llIrulrllyymlluw«will This is to certify that the thesis entitled TRENDS IN SEASONALITY OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK USE presented by Kathryn Marie Rottmann has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Master of SciencgiegmeinDepartment of Park and REcreation Resources Du/ifi V Maidr/professo/ Date November 9, 1979 OVERDUE FINES ARE 25¢ PER DAY . PER ITEM Return to book drop to remove this checkout from your record. \ 3,53,, was <- 6*! c "1'; WOTW: .= ’M if}! ":- ’3 3 ““9: *t’m TRENDS IN SEASONALITY OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK USE By Kathryn Marie Rottmann 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 1979 ABSTRACT TRENDS IN SEASONALITY OF MICHIGAN STATE PARK USE By Kathryn Marie Rottmann Outdoor recreation areas have traditionally absorbed the vast majority of their camping and day use between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Recently there has been speculation that use patterns of park areas are shifting. This study investigates use patterns by documenting trends in seasonal use of Michigan State Parks for both camping and day use between l968 and 1978. In addition, the research explores site characteristics and locational factors which may be influencing attendance levels and rates of change during the off-season. BE§Eli§e9fh£h9 [ésgérph indicate that there has_beenca,general increase in off-season use. Summer levels declined in their share of Wmfl-W -_—-—-—- MM- ‘-4- L.) orvs'kf total use. Parks which averaged greater percentages offeseason.use ”flwwfifiw.r.Mdewflflww"w,v”I.MUMWWWH” _ a“ .s- ,._l includethose located off the.6reat Lakes, greater than Zfiwmjlesufrom Interstate 75, with modern campgrounds only, away from urban centers, and offering hiking trails. DEDICATION I wish to dedicate this thesis to my fiance, Geoff, whose moral support provided the inspiration to see the study through its darkest moments to completion. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to convey my sincere thanks and appreciation to my advisor, Dr. Daniel Stynes, for his advice and counsel, his personal interest and concern, and his eternal patience. My thanks are also extended to the members of my graduate committee, Professor Theodore Haskell and Dr. Robert Marty, for their contributions to the study. In addition, I wish to acknowledge the assistance I received from members of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources/Parks Division and especially Mr. Kerr Stewart, who was invaluable in facilitating the collection of data and background materials for the study. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER Page LIST OF TABLES ............................................ vi LIST OF FIGURES ........................................... vii I. INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1 Background and Perspective ............................. 2 The Study .............................................. 9 Objectives of the Study ................................ lO Importance of the Study ................................ 10 II. PROCEDURES ................................................ l4 Data Collection ........................................ l4 Trend Identification ................................... l5 Analysis of Possible Causal Factors .................... l5 Selection of State Park Data ........................... 15 Definition of Terms .................................... 16 Computerization Process ................................ 20 Trend Analysis ......................................... 20 Method Used to Analyze Site Characteristics ............ 21 III. THE MICHIGAN STATE PARK SYSTEM ............................ 22 Classification of Parks.... ............................ 22 Statement of Purpose ................................... 25 Attendance History in Michigan State Parks ............. 26 Organization of the System ............................. 28 Fee Structure .......................................... 29 Promotion of State Parks as a Year-round Operation ..... 32 Collection of Use Data ................................. 34 Data Limitations ....................................... 35 IV. ANALYSIS .................................................. 38 Camping and Day Use Levels by Season ................... 38 Trends in Seasonal Use ................................. 39 iv CHAPTER Page Total Camping and Day Use ........................... 4l Seasonal Camping and Day Use ........................ 44 Investigation of Locational Factors and Site Character- istics .............................................. 50 Locational Factors .................................. Sl Site Characteristics ................................ 55 V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................... 58 Comments ............................................... 60 Recommendations ........................................ 6l Further Study .......................................... 62 REFERENCES ....................................................... 66 APPENDICES A. MICHIGAN STATE PARK SYSTEM: PARK NAMES AND REGIONS ....... 68 B PARK WEEKLY REPORT FORM ................................... 69 C. STATE PARK SYSTEM SEASONAL ATTENDANCE: 1968-1978(CAMPING) 70 D STATE PARK SYSTEM SEASONAL ATTENDANCE: 1968-1978 (DAY USE) 71 E. END POINTS OF REGRESSION LINES ............................ 72 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page l. Starting and Ending Dates of Seasons Used in Study .......... l7 2. Number of Days per Season Used in Study ..................... l8 3. Seasonal Placement of Memorial and Labor Day Weekends ....... l9 4. Slope of Regression Lines for Seasonal Camping and Day Use.. 42 5. Locational Factors Tested for Influence on Off-season Use... 52 6. Site Characteristics Tested for Influence on Off—season Use. 56 7. Percent Change in Use From 1968-1978 by Season (Relative to l968 Use Levels) ............................................ 59 vi LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE l. Michigan State Parks ....................................... 2. State Park Attendance for Combined Day Use and Camping (l920-l973) ................................................ 3. Michigan State Parks Fee History ........................... 4. Formula for Calculating Attendance (Daily) (from 1968-l978) 5. Michigan State Park Camping and Day Use by Season (l968-1978) ................................................ 6. Comparison of Total Camping and Day Use Levels ............. 7. Annual Michigan State Park Camping by Season (l968-1978)... . Seasonal Contributions to Annual Michigan State Park Camping (1968-1978) ........................................ . Annual Michigan State Park Day Use by Season (l968-l978)... . Seasonal Contributions to Annual Michigan State Park Day Use (1968-1978) ............................................ vii Page 23 27 31 36 4O 43 45 46 48 49 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The human race has long been governed by patterns in nature. Because of these patterns we have d§Y§19P§d-h§bitS which enable us to cape more successfully with day to day living. “Eiiktiaflflfié such as sunrise and sunset act as gu1del1nes for us. Similarly, the cycle of the moon has provided us with a means of stabilizing our activities and accomplishing what we set out to do. Patterns are also found in the _,....., .,.‘Wq-.- Mu, four seasons of_the year. Seasonality, in short, whether it be short- _ . . _ ___._,...—u—..’ w-..- __ ,.._....... span or long runis a phenomenon caused b¥~th§ changingeof~ourwsurround- ings which causes our actions to differ at any two moments in time. Seasons are evident in recreation as in other patterns of life. These seasons are mostly controlled by two distinct factors: environ- mmurgt . 4, meht and trad1t1on. _§§iinge_swimming and hgatihggwjgrmeéample, are dependent on the appropriateayeathet.conditipns. 0n the other hand, “.- w the seasons for activities such as f1sh1ng, hunting, baseball and foot— \ ”Lb \ a, x .Jlb-I-h aw i) ,w 1 a... with-“r‘” . WM“ PM ' ‘m ball are largely 1ndependent of the calendar seasons and are determ1ned \‘C‘n by soc1ety‘ Summer has trad1t1onally been the season for outdoor 9“!- reggeatign. Activities at fac1l1t1es such as state ahd nat1onal parks WNWHquW> p. ”'1':- are influenced by such environmental and traditional factors as warm \‘I “-5.. A “axing.“ I“ “W JF'd’fi-‘echrwfi HIV weather, vacation schedules and the school calendar. In the past, a ' ‘Wk' tun-a _. Wfiww-fl off-season use of outdoor recreat1on areas has been l1m1ted to such spegjalized_activities as hunting and fishing. Reeehtly the offiseason use offisuch areas has increased andhas become more broad based. I This project was undertaken to investigate changing patterns of seasonal use in outdoor recreation and causes contributing to such changes. Seasonal attendance information gathered at Michigan State Parks over an eleven year period was used as a data base for the project. Day use and camping attendance levels were documented, seasonal trends in use were established, and hypotheses were tested to determine why some parks attract more off-season use than others. The results of this project will be helpful to recreation administrators and planners in predicting future use levels and patterns with greater accuracy, and in setting forth effective off-season policies. Background and Perspective Recreation use..patt¢_r05 96" be .éfiyéisdmi r1, tieyeral“spansuofutime. A“- ‘V‘KAU I". For example, any day may be broken down into “99?:10Q9,§¢9WQQF§ to investigate the flow of people into an outdoor recreation area. This hourly attendance will give an indication of the EQQEIZEPTW demand for the area. weekly 99tt9rns of use may be studied to learn more about ‘1. “A‘MW‘ "" longer term cycles.' A typical week-long cycle shows high demand on q_w .kwr‘ WINK-K“ weekends and lower on weekdays. Obviously this corresponds to W\1:v’1"imu?'9_~gh .. the wgrk week.- Within.the._ca1e,ndar,xe§r seespnel variations in use levels occur. This represents still another cyclical pattern. These variations can be analyzed to learn more about how attendance will vary within one year and from one yearly period to the next. This study deals with seasonal use patterns how they vary within 1... a... 1 U the yearly cycle, and their differences and similarities from one year to the next. Like the shorter term use fluctuations, the seasonal cycles and the trends from year to year respond to many elements. These mw-hliinwb.‘ 4w" . elements, or causal forces, can be roughly categorized as environmental and sogjal. Environmental forces have a great effect on the seasonal and long- m-“" .1. 4 term fluctuations in use of outdoor recreation areas; and on many of man's other activities as "911' The physical expression of the seasons depend both on the orbit of the earth around the sun and the geographical location on earth (Strahler, 1965; 23). For example, it is cold in Michigan during the month of January, but it is warm in Argentina. The seasons have long acted as a guide for mankind in that gs theflseason changes so does the weather. Historisglly, fall is the harvest time, winter a time to stay indoors, spring planting time and summer, if you” have time, a time for vacation. Since summer has the most favorable climate, we expect a higher use of outdoor recreation areas in summer ._....