSOOCCOOOOC0............OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO 145 57. TOP FIVE MOST IMPORTANT REASONS/THINGS BEHIND DECISION To CMPAT PARKOOOOOOOOOOO......OCOOOO 146 58. TOP FIVE INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN PROMPTING A VISIT BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS....... 149 ix CFAPIER 59. TOP PAR} USE! 60. TOP FARE 61. TOP MIC] 62. TOP THE U5 El 63. THE DEC 1m CHAPTER 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. TOP FIVE INFORMATION SOURCES ABOUT THIS STATE PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS WHILE ON-SITEOOOOO......OIOOOOOOOOOCOOOOO TOP FIVE ACTIVITY RATINGS BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO0...... TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTE/FACILITIES LIKED BEST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS.................. TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTE/FACILITIES LIKED LEAST ABOUT THIS PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSOOOO0.000.000.0000...0.0.0.0...0.0.0.0.... THE FIVE MOST IMPORTANT REASON/THING BEHIND DECISION TO VISIT PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERSOOOOOOOOOCOOOO......OOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOO PAGE 151 153 154 156 157 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE NUMBER 1. 2. LIST OF STATE PARKS AND SAMPLING TYPES SAMPLING DATES AND TIME PERIODS FOR GROUP # 1 PARKS SAMPLING DATES AND TIME PERIODS FOR GROUP # 2 PARKS SAMPLING DATES AND TIME PERIODS FOR GROUP # 3 PARKS RESPONSE RATE FOR CAMPERS BY DISTRICT RESPONSE RATE FOR DAY USERS BY DISTRICT xi PAGE 205 206 207 208 209 210 T! has be. growth declin less t 1979)_ terns ring f the en Syste: :1: the di the le aflgunt Users differ the 1e DiVisi H-rfLO «7'17 H CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The growth rate of camping in the national context has been declining recently. "From an average annual growth rate of twenty percent in the 1960's, camping declined in the early 1970's to less than 10%, and to less than 5% in the late 1970's (LaPage and Cole, 1979)." As the number of visits along with visitor pat- terns have changed, downturns in the economy and recur- ring fuel price fluctuations have all led to a change in the environment for managing and financing recreation systems across the country (Howard and Crompton, 1980). Michigan State Parks are being forced to move in the direction of self-sufficiency. In the past 38 years the legislature has ceased to appropriate the total amount of funds for the State Parks System-instead the users themselves are faced with the task of paying the difference between the amount of funds appropriated by the legislature and the amount needed by the State Parks Division to maintain and operate the facilities. Funding sources for the Michigan State Parks operating budget have changed greatly since 1975. The proportion of the operating budget from the State Leg- islature has dropped from 67% in 1974-1975 to 31% in 1983-1984. This rep- '71“ crib—01.) fib- suffic of Nat increa level nues c be to Vehicl Campir revem and ma involV and da dents) state they d would Users. state sticks Other 2 resents a 50% decrease. During this period, users fees have increased from 33% of the final operating budget in 1974-1975 to 66% in 1983-1984. Clearly, users are continuing to pay an increas- ingly larger portion of the state park operating budget (Silagy, 1985). As a result of this new movement toward self- sufficiency, Parks Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is looking for ways of increasing its revenues in order to provide the same level of service to which people are accustomed. Reve- nues can be increased a variety of ways. One way would be to increase the price of the daily and annual motor vehicle permits. Another way would be to increase the camping fees. In order to know the best way to increase revenues, it is necessary to carefully study the market and marketing environment of the DNR. This would involve, among other things, who and where the campers and day users come from (instate vs. out-of-state resi- dents). If there is a considerable amount of out-of- state users, perhaps they should pay a higher fee since they do not pay Michigan taxes. Therefore, the DNR would be justified in raising its fees for out-of-state users. Currently at Warren Dunes State Park, out-of- state day users must pay $1 more for their daily sticker. Perhaps this philosophy should prevail at other State Parks as well. 3 According to the National Park Service (1983), decisions that are based upon solid marketing principles not only save time and money but may also lead to increased visitation and greater user satisfaction. When marketing is done properly, in a manner consistent with the philosophy of public recreation in state parks, it can benefit the provider and receiver of services. This paper will demonstrate how the Parks Division of the DNR could be moving towards more of a marketing approach. This marketing approach would enable the Division to: 1) increase revenues and public acceptance of this increase in fees, and 2) concentrate more on its users and what it can provide such as better facilities, maintenance, etc. In the past, managers of State Parks were trained to manage facilities rather than seek out and respond to public need. This worked especially well because the State Parks in Michigan were the main source of camping and day use recreation products available. Presently, user needs are changing and alternatives are available, and as a result users are seeking other environments for camping and day use experiences and are finding an expanded range of alternatives available. Since it is impossible for the present day manager to keep abreast of both changes in users and potential users and the competition, it was necessary for the State Parks Divi- sion to undertake a study to discover who its users are and The: awar ment Stat 4 and what they desire in a recreational experience. Therefore in 1984, Michigan State University (MSU) was awarded a contract by the Parks Division of the Depart- ment of Natural Resources to perform a study of Michigan State Park Campers and Day users. Problem Statement The purpose of this MSU study was twofold. First, this study was to gather basic demographic, psycho- graphic, and historical data that would lay the founda- tion for planning and decision making in the future. Secondly, the study was designed to gather knowledge that would help state park managers in their planning and decision making while at the same time adding to the information base about Michigan campers. Therefore, this paper will use the information from the Michigan State Park (MSP) study to aid in the two purposes outlined. A major focus will be to determine who is using the Michigan State Parks in a camping or day use capacity. This will include: demographic, party, residence, and trip characteristics, as well as information sources, equipment, activities, expendi- tures, vehicle permit use, and satisfaction. Once the "typical" camper and day user has been outlined, then the problem becomes one of discovering how to plan for 'the future in order to meet the needs of MSP campers and «flay users in the late 1980's and beyond. st! the Thi L1 O (1* Par} rier retu 5 This planning involves developing a promotional strategy which will be specifically designed to reflect the data gathered from the Michigan State Park survey. This promotional strategy will consist of four parts: personal selling, advertising, publicity, and sales pro- motion. The strategy will address what Michigan State Park managers need to change about the state park expe- rience in order to satisfy their users so they will return and possibly even recommend the park to others. Objectives The five objectives of this paper are: 1) Outline a profile of the "typical" state park day user. 2) Outline a profile of the "typical" state park camper. 3) Compare the "typical" day user and camper with findings from other relevant studies. 4) From the conclusions drawn from the analysis, develop strategies which can be implemented by the state park managers. 5) Design a promotional strategy. m ls m ter know look soci Expected Outcomes As a result of this study the DNR will have a bet- ter understanding of who its users are. Managers will know what the "typical" camper and "typical" day user looks like. This will include such information as: socio-economic characteristics, participation patterns, information sources and reservation patterns. The importance of, and participation in, recreational acti- vities will also be included as well as off-season acti- vities, expenditures, and levels of and satisfaction. Plus, "typical" users will be compared with other "typi- cal" users in other state park, state forest, and com- mercial studies as well as being compared to census data. The recommendations chapter will address how the State Park System could change to keep abreast of exist- ing and potential user needs in order to increase atten- dance and revenues. Finally, the promotion chapter will outline specific recommendations to aid in: personal selling, advertising, publicity, and sales promotions. Justification The combined problem is one of discovering who uses state parks and, further, developing a strategy to keep managers in touch with their campers and day users so they can provide the experience the users desire. For example, a manager of a state park needs to know what visitors desire in visiting a state park and what makes 7 them come back to state parks. Also, managers need to know what the needs, desires, and problems of day users are in order to keep them coming to the state park sys- tem in desired numbers. One way to attain an awareness of the changing needs of users is through a survey. Michigan State University's Department of Parks and Rec- reation conducted such a survey in the summer of 1985. After carefully analyzing the data from the two surveys, the DNR will have a better understanding of who their users are and how to best meet their needs. Use of the Study This study can be used by the Parks Division of the DNR in planning for the future needs of its day users and campers. (For the purposes of this paper, a day user is defined as a Michigan State Park user who visits a day use area for a period not to exceed one day.) Based on the information in this paper, Parks Division manag- ers can alter the attributes/facilities according to what the "typical" day user and camper desires in a State Park experience. Limitations There are many limitations to this study. One such limitation is that the survey was designed to provide a basic profile of Michigan State Park users and not of 8 non-users of the State Park's system. Also, it was not solely designed to be used as a marketing instrument. In addition, park personnel administered the survey in the field. As a result, it is necessary to assume that they would follow the procedures outlined by the Michi- gan State University Park and Recreation Department pro- ject staff. Another set of limitations involved the timing of the survey. Only one day in May and one in September, the tail months of the peak summer season, were included as sample days. The remaining ten sample days were dis- tributed evenly between week days and week end days between the months of June through August. This alloca- tion of sampling days was developed to be roughly pro- portional to a pattern of attendance over the season at parks across the system. If historical records of attendance are at variance with actual sampling rates from certain time periods and or parks, sampling rates in this study might have been too high or too low lead- ing to over or under representation of some types of users . Organization This thesis is organized into five major areas: 1) Introduction-contains the basics of the paper such as the problem statement, goals and objectives, justifica- 9 tion of the importance of the problem, basic assump- tions, and limitations. 2) Literature Review-this contains basic information on camping and day user information, and specific studies such as the Wisconsin Study, State Forest Study, Michigan Association of Pri- vate Campground Owners Study, and the Ohio Study. 3) Methods-is composed of an in-depth account of the meth- ods used for the State Parks study including the response rate, data management, and analysis preparation procedures. 4) Results-this includes an analysis of the state-wide state park camper and day user, with a pro- file of each and a comparison section of campers versus day users. 5) Comparisons-includes comparisons to Cen- sus and the Michigan State Park study. 6) Summary/ Recommendations-deals with the general findings from the results section including information sources and attributes/activities seen as desirable. 7) Promotional strategy-this chapter consists of designing a promo- tional strategy in terms of the following four compo- nents: personal selling, advertising, publicity, and sales promotions. CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW Summary of Relevant Studies It is important to understand camping and day use studies previously conducted in order to: help in guiding analysis and recommendations, prevent redun- dancy, and reveal how research will improve, benefit, and/or increase knowledge. The following information is extracted from the most relevant camping studies identi- fied. The camping market is unquestionably our most studied outdoor recreation market. As a result of low-cost, reliable tech- niques for conducting national sample surveys of the general population, we are considerably more knowledgeable about who camps than where they camp (LaPage and Cole, 1979). The Opinion Research Corporation, Princeton, N.J. under contract with the USDA Forest Service has con- ducted surveys in 1971, 1973, and 1978 (LaPage and Cole, 1979). It is interesting to note that in 1971 there were 12.4 million active camping households. In 1973 there were 14.3 million households who camped, and in 1978 there were 17.5 million active camping households. In a period of seven years, the number of active camping households increased 50%. Although this seems like a 10 la: qrc the the can; ant 11 large increase, it is actually a decrease in the rate of growth in camping from the 1960's. In the early 1970's the growth rate was less than 10% and less than 5% in the late 1970's. This 1978 National Camping Market survey documents a turning point in the market. Twenty-seven percent of all households had tried camping and had dropped it, temporarily or permanently. The number of potential campers had been reduced to half of its size and these potential campers had less "potential" because of their images of camping, attendance at camping equipment 'shows, and number of friends who camp. Assuming this trend has continued, the industry must look in new directions for continued market growth. LaPage and Bevins (1981) recommend looking in two dis- tinct areas: 1)the nine million inactive camping house- holds and 2)the people who camp less than six days each year. In a study conducted by Ronald Hodgson (1971), the author found that an attractive campground would cause campers to visit and to stay. Campground attractiveness could be related to the camper's desire to visit and stay at a campground. More specifically, Hodgson found that there was a significant positive relationship between the availability of swimming at the campground and campground attractiveness. LaPage (1967) reached a similar conclusion. He found that the presence of swim- hing ciat. founc camp} were of vi stead strea ation inter and s 9rOUh ilter while accEs: Choim Views 9r0unc able. 12 ming or boating at or near the campground is asso- ciated with longer and more frequent visits. Water was found to be almost always necessary for high quality camping experiences. Still waters of lakes and ponds were preferred to streams. Length of visits, frequency of visits, and number who intended to return decreased steadily from lake front campgrounds, through river and stream front campgrounds, to campgrounds with no recre- ational water access. Also, Hodgson (1971) found:"... responses to an interview... support the hypothesis that flush toilets and showers are services that are important to camp- ground attractiveness." About 1/2 (17/29) of the parties interviewed said flush toilets were important to them while 2/3 (23/29) felt showers were important. Water access was mentioned as important in making campground choices by 93% of the parties. Results of the inter- views suggest that crowding is an unattractive camp- ground feature-over half mentioned crowding as undesir- able. A study was undertaken by LaPage and Ragain (1973-74) of eight years of annual camping participation data. This data was reported by a panel of 459 camping families. This study revealed that 51% of the campers were either camping less or had dropped out of the camp- ing market. Campers with increased or decreased camping i: 13 trends were more likely to have experienced a change in their style of camping than were those families with a constant or highly variable pattern of participation. Changes in the style of camping were in two distinct directions either toward a more primitive type of camp- ing experience or toward season-long rentals and advance reservations at community campgrounds. Changes in the family life cycle were reported to have influenced camp- ing participation but in no consistent pattern. LaPage (1983) reported:"... providing the environ- ment for a high quality outdoor recreation experience is a goal of most recreation resource managers-public and private." However, this high quality outdoor recreation experience needs to be thought of in terms of experi- ences that are in agreement with the ideals of managers and planners. There is a substantial difference between managerial and user perceptions of ideal locations, designs, facilities, supervision, and maintenance. In the past, campground planners located develop- ments in wooded settings and campers used them. In the 1950's, the private sector started building campgrounds in fields, pastures and other areas with minimal shade. Campers did indeed accept and use them and some even preferred them. Many campers seem to prefer waterfront sites, and some are even willing to pay more to use them. Many planners prefer rustic, unnoticeable build- ha‘. the a v Crc l4 ings like hidden toilets-while visitors like to find them fast. Also, many campers today do not want an absent ranger but instead expect to find someone who fills the ranger image, someone who is in charge, pro- vides security, information, advice and adds color to the experience (LaPage, 1983). LaPage (1983) states: ... Recreation resource managers, there- fore, are in the business of improving the quality of life for their visitors. If their visitors depart with feelings of dissatisfaction, disappointment, frustra- tion, or even anger, management has failed, no matter how high the quality of its input... Satisfaction is not just a surrogate for experience quality, it is quality in the minds of many visitors. Few visitors are so analytical (at least, the satisfied ones) or so motivated as to identify, evaluate, and attempt to weigh the components of their experiences. LaPage (1983) also states that other researchers have found that measurement is still crude yet we know that satisfaction increases and decreases in response to a variety of factors influenced by management such as crowding, courtesy, and cleanliness (LaPage and Bevins 1981, Foster and Jackson 1979). Simply put, management efforts to increase visitor satisfaction produces returns via more business and fewer problems. Wang (1971) states it best: In the case of state park camping, ques- tions concerning the nature and extent of campground improvements have to be approached in the context of what the 15 campers want in relation to the resources of the parks and the need to protect these resources for future generations. Hence the relationships between camper preferences and campsite characteristics must be established in order to assist administrators and designers in deciding on the nature and extent of campground facilities. State Park Marketing Studies In this section, three state park marketing studies will be reviewed to include: the Ohio study, the Minne- sota State Park and Forest Area Study, and the New Hamp- shire State Parks Survey. Ohio Study The purpose of this survey was to determine the demographics of the typical Ohio State Park campground user and his/her basic attitudes and preferences. A questionnaire was handed out from June 23rd to July 30th 1984, and the response rate was 57% with a sample size of 2,109. Of those campers who were surveyed, it was discovered that the typical Ohio State Park camper was married, had four or more members in his/her household, earned over $20,000 a year, and had a high school edu- cation. The majority of the campers were from Ohio. The majority party size was three or four, and the average number of miles traveled was eighty-five. The average length of stay was four nights while the tip can use can] the: Stat adhi that in t Rams Bari Park 0l’ie hand USer USQd issei heUh 16 typical user spent $112 a trip. Users, on average, had camped in Ohio State Parks for ten or more years and had usually camped in the same park. Finally, the typical camper camps twenty-four nights a year and of these twenty-four nights, seventeen are in Ohio State Parks (Ohio Division of Parks and Recreation, 1984). Minnesota State Park and Forest Areas Study This study involved campers in certain Minnesota State Park and Forest Areas as well as state and area administrators. As a result of this study, it was shown that managers and campers perceive state parks differently in terms of basic park purposes. Merriam, Wald, and Ramsey (1972) state: "These key managers see parks pri- marily as natural areas for preservation: users see parks primarily as recreation areas." The users were oriented toward facilities and activities. On the other hand, the administrators were in agreement with the users on activities but not on facilities. New Hampshire State Parks LaPage (1983), discussed the "report card" system used by the New Hamshire Division of State Parks for assessing visitor satisfaction among campers. This method measures satisfaction on a scale from A to E and seems to contain many elements of a simple and economi- ca} res ch; to to ti re e1 to re at 0F 17 cal feedback system (LaPage and Bevins, 1981). By using small samples of voluntary responses researchers found that different campgrounds produced characteristic average satisfaction levels from year to year. But when the campground scores were averaged together, it is interesting that the composite satisfac- tion rating at both public and private campgrounds was remarkably similar. The average rating for individual elements on the report card were found to be sensitive to changes in management practices, increasing in response to improved security procedures, decreasing when budget cuts necessitated less frequent clean-up operations (LaPage, 1983). Studies of Similar Markets This section will include the Wisconsin study, Ohio study, State Forest study, and the MAPCO study. Just the general data from these four studies will be pre- sented in the results section of this paper. Wisconsin Study The Wisconsin study was conducted by the DNR and Wisconsin Association of Campground Owners (WACO) with assistance by the Recreation Resources Center (RRC) of the University of Wisconsin Extension in 1980. Twen- ty-five DNR and 44 WACO campgrounds were selected based on geographic location and size. 18 Studies of Similar Markets The Wisconsin study, Ohio study, State Forest study, and the MAPCO study will be briefly discussed in this section. Just the general data from these four studies will be presented. More specific data will be presented in the results section of this paper. Wisconsin Study The Wisconsin Study was conducted in 1980 by the DNR and WACO (Wisconsin Association of Campground Owners) with assistance from the Recreation Resources Center (RRC) of the University of Wisconsin Extension. Twenty- five DNR and 44 WACO campgrounds were selected based on geographic location and size. The survey design was a systematic random sample where by 4000 surveys were mailed to DNR campers and 6000 surveys were mailed to WACO campers. The response rate was 50% for DNR campers and 40% for WACO campers. The general results of the survey are discussed on the following page. re or 11 ty Al wo ti Wh 5? 10 re at 6r to fe '~'e te; 19 In general, the WACO campers placed the highest values on bathrooms, cleanliness, large campsites, and recreation activities. They tended toward a family orientation, used more sophisticated camping equipment, liked to socialize and preferred the more developed types of recreation activities than did DNR campers. Also, shady, well-drained, spacious, and private were words used to describe the most important characteris- tics when choosing a campsite. DNR campers, in general, ranked highest: campsites which are large, level, grassy, shaded, well-drained and spacious. General appearance, bathrooms, and campground locations were also highly ranked. They liked water related activities, and their most important consider- ation was privacy. They preferred campgrounds in wooded areas with considerable vegetative growth between sites to provide visual and sound barriers. Plus, they pre- ferred solitude, liked a natural and scenic setting, and were more physically active. Also, DNR campers brought tents and less sophisticated equipment. In combination, WACO and DNR campers were found to be between the ages of 25-44: their median income was $20,000-$30,000. The campers had considerable camping experience-just over 11 years (Cooper, Novak, Henderson, 1980). 