W W y$ Mp"!

 

ABSTRACT

A SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPATIAL DEMAND
APPROACH TO STATEWIDE RECREATION PLANNING:
A CASE STUDY OF BOATING IN MICHIGAN

by Michael Chubb

Since World War II, socio-economic changes in North
America such as pOpulation growth, higher diSposable in-
comes, more leisure time, and increased personal mobility,
have resulted in a great surge of participation in various
recreation activities. As a result, federal, state, and
local recreation agencies have begun extensive expansion
of their programs involving large areas of land and con-
siderable financial expenditure. In order to ensure that
such assets are allocated in a manner that will produce the
maximum desirable benefits now and in the future, many or-
ganizations have developed intensive recreational planning
programs. Such planning procedures should be based pri- .
marily on consideration of the characteristics and spatial
distribution of the user populations, recreation destina-
tions and transportation linkages concerned. The meth-
odological approach of geography, therefore, provides a
desirable conceptual framework for the research involved

in these planning processes.

The SySt
based 61.991135”h
sertation and
aiexcellent n:
tribution of s
tively. It is
to most recrea
tions that are
specific use 5
engins simult
same units; is
duces the effc
graphic repres
Phfi; and, on<
ydChigan recre
reation desti:
tit‘dde of reC
and 0Ut‘0f-st

evaluatec‘l. an

In orde

3h
‘H
§

“PIOaCh to I
Mic: ' .
'llgan 1n 1

Computer pri
IT

in
g SUPPlY. d

Michael Chubb

The systems analysis - spatial demand computer
based approach to recreation planning developed in this dis-
sertation and known as "RECSYS-SYMAP" is considered to be
an excellent method since it does represent the spatial dis-
tribution of supply and demand and relate them quantita-
tively. It is also reasonably realistic; can be applied
to most recreation activities; uses origins and destina-
tions that are comparatively small in area; is based on
specific use statistics; considers user pressures from all
origins simultaneously; expresses demand and supply in the
same units; is relatively fast and easily repeatable; re-
duces the effect of personal judgment; produces realistic
graphic representations of supply, demand, needs, and sur-
plus; and, once set up, is easy to Operate. The complex
Michigan recreation system with its many widespread rec-
reation destinations, intricate highway network, and mul-
titude of recreation users from a great variety of in-state
and out-of-state origins; can only be adequately represented,
evaluated, analysed and planned by a computer based method.

In order to make a practical test of the RECSYS-SYMAP
approach to recreation planning, recreational boating in
Michigan in 1965 and 1980 was analysed as a case study.
Computer printed maps of the spatial distribution of boat-

ing supply, demand, needs, and surplus were produced for

both simulatio-
zation of thee
by 1980 the re
trated around

1965 will have
constituting t

of very high (1
Che'ooygan, 103
an unt and dis
tunities is u:
a considerable
occur throughc
struction of a
the need for a
5W1 as revolt

P

we SUpply of

Michael Chubb

both simulations. From these, maps showing the regionali-
zation of these phenomena were developed. They showed that
by 1980 the region of high boating demand that was concen-
trated around the four county Detroit metropolitan area in
1965 will have spread to cover some twenty-eight counties
constituting the southern quarter of the State. Regions

of very high demand will also appear in Grand Traverse,
Cheboygan, Iosco, Roscommon, and Huron counties. The
amount and distribution of the supply of boating Oppor-
tunities is unlikely to change substantially by 1980 and

a considerable imbalance between supply and demand will
occur throughout the southern half of Michigan. The con-
struction of artificial impoundments is unlikely to satisfy
the need for additional opportunities. Other solutions
such as revolutionary changes in transportation or large
Great Lakes enclosures appear to be the only ways in which
the supply of boating Opportunities for residents of ur—
banized southern Michigan can be increased sufficiently to
meet the projected demand.

The case study of recreational boating in Michigan
showed that the RECSYS-SYMAP technique can be used to in-
<iicate a probable future spatial distribution of recrea-
tion supply, demand, needs, and surplus and that its pre-

dictions are likely to be reasonably reliable if the

gatterns of r6
such the sale
of change in 3
It also demon:
clanning the a
door recreatil

This te
that merits f
liability and
In particular
‘ialyses of t
namElY: Orlgl

aP'Proach Will

Michael Chubb

patterns of recreation preferences and behavior remain
much the same in the future and the estimates of the rate
of change in participation used are approximately correct.
It also demonstrated the potential of the technique for
planning the allocation of resources for all types of out-
door recreation activities and facilities.

This technique is clearly a valuable geographic tool
that merits further develOpment to obtain even greater re-
liability and at the same time simplify its application.
In particular, it is a method of making more precise areal
analyses of the major components of recreation systems,
namely, origins, destinations, and linkages. Use of this
approach will contribute much to comprehension of the
mechanics of the recreational uses of resources and add
greatly to our knowledge of recreational geography of

specific areas.

:19"
Approved \TZL‘ as? “cw Ci 1"?“ ¥7% 1:, \C x

Date 91 24:1? 3L€;—i /2
{I (3

\J

A SYSTEMS ANALYSIS AND SPATIAL DEMAND
APPROACH TO STATEWIDE RECREATION PLANNING:

A CASE STUDY OF BOATING IN MICHIGAN

By

Michael Chubb

A THESIS

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

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of GeOgraphy

1967

:ion from 4
author has
and person:
be the rule
CO-Operatic
impossible
Ration arm
been Cited

I an
the Hichiga
Somers, C2".
of CEOgraph

the Departm

their assiS
research fe
ject was ca
Department
Dire tor of
University,

// l/7/77
L)" «
.rJLO

o‘-
I *"

o”

.—-(/7

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A thesis of this type which brings together informa-
tion from a wide range of sources can only succeed if the
author has the unselfish co-operation of the many agencies
and personnel involved. In Michigan such co-Operation must
be the rule rather than the exception; indeed, unstinting
co-Operation has been forthcoming from so many sources it is
impossible to acknowledge all those who have provided infor-
mation and assistance. However, all major data sources have
been cited in the footnotes.

I am particularly indebted to Mr. Norman F. Smith of
the Michigan Department of Conservation, Dr. Lawrence M.
Sommers, Chairman of the Michigan State University Department
of Geography, and Dr. Leslie M. Reid who was formerly with
the Department of Resource Development at the University, for
their assistance in arranging the Department of Conservation
research fellowship under which the first half of this pro-
ject was carried out. Dr. Raleigh Barlowe, Chairman of the
Department of Resource DevelOpment, and Dr. Howard A. Tanner,
Director of the Division of Natural Resources, Michigan State
University, also contributed substantially by facilitating its
completion.

I am greatly indebted to Dr. Lawrence M. Sommers, my
advisor and thesis director, for his continuous encouragement

and assistance both during the preparation of this thesis and

ii

throughout my graduate program. Dr. Milton H. Steinmueller
of the Department of Resource DeveIOpment, a member of my
doctoral committee, also sustained and encouraged me with
his suggestions and philosophy. I am also grateful to Dr.
Ian M. Matley and Dr. Harm J. deBlij for participating in
the doctoral committee and contributing to the success of
my program in many other ways.

Many state agencies assisted by providing information
'or services. Special mention must be made of the contribu-
tions of Mr. Norman F. Smith and his staff in the Recreation
Resource Planning Division and of Mr. Keith E. Wilson and
the staff of the waterways Division, Michigan Department of
Conservation. Data was also supplied by the Boat and Water
Safety Section of the Law Enforcement Division, the Fish
Division, and the Parks Division. I am especially grateful
to Dr. J.B. Ellis of the Department of Electrical Engineering
at the University of Waterloo and Mr. Allan H. Schmidt, for-
merly of the School of Urban Planning and Landscape Archi-
tecture, Michigan State University for their assistance with
the technical details involved in the systems model and com-
puter mapping techniques.

Finally, I am most indebted to my wife, Holly, for
assisting with so many aspects of this study including the
typing of draft c0pies, checking calculations and proof-

reading.

iii

From the foregoing, it is readily apparent that the
production of this thesis has depended on the co-operation of
many wonderful peOple. However, it must be strongly empha-
sized that the opinions and recommendations contained in it
are the responsibility of the author alone and are not nec-
essarily in agreement with the views held by the staff of
the Recreation Resource Planning Division of the Michigan

Department of Conservation.

M.C. June, 1967

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS O O C O O O O O O O . O O C O O O 0 ii

LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O Vii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 ix

LIST OF APPENDICES . O C O O O O . O O O O O O C . Xi

Chapter

I.

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION 0 O O O I O O O O O O O O O O 1

The Problem

The Need for a New Approach

Review of Recreation Planning Techniques
The Ideal Method

The Michigan Recreation System
Component Modelling

The Grouping of Activities

The DevelOpment of Capacity Standards
The Case Study

DATA COLLECTION AND PREPARATION . . . . . . 33

Review of Available Boating Demand Data

Expansion of In-State Use Data

The Problem of the Out-of-State User

Boating Supply Data

Measurement of Great Lakes Boating Water
Areas

Development of Attraction and Capacity
Indices

THE 19 65 SIMULATION O C O O O O O O O O O O 53

Initial Calibration Runs of the Systems Model

Fine Calibration of the Systems Model

Simulation and Mapping of 1965 Supply, Demand

and Surplus

Regionalization of Supply, Demand, and
Surplus

Chapter

In m N»; ’r;

D-vd Dr.

U
’0

Y“
P

~RDIC12

I .
I“

I

Chapter Page
IV. THE 1980 SIMULATION . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Assumed Changes in Highway Linkages

Assumed Changes in Supply Factors

Assumed Changes in Demand Factors

Simulation and Mapping of 1980 Supply,
Demand, Needs, and Surplus

Regionalization of Supply, Demand, Needs,
and Surplus

Differences and Similarities, 1965-1980

V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . 136

Performance of the Systems Model Technique

Reliability of Demand Distribution Pro-
jections

Validity of the Case Study

Spatial Distribution of Boating Parameters
in 1965

Spatial Distribution of Boating Parameters
in 1980

Measures Necessary to Improve the Spatial
Imbalance Between Boating Supply and De-
mand

In Conclusion

APPENDICIES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I 147

BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 188

vi

10

ll

Recr
Stan

du
Resu

mo

Resu
su

List

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Recreation activity groupings . . . . . . . . 30

2. Standard deviations of prediction obtained
during coarse and fine calibration of the
systems model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

3. Results of the final run (No. 18) in the
model calibration and tuning procedure . . 67

4. Results of 1965 simulation in terms of demand
supply, and surplus . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

5. List of boating destination demand regions
for 1965 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 80

6. List of boating supply regions in 1965 . . . 84

7. List of boating supply surplus regions in
1965 O O O O O O O O O I O O I O I O O O O 88

8. Assumed distribution of additional water
acreage produced by Department of Conserva-
tion artificial lakes program by 1980 . . . 97

9. Results of 1980 simulation using population
increase and changes in highway links only,
showing the resultant demand . . . . . . . 114

10. Results of 1980 simulation using changes in
population, participation, highway links,
and attraction, showing the resultant de-
mand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

11. List of boating destination demand regions for 1,
1980 O O O O O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O 128 /

vii

Table Page

12. List of boating supply need regions for
1980 O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O 130

13. List of boating supply surplus regions for
1980 O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 134

viii

Figure

l.

10.

11.

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Page

Form used to calculate the initial crude
boating attraction indices for each des-
tination O O O O O O O I O O O O O I O O O 5]-

Isopleth map of 1965 boating demand at Michi-
gan destination counties . . . . . . . . . 77

Choropleth map of 1965 boating demand at
Michigan destination counties . . . . . . 79

ISOpleth map of 1965 boating supply by
Michigan destination counties . . . . . . 81

ChorOpleth map of 1965 boating supply by
Michigan destination counties . . . . . . 82

Isopleth map of 1965 boating supply surplus
by Michigan destination counties . . . . . 86

Chor0pleth map of 1965 boating supply surplus
by Michigan destination counties . . . . . 87

Generalized maps of boating, demand, supply,
and surplus regions in 1965 . . . . . . . 89

ChorOpleth map of 1980 boating demand at
Michigan destination counties based on
population growth and highway changes
only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Choropleth map of 1980 boating demand at
Michigan destination counties based on in-
creased population, participation growth,
and other multipliers . . . . . . . . . . 126

ChorOpleth map of 1980 boating supply by
Michigan destination counties . . . . . . 129

ix

Figure Page

12. ChorOpleth map of 1980 boating supply sur-
plus by Michigan destination counties . . . 132

13. Generalized maps of boating demand, supply,
needs, and surplus regions in 1980 . . . . 133

Appendix
I .

II.

VI

VII

VIII,

IX.

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page
I. A glossary of terms . . . . . . . . . . . . 147

II. Comparison of 1964 and 1965 total estimated
boat use-periods at all Michigan destina-
tion counties by Michigan county of ori-
gin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

III. Comparison of 1964 and 1965 total estimated
boat use-periods from all Michigan coun-
ties of origin at all Michigan destina-
tion counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

IV. List of RECSYS origin loading deck data for
1965 boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157

V. List of RECSYS base utilization deck data for
1965 boating O O O O O O O O O C I I O O 160

VI. List of values added to origin loading deck
to simulate 1965 non-resident boating in
MiChigan O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 162

VII. Calculation of destination capacity in boat
use-periOdS per year 0 o o o o o o o o o 163

VIII. Destination attraction deck data for boating
1965 and 1980 O O O O O O O O O O C O O O 166

IX. List of RECSYS highway link data assigned for
1965 and 1980 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 170

X. Percentage error of prediction for sample runs
during calibration of the RECSYS model. . 172

XI. Calculation of assumed 1980 boating participa-
tion rates and loading values for each ori-
gin O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O I O O O 176

XII. Some comments on the performance of SYMAP and

on the future development and application of
RECSYS O O I O O O O O O I O O O O I O I 180

xi

Background In

In the 1
door recreati<
tal requiremej
Planning tech:

recreation err

pie

that a ce1

532d pom; ‘

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Problem

 

Background Information

In the past, the relatively low level of demand for out-
door recreation and its comparatively small spatial and capi-
tal requirements have made sophisticated statewide recreation
planning techniques unnecessary. State, county, and local
recreation entities have often been developed on a haphazard
basis. Frequently state and county facilities have been lo-
cated where a legislator or administrator has found a suitable
site that could be purchased at a reasonable price. Local
parks have been develOped on the same basis or on the princi-
ple that a certain number of park acres is required per thou-
sand pOpulation.

With the present great expansion in outdoor recreation
due to the multiplier effects of increased population, more
leisure time, higher incomes, more mobility, urbanization,
and greater social acceptance of outdoor activities, many
state governments face a serious and complex planning problem.
Tflkey must be able to allocate considerable public funds and
extensive natural resources to various types of recreational
developments so that the maximum benefits are obtained now
andin the future. To do this, the entire recreation system

1

of the State
and future It
ments and pri
recreation fa
Outdoor Recre
production of
this type is
reation devel
servation Fun

The dev
Spatial distr
take Place (t
various pote:
Caticm Of t‘f‘e
origins to t".
cal factors i
tion Of futur

trese Compone

 

of the state must be examined as a whole so that the present
and future roles of federal, state, county, and local govern-
ments and private enterprise may be assessed and plans for
recreation facilities co-ordinated. The federal Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation has stipulated that progress towards the
production of a statewide comprehensive recreation plan of
this type is required before grants for state and local rec-
reation developments can be made from the Land and Water Con-
servation Fund.

The development of such a plan should be based on the
spatial distribution of the locations where recreation1 can
take place (the destinations), the areal distribution of the
various potential population sources (origins), and the lo-
cation of the highways (transportation links) connecting the
origins to the destinations. These are all extremely criti-
cal factors in determining the probable extent and distribu-
tion of future recreation demand. The spatial arrangement of

these components in a recreation system has an overriding in-

 

1The term "recreation" will be used from here on rather
than "outdoor recreation." (This has been done partly to re-
duce the repetitious use of the two words and also because
‘the phrase "outdoor recreation" is not being used as fre-
<¥uently now in connection with recreation planning and admin-
istration. No doubt this is due to "outdoor recreation" hav-
ing gained a connotation that it means recreation in natural
areas only.) In this thesis, "recreation" is employed to mean
Specifically all leisure activities that are likely to be con-
shdered in a statewide recreation plan and particularly those
aCtlivities covered by the twelve groupings listed in Table l.

fluence that usually transcends the effects of socio-economic
factors in the case of most recreation activities. Thus Spa-
tial distribution is of the essence in statewide recreation
planning and the methodological approach of geography provides
a desirable conceptual framework for the basic research nec-
essary.

Since 1960, a number of states have produced statewide
recreation plans. A great variety of techniques have been
used in these but no really satisfactory method of numeri—
cally relating supply to demand in a spatially significant
manner has been devised.

In Michigan the Recreation Resource Planning Division
of the Michigan Department of Conservation is charged with
statewide comprehensive recreation planning. Early in 1965,
the Division awarded the author a fellowship to carry out re—
search aimed at developing a suitable planning process for
this task since techniques tested had proved to be inadequate.
After a thorough investigation of recreation planning meth-
odology it was decided to use a computer systems modelling
program to predict the distribution of demand, a spatial de-
mand approach to relate demand to supply, and a computer map-
ping technique to eXpress the distribution of supply, demand,
and needs in a graphic form.