—-( pa «tau-fl". ‘- 1‘ than in the other seasons. The environmental factors affecting recrea- ‘W " “.1," tion areas from one year to the next are more subtle, but generally also weather-related. For example, a limited snowfall discourages attendance at a ski area in the winter; and an early warming trend in the spring \‘WH'F w entices people outdoors. Trends over the period of a decade or more, on the other hand, ”are more l1kely to be controlled by social forces such . as changing traditions and tastes. I The tie between the physical environment and man' s thoughts and deeds has long been discussed by both philosophers and scientists. Huntington (1945; 318) stated: Seasonal patterns of modern life, which everyone recognizes, is set by the effect of the seasons upon our physiological activity as well as by more obvious external effects, such as seasons of production on farms and hinderances to move- ment because of snow, rain, wind, low temperature, and floods. This philosophy clearly indicates that the changes in physical surround- ings affect the way people approach life. Such external effects are often the basis of man's gglEQEgtiQnmgf1hglidays~such as Thanksgiving and Easter, and the timing of other cyclical patterns such as therchool1 calendars- Whybrow (1979; 95) reinforces the theory of a physical/ psychological tie stating, Our environment is periodic. In fact, the daily cycle of the light and dark and the familiar rhythm of the seasons in New England, both generated by the play of the sun upon the spinning earth are evidence of a periodic change which has countless mirror images throughout our environment and within ourselves. Rhythmic: patterns tied to these daily and annual events are commonplace and fundamental to all living systems, and yet they attract surprisingly little attention in our own day and age. The1iTEQK£anqe19f1§hl§1¢0Yjfionmentallsocial connection1is1lhat1the environment (seasons) is the causal force. Thus _ -...s_- M _’ “u- -U w we can_expect future social Chonges to be influenced by our surroundings. . m , -,, . A up; -M.u1._,. , Traditions are created and_continued by man as a means of stabil- M‘”" izing an everchanging physical world. IgmrgjnforceMthgmrhythmigmpattgrns °f thiphysical snowmen":3.991311391102111111151.77}:191,".calendar“ events, Perhaps traditions began as a human acknowledgement of physical forces. Manywrgligiggsmhglidaysmwene1formedWaround”the1haryest1gi1§he crap, the rebirth of life in the spring, and the hibernation of life . . , 1 . u“... ‘m‘.~.+.. ... k u. bum.» c, during the cold months. 1These traditions continue to evolve_with the changes11man 11211121159110“. t.he,..wm‘.1d..a.nound..him.. Recreation is heav1ly influenced by the trad1t1ons and other My”- ’25: "q- i social forc gmpciety. Because recreat1on occurs dur1ng leisure “aw-.m— - hours the timing of holidays and large periods of free time such as W“! b‘a-V summer vacation for schoolch1ldren, is most 1mportant Changes in L.._,.1 V‘N. ...qu uww.-- o...n-...._~... traditional patterns for work and school may have direct effects on out- ”no. goonsrecneationAareas. ,,,,,,,, u-r' ’L 59Ei§3¥aU School is generally in sess1on from September to June with .- vacations forholidays_sprinkled in between. Rose (1977) suggests that thedevelopment of.the year-round school schedule may,in9r§o§§1;99 g§§£ of outdoor recreation _areas on a year-round basis. _Attending school ‘Vi-1~‘H nu“, during summer months will disperse leisure time throughout the off- WM . season. This may be a major influence on future use patterns in outdoor teerséfaien areas- Like the academic schedule, the work schedule is based on tradi- tion, is evolving, and will have an impact on the use of outdoor Arecreation facilities. Over the past century the work week has changed from a twelve hour day,_six days a week to the present five day fortyflw haur week. This has given the average working man an add1t1onal 32.999rsu» of leisure time per week, ATheAinstitution of paid vacations and tneir increase has had a similar effect. Trends toward furtherAincreases in leisure time and changes incheirscheduling are already evident in the four day work week (Conner and Bultena, 1979).andflexitime work hours. As the time spent in work has decreased, an orientation away from the W «I... vaflufi‘ u. 'wwu. ‘1- place of employment and towards recreat1onal pursu1ts has developed One of the most important social forces affecting outdoor recrea- tion is this shifting from a work-oriented to.a leisureyoriented society. In Puritan times idle hands were thought to be the devil's playground. A good man was one who worked hard and long. A more liberal philosophy slowly evolved as religious influence began to subside and the govern- ment enacted laws protecting human rights. Today the amount of leisure time available to most members of society is more comparable to the hours of work per week. gegause society is more accepting of leisure, evehdperhaps aware that it is an important element ofnliie, people have greater control of their own leisure time. It is possible to provide for a family and still enjoy time for personal pleasures. Employers acknowledge this by providing alternative work schedules such as the four day work week (see McEvoy, 1974). Workers may now choose their own work hours to some extent, thereby creating time periods suitable for fulfilling personal recreation preferences. As work patterns change recreation areas will feel the effects. This effect may be especially PronUPQinflefft§9§§90huse- "Leisure is available today in widely varying amounts and degrees, according to such factors as age, social status, and occupation" (Kraus, 197l; 3l3). hs aAresult of the increase in leisure hours, society responds to these new needs by providing greater opportunity to use leisure hours toAtheir best advantage. The acquisition and development of outdoor recreation areas is a part of this response. CngLl¥.mitwis necessary for more areas and facilities to become available in a time of increasing."eed if SEPPJ¥.iS,t9 keep “P with 49mand- As greater numbers of people avail _themselves of the use of such areas more are 54199.4] Along with availability of outdoor recreation-areas is accessi- bjljty.. In recent times there has been more concern voiced that such areas and facilities should be accessible tomeveryone. This implies that areas should be situated so that residents of urban centers have equal opportunity to enjoy the outdoors. The invention of automobiles enabled people to move greater distances with less trouble. Mass trans- portation has also helped. Nolan (l978) states the importance of agcessibility.when selecting a site for an outdoor recreation attraction. These include natural features, geographic location, proximity_to other 0“" attractions and_availability of services. Obviously, the success of the ”B . n4 - Avid»: -W ' nun-1n- area depends aggreat deal on how many people come to the §ifi§z.§fld this often depends on how easily it can be reached. The accessibilitwaactor MM—AmH-b 0L1..- ”v1 0-H" takes on added importance when considering the use of an area on‘a year- round basis. Off-season months provide special problems for accessibil- \.~ Jm‘ ity For example, are the roads cleared of snow and are they constructed in such a way that spring rains will not wash them away? Awareness 9f the outdoors continues to grow as a greater concern for the quality of life increases. The ecology movement of the 1960's was a major influence on the general awareness of the out-of—doors experience. The use of outdoor recreation areas and facilities increased tremendously during this time period. Use began to extend beyond the summer months into the off-seasons. The intuitive approach to understanding how this shift in use has and will affect these areas is no longer enough. There is a need to empirically test the accuracy of statements and hypotheses regarding off-season use. This is the basis for the study undertaken. In addition to the environmental awareness taking place there has been an increase in interest in outdoor sports. This may influence off- season use as well. The pgpglgfijExugfmSEQ§§gEQEQE£¥w§Kiing”has encour- ag?€_9reater.use.of.outdQQYMFQQRQQPj90M§FGQ§U§9V1"goth?_Wlnfier- Likewise EIY§-(A]1 Terrain Vehicles) havehad.an impact during other £350.95: ._._T.hes.e,,_godmother-.s.99r1:s_._...§.re.,..§n9.99.r.a.gjng...g.r.§g1;§r..9vetsll use, as.Wellssssasmgre-unifarm,vssfistgrssrsssiennarsss-in.asneral- Man's ability to control his environment also encourages off- season sports. The improvement of cold and foul weather clothing enables a sportsman to enjoy his activity in spite of the weather. Highly sophisticated equipment such as snowmobiles may also be having an impact on off-season attendance. As new equipment is invented and old equipment improved there are more reasons to use outdoor recreation areas during the entire calendar year. Administrators also elgxmsurpls_in_afifeski99-2h9w252222.£233r§.-. W ...... greater off-season useg__ln_several ways they can control the amount ‘w—v— of use at an area during any time of the year. For example, in l961 the Michigan State Parks Division instituted a fifty cent Daily Motor Vehicle Fee for park users. That year the total park use plummeted dramatically (see Figures 2 and 3). - m}n“usamcauldflbemengoapaged; by lowering 9r.¢1i.1sasigg.she use fees during Erase Perisés.(clawson “ M‘m‘hflflJMV-zméxn M314 1. ‘4: :1. 1+; .4 and Knetsch. l966; 178). Making the facilities available on a year- found basis is also important. For instance, keeping the rest rooms open and parking lots plowed enables the user to use the site regard- less of the weather conditions. The government has played a role in influencing off-season outdoor recreation area users by providing financial assistance in the form of Land and Water Conservation Fund* grants to develop facilities which may be constructed for year-round use. This study seeks to gain a better understanding of the magnitude and controlling factors affecting off-season use. Understanding why use patterns occur and change as they do is more important than ever. This is a time of cost accountability and budget austerity. Making the most kWh-e“ w. ‘AJ Wm q‘ ““4““ no,“ effective use of an area may be the difference between saving and wast7 ”i W. ....x.y.-t-f _199fl9finesougce. The Study The study was undertaken to gain a better understanding of seasonal user patterns at outdoor recreation areas. Specifically, the focus is on off-season use. Because of the availability of information and use of state parks by previous studies of a similar nature the Michigan State Park System was selected as a data base. The Michigan _system is compr1sed of approx1mately ninety areas and .L'fvl‘h,‘ {My 8"“ A. "a. more than 223,990 acres of land Park areas are situated throughout the * , The LNCF Act of 1965 (PL88—578) amended in 1968 (PL90-401) . . . provides for grants to states, and through them to political subdivisions, for planning, acquisition and develop- ment of public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. 10 entire state. Attendance at these areas has increased from 17 million people in 1968 to 23 million people in 1978. According to the Division of Parks, part of the increase can be attributed to higher attendance levels at parks during traditionally "slow" months. For these reasons the system was deemed an excellent data base for testing off-season use patterns. Objectives of the Study 1. Document day use and camping levels at Michigan State Parks by season from 1968 through 1978. 2. Establish trends in seasonal use (winter, spring, summer, fall). 3. Test hypotheses as to why some state parks attract more off-season use than others based upon locational factors and site characteristics. Importance of the Study The study of use patterns has only recently attracted attention among recreation researchers and administrators. The attention has been_ genggated by the“ need to red1str1bute USPtQt.outdogumngggggtipnmagggs. This is due to the extremely high use of these areas during the summer - ta ‘1; .. . was; mm’nvm a. mgmmmgqu unasauitn W41! .131 seasgn. The existing areas are in some cases no longer adequ uate_tq 4.1%!“ 1J- ub- handle the demand§,made.byasummer users. Administrators.nealizestbatato increase capacity during .the summer is econom1cally illogical becg 5 MMNPI‘rggRFW" WW the highly desirable, ..areas,.,1f,n.-,§umneanmaraidlees.mmalamsii‘fififlis during... the V85? Qfiathamweannwalt is far more practical to attempt to use the Milky J“ “- vumwamaup u M-«v. Junta-:8- mu --w In” \‘.u E 1W existing areaswmoreacompletelyabgfoFe building_new ones. ,. 7 - . min-n. vanish“ “a“ EVE-EEK. ll Thgjigh concentrationuofmuseAurimsumer.m99,tb§.,has..r§§yl$991 .32 n overcrowd1ng and dissat1sf1ed users. In_ addition, deterioration of the physiggl environment hag begun. This peaking of demand has been described by Clawson and Knetsch (1966; 157) as being "one of the most serious economic and management problems in the whole outdoor recreation 1‘ 1' 91 d - " " P9651 Qajfifiisfined..fas.tbe.._..c9ngentration 0.13.1. l.et9.e....PJ:Q 9.98210" of v1s1tgt1on of recreat1on areas intoma.limi$ed number of time periods St 78; l). "geyelopmentLthyse at off-peak tjmes,isflone of the most prom1s1ng means of maintaining recreation quality and at the same -4...‘ - -"‘" time increasing output" (Clawson and Knetsch, 1966; 170). “gutmtpjmaket such development efficient and effective it is essential to understand '- ‘H. .