20 Michigan State Forest Studies In 1984, the Department of Parks and Recreation at MSU completed the third year of a three year research program. This program was designed to provide the For- est Management Division of the DNR with detailed infor- mation about state forest campers and day users of camp- ground facilities such as parking areas and water access points. Many of the research questions asked were repeats of those used in the 1982 and 1983 interview: providing an opportunity to explore trends in state for- est camping. For the Michigan State Forest Day users, postcard questionnaires were administered to a system- atic sample of vehicles parked in hosted campgrounds in locations not associated with a campsite. This was done for all three years (1982-1984) of the study. The most popular activities, fishing and swimming, are water oriented and emphasize the importance of pub- lic access to water resources. Day users came from fif- ty-five Michigan counties. In-state day users made up 92.1% of the respondents while 7.9% were out-of-state. The average party consisted of 3.8 people who stayed 2.9 hours. Swimming was the most common activity (57.3%); fishing was second (18.3%), and picnicking was third (11.2%). Respondents were almost equally divided between being on a one day or longer than one day trip away from home. The campground was the primary destina- 21 tion for the trip for only 38.9% of all respondents. Day users drove an average of 27.3 miles from where they spent the previous night in order to enjoy the state forest day use site. Also, 43% spent the previous night at home (Nelson, Holecek, and Chen, 1983). State Forest Campers The 1983 Michigan State Forest camper results indi- cated that fishing and proximity to water bodies were important factors in influencing site choice decisions. Campers select sites with a view and unrestricted access to water at a higher rate than other sites. In 1984, the results indicated that the registered campers mean age was 39.8, median income was $26,710, and educational level was 12.7 years. The major type of camping party was "families", and the average camping group had 3.5 people. The majority of the users were in-state (90.3%) with only 9.7% being from out-of-state. Also, the mean length of stay was 3.3 nights in the campground (Nelson, Holecek, and Beatty, 1985). Commercial In 1984, the Michigan Department of Commerce, the Travel Bureau, Michigan Association of Private Camp- ground Owners (MAPCO) and Michigan State University cooperated in a market survey. The survey was of 2,600 campers in thirty-five cooperating MAPCO campgrounds. Th er ha an va '11 or ta re pri 22 The following are some of the general results. In gen- eral, MAPCO campers were found to be 43 years of age, had family incomes of $20,000-$40,000, married (91%), and had four people in their camping party. Fifty-seven percent were in-state and 43% were out-of-state. The vast majority (77%) of the users were camping with fam- ily members. Finally, most of the parties stayed three or fewer nights at the campground where they were con- tacted (Stynes and Mahoney, 1986). (The specific results will be highlighted in Chapter IV.) M c n State Pa ks Historically, Michigan has had the reputation of providing high quality family camping opportunities for those seeking an outdoor recreation experience (Murray, 1974). More specifically, Michigan State Parks served almost five million campers in the summer season of 1985 and over 13 million day users as well (Michigan State Parks Attendance Records, 1985). These campers and day users pass through the gates in order to enjoy the wide assortment of features and facilities. Swimming and picnicking, like camping, have traditionally appealed to the majority of state park followers. Throughout the year, sightseeing is a popu- lar activity as well and many enjoy scenic vistas, lakeshore views, and fascinating forest settings. Seventy-one of the parks offer camping, and many feature 23 showers, modern toilets, concessions, bathhouses and playground facilities. The facilities at these state parks are on the tra- ditional side. Food establishments consist of conces- sion-operated refreshment stands in some of the larger beach-oriented parks and a modest cafeteria at a ski development in the Porcupine Mountains State Park. A user will not find highly developed facilities such as golf courses, miniature golf, tennis courts, and recre- ation rooms as are currently found in other state parks in the U.S. Only one park has a swimming pool, and it was built because water at the park beach on Lake Erie at one point became too polluted for swimming. As previously mentioned, Michigan State Parks are just starting to head in the direction of marketing. Marketing is not a new concept per se, but its relevance to different organizations is just beginning to be recognized. Only recently, for example, have some motels, hotels, and restaurants began utilizing market- ing concepts. Just what is marketing and why has it just recently become in vogue. "Marketing is a social process by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through creating and exchanging products and value with others (Kotler, 1984)." Before marketing began to crystalize in the mid-1950's, other company philosophies were evident. The first philosophy was one of a production concept which: "... holds that consumers ho bu za‘ ing 13‘ 24 will favor those products that are widely available and low in cost. Management in production-oriented organi- zations concentrates on achieving high production effi- ciency and widely distribution coverage (Kotler, 1984)." The next major concept to evolve was the selling concept. Kotler (1984) states: "The selling concept holds that consumers, if left alone, will ordinarily not buy enough of the organization's products. The organi- zation must therefore undertake an aggressive selling and promotion effort." Next, the marketing concept arose to challenge there two previous concepts. Kotler (1984) states: "The marketing concept holds that the key to achieving organizational goals consists in determin- ing the needs and wants of target markets and delivering the desired satisfactions more effectively and effi- ciently than competitors." In the following chapters of this thesis, this author will attempt to show the importance of marketing today for Michigan State Parks. Management needs to keep abreast of its customer base to include customer needs, wants, and desires in order to provide a quality experience that is to their liking. If state park users are satisfied, they will return and hopefully bring others as well. In conclusion, the emphasis in Michigan State Parks is on large-scale use for picnicking, swimming, and camp- ing in moderately developed environments. Presently, 25 there are 94 Michigan State Park areas containing a total of 250,000 acres. Michigan has contributed to the development of use patterns that involve longer stays by providing 14,000 developed campsites. This is more than any other state park in the U.S. FYI Us an CHAPTER III METHODS Introduction: This project involved three surveys. The main sur- vey was undertaken during the months of May-October 1985. A pretest of the survey instrument was performed during August-September 1984 and a survey of Park Divi- sion field personnel was implemented in November- December 1984. For the basis of this paper, only the main survey methods will be discussed at length here since it is the central focus of this paper. Systemwide User Survey; The bulk of the effort and financing awarded for this project went into the systemwide user survey. This was a very large undertaking and was complicated to administer because of the scope and breadth of the pro- ject. Due to MSU's limited staff and time, it was decided that park personnel would disseminate the ques- tionnaire in the field. Information was gathered from two groups of Michigan State Park users: campers and day users. Questionnaires were designed for both campers and day users. Both questionnaire's were quite similar, but there were some differences. Both instruments were 26 st ir. Di th qe De De Sa 91 te SQ; 01‘. Fla; 27 developed from the blending of Parks Division data requirements and Michigan State University's Department of Parks and Recreation Resource's surveying expertise. Where possible, information was collected in a form com- parable to the 1984 MAPCO camper study (Stynes and Maho- ney, 1984) and the State Forest study (Nelson, Holecek, Beatty, 1984). The combined results of these three sys- temwide studies should provide a fairly comprehensive first look at Michigan's camper population. A total of seventy-two parks were included in this study: day users were sampled in sixty parks and campers in sixty-four. The parks included were chosen by Parks Division and were considered representative of those that were not included. Parks were evenly distributed geographically across the state. Sampling took place on ten days in each park. Park personnel in eleven parks sampled campers only, seven parks sampled just day users, and fifty-three parks sampled both types of users. When sampling campers, eleven questionnaires were distributed on each of the ten dates for a total of 110 questionnaires for the sea- son. Those sampling day users were to deliver fourteen on each of the ten dates for a total of 140 question- naires. 28 Questionnaire Development: The camper questionnaire contained questions relat- ing to: 1) date and length of stay/trip, 2) size and composition of the camping party, 3) camping shelters used on the trip, 4) information sources used to select and to learn about the campground after arrival, 5) spending at home, en route to the campground, and within 20 miles (but not at the campground) by six expense ual State Park camping history, 8) frequency and distri- bution of 1984 camping activity by provider, 9) camp- ground selection and reservation behavior, 10) personal importance ratings of campground attributes, 11) impor- tance ratings and participation levels in certain acti- vities, 12) winter recreation activity participation at State Parks, 13) annual and daily motor vehicle permit (MVP) use behavior, 14) satisfaction with the camp- ground, 15) demographics-age, sex, marital status, race, education, and income, and 16) selected specialized man- agement concerns. (A copy of the camper survey is in' (Appendix A.) The day user questionnaire contained many of the same questions. Data were collected on: 1) length and purpose of the trip, 2) size and composition of the vehicle party, 3) information sources used to select the park and to learn about the park after arrival, 4)spend- 29 ing on six major expense categories at home, en route to the park, and within 20 miles of (but not in) the park, 5) trip behavior, 6) personal State Park day use his- tory, 7) the importance of recreation activities and level of participation in these activities at State Parks, 9) 1984 annual and daily motor vehicle permit (MVP) use, 10) day user satisfaction, 11) demographics- age, sex, marital status, race, education, and income, and 12) specialized management-related questions. (A copy of the day user survey is in Appendix B.) Sampling Design Parks: Two separate sampling plans were developed one for campers and one for day users. Parks used in the study as well as a listing of the type of user sampled in each park, can be seen in Figure 1 of Appen- dix C. Sample size: The state park contract specified that 4,000 day user and 4,000 camper surveys be obtained and available for analysis. The sampling design chosen assumed a 60% return rate for camper respondents and a 50% response rate for day user respondents. Using these assumptions, the sample size for each park was 110 camper questionnaires and 140 day user questionnaires delivered across the summer of 1985. Thus, there were 7,040 camper questionnaires and 8,400 day user question- 30 naires delivered across the parks involved in the study. Sampling schedule: Parks were randomly divided into three equal size groups. Each group of parks was assigned ten randomly chosen sampling days from May 1, 1985 to September 30, 1985 and subject to two condi- tions. (See Figures 2-4 of Appendix C.) First, only one sampling day was selected for the months of May and Sep- tember. Secondly, half of the sampling days were to be weekend days. For purposes of this study, weekends were defined to include Friday and Saturday nights. The time of the day selected for sampling park users was also predetermined. For day users, the day was divided into two hour intervals beginning at 9 a.m. and ending at 7 p.m. On the preselected sampling day a randomly assigned sampling time was also predetermined for distributing the day user questionnaire. However, all sampling of campers was to occur on the predeter- mined sample day between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. In some cases, managers misplaced the survey, didn't have ade- quate staff, or gave another reason for failing to com- ply with the predetermined survey schedule. In those cases, the park managers were randomly assigned a make-up day and told to repeat the same procedures described on the following pages. 31 Cgppe; Metpogs: Survey Instructions: each park received a sampling schedule which indicated on what days the park personnel would sample and at what times. As previously men- tioned, camper sampling occurred from 4-7 p.m. on those days listed. On the sample date, the occupied sites were counted and listed. To choose which individual campsite received a survey, the ranger divided the total number of occupied sites in the park by the total number of surveys to be delivered on that day. The resulting number was the sampling interval (every nth site received a questionnaire). The beginning campsite was randomly selected by flipping a coin and was always either the first or second occupied campsite (by camp- site number). Once the starting point was known, a sur- vey was delivered to every nth campsite thereafter. The questionnaire was delivered to the registered camper. If that person was not present, the survey was left with another person at the campsite with instruc- tions to give it to the registered camper. If no one was present at the site, the survey was left with a let- ter of introduction and instructions for completing the questionnaire. Every effort was made to call back at least once to each site receiving the survey after a reasonable amount of time had elapsed. (See Appendix A for a more extensive outline of the procedures). [(3 32 Finally, at the end of the sampling interval the ranger was instructed to provide the following information for use in assessing the quality of the data which was col- lected: survey date, time, number of surveys delivered, and number not delivered. Day user Methods: Day user procedures: Throughout the summer, four- teen day use surveys were handed out on the ten pre- selected days (5 weekend days and 5 weekdays). On a selected sampling day, a specific two hour time block was also specified for distributing questionnaires. This time block was anywhere between 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. During the sampling time, fourteen surveys were to be distributed. If all fourteen were not distributed during the prescribed time (because not enough vehicles entered the park), the number distributed and the number not distributed were recorded on the day user report form: however, no attempt was made to distribute the remaining questionnaires at an alternative time. Day use surveys were passed out at the entrance booths. The attendant selected one adult occupant from each vehicle that entered the park. The visitor selected was either the driver or any passenger in the vehicle who was at least sixteen years old. In every other vehicle sahp tion vehiu hand to c to a 99?, for: use in h ehCe this and the ; time teas. berg 4,00. Were 33 sampled, the driver was selected to receive the ques- tionnaire: a passenger was selected in the other vehicles sampled. The person selected was personally handed the survey or specifically identified and asked to complete the questionnaire. Every attempt was made to avoid giving the survey to the same type of passen- ger, such as the front seat passenger. (See Appendix B for more detailed information.) Return Rate: Overall, the camper return rate was 63% and the day use return rate was 43%. By looking at Figures 5 and 6, in Appendix C, it is evident that there are some differ- ences in response rates by district. The reason for this variation may be due to differences between campers and day users, the particular population mix at a park, the particular park's staff performance, weather, and time of the year. For example, during both May and Sep- tember, the response rates are lower due to lower num- bers of day users and campers in the park. Overall, 4,004 camper and 2,749 day user usable questionnaires were obtained. use OTC pa] be an. in is at I"? 34 Weighting Procedures: Since proportional sampling of park users was not used in this study, "statistical" weights were used in order to adjust the sample for frequency of visit and park popularity bias. These adjustments were made because there was an attendance by park bias (on visits) and a frequency of visit bias (on visitors). Both were due to the sampling scheme used. For most analysis, it is correct to use this double weight (correcting for attendance by popularity of park bias and a frequency of visit bias). This is especially true when referring to the user. When referring to a profile of campers present on a "typical" night, it is incorrect. When referring to the "typical" night, one should use only the park weighted data which corrects for the popularity of park bias. Frequency of visit bias results because persons who make more trips and longer trips to state parks were more likely to be sampled. For example, a person who made two state park camping trips each lasting seven nights (total of fourteen nights) was fourteen times more likely to be sampled than a person who camped one night in a state park. If the frequency of visit was not adjusted, it would result in over representation of more frequent users. Po because uted at example questic of the Visita1 Weight: Oped. respon discus the me Camper 35 Popularity of park bias, on the other hand, results because an equal number of questionnaires were distrib- uted at low visitation and high visitation parks. For example, the sampling plan called for an equal number of questionnaires to be distributed to all parks regardless of the annual visitation rate. Hence, visitors to low visitation parks are over represented in the results. Weights to adjust for this form of bias were also devel- oped. The same attendance weight was assigned to all respondents/cases from the same park. A more in depth discussion of the weighting procedures can be found in the methods chapter of the Michigan State Park Survey of Campers and Day users (Fridgen et al.,1986). Data Analysis Both data sets, the camper and day user, were ana- lyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). These two data sets were first "cleaned" correcting for key punch errors, misplaced numbers, and other obvious errors within the data base. Also, included in the "cleaning" process was the review of the variables, some were recoded to remove out of range, unreasonable and extreme scores. In the case of the expenditure variables, the upper level scores were "trimmed" providing for a more realistic mean. CHAPTER IV RESULTS STATE PARK CAMPER PROFILE Introduction A "picture" of the average sampled state park camper can be generated using several socio-demographic variables. The average age of the registered camper chosen to complete the survey was forty-one years old. Also, the registered camper was: married (87%), white (98.5%), and male (64%). One reason for surveying more males than females is because the methods dictated that the registered camper be surveyed. Since males are more apt to register, they were more apt to be surveyed. Almost all of the users had at least a high school edu- cation (93.5%). As indicated in Table 1, fifty-eight percent of the campers reported incomes of $30,000 or above. Only 4% reported gross family incomes below $10,000 which about equals the 6% of users who had incomes of $60,000 or above. 36 37 TABLE 1 INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Income Category Percent Less than $10,000 4.0 $10,000-$19,999 13.3 520,000-529,999 24.5 $30,000-$39,999 28.1 $40,000-$49,999 15.1 $50,000-$59,999 8.7 $60,000 and above 6.2 Total 100.0 Camper parties were mainly family groups (80%). As presented in Table 2, ten percent were friends and fam- ily, 7% were all friends, and only 3% camped alone. Thus, most of the camping groups are well educated fami- lies with higher incomes then the population at large. Chapter V discusses this in detail. 38 TABLE 2 PARTY RELATIONSHIP OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Relationship Percent All family members 80.0 Friends and family 10.0 All friends 7.0 Camping alone 3.0 Total 100.0 After a careful review of the age distribution by gender, it is apparent that children/teens are a part of the Michigan State Park camper population. Table 3 shows children and teens between the ages of 0-17 are present in 35% of the camper parties. Interestingly enough, MAPCO camper parties (Stynes and Mahoney, 1986) also have the same percentage of 0-17 year olds with similar breakdowns for all categories. In the Michigan State Parks Study, older campers were present in the population as well. Four percent of the campers were over sixty-five. The age distribution for males and females is a mirror image across age classifications. 39 TABLE 3 AGE DISTRIBUTION BY SEX OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPER PARTIES Age % of Percent of Category Females Total Campers Less than 5 50% 9% 5-12 year old 50% 17% 13-17 year old 50% 9% 18-24 year old 50% 8% 25-29 year old 50% 10% 30-39 year old 50% 20% 40-49 years old 50% 10% 50-59 years old 50% 9% 60-64 years old 50% 4% 65 and older 50% 4% 40 As presented in Table 4, the vast majority of campers were from Michigan (83%): 17% were from out-of- state. The nonresidents were from a variety of states. However, the majority (11.8% of the total) were from the midwestern states of: Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, and Wis- consin. In contrast, only 3.7% of the total were from other US states. One and a half percent were from Ontario and other Canadian provinces. The 17% of out- of-state residents is higher than the 9.7% reported for state forest campers (Nelson, Holecek, and Beatty, 1985) and much lower than the 43% reported for private camp- ground users (Stynes and Mahoney, 1986). About a quar- ter (26.9%) of all state park campers came from the southeastern Michigan five county region which includes Wayne, Livingston, Macomb, Oakland and Washtenaw counties. 41 TABLE 4 STATE OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPER PARTIES State Percent Michigan 82.7 Ohio 3.1 Indiana 3.4 Illinois 3.4 Wisconsin 1.9 Other US State 3.7 Ontario 1.4 Other Canadian Province .1 Other .4 Total 100.0 42 As indicated in Table 5, the average party size was 3.5, yet the most frequent party size was two people (35%). Twenty-six percent reported party sizes of four, while only 10% reported party sizes of six or more. Seventy-seven percent of the camper parties consisted of four people or less. These findings are quite similar to those from MAPCO (Stynes and Mahoney, 1986) and the state forest study (Nelson, Holecek, and Chen, 1983). This could be due to the fact that most camping parties are family groups with either a husband and wife or a small family with two children. 43 TABLE 5 SIZE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPING PARTIES Party Size Percent l 3 2 35 3 l3 4 26 5 13 6 6 7+ 4 TOTAL 100% Mean 3.51 Median 3.42 44 Michigan residents traveled an average of 151 miles from their permanent residence to get to the park. In contrast, out-of-state residents traveled an average of 376 miles. When considering both out-of-state and in- state campers together, the mean distance traveled was 189.3 miles and the median was 149.8 miles with a very high standard deviation of 2.911. Also, there was a considerable range of distance traveled from one mile to over 1,000 miles. State forest campers traveled on average a little farther to their destination (226 miles). State forest campers probably traveled more because state forest campgrounds are in the northern lower peninsula or the upper peninsula, considerable distance from major population concentrations. On the other hand, state parks are located throughout the whole state of Michigan, including the state's southern most densely populated counties. In-state state park campers spent, on the average, two and a half hours traveling to reach their destina- tion. Since the majority of the popular parks are on the West Michigan side or in the Upper Peninsula and the population centers are in the southeastern corners of the state, it would take a camper party at least two and a half hours to reach their destination. Obviously, out-of-state residents would travel further to reach a park, especially those traveling from outside the Mid- west area. 45 Participation Patterns Campers at Michigan State Parks stayed for an aver- age of 4.7 nights at the campground where they were sur- veyed, yet they were on an average trip length of 7.28 nights as Table 6 shows. Despite the average trip being about one week long, it was more common for campers to be on a two night trip (weekend). The median trip was 5.4 nights long. The bimodal nature of the trip length statistic indicates that most campers are on weekend trips. The number of nights in the campground for Michigan State Park campers is more than the 3.3 nights found for state forest campers (Nelson, Holecek, and Beatty, 1985) and the 3.7 nights reported for MAPCO cam- pers (Stynes, and Mahoney, 1986). Most (43%) state park campers arrived at their campsite on Friday or Saturday. Forty-four percent arrived between 12-4 p.m. and only 35% arrived after 4 p.m. Seventy-six percent planned to use the day use facilities. 