In order to make it possible to use these techniques

lhl at least a general manner for all recreation activities,

the recreatior.
groupings, net"
swim-"ring, Sign
ing, boating,

outdoor events
as "sustained

or. the nurse:

and or water

standards ”any.
This value is
it is estimate
averase patteJ
mural Carl‘yin
use‘Periods pg

It was c

 

for each of th
decided to tes
boating was Se
Pint, bOatin:
have a particl-
COnn

\-

ePtS of di

the recreation spectrum was divided into twelve activity
groupings, namely: driving for pleasure, playing sports,
swimming, sightseeing, picnicking, walking and riding, fish-
ing, boating, hunting, camping, winter sports, and attending
outdoor events. Tentative spatial standards for each known
as "sustained yield capacity standards" were developed based
on the number of recreation Opportunities a given area of
land or water is estimated to offer at one time. From these
standards "annual carrying capacity" values were calculated.
This value is the number of user-unit recreation use-periods
it is estimated a spatial unit can carry in one year assuming
average patterns of use. For example, the tentatively adopted
annual carrying capacity for picnicking is 1,800 picnic site
use-periods per acre per year.1
It was clearly impossible to carry out the technique
for each of the twelve activity groupings. Instead, it was
decided to test the process for one activity. Recreational
boating was selected for this case-study for three reasons.
First, boating appears to be an activity that is likely to
have a participation pattern which conforms to the "normal"
concepts of distance decay and destination attraction effects
and.is little affected by social factors and other variables
Inuique to specific origins. Second, boating is extremely

important to Michigan at the present time in View of the

 

 

lFor definitions of terms used see pp. 147—148.

high level 0:
for facilit'b
economic imp.

probably re

LG

successful c;
Third: boati
reasonably C.

tion. Such

+“m ‘
“Lbs {1:100 e l f

2
rEc» Trieq
H “*Ea iO \
435911; T1

high level of participation, the considerable outlay needed
for facilities, the frequency of water use conflicts, the
economic impact of boat manufacture and tourism, and the
probably great increase in boating that will result from the
successful development of a Great Lakes salmon fishery.
Third, boating happened to be the one activity for which
reasonably good use data was available by origin and destina-
tion. Such data is necessary in order to calibrate the sys-
tems model for the base year.

The Problem

 

The problem therefore was to test the systems analy-
sis--spatial demand--computer mapping approach to see if it
appeared to adequately predict the distribution cf demand,
relate demand to supply in a numerical manner in order to
indicate needs, and show the spatial distribution of these
parameters in a significant manner.

The Hypothesis

 

It was hypothesized that the prOposed analysis of the

spatial aspects of Michigan boating in 1965 and 19801 would

2

test the RECSYS-SYMAP technique that had been developed, and

 

11965 was chosen as the base year because of the avail-
ability of reliable use data. 1980 was selected as the date
for which projections would be made because it is the target
date for all current planning being done under the State Re-
source Planning Program.

2These two abbreviations stand for the county to county
recreation systems modelling program (RECSYS) and the computer
mapping program known as synagraphic mapping (SYMAP).

would indicat:
this process
deve‘mpn nt c
It was i
SWAP techniq
probable Spat

and supply su.‘

In 1965
door Recreati.
adequate stat.
videSpread re_'

A COHCE;

govermfl

Sities J

for CED

 

lo I §
outdo in“
e
lettn {: Cre‘
the '5‘ L tra‘
“~ U and"
tunnel

would indicate the probable reliability and potential of
this process in planning the allocation of resources for the
development of all types of outdoor recreation facilities.

It was further hypothesized that the use of the RECSYS-
SYMAP technique in this manner would show quantitatively the
probable spatial distribution of boating demand, supply, needs,

and supply surplus for these two years.

The Need for a New Approach

In 1965, the Assistant Director of the Bureau of Out-
door Recreation emphasized that the problem of developing an
adequate statewide recreation planning process was worthy of
widespread research and stated:

A concerted effort is necessary at all levels of

government and by private agencies and univer-

sities to improve and refine data and methodolOgy

for determining demand and needs. Creative imagi-

nation must be brought to bear on therproblem.l

The lack of adequate methods of determining demand and
relating it to supply in order to predict needs has meant
that most agencies are still using attendance curve projec-

tions or gross participation rates coupled with socio-eco-

nomic multipliers in order to obtain estimates of future rec-

 

1Daniel M. Ogden, Jr., Assistant Director, Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior, in a ‘
letter of transmittal dated March 5, 1965 which accompanied
the "Demand" and "Needs" chapters of the Nationwide Plan
Manual.

 

reation demand. In many cases, the participation rates that
are used are those contained in the 1962 National Recreation
Survey1 of the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
which is based on data for the period between September 1960
and June 1961. Although these rates have been of consider-
able value at a national level, their application in estimat-
ing demand in individual states is not satisfactory. For
example, in Michigan the total sample consisted of only about
120 individuals and thus is statistically inadequate to pro-
duce reliable data for the State due to the large number of
variables that have to be analysed.

The need therefore is for a new technique that will ful-
fill the following broad requirements. First, it must be so
designed that it will give relatively accurate predictions of
future demand in a spatial context. Second, it must quantify
the supply of recreation Opportunities in the same units as
those by which the demand is measured so that the two may be
compared and the resultant needs or surplus determined.

In Michigan there is an obvious need for a method that
fulfills these two requirements and yet is relatively quick

and easy to Operate. The Michigan recreation system is com-

 

 

1 . . . .

U.S., Outdoor Recreation Resources Rev1ew C0mmlSSlon,
Study Report 19, National Recreation Survey(Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962).

plex and the staff of the Recreation Resource Planning Divi-
sion in the Department of Conservation is small. Rapidly
changing conditions and the constant prOposal of various new
recreation developments make intuitive recreation planning
methods inadequate. The Division needs an improved planning
process that can be readily repeated in order to gauge the

effect of proposed new prOgrams and facilities.

Review of Recreation Planning Techniques

Statewide comprehensive outdoor recreation planning
really began with the California Public Outdoor Recreation
Plan in 1960. Much recreation planning had been carried out
previously but generally only one agency or one type of rec-
reation entity had been involved in such plans. There were
no attempts to consider all aspects of recreation over large
areas.

The California plan was preceded by and partly based on
a study directed by a nationally representative committee of

recreation specialists which developed A User—Resource Recrea-

 

tion Planning Method.1 In order to establish "detailed rela-

 

tionships" between user groups and recreation lands, this ap-

 

1National Advisory Council on Regional Recreation Plan-
ning, A User-Resource Recreation Planning Method (Hidden
Valley, Loomis, California: National Advisory Council on
Regional Recreation Planning, 1959).

 

proach develOpes planning guides that are intended for use

in the analysis of both demand and supply. These guides are
based on the Spatial needs of four broad user groupings
(sportsmen, family campers, resort users and sightseers) in
five broad land classes (natural reservations, natural devel-
oped areas, man developed areas, urban land and Open space).1
The recommended procedure involves the application of partici-
pation rates for each user grouping by five age and socio-
economic classes to the total population of the area serviced.
The resultant user—day totals for each user grouping are then
converted into a required number of acres by using converting
factors. The spatial demand for each land class is compared
with the actual acreages inventoried in order to determine

the adequacy or inadequacy of the supply.

This planning method is unique in that it does attempt
to mathematically relate supply to demand. It has one major
shortcoming in that the four user groupings combine too many
varied activities and thus can involve many possible combi-
nations Of demands on the natural resources of an area. Ap-
parently it has not been tested in a practical application

using actual numbers.

 

lij-d. ' p. 74.

10

The California plan still stands out as an exceptional
planning effort although it was the first plan that attempted
to consider statewide recreation in such a comprehensive man-
ner. It relates supply to demand for both a base year, 1958,
and also for a planning target year, 1980. The plan does not
'give exact details of how demand was assessed for 1958. It
appears that actual visitor counts were combined with agency
estimates of attendance and then modified in order to allow
for unsatisfied demand which existed at that time "in the
judgment of the investigator."1 In projecting demand to 1980,
population increase, leisure time, income, and mobility were
considered and values Obtained for estimated "day-use" and
"overnight and vacation trips" by concentric zones around each
county's main center of population. These values were then
converted to use estimates for specific activities and changed
into estimates of required facilities by using a set of "fa-
cility standards" based on each activity's spatial needs.

The California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan is un-
dOubtedly a major milestone in statewide recreation planning.
It is particularly noteworthy because of its methods of pro-

jecting demand, its comprehensive qualitative approach, its

 

1California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan Committee,
California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan (Sacramento, Cali-
fornia: California State Printing Office, 1960), Pt. II,
p. 191.

 

11

use of detailed information to support broad generalizations,
its partially successful attempt to mathematically relate
supply to demand, and its analyses on a county and regional
basis.

It has some shortcomings especially when the method-
ology is considered as a possible approach to continuous
statewide comprehensive recreation planning. First, some
states would have great difficulty in Obtaining the detailed
base year data required. Second, there appears to have been
a considerable amount of "judgment" used both in developing
the basic data and in making projections. The methodology
makes it impossible to isolate these judgment variables,
evaluate their numerical effect, and check these values
against new data. Replication of the original process is,
therefore, virtually impossible and attempting to repeat it
with more recent values would not necessarily give compatible
results. .Finally, the fact that the techniques used do not
identify the recreation destinations of users from a given
origin is a serious drawback in using the data to solve spe-
cific planning problems.

Perhaps the other most significant plan is the one pub-
lished in 1966 by the Wisconsin Department of Resource DevelOp—

ment.1 It analyses the demand for sixteen different outdoor

 

1Wisconsin, Department of Resource DevelOpment, The
Outdoor Recreation Plan (Madison, Wisconsin: Department Of
Resource DevelOpment, July, 1966).

12

recreation activities and uses carrying capacity standards

in order to relate the facilities available in each county

to the facilities which would be required to meet present and
future needs.

The Wisconsin plan has three main deficiencies. First,
the participation rates used are not entirely observed or
recorded participation rates for each specific origin. (The
rates used are the regional values develOped by the Outdoor
Recreation Resources Review Commission but modified on the
basis of Wisconsin data wherever possible). Second, the dis-
tribution to particular destination counties is based on theo-
retical flows rather than actual large scale origin-destination
studies although some data of this type have been used. Third,
it appears that a considerable amount of judgment is involved
in the selection of values to be used in certain parts of the
technique.

From a careful analysis of these and some sixteen other
typical outdoor recreation system planning techniques,1 the
author has arrived at the following general conclusions.

First, it is clear that there has been very little uniformity

of approach. This is due in part to a great variation of

 

l

M. Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by
a Systems Analysis Approach: Part III - The Practical Appli-
cation OfinrOgram RECSY§wiandi“SYMAPW§(Lansing, Michigan:
Department of Commerce, August 1967), Technical Report No. 13,
pp. 22-77.

13

Opinion on the validity of various techniques. Some rely al-
most exclusively on ORRRCl participation rates and other ORRRC
techniques while others reject them as not suitable. Second,
it appears that not all states are convinced that statewide
recreation plans that attempt to quantify and relate supply
and demand are necessary or feasible. Third, only the Cali-
fornia and Wisconsin plans have been able to go through the
entire process Of relating supply to demand in a quantitative
manner and predicting needs for specific spatial sub-units.
Fourth, it appears that some doubtful procedures may be per-
petuated because they are relatively easy to apply and their

use in several earlier plans has given them respectability.

The Ideal Method

 

Specifications

 

From the previously mentioned extensive analysis of
existing recreation plans and experience with statewide rec-
reation planning problems, it is suggested that the ideal

technique should have the following thirteen features. It

 

should:

1. -be simple yet realistic. (It should
resemble reality to the extent that all
the main factors that significantly con-
trol recreation usage are represented
yet it should be as simple as possible

1

ORRRC is the commonly used abbreviation for Outdoor
Recreation Resources Review Commission.

14

so it can be easily used and widely
understood. Its realism should include
representation of the movement of peo-
ple to recreation entities as a major
feature so that demand can be related
to supply spatially).

2. -be applicable to all types of recrea-
tion activities.

3. -have quite small destination zones if
the process is to be realistic and not
result in the masking of any signifi-
cant spatial aspects Of the patterns of
use.

4. -be structured so that it is possible
to identify the origins of users in
terms of relatively small areal units
in order that differences in population
characteristics and participation rates
can be represented with reasonable ac-
curacy.

, 5. -use demand estimation techniques based
on the actual measurement of the amount
of use at each destination area by users
from each origin area. (Where broad
participation rates from other locations
or rates which are based on inadequate
samples are used, the results can be quite
misleading. Ellis has questioned the sta-
tistical reliability of detailed partici-
pation rates given in ORRRC Report 191 and
it has been shown elsewhere that there are
considerable differences in participation
rates even between various counties in
Michigan).2

V'6. -employ methods for projecting demand
that are reasonably reliable. (Forecasts

 

1J.B. Ellis, "The Description and Analysis of Socio-
Economic Systems by Physical Systems Techniques" (unpublished
Ph.D. thesis, Department of Electrical Engineering, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 1965), pp. 7-8.

2Chubb, op.cit., p. 85.

\/ 10.

ll.

15

of future events can at the best be
only intelligent estimates, but there
are steps that can be taken to see
that the maximum of established fact
and the minimum of intuition are used
in making projections).

-consider user pressures from all ori-

‘gins simultaneously rather than deal-

ing with each origin and destination
separately. (Since the human mind
cannot carry out such complicated
simultaneous calculations, computer
techniques are necessary).

-relate demand to supply in a quanti-
tative manner that is of direct value
to the user. (For this to be done,
supply and demand must be expressed in
the same units and this requires that
the carrying capacity of land for vari-
ous activities be known).

-have minimal data requirements. (This
is difficult because a considerable
amount of complex information is required
if the technique is to resemble actual
conditions. In order to attempt to rec-
oncile these opposites, it is necessary
for the ideal process to use data in as
efficient a manner as possible).

-be relatively fast and repeatable. (One
of the major drawbacks with some plan-
ning techniques is that they are so elab-
orate and time consuming that they be-
come a one-time effort to produce THE
Plan rather than a continuous planHng
process from which data are drawn when a
report is needed).

-utilize a minimum of personal judgment
in the process of relating supply to
demand and calculating needs and sur-
pluses. (This ensures that lapses of
time or changes in personnel do not re-
sult in variations in the basic mecha-
nism of the process and make replication

12.

13.

16

difficult or impossible. Unless judg-
ment is virtually eliminated it is not
possible to reliably test a variety of
assumptions or hypotheses).

-produce information that can be readily
put into reports and other documents
such as statewide recreation plans.
(Ideally, it should produce tables of
figures and maps that can go directly
into such plans or that the user can
take with him to staff or legislative
committee meetings in order to sub-
stantiate his recommendations. Again

a standardized computer technique with
an appended mapping program is indicated).

—be structured so that the mechanical
process of relating supply to demand and
calculating needs and surpluses requires
a minimum of attention from highly
trained professional specialists once

it is set up. (Instead, it should be
designed so that a relatively small
number of technicians can assemble data
and make use of it in the process with

a minimum of supervision. Thus the pro-
fessional user is free to concentrate

on improving the process, interpreting
the results, and recommending appro-
priate policies).

RECSYS—SYMAP - The Ideal Method

 

As has been established elsewhere,

1 the RECSYS-SYMAP

planning approach comes closer to fulfilling all the pre-

viously mentioned specifications than any other approach.

The main reasons for this are as follows:

1.

The technique is relatively straightfor—
ward yet it is more realistic than any
other known method. The actual spatial

 

lChubb, Op.cit., pp. 84-103.

17

distribution of the individual rec-
reation destinations and origin areas
is represented by the distances assigned
to the highway links that connect them.
Each origin is treated as a separate
generator of participants and each des-
tination functions as a separate and
unique entity. Each highway linkage is
evaluated individually and assigned
appropriate values for distance and
average speed.

It can be applied to most of the twelve
recreational activity groupings cited
earlier with little or no modification.

The use of individual counties as ori—
gins and destinations has meant that
these are reasonably small spatial
units. This is much better than the
approach where large regions or broad
concentric zones are used as destina-
tions and only major urban centers are
designated as origins.

The estimation of demand is based on the
actual measurement of use at each des-
tination by residents of each origin
area during a given base year. Existing
variations in participation rates are,
therefore, reflected in the base year
simulation and thus affect any projec-
tions that are made making them more
trustworthy. In addition, its realism
and ease Of replication should make it
more reliable than any other known rec-
reation planning technique.

User pressures from all origins are con-
sidered simultaneously with the attrac-
tion and capacity of all the destina-
tions and the characteristics of the
connecting highways. Then the model
predicts the probable flow of users
based on the previous recorded behavior
pattern by which the model has been
calibrated and tuned. Since interaction
between components is one of the inher-
ent features of the RECSYS model it is
particularly suitable for representing
the Spatially complex recreation system
of Michigan.

The
advantage 3.
large Get a

the really

 

18

6. Demand is expressed in the same units
as supply so it is possible to relate
the two in a direct mathematical man-
ner. The demand can be subtracted from
the supply to Obtain a value for the
surplus supply available or needs (de-
ficit) at any of the destinations.

7. Once the model is designed, calibrated
and tested the process is quite fast and
is easily repeatable. This will make
it possible to test a variety of assump-
tions and policies and also bring plans
up-tO-date quickly when new information
becomes available.

8. Since the basic processes involved in
the RECSYS analysis are fixed by the
mathematical design of the model, the
user is not faced with the problem of
making continual personal judgments on
where recreation participants are likely
to go and the resultant relationship
between supply and demand.

9. The output from the technique in the
form of computer tabulations and SYMAP
graphic representations of the areal
distribution of these data are readily
usable in publications and for visual
aids.

10. Due to the fact that the tested RECSYS-
SYMAP process is in the form of a fixed
computer prOgram, most of the compila-
tion of data and the running of the
program can be carried out by techni-
cians thus freeing the user to carry
out the more significant functions men—
tioned earlier.

The RECSYS-SYMAP approach was selected because of these
advantages. The biggest problem appears to be the relatively
large data requirements but this is a problem common to all
the really comprehensive statewide recreation planning pro-

cesses o

One
wide compr
complexity
ity is can

and connec

Alth.
the urban .
State, a 51
Ularly the
Ohio. In]
the total c
Visitors fr
area are he
waters part
Peninsula.
other urban

ti0n entiti.

\~.

ll
41,: .
Velopmeht h.

‘ Chlgan-' :
Merit 0f Cowl

 

19
The Michigan Recreation System

One reason why a fairly sophisticated method of state-
wide comprehensive planning is required in Michigan is the
complexity of the State's recreation system. This complex-
ity is caused by the large number of origins, destinations,

and connecting transportation links involved.