-~1 what causes_peaking of demand, where it.is most likelywtowoccur, and when“: This form of use patterning has received the greatest amount of attention. Researchers have sought to gain a better understanding of the peaking phenomenon by investigating its manifestations in several outdoor recreation settings. Beaman and Smith (1976) developed a method for decomposing use curves of a main-destination camping site into two distinct types. One is a smoothed curve which disregards short term fluctuations and is helpful in visualizing the seasonal use pat- terns. The other is not smoothed and shows the weekly use peaks as spikes. The tip of the spike represents the highest demand (use) of an area for that time period. This type of investigative study has contrib- uted to a better understanding of peaking and how it relates to the seasonal use patterns of outdoor recreation areas. 12 There are two other studies pertaining to peaking which merit dis- cussion. Both are of particular interest because they deal more directly with the data base selected for this study. Dice, Stynes and Lotz (1976) investigated the peaking phenomena related to commercial campgrounds in Michigan. The objective of the study was to "quantify s.” 44‘... Mme-Iii“ the Peaking Phenomena end leenfliiy festers centriegtinqtp low peeking §$csempgxoundécthet.efewweteweuecessful”inuJevelingtthe-usempeeks" (Dice, 1976; 2-3). Thestudy concluded that~there-are specific £9WE’ ground characteristics and qualities which either promote or discourage . wry-MM r‘m HH:\M-_u;1‘- 3335139, Bilodeau (1977) applies similar methods to his analysis of Michigan State Park campgrounds. His work includes an investigation of the characteristics and magnitude of peaking at various sites. Both studies limit their focus to peaking tendencies during the summer months or season. This study continues the effort to provide greater understanding of what causes various use patterns at Michigan outdoor recreation areas, and examines the distribution of state park use during all four seasons. This is the first of the three studies that discusses off-season use trends. The results of this study will help to explain what attracts people to parks, and outdoor recreation areas in general, during the off-season. This facilitates a redistribution of use needed to lessen the dramatic effects of peaking of demand during the summer months. In,§he.long run._redistribution 9f use servee thrcgcpunnqees- First, it promotes_ greater eff1c1ency and effect1veness 9f management. wa-mw'm This can be directly converted to monetary savings% For instanceA ,r. ‘ZM ‘oyw- uq'w IN" mykfi-fi. 93', Wfd’fnmr J ,a.U‘W‘Mwa-H. ‘fh‘t H‘m-SMMW personnel who are year.nound.emplwyees will have their workload more ngw'w W-wvvma *9. or: 1mqms'cmw mum..- 13 evenly distributed. Second, it will Mpromote a w1ser and more ecological- MMm—wnm m...“ - “we; we “I‘VWM‘ .‘ up- a...“ ly sound use of natura lr ces. The natural environment will suffer ”13.79.! . _4Wfl-MW“”* “““H—uud...” \au...~_,.-. -.-.'.._,1..‘_‘ p .ot . - less from the effects of 1ntens1ve use,” And th1rd by making wise use ,v... “1.7,. M. em 1.“.an main/*1" of resources and effective use of management tools the users will be M “Ma... afforded a richer, fuller experience.“ Users will find park areas less ”—1.“. “fig-h. v\ crowded. u gum-5"" oi." CHAPTER II PROCEDURES In this chapter the technical details of this project are described. This includes selection of data, definition of terms, coding and programming of data, checking of data, and the methods used to analyze the data for long-term trends and importance of site factors. Data Collection The project was completed in several phases. The first phase was to compile seasonal day use and camping figures from attendance informa- tion collected by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources/Parks Division. For each park in the system camping and day use attendance during each season of the year was calculated from State Park Weekly Report Forms. Data was punched onto computer cards for subsequent analysis. At the completion of this process each park had one card for each of the eleven years (l968-l978), each card containing four seasons of camping attendance, four seasons of day use attendance, total camping attendance and total day use for that year. 14 l5 Trend Identification This phase exposed and accentuated trends in seasonal use. Some of the tests conducted included combining off-seasons together and com- paring park system use levels from year to year, comparing percentages of total use attributed to the off-season, and obtaining other indica- tors of off-season activity levels through combining various attendance figures recorded during the test period. The results were aggregated over all state parks to reveal statewide trends in both day use and camping. Totals were also analyzed to make yearly comparisons. For each curve a least squares linear regression line is also plotted, indi- cating the eleven year trend in use. Analysis of Possible Causal Factors The final phase made use of these patterns and trends to determine what factors might encourage or discourage off-season use at state parks. Site characteristics such as facilities available and the size of the park, as well as locational factors such as proximity to urban centers and placement on Great Lakes waters were examined for their effect on off-season use. Selection of State Park Data Attendance at the Michigan State Parks was selected as a data base for this project for several reasons. First, it was readily and conven- iently available at the state office, and the cooperation of the Parks 16 Division was secured. Second, the attendance data had been recorded in such a manner that could be conveniently coded for computerization. The data was represented by the Parks Division as being consistent and accurate. Third, part of the data (l968-l972) had already been compiled in the desired form for an in-house study by the Recreation Services Division of the Department of Natural Resources. The previously assembled data covered the years 1967 through 1972. Raw figures for 1973 through 1978 were compiled by hand from state park records and combined with them. An eleven year period from 1968 through 1978 was selected as an appropriate time-span for the study. Eleven years was thought to be long enough to represent current trends in seasonal uses, and would be long enough to smooth out year-to-year seasonal abberations due to such factors as weather and gas shortages. 0n the other hand, the eleven year period is short and recent enough that the method of collection by the park personnel would be reasonably consistent over the study period. Definition of Terms Several of the terms used in this study require definition; in particular 'season' and 'off-season'. The term 'season', as used here, represents the four recreational seasons as defined by the Recreation Services Division for their in-house study. The term 'off season' is used to denote the three seasons other than summer. These seasons roughly correspond to the calendar seasons, but vary in length and in the dates that bound them. The dates used are tabulated in Table l. 17 Table l. Starting and Ending Dates of Seasons Used in Study Year Winter Spring Summer Fall 1968 1/1-3/17;11/4-12/31 3/18-5/26 5/27-9/8 9/9-11/3 1969 1/1-3/16;11/3-12/31 3/17-5/25 5/26-9/7 9/8-11/2 1970 1/1-3/15;11/2-12/31 3/16-5/24 5/25-9/13 9/14-11/1 1971 1/1-3/14;11/1-12/31 3/15-5/23 5/24-9/5 9/6-10/31 1972 l/l-3/19;ll/6-12/31 3/20-5/28 5/29-9/3 9/4-11/5 1973 1/l-3/18;ll/5-12/31 3/19-5/27 5/28-9/9 9/10-11/4 1974 l/l-3/l7;11/4-12/31 3/18-5/26 5/27-9/8 9/9-11/3 1975 1/1-3/16;ll/3-12/31 3/17-5/25 5/26-9/7 9/8-11/2 1976 1/1-3/21;11/8-12/31 3/22-5/23 5/24-9/12 9/13-11/7 1977 1/1-3/20;11/7-12/31 3/21-5/22 5/23-9/11 9/12-11/6 1978 1/1-3/19;11/6-12/31 3/20-5/28 5/29-9/10 9/11-11/5 Note that winter season is comprised of two periods. One period begins with the new year and ends in mid-March. The second period begins in early November of the same calendar year and ends on December 31. Attendance for the two periods of the winter season were collected and recorded separately by the Recreation Services Division. In this study the two were combined for a single winter attendance figure. Table 2 illustrates how the length of the Recreation Services Division seasons varies greatly from one to the next. As is seen in the table, the winter season can be nearly three times as long as the fall season. Leap Year is indicated on the table, but was not adjusted for in the analysis. The effect of the extra leap year day is negligible since it occurs during the slowest season (winter). 18 Table 2. Number of Days per Season Used in Study Year Winter Spring Summer Fall Total (L)* 1968 135 70 105 56 366 1969 134 70 105 56 365 1970 134 70 112 49 365 1971 134 70 105 56 365 (L) 1972 135 70 98 63 366 1973 134 70 105 56 365 1974 134 70 105 56 365 1975 134 70 105 56 365 (L) 1976 135 63 112 56 366 1977 134 63 . 112 56 365 1978 134 70 105 56 365 * (L) = Leap Year Table 3 shows the dates on which Labor Day and Memorial Day fall during the study period. The summer season usually runs from the last Sunday in May to the first Sunday after the first Monday in September. Most of the time the two holiday weekends are included in the summer season, but, as the table shows, not always. This is significant because at some of the parks a large proportion of the use for the whole season will occur during these two weekends. Since attendance levels at the state parks can be quite volatile, it is important to be aware of the disparities in the data base. The length of the season and its bounding dates in relation to such factors as hunting, and fishing seasons and national holidays can cause the recorded attendance to vary from year to year without there being any real change. For example, if Labor Day weekend is recorded as part of Table 3. 19 Seasonal Placement of Memorial and Labor Day Weekends 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 Memorial Day - May 27 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 26 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 25 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 31 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 29 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 28 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 27 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 26 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 31 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 30 Labor Day - September Memorial Day - May 29 Labor Day - September 7 - whole weekend in summer 6-not included in summer (Labor Day-Monday) 4-not included in summer (Labor Day-Monday) 1 - whole weekend in summer 6 - whole weekend in summer 5 Note: Unless otherwise stated the whole weekend including Monday is included in the summer totals for Labor Day weekend. Unless otherwise stated only the Monday of Memorial Day weekend is included in the summer season totals. 