46 TABLE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPER NIGHTS # Of In Campground Total Trip Nights Nights Percent Percent l 10 5 2 24 18 3 15 ll 4 12 9 5 8 9 6 6 7 7 6 9 8-14 15 25 15-21 2 4 22+ 2 3 TOTAL 100 100 Mean 4.72 7.28 47 Sixty-eight percent had previously visited the par- ticular park where they were surveyed: 91% had visited a state park as a camper and 82% as a day user. Thus, there were few new users to the park system. But con- sidering the sampling scheme, with only those campers who registered for the campsite being sampled, it was impossible to determine how many children were new users. This compares with 57% of the state forest cam- pers who had camped in a campground before. On the average, state park campers camp eighteen nights per year and in 1984 camped fifteen nights. This compares with 12.3 nights in 1983 for state forest campers (Nel- son, Holecek, and Beatty, 1985) and ten nights in 1983 for resident MAPCO campers (Stynes, and Mahoney, 1986). Therefore, state park campers are more active than are either the state forest or MAPCO campers. The percent of total nights of camping for the cam- ping season for Michigan State Park campers is presented in Table 7. Twenty-six percent of Michigan State Park camper's nights were in the Michigan State Park where they were surveyed, 27% were spent in all other Michigan State Parks, 16% were allocated to private commercial campgrounds, and 31% in a variety of other places. It seems as if state park campers are quite loyal as over half (53%) of their camping nights were spent in Michi- gan State Park campgrounds. 48 TABLE 7 HOW STATE PARK CAMPERS DISTRIBUTE THEIR ANNUAL CAMPING ACTIVITY BY LOCATION/PROVIDER Percent of total Trip Location/Provider Nights for the Camping Season This Michigan State Park 26% All other Michigan State Parks 27% Michigan State Forest Campgrounds 5% National Forest Campgrounds in Michigan 4% National Park Campgrounds in Michigan 1% Public undeveloped land 3% Other local public campground 7% Private commercial campgrounds 16% Privately owned land in Michigan 6% Undesignated developed areas 2% Others 3% TOTAL 100% 49 Infogmation Sources Used and Reservation Behavior Campers were asked to choose three from a list of twenty information sources which they might have used before their first visit to gain information about the park where they were surveyed. They were also asked to do the same from a list of ten information sources which they found useful after their arrival. As Table 8 shows, the three top sources used before their arrival were: 1) recommendation from other campers (54.6%), 2) Michigan State Parks Brochure/Map (38.2%), and 3) state highway map (25.7%). These three top choices are very significant sources of information for Michigan State Park campers. State park management needs to seriously assess these sources and what, if anything, they can do to make sure these information sources are as accurate as possible. This line of discussion will be pursued in considerable depth in subsequent chapters. 50 TABLE 8 INFORMATION SOURCES USED BY CAMPERS BEFORE THEIR FIRST VISIT TO THE MICHIGAN STATE PARK WHERE THEY WERE INTERVIEWED Rank Source Percent 1) Recommendation from other campers 54.6 2) Michigan State Parks Brochure/Map 38.2 3) State highway map 25.7 4) State Park highway signs 11.4 5) AAA 3.3 6) This campground's brochure/map 6.3 7) Recommendation from noncamper 6.0 8) Local sources 5.5 9) Michigan Travel Bureau 4.1 10) Woodall's Camping Directory 3.8 11) Announcement of Special Event 3.7 12) Highway information centers 3.2 13) Trailer Life 2.3 14) Newspaper 1.6 15) Local chamber of commerce 1.2 16) Magazine 1.0 17) MAPCO directory .8 18) Television .6 19) Radio .5 *Does not sum to 100% because multiple responses were requested. Oh' 'I'd th 51 As suggested from the data in Table 9, the top three sources used after arrival at the park were: 1) previous visit to this park (54.1%), 2) Michigan State Park employees (48.7%), and 3)signs posted inside park (41.7%). MAPCO campers (Stynes and Mahoney, 1986) reported using slightly different information sources before arrival and their top three sources were: 1)rec- ommendation from other campers (31%), 2)State Park high- way signs (12%), and 3)Woodall's camping directory and this campground brochure/map (10% each). 52 TABLE 9 SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED IN THIS STATE PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Source Percent 1) Previous visit to the park 54.1 2) Michigan State Park employees 48.7 3) Signs posted inside park 41.7 4) This State Park's brochure/map 32.9 5) Other park users 31.8 6) Michigan State Park's brochure 20.9 7) Signs posted outside park 12.2 8) Local residents 8.3 9) Local business people 4.6 10)Other 4.2 *Does not sum to 100% because multiple responses were requested. the all but a x of en sel all Sta rea all h'hi on 53 As shown in Table 10, when campers were asked about their reservation behavior, they reported that they usu- ally select a campground before leaving home (57.2%), but only 22.7% have both a campground selected and made a reservation prior to leaving home. In contrast, 63% of MAPCO visitors (Stynes and Mahoney, 1986) had a res- ervation for their trip and 68% had a campground selected before leaving home. (Note, MAPCO campers were allowed to check more than one answer where as Michigan State Park campers were only allowed to check one.) The reason for the difference between MAPCO and state park campers may be external since all MAPCO campgrounds allow you to reserve in advance with no restrictions while Michigan State Park campgrounds have restrictions on the number of advance reservations they will accept. Si dc 54 TABLE 10 RESERVATION BEHAVIOR OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Have a specific campground (s) SELECTED 57.2 BEFORE LEAVING HOME Have a specific campground (s) SELECTED/ 22.7 RESERVATION PRIOR TO LEAVING SELECT A CAMPGROUND(S) WHILE ON ROUTE 11.6 to a major destination or stopover SELECT CAMPGROUND(S)/And Make a RESERVATION .4 while on route to a destination SELECT A CAMPGROUND ONCE YOU HAVE ARRIVED at 8.1 destination or stopover Total 100.0 55 E ent Table 11 shows the types of camping shelters camp- ers brought with them to the campground where they were interviewed. The most popular shelter type was tents either alone, or in combination with, another shelter type. Also popular were travel trailers and camping trailers. In a state forest study (Nelson, Holecek, and Beatty, 1985), tents were also found to be the major equipment type used by state forest campers (47%) while only 20% of the MAPCO campers use tents (Stynes, and Mahoney, 1986). In a study conducted by Cooper, Novak, and Henderson (1980), similar results are reported for Wisconsin Private Campground campers and DNR campers. Fifty-five percent of the DNR campers and 30% of the WACO campers used tents as their camping equipment. TE] CAI TR) 340: 56 TABLE 11 EQUIPMENT TYPES USED BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS First Equipment Type Used (Percent) TENT 38.4 CAMPER TRAILER 21.6 TRAVEL TRAILER 21.6 MOTORHOME/STH WHEEL 12.7 TRUCK CAMPER/BUS/VAN 5.1 PICKUP COVER/ UNCONVERTED VAN .5 TOTAL 100% US at th 57 Campground Attribute Importance Campers were asked to rate the relative importance using a scale of 1 to 5 of twenty-three campground attributes on their decision to select a campground. All the attributes listed are generally offered at state parks, although not all are necessarily available at any particular park. Table 12 lists the attributes ranked by median score received on the five point rating scale employed. Table 12 also lists the mean score for each attribute and the percent of respondents assigning a five to that attribute. The highest ranked attributes were: 1) clean facility, 2) secure facility, 3) hospit- able management, 4) campfires, 5)showers, and 6) regula- tions. MAPCO campers (Stynes and Mahoney, 1986) presented a similar ranking selecting the following attributes in order of importance: 1)cleanliness, 2)hospitality, 3)security, 4)showers, and 5)electrical hook-up. State Park campers desire a clean and secure facility with hospitable personnel on duty. ...Nu\. nu‘ 3 I. “ PK}- ‘v ‘1» 11111111111511 58 TABLE 12 CAMPGROUND ATTRIBUTES RANKED IN ORDER OF MEDIAN IMPORTANCE Importance Scope % Selecting Rank Attribute Mean* Median* As Crucial 1 Clean Facility 4 43 4.58 54 5 2 Secure/Facility 4 23 4.44 47 9 3 Hospitable Management 3 85 3.93 27 5 4 Campfires 3.72 3.92 34.2 4 Showers 3 73 3.92 32 6 5 Regulations 3 68 3.85 29 9 6 Natural surroundings 3 72 3.83 25 6 7 Flush toilets 3 53 3.75 28.6 8 Swimming beach 3.48 3.66 26.8 9 . Electricity hook up 3.21 3.43 23.4 10 Nearby/attractions 2.78 2.79 8.3 10 No road noise 2.98 2.96 12.3 11 Reservations 2.77 2.78 13.7 12 Playground 2.36 2.04 9.9 13 Nature Center and program 1.91 1.71 1.7 14 Store Concessions 1.94 1.70 3.0 15 Historic site 1.74 1.47 1.6 15 Pets allowed 2.30 1.47 15.7 16 Close home/work 1.92 1.45 3.7 17 Boat ramps 2.03 1.42 8.6 17 Water/sewer 1.97 1.42 5.9 18 Boat rental 1.57 1.27 1.5 * On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being high. at ar ir 5'. pi 59 Reorgation Activity Importance and Participation Campers rated the importance of a list of recre- ational activities available to day users in State Parks and indicated which activities they participated in on this trip. A 1-5 ranking scale was also used. As pre- sented in Table 13, swimming was given the highest median score (3.77), followed by hiking/walking trails (3.20), sightseeing (2.85), picnicking (2.66), and fish- ing (2.51). Actual participation was as follows: 63% swam, 66% hiked/walked trails, 54% went sightseeing, 37% picnicked, and 43% fished. MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPER'S IMPORTANCE RANKING OF AND 60 TABLE 13 PARTICIPATION IN SELECTED ACTIVITIES Rank Activity Mean* Importance Score Median* Activities as Crucial % Selecting % of Users Doing (Median) 1 Swimming 2 Hike/walk trails 3 Sightseeing 4 Picnic 5 Fishing 6 Boating 7 visit nature center 8 Visiting users 9 Nature programs 10 Canoeing 11 Festival/event 12 Picking fruit/berries 13 Organized activity 14 Horseback riding 15 ORV use 2.00 1.94 27.9 13.0 7.6 9.0 12.2 10.5 43.2 29.2 24.6 * On a scale of 1-5 with 5 being high. 61 Fall, Wintep, Spring Activity Participation Campers were asked to indicate whether or not they participated last year in any of the thirteen recre- ational activities available in State Parks from October through April (i.e. cold weather activities). As indi- cated in Table 14, camping was ranked first (21.9%), fishing second (15.8%), and hiking third (13.3%). Fif- ty-two percent did not participate in any activity listed. This fifty-two percent represents a potential market for cold weather use of state parks as these cam- pers are already exposed to the system and perhaps need to be made aware of the different off-season options available in the parks. 62 TABLE 14 PERCENT OF PARTICIPATION IN FALL, WINTER, AND SPRING ACTIVITIES CHOSEN BY SUMMER SEASON MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Rank Activity Percent Participating, Fall, Winter, Spring: 1) Camping 21.9 2) Fishing 15.8 3) Hiking 13 . 3 4) Hunting 7.6 5) Cross-Country Skiing 7.5 6) Sledding/tobogganing 4.6 7) Ice fishing 4.2 8) ORV operation 3.1 9) Snowmobiling 3.0 10) Downhill skiing - 2.2 11) Horseback riding 1.3 12) Ice Skating 1.2 *Does not sum to 100% because multiple responses were requested. Also, 52% of respondents did not participate in any fall, winter, or spring activity in state parks. 63 Expenditures Mean expenditures per camping party are presented in Table 15. In total, camper parties spend $171.57 per party per trip. By location where spending occurred: 53.7% was spent at home, 17.6% was spent en route (but at least 20 miles away from the park), and 24.2% was spent within 20 miles of (but not in) the park. Information about expenditures in the park was not a focus for this study as Michigan State Park has accurate records of all expenditures in the park. The largest category of expenditures was for groceries or convenience store food and drinks ($67.59), with vehicle related expenses being second at $48.32, and restaurant and bar meals/drinks third at $21.30. 64 TABLE 15 MEAN EXPENDITURES PER MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPING PARTY EXPENDITURE 0N ROUTE (but WITHIN 20 MILES CATEGORY AT HOME 20 MILES OF (BUT NOT IN) FOR THIS TRIP AWAY FROM PARK) PARK TOTAL Vehicle related (gas, oil, etc.) $27.49 $13.44 $ 7.28 $48.21 Restaurant and Bar, Meals/drinks $3.77 $7.30 $10.23 $21.30 Grocery or Convenience Store food and drink $43.66 $6.42 $17.51 $67.59 Sporting Goods, bait, lures, etc. $11.35 $1.28 $3.59 $16.22 Lodging $ 2.10 $ 2 38 $1.45 $5.93 All other items $ 3.81 $ 2.65 $ 5.86 $12.32 TOTALS $92.18 $33.47 $45.92 $171.57 % of GRAND TOTAL 53.7 19.5 26.8 65 The numbers in Table 15 are mean expenditure fig- ures per camping party. The party, as previously men- tioned, includes an average of 3.5 people staying 4.7 nights. Local area spending falls between the $68.50 reported for MAPCO users (Stynes and Mahoney, 1986) and the $29.24 reported for state forest campers (Nelson, Holecek, and Beatty, 1985). Motor Vehicle Permit Purchases An additional expense associated with camping in state parks is the purchase of a vehicle permit. The majority of campers (70.6%) purchased an annual state park motor vehicle permit in 1984 (i.e. the year prior to this study). As indicated in Table 16, the average camper who purchased an annual permit used it 16.2 days. Only 24.7% purchased a daily permit. On the average, users who purchased daily permits purchased 3.2 permits while 90% purchased five or fewer permits. However, since daily and annual permit purchases are not com- pletely mutually exclusive, a percent of campers may have purchased both (e.g. after purchasing a daily a camper may subsequently purchase an annual permit). Since it was assumed that the vast majority of users would purchase either an annual or one or more daily permits, information to analyze dual purchase behavior was not collected for this study. A more in depth ana- 66 lysis can be found in the Michigan State Park Study (Fridgen, et al., 1986). 67 TABLE 16 ANNUAL VEHICLE PERMIT USE AND DAILY PERMIT PURCHASE BEHAVIOR OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS No. of days annual MVP used or No. of daily MVP's purchased Annual Permit Daily Permits Mean Median Note: NA = Not Applicable. Usage Purchased ----------- Percent----------- .2 NA .4 24.4 2.1 29.1 4.7 18.7 4.7 9.7 7.4 6.3 6.2 3.5 4.8 .4 5.1 .2 1.7 .1 13.0 2.7 29.7 2.8 20.0 2.1 100.0 100.0 16.2 days 3.2 permits 10.5 days 2.3 permits 68 The average annual permit purchaser visits the park 16.2 days and spends $10 for his permit. For each visit the Parks Division receives $.62 instead of the $2.00 it receives from the daily permit user. The annual permit user is receiving a sizable discount. This situation presents a possible equity/revenue problem which the Division may need to further analyze as Table 17 below demonstrates. TABLE 17 VEHICLE PERMIT COST PER USE FOR CAMPERS Daily Annual Cost $2.00 $10.00 Avg. No. of times used 3.2 days 16.2 days Cost per use $2.00 $ .62 Total cost for year $6.40 $10.00 Camper Satisfaction The following three ways to measure camper satis- faction were included in this study: 1) via a camper's direct response to what they like least about the park where they were contacted, 2) what was the most impor- tant reason for the trip, 3) and how they rated the park on a numerical scale of 1-10. The five most liked char- 69 acteristics of the park where they were surveyed include: 1) having a site by a lake or stream (15.2%), 2) natural surroundings of the park (11.6%), 3) close to home/work (6.9%), 4) swimming beaches (6.3%), and 5) relatively large sites (See Table 18). Presented in Table 19 are the five top reasons stated for not liking the park. They were: 1) too far from home/work, 2) crowded/limited space, 3) sites too small, 4) poor swim- ming beaches, and 5) campground too far from lake/stream Table 20 shows the main reasons for coming to the park as being: 1) past experience, 2) close to home/work, 3) near area attractions, 4) natural surroundings, and 5) near by lake or stream. 70 TABLE 18 ONE CAMPGROUND ATTRIBUTE/FACILITY LIKED BEST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Rank Attribute Percent Selecting the Attribute/Facility 1 Campsite near lake/stream 15.2 2 Natural surroundings 11.6 3 Close to home/work 6.9 4 Swimming beaches 6.3 5 Relatively large site 4.7 6 Campground facilities 4.4 7 Good recreational opportunities 4.2 8 Near area attractions 4.1 9 Clean facilities 4.0 10 Well maintained 3.7 11 Privacy of site 3.1 12 Fishing 2.7 13 Quiet 2.6 14 Hospitable staff 1.7 15 Other 2.7 Multiple Response 22.1 71 TABLE 19 THE CAMPGROUND ATTRIBUTE/FACILITY LIKED LEAST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Rank Attribute Percent Selecting the Attribute/Facility 1 Too far from home/work 9 2 Crowded/limited space 6 3 Sites too small 5 4 Poor swimming beaches 4 5 Campground too far from lake/stream 4. 6 Lack of facilities 4. 7 Waiting lines too long 4 8 Facilities not maintained 3 9 Limited recreation opportunities 2 10 Don't like rules/regulations 1 11 No boat launch 1 12 Rules not enforced 1. 13 Inhospitable staff . Other 42. Multiple Response 7. Although the "other"category was not coded due to labor con- straints, it was evident that the category contained many personal problems that the camper had with the campground or those who had no problems at all with the campground and wrote "nothing". The multiple response category includes those campers who checked two or more attributes that they disliked such as "lack of facilities and sites too small". 72 TABLE 20 THE ONE MOST IMPORTANT REASON/THING BEHIND DECISION TO CAMP AT THIS PARK Rank Reason/Thing Percent Selecting this Reason/Thing 1 Past experience 2 2 Close to home/work 3 Near area attractions 4 Natural surroundings 5 Nearby lake/stream 6 Recommended by others 7 Fishing 8 Inexpensive recreation 8 Swimming Beaches 9 Campground type (rustic, developed) 10 Vacancy 11 Quiet campground 12 Friendly atmosphere l3 Accepts reservations 14 Trails Other Multiple response 9.4 Although the ”other" category was not coded due to labor con- straints it was evident that the category contained many personal reasons such as close to family and friends or other such reasons. The multiple response category includes those campers who checked two or more reasons for their decision to camp such as "fishing and swimming beaches". HHHUUbU‘IU‘QQQQ #GQUhQNNNU‘WW‘bH )— p.- O 73 The overall satisfaction rating for the state park experience was 8.38 on a 1-10 scale, where one was very dissatisfied and ten was very satisfied. Only 5.8% of the respondents reported a score of five or less. Although the mean rating given was 8.38, the mode score was ten; therefore, the most common score reported was ten or very satisfied. Also, the standard deviation was very low (.025). This demonstrates that campers are indeed satisfied with their experience. Although this is true, managers need to use the information from the study to make sure their visitors in the future will continue to be satisfied. There are specific concrete plans of action for managers to take. These concrete plans are developed in Chapters VI and VII. Summary State Park campers visit in groups composed of mainly families who stay in the park for an average of 4.7 nights. The average party size is 3.5. They are well educated and have above average incomes. Most are residents (83%). They look to other campers (54.6%) and the Michigan State Parks Brochure/Map (38.2%) for infor- mation in selecting a campground. Information is gath- ered about the specific park primarily via a previous visit (54.1%) and Michigan State Park employees (48.7%). The majority (79.9%) have a specific campground selected 74 before leaving home and or a reservation for the camp- ground. The most popular camping equipment type used on this trip was tents (27.9%). The three most popular attributes of state parks were found to be: clean and secure facilities, and hos- pitable management. Popular activities pursued in parks are swimming, hike/walk trails, and sightseeing. In the fall, winter, and spring seasons, state park campers like to camp, fish, and hike in parks. The average cam- per party spent a total of $171.57 on their camping outing. The majority of users purchased a motor vehicle permit (70.6%). Especially important characteristics of state parks were found to be having a site near by a lake or stream, natural surroundings, and close to home/work. Finally, the vast majority of campers were very satisfied with their state park camping experience. STATE PARK DAY USER PROFILE Introduction A "picture" of the average state park day user can be generated using several socio-demographic variables. The average day user is thirty-seven years of age, mar- ried (77%), white (98.2%), female (59%), with at least a high school education. As indicated in Table 21, fifty- six percent of the day users reported incomes of $30,000 or above. Only seven percent reported gross family incomes below $10,000. This directly contrasts with the ten percent of the day users who had incomes of $60,000 or above. 75 76 TABLE 21 INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Income Percent of Category Sampled Day users Less than $10,000 6.6 $10,000-19,999 16.3 $20,000-29,999 20.9 $30,000-39,999 26.3 $40,000-49,999 13.2 $50,000-59,999 6.2 $60,000 and above 10.5 Total 100.0 Mean $30,000-$39,999 Median $30,000-$39,999 77 As found for camper parties, day user parties con- sisted mainly of family groups. As presented in Table 22, sixty-five percent were family groups; another 16% were friends and family groups enjoying the day use area together. Just friends accounted for another 13%. Visiting alone, organizational club/group and other accounted for 3.0%, 1.9%, and 1.4% respectively. TABLE 22 PARTY RELATIONSHIP OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Relationship Percent All family members 65.4 Friends and family 15.5 All friends 12.8 Visiting alone 3.0 Organized club or group 1.9 Other ' 1.4 Total 100.0 The age and sex of day users is presented in Table 23. Children/teens between the ages of 0-17 are present in 35.4% of the day user parties. Like the camper age profile, the age distribution for males and females is remarkably similar across age classifications. Eleven 78 percent of the day user parties contained one or more children five years or younger; 16% had children 5-12 years old: and 9% had teens (13-17). A great num- ber of these children were probably new users who are getting exposed to state parks at an early age. Older day users were present as well, although not in such large numbers. Only four percent of the day users were sixty-five years or older. 79 TABLE 23 AGE DISTRIBUTION BY SEX OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Age % of Percent of Category Females Total day users Less than 5 50 11% 5-12 years old 50 16% 13-17 years old 66 9% 18-24 years old 66 10% 25-29 years old 50 13% 30-39 years old 57 19% 40-49 years old 50 10% 50-59 years old 50 6% 60-64 years old 29 3% 65 and older 50 4% 80 As indicated in Table 24, the majority of day users were from Michigan (76%). Nonresidents came mainly from the states of Ohio (3.0%), Illinois (9.4%), Indiana (4.4%), and Wisconsin (2.0%). Visitors from other states made up the remaining 4.7% of the sampled day user population. Very few people came from outside the US (.5%). In a 1983 state forest study (Nelson, Hole- cek, and Chen, 1983), the authors reported 92.1% resi- dent day users and 7.9% nonresident day users. In the state parks study, twenty-five percent of the resident day users came from the southeastern area of Michigan including Macomb, Oakland, Washtenaw, and Wayne counties. 81 TABLE 24 STATE OF PERMANENT RESIDENCE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS State Percent of Day users Michigan 76.0 Ohio 3.0 Indiana 4.4 Illinois 9.4 Wisconsin 2.0 Other US State 4.7 Ontario 0.2 Other Canadian Providence 0.1 Other 0.2 Total 100.0 82 As presented in Table 25, the average party size for day users was 3.6. This can be compared to the state forest day user study (Nelson, Holecek, Chen, 1983) which found an average of 3.8 day users per party. It is interesting to note that the state park day users most frequent party size was two (28%), yet 25% reported a party size of four. Since families are the major group type, it is reasonable to expect that the party size would be between two and four as the party usually consisted of a husband and wife or a small family with two children. 83 TABLE 25 SIZE OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USER PARTIES Party Size Percent 1 3 2 28 3 21 4 25 5 13 6 5 7 + 5 Total 100 Mean 3.61 84 Participation Patterns Amount of time spent in the park is presented in Table 26. Day users at Michigan State Parks stayed for an average of five hours, but 61.6% stayed four hours or less. In comparison to state forest day user data (Nel- son, Holecek, Chen, 1983), state forest day users stay a shorter time, around 2.9 hours on the average. The most common reported number of hours day users spent in the park was two hours. Nearly 10% made a rather long day of it, spending nine or more hours at the park. A small percent of the day users sampled were also campers stay- ing at the park, and these campers likely account for the majority of day use exceeding ten hours in length. The reason for state forest users staying a shorter time is because many state forest day users went to the day use site to fish or swim for a couple of hours and then either returned to their campsite or went home. The difference in length of stay is probably due to the difference in facilities available between state forest and state parks. 