Origins

Although the majority of the recreation users come from
the urban centers scattered through the southern portion of the
State, a surprising number come from adjacent states--partic-
ularly the urban areas in Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, and
Ohio. In 1964, 27.2% of the total camper days and 15.9% of
the total day-use at Michigan State Parks were attributed to
visitors from other states.1 Residents of the Chicago-Gary V:
area are heavy users of Michigan's state parks and fishing
waters particularly along the western shore of the Lower
Peninsula. Visitors from the Cleveland metropolitan area and
other urban centers in Ohio are well represented at recrea-

tion entities in southeastern Michigan and further north.

 

Michigan State University, Department of Resource De-
velopment, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study (Lansing,
Michigan: State Resource Planning Program, Michigan Depart-
ment of Commerce, June, 1966), Vol. II, pp. 7.73 and 8.91.

 

20

The pOpulations of these out-of-state urban origins and
those within Michigan are growing fast. It is anticipated
that Michigan's 1965 population of 8.2 million will have

‘grown to 9.9 million by 1980 and may reach 13 million by the
year 2000.1 Urbanization of the southern four tiers of coun-
ties has already resulted in twelve counties becoming major

Vgenerators of recreation participation and it is anticipated

another seven will enter this category by 1980.

'JLDestinations

 

The recreation destinations are also numerous and widely
dispersed. The State has an extensive irregular shoreline
and 5,500 scattered lakes which provide the resource base for
many activities particularly boating and fishing. Approxi-
mately two-thirds of the total U.S. Great Lakes shoreline and
water area is within Michigan giving the State 3,288 miles of
frontage and 38,575 square miles of water surface area on
these prime recreation attractions.

L Some 2.2% of the land surface of Michigan is occupied

by its 5,500 inland lakes of 10 acres and over in size which

total 802,000 acres.2 These are widely distributed in the

 

1Michigan Department of Conservation, Michigan's Rec-
reation Future (Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Department of
Conservation, September 1966), p. 6.

 

2
‘Ibid., p. 4.

21

State except for the comparatively "lakeless area" southwest
of Saginaw Bay. This large number of well distributed lakes
is related to the State's glacial history. During the final
stages of the Pleistocene Epoch, glaciers extending over the
area presently occupied by the Great Lakes thrusting lobes
over areas that are now dry land. These lobes repeatedly ad-
vanced and retreated. In doing so, they deposited a great
variety of morainic materials over much of Michigan. Pieces
of ice in this debris melted and left the characteristic
"pot-hole" lakes seen in a number of counties. In other in-
stances, glacial materials blocked drainage and created lakes.
In the case of Michigan's "lakeless area", the absence
of such a well developed glacial tOpography has meant very
few lakes. This is due to the fact that during the final
glacial stage, a glacial lobe extended down the Saginaw Bay
depression. Its advances and retreates developed the moraine
topography present today in south central and west central
Michigan. Finally, a more pronounced retreat occurred and a
portion of glacial Lake Arkona covered the Saginaw valley in
front of the ice and drained through the Grand River Valley

to Lake Chicago and the Mississippi system.1

 

1Jack L. Hough, Geology of the Great Lakes (Urbana,
Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1958), pp. 284-296.

 

22

A succession of post glacial lakes covering approxi-
mately the same area followed until the ice finally retreated
and the water levels fell back to more closely resemble the
present levels of the Great Lakes. The result was a large
area with comparatively few low slender moraines and many
depressions largely filled by lacustrine deposits. A number
of reasonably efficient drainage systems were able to re-es-
tablish themselves and the arrangement Of the moraines did not
result in the permanent blocking of drainage and the estab-
lishment of lakes.

In contrast, this "lakeless area" in the Saginaw Valley
and south central Michigan is surrounded on two sides by inter-
lobate moraines formed by the substantial depositions of ma-
terial that occurred along the edges of the glacial lobes.

In the northern part of Lower Michigan, a succession of
various glacial influences has left an even more complex and
uneven topography. These two interlobate areas and the
northern complex area have many locations where drainage has
been blocked by moraines and permanent lakes formed. In
other instances,glacial depressions or pot-holes were not
filled with extensive lacustrine deposits by late postégla—
cial lakes and thus remain as permanent bodies of water.

These three highly glaciated zones contain large num-

bers Of lakes and therefore contribute substantially to the

23

supply of recreation opportunities in the Michigan recreation
system. The glacial history of these areas has also resulted
in a preponderance of poorer sandy soils which in many cases
have proved unsatisfactory for agriculture and been estab-
lished as permanent state and national forests. In addition,
glacial history, lacustrine activity and a westerly prevail-
ing wind have resulted in Michigan being blessed with a extra-
ordinary number of excellent sand beaches and dunes on the
Great Lakes. This is particularly true of the western side

of the Lower Peninsula where the finest stretches of fresh
water sand beach in the world are located. Finally, glacial
activity in these three zones has provided the much needed
physical relief which has made the development of a thriving
ski industry possible and added greatly to the aesthetic
qualities of the landscape. This combination of predominately
_glacial originated physical features has given Michigan the
outstanding recreation resource base on which its extensive

recreation system is founded.

 

1Michigan has 68 state parks, 3.7 million acres of
state forests, 2.5 million acres of federally owned national
forest land, a 134,000 acre national park, two national wild-
life refuges totalling 100,000 acres, 255,000 acres Of state
game areas and many other tracts of public lands well scat-
tered through the state. Much private land is also used ex-
tensively for recreation.

24

Highway Links

 

The Michigan recreation system is also blessed with an
extensive highway network which readily permits travel between
origin areas and destinations. Frequently a number of alter-
native routes are available to drivers and most citizens have
a considerable range of recreation Opportunities Open to them
within a few hours travelling time.

This highly developed road system coupled with the
large number of widely dispersed recreation origins and
destinations results in an extremely complex recreation sys-
tem.. Only a planning process that considers the State as
such a complex system can begin to relate recreation demand

to supply in a spatial context.

Component Modelling

 

When the author began work on the develOpment of a
statewide comprehensive recreation planning process in June
1965, the systems analysis approach had been tested to a
limited extent on the projection of state park camper attend-
ance at selected parks. The technique was developed by Dr.
Ellis while working on the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand

Study.l

 

1Michigan State University, Department Of Resource De-
velopment, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, Op.cit.,
pp. 6.1-6.34; and

Jack B. Ellis, "The Description and Analysis of Socio-
Economic Systems by Physical Systems Techniques", op.cit.,
pp. 6.-33.

25

Since the model develOped for that study was designed
to simulate the flow of campers from origin counties to 55
state parks that had substantial camping use, it was not
suitable for statewide comprehensive planning purposes. It
was therefore necessary to re-design the systems model so that
all origins and recreation destinations could be adequately
represented. It was decided to use counties as both origins
and destinations.1

Computer capacity limitations made it impossible to
use all 83 counties as origins and destinations if the pro-
gram was to be able to be run straight through the computer
without having to use memory tapes. This would increase run-

ning time and costs so that users would not be as willing to

make several runs to test hypotheses or suggested plans.

Origin Selection and Designation

 

In order to reduce the number Of counties used as ori-
gins, certain counties were paired. Several factors were
taken into consideration in selecting the counties to be com-
bined. First, it was decided to avoid crossing Department of

Conservation District boundaries so that tabulations could

 

1Jack B. Ellis, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan

by a Systems Analysis Approach: Part I - A ManuaI‘for“Program
ECS S

‘R TLansing, Michigan: State Resource Planning Program,

Michigan Department of Commerce, May 1966), TechniCal Report

No. 1.

26

always show District totals. Therefore, counties could only
be paired within Districts. Second, it was obviously not
desirable to combine major origin areas in order to preserve
as much of the individual participation characteristics as
possible. An effort was also made to avoid large counties
even if the populations were small because the production of
very large origin areas would result in too great distances
from the edge of the combined unit to the node through which
the demand pressure is assumed to act. Therefore, small rural
counties with relatively low populations were selected for
pairing whenever possible. Six areas were selected as out-
of-state origins. These were Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota,
Ohio, Wisconsin, and Ontario.

The next step was to select nodes through which the
population's demand at each origin was assumed to act. Where
the origin unit had one well defined urban center, its center
was designated as the origin node. Examples of this are the
centers of the cities of Jackson and Grand Rapids which were
selected as the origin nodes for Jackson County and Kent
County respectively. Where two or more urban centers lie in
separate parts of a rural county, a point between them was

selected based on the relative populations of these centers.

Destination Selection and Designation
As in the case of the origins, all 83 Michigan counties

could not be used as destinations because of computer capacity

27

limits so the number was reduced to 72 by pairing counties
with basically similar recreation characteristics. All pair-
ing was again kept within Department of Conservation District
boundaries so that destination data can be aggregated by
District. No counties with shoreline on the Great Lakes were
paired since they are so significant as recreation destina-
tions. An attempt was also made to avoid combining inland
counties which have large water bodies or several major state
parks or other very highly used facilities. This means most
of the pairs are the smaller inland counties with fewer major
recreational attractions and recreation resources fairly
evenly distributed between the counties in each pair.

The next problem was to select an appropriate destina-
tion node in each county or pair of counties which could be
considered to be the point through which user pressure is
dissipated at that destination. The point selected was gen-
erally the place in the county which appeared to be central

to the recreation resources of the county.1

‘Highway Link Selection and Calibration

 

The highway linkages selected for the systems model were

generally the most direct interstate or state highway routes

 

28

between adjacent nodes.1 The distance assigned to each link
was obtained from the official Michigan Department of State
Highways map of the state. The traffic speeds assigned to
these links are a little on the conservative side in order

to allow for the effect of heavy flows during busy weekends
and to recognize that many users travel at reduced speeds due

to trailers or heavy equipment loads.2
The Grouping of Activities

Before proceeding to apply the RECSYS-SYMAP process

to statewide recreation planning in Michigan, it was neces-
sary to develOp satisfactory groupings of outdoor recreation
activities. The prime Objective in making these groupings
was to produce the fewest possible activity groups that would
adequately cover the entire spectrum of significant outdoor
recreation activities undertaken in Michigan. The reason for
aiming at as few groupings as possible is the time and prob-
lems involved in obtaining data, converting it into a usable

form and running the RECSYS-SYMAP process. What is needed in

 

1Only highways have been used as transportation links.
It is recognized that some recreation entity users travel by
train, boat, or plane but this use is presently very small in
comparison to the use by those travelling in automobiles.

2Jack B. Ellis, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan
by a Systems Analysis Approach, Part I, op.cit., pp. 5-7 and
65-69; and

Chubb, op.cit., pp. 117-118.

29

statewide comprehensive recreation planning is a good impres-
sion of the overall recreation situation and the changes that
are taking place in it.

A number of approaches were tested including groupings
on the basis of user classes (day-users, fishermen, etc.) and
groupings based On the type of visit involved (urban day trip,
rural day trip, etc.) Since none of the new groupings ap-
peared to be entirely satisfactory, it was decided to use
conventional activities but to group them wherever possible.
The activity classification used in the Michigan Outdoor Rec-
reation Demand Study was used as a starting point. It con-
tained twenty-two outdoor recreation activities. These were
reduced to twelve pertinent activity groupings by eliminating
some activities and arranging the remainder in groups which
generally have similar resource requirements or that can be
measured in the same types of use measurement units (see

Table 1).

The Development of Capacity Standards

 

With the activities classified into twelve groups, the

next step was to develop reasonable annual carrying capacity

1

standards for each group. These standards are an attempt to

 

1See Appendix I, A Glossary of Terms. This term and the
concepts on which it is based are developed in the author's
M.S. thesis, "Outdoor Recreation Land Capacity: Concepts,
Usage, and Definitions," (unpublished M.S. thesis, Park and
Recreation Administration, Department Of Resource Development,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1964).

30

Table I. Recreation Activity Groupings
(In Descending Order of Participation Predicted by 1980)1

 

 

 

 

Activity Name Activities Included in Group
Driving for Pleasure Highway, county road, parkway or street
driving for pleasure (166,074,647)
Playing Sports Active participation in all types of

outdoor sports, games, races and compe-
titions (90,303,000)

Swimming Swimming, paddling, beach play and sun
bathing, skindiving (78,925,421)

Sight-seeing Viewing scenic sites, nature museums,
historic sites; urban sight-seeing
(51,303,469)

Picnicking All types of picnicking: Family, group
etc. (42,390,037) '

Walking and Riding Walking for pleasure, hiking, nature
hikes, horseback riding (39,944,689)2

Fishing Shore, stream, pier, boat, ice
(32,811,608)

Boating All types of boating, water skiing g3
sailing, and canoeing (19,271, 702)

Hunting All types. Small game, big game, water
fowl, etc. (13,604,178)

Camping Tent, trailer, group (5,049, 053)

Winter Sports Skiing, tobogganing, snowshoeing,
skating (not available)

Attending Events Participation as a spectator at outdoor

events of all kinds (not available)

 

1Activities arranged in order of total statewide activity

days (figures in parenthesis) predicted from ORRRC data.

2 . . . . . . .
Code 06 figure includes ORRRC actiVities "hiking on
trail with pack," "nature walks" and "horseback riding."

3Code 08 figure includes ORRRC activities "boating other
than sailing and canoes" and "water skiing." A detailed de-
scription of the various activities is given in Appendix III
of Michael Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
‘ stems Analysis Approach: Part III - The Practical ApplicatiOn
Bf—“Program RECSYS andeSYMAP" (Lansing, Michigan: Department
{of Commerce, August, 1967), Technical Report No. 13.

 

 

 

31

eXpress the spatial and resource needs of the various activites
in a quantitative manner. Ideally, these standards should have
been developed from actual field studies, but this was not pos-
sible due to staff limitations and time constraints. Instead,
standards were developed by modifying those used by the Parks
Division of the Michigan Department of Conservation and other

agencies.

The Case Study

 

Once the basic design of the RECSYS-SYMAP statewide
comprehensive recreation or planning process had been set up
and some computer runs carried out to check the technical as-
pects of the two prOgrams, the next problem was to select one
of the twelve activitygroupings and proceed completely through
a test run of the entire process. It was decided to use recrea-
tional boating in Michigan as the test case for reasons de-
scribed earlier.2

A number of facts attest to the significance of boating
in Michigan. The State has now drawn ahead of New York State
and has the largest number of registered boats of any state.

At the end of 1965, there were 399,000 registered boats in

Michigan and at least another 50,000 row-boats and other craft

 

lChubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part III, op.cit., pp. 123-146.

2
Supra., p. 4.

32

that did not require registration. Participation in boating
zilso appears to be significantly higher than the national and
oregional averages.l The number of persons from out-of-state
origins who come to Michigan primarily to engage in recrea-
tional activities involving boating is also considerable.

The remainder of this thesis will discuss the tech-
niques and problems involved in conducting this first prac-
tical test of RECSYS-SYMAP. The problems associated with the
cOllection and compilation of the necessary data will be dis-

cussed before describing and analysing the test itself.

 

1Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning by a Systems Analysis

Approach, Part III, op.cit., p. 14.

CHAPTER II
DATA COLLECTION AND PREPARATION

Review of Available Boating Demand Data

 

Two sources of detailed information on boating demand
by origin and destination were found to be available. They
were the 1964 Recreational Boating Survey of the Michigan Out-
door Recreation Demand Study and 1966 Boating Needs Survey of
the Waterways Division of the Michigan Department of Conserva-
tion.1 It was decided to use the data on boating in 1965 from
the Waterways Division survey in the RECSYS-SYMAP simulation
because it has several significant advantages.

The first advantage is that the Waterways Division sam-

ple was somewhat larger than the MORDS2

sample. A total of
13,670 questionnaires were mailed of which 9,444 were sent to
owners of registered boats under 20 feet in length and 4,226

went to owners of boats over 20 feet. This stratification was

done in order to obtain an adequate sample in the over 20 foot

 

1Michigan State University, Department of Resource De-
velopment, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, op.cit.,
Vol. II, pp. 10.4-10.7; and

Michigan Department of Conservation, Waterways Division,
Transportation Predictive Procedures: 'Recreation Boating and
Commerciai Shipping (Lansing, MiChigan: Department of Commerce,
April 1967, Technical Report NO. 9C). pp. 23-29.

2MORDS is the commonly used abbreviation for Michigan
Outdoor Recreation Demand Study.

 

 

 

33

34

class which contained a much Smaller number of boats. A total
of 5,218 usable questionnaires were returned. The MORDS study
was based on the analysis of 3,566 usable returns from a mail-
ing of 9,902 questionnaires but was not stratified by boat
length so the data for larger boats may be somewhat less sta-
tistically reliable. Both samples were stratified by county
and the respondents selected randomly in each county in propor-
tion to the number of registered boats in that county.

The second big advantage of the Waterways Division data
is that they are based on a more straightforward series of
questions regarding use. The questionnaire only required the
reSpondent to indicate the three counties in which most boat-
ing was done together with the number of days or part days spent
boating in each of these counties and the aggregate number of
days or part days spent boating in all other counties. Other
questions identified the respondents county of residence by
name and determined whether the boat concerned was in the under
20 foot or over 20 foot class.1 The use questions were designed
Specifically to provide base year use data for the RECSYS-SYMAP
study.

In contrast, the MORDS survey asked the respondents to

use a numbering system to identify counties of origin and des-

 

lChubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a

Systems Analysis Approach, Part III, Op.cit., gives more details
of the questionnaire.

35

tination. Unfortunately, a typing error resulted in one county
being wrongly numbered which made certain reSponses ambiguous.
Another drawback was that the respondents were requested to

indicate the percentage of their total 1964 boating time spent

 

in the three counties they had used most. Some respondents
clearly had difficulty comprehending this concept and it is
probable that others may have not given as reliable answers

as should have been obtained from the more direct Waterways
Division questions. The number of boat use-periods in a par-
ticular county was computed by applying the appropriate percen-
tage to the respondents estimated number of days spent boating
during the year which had been given in response to another
question.

The positive features of the Waterways study and the
negative aSpects of the MORDS survey made it appear advisable
to use the former for the RECSYS base year. However, this
MORDS data had been aggregated and exPanded at an earlier date
and will be cited later as a check.