20 summer in one year and part of fall in the next attendance levels for fall may show a large disparity between the two years. Computerization Process The attendance information gathered was compiled on computer cod- ing sheets by arranging columns to correspond with seasonal attendance totals. This was the first step in the process of preparing the data for analysis. From the code sheets the figures were keypunched onto FORTRAN cards and were verified to double check for errors. At this point any unusual looking figures were discussed with state park person- nel. Preparation of the data base completed the first phase of the project. Analysis of the data was done by using locally generated FORTRAN programs. These were designed to aggregate the attendance figures by season and for various subgroupings of state parks and to calculate per- centages of use by season. Resulting figures for 1968-1978 were plotted to reveal trends in seasonal patterns of use over time. Off-season attendance levels were obtained by adding fall, winter, and spring levels. Computerization facilitated the handling of otherwise tedious, time-consuming tasks, performing them more quickly and more accurately. Trend Analysis Least squares regression procedures were employed to statistically determine attendance trends over the eleven year period. Slopes of the resulting linear regression lines were taken as measures of the rates of 21 change in seasonal use for both camping and day use. (See Freund, 1979 for more information on linear regression.) Method Used to Analyze Site Characteristics The final phase of the project sought to identify factors which might influence the extent of off-season use at parks in the system. For each hypothesized causal variable (characteristic) parks were divided into two categories, those with and without the given feature. By com- paring the off-season attendance figures for each group possible rela- tionships are indicated. This design is based upon the design used by Bilodeau (1978) in his study of characteristics which influence peaking at Michigan State Park campgrounds. The comparison of seasonal use levels of parks in the two cate- gories give an indication that the factor being tested either promotes or discourages off-season use of state parks. For example, the parks were divided between those which have frontage on the Great Lakes and those which do not. If the parks on the Lakes showed a higher percent- age of off-season use then it was concluded that such placement was a contributing factor toward more off-season use. Before presenting the results in Chapter IV, some background information on the Michigan State Park System is provided in the next chapter. CHAPTER III THE MICHIGAN STATE PARK SYSTEM This chapter describes the Michigan State Park System with particular emphasis on the factors relevant to the study. These include: park classification, attendance history, fee structure, promotion and data collection methods and limitations. The Division of Parks is one of several within the Department of Natural Resources (The Department also includes a Division of Lands, Forestry Division, Waterways Division, etc.). The system of parks is composed of ninety-two parks and recreation areas which are distributed between the Upper and Lower Peninsulas. The parks range in size from 32 to 58,000 acres, with the total system boasting of more than 223,000 acres. Water is an important resource for recreation in Michigan with thirty-seven of the parks located on the Great Lakes and fifty-six located on inland lakes or streams (see Figure 1). Classification of Parks Over the years the classification system for parks has changed several times. It is a direct reflection of how the Chief of the Division approaches the administration of the system. In the recent past the system used no less than eight categories to classify parks, 22 23 no A. - ' (nun- Knoacuu .7 - %_ nun-u MICHIGAN PA uni u: I-ouw ulcmu . 'l’ A T I l. '- . HMO” ”no.“ «- In!" sun (In urn-nun..- Region III _ 1 F mu- uu-uoc (An-oo- N no- an-n '1'“ Figure 1. Michigan State Parks 24 including such labels as 'urban park' and 'historic area'. With the appointment of the present Chief, the system has adopted two broad classifications. The present policy of the Division is to provide natural areas at which to recreate and relax, and to minimize costly park development projects. For example, although in the past the Division has installed and maintained electrical hookups for campsites, the new doctrine is to provide rustic sites when developing new camp- sites; and to convert highly developed sites back to the rustic state as they necessitate repairs. The two park classifications used now are more general in nature and reflect this attempt to get back to basics. Nevertheless, they are meaningful to this study because the related shifts in state park policy might be influencing off-season use levels. Dice (1976) found that commercial campgrounds with primitive sites experienced more severe peaking than the more developed campsites. The two classifications now in use are 'State Park' and 'State Recreation Area'. A state park is defined as an area of 500 to 1000 acres in size and possessing a natural scenic attraction or having historical significance (Hane, 1979). These areas are normally closed to hunting. A State Recreation Area is defined as an area of approxi- mately 1000 to 5000 acres in size, which is typically located geographic- ally near an urban papulation center. These areas often lack the natural features of state parks, but are open to hiking, fishing, horses and hunting. The Division reserves the right to restrict these activities as dictated by conditions. 25 It is important to note that the classification system has changed several times during the test period. Although not tested for specific- ally, this may have caused a change in the average off-season use at some parks. In most cases, however, it was felt that reclassification should have no effect on use unless it results in development or policy changes. The term 'state park' will be used throughout this paper to mean any area (State Park or State Recreation Area) under the control of the Division of Parks. Statement of Purpose The Division has published a written statement of purpose to ensure that all employees are properly promoting the Division's philosophy. The statement is used as a guideline by employees when facing policy decisions that may not be stated in writing The statement reads. The purpose of the Division of Parks is to acquire, ha and make available for the use of the public, open spaces .' recreation or for the preservation of natural beauty or natu 1 ,features possessing historic information or association. It ‘ {'shall further be the responsibility of the Divison to regulate ) the use of these lands to conserve the scenery, the natural and historic features, and the wildlife found thereon and to provide for the enjoyment of these features and aspects by the J public in such a way as to assure preservation for the énjo - ment)of future generations (Department of.Na’tura1iReso 978 ~v~---_~2 A. I~M.‘.~_ ‘hfiwufi Although not specifically mentioned in the statement of purpose, the Division makes it quite clear through its policy guidelines that the use and availability of the parks shall be on a year-round basis. There are instances where the use of the parks during off-seasons is specific- ally encouraged by the Division in writing. In the past, the policy 26 regarding encouragement of off-season use, however, is unknown. The present policies may be different from those at the beginning of the study period. Attendance History in Michigan State Parks Michigan's first state park was established on Mackinac Island in 1895. Other parks were added to the system through the years and in 1923, when attendance records were established, visitors to the state parks in Michigan numbered 670,000 a year (see Figure 2). Curiosity was the reason cited by the Division for keeping records. There is a ques- tion as to the means by which the attendance information was collected. By 1931 Michigan boasted of the second highest annual state park attend- ance in the country. In 1937 the annual attendance was already almost one million people. During World War II attendance dropped dramatically; by as much as 25% in 1942. But, when the war ended attendance sky- rocketed to record highs. At this point interest in parks began a steadily increase in popularity. Camping gained popularity as evidenced by the fact that in 1950 the number of campers had tripled since 1940. It was also in 1950 that the Department instituted a fee policy for the ‘ ‘11"? gmMMK-‘f‘; “I" up; ”94"”? Hair 3"?» "NR-‘3 ‘r‘h-a 441.01" uWMwwfivfiflfifi‘Wame-im ‘Wwfl.u‘ first time. Campers were charged 50¢ for the use of the facilities. “wk-1W -1W This was in addition to the charge of 20% for electricity hookups that had been in effect for many years. Ten years later, in 1960, the , p... ' Wk.” - Wa‘w‘ mewmwpawwflm Division began charging a daily fee for use of the day use areas. ‘ ,n w 3...; 71-3 'drm’ierQ “mm" Wmm- mafia-immune «:12. «Ms..- ‘1.”14n‘I-ua'7ad-Mcm ’13-'1-‘3‘5 31',‘v 31‘9“” 7"" "r “‘~ " “’1 A steady growth in attendance continued in both camping and day use areas. Over the test period total park attendance has increased from 17 million in 1968 to 23 million in 1978. 27 20- 1: C .2 'E ;E 1s~ “J U z < O 5 h_ 101 .— 4 23 35 u, 5 ,1 1 T I I I 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 YEAR Figure 2. State Park Attendance for Combined Day Use and Camping (1920-1973) 28 Organization of the System The size of the State Park System dictates that smaller units be established to aid administrative procedures and control. Ninety-two areas are distributed throughout the state. As mentioned above, many of the parks are located at or near interesting natural features such as waterfalls and lakes. The system is broken down into three, fairly equal sized, administrative regions to facilitate field activities. Region I is comprised of the Upper Peninsula area. Region 11 includes the: northern half of the Lower Peninsula, and Region III in- cludes the southern half of the Lower Peninsula (see Figure 1, page 23). The character of the parks differs in each region due to several factors. Region I includes the northernmost regions of this large state, and parks in this region tend to be more rustic and are generally established at natural settings of significance. Because of its remote geographic location Region I has traditionally received a major portion of its use during the warm months when travel is easier, and when many families take a vacation. A five hour drive is necessary to reach this area from the Detroit metropolitan area. Camping in Region I state parks is common because families are far enough away from home to stay several days (as opposed to weekend trips). Region II is closer to the metropolitan areas of southern Michigan, but far enough away for people to 'get away from it all'. This region is characterized by second homes and resort areas for travelers. These areas are generally more developed than those in the region to the north. 29 Region III is the most highly developed due to the greater propor- tion of the population living there and a less extensive natural resource base. Most of the parks and recreation areas in this region are used heavily by the people from the Detroit, Chicago and Grand Rapids areas. The state parks in this region receive large numbers of visitors from the state just south of Michigan. A list of state park names along with the regional classification is given in Appendix A. Fee Structure Charging for the use of park areas and facilities administered by the Division undoubtedly affects the use. The raising of a fee is likely to cause a decrease in the attendance. For this reason, a short discussion of the fee structure and history is included. Motor Vehicle Permits became a requirement for any motorized vehicle entering park lands in 1960.* It was enacted to provide a source of revenue to repay the bonds which were sold for land acquisi— tion and capital improvement. A Camper Permit is issued to each camping party as they enter into the campground area. The Division's camping policy dictates that each camp must be registered on an official camp permit for record and con- trol purposes. The permit is also a tool used by the campground staff members for campground rules enforcement and control. *Motor Vehicle Permit Act, Act 149, Public Acts of 1950, Act 286, Public Acts of 1967, and Act 145, Public Acts of 1971. 30 Over the years the amount charged for these permits has varied. Figure 3 gives a visual history of the fees charged in state parks for both day use and camping. Notice that several fee changes were insti- tuted during the test period from 1968 through 1978. As‘fees were_ raised, the Division began to adopt new policies concern1ng differential ,_——-"“'"_ ‘fi_ _ C§£§§- Realizing that some parks are used on mostlxflacday use ba51s,t “Mu-11W- all ‘a and with Whigh frequencies of repeat v1s1tors .them01v1s1on instituted Mw-‘othIJI-rdolafls Why-«MP u jv‘ wow!" flail-d an Annual Permit system where a family can pay. once for the use of the ‘. w, ,3... m‘HJfi“ ‘4’: “will”- .AW lavhflel "‘uuhh’ 1““ Hr ”at; ‘park system for an unlimitedrnumber.of times duninglthemyear. Daily Per- W‘dm “it... “I. “ F5 .tenewsfillnavailétalg ~1T9.'i3%."?5:9,..4...'.!.'L.S..h1'15!t9 91111:... 911:. 919.999.}he EEEKWQ$~BeLifl?- Also, due to the variations in use patterns, the Division instituted differential fees for out-of-state users at Warren Dunes State Park which serves mostly residents from other states (75%). Cgrfgin.g,..f.ees._,a_re- 91%??? 9.1%." steed. £99....depend17.09.90,19.119.999.993 0f PEYE‘PP' ment at the camps1tes. In 1972 the Division 1nst1tuted Bflglalwgngggl Jedi-3:1,“..- ' my W .