85 TABLE 26 TOTAL HOURS SPENT IN PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Total Hours Percent Less than 1 hour .3 1 hour 14.0 2 hours 17.9 3 hours 13.6 4 hours 15.8 5 hours 10.5 6 hours 8.2 7 hours 2.9 8 hours 7.0 9 hours 1.0 10 hours 2.3 >10 hours 6.5 Total 100% Mean 5 hours Median 4 hours 86 Most day visitors (87%) planned to visit the park and visiting the park where they were interviewed was the primary reason for their trip (72%). This compares with only 38.9% of state forest day users who, when sampled, stated that the state forest day use area was their primary destination. Seventy-three percent had previously visited the particular park where they were surveyed: 64% had visited a state park as a camper, and 88% as a day user. Thus, many of the day users had already been exposed to the state park system and were not first time users. The typical day user had been visiting state parks for eighteen years. In the previ- ous year, 1984, day users reported spending five days visiting Michigan State Parks. As indicated in Table 27, the majority of day users stayed at their permanent residence (65%) the night before coming to the park. A total of 35% stayed a Variety of places including motel/hotel (10%), other Campgrounds (7%), camped in this park (7%), with friends/family (4%), and second residences (3%). The fast of the day users (4%) stayed in a variety of other Places. 87 TABLE 27 LOCATION OF PREVIOUS NIGHT'S STAY FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Place Percent Camped at this park 6.8 Permanent residence 64.8 Second residence 2.9 Other place 3.8 Other campground 7.2 With friends/family 4.3 Motel/hotel 10.2 Total 100% Table 27 shows that 32.3% of the users arrived from places other than their permanent residence or second home. Thus, about a third are on a vacation or weekend trip, and this trip usually lasts six days. Clearly, state parks serve more than just local residents on day outings. State forest day users (Nelson, Holecek, and Chen, 1983) are also drawn primarily from the local area (65% local resident or second home owners) compared to 67.7% of state park day users. Fewer, however, travel to the state forest from nearby hotels ( 3.4 vs. 10.2), and 88 more stay overnight with relatives (9.3 vs. 4.3). Information Sources and Reservation Patterns Day users were asked to indicate the three most important information sources they used to gain informa- tion about the park before their first visit. They were also asked to indicate information sources which were useful after their arrival. The top information sources used before their arrival are presented in Table 28. The top three sources cited were: recommendation by cam- per (26.4%), recommendation by noncamper (24.9%), and the MSP brochure (16.9%). Like campers, day users showed a strong tendency to utilize word-of-mouth infor- mation in their decision to visit a state park day use area. Table 29 shows that the top three information sources used after arrival were: previous visit to this park (58%), signs posted in the park (47%), and other park users (31%). Again, this reflects a tendency to use word of mouth information. 89 TABLE 28 INFORMATION SOURCES MOST IMPORTANT IN PROMPTING FIRST VISIT TO THIS PARK 1 Recommended by Camper 26.4 2 Recommended by Noncamper 24.9 3 MSP Brochure 16.9 4 MSP Highway sign 14.9 5 State Highway map 13.2 6 Local sources 10.0 7 Note of special event 6.7 8 This Park's map 4.6 9 AAA 3.6 10 Michigan Travel Bureau 2.6 11 Newspaper 2.5 12 Radio 1.9 13 Highway information center 1.8 13 Woodall's Directory 1.8 14 Magazine 1.3 14 Trailer Life 1.3 15 Local chamber of commerce 1.0 16 Television 0.8 17 MAPCO directory 0.3 Other 25.1 Note, the "other" category was not coded due to labor constraints. In general, this category was a catch all for a wide variety of answers including: live in area, can't remember, and none. 90 TABLE 29 INFORMATION SOURCES USED MOST FREQUENTLY AFTER ARRIVAL AT THIS STATE PARK Rank Source Percent 1 Previous Visit to this park 57.8 2 Signs posted in the park 46.9 3 Other park users 30.6 4 MSP Employees 21.9 5 This SP's brochure/map 21.3 6 Signs outside the park 19.8 7 Local residents 12.9 8 MSP Brochure 11.3 9 Local business people 2.6 Other 5.5 91 Recreation Activity Importance and Participation Day users were asked to rate the importance of a list of selected recreational activities available in state parks and to indicate which activities they par- ticipated in, on this trip. A 1-5 ranking scale was used where one represented not important and five repre- sented crucial. As indicated in Table 30, swimming was given the highest median score (4.02), followed by pic- nicking (3.75), hike/walking trails (3.12), sightseeing (3.05), and visiting nature center or historic sites (2.52). The importance day users placed on swimming is noteworthy confirming the importance of quality swimming opportunities in state parks. 92 TABLE 30 MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS RANKING OF PARTICIPATION RATES AND IMPORTANCE OF SELECTED ACTIVITIES Rank Activities Median Crucial Participation 1 Swimming 4.03 36.6 54.4 2 Picnicking 3.75 26.0 50.1 3 Hiking/walk trails 3.12 14.8 44.8 4 Sightseeing 3.05 13.6 40.5 5 Visit nature center/ 2.52 5.2 19.7 historic site 6 Boating 1.97 6.3 13.7 7 Nature programs 1.85 2.4 3.6 8 Fishing 1.62 6.0 13.7 9 Canoeing 1.53 1.7 4.8 10 Visit other park users 1.43 5.0 15.0 11 Festival/special event 1.42 3.8 4.6 12 Organized activity 1.25 1.5 2.1 13 ORV use 1.26 6.6 6.1 14 Horseback riding 1.23 2.5 2.7 15 Picking fruit/berries 1.21 - 1.8 2.0 93 When comparing the state park day user participa- tion data to those from the state forest study (Nelson, Holecek, Beatty, 1985), it is interesting to note dif- ferences in participation rates for certain activities. The state forest study reported the most frequent par- ticipation in fishing (51.5%), swimming (49.0%), nature observation (39.3%), just looking and picnicking (31.1% each), and boating (30.6%). It is evident from these data that there are some differences between participa- tion rates of state forest day users and state park day users. Beyond swimming, state park day users are less involved in active use of the water resource. Further- more, only seven percent of the state park day users towed a boat to the park the day of the visit. Where as state forest day users visit primarily to fish for 2-3 hours in the early am or late PM. Fall, Winter, and Spring Activity Participation Day users were asked to indicate whether they had participated last year in any of the thirteen recre- ational activities available in State Parks from October through April. Nearly half (46.1%) participated in at least one activity at a State Park in 1984 during this time period. The percentages in Table 31 represent pro- portions of those who participated at least once. The top five activities are: hiking (17%), camping (14%), fishing (11%), cross-country skiing (9%), and sledding 94 (6%). A slight majority of day users (53.9%) did not participate in any activities in state parks during these months. These day users represent a potential market for state parks as they are already exposed to the system and perhaps just need to be made aware of the different off-season options available in the parks. 95 TABLE 31 PERCENT OF PARTICIPATION IN FALL, WINTER, SPRING ACTIVITIES CHOSEN BY SUMMER SEASON MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS (For the 46% of the respondents who reported using the parks between October and April, 1984) Rank Activity Percent 1 Hiking 16.7 2 Camping 14.4 3 Fishing 11.0 4 Cross-country skiing 9.4 5 Sledding/tobogganing 5.6 6 Hunting 5.5 7 Ice Fishing 5.3 8 Downhill skiing 4.3 9 ORV operation 4.0 10 Snowmobiling 3.7 11 Ice skating 3.0 12 Horseback riding 1.9 Note, does not sum to 100% because multiple responses were requested. Also 53.9% of respondents did not par- ticipate in any fall, winter, or spring activity in state parks. 96 Spending Table 32 contains expenditures per party for state park day users. Compared to Michigan State Park cam- pers, day users spend only a third ($57.31) of what cam- pers spend ($171.57) per trip. The pattern of spending is approximately the same: forty-seven percent of the total spent at home for the trip, 22% enroute, and 32% within 20 miles. Day users spend a larger proportion of the total at the park than campers. The largest cate- gory of expenditures was groceries or convenience store food and drinks ($15.16), spending with vehicle related expenses being second, ($14.70) and restaurant and bar meals and drinks third ($11.08). 97 TABLE 32 MEAN EXPENDITURES PER PARTY FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Expenditure 0N ROUTE AT HOME UP TO 20 WITHIN CATEGORY FOR THIS MILES AWAY 20 MILES TRIP FROM PARK OF PARK TOTAL Mean Mean Mean Mean Vehicle related $9.30 $3 72 $1.68 $14.70 Restaurant and bar $1 56 $3 59 $5.83 $10.98 Grocery or convenience store food and drink $10.67 $1.43 $3.06 $15.16 Sporting goods, bait, lures, camping gear $2.56 $ .08 $ .89 $3.53 Lodging 5 .92 $3 31 $5.20 $9.43 All other items $1.63 $ 38 $1.50 $3.51 TOTALS $26.64 $12.51 $18.16 $57.31 % OF GRAND TOTAL 46.5% 21.8% 31.7% Note, the numbers above are mean expenditure figures. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 98 Moto; Vghicle Permit Usage As Table 33 shows, slightly over half (60%) of the day users bought a daily motor vehicle permit to enter the park the day of the survey. Only 24% purchased an annual permit in 1984. Since daily and annual permit purchases are not mutually exclusive purchase behaviors, a percent of day users may have purchased both. Of those who had the annual permit, the average number of days it was used was fourteen. Fifty-three percent of the day users bought at least one daily motor vehicle permit in 1984, and 76% of the users bought three or fewer motor vehicle permits. 99 TABLE 33 ANNUAL VEHICLE PERMIT USE AND DAILY PERMIT PURCHASE BEHAVIOR FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARKS DAY USERS # of days annual Annual Permit usage Daily Permits Permit used or 8 of Percent Purchased daily Permits purchased Percent 0 1.7 ---- 1 2.6 34.1 2 8.1 24.4 3 3.6 16.8 4 3.9 6.5 5 6.9 8 1 6 3.5 2.2 7 5.2 1 3 8 1.9 1.3 9 .8 .1 10 14.1 2.9 11-21 30.6 1.9 22+ 17.0 .3 TOTALS 100.0 100.0 Mean 14.2 days 3.0 permits Median 10.4 days 2.1 permits 100 Day users purchasing the daily permits spent an average of $6.00 for their three visits. If the $2.00 daily permit price is representative of the cost the state park system incurs per day user party visit, then the annual permit price needs to be adjusted accor- dingly. Annual permit purchases use their permits 14.2 days at a cost of $10. Thus, for each visit state parks receive $ .70 instead of $2.00 as they receive from the daily permit purchaser. Thus, the annual permit user is receiving a sizable discount. This analysis is summa- rized in Table 34 below. TABLE 34 VEHICLE PERMIT COST PER USE FOR DAY USERS Daily Annual Cost $2.00 $10.00 Avg. No. purchased or times used 3 days 14.2 days Cost per use $2.00 $ .70 Total Cost for year $6.00 $10.00 101 Day User Satisfaction The Michigan State Park study results contain three ways to measure day user satisfaction. One way is by studying each day user's response to his/her best and least liked aspects of the park where contacted. The second way is to study the most important reason for the trip. Thirdly, each day user's response to the numeri- cal scale rating of the park can also be a factor used in determining overall satisfaction. The responses given for liking the park are presented in Table 35. The top three were: swimming beach (13%), natural sur- roundings (12%), and close to home-work (10%). As shown in Table 36, the reasons stated for not liking the park were: too far from home-work (13%), crowded (9%), and alcohol ban (5%). As indicated in Table 37, the most important reasons for visiting the park were: past expe- rience (18%), swimming beach (13%), natural surroun- dings, and recommended by others each 7%. 102 TABLE 35 ATTRIBUTE/FACILITY LIKED BEST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Rank Attribute/Facility Percent 1 Swimming beaches 13.0 2 Natural surroundings 11.7 3 Close to home/work 9.8 4 Good recreational opportunity 4.0 4 Nearby lake or stream 4.0 5 Well maintained 3.0 6 Clean facilities 1.6 7 Not crowded 1.4 8 Secluded 1.2 9 Near area attractions 1.0 9 Fishing 1.2 10 Picnic facilities .9 11 Quiet .8 12 Hospitable staff .6 Other 3.7 103 TABLE 36 ATTRIBUTE/FACILITY LIKED LEAST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS 10 11 12 Too far from home/work Crowded/limited space Alcohol ban Lack of facilities Facilities not maintained Limited recreation opportunities Rules not enforced Poor swimming beach No boat launch Waiting lines too long Too far from lake/stream Don't like rules Inhospitable staff Other * Note, the "other" category above was not coded due to labor constraints. was "nothing" they liked least. However, many day users said there 104 TABLE 37 ONE MOST IMPORTANT REASON/THING BEHIND DECISION TO VISIT PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Rank Attribute/Facility Percent 1 Past experience 17.7 2 Swimming beaches 12.6 3 Natural surroundings 6.5 3 Recommended by others 6.5 4 Close to home/work 4.9 5 Near area attractions 3.6 6 Inexpensive recreation 3.4 7 Close to highway 2.7 8 Fishing 2.6 9 Boat launch/boating 1.9 10 Nearby lake or stream 1.5 11 Park facilities 1.2 12 Trails/hiking 1.0 13 Friendly atmosphere .9 14 Quiet .4 15 Not crowded .3 Other 13.6 *Note, the "other" category was not coded due to labor constraints. However, day users reported their personal feelings about the particular park they were at and wrote: this park is beautiful, I love this park, I like everything as 'other' answers. 105 The overall satisfaction rating with the park expe- rience was 8.15 on a 1-10 scale where one was very dis- satisfied and ten was very satisfied. The rating of eight is even more significant in light of the fact that the mean, median, and mode was eight. Also the standard deviation was low (.035). These statistics all confirm that the majority of day users are quite satisfied with the state park experience. Managers should be pleased that they are doing a good job. This, however, can only continue if managers learn from this survey and other such surveys how to best meet the state park user's needs. All of these measures of satisfaction need to be studied in detail as they give insight into state park day users-what they like, what they do not like, and their one most important reason for visiting the park. For example, since swimming beaches were mentioned as the top reason for liking the park and the second reason for visiting the park, it is only reasonable that every effort be made to keep the beaches clean and cared for. A caution here though, since day users were only asked about the current facilities, they responded accor- dingly. If instead, they would have been given a wish list of possible facilities for the future along with current facilities, the results could have been a lot different. (For more information see Chapters VI and VII.) 106 Summagy 'In conclusion, state park day users visit in groups composed of mainly families who enjoy engaging in a variety of activities but primarily swimming 54.4%, pic- nicking 50.1%, and hiking trails 44.8%. As a group, day users are well educated and mainly come from the state of Michigan (76%): yet, a significant number are from out-of-state (24%). The high percentage of nonresidents suggests that perhaps these people are stopping in the area for a brief visit. They heed camper and noncampers advice on whether to visit the park and mainly use their past experience as a indicator of whether they will return or not. Apparently those who do decide to return are loyal, repeat users (73%). Only 27% of the users had never been to the park before. Seventy-two percent stated that the focus of their trip was this park, and 87% planned to visit at the start of "today's" drive. Thus, the park was a destination for many: a five hour planned stop on average. They spent $57.31 per party per trip. Most came directly from home and bought daily permits to enter the park. As can be expected, swimming beaches were most liked, yet they didn't rate the water resource as being essential for fishing, boating, or canoeing. Overall, most were quite satisfied with their visit to the park. COMPARISONS BETWEEN DAY USERS AND CAMPERS Introduction Campers and day users have similar demographic characteristics. However, more camping than day use parties consisted of family groups (80% vs. 65%). The age distribution by sex is also quite comparable between day users and campers. There were a few more out-of- state day users (24%) than campers. The average party size was basically the same, 3.6 for day users and 3.5 for campers. Seventy-three percent of day users reported previously visiting the particular park where they were contacted, 64% as a camper and 88% as a day user. Fewer campers (67%), on the other hand, had visited the park before. Ninety-one percent had visited as a camper and 82% as a day user. Information Soupces As presented in Table 38, the information sources which prompted the camper's or day user's first visit differed somewhat. The first and fourth choices were the same: recommended by camper and MSP highway signs 107 108 :respectively. The rest of the choices were quite dif- ferent. Campers chose in rank order: MSP brochure/map, state highway map, and AAA. Day users, on the other hand, chose in rank order: recommended by noncamper, MSP brochure/map, and state highway map. 109 TABLE 38 A COMPARISON OF INFORMATION SOURCES WHICH PROMPTED FIRST VISIT FOR STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Camper Day User % % Rank Source Chosing Rank Source Chosing 1)Recommend by camper 54.6 1)Recommend by camper 26.4 2)MSP Brochure/Map 38.2 2)Recommend by noncamper 24.9 3)State highway map 25.7 3)MSP Brochure/Map 16.9 4)MSP highway signs 11.4 4)MSP Highway signs 14.9 5)AAA 8.8 5)State Highway map 13.2 Note, respondents were asked to choose the top three most important information sources: thus, percentages add to more than 100%. 110 Table 39 shows the top five sources used by the park visitor in the park where they were surveyed. Other than the first choice, (previous visit to the park), campers and day users disagreed on the ranking of the other four information sources (although the same four were in the top five sources listed). Campers chose in rank order: MSP employees signs posted inside the park, this state parks brochure/map and other park users. Day users, on the other hand, chose in rank order: signs posted in the park, other park users, MSP employees and this state parks brochure. Since the same five information sources were picked by campers and day users, perhaps one could state that state park users rely on the same information sources when gathering information about the state park. Therefore, whether the state park user is a camper or a day users, he or she will use the same sources when seeking information while visiting a specific state park. 111 TABLE 39 A COMPARISON OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION USED WHILE VISITING THIS STATE PARK FOR BOTH CAMPERS AND DAY USERS % chosing % chosing Source Info. source Source Info. source 1)Past visit to park 54.1 1)Past visit to park 57.8 2)MSP employees 48.7 2)Signs posted 46.9 3)signs posted in park 41.7 3)Other park users 30.6 4)This MSP brochure/map 32.9 4)MSP employees 21.9 5)Other park users 31.8 5)This MSP brochure 31.3 Activities Table 40 displays the ranking of selected aetivi- ties which demonstrates that day users and campers basi- cally agree on the top five important/crucial activi- ties. The exceptions are the rankings of the top four activities and the fifth choices. Day users included nature center/historic sites as fifth while campers included fishing. Four of the top five activities are mentioned by both day users and campers which makes it easier for management as it can concentrate on six acti- 112 vities instead of ten. Next, management should assess what it can do to make sure these most popular activi- ties are provided and that the quality is maintained if it isn't already. 113 TABLE 40 A COMPARISON OF ACTIVITY RATINGS BY BOTH MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Camper Day user Rank Activity Median Score Rank Activity Median Score 1)Swimming 3.77 1)Swimming 4.03 2)Hike/walk trails 3.20 2)Picnic 3.75 3)Sightseeing 2.85 3)Hike/walk trail 3.12 4)Picnic 2.66 4)Sightseeing 3.05 5)Fishing 2.51 5)Visit nature 2.52 center/site Note, MSP users rated activities using a 1-5 scale where one was not important and five was crucial. 114 As presented in Table 41, participation in fall, winter, and spring activities seems to be quite similar for both campers and day users. Of the top five activi- ties listed for day users and campers, four activities are the same although ranked in somewhat different order. The major difference is campers rated hunting fourth and day users did not include it in their top five. Day users rated sledding/tobogganing fifth, and campers did not include it in their top five. Overall, those campers and day users who participate in fall, winter, or spring activities enjoy the same activities. This makes it easier for management as it can concen- trate on creating the best facilities for these "stan- dard" activities. 115 TABLE 41 A COMPARISON OF FALL, WINTER, AND SPRING ACTIVITY PARTICIPATION FOR BOTH MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Camper Day user Rank Activity % of users Rank Activity % of users participating participating 1)Camping 21.9 1)Niking 16.7 2)Fishing 15.8 2)Camping 14.4 3)Hiking 13.3 3)Fishing 11.0 4)Munting 7.6 4)Cross-country 9.4 skiing 5)Cross-country 7.5 5)Sledding/ 5.6 skiing tobogganing 116 Expenditures As reported in this chapter, campers spend $171.57 on their trip as opposed to day users who only spend $57.31 on their outing. Thus, campers spend more than three times the amount spent by day users. Yet campers average stay is 4.7 nights where as day users spend, on average, five hours in the park. Thus, it is not sur- prising that there is a large difference in the amount spent by the two groups. Actually, the day use rate of spending is nearly double the camper rate. Annual vehicle permit use is basically the same for day users and campers. The difference being that campers on aver- age use their annual permits 16.2 days and day users on average use theirs 14.2 days. The campers annual permit costs $.62 a visit where as a day user's annual permit costs $.70 per visit. Attributes As indicated in Table 42, campers and day users agree that all of the following were important attrib- utes/facilities: swimming beaches, proximity to lake or stream, proximity to work/home and natural surroundings. In general, the attributes/facilities liked best for campers and day users is basically the same. 117 TABLE 42 A COMPARISON OF THE TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTES/ FACILITIES FOR BOTH SAMPLED MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Campers Day users Rank Attribute % Rank Attribute % 1)Campsite near lake/stream 15.2 1)Swimming Beach 13.0 2)Natural area 11.6 2)Natural area 11.7 3)Close to home/work 6.9 3)Close to home/work 9.8 4)Swimming beaches 6.3 4)Good recreational 4.0 opportunity 4)Near lake or stream 4.0 5)Relatively large site 4.7 5)Well maintained 3.0 118 Of the top five attributes/facilities liked least, which are outlined in Table 43, campers and day users agree on the same top two: 1) too far from home/work and 2) crowded/limited space. But the remaining three choices are quite different. Campers chose in declining rank order: sites too small, poor swimming beaches and campground far from lake/stream. Day users, on the other hand, chose: alcohol ban, lack of facilities, and facilities not maintained. Those attributes/facilities that are mentioned as liked least should be analyzed to determine what if anything management can do to correct these possible problems. For example, if campers truly desire better swimming beaches, management should con- sider working on improving the beach areas to the extent that this is economically feasible. 119 TABLE 43 A COMPARISON OF ATTRIBUTE/FACILITIES LIKED LEAST FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Campers Day users Rank Attribute/Facility % Rank Attribute/Facility % 1)Far from home/work 9.4 1)Far from home/work 12.5 2)Crowded space 6.8 2)Crowded space 8.8 3)Sites small 5.2 3)Alcohol ban 4.6 4)Poor beaches 4.8 4)Lack of facilities 4.5 5)Cg. far from lake 4.2 5)Facilities not maintained 3.6 120 In general, campers and day users want parks to be close to their home and or work and would like more space in which to recreate. More specifically, campers were concerned with the "campground experience", and day users were concerned with the day use facilities. This is only logical considering the two experiences the groups are after. Thus, management needs to provide the highest quality campground and day use experience for its users. For campers this means providing campsites near a lake or stream, in natural surroundings, with maintained swimming beaches, and on relatively large sites. For day users, this means maintained swimming beaches in natural surroundings with a well maintained day use area. Outlined in Table 44, are the top five rea- sons/things behind the decision to visit a park. Campers and day users agreed on four reasons: past experience, close to home/work, near area attractions, and natural surroundings, but gave them a different rank order. Campers added "nearby lake/stream" to their list of reasons for the visit while day users added "recommended by others." 