Both studies had some features that were not entirely
satisfactory but which would have been difficult to improve.
Both asked the respondent to answer the use questions for the
boat used most Often. This would mean that a considerable

amount of use in second or third boats is not included in the

36

data for the sample boaters.l However, this error is probably
more than cancelled out by the fact that during the expansion
of the sample data to give estimated total statewide use, these
additional boats were in effect considered to be used as much
as the average "most used" boat. A second problem common to
both surveys is that only owners of registered boats could

be included in the samples. The owners of illegally unreg-
istered power boats and those who own row boats and sail

boats without auxillary power were not included unless they
also had a registered boat. The MORDS study showed that 13.3%
of registered boat owners had one unregistered boat, 2.4% had
two such boats and .8% had three or more.2 Applied to the
1965 estimated registered boat total of 398,902, this would
mean the registered boat owners above could be expected to
have some 88,000 boats not requiring registration. No reli-
able estimate of the number of boats not requiring registra-
tion which are owned by persons not owning a registered boat
was discovered. It is also a problem to know how much boating
is done in these unregistered boats. One suspects that many

of them are used for fishing and see much service from lake

 

lThe MORDS report showed that 22.7% of registered boat
owners in the sample owned two registered boats, 4.1% owned 3,
and 1.6% owned four or more. Michigan State University, De-
partment Of Resource Development, Michigan Outdoor Recreation
Demand Study, Op.cit., p. 10-11.

2Ibid.

 

37

front summer residences during the summer season. On the
other hand, many are probably kept at such residences but
see little service due to a decline in interest in fishing or
a decline in fishing quality. AS will be explained later, it
was decided to be conservative and assume that the unregistered
boats amount to some 15% of the total number Of registered
boats and that they receive two—thirds as much use.

A number of other sources were investigated to ascer-
tain if any better use data were available or if information
that substantiated aspects of the existing use surveys could

be obtained.1

Expansion of In-State Use Data

 

In order to Obtain values for the estimated total boat-
ing use by registered boat owners by origin and destination
it was necessary to eXpand the values obtained in the surveys.
In the case of the MORDS boating survey this was a complicated
procedure due to the fact that the reSponses to three ques-
tions had to be simultaneously considered in order to deter-
mine the origin and the number of boat-use periods to be as-
signed to each destination. In the case of the Waterways
Division study, the procedure was Simpler but had to be done
in two separate sets of caluclations due to the straitifica-

tion by boat Size.

 

Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part III, Op.cit.

38

In both cases a computer program carried out the expan-
sion to estimated statewide values at the same time as the
analysis was made by origin and destination. Appendix II
compares the 1964 and 1965 expanded values by origin. Al-
though there appears to have been some fairly substantial
increases and decreases in the amount of boating use gener-
ated by some of the origins, the percentage of the total
statewide use from each origin is quite similar. This Simi-
larity in the pattern of use indicates that both studies are
probably reasonably reliable although there were differences
in the methods used.

The right hand column in Appendix II gives the 1965
participation rate in average boat use-periods per capita for
each in-state origin and was calculated by dividing the ex-
panded boat use-periods by the 1965 estimated population.

The great variation in the rates is not entirely due to resi-
dents at one origin having a greater prOpensity to boat than
residents of other areas. Part of the difference is due to
the problem of owners registering boats in counties other
than their county of permanent residence. For example, in
the case of Roscommon County, it is hypothesized that the
very high participation rate of 14.98 boat use-periods per
capita per year is partly due to the fact that many boat
owners living elsewhere register their boats in the county

because they keep them there permanently at summer resi-

dences 0
Since th
included
exaggera
Th
same as
on the tc
that are
probable
II as bei
because t
Roscommon
ber of re
boats reg

residents

regiStrat;

 

39

dences or bring them in at the beginning of each season.
Since these people are only summer residents, they are not
included in the county's population estimate and hence an
exaggerated participation rate results.

This problem of the county of residence not being the
same as the county of boat registration also has an effect
on the total number of boat use-periods at some destinations
that are attributed to certain origins. For example, it is
probable that some of the boat use-periods shown in Appendix
II as being undertaken in Roscommon County did not take place
because the total of the boat use-periods frgm Roscommon in
Roscommon indicated by the sample was multiplied by the num-
ber of registered boats for that county. Since some of the
boats registered in Roscommon were undoubtedly owned by Wayne
residents it would possibly be more accurate to shift these
registrations over to Wayne before calculating the eXpansion.
AS Wayne must have a somewhat lower true participation rate
for boating in Roscommon, this would reduce the Roscommon
total boat use-periods to some extent. However, there may
be some tendency for such errors to compensate for one another
so the total effeCt may not be a major warping of the data.
In future studies on boating use, it should be possible to
avoid this problem by asking for both the county of residence

and the county of registration.1

 

Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part III, op.cit.

Once
the number
give total
it was pose
origin load
pendices IV
simulates t
the flow of
tions. The
gram to pro
0f the model

explained 15

40

Once the sample data had been expanded in proportion to
the number of boats registered for each origin in order to
give total estimated participation by origin and destination,
it was possible to have data processing cards punched for the
origin loading deck and the base utilization deck (see Ap-
pendices IV and V respectively). The origin loading deck
simulates the user pressure at the origin which results in
the flow of users along the highway linkages to the destina-
tions. The base utilization deck is used in the RECSYS pro-
gram to provide a standard by which to measure the accuracy
of the model in predicting use at the destination as will be

explained later.

The Problem of the Out-of-State User

 

As was demonstrated earlier, participation by non-resi-
dents accounts for a significant portion of total recreational
activity in Michigan. It had been hOped that it could have
been possible to include a sampling of out-of-state users in
the Waterways Division survey. A few non-resident registered
boat owners would have been included in the random sample ex-
cept that the Division decided to reject these and substitute
owners who were Michigan residents. However, the vast majority
of out-of-state residents who boat in Michigan do not register
their boats in Michigan and hence would not be represented.

It appears that only by Special surveys of out-of-state boaters

either at
state, wil
estimate 0
Sinc
out-of-sta
decided to
boats regi
survey val
velOped fr
None of th
cause the
be applied
esSential
of boating
The
titaliiVe 1
there are
DEpartment
vehicle ty
sampleS Of
the Vehicl

of vehicle

41

either at the destinations or at main highway exits from the
state, will it be possible to obtain a reasonably reliable
estimate of non-resident use.

Since it was impossible to secure reliable statewide
out-of-State user data by origin and destination, it was
decided to calibrate the RECSYS model for boating done by
boats registered in Michigan using the Waterways Division
survey values and then add estimates of non-resident use de-
veloped from certain indications of its possible magnitude.
None of these indicators is particularly reliable mainly be-
cause the values all apply to specific areas and should not
be applied on a more extensive basis. However, it appeared
essential to provide some indication of the probable amount
of boating done by boats not registered in Michigan.

The four sources of information which have some quan-
titative indication of out-of-state use are as follows. First,
there are Special traffic studies undertaken by the Michigan
Department of State Highways where origins, destinations,
vehicle types and trip types are investigated by interviewing
samples of highway traffic at certain selected points. Since
the vehicle classification system used includes three types
of vehicle-boat combinations, it is possible to determine
what percentage of the boat carrying vehicles are from out-
of-state origins and where these vehicles were going but no

data on actual boat use is included.

The
ways Divis
cruise and
rune Michi
by the Div
fishermen i
Conservati'
is the rec.
where the .
and inform,
Pers had b.
moored. TI
extEnt Of ,
The additi:
of-5tate o:
HOdes (SBe

1965 Simillé

There

ing the SUI

\

l

Chub
systems Ana

42

The second source is information obtained by the Water-
ways Division concerning the origin, destination, length Of
cruise and number of larger boats using marina facilities at
nine Michigan harbors that have facilities partially financed
by the Division. The third source is data on out-of-state
fishermen_gathered by the Fish Division of the Department of
Conservation during special creel censuses. The fourth source
is the records on camper registration at Michigan State Parks
where the origins and destinations of the campers are known
and information has also been gathered on whether or not cam-
pers had boats and if such boats were used to sleep in while
moored. The exact methods used to develop indicators of the
extent Of out-of—state boating are described elsewhere.1
The additional boating use pressure assumed for the six out-
of-state origin areas were added through the appropriate
nodes (see Appendix VI) and used in the final runs of the

1965 simulation as described in Chapter III.

Boating Sgpply Data

 

There are two principal sources of information concern-

ing the supply of water resources in Michigan. One is the

1Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part III, Op.cit.

series of
phrys of t
State Univ
tory under
Planning D
servation.
the Pr8par
ties becau
ions and f
at each Di
Filed from
posed to u
formation .
boating Ca;
inventol‘ie.
tion indie

The ;
Me, It h.
hate areas
Main boati;
sible beca‘
COUnty Slim;
Instead the

direct ly f]

43

series of Lake Inventory Bulletins produced by Dr. C.R. Hum-
phrys of the Department of Resource Development, Michigan
State University and the other is the Michigan Lake Inven-
tory undertaken commencing in 1965 by the Recreation Resource
Planning Division and field staff of the Department of Con-
servation. It was decided to use the latter as a basis for
the preparation of data on the supply of boating opportuni-
ties because it was more recent and also was based on Opin-
ions and field checks of Department of Conservation personnel
at each District office. (The Humphrys data was largely com-
piled from the study of readily available maps). It was pro-
posed to use the Lake Inventory in two ways. First, the in-
formation on lake acreage would be used to calculate actual
boating capacity, and second, some of the other variables
inventoried would be utilized in order to calculate attrac-
tion indices.

The methods employed in this first task were quite sim-
ple. It had been intended to be somewhat selective and elimi-
nate areas that were of little value for boating during the
main boating season due to shallow water. This was not pos-
sible because the Department was unable to provide detailed
county summaries of water areas by the various depth classes.
Instead the total acreage of lakes in each county was taken

directly from a computer print-out summary prepared by the

44

Department.1 These values were then multiplied by the adOpted
annual carrying capacity of 72 boat use-periods per acre per
year in order to Obtain the estimated annual carrying capacity
of each county's inland lakes. (see Appendix VII).

The acreages given in the inventory included major
ponded areas on rivers as well as natural and artificial lakes
over five acres in size. Unfortunately, it does not include
the acreage of rivers and streams other than ponded sections.
In some counties this may be quite a significant omission
such as in the case Of the AuSable River or certain portions
of the Grand River. It is desirable that future inventories
include data on the more significant stretches of boatable

water along streams and rivers.
Measurement of Great Lakes Boating Water Areas

Since the Michigan Lake Inventory only included inland
lakes it was necessary to obtain some estimate of the supply
of recreational boating Opportunities provided by Great Lakes
waters. NO source of such information was available so it
was decided to attempt to develOp the necessary data as part

of this study.

 

1Michigan Department of Conservation, Recreation Re-
source Planning Division, "Michigan Lake Frontage 1965,"
unpublished computer print-out dated October 26, 1966.

An ac:
ing capacitj
only be 0th
cording of 5
conditions.
this project
technique ha
Conservation
Characterist
Shoreline co
ways DivisiO
it was decid
their estima
setting 11p t

Zone A
safe for the
during 70 to
This 20ne Was
use‘Periods p

Value. Zone

the 3 month 51

 

45

An accurate estimate of Great Lakes recreational boat-
ing capacity for Michigan's forty-two shoreline counties can
only be obtained by careful field surveys involving the re-
cording Of actual boating use and the effects of weather
conditions. Since such surveys were not within the SCOpe of
this project, it was decided to use an Office compilation
technique based on interpretation of Michigan Department of
Conservation county maps. After discussing at length the
characteristics of the Great Lakes area adjacent to each
Shoreline county with Mr. Keith Wilson, Director of the Water-
ways Division and with Mr. Merle Keller of the Fish Division,
it was decided to attempt to zone these areas according to
their estimated ability to sustain boating. This was done by
setting up three zones.

Zone A was designated as areas that would generally be
safe for the majority of boats less than twenty feet in length
during 70 to 75% of the three month summer boating season.
This zone was assigned an annual carrying capacity of 54 boat
use-periods per acre per year which is 75% of the inland lake
value. Zone B was said to be generally safe for the majority
of boats under 20 feet in length for up to 25 or 30 percent of
the 3 month summer boating season and was assumed to have an
annual carrying capacity in proportion--namely 20 boat use-
periods per acre per year. Zone C was said to lie beyond

Zone B and is the area of the Great Lakes that is used to only

46

a very limited extent by the majority of boats under 20 feet
due to the distance to shore and usual rougher water condi-
tions. The use of this zone was assumed to be limited by
these constraints to about one percent of the use possible
in Zone A so the annual carrying capacity was set at .5

boat use-periods per acre per year.

Generally Zone A consisted of well sheltered waters
lying in deep bays to the leeward of a major headland or in
between a collection of islands. Zone B was considered to
generally be waters that lie within 2 1/2 miles of the
Michigan mainland. However, in sections of the north part
of Lake Michigan and along the exposed parts of the Lake
Superior shoreline this was reduced to 1 1/2 miles due to the
speed with which hazardous water conditions can develop.
Zone C was considered to lie outside Zone B and be of equiva-
lent width so it was generally 2 1/2 miles wide narrowing
down to 1 1/2 miles along the sections of Shoreline mentioned
above.

These zones were indicated on the county maps with
colored pencil and then their respective areas in each county
were measured using a dot grid planimeter. The acreage for
each zone was multiplied by the previously mentioned annual
carrying capacity standard and the results tabulated (see

Appendix VII).

47

At first sight it may appear that the boating potential
of the Great Lakes areas is greatly exaggerated by this tech-
nique when one sees the comparatively small amount of use
that is presently made of them. It must be remembered, how-
ever, that at present the majority of boat users are using

Zones B and C for cruising only. The water is generally too

 

choppy for water Skiing and the fishing is good in only a few
isolated spots. Fishing is still the primary reason for the
majority of peOple going boating and if an excellent salmon
fishery in the Great Lakes does develOp we can expect to see
a much greater utilization of the 51 million boat use-period

potential of the B and C zones.

DevelOpment of Attraction and Capacity Indices

 

The development of adequate attraction indices for the
various destinations of the RECSYS model is a problem worthy
of a separate thesis. Indeed, VanDoren did produce a disser-
tation solely on the develOpment of attraction indices for

1

the systems model simulation of state park camping. In

that case, the problem was somewhat Simpler than for statewide

 

1Carlton S. VanDoren "An Interaction Travel Model for
Projecting Attendance of Campers at Michigan State Parks:
A Study in Recreation GeOgraphy" (unpublished Ph.D disserta—
tion, Department of Geography, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan, 1967).

boating in
butes of ti
butes were
the behavic
extensively
water area
in develOpi
known studi
cerning doc
It be
take an ext
0f boating
Ellisl Sues
crude indie
fine‘tuning
In an
attractiOn
Michigan La
which Would
of Size of

Percent Of

\1

48

boating in that the destinations were fewer, only the attri-
butes of the actual park site were considered, these attri-
butes were comparatively easily identified and measured, and
the behavior and preferences of campers had already been quite
extensively investigated. In contrast, all of Michigan's
water area on a county by county basis had to be considered

in developing a boating attraction index and there are no
known studies of boat user preferences other than those con-
cerning docking or launching facilities.

It became clear that it would not be possible to under-
take an extensive side investigation into the various aspects
of boating attraction. Instead, it was decided to proceed as
Ellisl suggests and an intuitive approach was used to develop
crude indices which were then defined and adjusted during the
fine-tuning of the model.

In an initial approach to the intuitive develOpment of
attraction indices it was intended to use data from the
Michigan Lake Inventory cited earlier. A form was designed
which would have rated each destination county on the basis
of size of lake, percent of warm shallow lakes (pan fish),

percent of two story lakes (game fish), percent of trout

 

l . . . . . .
Ellis, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part I, Op.cit., p. 38.

49

lakes, percent of lakes with medium fishing quality, percent
of lakes with good fishing quality and percent of private
recreational-residential shoreline but the data was not
available in time.

In an effort to try and discover any direct relation-
ship that might exist between major attributes Of the destina-
tions and the volume of boating use, a series of comparisons
:was made. A number of pairs of counties was selected where
both were approximately equidistant from a major pOpulation
center. The boating use values at these two destinations
from that population center were Obtained from the print-out
of the Waterways Division boating survey summary and compared.
For example, the boat use-periods generated by Wayne County
in Crawford County (8,114 boat use-periods) were compared
with the value for Wayne boating in Roscommon County (63,948
boat use-periods). This is a ratio of one to eight and ap-
pears to be tied to the ratio between the water area in each
county of one to Sixteen (2,491 acres to 39,089 acres).
Several pairs of counties were found to show a similar rela-
tionship between water acreage and boating use. However,
many pairs showed no such relationship or a completely in-

verse relationship. For example, Otsego County had 40% more

 

, The Michigan Department of Conservation experienced
great difficulty in obtaining county summaries of all the
'various phenomena inventoried due to the large number of data
prOcessing cards involved and the complicated tabulations
required.

50

boat days from Wayne than Montmorency County but the latter
had 70% more water surface. A number of such comparisons
were made using different origins and a variety of variables
including length of shoreline, length of privately owned
shoreline and length Of publically owned shoreline. NO
consistent relationships were discovered.

With no guidelines on which to base the develOpment of
the indices and no detailed state summaries of lake charac-
teristics, crude indices were constructed in the following
manner. Each county was arbitarily rated on the basis of
twelve characteristics as shown in Figure 1. Areas were
taken from the previously cited Michigan Lake Inventory print-
out. Other phenomena were deduced by inspection of Depart-
ment of Conservation county maps. The scores received for
each of the twelve categories were added and the total divided
by 100 in order to reduce the values to a range between zero
and two since the RECSYS program is constructed in such a
manner that the attraction indices should be within this
range.1 The attraction indices thus developed were used in

the initial run of the model (see Appendix VII).2

 

1Ellis, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part I, Op.cit., pp. 38-39.

2Also shown in Appendix VII are the capacity values,
the develOpment of which was described earlier in this Chap-
ter. It was decided to use the actual estimated annual carry-
ing capacity in boat use-periods rather than convert these
values into an index because it was felt that this was more
realistic and understandable. Also, it would be easier to
change the capacity if necessary in subsequent runs.