-.; I-Wt “111...? W” ‘-—-4* “u'r- Wigs; day use permit rate for res1dent senior c1tlzens in an attempt to address the.."¢¢9§ ‘.°_f..u.993'.§,91‘999- It should be mentioned here that the fee rate for the use of park areas and facilities is undergoing rigorous debate. Some feel thatwm 4- ............ charg1ng h1gher rates will exclude some portions of the population, b "" ‘* ‘M .m. '1. .v; -«wifl'fik’fi‘g‘Jw 11111 1 e_ others. «munch-Mitt)... 1.119..19999911....9999990919.99.99.1‘69113.929119999190- 4444444444 ._ :‘-;¢«:fiy‘w—~w. V2 34515.- vision_of parks is costly and the users must help bear the burden. At the present time there is no fee charged to anyone entering the park unless they drive in with some kind of motorized vehicle. All campers pay the same rate regardless of the type of transport in which they arrive. MICHIGAN STATE PARKS FEE HISTORY 3l DAILY CAMPING FEE ‘7 ‘6 ‘5 '4 ‘3 ‘2 '1 YEAR ‘1 '2 ‘3 .4 ‘5 ’6 RESIDENT M.V.P. FEE ‘7 E: ' .76. .1 1950 61 62 53 64 as 66 ‘1957 as 1959 60 1961 <32 ".50 1963 (ff-4 65 1966 s' I '. I ,.-I‘~ '1" ...:..--u._ .I. . .oI .1. ..-,.2.,. '0. u-o ' c H O . ..¢- .... A ‘LA. 1967 68 (89 7C» 1971 . "0 'u.‘ 1.9- O _,..'. ..I. .....:.-.~.. , . .. .-- . .- - . -. I .. .. .. .o'o'..... ~. . .n...o.,..~ .. . . he... .o‘- I‘.U‘Q . in -.I. .1: _0. 03... . '5 1972 1973 74 ‘4 1975 76 77 1978 .'-_ .j:.. ‘5'. . :- .o--.-',- ._,_.., "‘3'. ,'.'-..‘.-° ‘ .i. . . . 0" .n‘l I '1 . . v. ._i- .l . I ~',‘->.‘-‘:_‘-.. 3,1}: ~"'-.‘-.- as 1. ".""‘-'3:.’.'.".6'-C'.‘ . :l: .. ' .A.:'..u.. .z‘u.. . :‘u- .'.‘V ~ 2222 g. a" n:."." IIIIIIL I 1979'--Lua1.‘._. ''''' “35'. WI! 1%? lllllllllllll 2 ’33 ;-' “-5 ”111114111 111111 M.V.P.: Motor Vehicle Permit ELECTRICITY .26. Figure 3. Michigan State Parks Fee History ANNUAL PERMIT MMDDAHNIERNWT LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL 32 thewfeas—charged.within_tbe“statewparkmsystemwdomnothvarywaccord5 ing to the season of the year. Except for camping permits, which are V‘%M ‘ --‘1' reduced when water fac111t1es a:e §h3t.9ff a11 fees are co11ected un1form1y throughout the ca1endar year. Ihe.Divisi9hfshphi1osophy is that thegusers are provided with-equa1‘faci1itiesy etc., on a year- I round basis, so the fees ref1ect this. hhlthough the Division is act1ve1y promgt1ng~year-round use of the state_ parks there is no fee 1i"centivewusedwtowfurther this end. Promotion of State Parks as a Year-round Operation Because of the nature of the project, a g1ance at how the system is represented to the pub1ic is important. Is there emphasis on the fact that parks are open year-round, and offer activities and faci1ities for the off-season user? For the typica1 tourist stopping at a trave1 information booth a1ong a highway the Department of Natura1 Resources offers a brochure ca11ed Michigan State Parks which is a broad introduction to the system. Strong emphasis, both in wording and visua11y, is given to the use of the state parks during a11 four seasons of the year. Genera1 informa- tion regarding fees is offered as we11 as addresses and te1ephone numbers where further information may be obtained. Each park in the system is 1isted a1ong with its 1ocation (on a map and as a posta1 address), size, number of campsites, camping information, day use faci1ities, activities. and specia1 features. The parks are divided into the three regions (as mentioned ear1ier) for ease in understanding and identification. 33 This brochure is by far the most widely distributed and most often referred to when questions are asked. Complementing this brochure is a booklet entitled Michigan Out- door Guide published by the Automobile Club of Michigan (AAA) for its members. Similar information in this source gives greater detail on each park, and also includes information about other sources of outdoor recreation in the state (i.e., state forests, private campgrounds, etc.). Several brochures have recently been published by the Department of Natural Resources to promote specific off-season activities. A bro- chure entit1ed Winter Quiet Places details places where people can go (both state parks and state forests) to enjoy winter activities such as snowshoeing, hiking, and cross country skiing. The brochure was a response to a need raised by residents for non-motorized areas when snowmobiles began to increase in popularity. The Department also pub- lishes the MichiganSnowmobile Guide to Rules, State Parks, State Forests, State Game Areas which explains where to find areas to enjoy that sport. More recently the Division has compiled a list of specific cross country ski trails in state parks in an attempt to limit the accidents which occur by using trails not suited for this activity. There are no brochures specifically designed to guide residents to state parks for fall and spring activities, although several tourist associations around the state provide general information on outstanding fall foliage areas and good fishing holes, which may be located on or near state park lands. 34 The Division of Parks is actively promoting the system as a year— round operation. Whether the emphasis has shifted over the last eleven years is difficult to ascertain. Reconstructing information used for promoting the parks over an eleven year period has been less than successful. There is reason to believe that the emphasis on off-season has increased gradually over the test period as the general increase in off-season outdoor activities has expanded in popularity. Today nearly half of the state park employees (330 people) are considered year-round employees. (The other half are employed only for the summer season.) Collection of Use Data Regardless of how carefully data is collected and compiled flaws and inaccuracies are inevitable. Since it is no longer practical to count heads as they come through the entrance, the Parks Division has adopted a sampling method to measure park use. This system is tested and revised every five years to assure accuracy. Each park manager is expected to keep records of daily attendance broken down into camping and day use. The use of the Park Weekly Report form (see Appendix B) 9 .IN'N-‘d‘g *‘v‘i'u ' “mo. 4 - ' ~ (nfit..~' .. .- ‘ ‘ _ ‘.........r.s..L11 “wwxaxfluw.mw*‘“fi”w A: -I. ——-v- vmv‘v enables the Division to maintain uniformityamong parks._ The Field "any“ describes thjsfre‘port’ass " , an account of all activities taking place in the park. Primarily for attendance purposes, the period covered is from Monday through Sunday. To arrive at a more accurate estimated day use attendance figures, count the number of vehicles in the parking lots sometime between 2-3 p.m., multiply this figure by 3 as a turnover factor, then multiply this answerby the factor assigned to each region as the persons per car count. Outdoor centers, frontier cabins, and »_trailside cabin users shall be counted as day users. Group Camp counts over the normal factor used in figuring‘camper~ 35 attendance should be added to the day use figure. To figure camping, count the number of camps that day at the end of the day, add the number of camps that are due out that day, then multiply this figure by the factor assigned to each region (Department of Natural Resources. 1978; Chapter 2; Although the method outlined is used for most parks, a few parks use traffic counters, gate counts or other means of collecting the informaei‘ tion due to the character of the particular area. Such alternate methods are used only on an extremely limited basis. Data Limitations During the test period the Division changed the turnover rate multipliers in an attempt to improve accuracy of the estimated attend- ance per day at the parks. These changes are made infrequently and may result in abrupt shifts in use curves. Regression techniques help to smooth out these effects (see Figure 4). Different styles in collecting the information on the part of the individual managers, may cause some degree of variation in the attend- ance figures gathered for individual parks. The existence of this variation should be kept in mind, as it may affect the reliability of the information. Aggregation of use data to systemwide totals was employed in an attempt to average out any variations encountered. There is also a need to bear in mind that the method of obtaining estimated attendance does not seem to change as park use declines from summer to fall. If the system for determining attendance does not change during the off-season, there is greater reason to believe that the figures obtained do not accurately reflect the true count. It must 36 HmNmH-wmmH sooty HAHHmov mucaccmoo< mcHoaquHmo to; mH=ELOd .q meamHo m~.m mH.m mn.m m~.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m HHH conmm Hm.m mm.m mm.m Hm.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m HH commmm HN.¢ HN.¢ H~.¢ H~.¢ m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m m.m H cowmmm mu mu on mu em mm Nu HR ox mm mm Home Log mcomcma mmmgm>mv LmHHaHszz o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m HHH :onmm o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m HH commmm o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m o.m H :onmm mu NH mu mu «H mm NH Hm cm on we ovum gw>o cosh HH.¢ HH.e HH.¢ HH.¢ m¢.e m¢.¢ m¢.e m¢.¢ me.e me.¢ m¢.e HHH :onmm eo.¢ qo.¢ eo.¢ eo.¢ m~.¢ mm.¢ m~.¢ mN.e m~.¢ m~.¢ mm.¢ HH cowmmm Ho.¢ Ho.¢ Ho.e Ho.¢ N.¢ N.¢ ~.¢ ~.¢ ~.¢ N.¢ N.e H cowmmm mm mu mm mm #5 mm mm Hm On mm mm Homo cog mcomcmg mmmgm>mv LmPHaprzz HHH cowmmm .gmHHaHqus mgo an mgsmwm mwsp aHaHpHss cusp .Xmu wasp “no man magma HH cowmmm Ho Longs: one Hmconcmuxm mcHuaHuch age was» masmu mo Lucas: asp pcsou H :onwm mm mm mm mm en mu Nu Hm on me we ovum Lm>o cozy 37 be remembered as analysis information is presented that although the researcher is aware of these reliability flaws, it is assumed such flaws, over time, average out through the use of aggregation to system- wide figures and allow conclusions to be drawn from the calculations made. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS The results of the data manipulations are discussed in this chapter. They are presented in three sections corresponding to the three objectives as restated below: 1. Document day use and camping levels at Michigan State Parks by season from 1968 through 1978. 2. Estahlish trends in seasonal use (winter, spring, summer, fall . 3. Test hypotheses as to why some state parks attract more off-season use than others based upon locational factors and site characteristics. The first section shows the levels of use in actual numbers of visitors and as percentages which indicate how many visitors can be attributed to each season as part of the total annual use over the eleven year test period. In the second section the trends and patterns of use for each of the seasons are shown and are compared with one another. A statistical straight-line trend is also calculated for each season. In the final section site the locational characteristics are examined to assess their influence on off-season attendance. Camping and Day Use Levels by Season Camping in the state parks occurs during all four seasons. The summer season is by far the most popular of the four, averaging five 38 39 million campers a year. Spring, fall and winter camping each average less than 500,000 people a year. ~I11_e_sefithreeqseasonssmconsidenednthe' off-seasons,,gpntrlbutgwonlxml5%“0tmallnstatevparkwcamp1n9; Summer use appears to be slightly more volat11e buthma1hta1ns ah average 85% of total state park camping use. The proportion of summer to off-season use may be better visualized by looking at Figure 5. The area between total camping use and summer camping use is attributable to the off- seasons. The area beneath the summer camping use line represents summer camping. This clearly indicates that, during the study period, off- season camping is substantially less than summer (see Appendices C and D for camping and day use by season (1968-1978)). Day use levels of Michigan State Parks during the study period differ from camping. Although summer day use still exceeds off-season day use, its share of total day use is smaller. Off-season day use is almost double that of off-season camping averaging 29% over the eleven year period. Again, the three off-seasons share similar proportions of total use. Note that day use figures are substantially higher than camping during all four seasons. It is interesting to note that the ranking of the three off-seasons differs from camping to day use (see Figure 5). Spring is the most popular off-season for day use, whereas, fall is the most popular off-season for camping during the study period. Trends in Seasonal Use Although the proportion of total annual use attributed to each season is important, this is not the major thrust of this study. ATTENDANCE x 1118 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ANNUAL ATTENDANCE 0 - Ninter Figure 5. 