121 TABLE 44 A COMPARISON OF THE MOST IMPORTANT REASON/THING BEHIND DECISION TO VISIT THE PARK FOR MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Rank Attribute % Rank Attribute % 1)Past experience 28.1 1)Past experience 17.7 2)Close to home/work 8.4 2)Swimming beaches 12.6 3)Near area attractions 7.4 3)Natural surroundings 6.5 3)Recommended by others 6.5 4)Natural surroundings 6.3 4)Close to home/work 4.9 5)Nearby lake/stream 5.9 5)Near area attractions 3.6 122 Summaxy In conclusion, campers and day users have similar demographic characteristics. Age distribution by sex is similar, a few more day users are from out-of-state (24% vs. 17%) and party size is similar (3.6 vs. 3.5). How- ever, the ranking of information sources which prompted the first visit differed widely between campers and day users. In general, campers rated all of their sources higher than day users. This could perhaps mean that campers gather more information than day users before selecting a destination. Once in parks both campers and day users rely on similar information sources for information about the park. In terms of activities, campers and day users agree on the top four sources although they ranked them differently. Participation in fall, winter, and spring activities is similar: there were only minor differences as campers included hunting and day users included sledding/tobogganing. The dif- ference in economic expenditures is different although understandably so. Also, annual vehicle permit usage is basically the same for campers who use their permits 16.2 days and day users who use theirs 14.2 days. Campers and day users agree on four of the five attribute/facilities liked best about the park although ranked a little differently. Attributes/facilities liked least are comparable for the top two, but the 123 remaining three choices are different. Lastly, the rea- sons/things behind the decision to visit the park are similar although ranked differently. Overall, campers and day users have certain basic needs depending on the particular experience they are after. Although the needs are somewhat basic, campers and day users stress their importance differently by giving them different rank orders. This is only logical as day users and campers are after two different types of experiences. CHAPTER V STATE PARK USERS: CENSUS COMPARISONS This chapter compares demographic information from the 1980 Michigan Census with demographic data for both state park campers and day users in 1985. The objective of this chapter is to determine which segments of the Michigan population are being served by Michigan State Parks. In the state park study of day users and campers information was gathered on six demographic variables: sex, age, marital status, race, education, and income. In comparing the six demographic variables, census data (Bureau of Census, 1980) indicates a slightly higher percentage of females in the general population as noted in Table 45. Males predominate among state park camper respondents and females predominate among state park day user respondents. The reason for this is probably due at least in part to the sampling scheme used. The sam- pling scheme for campers was apt to include more males because the registered camper was requested to complete the questionnaire. The day user scheme called for giving the survey to either the driver or a non-driver of the car. Since females are apt to be the non- 124 125 drivers, they were more likely to receive, keep, and complete the questionnaire then the driver. TABLE 45 SEX DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Respondents Sex Census (%) Camper (%) Day user (%) Male 49.0 64.3 42.9 Female 51.0 35.7 57.1 Sampling methods likely biased camper results toward males and day user results toward females. E The age distribution comparison of respondents begins with the 16-19 year old group because the methods used in the MSP study required that the respondent be old enough to answer the questionnaire and have a driv- ers license. Due to the methods used, it would be expected that a somewhat larger percent of the respon- dents would be older. By examining Table 46, it is evi- dent that state parks are serving a proportionately hig- 126 her number of 25-29, 30-39, and 40-49 age groups: while serving a proportionately lower number of 16-19 and 65 and older age groups. In the 20-24 age group, the state parks are serving a proportionately low number of cam- pers: where as in the 50-59 age group, state parks are serving a proportionately high number of campers, when compared to the census data. 127 TABLE 46 AGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Age Census (%) Camper (%) Day user(%) 16-19 9.7* 2.0 3.6 20-24 9.7 5.2 10.4 25-29 8.7 12.6 19.6 30-39 13.8 37.6 34.0 40-49 9.8 16.5 13.6 50-59 10.4 15.0 8.6 60-64 4.2 5.7 3.4 65 and older 9.9 5.4 6.8 The nearest category used by the U.S. Census is the 15-19 year old group: hence for this category only cen- sus and respondent categories are not identical. 128 Marital Status Previous data from this paper illustrate that state parks are serving primarily a family clientele. There- fore, as would be expected, there are proportionately more married users among study respondents than in the census for Michigan. State parks primarily serve mar- ried and family groups as is evident in Table 47. TABLE 47 MARITAL STATUS OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Census (%) Camper (%) Day user (%) Single 37.1 9.6 16.6 Married 36.7 86.9 75.9 Widow/Divorced/ Separated 26.2 3.5 7.5 Note, the US Census Bureau includes separated in the widow/divorced/separated category, while in the state park survey separated is included in the married cate- gory. 129 page Table 48 below shows that state parks are serving a disproportionately higher number of whites and a low proportion of blacks. In this analysis, Hispanic is the second most significant ethnic or racial group representing .4% of the day users and .6% of the campers. They are included in the category "other" as the census data did not include this category in its breakdown. Blacks apparently are not using state parks to their fullest potential as almost 13% of the Michigan population is black yet only .1% camp and only .6% use the day use area. Whites are overrepresented in state parks while other groups, besides blacks, are almost comparable to their level of representation in the Michigan population. TABLE 48 RACE DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Census (%) Camper (%) Day user (%) White 85.0 98.7 97.8 Black 12.9 .1 .6 Asian .3 .3 .2 Amer.Indian .4 .3 .1 Other 1.3 .3 .9 130 Education Table 49 indicates that those individuals who have not graduated from high school do not use the state parks proportionate to their level of representa- tion within the population of the state of Michigan. On the other hand, those individuals utilizing state parks are more highly educated than is the case for the gen- eral population. Thus, Michigan State Parks are serving those citizens with a higher education. TABLE 49 EDUCATIONAL LEVELS OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Census (%) Camper (%) Day user (%) Less than 9 years 15.1 2.1 .9 9-11 years 16.9 4.3 2.3 High school 38.0 35.2 35.4 1-3 years college 15.7 29.6 26.0 4+years college 14.3 28.8 32.8 131 co e In spite of the fact that the income range categories are not directly comparable, it is evident in Table 50 that state parks are not serving the two lowest income categories. The two lowest income catego- ries represent over 50% of the general population: but only 17.3% of the campers and 22.9% of the day users are in these two categories. Yet, state parks serve higher income groups in significantly larger proportions than are represented in the general Michigan population. 132 TABLE 50 INCOME DISTRIBUTION OF THE GENERAL MICHIGAN POPULATION AND MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS AND DAY USERS Income Census (%) Camper (%) Day user (%) Less than 10,000 25.6 4.1 7.7 10,000-19,999 26.4 13.9 16.5 20,000-24,999 13.1 24.1* 23.0* 25,000-34,999 18.3 29.3** 24.9** 35,000-49,999 11.3 14.6*** 13.0*** Greater than 50,000 5.3 14.0 15.0 * State park questionnaire range was $20,000-$29,999. ** State park questionnaire range was $30,000-$39,999. *** State park questionnaire range was $40,000-$49,999. 133 Conclusion Based upon the data available from the U.S. Census Bureau and those collected from state park users, cer- tain segments of Michigan's population are overrepre- sented while others are underrepresented in the parks. The reasons for many of these differences are apparent. Since camping and park usage is a strong family affair, more children are present in camper and day users parties than are represented in the population at large. Children come with their parents who are of the child bearing ages of 18-39, and these groups are overrepre- sented in the parks. The smaller percentage of senior citizens may be accounted for by the health and mobility concerns facing this group. Blacks are underrepresented while whites are overrepresented for both camper and day user groups: however, other ethnic and racial groups are nearly comparable to their level of representation in Michigan's population. The rest of the demographic comparisons suggest that state parks are indeed sought out by those Michigan citizens with college educations and higher incomes. Almost 60% have some college or a college degree: over half earn over $30,000 a year. The reason for the hig- her income finding could be due to the fact that use of the state parks involves some travel, even some of the more urban oriented parks require auto travel to reach them or equipment may make it less accessible to the poor. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY/RECOMMENDATIONS CAMPER Introduction There are two separate issues where the state park managers can have a favorable effect in determining how the users perceive their day use or camper experience. The first issue is in the area of information that prompted a visit to a state park and information about a particular state park. For example, if there are not any signs or maps about state parks, then the users will not know where to find them. It is crucial that manage- ment focus on the information sources most often used by campers and day users. Then they can alter the informa- tion sources they use, if needed, to make them more effective. The second issue is the attributes/activities desired by the Michigan State Park users. It is crucial that campers and day users enjoy their experience so they will return and bring others as well. Therefore, it is essential for management to focus on the attrib- ute/facilities the users desire and aim to make the state park experience match their expectations/desires. For example, generally, campers and day users like to 134 135 swim and desire well maintained swimming beaches. Thus, a well cared for swimming beach should be provided. Information Sources By looking at the top five choices indicated in Table 51, it is evident a recommendation from other cam- pers is truly the most important information source used. When campers are deciding on their next trip and where to visit, they often turn to other campers and ask them for advice. The use of this word of mouth informa- tion source is truly what the DNR's Parks Division must respond to. The best way to keep this cycle intact is to provide a favorable camping experience for the cam- pers. If state park campers are truly happy, they will tell their friends about their favorable experience and perhaps then these friends will visit state parks as well. This can work favorably for the state parks or it can harm them. Just as satisfied users tell everyone about their experience, so do dissatisfied users. If a camper comes to a state park and does not have a good experience for one reason or another, he is likely to tell his friends about his bad experience. The state parks will not have a positive image from the camper's point of view. All of his friends will also hear the story, and if they give credence to it, perhaps they might develop this negative image of state parks as well. 136 Perhaps this negative scenario seems a little unre- alistic. Yet over the course of the survey we received numerous complaints and compliments about state parks. Unfortunately, those who complained usually stated in their letter that they would never go back to another state park again. Recently the opportunity arose to hear a story about an experience from a camper who camped in a state park. Although he unknowingly broke a rule, the attendant did not attempt to stop what she knew was an infraction of rules. The camper had an unpleasant experience and he along with two other parties left the state park vowing never to return. This particular camper stated that he will tell everyone about his experience as he knows no one in the state park system cares whether he had a terrible expe- rience or not. This was a totally unfortunate incident yet many people will hear this man's story and perhaps alter their attendance of state parks as well. As a result of negative incidents like these and in light of the fact that campers listen to other campers recommend- ations, it is essential that Michigan State Parks work on some sort of hospitality training for employees. (More information is given in Chapter VII). 137 TABLE 51 TOP FIVE INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN PROMPTING A VISIT BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Rank Source Percent 1) Recommendation from other campers 54.6% 2) Michigan State Parks Brochure/Map 38.2% 3) State highway map 25.7% 4) State Park highway signs 11.4% 5) AAA 8.8% Note, Campers were asked to chose three information sources that prompted their first visit to State Parks. While in a particular state park, past experience is an important information source as indicated by Table 52. Once a camper has been to a particular state park and returns, it is logical that he will rely on his past visit for information as to the location of facilities and attributes. Therefore, again it is very important that the camper has a high quality experience so he will want to come back to the park again. 138 State park employees play an important role as well. Management does not realize how important employees are to the success of an experience. They can determine whether the camper's experience is pleasant or not. If a camper asks an employee for directions or information and the employee is pleasant and friendly, the camper may or may not remember this. However, if the camper discovers the employee to be angry or harsh, he will remember this experience and perhaps alter his camping behavior of state parks as a result. The signs posted in the park and the state parks brochure/map are both very important information sources as well. Campers do use both of these information sources. Thus, they should be current. other park users are also important sources of information about the state park. Again these people can be helpful and offer assistance to new users or they can make the camper's stay most unpleasant. The goal is to create a pleasant atmosphere in which the campers can seek out information and be rewarded by pleasant employees telling them about the fine Michigan State Park's we have. Some factors are out of the agency's control, other factors such as cour- teous employees are well within its reach. Therefore, every possible step should be made towards educating and training the employees so they realize the essential role they play. 139 TABLE 52 TOP FIVE INFORMATION SOURCES ABOUT THIS STATE PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Rank Source Percent 1) Previous visit 54.1% 2) Michigan State Park employees 48.7% 3) Signs posted inside park 41.7% 4) this State parks brochure/map 32.9% 5) Other park users 31.8% Note, Campers were asked to chose three information sources that provided information about the particular park where they were surveyed. Attributes The top five attributes listed in Table 53 provide a list of priorities campers see as being most impor- tant/crucial. DNR management would benefit by under- standing these attributes and the control, if any, they possess over them. A clean and secure facility is well within the bounds of state park management. It is not surprising that Walt Disney succeeded in his enterprise by offering a clean, safe, enjoyable environment for people to recreate. Michigan State Parks must try to do 140 the same. These two concerns should be a priority. If more employees are needed to make sure the place is clean and safe, then more employees should be hired for this purpose. Hospitable management is listed third. All employees should be given some sort of customer rela- tions training so when dealing with state park campers or day users the employees will be courteous and polite. As already noted, a bad experience with an employee can ruin a state park users experience. Thus, every attempt should be made to make sure all users have a favorable experience. Camp fires are a necessary part of the camping experience for many: therefore, every attempt should be made to let campers build camp fires. Showers seem to be a necessary part of the camping experience as well. This is one attribute that separates state parks from state forests as state forest do not have showers. Many state forest people will break up their trip by going to a state park for one night in order to have a shower. Also, obviously, many state park campers feel showers are necessary; thus, they should be provided. In addi- tion, regulations should be enforced as many campers see them as important. In the following chapter the link between what the camper needs and how to promote this product to him, will be made clear. 141 TABLE 53 TOP FIVE CAMPGROUND ATTRIBUTES RANKED BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Rank Attribute Median Score 1) Clean facility 4.58 2) Secure facility 4.44 3) Hospitable management 3.93 4) Camp fires 3.92 5) Regulations 3.85 Note, Campers rated the attributes using a 1-5 scale where one was not important and five was crucial. Activity Ratings Table 54 shows the five favorite activities of sampled MSP campers. The table suggests that campers are content with the standard activities offered at state parks. The Parks Division should provide these activities without any additional cost. Since swimming is a favorite activity for campers, state park manage- ment should provide beaches that are well cared for and managed. Also, the trails at state parks must be well groomed. Picnicking is a favorite activity. Thus, the picnic grounds should be free of litter. 142 TABLE 54 TOP FIVE ACTIVITY RATINGS BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Rank Activities Median Score 1) Swimming 3.77 2) Hike/walk trails 3.20 3) Sightseeing 2.85 4) Picnic 2.66 5) Fishing 2.51 Note, Campers rated activities using a 1-5 scale where one was not important and five was crucial. Activitiestacilities As indicated in Table 55, of the top five attrib- utes liked best, state park management has control over three. A campsite near a lake or stream was stated by quite a number of campers as the attribute they liked best. People generally liked to be by the lake or stream in order to have a view of the water source. It seems reasonable, yet often campgrounds are not designed to maximize this opportunity. In the future, this should be taken into account. When funds become avail- 143 able, perhaps certain campgrounds that are not maximi- zing this water potential should be redesigned. Swimming beaches are another variable within the confines of management's control. Beaches should be kept clean and free of litter. They are an important attribute and in order to get the most mileage out of them, they should be in the best possible shape. Also, relatively large sites are important as campers desire room for their equipment. Some actually liked to be right on top of their neighbor: yet others desire more room and will deliberately seek out places that can accommodate them. Perhaps campgrounds in the future can be designed with both needs in mind. TABLE 55 TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTE/FACILITIES LIKED BEST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Rank Attribute Percent 1) Campsite near lake/stream 15.2 2) Natural surroundings 11.6 3) Close to home/work 6.9 4) Swimming beaches 6.3 5) Relatively large site 4.7 Note, campers were asked to chose the one attribute/ facility liked best. 144 It is interesting that of the top five attributes liked least, the converse of four of them were mentioned as the one attribute/facility liked best as shown in Table 56. It is important to note that 11% of the cam- pers did not respond to the question-some because there was nothing they liked least. However, the ones respon- ding stated that crowded/limited space and sites too small were concerns for them. Both of these are costly in terms of the funds needed to add land to the state park system. Perhaps further work needs to be done at the park level to determine which particular park needs more space and larger sites in order to accommodate cam- pers. The situation is a bit of a catch 22 as state parks try to accommodate the most number of users pos- sible so sometimes they cram users into small sites but in this process some campers get turned off and seek other campgrounds. Poor swimming beaches are also a concern. Beaches should be maintained adequately at a reasonable cost as campers and day users see them as important and over 63% of the sampled day users swim. The beach areas should be clean and free of litter. Also, campgrounds located too far from the lake or stream is a problem. Again, if possible, campgrounds could be renovated in order to maximize this opportunity. 145 TABLE 56 TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTES/FACILITIES LIKED LEAST ABOUT THIS CAMPGROUND BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK CAMPERS Rank Attribute Percent 1) Too far from home/work 9.4 2) Crowded/limited space 6.8 3) Sites too small 5.2 4) Poor swimming beaches 4.8 5) Campground too far from lake/stream 4.2 Note, campers were asked to chose the one attribute/ facility liked least. Campers were asked their reason behind their deci- sion to camp in the particular state park campground they were at. As indicated in Table 57, the only reason stated that is somewhat controllable by management is a camper's past experience. As previously discussed, past experience plays a vital role in creating a favorable or unfavorable image in the mind of a state park user. State parks need to provide the best experience possible for the campers. When campers are satisfied with their experience they will, in turn, tell their friends about 146 their experience. Therefore, people will come to the state parks which will keep the state parks of Michigan alive and thriving. MSP campers were asked to respond to a question asking them what different service- facility did they desire in the park. Sixty-eight per- cent responded to the question (some by writing "noth- ing"). This is a valuable question and the answer will be of great benefit to the management of state parks. TABLE 57 TOP FIVE MOST IMPORTANT REASONS/THINGS BEHIND DECISION TO CAMP AT PARK Rank Attribute Percent 1) Past experience 28.1 2) Close to home/work 8.4 3) Near area attractions 7.4 4) Natural surroundings 6.3 5) Nearby lake/stream 5.9 Note, campers were asked to chose the one most important reason/thing behind decision to camp at park. 147 Summary There are some general themes that are quite appar- ent after looking at the data. First, is the importance of information from other campers. They seem to be valuable sources of information about the state park system. Once a camper has been to the state park sys- tem, his previous experience plays an important role in determining whether he will visit again. Also, since hospitality management is mentioned as an important campground attribute, it is quite clear that MSP employees have a role to play in creating an enjoyable environment in which the campers can relax. Campers seem to be somewhat water oriented as swim- ming was ranked first and fishing was ranked fifth. They enjoy campsites near lake/stream and swimming beaches. In fact, the reason given by 5.9% of the cam- pers was to be near the lake/stream. Some campers are after the traditional state park experience desiring a clean and safe environment, where they can hike, sight- see, or picnic, while enjoying the natural surroundings. This "traditional state park experience" is what needs to be stressed in a promotional scheme designed to keep the previous campers coming to Michigan State Parks and also to attract new users who are desiring these quali- ties in a camping experience. DAY USER Information Sources As indicated in Table 58, word of mouth is a very important information source. When day users are deci- ding where they want to visit, they often turn to their friends for advice which is derived from where their friends have been and where they enjoy going. This word of mouth information source is something which the man- agement of Michigan State Park's should be aware of especially since both campers and day users obtain a lot of their information via recommendations from others. This same sort of cycle that is part of the camper information system is also part of the day use system. Therefore, the DNR should try to maximize the effect as much as possible by providing a high quality day use area which is tuned into user needs by providing what the day users say they desire. Further, what the day users say they desire in a product needs to be thought of as the "day use experience". This "day use experi- ence" then needs to be promoted via a strategy that will appeal to the day user as discussed in Chapter VII. If 148 149 this is done, the day users will be satisfied and apt to return, perhaps with new friends as well, to the day use site. The MSP brochure, MSP signs, and state highway map should be current and any changes in facilities or loca- tions should be noted. People generally do not like surprises-especially unpleasant ones. If the day user is prepared ahead of time as to what to expect (where things are located, etc.), he/she will be much happier and have a pleasant experience. No one likes to search for a park that no longer exists or find one that does not offer what has been expected. TABLE 58 TOP FIVE INFORMATION SOURCES USED IN PROMPTING A VISIT BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Rank Source Percent 1) Recommended by camper 26.4% 2) Recommended by noncamper 24.9% 3) MSP Brochure 16.9% 4) MSP Highway sign 14.9% 5) State Highway map 13.2% Note, Day users were asked to chose three informa- tion sources that prompted their first visit to State Parks. 