1 n _

‘1‘ in:

 

 

 

 

«02 $80 ugflwfimg
EOE EUQHSUHWU XMJDCH COflHUQhUAN

 

51

suesoo

 

 

 

 

 

 

on .83.» momma sumo How 3 muoom cg H92 Home: .
3 “3.8.: no.8 Mom 3 onoom Hoflmm nous “mono .
3 ofiamnozm moxmq mod—flu Hg 3 mg
ensue mas mussoo ma ea meson mse>eo msaamnoem .
93 @000 eGm> no
ma mauflfimnomonfi. mmxmuumonomoouosm
cauguogumug SFUHOEHOFS .
3 OH H wmh mouflw mug 03”an
unwom " m nwmm figmofimoufiouom .
on em u seed a mm u mme mmoooe atom soon
omuwom "3|me fiesudfimoucmoumm .
mm m 980m €850 new 3 mmmauv mega..."
mound oom.~ H96 9am.“ comm mom mg bug you mason .
om omumouum oomHm>OImmHma§
om u nouns mmv on cod u wanna
oaumOHOMmmOummuefiflcdz
oumouomammumuguqmfi mofimoonwmmgd.
980m o...80m mfifionom gm
.xmz guoom
uoz ouoo "aflgmoo

 

 

 

5 83350.30 “89H Sggum

 

52

Shannon and “on

8685 Sflomflum 338m 985 1.3.33 9: 3880 8 some anon A 88E

 

 

 

 

 

 

I .598
cm. om mafia u can .>
on mans u 90.3mm mumps: mo
3 mafia u BE 8338.... 38.8 .2
S S n page 839.53
m u praises oafiom 38mm .2
em on u 6.8385
cm H coco mums
S u 88 mfiflmfio 9:83 .3
ea financed you mmn8m ~92 Bflmznouoxfl
page 8 fine women .m
wHBm whoom 0% gm
.xmz mfifioom

 

 

tgqfleoola wheat

CHAPTER III
THE 1965 SIMULATION

Once the demand data had been compiled, the supply
information tabulated and some preliminary attraction and
capacity indices computed, it was possible to insert these
data in the RECSYS model and run it for boating in 1965.
However, the predictions of boating use at the various des-
tinations obtained in this first run were far from being ap-
proximately equal tO the actual use values developed from the
waterways Division survey. This was to beexpected since the
various elements of the systems model had not yet been bal-
anced and the attraction indices assigned to each destination
were obtained by an intuitive approach.

The next step therefore was to adjust the balance of the
model components so that it would predict values that were
numerically closer to the observed values. This procedure is
known as model calibration and is carried out by adjustment
of the scaling constants that control the interelationships
of the four main model parameters, namely, highway link resist-
ance, highway link cost, highway trip distance, and destination

attraction.l

 

lEllis, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part I, op.cit., p. 32.

53

54

Initial Calibration Runs of the Systems Model

The first complete run of the RECSYS program for boating
utilized the Origin Loading Deck data given in Appendix IV,
the Base Utilization Deck data shown in Appendix V, and the
Destination Attraction and Capacity Deck information as set
out in the 1965 columns of Appendix VIII. The other decks
making up the RECSYS prOgram were left substantially the
same as in the test program designed by Ellis.1 No changes
were made in the Highway Link Deck since inquiries revealed
that there had been only minor alterations in the highway
links involved between 1964, the year for which the deck had
been designed, and 1965 which was the year being simulated.
The RECSYS Program Deck which performs the reading in of the
data, the construction of the model, and the printing out of
the results, and the small deck which provides the information
on how all the other component data are interconnected, were
not changed except for some minor alterations due to changes
in computer language. The control cards remained the same
except for Data Control Card No. 1 which was changed in order
to show the correct identification for the run and to give

the correct destination attraction scaling.2

 

1‘Ibid., p. 15.

55

For this initial run, the destination attraction scaling
constant was set at 1.6539, this being the average capacity

1

figure for the 72 destination areas multiplied by the sug-

gested initial scaling constant of 0.001.2 This simulation
resulted in a standard deviation of prediction of 352.5
indicating that the model was far from being accurately
calibrated.3 Most of the largely rural destination‘areas
in the upper part of southern Michigan and in the Upper
Peninsula were under predicted compared to the known use
values given in the Base Utilization Deck. Heavy over pre-
diction occurred in many of the urban areas and counties
adjacent to them (see Appendix X). There were some exceptions
to this general pattern of under prediction at the resource
rich destinations and over prediction at resource poor ur-
banized destinations, but it appeared that these were due to
problems with the magnitude of individual attraction indices.
Since so many of the prime boating destinations were
being under predicted on the first Simulation, it was clear
that the attractive pull Of these destinations was being

inadequately represented in proportion to the resistance of

the highway links. Therefore, the value of the destination

 

1
See Appendix VIII.

2 . . . . .
Ellis, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part I, op.cit., p. 40.

31bid., p. 31.

56

attraction scaling constant was reduced by a factor of 10

to .16539 on a trial basis. This resulted in a reduction in
the standard deviation of prediction to 211.1. The pattern
of under prediction at the northern destinations remained,
but was not as pronounced so a third calibration run was
performed with the destination attraction scaling constant
reduced again by a factor of 10 to .016539. This reduced the
standard deviation of prediction to 95.0, many of the pre-
viously extreme values were closer to the mean deviation and
the under prediction in the northern areas was weaker (see
Appendix X).

From the rate at which the standard deviation of predic—
tion had been declining it appeared that a further reduction
of the destination attraction scaling index by a factor of
10 would probably start to increase the standard deviation of
prediction due to exaggeration of the effect of the destina-
tion's attraction. Two runs were therefore submitted.l In
one the constant was reduced by a factor of eight to .002066,
which in the other, the factor was reduced by a factor of ten
to .001654. The former, called "Run 4A" had a standard devia-

tion of prediction of 80.2 and the latter a value of 81.2.

 

Whenever more than one RECSYS model run was submitted
at one time each was given the same number and an alphabeti-
cally designation added to distinquish between them. This
made it possible to easily identify the various stages in
calibration.

57

There was some general improvement in the prediction of the
northern areas and the extreme values were further reduced
(see Appendix X).

From the pattern of the standard deviation of predic-
tion Obtained, it appeared that the .002066 value was close
to being the required scaling constant since there was such
a small change in the deviation between Run 4A and Run 4B.

It was, therefore, decided to attempt to complete the coarse
calibration stage by setting the destination attraction scal-
ing constant at .006616 which was approximately midway be—
tween the lowest deviation value and the next lowest. This
fifth run had a standard deviation of prediction of 82.9 which
Showed that the constant which would produce the lowest de-
viation must lie between .00616 and .002066.

Two final simulations were then carried out. Run 6A
had a destination attraction scaling constant of .001323 and
was intended to prove conclusively that there was no error
in Run 4B and the deviation did indeed get bigger as the
scaling constant was further reduced. The resultant devia-
tion value of 82.7 proved this point. Run 6B was given a
scaling constant of .003308 and resulted in a standard de-
viation of prediction of 79.9. From this it was concluded
that the model would not give a standard deviation of predic-

tion that would be more than a few tenths of one percent

58

.co_uo_p0ee mo co_um_>oo tempcmum c. ucoeo>0eae_ mo toueo c. vomcmee<_

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.00 0000.~ 0000.0 0000.. 000000.0 <0
0.0m 0000.0 0000.. 0000.. 000000.0 00
0.0a 0000.0 0000.0 0000.. 000000.0 0a
0.05 0000.. 0000.0 000.. 000000.0 0e
0.0a 0000.. 0000.0 0000.. 000000.0 00
0.00 000... 0000.0 0000.. 000000.0 <e
so.emta..00 00..
e.~0 0000.. 0000.0 0000.. 000.00.0 <0
~..0 0000.. 0000.0 0000.. s00.00.0 00
~.00 0000.. 0000.0 0000.. 000N00.0 <0
0.0m 0000.. 0000.0 0000.. 000000.0 00
0.~0 0000.. 0000.0 0000.. 0.0000.0 0
0.00 0000.. 0000.0 0000.. 0000.0.0 0
....N 0000.. 0000.0 0000.. 00000..0 N
0.~00 0000.. 0000.0 0000.. 000000.. a

coaumunaaao onnmoo

soapoeeonm no unoouoeee msauemeo3.umeo magamom .ummm msaasom .oz

soawmwmwmmmmum xeeq_smsn0am _xsee_smsnmem gees sesame: .uomnuna_.emme sum

 

museumspu soaemuneamu 0000:.

i

. 1802 00.30.00 06. no 838038
eeae_0ss menace scenes assesses aoeuoaennm mo meoauaasme enatsmum .m manna

59

lower than this value with the data being used. The "coarse
calibration" stage was thus concluded. The various steps in

this procedure are Shown in Table 2.

Fine Calibration of the Systems Model

 

The next step was to carry out fine calibration of the
systems model by trying different values for the time - cost
exponent and the highway link cost - weighting constant.
Leaving the destination attraction scaling constant at the
.003308 value identified in the coarse calibration phase,
three runs were made simultaneously with the highway link
time - cost constant set at 0.00, 0.50 and 1.00 respectively.1
The standard deviations of prediction of these runs were com-
pared with Run 6B. As will be seen from Table 2, the lowest
value was 74.3 obtained for Run 7C with the highway link
time - cost constant set at 2.00. However, since it appeared
that there had been a uniform improvement, the highway link
time - cost constant was set at 2.5, the greatest value sug-
gested by Ellis. Then two runs were made with the destina-
tion attraction scaling at 0.003308, the highway link time -

cost constant at 2.5, and the highway link cost - weighting

constant set at 0.50 and 1.00 respectively as Shown in Table 2.

 

lIbid., p. 36

60

These runs resulted in standard deviations of prediction of
69.0 and 75.3 compared to the 74.3 value obtained in Run 7C.
Therefore, the values finally selected for running the model
during the next stage Of refinement were 0.003308 for the
destination attraction scaling constant, 2.5 for the highway
link time - cost constant and 0.5 for the highway link cost -
weighting constant.

Since Run 8A still had a much larger deviation than the
data warranted, the next step was to try to reduce it further
by a "fine-tuning" process in which the actual individual
attraction indices were modified in order to bring the pre-

1 Because some Of

dicted values closer to the known values.
the deviations of prediction were very large, it was decided
to attempt to reduce the effects of these large errors first
since they were undoubtedly causing considerable distortion
in the flow patterns.

The three biggest deviations were the 266.1 percent
value for Monroe County, the 239.9 percent figure for Sanilac
County, and the 162.3 percent deviation for Clinton-Gratiot
Counties. As a first step, the attraction indices of all the
destinations with deviations over 70 percent were raised or

lowered in approximate proportion to the size of the devia-

tion. For example, in the case of Monroe, the model was over

 

1Ibid., p. 41.

61

predicting boating use by 266.1% when the attraction index
was set at 0.80 SO the index was reduced to 0.20. Similar
changes were made in fourteen other cases where the devia-
tion was 70 percent or more.

The modified attraction indices were incorporated in
RECSYS Run NO. 9 (see Appendix XI). This run resulted in the
standard deviation of prediction drOpping to 44.9 andgave
the predicted and individual deviations Shown in the center
columns of that table. It will be observed that the extreme
deviations have been eliminated but some of the higher devia-
tions at destinations with large boating participation were
not Significantly changed by adjustment of their attraction
indices. For example, adjustment of the attraction index for
Clinton-Gratiot from 0.33 to 0.10 changed the deviation from
+162.3 percent to -12.4% while in the case of Bay County the
deviation dropped from +133.9 percent to +53.0% when the in—
dex was reduced from 0.64 to 0.30. Adjustment of the 15
indices in Run 9 resulted in the largest deviation being the
-88.1 percent value for Emmet County. Only six predictions
showed deviations in excess of plus or minus 70 percent.

At this point the distribution of the negative and
positive deviations and their relative magnitudes were once
more considered. A strong tendency had again emerged for

most southern destinations near urban centers to be over pre-

62

dicted while destinations in the central and northern part of
the state were considerably under predicted. (Exceptions were
Eaton-Ingham, Jackson, Kent, and Genesee-Lapeer, where the
populations are reasonably large but the run still gave under
predictions).

There are three possible reasons for this pattern.
First, it could be that the scaling constants were not ad-
justed perfectly during the calibration phase because the
several obviously inaccurate attraction indices distorted the
flows so much that further adjustments resulted in propor-
tional_greater deviations in these extreme cases and thus gave
higher standard deviations of prediction. The second possi-
bility is that there were certain common factors in the over-
all attractiveness Of these central and northerly destinations
that had been overlooked. (These factors could be such influ-
ences as climatic advantages, the social desirability Of own-
ing summer cottages in these areas, and the availability and
prices of land suitable for cottage or resort develOpment).
The third conceivable reason is that the pattern is due to a
combination of both these factors.

Careful inspection of the pattern led to the conclusion
that at least part of the problem was due to attraction index
inaccuracies so changes were made in nearly all indices in pro-
portion to the percent deviations recorded in Run 9. When

these values were substituted and used in Run 10, the stand-

 

ard deviat:
the extrenu
positive dr
five devia'
evident in<
destinatio:

As a
stant decre
constants 4
Um values
0f Predict
beoam9 ove:
Previously
dEViations
‘22-7- c1.
Stant had i
set at .00
pIEdj-Ction
being OVEr

Tuer.

and 12‘ R1
ViatiOR of
attraction

Run 13A has

63

ard deviation of prediction dropped to 36.8 and several of

the extreme deviations were eliminated. The preponderance of
positive deviations in the southern urbanized portion and nega-
tive deviations at the northern destinations was still strongly
evident indicating the necessity of further revision of the
destination attraction scaling constant.

As a first step, Run 11 was submitted with this con-
stant decreased by the power of 10 to .000331 while the other
constants and the individual attraction indices remained at
the values used in the previous run. The standard deviation
of prediction rose to 67.3, some of the northern destinations
became over predicted and the southern destinations which had
previously been over predicted now had substantial negative
deviations. For example, Wayne County dropped from +36.4 to
-22.7. Clearly the change in the destination attraction con-
stant had been too great so Run 12 was made with the constant
set at .001819. This resulted in the standard deviation of
prediction dropping to 37.8 but the southern destinations were
being over predicted once more.

Therefore, two simultaneous runs were made with destina-
tion scaling constants set between the values used for Runs 11
and 12. Run 13A with a constant of .000993 had a standard de-
viation of 44.3 while Run 13B using .001324 as the destination
attraction scaling constant had a deviation of 40.5. However,

Run 13A had lower individual deviations for the southern pOpu-

64

lated destination areas. The deviation for wayne County was
+10.0, for Oakland +0.4 and for Macomb -17.9. There was
still a considerable number of northern destinations that
were under predicted but most of the destinations with high
boating use were within 10 or 20 percent of the correct pre-
diction. It was therefore assumed that in Run 13A the model
was in reasonable overall balance again and a destination
attraction scaling index of .000993 was selected for use in
the runs that followed.

For Run 14, the individual attraction indices were
again modified in proportion to their percent deviations in
Run 13A. This resulted in a standard deviation of 27.3 with
half the predictions being within plus or minus 10 percent of
the observed values. The predictions for the southern areas
were particularly close with few showing substantial devia-
tion. A group of northern destinations again contributed a
substantial negative deviation but it was decided to make a
further complete revision of the individual attraction indices
before attempting to correct this situation.

This was done in Run 15, all the indices being raised
or lowered in proportion to the individual deviations expe-
rienced in Run 14. The result was a standard deviation of
prediction of 24.8 and a significant reduction in the error
in the case of a number of the more southerly destinations

that had sizeable deviations. The northerly destinations

65

that were considerably over predicted generally showed little
improvement. In some cases the deviations actually increased.

The next step in the fine-tuning procedure was to at-
tempt to produce a further reduction in the under prediction
of the northern areas but at the same time, preserve or im—
prove the level of accuracy in the southern sections. As a
first attempt, Runs 16A and 16B were submitted with the des-
tination scaling constant set at .000827 and .000662 reSpectively.
The resultant standard deviations of prediction were 25.5 and
28.0. Run 16A with the lower value appeared to be best since
there was some improvement in the northern sections but the
southern destinations with large boating usage were generally
still being reasonably accurately predicted.

Next, a change was made in the highway link time - cost
eXponent in order to reduce the penalty imposed for long trips.
It was decreased from 2.5 to 2.0 and this reduced the standard
deviation of prediction to 24.8. A further reduction in this
exponent did not appear to be advisable since the deviation
in the case of some of the heavily used southern destinations
started to rise and only slight improvement in a few of the
extreme values at more northerly destinations was Observed.

Finally, the individual attraction indices were once
again revised in prOportion to the percent error of each pre-
diction and the modified program submitted as Run 18. The

resultant standard deviation of prediction was 19.2 with

66

thirty:one of the predictions falling within plus or minus
five percent and another twenty lying between five and ten
percent as shown in Table 3. Some extreme values persisted.
The largest was the -82.6 percent error in the case of Emmet
County. This destination was severely under predicted
throughout the calibration and fine-tuning phases, remaining
remarkably close to the above value even when adjacent coun-
ties were influenced considerably by changes in the indices.
The next largest errors in prediction were experienced with
Luce County where the error was -7l.0 percent and Chippewa
where the value was -51.4 percent. Like Emmet, the predic-
tions for these destinations showed little inclination to
changegreatly throughout the calibration and tuning proce-
dures.

Since the tuning process had occupied two months and
involved some twenty-five computer runs of the RECSYS program,
it was decided that further tuning of the model was not fea-
sible at that time and the values obtained in Run 18 were
adopted for use in the subsequent simulation phase.l How-
ever, the 19.2 percent standard deviation obtained appeared to

be reasonable in View of the 19.8 percent standard deviation

 

1The author was limited in the number of runs that could
be made at each stage in calibration and tuning since time con-
straints made it necessary to pay for each run in order to ob-
tain priority at the computer, and each one costs approximately
$25.