4o CAMPING 55.00 ‘4 50.17 .33 43 32.50 .67 21 83 10. J 1::t:jfi:::t:*:::=::::3:j 0.00 I ‘V T Y I I 1 19b8 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 YEAR Elfiill‘ 100.00 J L 83 33 :;: PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ANNUAL ATTENDANCE 1 66.67 50.00 .33 I 1 o l 0 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 YEAR I O D A - Spring (1968-1978). '+ - Summer ATTENDANCE x 105 DAY USE 100.00 g 1 150.00 120.00 1 A 90.00 I 60.00 30.00 1. W4: 68 1970 1972 197a I976 1978 YEAR M 0.00 out ‘0 DAY USE 100.00 4—J 09.33 ‘W 66.67 1 50.00 1 33.33 1 18.67 A‘ L U I I O I I I f 1 68 1970 1972 197a 1976 1978 YEAR 2 0.00 x - Fall 0 - Total Michigan State Park Camping and Day Use by Season 41 Of more interest are the changes in off-season use over the test period, and any trends that might be established from these patterns. In order to identify trends and to extrapolate these changes into the future, a least squares regression line is fitted to the individually plotted seasonal attendance figures. Theereason for doing this is to statistic- ally determine the eleven year trend and smooth out short-term fluctua- tions that may be due to weather conditions, changes in state park policies, or methods of counting users. The slopes of these regression lines are tabulated in Table 4. Two values for each season are shown. One is the change in actual number of users per year. For example, the winter camping level is decreasing at the rate of 920 campers per year, or 9,200 campers over a ten year period. The other listing is of the relative change per year. This is defined as how the share of total winter use changes in relation to total annual use. We can see from Table 4 that the share of summer camping is declining at the rate of 0.28% per year (see Appendix E for Regression Line End Points). Total Camping and Day Use Both camping and day use totals show large year to year fluctua- tions during the study period. But, in spite of the yearly fluctuations there is an overall trend toward increased use. Camping use increased 15% (relative to 1968 attendance over the test period) which may be an indication that campgrounds are used to capacity at traditionally high- use time periods such as weekends and summer months. On the other hand, day use totals during the test period increased rather sharply. The statistical line of regression indicates that between 1968 and 1978 42 Table 4. Slope of Regression Lines for Seasonal Camping and Day Use Average Change Per Year Average Change Per Year In Percentage of Total Season In Attendance Annual Use Camping Winter -920 -.02 Spring 12,000 .19 Summer 9,000 -.28 Fall 7,000 .10 Total 27,000 ---- Day Use Winter 59,000 .24 Spring 100,000 .44 Summer 184,000 -.29 Fall 41,000 .09 Total 311,000 ---- three million additional people visited Michigan State Parks for a day outing (see Figure 6). This equals a 41% increase in total day use rela- tive to 1968 day use levels. The importance of the increase lies in the distribution of the change across the four seasons. All seasons showed signs of "zigzagging" in use from one year to the next. Increases in one year were compensated for in the next year by similar decreases. These patterns may be the result of manytcausal ‘MM —‘—- factohsfi .Weather is perhapswthfLmgftfilhflueht1al Without doing exhaustive research into specific factors which may be causing use fluctuations the conclusions which may be drawn from the study are limited. Thus the statistical emphasis has been adopted to allow broad base conclusions regarding use trends. 43 mHm>mH mm: man can mcpasmo Hmuoh mo comHLmnEoo .o mgzmwu m ¢ :2 0:3 :2 32 22 $2 an: 23 :3 «a: On: coo.— . . . . . . . . . . u .T b . . . v . . . . m 0 0 Nu m 0 0 H H T... a. O 0 ..u ..u 0 O .n .M 0 V 0 m. u m 0 3 0 HM N 1 M1. 9 too. 3 #0 m. v. M” 0 Mo. 0 S r“. v". 0 0 m m 1... r9 m m m m [M 'u 0 0 mm: 2a 458 m 92:23 2:: m ”01 x 33NVON311V 44 Seasonal Camping and Day Use In actual numbers of state park visitors the figures show that spring, summer and fall camping seasons all showed overall increases in camping use. Winter camping actually declined (see Figure 8). In rela- tive terms, however, both winter and summer declined in share of total annual use. This is an important indication. It means that even though summer visitors increased in number during the test period, proportion- ately fewer people camped during the summer as the test period progressed. In terms of relative use (seasonal use relative to total use) fall and spring camping are increasing 50% and 97% respectively* during the test period. It is important to note the distinction between actual numbers of visitors and proportionate use by season. For example, actual summer camping use attendance showed a general increasing trend (from 4.9 million people in 1968 to 5.0 million people in 1978). That is an in- crease of 100,000 people. But, summer camping use in relation to total camping use actually declined, overall, from 86% in 1968 to 83% in 1978. (see Figure 8). That shows a decrease of 3%. The study is more con- cerned with the relative proportion of use which can be attributed to each season (and the change over the eleven year test period) than in actual numbers of people using state parks. Nonetheless, it is important to report both figures to acknowledge the fact that summer use (both camping and the day use) still constitutes an important portion of state park use. * 1978 percent attendance - Relative to 1968 use levels Percent Change = 1968 percent attendance 1968 percent attendance 45 8 a w .w 6 6 Y 7 I 7 9 9 1 1 r I G N A l. A G W w m .w 1R P 1R G ”r". W 1 a fl V: VI M n Htb f n P 9 A 9 S .1 F 1 O O 7 i 7 9 9 l 1 q q u u a . a q q i q q q < q 8 8w 8 8. 8.8. 8.8a 8.8» 8.8... 8.88%. 8.8:. 8.8» 8.8» 8.8. 8.8: 8.91% 8.8» m m9. x uuz<0zw=< as x 0022—sz: 8 B 0 m - w 1 r - n 6 6 T m - W 1 w G -_-_ . ”a IQ N ‘ P 7 NDIII 1 7 M ma M u C A C R an E R 1 u E 7 Y E “I T s N W» m I 7 nn 1 U 9 1 S 1 ‘IU o w. W 1 / .. ~-l1|.l.id T 11.5-11 .1191! -- 1!.1'11111'11. T T..|14V‘Tl.¢. b q q u a q 1 J T a 00.000 00.000 00.02. 00.00 00.000 00.09 00.00 N. 00.000 00.0.0 00.0w» 00.000 00.000 00.00. 00.0: N NCH x “02¢:20_0< “OH x ugz<=zwhH< by Season 1ng Annual Michigan State Park Camp (1968-1978) Figure 7. 46 0 0 -. ' O 6.1 WINTER CATIPING ‘3 SPRING CAMPING I «fl 0 ' 0 (:I-T LU 9 to ‘.-'=’ ”I E g Q 2 Z LAJ Lu 8 1: o : ‘V'q < N <: " ._l 2’ h < a 2 z z z 2 <1: < D co _’ C, _J “1 < t < v-o S .4 g e w r— u. u. o o 0 1...: a 9. 3 8 q r— F— .1 r— 2 U) 2 Lu w t.) L.) 0: a: 1...: 1.... 0. CL 3‘ 0 .< 0 0 '4 V 0 ' 0 , 0 C a o a I 1 1 o a . H _‘ ' I I I l I I I 1 T 1 1900 1910 1972YEAR1974 1976 1978 1968 1970 1972 197a 1976 1978 YEAR 0 ’ ° :7 SUMMER CAIPING '5 FALL CAMPING 0 C’- 01 "‘ 0 0 0 . co 0.. °.. 0 0 § § 8 ,, g z 0 z 0 LLJ Lu 2 «r 5 °' _’ ...T q <: 2 a E O z <: 2 ‘1 8 2 «1 é 0‘ '_ T— o o '_ 1— “- LL 0 2 o 0 Lu ‘1‘ “J o: g 0 3 PT ,_ 1— z z w 1...: g '52 0 If 0 3'3 9‘ . v m. '< 0 0 0 fs 0 . (D N I O l o I 'r fir v v r —fi “3 ID fl ' r T 1 I T ' i 1 1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1968 1970 I972YEAR1974 1976 1978 Figure 8. Seasonal Contributions to Annual Michigan State Park Camping (1968-1978) 47 Day use of state parks increased, generally speaking, in actual numbers of visitors during all four seasons of the test period (see Figure 9). Summer showed the smallest increase (27%) in the number of visitors using state park day use faci1ities. Fall day use rose 57%. Winter and spring showed equally large increases of 106% and 105% respectively. This means that day use during winter and spring more than doubled during the test period. The.winterincrease may be related to the spreading popuJar1ty of snowmob1l1ng and other winter sports fed-m; 9.15”»..th n'fiwafi 3‘0}; “11*“5‘4‘” M- which developed during the test period. The 1ncrease in spr1ng day use ‘3‘. . '..:- q. q4kwmwwufi‘v amid «ml-«WWW "WW“ ”'3‘“ "' ““h'fi” " -* a» is not as easily explaTned 1 It may be due, in part to the overall 5x5mhsq ”Mfr 1ncrea51ng awareness of state parks as year-round reoreat1on fac111t1es According to the statistical trends, summer day use is becoming proportionately smaller in relation to total state park day use (see Figure 10). All three off-seasons showed an increasing trend, whereas summer showed a decline. This is important for the conclusions drawn from the study. It supports the hypothesis that there is increasing off-season use of Michigan State Parks, and may indicate that day use is gradually becoming more evenly distributed throughout the year. It would be interesting to learn whether the decline of summer day use and increase in off-season day use during the test period are directly related. Further testing into the underlying causes of the change in use patterns and possible shifting of use from summer to off-season is needed to make conclusive statements. Spring day use is increasing at a faster rate than the other off- seasons (from 9% in 1968 to l4% in 1978). During the test period it increased 4.3%. Winter day use is increasing at 2.3% and fall is third SPRING DAY USE oo.oMm 48 WINTER DAY USE ill 00.00— oo.om~ d 00.0w“ 4 oo.ovN oo.om_ oo.om~ oo.omw sea x wuz< ”Mmmmwuwwm =000¢mu$mo mo ucmugma wmmgo>< cw wmomgucH mm: Nam 20 mmmmgucm mcwmsoo amok mmmgm>< mmogm>< mm: comummu$uo co mocwapccn 00m vmumah mgouumm .mcowumuog .m mpnuh 53 in twenty years. According to the Bilodeau study, peaking tendencies at inland parks is more severe. The fact that inland parks experience both high peaking tendencies and greater off-season use is interesting and merits further investigation, especially since both camping and day use are affected. This test exhibits a common trait to many of the tests. Highest attendance counts were often during the middle three years of the test period, and it is typical to note the highest percentage of off-season use for this period in these tests. But, the decline in the last four years is not severe enough to lower percentages to their original level in the first period of testing. The third .cejssqryfiestesl. fiche intl.u.e_nqe.._o.f.pr9.xjmit¥ 10.9.???” as an 1nfluence on off-seggggmugemgfmstatempgrks. The Detroit metropol- 12.40 J- '4 7:" itan area is thought to exert tremendous influences on most phases of life in Michigan. Table 5 indicates that Detroit may act as a deterrent to off-season use growth. _Clearly for both daymusgmapdfigampingflthew figures show a preference for parks away from the city area. Also, the M"). v @mmmfiu, E , :‘WWT-tfinffflb "7:.9311‘1Jk W4. M\‘l_’3t )‘L‘J" 1"” "13"“ Y "a: ‘Tt‘fif. M” \flflrj‘ rate of growth in off-season use is much higher for both day use and camping in parks not situated near the metropolitan area. The implica- Mam.“ tion here seems to be that people prefer to get away from the urban ”(mars-(W ,0} '1_-0'-,"-‘11u "0 ,‘1 ,W .‘W H" 1.103 533?.»41’4n‘4-U’. “fin-“HY: ..‘1 ”KW!“ 43*. W1. 1'- .3; 'th‘fiz'.’ HEM; {4+ 1‘th ”Why env1ronment even dur1ng seasons when travel may be difficult. “Th‘m h . PL: - (M 31... ‘ M .15 'LA'TL: ‘1th f“: :‘m f’“~19"¢1'-.~\i5-‘ {if-w). firrflr,w:_4”: Bilodeau foungwthatmparks away from the Detroit area teggegvtg Vi HWmvmfl/“tjgfi a“!!! 13"!ng show higher peaking tendencies. The fact that overcrowding (peaking of - _._-« m.- ....-. mom .s'w m' .fl‘ficfix’lfifi“ WMWmmfi‘t‘n - '0' “I “' fiwmwwnwm‘quaavw1 "mm.- ,.._ . -— * ‘- “‘1' demand) is more prevalent at the same parks which show higher off-seasonMr MW ‘ ‘v ‘C. .1; a. M: M1”"-.11.v {‘u.’ ,vH'V-n‘yil'i‘f if?“ “'4‘.'.‘H1«'\¢'.‘€‘5'.""w '8‘.“ use may be an 1nd1cat1on that even though people prefer to be away from Wflfflkvu’. mm»... ‘1' wt... urban environments they tend to flock together at park areas located ':-.»..M__‘“"g_" NW 1‘ A .. _ a. ""' “*W'WJ ‘.“;“\' LAW...» u; C1 --.~ “it“. A Km!»- .4”? 54 substantial distance away from the urban center. M A a..._' .4 _ 4m..- -- “1.3.. J39 —_ .p 1‘...