150 While in a particular state park, past experience plays a vital role in being an important information source as is shown in Table 59. After a day user has been to a state'park and returns, he relies on his knowledge from his previous visit as to the location of facilities, etc. Management can maximize this opportu- nity by supplying new visitors with adequate information about the location of various facilities and attributes. Signs in the park should be kept current so the day user does not spend needless time trying to find the bathroom or a hiking trail. Other park users can be an important asset as well by helping new day users find facilities/features of the park. If new visitors are given adequate information about the park, they can pass on this information to other users, especially their children. The MSP employees can be a tremendous source of information as they work in the park and know where everything is and thus can assist day users. The impor- tant point to remember is that the employees must be friendly and easily approachable otherwise they will be a deterrent rather than an asset. 151 TABLE 59 TOP FIVE INFORMATION SOURCES ABOUT THIS STATE PARK USED BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS WHILE ON SITE Rank Source Percent 1) Previous visit 57.8 2) Signs posted in the park 46.9 3) Other park users 30.6 4) MSP employees 21.9 5) This SP's brochure/map 21.3 Note, Day users were asked to chose three informa- tion sources that provided information about the partic- ular park where they were surveyed, thus the sum is greater than 100%. 152 Activity Ratings Table 60 shows the priority listing of activity preferences for day users. State park management can strive to provide the following in order to alter their facilities for these activities: 1) Provide a nice and clean swimming/picnic area. 2) Provide groomed hiking/walking trails. 3) Perhaps even provide a nature center or historic site. It is interesting that 20% of the day users stated that they participated in visiting a nature center or program. Yet only eleven of the sampled state parks that offer such facilities. Perhaps a follow-up study should be conducted to determine if day users indeed visit nature centers or historic sites and furthermore, if they desire more of these facilities. 153 TABLE 60 TOP FIVE ACTIVITY RATINGS BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Rank Activity Median Score 1) Swimming 4.03 2) Picnic 3.75 3) Hiking/walk trails 3.12 4) Sightseeing 3.05 5) Visit nature center/programs 2.52 Note, day users rated activities using a 1-5 scale where one was not important and five was crucial. Since swimming was the number one activity for those sampled and 54.4% of the day users participated in this activity, it is only logical that swimming beaches would be the attribute liked best as Table 61 shows. It is essential that state park managers concentrate on the swimming beaches and make them as attractive and clean as possible. The second attribute mentioned was natural surroundings. The main response managers can exhibit in this area is to make sure the camper surroundings are clean and cared for. 154 The last attribute managers have some control over is park maintenance. Day users apparently want the day use area to be well maintained-the grass cut, the litter removed, the buildings painted, and the bathrooms clean. If management is doing a good job, day users will notice this and their experience will be enhanced. These popu- lar attributes then should be promoted via a promotional strategy. The promotional strategy would focus on these attributes and include an advertising scheme designed to promote these attributes to Michigan State Park day users. This advertising plan will be discussed in Chap- ter VII. TABLE 61 TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTE/FACILITIES LIKED BEST BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Rank Attribute Percent 1) Swimming beaches 13.0 2) Natural surroundings 11.7 3) Close to home/work 9.8 4) Good recreational opportunity 4.0 4) Nearby lake or stream 4.0 5) Well maintained 3.0 155 AttributezFacilities Table 62 shows what attributes/facilities day users liked least about the state park they visited. Crowded/ limited space is a concern for many: almost 9% of the day users mentioned this as a concern. If a particular park manager determines that a park needs more day use space, he should try to acquire more land as resources allow. This could mean purchasing more acreage/space on which to add day use facilities. The alcohol ban was mentioned third but only by 4.6%. Also, lack of facili- ties is an interesting concern. A follow-up survey could be done to determine what types of facilities day users feel are lacking. For example, do day users feel there should be more toilets? "Facilities not maintained" is of critical concern. Facilities need to be maintained properly. If they are not maintained, there could be lawsuits and or injured parties as well as dissatisfied users. Of course each individual manager needs to determine in his or her park if their facilities are adequately maintained or not. If they aren't is this due to lack of resources- physical or financial? Whatever the case, as resources allow, steps should be taken to correct this problem. 156 TABLE 62 TOP FIVE ATTRIBUTE/FACILITIES LIKED LEAST ABOUT THIS PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Rank Attribute Percent 1) Too far from home/work 12.5 2) Crowded/limited space 8.8 3) Alcohol ban 4.6 4) Lack of facilities 4.5 5) Facilities not maintained 3.6 Note, Day users were asked to chose the one attrib- ute/facility liked least. As indicated in Table 63, past experience seems to play an important role throughout the whole MSP system. A concern of managers should be making sure state park users have an enjoyable experience. Swimming beaches are a priority and should be clean and taken care of since they are important to day users. Most day users stated that they participated in swimming (54%) and that it was very important to them. Since this is the case, swimming beaches at state parks should be kept-up so all day users can enjoy them. In addition, the natural sur- roundings at the park should be maintained with "unnatu- ral" elements being kept to a minimum. 157 "Recommendation by others" seems to be an important reason why people decide to visit the park. As stated previously, managers can aim to satisfy all day users so in turn these day users will favorably recommend the park to other potential day users. Satisfying day users is not an easy job, yet, if Michigan State Parks under went a rigorous customer relations training program, as outlined in Chapter VII, this goal could be reached. TABLE 63 THE FIVE MOST IMPORTANT REASON/THING BEHIND DECISION TO VISIT PARK BY MICHIGAN STATE PARK DAY USERS Rank Attribute Percent 1) Past Experience 17.7 2) Swimming Beaches 12.6 3) Natural surroundings 6.5 3) Recommended by others 6.5 4) Close to home/work 4.9 5) Near area attractions 3.6 158 Summary There are a few general themes that surfaced within state park management's control. The first is the importance of prior visitor recommendations. If a park is recommended by either a camper or noncamper, this is a most useful information source. Some day users visit the day use area at a park to see what it is like. This points to the fact that word of mouth information is used quite often, and it is the most desirable way to gain information. Once in the park, other park users were a valuable source of information about the park. Second, previous visits to the park play an impor- tant role in information about that particular park. For example, because they have been to the particular park before, prior visitors "know the ropes"; therefore, they rely on their past experience in the park for information. Day users also mentioned past experience as the one most important reason/thing behind their decision to visit the park. If they went to the park before and had a pleasant time, they returned because of their previous satisfying experience (57.8%). Third, swimming was mentioned as a very important activity with (54.4%) of users participating. Many day users mentibned swimming beaches as the attribute they like best and many also listed it as the second most important reason/thing behind their decision to come to the park. As long as the swimming beaches are kept 159 clean and desirable for the day users, they will return and probably be happy with the day use area. Fourth, natural surroundings seems to be very important for day users. They mentioned it as the sec- ond attribute liked best and as the third most important reason/thing behind their decision to come to the park on that trip. For this reason the natural surroundings should be maintained so that the day users can enjoy the surroundings. Also, many day users participate in sightseeing (40.5%) therefore enjoy looking at and observing the natural environment. Conclusion In light of these conclusions from both the day user and camper sections, this author recommends that the management of Michigan State Parks take a strong look at itself to see how it is measuring up to the expectations of user groups. In general, the users are a satisfied group of people. However, I see that in the future, the state park managers must become more aware of user needs and how to satisfy those needs. This study can provide the base for such further research. It is now possible to do a very selective study focusing on only one or two crucial issues such as desirable attrib- utes or economic expenditures. Another area for research is light users of the parks versus heavy users. Light users are quite often found to be easier to covert 160 to heavy users than are nonusers. Since the light users are already using the campgrounds or day use areas per- haps some sort of research study focusing on what inter- ests they have and what would be needed to convert them to heavy users would be appropriate. ’CHAPTER VII PROMOTIONAL STRATEGY Marketing Overview This paper has a twofold purpose. The first pur- pose was determining who campers and day users of Michi- gan State Parks are in terms of their demographics, camping history, and characteristics of their visit. This chapter involves taking the information one step further and trying to determine the best promotional strategy to use to reach current and potential users. This will be done by developing a promotional strategy specifically for MSP parks-based on the relevant infor- mation gathered from the surveys. In order to do this, however, the larger picture must be examined. Before a promotional strategy can be developed, a basic understanding of marketing and of a marketing strategy must be understood. As previous defined: "Mar- keting is a social process by which individuals and groups obtain what they need and want through creating and exchanging products and value with others (Kotler, 1984)." A marketing strategy is: "... the basic approach that the business unit will use to achieve its objec- tives, and it consists of broad decisions on target mar- 161 162 kets, market positioning and mix, and marketing expendi- ture levels (Kotler, 1984)." Marketing for Michigan State Parks entails determining what individuals need and want in the "park experience". This was partly determined via the 1985 Michigan State Park Survey although the survey was not specifically designed with marketing objectives in mind. The marketing process consists of the following nine parts: 1)Overall objectives 2)Environmental analysis 3)Market segmentation analysis 4)Marketing objectives 5)Marketing mix 6)Marketing budget 7)Implementation 8)Response of the target markets 9)Evaluation The marketing mix section deals with the tradi- tional marketing concepts of the four P's- product, place, price, and promotion. In order to understand the marketing mix in a camping context, an example of each will be given. First, the product for Michigan State Parks is the camping or day use experience itself. Sec- ond, the place is the individual Michigan State Parks. Third, the price for admission is $10 for an annual motor vehicle and $2 for a daily permit. However, there 163 are many other costs such as lodging, meals, and equip- ment that the camper or day user incurs enroute, on site, or on his way home. When these costs are added into the price, the price becomes much higher. Lastly, the promotional strategy is more complicated. It con- sists of four parts: personal selling, advertising, pub- licity, and sales promotion. All of these four areas will be examined in detail as they are integral parts of the promotional strategy. A note of caution should be given at this point. It should be noted that this author sees Michigan State Parks on the brink of something. This brink can either be positive or negative depending on how it proceeds into the future. Michigan State Parks has been coast- ing on the image it has portrayed in the minds of its users. So far this image has carried it through the difficulties such as budget cuts and the like. Manage- ment has made the "right" choices as the users are satisfied with their experience; But users are getting more sophisticated. Thus, the management of Michigan State Parks needs to be aware of its users and what they want. 164 Exomotionai Strategy "Promotion stands for the various activities the company undertakes to communicate its products merits and to persuade target customers to buy them (Kotler, 1984)." The purpose of promotion is to provide target audiences, the people to which you want to communicate, with accurate and timely information to help them decide whether to visit the community or business. The information should be: 1) of importance and practical use to the visitor-potential or existing and 2) accurate. A misrepresentation sometimes leads to dissatisfied cus- tomers and poor word of mouth advertising (Mahoney, 1985). Since Michigan State Park management wants to pro- vide a worthwhile experience for all, management needs to be tuned into user needs, desires, and wants in an experience. This is the point where the information gathered in the MSP survey is of importance. The over- riding factor that surfaced in these data is that both campers and day users desire a quality experience one in which they encounter hospitable management, clean beaches and water resources, and favorable natural resources. When they feel they have a quality experi- ence, they tell their friends about the park(s) and these friends then try them out as well. This brings new users to the system who, in turn, will evaluate their state park experience and will return possibly 165 bringing others depending on what they perceived the quality of their experience to be. Therefore, the pro- motional strategy should be focused on a strategy that emphasizes the quality experience that a stay in a MSP provides. The quality experience desired by day users and campers alike is one that can best be described by the word basic. Campers are interested in: a clean/secure facility with campfires and showers. Also, enforcement of regulations is very important. Theywant to partici- pate in: swimming, hiking, and picnicking. In addition, campsites near lake or stream and large sites are impor- tant. Day users are interested in: a nice clean swim- ming and picnic area, groomed trails, nature centers, natural surroundings, well maintained facilities, and ample amount of space. These attributes are the predom- inate ones that surfaced during data analysis. These basic attributes need to be stressed in the promotional strategy. When developing the promotional strategy, one must remember that it is not a science with hard fast rules. If the Parks Division wants to follow a logical process, and conduct the necessary research, then changes for success will be improved. The division should make decisions regarding: 166 1)Target audience 2)Image 3)Objectives 4)Budget 5)Timing 6)Media 7)Evaluation Personal Seiling Personal selling is the first area discussed as it is essential to the development of a good promotional strategy. Personal selling is an: "... oral presentation in'a conversation with one or more prospective purchas- ers for the purpose of making sales (Kotler, 1984)." Personal selling, or sometimes referred to as word-of- mouth promotion, is the most important source of cus- tomer information for most recreational businesses (Mahoney, 1985). This is especially true for Michigan State Park campers and day users who stated recommend- ation from others as an important information source used in prompting a visit 54.6% and 51.3% of the time respectively. Thus, MSP campers and day users place a greater reliance on word-of-mouth communication than on advertisements. Word-of-mouth promotion is: "one of the least understood and underutilized means of communication with tourists... Since tourism is a service industry, the people who deliver the service have a major impact on 167 the quality of the experience. Many employees are not equipped nor trained in hospitality and guest relations (Mahoney, 1985)." This is especially true for MSP per- sonnel. This is a major problem as research studies have shown that word-of-mouth advertising is the single most important source of tourist information. Dissatis- fied customers talk more readily to more people than satisfied customers. The best way to counter balance this is to produce satisfied customers. One way to generate a positive word-of-mouth situa- tion is to deliver a consistent high quality experience at a reasonable cost (Fridgen et al., 1986). Customers who are then satisfied with their high quality experi- ence will tell their friends and acquaintenances about the park. This, in turn, will create new users of MSP's. The field manual of the DNR (1978) states it this way: "The park visitor is the only reason for creating a park system. Without the visitor, there would be no park or park personnel... the reception that a park visitor receives will, in a large measure, influ- ence his opinion of the park." Thus, conceptually, the DNR realizes the importance of satisfied customers and in the future must make plans that strive towards this end. Employees must be viewed as marketing agents. The field manual (1978) states: "... The basic and fundamen- tal purpose of each employee is to 'serve the people'." 168 In addition to knowing the specific function they per- form, they should also receive training on hospitality and guest relations (Fridgen et al., 1986). This could be as simple as a half day seminar for seasonals or a week long conference for managers. Many businesses and local chambers of commerce have sponsored hospitality training workshops. These workshops include: 1) infor- mation on the economic impact of tourism, 2) a descrip- tion and a tour of local attractions, and 3) training on how to: listen and answer questions; greet and be polite to strangers: anticipate and solve the special problems of tourists, create a positive first impression: and how to give directions (Mahoney, 1985). Personal selling also involves being aware of the needs of MSP users as far as different facilities/ services they would like. The MSP survey asked respon- dents what different service/facility they would like. These responses were not analyzed though due to time constraints. However, the State Parks Division is cur- rently tabulating these answers and should investigate the issues that are important to the users (Fridgen et al., 1986). Also, other states' state parks should be investigated to see if the facilities they are offering would be desired by MSP users. Furthermore, since it is harder to change people than to hire new employees, in the future those employees that work specifically with the public should 169 be people oriented as opposed to being task oriented. Task oriented employees could be impossible to train as they are already set in their style. Where as people oriented employees would already be oriented toward working with the public effectively. People oriented employees are those who are concerned with the well being of others, are pleasant, and friendly and overall would work best with the public. These people oriented employees would be part of a workforce that is trained to deal with the public. The last area personal selling should focus on is stressing the basic attributes that the state park pro- vides to campers and day users alike. If the state park user discovers the basic attributes he desires to be to his liking, then he will hopefully have a good experi- ence in the park. Management, therefore, should focus on providing these basic attributes and stressing their importance to employees. Recommendations to aid in personal selling: 1)Train employees and management in guest rela- tions. 2)Provide a high quality experience. 3)Analyze the different facilities/services that state park respondents stated they would like to see in the park. 170 4)In the future, hire employees that are people oriented. 5)Provide the basic attributes that the campers and day users need and stress their importance to employees. Advertising "Advertising is a paid form of nonpersonal commu- nication about an agency and or its programs and ser- vices. It is sponsored by the agency and transmitted to a target audience through a mass medium such as televi- sion, radio, newspaper, magazines, direct mail, mass transit vehicles, outdoor displays, handbills, and directories (Crompton and Lamb, 1986)." Signage and information are important, but often overlooked, components of a recreation business promo- tion. The DNR should market to customers once they have arrived. On-site promotions such as signs and displays can influence customer behavior. It can enhance cus- tomer satisfaction by assisting customers in making bet- ter use of their time, avoiding mistakes, and selecting activities which will maximize on-site-experience. This in turn can increase employee productivity by reducing the amount of time they spend answering repetitive ques- tions (Mahoney, 1985). Since a large number of state park users rely strongly on information about the parks from friends, managers should provide literature in the 171 park for the users to take to their friends and also for them to reflect on their experience. This should foster more new users visiting the parks. This information should be as accurate as possible so users in advance of their visit will know what to expect from the product purchased. Management can advertise the basic attributes that state park managers provide to their users. A good example of this would be clean swimming beaches as this is an attribute most campers and day users are inter- ested in. Advertising can also be used to promote unique features of each park such as the beautiful sand dunes at Warren Dunes State Park. Another use of advertising could be to increase off-season use of state parks in the shoulder seasons (Fridgen et al., 1986) or to promote underutilized parks by trying to more equitably distribute the campers and day users. Currently, some of the busier parks must turn away parties. If, instead, those same parties saw an advertisement about an underutilized park that had basically the same features they were after, perhaps they would choose to try another park. This would result in increased usage of the underutilized parks. 172 Recommendations to aid Advertising: 1)Develop on-site promotions such as signs and dis- plays. 2)Reinforcement advertising to those who have recently been to a state park and are reflecting on their experience. 3)Provide literature in the park for users to take to their friends. 4)Advertise the basic attributes that state parks provide such as the clean swimming beaches and also the unique features of the park such as Taquamenon's Falls. Pubiicity Publicity is the third area of interest in the development of a promotional strategy. "Publicity is any unpaid form of news or editorial comment about an agency or its programs that is transmitted through a mass medium at no charge to the agency (Crompton and Lamb, 1986)." The field manual written by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources Parks Division (1978) states: "Pub- 'licity about state parks was begun in 1925 by the edit- ing of a booklet entitled "State Parks of Michigan". In the same year uniform signs were made for all parks. . ." .Presentlyw "the Department sponsors TV programs, cover- ing all phases of conservation and from time to time, 173 park employees may be requested to appear on such pro- grams... the press, even the four page weekly, is a pow- erful influence in the community. .. open houses and dedi- cation ceremonies are other means of promoting park pro- grams (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1978)." Currently Michigan State Parks has an annual free state parks day (Fridgen et al., 1986) . This should continue as it offers the community an opportunity to see the parks free of charge and usually stimulates con- siderable media interest and resulting publicity. If the users have a good time, hopefully they will come back. Also, managers should look for other ways to be known in the community. Part of this includes develop- ing favorable relations with the media. State parks are set-up on a regional basis and this should be used to promote the regions (Fridgen et. al.,1986). For example, the western upper peninsula should promote all its attributes including the fine state parks it has. Also, day ‘users reported staying at a variety of other places the night before visiting parks. These day users point to a need for other types of businesses located near state parks such as motels This reinforces the fact that state parks and hotels. Perhaps need to be thought of in a regional context. the management of state parks and other facili- ties/activities could work together to foster growth in a region of the state. 174 Publicity can also be used to publicize the basic attributes provided by the state parks. For example, in news releases, the basic attributes the state park pro- vides can be named and emphasized such as the cleanli- ness of the state parks could be brought up in an article. In addition, a photo and or video library should be organized to promote the state parks. Perhaps even a publicity event such as "A Day in the Life of Michigan State Parks" taking off from the successful "A Day in the Life of America" would be beneficial. Recommendations to aid publicity: 1)Continue annual free state parks day. 2)Promote as part of a region. 