67

Table 3. Results of the Final Run (No. 18) in the Model
Calibration and Tuning Procedure

 

 

 

No. Destinationa Predicticnb Errorc Percent.Errord
901 Baraga 32,11117 -1,673 41.9
902 Gogebic 66,2611 411,036 -17.5
903 Heughton 83,208 -8,052 -8.8
9011 Keweenaw 3.7113 -3117 -8.5
905 mtonagon 19,510 -920 41.5
907 Iron 60,227 -8,513 -12.l1
908 Menam'nee 33,015 -5,6l15 -1'-1.6
909 Alger 27. 720 '1. 750 '5.9
910 Delta h2.395 -12,165 -22.3
911 Marquette 76,072 -1,388 -1.8
912 Chippewa 71,077 -75,033 -51.11
913 Luce 11,9811 -29,296 -71.0
9111 Mackinac 169,731 -25,239 -12.9
915 Schoolcraft 51,235 -26,055 “33.7
916 , Alpena 105,859 '1,211 '1.1
917 Antrim 114,612 -78,068 410.5
918 Charlevoix 811,133 -35,867 -29.9
919 Cheboygan 218,611 -98,169 -31.0
920 Ekm'et 22,685 -108,005 -82.6
921 Mcmtmorency 76.9911 -15,326 -l6.6
922 Otsego 90, 7118 -28,172 -23. 7
923 Presque Isle 77.107 -28,363 -26.9
9211 Benzie 115.398 l1,218 3.8
925 Grand Rapids 3211.599 111,589 4.7
926 Leelanau 180,363 38,863 27.5
927 Lake 118,266 1h,206 13.7
928 Mason 123,861 9,301 8.1
929 Manistee 102,1170 14,7“0 16.8
930 Newaygo 359,881 25,1101 7.6
931 Oceana 98.997 6,867 7.5
932 Wexford 119.1102 11,092 10.2
933 Almna “17,567 11,277 8.3
931-1 Chl'awford 32,009 1,0119 3.11
935 10500 351,808 15,898 l1.7

68

Table 3—-Oontinued

 

 

 

NO. Destinationa Predictionb Errorc Percent Errord
3;; Kalkaska—Miss. 168.193 5. 503 3.4
938 Og.-Oscoda 188,167 -58,943 -23.9
939 Roscarmon 451.474 25.354 6.0
9110 WC 65.959 3.839 6.2
Bay 173.103 5.263 3.1
941 Clare-Gladvin 380,847 22,577 6.3
942 Isabella 35,588 1,938 5.8
943 Midland 54.393 2.343 4.5
944 Mec.-Osoeola 264,556 17,046 6.9
945 Kent 307.589 12.379 4.2
946 Ionia-Mont. 308.478 12.558 4.2
947 Muskegon 236,322 10,712 4.7
948 Ottawa 377.584 19.754 5.5
949 Clinton-Gratiot 21 .890 160 0.7
951 Livingston 462,767 12,337 2.7
952 Saginaw 23,649 -961 -3.9
953 Shiawassee 9,303 323 3.6
954 Gen.-Lapeer 484,034 19,534 4.2
955 Huron 221,068 22,988 11.6
956 St. Clair 745,196 46,796 6. 7
957 Sanilac 33.502 '3.038 ’8-3
958 Tuscola 82.594 -706 -0.8
959 Allegan 202.712 10.892 5.7
960 Barry 511.513 25.943 5.3
961 Berrien 193.819 3.509 1.8
962 Cass-St. Joseph 662.713 33.733 5.4
963 Kalamazoo 283,135 12,975 4.8
964 Van Man 271.999 14.119 5.5
965 Branch-Calhoun 503,744 30,284 6.4

69

Table 3-Continued

 

 

 

No. Destinationa Predictionb Errorc Percent Errord
966 Hillsdale-Len. 385. 320 17,450 4. 7
967 Jackson 416,537 14,727 3.7
968 .Monroe 186,204 -8,236 -4.2
969 ‘Washtenaw 335.098 9.718 3.0
970 Maccmb 838,098 33,208 4.1
971 Oakland 1.020.097 33,397 3.4
972 Wayne 973.999 42.529 4.6

 

aIn this and all subsequent tables, the destination counties
are arranged in order of their location in Department of Conservation
administrative districts in order to facilitate totalling by dis-
trict or region.

bIs the actual prediction of the RECSYS model in boat use-
periods.

cls the difference between the prediction and the known boat
use-periods value for the destination concerned (see Appendix III).

dls the error expressed as a percentage of the known value.

5.. ~m-..- —'

70

of prediction Obtained by Ellis with his systems model for
state park camping, which had fewer components, was provided
with better attraction index information and employed more
reliable use data by origin and destination. A comparison of
the values obtained in Table 3 and the results of the Ellis
Simulationl indicates that Run 18 of RECSYS iS a considerably
closer "fit" to the observed values than the "fit" obtained
in state park camping simulation although the standard de-

viations of prediction are almost identical.
Simulation and Mapping of 1965 Supply, Demand, and Surplus

Once the calibration and fine tuning procedures were
completed, it was possible to make a RECSYS simulation run
for 1965 which included allowances for boating in unregis-
tered boats and out-of-state boats. The origin loading deck
was modified by the addition of assumed values for boating by
out-of-state boaters and for boating undertaken in unregistered
boats by means of the techniques described earlier. The four
scaling constants and the attraction indices were those used
in Run 18. Following the running of the RECSYS program using

these values, the resultant demand predictions were corrected

 

1Michigan State University, Department of Resource De-
velOpment, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, Op.cit.,
pp. 6-10, 6-11.

71

individually according to the under prediction or over pre-
diction Observed in Run 18. The values for 1965 total boat-
ing demand thus Obtained are Shown in column "a" of Table 4.
Each individual demand estimate was then subtracted from the
total estimated supply Of boating Opportunities for the des-
tination concerned as calculated earlier (see Appendix VII).
The remainder is the "surplus" of boating Opportunities
shown in column "c" of Table 4.

The values thus Obtained for 1965 total boating demand,
supply, and surplus were then punched on data processing
cards to form three separate SYMAP data decks.l An initial
test run of the SYMAP program was made using the 1965 supply
data deck and calling for percentage decile scaling--that is,
for each of the ten levels of Shading on the maps to cover an
equal range of boat use-periods equivalent to one-tenth of the
total range of the data. It was hOped that this simple scal-
ing would give maps that illustrated the distribution of demand,
supply, and surplus fairly clearly because the direct arithme-
tic relationship involved would be relatively easy to compre-

hend. However, it was found that the percentage decile scal-

 

lEllis, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part II, op.cit., pp. 6-8.

Table 4.

72

Results of 1965 Simulation in Terms Of

Demand, Supply, and Surplus

E

j

 

L

Boat USe-Periods

 

 

dee

No. Destination limmnrfii Supplyb SurplusC
901 Baraga 42,387 2,078,000 2.035.613
902 Gogebic 116,828 3 ,225 ,900 3,109,072
903 Houghton 107,356 2,542,400 2,435,044
904 Keweenaw 4,679 2,137,500 2,132,821
905 mtonagon 28,063 1,674,300 1,646,237
906 Didkinson 80.557 453.600 373.043
907 Iron 93,483 1,771,200 1,677,717
908 Menominee 121,289 1,365,400 1,244,111
909 Alger 48,285 3,302,400 3,254,115
910 Delta 104,624 3,521,800 3,417,176
911 Marquette 121,135 4,144,900 4,023,765
912 Chippewa 121,202 8,065,700 7.944.498
913 Luce 23.810 1,667,600 1,643,790
914 Mackinac 211,488 5,773,700 5,562,212
915 SChoolcraft 88,567 3,210,200 3,121,633
916 Alpena 120,201 2,974,600 2,854,399
917 Antrim 181,487 2,776,300 2,594,813
918 Charlevoix 122,201 5,257,800 5,135,599
919 Cheboygan 317.469 5.366.900 5.049.431
920 Ehurfl: 45,718 1,629,800 1,584,082
921 Mbntmorency 102,543 828,000 725,457
922 Otsego 129,004 482,400 353,396
923 Presque Isle 188,252 1,008,000 819,748
924 Benzie 131,447 2,064,900 1,933,453
925 Grand.Traverse 354,982 2,039,800 1,684,818
926 Leelanau 151.576 3.653.500 3,501,924
927 Lake 124,319 309.600 185.281
928 .mason 138,989 1,472,900 1,333,911
929 .Manistee 102,497 1,295,000 1,192,503
930 Newaygo 413,233 828,000 414,767
931 Oceana 113,140 1,025,200 912,060
932 WExfcId. 127,213 468,000 340,787
934 Crawford 36,259 180,000 143 . 741
935 Iosco 392,028 1,713,800 1,321,772

73

Table 4—Ccntinmd

 

 

Boat Use-Periods

 

 

Code

No. Destination Demanda Supplyb SurplusC
936 KaJJcaska—Missaukee 190, 047 892 , 000 701 , 953
937 Ogemaw-Osooda 273.497 833 ,600 560,103
938 Rosocmnon 498,853 2,815,200 2,316,347
939 Arenac 72.952 1,010,800 937.848
940 Bay 198,491 1,842,200 1,643,709
941 Clare-Gladwin 423,615 871,200 447,585
942 Isabella 40,040 79,200 39,160
943 .Midland 61,502 180,000 118,498
944 Meoosta—Osoeola 298,106 799. 200 501 ,084
945 Kent 369,061 576,000 206,939
946 Imia—Montcalm 360,616 648,000 287,384
947 Muskegon 284.053 1.559.400 1.275.347
948 Ottawa 459,310 1,094,700 635,390
949 Clintoanratiot 26,454 158,400 131,946
950 Eatoanngham 70,887 108,000 37,113
951 Livingston 556 , 155 662 , 400 106, 245
952 Saginaw 29,417 100,800 71,383
953 Shiawassee 10,878 64,800 53.922
954 Genesee-Iapeer 555,895 698,400 142,505
955 Enron 233,006 2,942,600 2,709,594
956 St. Clair 842,124 2,476,100 1,633,976
957 Sanilac 43,562 1,093,200 1,049,638
958 Tusoola 99.317 637.200 537.333
959 Allegan 260,839 1,289,100 1,028,261
960 Barry 623,808 748,800 124.992
961 Berrien 312,218 1,441,100 1,128,882
962 Cass-St. JOseph 842,860 1,339,200 496,340
963 Kalamazoo 353,068 698,400 345,332
964 van Buren 385,294 821,300 436,006
965 BrandhrCalhoun 609,732 921,600 311,868
966 Hillsdale-Lenawee 466,392 686,800 220,408
967 Jankson 503,366 705,600 202,234
968 Monroe 291,208 1 ,090,500 799.292
969 ‘washtenaw 408,568 640,800 232,232
970 Maoarb 976,888 1,085,400 108,512

74

Table 4—Continued

 

 

Boat Use-Periods

 

 

 

 

 

Code

No. Destination Dananda Supplyb Surplusc

971 Oakland 1,182,633 1,656,000 473,367

972 Wayne 1,159,376 1 ,825,400 666,024
TOTALS 19,136,896 119,082 ,400 99,945,494

 

a"Denand" is the value obtained frcm RECSYS simulation

corrected in accordance with percent errors obtained in final ttming

run.

b"Supply" isrthe 1965 capacity value - see Appendix VII.

C"Surplus" is the amount by which "Supply" exmds "Demand."

75

ing did not give a good indication of the considerable vari-
ation in the capacities of the many destinations at the lower
end of the range. This was because the majority of the values
were at the lower end of the scale so two or three levels of
shading were being required to represent a large number of
values. The program was, therefore, altered to call for the
left-hand logarithmic scalingl which had levels set at 0.0 to
2.5, 2.6 to 6.0, 6.1 to 14.9, 15.0 to 36.5, 36.6 to 89.8,
89.9 to 220.8, 220.9 to 542.9, 543.0 to 1,335.2, 1,335.3 to
3,281.6, and 3,281.7 to 8,067.7. The SYMAP test run of 1965
supply was repeated with this scaling and produced a map with
a satisfactory range of shading (see Figure 5).

It was decided to use left-hand expanded logarithmic
scaling for all the SYMAP runs. This was done with the knowl-
edge that it would result in the range of value levels being
less than optimal in the case of phenomena that had few com-
paratively low values. However, the selection of a single
type of scaling and the same range of values for all of the
SYMAP runs would make direct comparison of the various maps

possible.

 

A left-hand logarithmic scaling means that there are
more levels in the 1OW values - that is, the class intervals
are smaller for the low end of the scale. This type of scal-
ing is useful when data consisting of many low values and
few high values is being mapped.

76

Regionalization of Demand, Supply,'and Surplus

The halves of the SYMAP print-outs of both a choro-
pleth map and an isopleth map for 1965 demand, supply, and
surplus were then joined, mounted and reduced photographi-
cally to produce the illustrations of SYMAP used in this
Chapter.1 Each set of maps will be discussed separately from

the viewpoint of the regions revealed.

1965 Boating Demand

 

The iSOpleth map of 1965 boating demand, Figure 2,
shows a region of high demand in the Detroit metrOpolitan
area consisting of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, and St. Clair
Counties. Barry County is the only other area that stands
out at this high level. The rest of the Lower Peninsula is
shown to have medium - high demand with the exception of the
core area consisting of Clinton, Shiawassee, and Gratiot

Counties, and to some extent also Eaton, Ingham, Saginaw,

 

1All the SYMAP print-outs reproduced in this thesis

have a north - south scale which is exaggerated by one-third
compared to the east - west scale. This is because the SYMAP
program used was written for a computer printer with 8 lines
to the inch spacing since thisgives a better quality map.
Unfortunately, it was not possible to arrange to print the
maps on the new printer of this type which had just been in-
stalled by the School of Urban Planning and Landscape Archi-
tecture. Note also that the Upper Peninsula is displaced to
right in order to permit the map to be at a larger scale on
a double width of printer paper than would otherwise be pos-
sible.

 

03:00"

a7-|oo'v

77

 

w w
_. .«

 

 

    

WWWW

WWWWWWW W

PERIODS

m “26.46
.U 11..
wool
[S ”I
ATInA mum mfiwhubh
E
wLMW
_ 6.10
$0265
wwmw m 1
W
N
T

 

«'00'11 -
«'oo' 11 —

WWWWWWWWWWWW

89

36.6 In

  

 

220.8

542.9
5430 111 1,335.2

39.9 111
a 1,335.3 111 3,201.6

220.9 Io

  

WWWWWWW
WWWWWWWWW

WW

WWWWWWWWW.

...
.-
n... ..

WWWWWWW

WWWWWWWW

      

a 3,201.1 lo 11,0671

WWWWWWWWWW WWW WWWWWW.

'42’00'!

e WWWWWW

.1me

  

    

WWWWWW WWWWWWWWWWW

 

WWWWWWWWWW

42’00' I -

"'00!

 

 

Isopleth Map of 1965 Boating Demand at Michigan

Destination Counties

Figure 2.

78

Isabella, and Midland Counties. The Upper Peninsula is
shown as a region of generally medium to low boating demand
with no strong differentiation into separate zones.

The Choropleth map shown in Figure 3 indicates the dis-
tribution of 1965 boating demand even more dramatically. The
high demand region in southeastern Michigan is shown to be
oriented towards the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair and the
Detroit River which is a more realistic representation of the
actual situation. The low use region in the center of the
Lower Peninsula is also better represented. Small, county
sized patches of lower demand within the generally medium to
high demand of the Lower Peninsula occur in the Sanilac-
Tuscola area, in the Crawford-Kalkaska region, and also in
Emmet County. In the Upper Peninsula, the generally medium
to low boating use pattern is modified to some extent by the
higher demand regions in Chippewa and Mackinac Counties and
the low use region in Keweenaw County. The five boating de-
mand regions that were develOped from this analysis are

listed in Table 5 and shown graphically on Map A in Figure 8.

1965 Boating Supply

In Figure 4 and 5, boating supply is shown to have a
distributional pattern that is considerably different from
the pattern exhibited by 1965 boating demand. The strong in-

fluence of the boating opportunities offered by the Great

 

 

1'1
1‘1 AIIIIIII

79

 

 

  
   
  

 

    
  
  

     

   

 

arloo'v 03'00'111
I
46-00'11- -4s-oo'11
z
40
SCALE
20 II
IILES
I0
10 20 30 ‘0
«'00'11- -«'oo'11
-ucuo—
11100531105 or 0011 USE-PERIODS
0m» 23
zen so
6.1 lo 109 .............._' ' :
366” me EEEEEEEEE
, m:-
m '° 22°” W
220.9 In 542.9 _________2 fi 3
343.0 10 1,335.2 """"
E 1,335.3 11: 3,2816
. 3,231.1 1o 0,051.1
"'°°"" a:— .':»_.==-_:—-:._=-7' “2'00":
r—L.-~a-M l I
03100 n

 

Figure 3. Choropleth Map of 1965 Boating Demand at Michigan

Destination Counties

80

Table 5. List of Boating Destination Demand Regions for 1965

 

 

 

Limits in
‘Ihousands
of Boat
Region Characteristic Use-Periods Area
I High Danand Over 543.0 Wayne, Oakland, livingstm
Macomb, and St. Clair Coun-
ties
II Median - High 89.9 to Major part of the lower Penin-
Demand 542.9 sula plus the eastern and
southwestern parts of the
Upper Peninsula
III Median Demand 15.0 to Central and northwest parts
89.8 of the Upper Peninsula and
Ehmet County
IV Median-Low 6.1to ‘Ihecentralareaofthelower
Demand 89.8 Peninsula around Clinton and
Gratiot Counties
V Low Demand Below 14.9 Keweenaw Peninsula

 

81

 

 

IJ'OO'I

Irloo’v

WWWW

EE.

IIW WWWWWW

        

I.

.IWIIWWIWWWW W.
IIIIIIIIIWWWI

IWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWII.