“ \1 warm 45311-2.) ‘W After determining the influence of Detroit on off- -season use other urban areas were tested. Proximity to urban centers was defined as those parks within fifty miles of the cities with a population of forty thousand people or more (World Almanac and Book of Facts, 1975). The centers included in the test were Battle Creek, Flint, Saginaw/Bay City, Midland, Grand Rapids, Lansing, Jackson, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, Muskegon and Detroit (a radius of one hundred miles was maintained for Detroit). This test further corroborates the conclusions made from the last test. In camping and day use categories figures show that a greater percentage of off-season use can be attributed to parks lying at least fifty miles from any of the metropolitan areas named. The trend shows that parks near urban centers are increasing in off-season use at a slower pace. As with the patterns of off-season use relative to urban centers, the test for Eggxlmjtx to Interstatg zgas an influence on off-season use indicates that there is greater off-season use occurring in parks at distances greater than twenty-five miles from the major north/south interstate highway in Michigan. Parks more distant from the highway also seem to be gaining in off-season use attendance faster than those close by. There is reason to believe that this factor alone is not responsible for off-season use patterns. It may stem from the fact _that people generally seek to get away from noise 3nd civillgggion when hecrgaglggi The pattern shows that both day use and camping are affected. The highest use figures appear once again during the middle three years of the test period. 55 Site Characteristics The results of two tests for site characteristics are presented in Table 6. Although other characteristics were tested, the results were not significant relative to off-season use so they are not pre- sented. The type of campground at state parks was tested to find the influence "type" has on off-season day use and camping. Also tested was the presence of hiking trails at state parks. Three kinds of campground offerings were defined for the first test: modern only, modern and rustic, rustic only. Some parks offer modern campground facilities only. These include features like flush toilets, electrical hookups, sanitation stations, camp store, etc.- Other parks offer rustic campgrounds only. These include features such as hand pumped water, vault toilets and other bare essentials (some do not even have all of these). The third type of park has both kinds of areas, which means they are usually able to accommodate more campers at one time and can operate even when weather dictates that water be turned off, etc. (rates vary according to type of campground). Modern campground facility parks showed the highest off-season use, as well as highest rates of growth on off-season use (see Table 6). Even day use during the off-season is shown to be heavily influ- enced by the type of campground offered. The positive relationship between off-season use and degree of park campground development was expected. It was hypothesized that hiking trails might draw greater numbers of people to parks during off-season months of the year (see seasonal 565 kc. km.~ mp.m N~.~ ~m. mm.. m_.~ mm._ meaeh uaogu_x “xeaa e~._ mm.e_ No.m_ ¢N.NP em.. am.“ m..m on.m mp_~c» sup: mxcaa mFFaeh geese: m_. mo.~ o~.~ mm.~ mm. o¢.P mo.p VF._ xpco assocaasau u_um=¢ RN. m~.m ca." ¢¢.m o mm.p om.~ em.P asau UFHmsg nee agave: _m.~ NN.o_ m~.oF m~.m mp.. oe.m on.“ o~.m apco veaoemasau cease: vczogmnEou we «may Apk-mom.v-Am~-mNmpv mk-mkm~ A.~-mompv-am~-mkapv Amn-mhnF~ ann-mhmpv nrh-mmnpy mUFamPLouuogugu up.m mm: mm: on: comumm-$$o commmmummo we ucwugma mmogm>< commomummo camummlmmo yo acmugoa macso>< 96 acmocma Illxil we .23ch qlmll I :_ mmmmgucfi mm: no :_ mmmogucm :* Emu «mob ommgw>nl momgm>u mm: comommumwo co oucoapmcu so» woumm» muwummgouuogmgu wuvm .o «pack 57 distribution of hiking participation in the Michigan 1976 Recreation Survey). Overall, those parks that offer hiking trails received an average of 7% more off-season use than those that do not. The rate of increase in off-season use (both camping and day use) is greater for parks with hiking trails. This may be due in part to the fact that hiking trails can be used for a range of activities including foliage tours in the fall, cross-country skiing in the winter, and berry pick- ing in the spring. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The study shows that Michigan State Parks are receiving more off- season use, and that the summer share of use is showing signs of declin- ing. Attendance at Michigan State Parks increased by almost six million people between 1968 and 1978. Both camping and day use increased, as did the off-season totals. Table 7 is a summary of percent changes in system-wide off-season attendance during the test period. Note that day use is consistently higher than camping, and is gaining in popular- ity with greater speed. If this trend cont1nues it will become increas- ingly important for the Parks Division to provide more planning, money, ‘7‘ ~' *‘hjmw‘x " "i” “‘W" “m“; ”A?“ ‘Q A‘ .-.~. ”4 ‘5 ‘Ilhwma 1m 15.x»: dgvv‘phmhfiULXan-n and manpower to maintain and operate parks dur1ng the tr dht1onal 1!“ .m: ‘4, filmiJ'wnthsfi. _ Most seasons are experiencing increases in attendance each year. "Only winter camping is declining in actual numbers of visitors. For day use, all four seasons show increases. When the three off-seasons are aggregated together they indicate that their popularity as seasons for outdoor recreation activities is gaining rapidly. Virtually all the non-summer months are gaining at a faster rate than summer. Not only are the off-seasons gaining in actual number of visitors, but they are also gaining in their share of annual use compared to summer. Over the eleven years the summer day use share has dropped from 77% to less 58 59 Table 7. Percent Change in Use From l968-1978 by Season (Relative to 1968 Use Levels) Camping Day Use Winter l6% 106% Spring 97% l05% Summer 9% 27% Fall 50% 57% Total 15% 41% * _ l978 attendance - l968 attendance Percent A ’ l968 attendance than 7l%. Some of the reasons for this loss of share might be attrib- uted to the maximum carrying capacity being reached. Nhjlg the weekdays andtny-seasons still have plenty of capacity for use, the summer weekend 31' 'wflnil #4 «1.! “a "i '1‘? w «Ls-wt": *1!me «w.- «or H‘meflb Watts-w MM“ MW l':‘->“W"'mer"‘”r<‘*~” ‘n‘fi‘l’x whiten-an "to!“ capacitywmaxwggmnganmiuilu Both camping and day use are limited in this way. The number of campsites or the size of the parking lot in any given area effectively limits the number of people using an area or facility at any given time. The study found that the seasonal use of parks may be affected by such site characteristics as type of campground and the existence of hiking trails. LocationalAfagtg;§_tngt_§ggm to affect use patterns during tggwgffzseasgp.1ncmyde proximity to urban center, locg§;ggflon imflfl‘d.‘ Ell-392‘ DIEM“ ._ the Great Lakes, and Wthe distance from WInterstatedz‘g The tests showed WW "' 159/- scamxfi mm WATTWS'! that parks with greater off-season use were those which were located away from the Great Lakes, greater than twenty-five miles from Inter- state 75, and with only modern campground facilities. The same parks 60 offered hiking trails and an atmosphere away from urban centers. Other characteristics that were tested, but did not conclusively show an effect one way or the other were: number of acres in a park, number of campsites in a campground, and a breakdown of urban centers indi- vidually. The fact that many other influential factors exist is not to be ignored. Some characteristic other than those site and locational factors tested may be the dominant influence in whether certain parks get more or less off-season use. The information presented can be used by managers and administrators when planning for off-season use. It is also a nucleus to give direction to further practical study. Comments The project was not without its problems and disappointments. The reliability of the raw data used for the tests was cause for doubt in the research process. In addition, obtaining historical information from the Parks Division was difficult and sketchy. The present Parks Division method of keeping records is organized in such a manner as to make an investigation of the information-collecting methods frustrating, difficult and often unsuccessful. The use of computerized record keep- ing has just recently been instituted and was not helpful to this study in most respects. As is often the case, the personnel of the State Office have most of the historical perspective in their heads. Written documentation of many important documents is lacking or difficult to FECOVEY'. 61 With the results obtained the Parks Division can now move forward and make some policy decisions based upon more factual information and less intuition. The information presented will also be of use to other researchers investigating seasonality trends. Recommendations As with many studies of this type, one of the first observations to be made is that much more study is needed to fully understand the problem. Several observations and recommendations can be made however. The most obvious need brought out by this study is that of a more precise and accurate method of obtaining off-season use attendance information. Application of the same techniques for estimating use for summer and the off-seasons may not be valid. For example, people may simply drive through or around in the park, or may park in areas of the park other than the main lot, and may not come in contact with park personnel during the fall, winter and spring months. Although counting vehicles parked in the lot at a given time on a summer afternoon may accurately estimate summer attendance levels, using this method for off- seasons may not be a good indicator of use. At the present time no other official method of estimating attendance exists. The turnover rate and party size used for estimating attendance may also differ during off-seasons. The types of use a park receives differ according to the season of the year. Although park activities during summer months are well documented through various surveys there is little indication that 62 off-season activities, especially spring and fall, have been documented. Conducting a survey to learn more about off-season use (types, patterns, etc.) of state parks would be helpful to the Divison in more effectively implementing their off-season use policies. If the goal is to redistribute use to alleviate crowding, then it is time to institute the policies that will enhance that goal. _EEEjSEL use ofI differential fees during different seasons is one way. To make_ ‘ 'C'WW W‘NMMI 9'“ny ,Iz' I’M FDIK ”13","hu‘ IKV‘H') H...“ M“? ."V_‘,_“ the parkfiarea s more attractive during the off-seasons, a reduction in W - v.7..- w. '_. “we" Immunerm-ruv “1"»?!me 4“! war, .21“me .11...- 1 At __ A“. - the price of use perm1ts m1ght be considered. Atnthe samemtime, raising “N" am..- "r... ‘ wwu the level of fees charged during busy times may deter summer crowds and 1.. r." ~-.«--~: .c. 11,. r m «I ,flyr‘nrn KWMM-pww v ' w'fi'zvyr ; . . ‘m ~— -v‘.u-u'vu" W1. "‘31. .Nr‘fig .3,- ‘Wl—H’a.‘rw “W3 yC-l-'q-_.»--.~.. encourage greater use at other times of the year. .-;¢3fn‘-1'wa/)~.rj,u-5-.. ""“ WW W1- ‘15. By far the most influential factor on use is the knowledge that b. v" I _, ,. :.;a‘.‘~.r.~ the areas exist, are open and offer plenty of activity during the off- .1- av} H111AIH‘*.~'-J.‘ 1 r-_4¢nn.- J‘s—09‘“ 7 season. Improved consc1ousness by the publ1c of what is available is L ' ”.1" WW Wan-hm‘unjbw -u _4‘ - . J___,_ 1M Mdv “1 W» _q;\ “'1... Altma‘mUkKfi "W“kmn 5%.“- ta 5...! ’— likely to increase thIe attendance. Promot1on of state parks should . ..,. .1 .424 1 8m 1;? “7.).“er T“'. 4.1‘v" row“"' 1“ " kw ’X'MWM MW“. ".1 emphasize the off-season attractions if encouragement of off-season use W“ l“*‘ 'e‘fli‘K \' ‘5 "‘ ‘ ’ ‘ r 1 Wad—-WM. .ud. 15Mmtuwufi’wthSJfilu‘fiLkugwywu‘ is desired. Publishing of brochures, advertising in the media and talk- -..~....unc~.11~=~w "rim Wir- W” 5-7‘M“ ‘ 11,-. 4 ,1, “J's-5312:” a. mm. «41.51.91. ”an“ flew-W 1“...“ I,“ 1,13,“,4‘ .139»! fidfisa ‘“' .3 "‘" ing to summer patrons will all serve to 1ncrease awareness of parks as a ’_ . year:r9unq,opgration. Further Study The undertaking of a study invariably creates a far greater list of questions to be answered than answers to be reported. The more a researcher learns, the more needs to be learned. This study has gener- ated many questions and areas for further study. 