3)Continue to search for ways to be known in the community. 4)When possible have a publicity person on staff to work with local and statewide media to encourage a good working relationship with them. 5)Develop a photo and or video library to promote Michigan State Parks. 6)Look into publicity events such as possibly hav- ing "A Day in the Life of Michigan State Parks" photo contest. 175 Sales Promotions Sales promotions is the fourth area of interest in.a promotion strategy. Sales promotion is: "short- term incentives to encourage purchase or sale of a prod- uct or service (Kotler, 1984)." After the MSP experi- ence, promotion/communication e.g. thank you letters, newsletters and holiday greetings are often an effective way to develop and maintain on going relationships with customers and thus create greater loyalty. This after the experience communication can positively reinforce the quality of the experience and be important in influencing repeat purchase decisions (Mahoney, 1985). This communication can also stimulate/enlist feedback from satisfied and dissatisfied customers which can be useful in improving the state parks offering. The reason why this area is so important is because customers do not have anything tangible to bring home to remind them of their experience and maintain a link between them and the business. Also, customers often have difficulty when trying to evaluate the quality of services and recreation experiences even after experien- cing them (Mahoney, 1985). Presently, in Michigan, the majority of recreation businesses direct all their promotion at attracting new customers and little at maintaining lasting relations. Many places don't even maintain up-to-date mailing lists of their customers (Mahoney, 1985) . State park manage- 176 ment has a head start on this because as a result of the MSP study, mailing lists were derived from the informa- tion from the respondents (Fridgen et al., 1986). This information was given to the DNR so they can maintain a list of those respondents who gave their address. Also, the DNR could obtain more names by redesigning camper registration forms to include information such as names and addresses. Plus, a computerized customer tracking system should be designed to monitor changes in its users and to assist in the evaluation of changes in pro- grams and facilities (Fridgen et al., 1986). This would be a beneficial project for Michigan State Parks as this would allow for feedback as to what users views are on the state park experience. However, like all projects, evaluation of the whole promotion project must be undertaken to determine its effectiveness. With an entry fee of $10 for an annual permit, obviously state park management does not have an excess of funds to devote to promotion. Thus, within budgetary constraints, the best possible promotion cam- paign should be designed. It then should be evaluated periodically to make sure the goals and objectives of the promotion project are being met. In addition, state parks should be looking for other opportunities to promote the parks. For example, Kentucky has a innovative state park system and perhaps some of the facilities/services it provides should be 177 offered in Michigan's State Parks. Also, ideas such as purchasing permits at other places should be explored (Fridgen et. al., 1986). Promoting can also be done in-house. If the employees and managers of state parks believe in the product they are offering-a high quality recreational experience-then they will be willing to do their own promoting. They will tell their friends and relatives about the excellent state park they work in. This could then bring new users into the park system. These new users, if they have a good experience, will in turn tell others. Lastly, perhaps a program like "Friends of Michigan State Parks" would provide for increased loyalty of users. Many organizations have support groups that pro- vide monetary and or physical support to a program or service. Perhaps this would work as well at Michigan State Parks. Recommendations to aid sales promotions: 1)Send out thank you letters, newsletters, etc. 2)Work on maintaining up-to-date mailing lists. 3)Develop a computerized tracking system. 4)Develop a cohesive clientele base. 5)Look to other states for ideas. 6)Develop a "Friends of Michigan State Parks" program. 178 o 11' n This Michigan State Park study provided an opportu- nity to objectively view day users and campers. The information gleaned can enable the development of an extensive start at a promotional strategy. When imple- mented, this strategy can help in setting the direction for the future. Therefore, it is hoped that management will take the next step with the strategy that has been presented and proceed into the future with a promo- tional strategy in place. APPENDICES APPENDIX A MALES FEMALES TOTAL .2 40 to 49 years old .2 .3 102 .2 50 to 59 years old .2 .3 9X .1 60 to 64 years old .1 .2 42 .1 65 and older .1 .l 42 """"" EEQHE’HHEIHEnE” 53'" Ioozw 5. Are the people at this campsite (check ONE): 80! -- all family members 102-- friends a family 32 -- camping alone 7! -- all friends .22 -- organized club or group other: 6. Did anyone staying at your campsite tow a boat on a trailer to this campground? 172 -- yes 83X -- no 7. Have you, or are you planning to use the day use facilities in this park on this trip? (Beach or picnic areas for example) 76! -- yes 24! -- no 8- "as a W! on this trip? 27! -- yes 73! -- no 9. Vim type“) of WW ihig_5;ip? Please indicate if the equipment is owned, rented, or borrowed by the people at this campsite. If it is owned, how long have you or others at this site, owned this equipment? Additional W hat Total 2 x Z TENT 27.9 .6 28.5 CAMP TRAILER 20.8 2.4 23.2 TRAVEL TRAILER 20.9 2.2 23.1 MOTORHOHE/STR WHEEL 12.6 .6 13.2 TRUCK CAMPER/BUS/VAN 5.0 2.9 7.9 PICKUP COVER] 1 UNCONVERTBD VAN .8 1.5 2.3 Sub-total 98.2 Note: campers using a non-tent combination of 2 pieces of equip. 1.8 Total 100.0 180 10. Next, we would like to know how much you and those at your campsite spent during this trip. Please indicate purchases that were made at home especially for this trip. Ye are interested in the TOTAL expenditures for everyone at your campsite, not just your own. ' ' ; . - ”0" d' : n: :_1__"0 Do not include park ~x.‘ _’ .-r \1' fees. 0N ROUTE UP WITHIN 20 MILES AT HOME T0 20 MILES 0P (BUT NOT IN) CATEGORY FOR THIS TRIP AUAY PROM PARK PARK TOTAL item has M Vehicle related 1;!) $27.49 $13.44 3 7.28 848.21 Restaurant and / 8 3.77 8 7.30 810.23 821.30 Grocery or Convenience $43.66 8 6.42 317.51 867.59 Sporting Goods, Bait Ln£g§i_§ggping_§ggri_gig_811.35 3 1.28‘ S 3.59 316.22 Lagging, S 2.10 S 2.38 S 1.45 8 5.93 All ashg: 1:3]. 8 3.81 8 2.65 8 5.86 812.32 TOTALS 892.18 833.47 345.92 8171.57 1 of GRAND TOTAL 53.7 19.5 26.8 11. What fi_ppgi_igpggigni information sources £1351 prompted you, or others at at your site, to visit this campground on your first trip? PERCENT PERCENT 54.6 recommendation from other campers 38.2 Michigan State Parks Brochure/Map 6.0 recommendation from noncampers 3.2 highway information centers/plaza 5.5 local sources (e.g. gas station) 1.2 local Chamber of Commerce 3.8 Voodalls Camping Directory 4.1 Michigan Travel Bureau 2.3 Trailer Life 6.3 this Campground's brochure/map 8.8 AAA .3 radio I .8 NAPCD Directory .6 television 25.7 State highway map 1.6 newspaper 11.4 State Park highway signs 1.0 magazine 3.7 Announcement of Special events 20.7 Other: Please specify 181 12. While staying at this campground, which }_gg§1_1§nggtgnt sources have provided useful information about TMIS STATE PARK? PERCENT PERCENT 31.8 other park users 68.7 Michigan State Park employees 61.7 signs posted inside park 32.9 this State Park's brochure/map 12.2 signs posted outside park 20.9 Michigan State Park’s brochure 54.1 previous visit to this park 8.3 local residents 6.6 local business people 6.2 other: ********a**eaaat*****ta**tee*aeeaasetsateaestates.*aeaaseeaaaeaeeeaaeeaaaatest SECTION II: QUESTIONS 1" THIS SECTION ARE FOR THE PERSON VHO IS ACTUALLY EILLIEQ.QHI.I§E.QH§§IIQ!EAIBI. 13. How many IQ:AL_§1§§I§ will you be spending away from your permanent residence while on this particular trip? 7.3 nights 16. Is this your FIRST VISIT to TRIS PARK as either a camper or a day visitor (non-camper)? 32.2! yes 67.8! no 15. Have you visited any other Michigan State Parks as either a camper or a day visitor (non-camper) before this visit. as a camper 90.82 yes 9.2} no as a day user 82.0 yes 18.0! no 16. Where is your PERMANENT RESIDENCE? County 26.91 from 5 county 88 urban Resident 82.7! Nonresident 17.32 Ave. Resident 131.2 17. How far is your permanent residence from this campground? Nonreaid 375.6 System 189.3 18. How many years (NOT COUNTING BACKYARD CAMPING AS A CHILD) have you bee camping? 17.6 years . 19. On the average, how many nights do you camp each year? 17.6 nights 20. How many years have you been camping in Michigan State Parks? 13.2 years 21. About how many nights did you camp in 1984? 14.7 nights 182 22. 23. If you did not camp last year(1986), when was the last year you did camp? 53! camped in 1983; another 22.2% from 1980 through 1982 8.62 from before 1970 In 1986, how many nights did you camp in Michigan_g;_3hg_jgllgglng; Please enter the number of nights spent in: AVERAGE NIGHTS 8! TB! AVERAGE VISITOR 3.0 3.2 1.9 11.8 this Michigan State Park all other Michigan State Parks Michigan State Forest Campgrounds National Porest Campgrounds in Michigan National Park Campgrounds in Michigan Public undeveloped land (e.g., while in a State Forest) Other local public campground (e.g., county or township campground) Private commercial campgrounds Privately owned land in Michigan Undesignated developed areas (e.g., reststop, parking lot, etc.) Others: Please specify TOTAL NUMBER 0? NIGHTS CAMPING IN MICHIGAN IN 1986 Note: Those left blank have less than one night on the average: See resident and nonresident chapter for market share analysis 26. --PERCENT--- 57.2 22.7 11.6 .6 8.1 Vhen YOU go on a camping trip, do you usually: Lghggk_gnly_gflfil have a specific campground(s) SELECTED BEFORE LEAVING ROME have a specific campground(s) SELECTED WITH A RESERVATION PRIOR TO LEAVING SELECT A CAMPGROUND(S) VEILE 0N ROUTE to major destination or stopover SELECT CAMPGROUND(S) AND NARI A RESERVATION while on route to destination SELECT A CAMPGROUND ONCE YOU RAVE ARRIVED at destination or stopover 183 26. During the Fall, Vinter or Spring (October 1986 through April 1985) did you participate in any of the folloving activities in a Michigan State Park? (Please check all that apply) 7.6x Hunting 6.2! Ice fishing 13.31 hiking 2.2x Downhill skiing 21.91 Camping 15.82 Pishing 1.22 Ice Skating 7.51 Cross Country Skiing 3.02 Snowmobiling 3.12 ORV Operation 1.32 Horseback riding 6.6! Sledding/tobagganing 3.0‘ Other: 51.62 did not participate 26. How important are the following W (Circle appropriate numbers) """"""""""""""""" {4.3T"'§;;;;LQE"'°""""'&;;§m""mm Important Important Important Important Crucial Mean Median 1 2 3 6 5 --------------------------------------------- Psacsur---------------------- Plush toilets 3.53 3.75 8.7 16.6 19.6 28.5 28.6 Elec. hook up 3.21 3.63 18.7 13.6 19.6 25.2 23.6 Campfires 3.72 3.92 6.2 11.3 21.0 27.3 36.2 Showers 3.73 3.92 5.6 11.7 20.6 29.9 32.6 Store/Concess. 1.96 1.70 63.9 30.2 16.6 6.2 3.0 Vater/sewer 1.97 1.62 56.6 15.9 13.5 10.3 5.9 Nature/program 1.91 1.71 63.6 30.6 19.0 5.2 1.7 Historic site 1.76 1.67 51.7 29.6 13.3 3.8 1.6 Swimming beach 3.68 3.66 10.7 12.2 22.5 27.8 26.8 Playground 2.36 2.06 62.3 16.2 18.1 15.5 9.9 Natural Surround- ings/landscape 3.72 3.83 3.5 8.5 25.8 36.6 25.6 Clean/facility 6.63 6.58 .5 .9 7.6 36.6 56.5 Secure/facility6.23 6.66 1.6 3.8 12.6 36.2 67.9 Regulations 3.68 3.85 6.6 9.8 23.1 30.8 29.9 Boat ramps 2.03 1.62 56.1 15.0 13.0 9.6 8.6 Boat rental 1.57 1.27 66.8 20.3 9.5 3.8 1.5 No road noise 2.98 2.96 12.1 26.6 28.9 22.1 12.3 186 Hospitable Management 3.85 3.93 2.0 5.8 25.0 39.6 27.5 Pets allowed 2.30 1.67 51.3 9.6 12.7 10.9 15.7 Reservations 2.77 2.78 25.0 18.0 25.0 18.6 13.7 Nearby/attrac. 2.78 2.79 17.9 23.1 30.6 20.2 8.3 Close homework 1.92 1.65 52.6 18.8 16.9 8.2 3.7 Other: 3.71 6.26 19.3 2.1 11.1 23.6 63.8 27. Please tell us how important the following are to you when you visit a State Park? In addition, indicate whether you participated in any of these activities during your visit on this trip by checking the boxes at the right. Check if Not Somewhat Very Partici- Important Important Important Important Crucial pated Mean Median 1 2 3 6 5 --------------------------------------- Percent------------------------------ Fishing 2.60 2.51 30.6 19.2 22.6 15.6 12.2 63.2 Boating 2.33 2.05 39.7 18.9 19.3 11.7 10.5 29.2 Canoeing 1.89 1.69 50.3 22.5 18.1 6.0 3.1 10.7_ Swimming 3.56 3.77 9.6 10.6 21.8 30.0 27.9 63.3 Hiking/walk trails 3.16 3.20 11.3 17.6 30.6 27.8 13.0 65.9 Horseback riding 1.39 1.17 75.0 16.8 7.0 2.0 1.2 2.5 Festival/Special event 1.57 1.28 63.7 20.8 11.3 2.8 1.5 9.1 Visit Nature Center or Historic Site 2.12 2.00 36.2 31.1 26.7 7.3 2.6 26.6 Sight- seeing 2.81 2.85 16.6 22.0 32.9 20.8 7.6 53.6 ORV use 1.65 1.16 77.7 8.3 7.7 3.6 2.7 6.3 Picnic 2.63 2.66 27.2 18.1 28.8 17.0 9.0 37.2 Picking fruit/ 185 berries/ mushrooms 1.56 1.25 66.3 18.5 10.7 3.6 1.1 8.3 Visiting users 2.17 1.96 39.5 23.9 22.1 9.3 5.1 38.9 Nature programs 1.96 1.71 66.0 28.3 18.9 6.8 1.9 6.8 Organized activity 1.67 1.20 71.0 16.3 8.9 2.9 1.0 2.6 Other: 2.77 2.66 65.8 2.6 9.7 11.6 30.3 5.3 28. Did YOU purchase an ANNUAL STATE PARK MOTOR VEHICLE PERMIT in 1986? 70.61 yes 29.6% no 29. Number of days annual permit was used Mean- 16.2 days Note: 202 used it 22 days or more. Median- 10.5 days 30. Did YOU purchase a DAILY STATE PARK MOTOR VEHICLE PERMIT in 1986? 26.72 yes 75.32 no 31. Number of daily permits purchased Mean- 3.2 Note: 90! purchased only 5. Median- 2.3 32. Vhat ONE thing did you like 8351 about this campground? Percent Percent 3.1 privacy of site 6.7 relatively large site 6.9 close to home/work 15.2 campsite near lake/stream 11.6 natural surroundings 6.0 clean facilities 1.7 hospitable staff 6.3 swimming beaches 2.6 quiet 6.6 campground facilities 6.2 good recreational opportunities 6.1 near area attractions 3.7 well maintained 2.7 fishing 2.7 other: Please specify 33. Vhat ONE thing did you like LEASI about this campground. 5 rules not enforced 6.8 crowded/limited space 7 inhospitable staff 6 1 lack of facilities 3 1 facilities not maintained 1 6 no boat launch - 5.2 sites too small 1 9 don’t like rules/regulations 6 2 campground too far from lake/ 6.0 waiting lines too long 2 8 limited recreation 8 opportunities 6 2 5 Other: stream poor swimming beaches too far from home/work 6 . 186 36. 36. 37. 38. 39. 60. 61. 62. \JVU5NOI—U Vhst vas the ONE MOST IMPORTANT reason/thing behind your decision to camp at this campground on this particular trip? natural surroundings 3.2 inexpensive recreation past experience 5.9 nearby lake/stream accepts reservations 1.3 quiet campground swimming beaches 6.7 fishing near area attractions 8.6 close to home/work recommended by others 1.6 vacancy friendly atmosphere .6 trails campground type 11.6 Other: (rustic, developed) Vhat ONE different SERVICE/FACILITY would you like to see at THIS state park? 67.92 wrote something into this open ended question Overall, how satisfied were you with THIS STATE PARK? (circle one) 1 2 3 6 S 6 7 8 9 10 VERY DISSATISFIED Mean - 8.38 VERY SATISFIED Note: 5.82 reported a score of 5 or less. Are YOU: 35.62 Female 66.62 Male Row old are YOU? 61.2 yrs old on the average Are YOU: 87.12 Married 9.12 Single 3.82 Divorced/Vidowed Are YOU: 98.52 Vhite .12 Black .32 American Indian .32 Asian .62 Hispanic .22 Other Please circle the number that represents the highest level of education you have completed. 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 6 5 6 7+ GRADE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL COLLEGE Note: Mean - 13.9 yrs ed; 61.22 had completed high school. In 1986, what was your TOTAL FAMILY INCOME (before taxes) from employment and all other sources? and above 13.32 510,000 - 519,999 15.12 860,000 - 869,999 63. Is this campsite registered in your name? 81.52 yes 18.52 no A****'A'**'A'm*************ifit**t*******************t***************************** 187 ”fin 4, 4 _ Fro tha pro No Str Sta Plea retl Fat! 131 EasI From time to time Parks division may conduct additional research and we hope that you will assist us in this effort. To do so we are asking that you provide us with your mailing address and phone number. No names are required. No other uses of this information will be made. Thank You. Street Address 87.32 completed the address Apt. I City/Town Box I State Zip Phone i_, ) THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME Please deposit the completed survey in the drop box located by the exit or return in the attached postage paid return envelope. Park and Recreation Resources; State Parks Project 131 Natural Resources 81dg., Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 68826 188 APPENDIX A Instructions for MSP/MSU User Survev Distribution and Collection April 22. 1°85 Camper Survev General Instructiogg: Sampling of campers will betin in May and conzicue into September 1985.. Only registered cancers are to be surveyed. Through the season 110 cuestionnaires will be distributed, eleven canper surveys given out on each of the 10 pre-selected days (5 weekend days. 5 weekdays). For campers, Fridays and Saturdaysuuill-be considered weekends~——Hsuask—thst.sermanent staff distribute the questionnaires if possible. 1. Materials: You should have the followine materials: a) Camper questionnaires, MSU business reply envelopes, pens or pencils. clear plastic bags (enough for 2 rsinv days), and Camper Site Selection worksheet and Report Forms, and letters to campers (to be used if questionnaire is left at campsite when no one is on the site). b) A listing of days and times for sampling campers: this includes a calendar and listing of sampling times. These dates and times have been carefully selected to guarantee the most representative sample of campers using your mark over the season. Please do not deviate from this schedule. c) You have prepared the drop boxes for vour sark. Boxes should be properlv placed on sampling dates. Be sure to empty the boxes at the end of each day. d) Questionnaires not distributed will-be returned to MSU. but plan to reuse undamaged envelopes, bass, pens, etc. 2. Sampligg Procedures a) You will receive a sampling schedule indicating°pn what days you will sample camera amdcat. mm; This. -is.mn1xamnle but-it any look like this: Dates Survev Tvneyn._ Time period;‘._—Distribution no. . Sampling Site Hav 6 C 6—7pm ll GO Mav 5 D 3-50m 16 DU May 23 C 6-7om 11 CG DU - The dav use—sample—site-identifiednfor your-Darkron table 2. cc - across all the open campgroundsin vour park. This is only an example;—but it will helo illustrate the procedures. Camper sampling—mill occur from 6-7pm. b) Continuing Oith the example. when Mav 6 arrives;'osinn your materials. paper clip ll questionnaires. pens or pencils and return envelopes to- gether into the ll separate survev packets to be given out that day. Attach a clear plastic bag if rain may be a problem. 189 Camper c) Count up and list vour occupied sites. d) when choosing which individual campsites will receive a survey. the ranger will divide that total number of ~1ru-ied sites across all campground(s) in the park by the total r;‘ ?? p‘ surveys to be de- livered that dav(ll). The resulting number will he the sampling interval, i.e. everv nth site will receive a puestionnaire. The be— ginning campsite will be randomlv selected by flipping a coin--it will alwavs either be the first or second occupied canosite(bv campsite number). Once the starting point is known. simplv deliver a survey to everv nth campsite (your interval) thereafter. For example: if there were 68 occupied sites on May 6th. and 11 surveys are to be handed out, then: 68 sites 11 q'. - 6.6 (ignore this decimal point and round down to nearest whole number-oin this case, 6) So. the sampling interval is 6.0 which means that everv fourth campsite sets a questionnaire. To choose that starting point, lets sav that the lowest numbered occupied sire is "heads" and the next lowest is "tails". Flip the coin and it comes up "heads". That means that if the first occupied site is number 3, then site number 3 gets the first survev. From there on, every fourth occupied site is chosen and all ll nuestionnaires should be handed out. Here's.another wav to look at this. If our interval is 6.0 and we've chosen our staging point (it'll be the lowest occupied site or "heads"), then given the list below of 6S occupied sites bv site number, selected sites will look like this below: START--636 s 7.10 11 12®17 18 zn® 23 25 26.29 an 36®38 39 60.6665 “@52 5: 55.57 56 59. 66 67 68®7l 72 73 76 17 n 1'he occupied campsite numhers circled would be the 11 sites that receive questionnaires. Trv to deliver the ouestionnaire to the registered camper. If that person is not present, leave the survev with another person at that campsite (pre- ferably an adult). with instructions to give it to the registered camper. If no one is at the site. leave the survev with one of the letters provided that explains who left it, who it is for, and why. Please make everv effort to call back at least once to each site receiving a survey that day after a reasonable amount of time. not more than 3 or 6 hours later. when doing so. seek out the registered camper, determine if the registered camper received the survey. answer any puestipns, and pick it up if it is completec This last item is important to help gemsrate a eood return rate. 190 5. Camper Refusals,,Too few Campers, Filled one out already. a) For example, if you only have 5 campers in the campground during a sampling period and "nu are to give out ll surveys, give out 5 to those 5 occupied sites. Record on the report form the nunher of surveys given our-and'not given ont7-The-nnpsed-ppestionnmires—— —‘ will not be used again. Plan to reuse undamaged envelopes. pens, bags. etc. b) Sometimes people will refuse the survev--if that happens, so to the nearest occupied site and-give out the survey to the registered camper on that site. Then continue with your original interval site selections as before. c) If the registered camper indicates that they have previously filled out a survey. thank them and go the the nearest occupied site. Then continue with the original site selection procedures as planned. Note these events on the report form. Presentation of survey to registered camper: a) Great those in the campsite as you normally would when carrying out your duties around the campground. Then say something like " We would like you to participate in a survey of our campground users while you are staying with us here in the park. The study is being conducted by Michigan State University in cooperation with Michigan State Parks. Your cooperation is voluntary, but we are talking to only a few park users and so your cooperation is important-we hope that you will help us out. The purpose of the survey is too obtain the feelings and opinions of our users and this is a quick and useful way to get camper's views.-.If-park. .- campers can tell us what they think about this park and parks across the state, we can do a better job of serving them. The survey can be returned in the drop box-located-near the exit area or by the mail using the attached return envelope. Also, I'll be stopping back a little later to answer any questions you may have about the survey. If you hpve.¢9mpleted the questionnairg_at that time, I'll pick it up then. We really appreciate your help. Thank you. See you later." 6) what you should do if a camper not in the selected sample asks to have a questionnaire. Please inform them that "we snprectgtg'vour willingness to help. but.we have a predetermined plan andnwe need- to follow it. we're also trying to keep the numbers-down to help hold costs down."- Camper Site Selectio9;Uorksheet and Report Form a) This form is to be completed for each sampling period.— Use it to help you select campsites for distribution of-the survey. Also, indicate the number of puestionnaires not distributed (too few campers) and the number of people who refused to take the survey. 191 Camper b) Send the completed and unused surveys from that sampling period and the Camper report form to MSU within a week of the sampling day. If you have any questions or problems, please let cs know immediately. Thank you. For the month of May. phone 3517-333-0666 on Tuesdays and Thursdays from lO-lZ a.m. After May, phone 6517-353-5190. 192 APPENDIX B The Univ infc user will firs free sect secc comp & PLEA SECT 1. 2. APPENDIX B W The Michigan State Parks Division, in cooperation with Michigan State University, is conducting a survey of Michigan state Park users. The information obtained will be used by the Parks Division to better serve park users and to guide future facility planning and management. All information will be kept confidential. The questionnaire is divided into two parts. The first section addresses questions that those in your vehicle can answer. Feel free to consult with those you rode with about their opinions. The second section is for you, the person selected to complete the survey. Answers in the second section should be completed by that person only. When you have completed the questionnaire, the egg; or return it via the mail using the attached postage paid envelope. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC IN YOUR ANSWERS! Thank you. O ' V 1. How many xgxhp_flggafi will you be spending in this park today? 3 hrs. 2. Did you camp in this park last night or are you planning to camp here tonight? 2‘11 Yes 29‘11 No 3. When you started today's drive, did you nlgn_;g_gigig this park? 55,21 Yes 11‘}; No 4. Was visiting this park the primg;y_;gg§gn for today's trip? 11‘; Yes 31‘11 No 5. Does the vehicle you traveled in today §33§_g91g_§ngn_11_pggplg? 1‘01 Yes 22‘23 No 6. If YES, are you traveling on a public school function? 