EE
WWWWWI WIWIIIWWIIWIWIIIIIIIW

WWII

   

WIWIWW

WL

      

 

-“‘00'l

   

“‘00'

W
I_II.IWWWWWWW

-WWW. IIW

 

WWIIIII

ail

.IW

  

mu

IILES

10203040

-44'00'I

4000'! -

'LEGEID-

TNWSMODS 0F BOAT USE-PERIODS

   

5
6
3

ISO lo

8
n

36.6 In

  

220.0

09.9 to

 

WWWWWWWI

    

343.0 10 1,333.2
333.3 1. 3,ZI|.6

WWWWWWIIIIIIIII WW

 

3 3,2311 11: 0,061.1

-42'00'I

42'00'11 -

”'00!

”'00"

1
01.001

 

 

Counties

Isopleth Map of 1965 Boating Supply by Michigan
Destination

Figure 4.

c I]. “W. iai'jv
. ? .

 

82

 

 

— as'oo'u

.'
.w-

— «’oo‘u

- 42‘00'“

   

IA mum

IO 20 30 00

h
.m

- LEGEND -
THOUSANDS 05 80M USE -PERIODS

«'OO'N —

60

'0

26

365

m
0
w

to 89 8

36‘6

 

220‘5
5‘2 9

899 b
220.9 90

 

~—
n...-
u...-
m
u.—
——
c.—
a...

MyomIsz
L335»3 to 3,28I6

3,23” to 3,061]

   

  

QQ'W'N '-

 

 

Counties

Choropleth Map of 1965 Boating Supply by Michigan
Destlnatlon

Figure 5.

83

Lakes is apparent in the isopleth map but the patterns become
even clearer in the chorOpleth version. The regions devel-
Oped are listed in Table 6 and shown graphically on Map B in
Figure 8.

It must be pointed out that there is a certain amount
of distortion in the pattern due to the fact that the boating
supply provided by the Great Lakes acts through the destina-
tion node for that particular county. In some cases the node
is central to the county and, therefore, is situated some
distance from the shoreline so the zone of high supply tends
to extend inland rather than be concentrated along the shore.
In other cases, the destination nodes of shoreline counties
are located on the coastline and distortion is less evident.
However, it must be remembered that all the boating capacity
and demand attributed to Great Lakes waters (see Appendix VII)
does actually occur outside the land area of the county. The
distribution of this element in boating supply and to some ex-
tent boating demand, surplus, and needs means that the SYMAP
print-outs are diagramatic representations for planning pur-

poses rather than precise indications of spatial dispersion.

 

1The location of the destination nodes is discussed in
Chapter I.

84

Table 6. List of Boating Supply Regions in 1965

 

 

 

Limits in
Thousands
of Boat
Region Characteristic Use-Periods Area
I High Supply Over 1,335.3 Most of the Upper Peninsula
plus six areas along the
coastline of Lamar Michigan
II Mediun - High 543.0 to A belt one or two counties
Supply 1,335.2 wide around the Lower Penin-
sula plus an area centered
in Roscamrm County
III Median Supply 89.9 to An elongated central area in
542.9 the Lower Peninsula from the
state line in the south to
Otsego Comty in the north
IV Medium-Ian 36.6to Asnallzmewithinthesouth-
Supply 89 . 8 ern portion of the elongated

central area. Clintcn, Shia-
wassee, Eaton and Ingham are
the principal counties involved

 

85

1965 Boating Supply Surplus

 

The distribution of the 1965 boating supply surplus is
shown in SYMAP form in Figures 6 and 7. The regions are de-
scribed in Table 7 and shown graphically in Figure 8.

From inSpection of Figure 7 and comparisons of the
maps in Figure 8, it will be seen that in 1965 Michigan had
some fair sized areas of high boating supply surplus but that
these were concentrated in the Upper Peninsula, the northern
part of the Lower Peninsula and in the "thumb." These areas,
constituting Region I, were linked by zones of medium - high
surplus (Region II) along the Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, and
Lake Erie shoreline sections of Lower Michigan. There were
no actual deficit areas but the central core counties around
Clinton County had relatively low supply surplus values.

This part of Michigan has relatively few lakes and is known

to be a region where more boating opportunities are needed.
However, since demand in this analysis has been based on

where pe0ple actually go to boat, the absence of a major defi-
cit is understandable.

It should also be remembered that an attempt has been
made to relate supply to demand in terms of the total annual
supply and demand. The problem of adequate supply during
peak periods has already been mentioned. It appears that

under our present patterns of use, a need for additional

86

 

87' 00"

 

03' 00"

IWWI

          

..I... I

..m
u
_

IWIWW WWWWWWWWWWWWWWIIII
.IWWWWIII WWWWWWWWWWWWW WW WWWWWWWW WWWW WWWWWWWWI...
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWIIIWI IIWIWWE

  
 

III WWII W W W _.IIIIIIIIIIIIIII_W ._ WIIIIWIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWII
..I: II ......IWWWIIIIIIIIIIII III...
..IIIWWWW IIII.IIIIIIIIWIWWWIWIIIIIIWIIWIIII...

 

..IIIIWWWWWWWIIWWWWIIIWIIIII.

‘6'00'N -

IIIIIIIIII IIIIIWWWIIWWWWWWWWWWWI. I..

ATInA

SCALE
II
IILES

..m
«

           

‘0

“3‘07;

7 [B70

 

44'00'" -

-LE6END-

YHOUSANOS 0' BOA! USE

S
0
0
R
F.
D.

60

m
6
2

m—
Am

365

I50 Do

 

...—.... ...——
3:123"...— ..——

I IWW
WWWWWWWWI

...WWWWWWI
IWIWW.

 

89.3
220.8
502 9

899 lo

366 to
2209 lo

 

IIIIIIIIIIII
IWIWWWIWWW
WWWIWIIII
IIIIWWWW

5430 lo I_3352
[335,3 vo 3,28I e

3 3,21“) Io 8,0677

 

-62’OO'I

 

I I
III. IIIWWWWWIIWWWW
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWI IWIWW WWWWIW
WWI IIWIIII IIIIIIIIIIII

IIIIIIIIIII ..IWWW

OI'OO'N -

I
IS'OO'I

BT'I'OO I

 

 

Isopleth Map of 1965 Boating Supply Surplus by
Counties

Michigan Destination

Figure 6.

 

       

e7°oo'w .3?"
“°°°"" «room
SCALE
20 II‘L‘ES
|0 ' M:
* WW W
M'oo'u- I ~44'oo'u
-LEGEND-
ruousmos 0: son use-muons
0.00 m 2 5
2.6 lo 6 0
6| lo “.9
:5 o lo 36 5
see no use
as 9 lo 220.3
E 2209 m 5029
g 5430 lo 1,3352
a .9353 lo 3.23: a
3.2m 7 I0 8,0677
"'°°"" «room

 

 

 

Choropleth Map of 1965 Boating Supply Surplus

Figure 7.
by Michigan Destination Counties

88

 

 

 

Table 7. List of Boating Supply Surplus Regims in 1965
Limits in
Thousands
of Boat
Region Characteristic Use-Periods Area
I High Surplus 1,335.3 to Most of the Upper Penin-
8,067.7 sula plus four areas along
the coast of lower Michigan
II Median - High 543.0 to A fairly narrow belt less
Surplus 1,335.3 than one county wide around
the Loner Peninsula plus
an area centered on Rosccmnon
County
III Medium Surplus 89.9 to The major portion of the in-
542.9 ternal part of Iower Michigan
except for the central area
IV Median - Low 15.0 to An area centered about Clinton
Surplus 89.8 County

 

89

 

 

      
 

A. DEMAND B. SUPPLY

 

I ' HIGH II 'IEDIUI-HIGH
III ' MEDIUM II! MEDIUM- LOW
I ' LOW

 

 

Figure 8. Generalized Maps of Boating Demand, Supply,
and Surplus and Regions in 1965

 

90

boating opportunities probably exists wherever the surplus
drops below about 200,000 boat use-periods per year. Fur-
ther discussion of the planning and management implications
of this analysis is beyond the sc0pe of this thesis.
Running the complete RECSYS-SYMAP program for 1965
boating accomplished three things. It enabled the model to.
be calibrated with actual use data, it made it possible to
check out the overall performance of the RECSYS-SYMAP tech-
nique under known conditions, and it provided base year
information which could be compared to corresponding data
obtained by simulation of probable situations in future years.
The next step was to run the RECSYS-SYMAP process for boat-

ing in 1980, the target planning year.

CHAPTER IV
THE 1980 SIMULATION

In order to make the proposed test of the RECSYS—SYMAP
program for boating in 1980 it was necessary to gather infor-
mation on the probable nature and extent of the cultural
changes which could affect recreation participation by that
time. This new information was then substituted in the cali-
brated and tuned 1965 RECSYS program in order to simulate
1980 conditions. In a few cases, the information on proba-
ble future conditions was readily available. In several
other instances, present inadequate knowledge of recreation
behavior makes it difficult to forecast future trends. In
these cases it is recognized that the magnitude of the values
substituted in the prOgram may be subject to debate. How-
ever, it is felt that they are reasonable estimates and that
their use is justified since this thesis is primarily con-
cerned with testing the RECSYS-SYMAP technique as applied to

Michigan.

Assumed Changes in Highway Linkages

 

Due to the long range planning and design activities

of Michigan Department of State Highways, it was possible to

91

92

modify the highway linkages in the RECSYS model with reason-
able assurance that the revised model would bear a close re-
semblance to the actual main highway system in 1980. Since
it has been reliably predicted that a major change in the
type of vehicle used for family transportation1 is unlikely
by 1980, it appears that the tranSportation aspects of the
1980 RECSYS model are least likely to be seriously in error.
The changes that were made in the 1965 highway link
deck to convert it to 1980 were based on maps and informa-
tion supplied by the Michigan Department of State Highways.2
Since no radically new highway routes are likely to have been
constructed by 1980, it was possible to leave the configura-
tion of the model the same so that the 1980 link deck has the
same number of components with basically the same relation-
ships to one another. In a few cases the straightening of
routes has made it possible to reduce the distance assigned

to a particular link.

 

lRandolph B. Lutz, The Motor Vehicle of the Future
(Lansing, Michigan: State Resource PIanning Program, Michigan
Department of Commerce, February 1966), Technical Report No. 2,
p. 3.

This source states that "The motor vehicle of the fu-
ture, 1980 and beyond, will continue to roll on pneumate-
tired wheels," and "Tomorrow's passenger cars will not differ
materially from the current models in size and passenger ac-
comodations."

 

2These data were supplied by Mr. W.E. Bailey, Assistant
Chief, System Planning Section, Michigan Department of State
Highways.

93

The major changes made were in the speeds assigned.
It was assumed that by 1980 average speeds will generally be
higher due to better vehicles. Although the vehicle trans-
porting the recreation user may still travel somewhat slower
than the average for all passenger vehicles due to added
loads, trailers, and use at peak flow periods, it was as-
sumed that these vehicles will generally travel faster than
the speeds assigned for the 1965 situation. For example,
for 1965 it was assumed that on divided four lane controlled
access highways, the recreational vehicle would average
60 m.p.h. For 1980, the speed was raised to 65 m.p.h. Simi-
larly, the Speed on three lane arterial highways was raised
from 55 to 60 m.p.h., on secondary arterial highways from 50
to 55 m.p.h. and on area service highways from 40 to 45 m.p.h.
in some areas where urbanization is unlikely to hold speeds
down. The toll of $1.50 assigned to travel on link 634 from
Chicago was left at the same value but the Mackinac Bridge
toll of $5.001 was reduced to $1.00. Recent legislation in-
troduced in both Houses of the Michigan Legislature suggested
a fifty cent one-way toll so a $1.00 value was adopted as the
probable 1980 average cost to users with recreation equipment.

The values for the 1980 highways links are compared to the

 

1This value had been used previously by Ellis and is
assumed to be an average value representative of the various
types of vehicles and trips involved.

94

1965 values in Appendix IX. These 1980 values were used
without further modification in all simulations of 1980 con-

ditions.

Assumed Changes In Supply Factors

 

In order to prepare the RECSYS model for a simulation
of 1980 conditions both the attraction index and capacity
values for each destination must be carefully checked to
see if any significant changes in the factors on which they

depend can be expected by that time.

Capacity
The actual total annual carrying capacities of the

various destinations in the RECSYS model are unlikely to

change appreciably. This is to say, the actual acreage of

 

water available in or adjacent to each county is likely to
remain generally constant. There may be some relatively

small additions to the boatable acreage available due to the
construction of compoundments and ponds but no major devel-
opments are contemplated such as have completely altered the
patterns of recreation activity in some western states. Even
if funds were available, few potential sites exist in southern
Michigan where the additional acreage is needed. (Some small
impoundments have been proposed and these will be discussed

later in this section). The Trans-Michigan Waterway pro-

95

posed by former Representative John C. Mackie which would
cost "less than $1 billion" and involve the movement of Lake
Huron water from near Port Huron through a series of pumping
stations and reservoirs and across the southern part of the
state to Lake Michigan1 does not appear to be likely to be-
come a reality--certainly not before 1980.

There are some influences which may reduce the area of
water available to boating in certain counties. For example,
the gradual filling in of lakes by vegetation is reducing
available acreage especially in the southern part of the
state where agriculture and domestic pollution are accelerat-
ing the process. On the other hand, some of the lakes of
this type are being improved by dredging. There is no in-
formation on the net effect county by county and it will be
assumed that the total acreage of boatable water will not be
reduced by a significant amount in the next thirteen years.
Another possible way in which boatable acreage may decrease
is the removal of existing dams. This does not appear to be
likely to cause a major drOp in acreage since the number of
impoundment dams that will reach a condition where repair is
inadvisable is comparatively small and the policy has gener-
ally been to make sure dams are maintained even if the purpose

for which they were built no longer exists. Other factors

 

Towne Courier (East Lansing), November 29, 1966.

 

96

that impinge on the number of boating opportunities an acre
offers such as changes in access and pollution are considered
in setting the attraction indices later in this chapter.

In view of the facts explained above, it was decided
to use the same annual carrying capacity values for 1980 as
were used for 1965 except for the counties where State lakes
are to be built, but change the attraction indices in order
to represent probable 1980 conditions. The State lakes pro-
posal had only reached the stage of actual site acquisition
and develOpment in two cases when the simulation of 1980
boating was carried out. These two sites were Sleepy Hollow
State Park in Clinton County where the lake will have some
500 boatable acres, and Ionia State Park where the lake will
be about 100 acres in extent.

Apart from these two lakes, the proposed artificial
lake system in the "lakeless" counties of southern Michigan
had not been planned in detail. The total program had been
suggested in several different forms from 100 five acre lakes
to ten 500 acre lakes. At the time of 1980 simulation, the
Opinion of Department of Conservation officials was that the
program was likely to produce about 5,000 acres of additional
water by 1980 in the form of artificial lakes between 50 and
100 acres in extent lying in the "lakeless" area consisting

of Midland, Gratiot, Saginaw, Ionia, Clinton, Shiawassee,

97

Genesee, Eaton, Ingham and Isabella Counties.l Taking into
account some possible sites suggested by Department officials,
the probable distribution of these lakes was assumed to be as
shown in Table 8. These values were converted to boat use-
periods and added to the boating carrying capacity of the
counties concerned.

Table 8. Assumed Distribution of Additional

Water Acreage Produced by Department of Con-
servation Artificial Lakes Program by 1980

 

 

 

 

County Acres Boat Use—Periods
Clinton 500 36,000
Eaton 400 28,800
Genesee 200 14,400
Gratiot 400 28,800
Ingham 300 21,600
Ionia 700 50,400
Isabella 600 43,200
Midland 800 57,600
Saginaw 500 36,000
Shiawassee 600 43,200

TOTALS 5,000 360,000

 

 

1Supra., p. 20.

98

This resulted in comparatively small changes in the
total amount of boating opportunities available. In fact,
it was later found that the changes were not large enough to
make the 1980 SYMAP of boating supply significantly different
from the 1965 map so a 1980 supply map has not been repro-

duced in this study.

Attraction

 

As explained earlier, the performance of the RECSYS
model in the 1965 simulation indicates that the attraction
of an area for boating is more closely correlated with the
degree of develOpment of summer and permanent residential
areas and the ease of access to the water for boaters than
it is with the magnitude of the natural resource base. How-
ever, it does appear that the successful development of a
Great Lakes salmon fishery will have a considerable effect
especially as higher disposable incomes and a more advanced
technology place larger more seaworthy boats in the hands of
a bigger proportion of the boating population. However,
only water oriented residential and cottage development and
road access could be taken into consideration in modifying
the revised 1965 attraction indices for use in the 1980

w 1
simulations. These modified attraction indices and the

 

l . . . .

An account of how thlS was done 18 contained in Chubb,
Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a Systems Analysis
Approach, Part III, op.cit.

 

1‘ I! I‘lll. I‘ll, IIIIIII‘I [illur 1".

 

99

modified annual carrying capacities for each destination in

1980 were used in both 1980 simulations (see Appendix VIII).

Assumed Changes in Demand Factors

 

Since no detailed projections of Michigan population
by county and socio-economic_groups were available at the
time that the 1980 boating simulations were to be undertaken,
it was decided to make two sets of boating demand projections.
One set was based entirely on the effects of population in-
crease while the other attempted to also include the proba-

ble effects of other socio-economic multipliers.

Projections Based on Population Increase‘Only

 

The 1980 pOpulation projections used in the estimates
of 1980 recreational boating demand are those adopted of-
ficially for the State Resource Planning Program which is
directed by the Michigan Department of Commerce.1 These pro-
jections are given by county and age groupings only. The
value for the projected 1980 population for each county or
pair of counties was divided by the 1965 pOpulation and the

1965 expanded boat use-period total for each origin was then

 

1University of Michigan, Population Studies Center,
Michigan Population 1960 t0'1980 (Lansing, Michigan: State
Resource Planning Program, Michigan Department of Commerce,
January 1966), Working Paper No. l.

 

100

multiplied by the resultant factOr. The detailed values
are given elsewhere.1

In running the RECSYS model to project the distribu-
tion of 1980 boating on the basis of increased population at
the origins alone, a number of assumptions are implied.
First, it is being assumed that the boating participation rate
per thousand pOpulation at each origin will be the same in
1980 as it was in 1965 according to the expanded Waterways
Division boating survey data. This means that it is being
assumed that no increases in participation rates will occur
due to increased disposable income, more leisure time, and
greater mobility. The present level of demand is being main-
tained. This also implies that the composition of the origin
pOpulations is basically the same for both years since a sub-
stantial change in the socio-economic profile of the origin
pOpulations would probably result in a change in participa-
tion rates.