63 After reading through the literature related to seasonality it became quite obvious that a far greater knowledge of climatology and specific weather patterns in the study area was needed. A greater understanding of specific park use patterns is dependent upon under- standing exactly what makes one park different from all the others. With this realization this study changed slightly in direction. System-wide trends were emphasized to lessen the local effect of climate on an individual park or group of nearby parks. Park use also seems to be affected by specific local activities. The study attempted to veer away from investigating specific events such as festivals, which affect park attendance. In order to thoroughly understand use patterns in any specific park this phase of seasonal activity should be further explored. On a larger scale, the effects of activities which affect all parks, but some more than others, should be investigated- Exactly 201,999: 2-191s, .ShQCESQcéffsst....s.ea.§pfin§l.use? Does it affect all parks alike? Raising of fees, including park fees, license fees and taxes, surely affect park use patterns. This is an area which needs more study. While working with the results of the seasonal graphs I realized that each season should be studied individually to see how it differs from the others. This study originally tended to group the three off- seasons together, under the assumption that they are alike. In a sense they are similar when compared to summer, but each began to show unique qualities which should be further explored. The three off-seasons each show different levels of use as well as different rates of growth. In particular, the winter season seems to exhibit unique characteristics. 64 The new popularity of outdoor sports in this decade is surely an influ- ential factor, but there are others to be explored. The advertisement of winter activities at state parks, for example, may be increasing the winter use. The Division does not publish brochures specifically deal- ing with spring and fall. The Division's concentration of promotional effort on winter is reflected in the rate of increase in winter day use. Promotion and advertisement of the various seasons could prove to be an interesting topic of study. Exploring reasons for a decline in winter camping might also be addressed. The analysis of site characteristics also raised possibilities for further study. Tt_would be informative towknow exactlthhatupa 5 offer- ings each_park‘hasu(i,e,,wgampigg, hiking, skiing, fishing, etc.) during a...» “‘3‘???“ v ‘ ., . . - mmmp-mmm wan—h’A-iofi :‘ufik -"" ‘ easbseespnpnd A.spmpare-.apd_...spp.tre§£.,2255?...1533933353.23.1233- The inventory could include outside influences on the park which directly affect attendance levels. This would compliment the work already com- pleted. Included in the inventory should be an indication of when the offering was instituted. If the addition of a hiking trail occurred in 1975 and attendance during off-season months increased sharply that year, then perhaps the existence of a hiking trail has important impli- cations for off-season use levels. This method of establishing impact on parks by specific features could prove useful to the Division in its planning efforts. An area which this study did not explore but is important to learn more about, is the economic impagtwgfwgggtgwpgrkgaggmlggalmggmmggigles. How much_ggggfltggnlflgggasgwiniyear-round use create a similar increase WM “mg.- M «m.» 0.5-? ‘- Ibuab, “(fin-a Mmflnt‘tx‘ 3'1 A's-e N am 3'; ".335. ;w “(‘1‘ in“ L93 1" retail §ele§.exmthemlppplsmettetg Does the presence of more people 65 1'" the ere? 6“ yeer£°9n€1th1Renee.the..§9wn...i.n..0931".ways? The ques- tions to be answered go on. In any area of research there are usually economic implications. This is especially true in recreation. People want to know how to get the most return on their dollar. In an era of spiraling inflation and benefit cost analysis these kinds of studies are of particular interest. Personal interest in the way in which government spends the tax dollar is becoming increasingly common. Because the government controls, to a large extent, the direction of the economy most people are more inter- ested than ever to learn more about what government plans to do. Whether or not the Division of Parks will be influenced in their decision-making regarding seasonal use of parks is not of paramount importance to this study. The Michigan State Park system was used as an example to show that seasonal use of parks is changing. The goal was to increase general awareness and knowledge of the changes occurring in use patterns of natural areas. The information presented supplements and corroborates some of the information in other park use studies. Hopefully, others will follow to make use of and add to this information. REFERENCES REFERENCES Beaman, J. and S. Smith. 1976. "A Scheme for Decomposing Park Attend- ance Loading Curves and Related Analysis Methodologies". Ontario Research Council on Leisure; CORD Study Technical Note 8. Bilodeau, Matthew. 1978. "Application of Peak Use Measurements to Michigan State Park Camping in 1976". Unpublished Non-thesis (Plan B) Research Project. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Clawson, Marion and Jack Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recrea- tion. Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore. Conner, Karen and Gordon L. Bultena. 1979. "The Four Day Workweek: An Assessment of Its Effects on Leisure Participation". Leisure Sciences: 2(1). Department of Natural Resources, Parks Division. 1978. Field Manual for Michigan State Parks. Lansing, Michigan. Dice, Eugene, Daniel Stynes and David Lotz. 1976. “Preliminary Investigations in Commercial Campground Use Peaking". Recreation and Tourism Research Report 315. Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station: East Lansing, Michigan. Freund, John E. 1979. Modern Elementary Statistics. Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Hane, James. 1979. Master Planner for Division of Parks, Michigan Department of Natural Resources: personal communication. Huntington, Ellsworth. 1945. Mainsprings of Civilization. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York. Kraus, Richard. 1971. Recreation and Leisure in Modern Society. Appleton-Century-Crofts: Educational Division, Meredith Corpora- tion: New York. McEvoy, James. 1974. "Hours of Work and the Demand for Outdoor Recrea- tion". Journal of Leisure Research: 6(2). Michigan 1976 Recreation Survey. 1977. Michigan Department of Natural Resources: Lansing, Michigan. 66 67 Nolan, Harold J. Jr. 1978. "Tourist Attractions and Recreation Resources: Providing for Natural and Human Resources". Proceedings International Symposium: Tourism and the Next Decade. George Washington University: Washington, D.C. Rose, Robert Arno. 1977. "Michigan State Parks: An Analysis Support- ing the Extension of Park Usage". Unpublished Non-thesis (Plan B) Research Project. Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan. Strahler, Arthur N. 1965. Introduction to Physical Geography. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.: New York. Stynes, Daniel. 1978. "The Peaking Problem in Outdoor Recreation: Measurement and Analysis". Paper presented at National Recreation and Parks Association Congress. October 1978: Miami, Florida. Whybrow, Peter C. 1979. "Where There is Mud, There's Momentum", Yankee Magazine, April 1979. APPENDICES 68 APPENDIX A MICHIGAN STATE PARK SYSTEM: PARK NAMES AND REGIONS Region I Baraga State Park Brimley State Park Fayette State Park Fort Wilkens State Park Lake Gogebic State Park Indian Lake State Park F. J. McLain State Park Muskallonge Lake State Park Porcupine Mountains Wilderness State Park Straits State Park Tahquamenon Falls State Park Van Riper State Park J. W. Wells State Park Palms Book State Park Twin Lakes State Park Bewabic State Park Region II Aloha State Park Bay City State Park Burt Lake State Park Harrisville State Park Hartwick Pines State Park Higgins Lake State Park-South P. H. Hoeft State Park Interlochen State Park Ludington State Park Charles Mears State Park William Mitchell State Park Onaway State Park Orchard Beach State Park Otsego Lake State Park Silver Lake State Park Traverse City State Park Wilderness State Park Wilson State Park Young State Park Cheboygan State Park Gladwin State Park White Cloud State Park Rifle River Recreation Area Tawas Point State Park Clear Lake State Park Newaygo State Park Higgins Lake State Park-North Region II Muskegon State Park Algonac State Park Bald Mountain Recreation Area Brighton Recreation Area Dodge Brothers State Park No. 4 Grand Haven State Park W. J. Hayes State Park Highland State Park Holland State Park Hol1y Recreation Area Island Lake Recreation Area Lakeport State Park Metamora Hadley Recreation Area Ortonvi11e Recreation Area Pinckney Recreation Area Pontiac Lake Recreation Area Proud Lake Recreation Area Rochester-Utica Recreation Area Albert E. Sleeper State Park Sterling State Park Warren Dunes State Park Waterloo Recreation Area Yankee Springs Recreation Area P. J. Hoffmaster State Park Ionia Recreation Area Sanilac State Park Sleepy Hollow State Park Van Buren State Park Cambridge State Historic Park Duck Lake State Park Maybury State Park Seven Lakes State Park 69 APPENDIX B PARK WEEKLY REPORT FORM W of Manual Imus mos-um PARK WEEKLY REPORT RESER- no. or VEHICLES CAMP VATIONS amps “Tammi TURNED AWAY WPSITE RESERVATION PERMITS cow mucnuou ommaunon “WED cmpens oav use TOTAL cmpsn v use THIS WEEK PREVIOUS TO DATE “070R VEHICLE PERMITS SOLD SENIOR NON N A AILY RESIDENT AN U L D ANNUAL DAILY :32: ’iii m am «mama-mummy") '°" 70 APPENDIX C STATE PARK SYSTEM SEASONAL ATTENDANCE: 1968-1978 (CAMPING) Winter Spring Summer Fall Total 1968 42,761 208,775 4,533,648 341,478 5,126,662 Percent 0.83 4.07 88.43 6.66 100.00 1969 61,069 252,828 4,754,766 395,889 5,464,552 Percent 1.11 4.62 87.01 7.24 100.00 1970 79,872 285,583 5,352,824 389,735 6,108,014 Percent 1.30 4.67 87.63 6.38 100.00 1971 82,032 331,729 5,459,257 623,420 6,496,438 Percent 1.26 5.10 84.03 9.59 100.00 1972 72,731 489,722 5,087,411 600,929 6,250,793 Percent 1.16 7.83 82.98 9.61 100.00 1973 69,479 481,696 5,168,555 528,309 6,248,039 Percent 1.11 7.70 82.72 8.45 100.00 1974 65,528 424,306 5,090,690 547,460 6,127,984 Percent 1.06 6.92 83.07 8.93 100.00 1975 71,877 416,781 4,651,638 457,584 5,597,880 Percent 1.28 7.44 83.09 8.17 100.00 1976 55.135 265,885 5,107,532 454,543 5,883,095 Percent 0.93 4.51 86.81 7.72 100.00 1977 52,513 321,446 5,089,155 428,146 5,900,260 Percent 0.89 5.44 86.40 7.25 100.00 1978 49,654 411,680 4,921,585 510,923 5,893,842 Percent 0.84 6.98 83.50 8.66 100.00 11 year 63,877 353,676 5,020,551 479,856 5,917,960 average 1.07 5.93 85.06 8.06 100.00 71 APPENDIX 0 STATE PARK SYSTEM SEASONAL ATTENDANCE: 1968-1978 (DAY USE) Winter Spring Summer Fall Total 1968 729,631 1,173,093 9,652,826 1,020,981 12,576,531 Percent 5.80 9.32 76.75 8.11 100.00 1969 921,637 1,317,683 10,136,949 1,086,070 13,462,339 Percent 6.84 9.78 75.29 8.06 100.00 1970 1,114,970 1,387,699 10,700,636 1,180,850 14,384,155 Percent 7.75 9.64 74.39 8.20 100.00 1971 1,072,276 1,633,482 11,154,875 1,554,772 15,415,405 Percent 6.95 10.59 72.36 10.08 100.00 1972 1,053,822 2,137,019 8,385,660 1,363,253 12,939,753 Percent 8.14 16.51 64.80 10.53 100.00 1973 1,049,462 1,354,881 9,926,482 1,275,227 l3.606,052 Percent 7.71 9.95 72.95 9.37 ' 100.00 1974 1,112,917 1,586,827 9,373,145 1,285,051 13,357,940 Percent 8.33 11.87 70.16 9.62 100.00 1975 1,319,589 1,997,631 9,974,673 1,476,135 14,768,028 Percent 8.93 13.53 67.54 9.99 100.00 1976 1,309,734 1,533,034 11,928,517 1,360,349 16,131,634 Percent 8.11 9.50 73.94 8.43 100.00 1977 1,293,153 2,373,017 11,382,953 1,394,424 16,443,547 Percent 7.86 14.43 69.22 8.48 100.00 1978 1,501,468 2,405,001 12,248,689 1,607,190 17,762,348 Percent 8.45 13.53 68.95 9.04 100.00 11 year 1,134,424 1,718,124 10,351,376 1,327,664 14,440,703 average 7.71 11.69 71.48 9.08 100.00 72 APPENDIX E END POINTS OF REGRESSION LINES Attendance in 1000's Percent of Total Attendance Camping Winter 69. to 59. 1.16 to .97 Spring 293. to 414. 4.97 to 6.89 Summer 4,977. to 5,064. 86.48 to 83.63 Fall 444. to 516. 7.58 to 8.53 Total 5,782. to 6,054. Day Use Winter 840. to 1,429. 6.56 to 8.95 Spring 1,218. to 2,218. 9.66 to 14.04 Summer 9,512. to 11,364. 73.68 to 70.79 Fa11 1,125. to 1,531. 8.69 to 9.64 Total 12,885. to 15,996. ‘4 "44444447444444“