1‘51 Yes 9.1.1.23. "0 7. How many of the people that traveled in 293; vehicle are in the following age categories? flg_gg;g_§9_inglggg_ygn;§glg. MALES FEMALES TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT 4 less than 5 years old __,_3, _,_1 .115. L1 5 to 12 years old _‘1 _‘§ _1§1 $1 13 to 17 years old +‘z _;1 .21 l93 MALES FEMALES TOTAL TOTAL PERCENT 18 to 26 years old 25 to 29 years old .30 to 39 years old 40 to 69 years old 50 to 59 years old 60 to 66 years old 65 and older wLLLthL LELLLhL ELLLLLLL EbbbEEEE TOTAL NUMBER IN VEHICLE 2 22,11 all family members 12,21 friends and family 2,21 visiting alone 12,11 all friends 1,11 other: 1,21 organized club or group 9. Did the vehicle you traveled in tow a boat on a trailer to THIS PARK? 2,21 Yes _21L11 No 10. What ;_mggg_1nnggggng information sources £1321 prompted you, or others in your vehicle, to visit THIS PARK on your first trip? PERCENT PERCENT 26.6 recommendation from camper 16.9 State Parks Brochure 26.9 recommendation from noncamper 1.8 highway information centers 10.0 local sources (e.g. gas station) 1.0 local Chamber of Commerce 1.8 Woodall's Camping Directory 2.6 Michigan Travel Bureau 1.3 Trailer Life 6.6 this State Park's map 3.6 AAA 1.9 radio .3 MAPCO Directory .8 television 13.2 State highway map 2.5 newspaper 14.9 State Park highway sign 1.3 magazine 6.7 announcement of special event 25.1 other:Please specify 196 11. While visiting this park, which 1_mggg_1m22§§gng information sources provided useful information about gfl;§_§zggn_2535? PERCENT PERCENT 30.6 other park users 21.9 Michigan State Park employees 66.9 signs posted in park 21.3 this State Park's brochure/map 19.8 signs outside the park 11.3 Michigan State Park brochure 57.8 previous visit to this park 12.9 local residents 2.6 local business people 5.5 other: 12. Next, we would like to know how much you and those in your vehicle spent during this trip. Please include purchases that were made at home especially for this trip. We are interested in TOTAL expenditures for everyone in your VEHICLE, not just your own. V C - W " " . Do not include park fees. on sport up ’ WITHIN 20 MILES AT HOME TO 20 MILES OF(EUT NOT IN) CATEGORY FOR THIS TRIP AWAY FROM PARK PARK TOTAL Mean Mean ’ Mean Mean Vehicle related $9.30 $3.72 $1.68 $16.70 Restaurant and bar, meals/drinks $1.56 $6.60 $5.83. $11.99 Grocery or convenience store food and drink $10.67 $1.63 $3.06 $15.16 Sporting goods, bait, lures, camping gear, etc. $2.56 $.08 $.89 $3.53 Lodging $.92 $3.31 $5.20 ‘ $9.43 All other items $1.63 3.38 61.50 33.51 TOTALS $26.66 $13.52 $18.16 $58.32 t or GRAND TOTAL 65.76 23.2% 31.1: ‘ 19S S E 13. CTION : TM W W A H O V . Where is your PERMANENT RESIDENCE? W County W State and Zip Code 16. Where did you stay last night? 5,21 camped in this park 1,21 other campground §A,§1 permanent residence 1,11 with friends/family 2,21 2nd residence (cottage) 22,21 motel/hotel 1,21 other: Please specifiy 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. If you did not stay at your permanent residence last night, how many nights will you be spending away from your PERMANENT RESIDENCE on this trip? _1 nights Were you the driver of the vehicle you arrived in as you entered the park today? 2.1.11 m 45.3.! No To get into the park today, did you or anyone in your vehicle purchase a daily sticker? £1.11 Yu 41.1.1 No Is this your [1352_!1§12 to this park as either a day visitor (non-camper) or camper? 21,21 Yes 12,11 No Have you visited any other Michigan State Park before? As a camper? _§1,11 Yes 22,21 No As a day user? 11,21 Yes _22,21 No 196 20. Please tell us how important the following are to you when you visit a State Park? In addition, indicate whether you participated in any of these activities during your visit on this trip by checking the boxes at the right. Check if Not Somewhat Very Partici- Important Important Important Important Crucial pated Mean Median l 2 3 6 5 Fishing 2.08 1.62 67.8 19.1 16.8 10.2 6.0 13.7 Boating 2.25 1.97 39.7 21.8 18.6 13.8 6.3 13.7 Canoeing 1.90 1.53 69.2 23.7 17.2 8.2 1.7 6.8 Swimming 3.82 6.03 5.6 8.6 20.9 28.5 36.6 56.6 Hiking/walk trails 3.12 3.12 10.6 19.3 32.2 23.0 16.8 66.8 Horseback riding 1.55 1.23 68.5 15.6 11.6 2.2 2.5 2.7 Festival/Special event 1.80 1.62 56.6 , 22.0 16.6 3.6 3.8 6.6 Visit Nature Center or Historic Site 2.52 2.52 25.0 26.3 29.3 16.1 5.2 19.7 Sight- seeing 2.99 3.05 17.3 15.6 31.2 22.2 13.6 60.5 ORV use 1.75 1.26 65.5 12.5 9.9 5.5 6.6 6.1 Picnic 3.61 3.75 7.5 8.0 26.7 31.8 26.0 50.1 Picking fruit/ berries/ mushrooms 1.69 1.21 70.6 16.5 8.2 3.0 1.8 2.0 Visiting other park users 1.86 1.63 53.8 21.6 16.2 5.5 5.0 15.0 Nature programs 2.07 1.85 61.8 23.6 23.0 9.2 2.6 3.6 Organized activity 1.55 1.25 66.3 18.9 9.5 3.7 1.5 2.1 other: 2.98 3.08 61.8 5.0 5.7 8.8 38.8 6.9 197 21. During the Fall, Winter, or Spring (October 1986 through April 1985) did you participate in any of the following activities in a Michigan State Park? (Check all that apply). 5.51 Hunting 5.32 Ice Fishing 16.72 Hiking 6.31 Downhill skiing 16.61 Camping 11.0% Fishing 3.01 Ice skating 9.61 Cross country 3.72 Snowmobiling skiing 6.01 ORV operation 1.91 Horseback riding 5.61 Sledding/ tobogganing 3.5% Other: 53.91 Did not participate 11ELEASE_AESEER_IHE_E9LLQEINQ_QQEEII9NS_IQ_IflE_E£§T_QE_XQQR_EEQQLL£§IIQN 22. 23. 25. 27. 29. How many years have you been visiting Michigan State Parks?11 years Approximately how many days did you v g§_g_ggy_g§1;? (1,1 days: of those who visited in 1986 2,2 days. 24- MW. when was the LAST YEAR YOU DID VISIT? 1911 Did you purchase an m s'ra'rr pass moron vsurcu: pawn in 1986? 22,1 Yes 11.1 No 26. Number of days annual permit was used? 21 days Did you purchase a 2522! STATE PARK MOTOR VEHICLE PERMIT in 1986? 2222 Yes 1121 No 28. Number of daily permits purchased? 2_ What ONE THING DID YOU LIKE BEST about thin park? Percent of those who checked an answer for the question 1.2 secluded 1.6 not crowded 9.8 close to home/work 6.0 nearby lake or stream 11.7 natural surroundings 1.6 clean facilities .6 hospitable staff 13.0 swimming beaches .8 quiet .9 picnic facilities 6.0 good recreation opportunity 1.0 near area attractions 3.0 well maintained 1.2 fishing 3.7 Other: Note: 62.1% Multiple response (the repondents checked more than 1 answer and was included as a seperate category) 198 30. What ONE THING DID YOU LIKE LEAST about this park? 3.1 rules not enforced 8.8 crowded/limited space .2 inhospitable staff 6.5 lack of facilities 3.6 facilities not maintained 2.0 no boat launch 6.6 alcohol ban (if applicable) .6 don't like rules 1.7 too far from lake/stream 2.0 waiting lines too long 2.5 poor swimming beach 3.2 limited recreation 12.5 too far from home/work opportunities 36.1 other: Note: 16.8% Multiple response (the respondents checked more than 1 answer) 31. What was the ONE most important REASON/THING behind your decision to visit THIS State Park on this particular trip? 6.5 natural surroundings 3.6 inexpensive recreation 17.7 past experience 1.5 nearby lake or stream 1.9 boat launch/boating .6 quiet 12.6 swimming beaches 2.6 fishing 3.6 near area attractions 6.9 close to home/work 6.5 recommended by others .3 not crowded .9 friendly atmosphere 1.0 trails/hiking 1.2 park facilities 2.7 close to highway 13.6 other: Note: 18.81 Multiple response (the respondents checked more than 1 answer) 32. What ONE different SERVICE/FACILITY would you like to see at THIS State. Park? 57.1% Wrote something into this open ended question 33. Overall, how satisfied were you with THIS STATE PARK? (circle one) 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 Note: 6.8% reported a score of five or-less. VERY DISSATISFIED VERY SATISFIED The following questions reflect demographics of the sampled respondent only. 36. Are YOU: 22,21 Female 12,21 Male 35. How old are YOU? 21 years old on average 36. Are YOU: 12,11 Married 22,21 single1,21Divorced/widowed 37. Are YOU: 22,21White ,2181ack ‘ ,21American Indian ,21Asian ,11Hispanic ,110ther 199 38. Please circle the number that represents the highest level of education that you have completed. 1 2 3 6 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l 2 3 6 5 6 7+ GRADE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL COLLEGE Note: Mega - 11 122:2: 96.9% had completed high school. 39. In 1986, what was your TOTAL FAMILY INCOME (before taxes) from employment and all other sources? 2,2less than $10,000 22,2530,000 - $39,999 12,2560,000 and above 12,2510,000 - $19,999 22,2360,000 - $69,999 39,290,000 - $29,999 2,; $50,000 - $59,999 OiififiiiitiitiifiifiifiiQt.*fihiiifiifiifiiifiitiifiiiiflflfi*fiiifiiifitttfi.fifitfififlitifiiiifitfifi From time to time Parks division may conduct additional research and we hope that you will assist us in this effort. To do so we are asking that you provide us with your mailing address and phone number. No names are required. No other uses of this information will be made. Thank You. Strfl't AdGFGSBWMIL “Pl:- ' City/Town Box 6 State zip Phone 1 1 Please deposit the completed survey in the drop box located by the exit or return in the attached postage paid return envelope. Park and Recreation Resources: State Parks Project 131 Natural Resources Bldg., Michigan State University East Lansing, MI 68826 THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP 200 APPENDIX B Instructions for MSP / MSU Day User Survey Distribution and Collection April 22, 1985 Day Users General Instructions: Sampling of users will begin in May and end in Sep~ tember, 1985. There are two different questionnaires, one for Day Users another for Campers. More day users will be sampled because day users re- turn fewer surveys so we need to hand out more initially to reach our goal of 6000 across the park system. Each type of questionnaire will have its own sampling schedule and distribution procedures. Throughout the summer, 14 Day Use surveys will be handed out on the 10 pro-selected days (5 week- end days and S weekdays). 1. Materials: You should have the following materials: a) Day user questionnaires with MSU business reply envelopes. daily Dav Use report forms, and pens or pencils. b) a supply of color MSP brochures c) a supply of your own park maps d) a list of times and dates for sampling Day Users: a calendar and tables 1-3. These dates and times have been carefully selected to guarantee the most representative sample of users of your park over the summer season. Please do not deviate from this schedule. e) Your drop boxes have been prepared and should be properly located at exit sites in your park on sampling days. Each box should be emptied at the end of each day. f) Keep records of returned surveys on the Day Use Report forms provided. 2. Sampling procedures and preparation for sampling: a) You will receive a sampling schedule indicating on what days you. will sample park users and at what times. It may look similar to this: Survey Sampling Date Tvpe Time Period Distribution No. Site Eav 11 D 9-11 am 16 DU May 25 C 6-7 pm 11 CG June 5 D 3-5 pm 15 DU *DU The day use sample site identified for your park on Table 2. *CG Across all the open campground in your park. 201 Day User This is only an example of a schedule, but it will help illustrate the procedures. Sampling times are in 2 hour blocks. starting at 9:00 a.m. and going until 7:00 p.m. b) e) d) e) f) 8) Continuing with the example, when May 11 comes, with the materials provided, prepare 14 survey packets. Each packet will have the following items: *1 day use questionnaire *1 return envelope *1 pen or pencil *1 Michigan State Park brochure *1 map of your park Provide.the packets to the person that will be distributing the surveys that day at the appropriate time and make sure that this person understands the correct procedures for distributing the surveys! Be sure the drop boxes are placed in the right spots. At the start of the sampling time, begin distributing the survey packets. All 16 are to be delivered during this two hour period. If all 14 cannot be distributed during the prescribed time (because not enough vehicles entered the park), record the number distributed and the number not distributed on the Day Use Report Form. Do not reuse the questionnaires, but plan to reuse undamaged pens, envelopes, maps, etc. Some parks have 2 or more seperate. busy day use areas with entrance gates. Only two day use areas have been selected for sampling in such parks. The particular gate to be sampled will be indicated on the sampling schedule (Table 2) you receive for your park. Selecting day users and cars: Day use surveys will be passed out at the entrance booths. The attendant will select one adult occu- pant (16 years or older) from each vehicle that enters the park be- tween the beginning and end of the two hour sampling period. The visitor selected will be either the driver or non-driver of the vehicle and this will alternate from one vehicle to the next. Start with the driver, then alternate. The person selected should be per- sonally handed the survey or specifically identified and asked to complete the questionnaire. Please note that when selecting a non- driver occupant, try to avoid routinely giving the survey to the same type of passenger. such as. the front seat passenger. Make an effort to disperse the non-driver selections throughout the vehicle. What should you do if you're supposed to hand out a survey to a non- driver and a one person (only the driver) vehicle is entering the park? In these cases, pass up this vehicle until a vehicle with more than one adult comes through. Then continue to alternate surveys and recipients as before until all 14 are gone or the 2 hour interval expires. 202 Day User If you have any ouestions or problems arise. please contact us immediately so that we can address the problem quickly. h) i) 1) If you find it necessary to have two entry lines open at a day use booth during a sampling period. split the la surveys to be handed out into 2 piles of 7 and distribute them to each lane according to the instructions. Also, 1! you find it necessary to temporarily close the park (at capacity) iust before or during a sampling period. stay open if at all possible toLget the full sggple of 16 surveys handed 235. If the park is open and sampling then stay open until the surveys are out: if you close prior to a sample period, then begin to sample when the park reopens and stay open until all 14 surveys are out. Please be sure to record the openings, closings and other deviations from the prescribed procedures on the Day Use Report form for that sample period. When the questionnaires are passed out or the sampling time is over, complete the Day Use Repgrt Form for that sampling period. Make sure to be thorough and record any unusual (out of routine) occur- ances such as, park closure, or deviations from the prescribed survey procedures. Send the completed and unused suestionnaires from that sampling period and the Day Use Report Forms to HSU within one week of the sampling day. 3. Handing out Day Use Surveys: How to do it. what to spy, a) b) c) d) Survey packets are to be given out to people in automobiles entering the day use area. Those iudged to be 16 years or older can receive a questionnaire. Alternate between drivers and non-drivers as described above. The times and number to be given out have already been selected. when the sampling time arrives. stop all those entering as you usually do. Be sure to stop those with Annual Stickers as well. Carry out your normal duties with those in the car (sale of daily sticker, etc.) Then ask if they are camped in your park. If they are, let them enter the park without giving them a ouestionnaire because people camped at your park do not ouslify for a day use survey at your park. However. all others, except anyone who says that they already received a survey, do qualify and should be given a questionnaire. Note any exceptions on the Report form. If they do nualify, take a moment to introduce the ouestionnaire and ask for their cooperation 203 e) F) 2) Day User in the study. 5‘? something like:"we would like you to participate in a survey of our users while you are visiting the park. The study is being conducted by Hichigan State University in cooperation with Michigan State Parks. Your participation is voluntary, but we are talking only to a few park users and so your participation is important-owe hope that you will help us out. The purpose of the survey is to get the feelings and opinions of our users and this is a very good way to do this. If park users can tell us what they think about the parks, we can then do a better job of serving them in this park and parks across the state. The survey can be returned in the drop boxes located at the exits areas or by mail using the attached return envelope. We know the survey will take a few minutes of your time COdlY and w! want to thank you ahead of time. Here are a couple of maps to help you enjoy our state park. We really appreciate your help. Thank you." Pass the packet to the selcted individual(driver, non~driyer). Thank them and tell them about the drop boxes. After the sampling period is over, fill out the Day User Report Form promptly and thoroughly! *PLEASE NOTE: We realize that there may be a period of several weeks between sampling days and that your gate attendants may have trouble remembering the correct procedures. Please dee to it that they clearly understand the procedures before each sample day. It might also be a good idea to post a copy of the day use procedures in the entrance gate booth for easy reference. If you have any questions or'problem. please let us know immediately. Thank you. For the month of flay phone 0 517-353-0646 on Tuesdays and Thursdays from lO-lZam. After may phone 6517-353-5190. 204 APPENDIX C “VI. AABBBBBBBCCEEEECPI llllll . APPENDIX C FIGURE 1 LIST OF STATE PARKS AND SAMPLING TYPES Park Name Algonac Aloha Bald Mt. Baraga Bay City Bewabic Brighton Brimley Burt Lake Cheboygan Clear Lake Dodge # 4 Fayette Fort Custer Fort Wilkins Grand Haven Harrisville Hartwick Pines Hayes Highland Hoeft Hoffmaster Holland Holly Indian Lake Interlochen Ionia Island Lake Lake Gogebic Lakeport Ludington McLain Maybury Hears Metamora Hadley Mitchell Muskallonge Muskegon North Higgins Onaway Orchard Beach Ortonville Otsego Lake Petoskey Park # 61 26 62 1 27 16 63 2 28 48 54 64 3 65 4 66 31 32 67 68 34 86 69 70 6 35 87 71 5 72 36 7 93 37 73 38 8 39 56 4O 41 74 42 59 Sampling Type CD C D C CD C CD CD CD C C D CD CD CD CD C CD CD D C CD CD CD CD CD C CD C CD CD CD D CD CD CD C CD CD CD C D CD CD Park Name Pinckney Pontiac Lake Porcupine Mt. Port Crescent Proud Lake Rifle River Rochester Seven Lakes Silver Lake Sleeper Sleepy Hollow 8. Higgins Lk. Sterling Straits T. Falls Tawas Pt. Traverse Twin Lakes Van Buren Van Riper Warren Dunes Waterloo Wells Wilderness Wilson Yankee Springs Young Sampling Park #Type 75 CD 76 CD 9 CD 77 CD 78 CD 52 CD 79 D 94 D 43 CD 80 CD 89 CD 33 CD 81 CD 10 CD 11 CD 53 CD 44 CD 15 CD 90 CD 12 CD 82 CD 83 CD 13 CD 45 CD 46 CD 84 CD 47 CD CODE C = Camper Survey D = Day user Survey CD = Both 205 re_ D- MMJJJJJJJJPFFIICCCL 1.1.15.2 111111 FIGURE 2 SAMPLING DATES AND TIME PERIODS GROUP 1 PARKS DATES SURVEY TYPE TIME PERIOQ fl EANDED OUT SITE May 4 c 4-7 pm 11 cc May 5 D 3-5 pm 14 DU June 7 c 4-7 pm 11 cc June 18 C 4-7 pm 11 CG June 27 c,p 4-7,5-7 pm 11,14 CG,DU g June 29 C 4-7 pm 11 CG July 1 D 9-11 am 14 DU 1 July 23 p 1-3 pm 14 DU fl July 25 D 11-1 pm 14 DU July 30 0 11-1 pm 14 DU Aug. 3 D 5-7 pm 14 DU Aug. 4 C 4-7 pm 11 CG Aug. 6 c 4-7 pm 11 to Aug. 10 c,p 4-7, 11-1 pm 11,14 CG,DU Aug. 31 C,D 4-7, 11-1 pm 11,14 CG,DU Sept. 11 C 4-7 pm 11 CG Sept. 14 D 9-11 am 14 DU List of Parks in Group 1 Algonac Burt Lake Harrisville Aloha Cheboygan Hartwick Pines Bald Mt. Clear Lake Hayes Baraga Dodge # 4 Highland Bay City Fayette Hoeft Bewabic Fort Custer Hoffmaster Brighton Fort Wilkins Holland Brimley Grand Haven Holly 206 DATES SURVEY TYPE TIME PERIOD May 5 May 10 June 1 June 2 June 9 June 12 June 15 June 21 July 1 July 4 July 7 July 8 July 9 Aug. 1 Aug. 8 Aug. 23 Aug. 25 Sept.10 Sept.21 OUOOOOUUOUUOUOUUOOU FIGURE 3 GROUP 2 PARKS List of Parks in Group 2 Indian Lake Interlochen Ionia Island Lake Lake Gogebic Lakeport Ludington McLain fl HANDED OUT SITE 5-7 pm 14 DU 4-7 pm 11 CG 4-7 pm 11 CG 5-7 pm 14 DU 5-7 pm 14 DU 4-7 pm 11 CG 9-11 am 14 DU 4-7 pm 11 CG 3-5 pm 14 DU 9-11 am 14 DU 4-7 am 11 CG 9-11 am 14 DU 5-7 pm 14 DU 4-7 pm 11 CG 4-7 pm 11 CG 4-7 pm 11 CG 4-7,11-1pm 11,14 CG,DU 1-3 pm 14 DU 4-7 pm 11 CG Maybury Ortonville Mears Otsego Lk. Metamora-Hadley Petoskey Mitchell Pinckney Muskallonge Lake Pontiac Lk. N. Higgins Lake Onaway Orchard Beach 207 SAMPLING DATES AND TIME PERIODS Porcupine Mt. Port Cresc Muskegon ent FIGURE 4 SAMPLING DATES AND TIME PERIODS GROUP 3 PARKS DATES SURVEY TYPE TIME PERIOD fl GIVEN OUT SITE May 14 C 4-7 pm May 21 D 3-5 pm June 9 D 1-3 pm June 15 C 4-7 pm June 27 C 4-7 pm June 30 D 9-11 am July 5 C,D 4-7, 11-1 pm July 13 C 4-7 pm July 20 D 9-11 am July 26 C 4-7 pm July 28 C 4-7 pm Aug. 2 C 4-7 pm Aug. 3 D 11-1 pm Aug. 20 D 1-3 pm Aug. 23 D 3-5 pm Aug. 26 C 4-7 pm Aug. 30 D 9-11 am Sept. 22 C,D 4-7, 5-7 pm List of Parks in Group 3 Proud Lake South Higgins Lake Rifle River Sterling Rochester-Utica Straits Seven Lakes Tahquamenon Falls Silver Lake Tawas Point Sleeper Traverse City Sleepy Hollow Twin Lakes Van Buren Young 208 11 14 14 11 11 14 11,14 11 14 11 11 11 14 14 14 11 14 11,14 CG DU DU CG CG DU CG,DU CG DU CG CG CG DU DU DU CG DU CG,DU Van Riper Warren Dunes Waterloo Wells Wilderness Wilson Yankee Springs FIGURE 5 RESPONSE RATE FOR CAMPERS BY DISTRICT CAMPER fl Delivered fl Returned Percent District 1 938 653 67 District 2 509 363 71 District 3 988 651 66 District 4 749 508 68 District 5 817 569 70 District 6 658 451 69 District 7 428 241 56 District 8 439 183 42 District 9 846 457 51 TOTAL 6,424 4,076 63 209 FIGURE 6 RESPONSE RATE FOR DAY USERS BY DISTRICTS DAY USER fl Delivered fl Returned Percent District 1 586 274 47 District 2 301 142 47 District 3 449 218 49 District 4 601 289 48 District 5 699 395 57 District 6 794 406 51 District 7 371 155 42 District 8 418 157 38 District 9 1,868 797 43 TOTAL 6,087 2,833 47 210 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF REFERENCES Bureau of the Census. 1980. 1980 Census of pop- ulation: General Population Characteristics- ‘M;. US Department of Commerce. Vol. 1, Chapter C, Part 24. pp. 24-107, 24-118. Chubb, M. and Chubb, H. 1981. One Third of our Time. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, New York. pp. 1-600. Cooper, R., Novak, R., and Henderson R., 1980. 1980 Wisconsin Camper Survey. Recreation Resources Center. University of Wisconsin-Extention. pp.l-57. Crompton, John L., and Lamb, Charles W. 1986. Mapketipg Government and Social §ervices. John Wiley and Sons. New York. pp. 390-392. Foster, R. and Jackson, E. 1979. Factors Associated with Camping Satisfaction in Alberta Provincial Park Campgrounds. Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 11, No. 4, pp.292-306. Fridgen et. a1. 1986. Michigan State Parks Study. Dept. of Parks and Recreation. MSU. East Lansing, MI. pp. 1-140. Hodgson, R. 1971. Campgpound Features Attractive to gicpigan State Park Campers. Thesis. MSU. pp. 1-71. Howard, D. and Crompton, J. 1980. Financing, Manpging, and Mapketing Recreation and Park Resources. Dubuque, Iowa. William c. Brown Co. Kotler, P. 1984. Mppketipg Managepppp: Applysis, Plannipg, and Contpol. Prentice-Hall Inc., New Jersey. 5th Edition. pp. 68, 287, 325-326. LaPage, W. 1967. "Successful Private Campgrounds" Forest Sprvice Research Pappr N§-§8. Upper Darby, PA:USDA. 211 LaPage, W. and Ragain D. 1973-1974. "Family Camping Trends-An Eight Year Panel Study." Journal of Lpisure Research. Volume 6, No. 2. pp.101-111.' LaPage, W. and Cole. 1979. 1978 National Camping Market Survey. USDA Northeastern Forest Service Research Paper NE-45 . pp.30-36. LaPage, W. and Bevins 1981. "Satisfaction monitoring for quality Control in Campground Management." USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-484. Northeastern Forest Experimental Station. Bromall, PA. pp. 1-6. LaPage, W. 1983. "Recreation Resources Management for Visitor Satisfaction." Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. April 1983. Vol.1, No.2. pp. 38-43. Mahoney, E. 1985. Recreation Marketing: zpe Need fog a New Approach. Unpublished Draft. MSU. East Lansing, MI. pp.1-20. Merriam, L., Wald, R., and Ramsey, C. 1972. "Public and Professional Definitions of the State Park: A Minnesota Case." Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 4, No. 4. pp.259-274. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Parks Division. 1978. Michigan Parks Division Fipld Manual. Lansing, MI. pp. 1-8. Michigan State Parks Attendance Records. 1985. Parks Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. National Park Service 1983. Marketing Papks and Recreatiop. State College, Pa: Venture Publishing. Nelson, C., Holecek, D., and Chen, S. 1983. Eng of the 1983 Camping Season. Host/Research Project Report. Unpublished Report. Department of Park and Recreation Resources. MSU. pp. 1-6. Nelson, C., Holecek, D., and Beatty, K. 1985. Final Report: 1984 State {opept Capppr Iptep- views. Unpublished Report. Dept. of Park and Recreation Resources. MSU. East Lansing, MI. pp. 1-20. Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 1984. Division of Parks and Recreation. g984 Campgpound Study. Unpublished Report. 212 Purdue, R. 1985. Bias in State Visitor Surveys Associated with Duplicate Listings in the Samp- ling Frame. Department of Recreation Resources Administration. North Carolina State University. Raleigh, North Carolina. pp. 1-3. 203 Silagy, J. 1985. Michigan State Parks; Past Trends and Future Directions. Masters Plan B Project. Department of Park and Recreation Resources. MSU. East Lansing, MI. pp. 1-10 and 46-57. Stynes, D. and Mahoney, E. 1986. 1984 Michigan Commercial Campground Marketing Study. Unpub- lished Report. Department of Park and Recreation Resources. MSU. East Lansing, MI. pp. 1-42. Wang, D. 1971. Camper Preferences and Campsite Characteristics at Ludington State Parkl Michi- gan. Masters Thesis. Department of Park and Rec- reation Resources. MSU. East Lansing, MI. ppe 1-137 e 213