The assumptions inherent in the 1965 data and the 1965
model are also operative in the 1980 model runs. In some
cases, this may cause some inaccuracies. For example, in the
previously cited problem with the Detroit area residents

registering their boats in Roscommon County, the amount of

 

lChubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part III, cp.cit.

101

boating in 1980 in that county will probably be under pre-
dicted since the pOpulation increase for Roscommon is con-
siderably smaller per thousand than in Detroit. On the other
hand, the exaggerated participation rate for Roscommon due

to non-resident boat registrations will be a compensating
error to some extent.

Because of the fact that additional demand multipliers
such as greater disposable income, increased leisure time,
and more mobility are not included in this projection, it
could be considered to be the lower limit of the probable
amount of boating that will take place in Michigan in 1980.
It is likely to represent the 1980 situation if the rate of
growth of boating is slowed due to either a change in the
social desirability of boating or a considerable recession.
The results of this 1980 simulation will be discussed later

in the chapter.

Projections Based on Population Increase and Other Factors

 

When the 1980 pattern of boating demand is forecast
solely on the basis of population increase as described in
the previous section, a number of important variables are
ignored. Since the same participation rates are assumed,
no allowance is being made for higher rates due to increased
leisure time brought about by shorter work weeks or longer

vacations. Using fixed participation rates also eliminates

102

adjustments for the effects of larger disposable incomes.
With higher purchasing power, more families are able to af-
ford boats and bigger more powerful boats are purchased by
those who are already boat owners. This increases the aver-
age number of days spent boating each year per 1000 pOpula-
tion. Increased mobility is the other factor that increases
recreation participation. In the case of boating, the abil-
ity to travel from the residence to water, and frequently
the ability to transport a boat, are critical factors in
participation. Again, purchasing power is significant in
that thegreater the disposable incomes, the more likely it
is that the average prospective boater will be able to pur-
chase the car and boat trailer he requires before he can
participate.

But recreation participation rates may not continue to
increase. Indeed, as Barlowe has pointed out,1 the straight-
line projection of recent high rates of increase in partici-
pation would mean that eventually we would be doing nothing
else. A change in the social acceptability of a recrea-
tional activity or an economic decline could reduce partici-
pation considerably. For example, total participation in

fishing in Michigan appeared to drop in the late 1950's and

 

1

Raleigh Barlowe, "Land for Recreation," Land Use
"Policy;and‘Problems in the United States (Lincoln, Nebraska:
University of Nebraska Press, 1963), p. 273.

 

103

early 1960's probably due to the combined effects of declin-
ing fishing quality, increased competition for water space

by non-fishing recreational boats, the boom in family use of
boats for cruising and waterskiing, and the rise in the social
desirability of family "togetherness" which is the antithesis
of father_going off to fish by himself for lengthy periods.

For the following projection of boating demand to 1980,
it will be assumed that the present pattern of economic pro-
.gress will continue until that date. It will also be assumed
that the social attitude towards boating will remain the same.
'The latter appears to be very likely in view of the strong
innate attraction of water common to most people who like out-
door recreation activities and the fact that boating has re-
mained a favorite activity of the wealthy and, therefore, ap-
pears unlikely to lose its social acceptance.

The problem then is to estimate the probable effect on
boating participation of factors other than population in-
crease. Unfortunately, the effect of socio-economic multi-
pliers on the growth of boating participation rates has not
been investigated in Michigan. The Michigan Outdoor Recrea-
tion Demand Study boating survey included questions on the
socio-economic characteristics of respondents but since no
earlier data were available it was impossible to develOp any

theories on the relationships between changes in these vari-

104

l
ables and changes in participation rates. The Michigan

Department of Conservation Waterways Division Boating Needs
Survey conducted in 1966 did not include any socio-economic
questions so participation growth could not be related to
socio-economic changes. Even if data were available that
expressed the relationships between participation and socio-
economic change, such factors could not be applied to indi-
vidual destinations because no detailed predictions of the
socio-economic characteristics of Michigan's 1980 population
are yet available.

Some sources have attempted to relate the rates of
change in boating participation to changes in socio-economic

characteristics. In ORRRC Study Report 26, Prospective De-

 

mand for Outdoor Recreation, a table predicts a 35.9 percent

 

~increase in the nationwide boating participation rate (other
than sailing or canoeing) in the period 1960 to 1976 based
on the changes likely to take place in six socio-economic
factors.2 (This is of course in terms of the participation

rate per individual and therefore does not include the effect

 

of increased pOpulation). The table also shows a break down

 

1
Michigan State University, Department of Resource De-

velopment, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, cp.cit.,
pp. 1008-10011.

2U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Study Report 26,gProspective Demand for Outdoor Recreation
(Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962),
p. 28.

105

of the estimated individual effect of the six socio—economic
characteristics considered. Of the 35.9 percent increase
forecast, 18.2 percent is expected to be attributable to in-
creased income, 5.1 percent to higher educational levels,

.5 percent to a shift in occupations, .1 percent to changes
in the age - sex ratios and 8.8 percent to increased leisure
time. The sixth variable, "place of residence," was ap-
parently not one that showed a strong influence on boating
participation nationally and is said to be expected to have
no general effect.

Similar predictions for the period from 1960 to
2000 A.D. show a total increase in participation of 78.9 per-
cent with increased income contributing 31.1 percent, increased
leisure time 19.4 percent, and higher education 10.1 per-
cent.1 These values are too general to apply to Michigan, but
they do give some indication of the possible scale of the
socio-economic multipliers.

This strong correlation between boating participation
and income is confirmed by other studies. The analysis of
MORDS boating survey data in the Tourist Study conducted by
Central Michigan University indicates that:

The average "Family" income of the boater

is significantly above that of the Summer

tourist's "Family" income ($9,500 vs.
$8,800). Almost 39% of the boaters have

 

11bid.

106

incomes over $10,000 and over 86% have

an income over $6,000 per year. Over

25% of the boaters reported that they

had completed from 13 to 15 years of

school and 16% reported that they had

finished college.
This study also indicates a high proportion of professional
and managerial occupations among boat owners. Some 22.5 per-
cent were in the "professional - technical" classification,
'24.9 percent were "manager - owners" and 19.8 percent were
"craftsmen - foremen."2 The 1962 California boating study
showed a somewhat similar distribution of boat owners within
the various income classes but the proportions in each class
were slightly lower.

Having established that participation in boating ap-
pears to be strongly correlated to income and less strongly
affected by the amount of leisure time, the problem is to
develOp factors for the probable increase in boating partici-

pation between 1965 and 1980 due to all the socio-economic

multipliers.

 

1Central Michigan University, Center for Economic Ex-
pansion and Technical Assistance, Michigan Tourism (Mount
Pleasant, Michigan: Central Michigan University, 1966),
Vol. II, p. 10.

 

21bid.’ p. 134.

3Lee, Hill, and Jewett, Inc., California Small Craft
Harbors and Facilities Plan, Comprehensive Report (San Fransisco,
California: Lee, Hill, and Jewett, Inc., March 1964), p. B-37.

 

 

107

All indications suggest that Michigan will continue
to experience a substantial growth in both the prOportion of
"white collar workers" employed and in the average annual

wage. The Michigan Manpower Study forecasts that there will

 

be 1.8 times as many "white collar workers" in the state in
1980 as there will be "blue-collar workers" while in 1960

the two groups were almost equal in size.1

"Exceptional
employment growth is predicted for civil engineers (4.0 per-
cent per year between 1960 and 1980), electrical engineers
(4.9 percent), medical and dental technicians (6.0 percent),
electrical and electronic technicians (6.5 percent) and other
engineering and physical sciences technicians (5.6 percent).2
It is also predicted that the average Michigan resident over
25 will have received two more years of formal education by
1980, than he did in 1965.3

From these indications and under the assumptions of no

major depression or substantial change in the social desira-

 

1Battelle Memorial Institute, Michigan Manpower Study
(Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Memorial Institute, November 1966),
p. 5-70

2

 

Ibido I p. S‘s.

3David N. Milstein, Michigan's Outdoor Recreation and
TOurism (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,
1966), (A Research Report in the Project 80 series), p.l.

108

bility of boating stated earlier, it appears reasonable to
assume that total boating participation will continue to
grow at approximately the same rate as it did during the

. years between 1960 and 1965 provided limitations on the
supply of boating waters do not have a discouraging effect.
This last problem will be discussed later in the analysis of
the RECSYS-SYMAP runs.

The question remains, how much_growth in boating par-
ticipation is taking place and will take place by 1980 and
how will it be distributed spatially? At present, there are
no good indications of the growth of boating in Michigan.1
The boat registration procedures administered by the Secre-
tary of State's office have not produced reliable data due
to the three year period of registration and the problem of
boats that are destroyed or scrapped. However, these data
do give some indication of growth. The total registrations
in 1963, 1964 and 1965 were 314,438, 361,112, and 398,902
respectively. This represents a 14.9 percent increase in

registrations from 1963 to 1964 and a 10.5 percent increase

 

1
Both national and state boat manufacturing and retail-

ing organizations were contacted but no exact data were avail-
able. It was discovered that most state figures quoted by
such organizations are crude estimates which are of doubtful
value except when aggregated to give national estimates.

109

from 1964 to 1965.1 In contrast, the total increase in boat
use-periods between 1964 and 1965 was from 11,420,000 to
15,592,000 as revealed by comparison of the MORDS boating
survey and the Waterways Division boating study (see Appen-
dix II). This represents an increase of 4,172,000 or 36.6
percent over the 1964 total. However, as was pointed out
previously, the MORDS survey is suspect in the matter of
boating use because of problems with the questions.

In order to be able to proceed with 1980 projections,
it was decided to assume that the average of the 1964 and
1965 boating registration percentage increases or a value
of 12.7 percent per year represents the average increase in
the number of registered boats. However, in this increase
there are two components. They are, the increase due to
added population and the increase due to a higher level of
participation. Since the Michigan population appears to have
been increasing at the rate of between .85 and 1.3 percent
during the first half of the decade, it will be assumed that
of the 12.7 percent increase only one percent can be attrib-
uted to population increase alone. This means that some

11.7 percent of the increase can probably be said to be due

 

1Some of the difficulties encountered in interpreting
the boat registration data are discussed in Waterways Divi-
sion report presently in preparation cited on page 29.

110

to changes in the socio-economic factors involved, no doubt
primarily the increase in family disposable incomes.

At this point it should be emphasized that the in-
crease in registrations does not give any indication of the

increase in use of individual boats due to more leisure time,

 

increased income and other factors. A well-documented in-
dicator of the type of increases in total use presently

being eXperienced in outdoor recreation is the 11.1 percent
pg£_yga£ average increase in Michigan state park camping
attendance between 1950 and 1965.1 Part of such increases

is due to increased population, part to more people being
able to participate due to increased income and greater lei-
sure time, and part because of a higher average participation
by all users.

From these indicators, it appears that it is not un-
reasonable to estimate that from 1964 to 1965 there was at
least a 15 percent increase in the amount of boating under-
taken in Michigan due to new and increased participation only
with no allowance for increased population. This 15 percent

increase is suggested on the basis of a probable ten percent

increase in the number of boats and a five percent increase

 

1Michigan State University, Department of Resource
DevelOpment, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study,

OEOCitO' p. 6.13.-

111

in the amount of boating done in each boat. If such a rate
of increase were to continue until 1980, the results would
be staggering. There would be some 1,666,000 registered
boats in the state (or about one boat for every six persons),
and the total use would be 125,000,000 boat use-periods per
year. These values are increases of 420 percent and 930
percent respectively.

Clearly, such a high rate of increase is not likely to
continue. It appears more likely that the rate of increase,
exclusive of population increase effects, will gradually de-
crease as a greater prOportion of the population acquires
boats and boating waters become more crowded. Since this
situation has not existed previously, it is not possible to
rely on earlier trends. It has, therefore, been assumed that
the £2EE.°f increase will decrease and this decrease will
amount to one percent per year so that in 1980 the participa-
tion rate will have become reasonably stable and the main
increase in total participation will be due to pOpulation in-
crease. This would result in a statewide total participation
by in-state registered boaters of 44 million boat use-periods
in 1980 ( an increase of 283.0% from the 1965 value) and a
participation rate of about 5.4 boat use-periods per person

per year compared to 2.45 boat use-periods per year in 1965.1

 

lSupra., Appendix II.

112

These values appear to be quite reasonable and even a little
conservative in the light of recent boating growth rates.
Clearly, the uniform application of the same partici-
pation rate to all origin pOpulations would result in a
distorted pattern of use since it has been demonstrated that
participation rates appear to vary considerably from county
to county.1 Therefore, it was decided to increase or de-
crease the 5.4 use-periods rate for each origin by the per-
centage that the 1965 rate deviated from the 1965 average
rate for the state. This was done on the assumption that
the basic pattern cf the influences that will affect boating
participation in 1980 will be the same as in 1965 and, there-
fore, the pattern of 1980 participation rates is likely to
be similar to the 1965 pattern.2
There is one other major factor which will probably
bring about a considerable change in the pattern of boating
use in Michigan, but which has not yet been considered in
this analysis. It is the probable establishment of a suc-

cessful Great Lakes salmon fishery. This variable is so

definitely a major aspect of the fishing supply and demand

 

lIbid.

2The calculation of the assumed 1980 participation rates
with a 10% increase to allow for unregistered boats and the
resultant actual origin loading values are shown in Appendix XI.

 

113

situation, it appears that the best approach is to include it
as a factor in the 1980 RECSYS-SYMAP fishing simulations at

a later date and then use the predictions of fishing demand
to arrive at values for the additional boating demand that

is likely to result.

Simulation and Mapping_of 1980 Demand, Supply,
Needs and Surplus

 

Simulation Based on Population Increase and Highway Changes

Only

The initial 1980 simulation utilized highway changes1
and pOpulation growth only as described earlier. The indi-
vidual origin loading values for 1980 based on increased
population only are shown elsewhere.2

The results of this simulation are given in Table 9
and a SYMAP reproduction in Figure 9 shows the spatial dis-
tribution of demand. When this map is compared to Figure 3,
it is seen that there has been little change in the general
pattern of demand. Because of this, the pattern of boating
supply surplus also changed little but did have lower values.

It is clear from this simulation that the state faces

no major boating supply problems by 1980 if only population

 

1See Appendix IX.

2Chubb, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part III, op.cit.

Ill-I

 

 

ifltm: 255$.— mmsgm is. 3:5 8m
Rasoofi oom.$m.m MNNJGM 0...: 28896 9m
oR.mo_.m com.$~.m OSJE :55 59386 ma
ERNSJ oométg 9.32 2.3 58.2 :m
23m? 0858; 3.3.: in: and? 2m
mmoéfa oo~.o_~.m $18 36. 0.3.20th 2m
$333 oatmta SONS 8.? Saunas :3
80:13.. 08.39. «3.2 aim- 83 ma
Rhea; Oaxaca mot:— mm.~- @683 N;
.om.mmm.m 08:11.: 30.3. :33 6386.8: :m
«modmma oomruflm «£62 .....N 889 2m
SN. SN. m 8:. Non . m .2 . mm fig? ~82 mom
i. .93.. 8.16%.. 335 R .A 85652 mom
5.3%. SHE: mmmE: 3.2 8d 3m
5m 63 89mm: 2TB .3 .m 5929.5 mom
Stain. 8m :13; in: 3.2- 8889.8 mom
£6.33 oomgré m8; om..- 3689mm :8
Saws} coigmé m9}: mmg c8898 mom
Jame; 08.334. $.02. .13” 03.88. gm
3m._mo.~ 80.3.4 8%? Ea mmfimm 8m
pmflmudm {Sufism Atacama moans—we coflmqflmmo .02

CH mmMGHUCH 800

800.863 98m 9.80.8.1

 

 

E 88331 g .38 $33 smfimfl 8 8g

6% $8.."qu 83mg 658 Sflgm 83 «0 338m

. m 0.3mm.

IIS

 

 

.....mm. 80:13 mags. R... ”Ems. 93
5.3. 8N. mm. $3.3 .....NN £880.38... ....m
..mmé: 80.8. Sims mim. 688% 2m
.3 . om com . E mow . .... mm. .N £30.63 Sm
$9.3m com. 5. .om...~m N92 .Ego ...m
.38.... SHE... $3.2 2.8 sum 93
2.68 03.2.... ......3 .93 0mg mmm
mmo.o...~ oo~.m.m.~ semi: 2.... 5.889. mmm
mas... 80.2.. 3..de om. .. 6808:.8 Sm
....m.m$ 08.3.. @853 2.3 .mmefmxmflnmv. mmm
8.3K... 8.3:: «:63 3.3 08.8 m8
Ewan. 08.8. 2.6.. Sam 80.5.5 ..mm
mange... oom.m$.. $3.: 8.: 882 mm
08. .om 08.8.. case. 3. .m 38.83 «mm
22$ oo~.m~o.. 23.3. 3.2 388 .mm
The} 23.3.. 53.9. if 0...»...sz omm
m.m.$... SONS; .modm. 6.3 69mg Sm
“2.3m; STE... MES. 3.8 8mm: wNm
9.5.3. 08.2; 9.99.. £5 9a.. Rm
$93.; oomamflm 2mg: 8.... 565363 gm
33.3.. oom.mmo.~ ...cN. .9. a. .3 68.98... page mNm
Sham... oom.$o.~ 21$. 3.3 388 .8
$QO 80.30.. .m...m. is? mHmH 888.. Sm
5:; Big. 3%? ~73 0880 Nam
mmm.m$ 08.3.. 2.62 2.3 8:80.582 .3
.6388 039.6 gunman. mnqmfio 83589 .02
CH mmmeUCH
80069.8: umom ”.889.

USESUllm Q33.

88

H6

 

 

20.....- gimme; 08.3... 3.; 98m... Rm
omm.oo. oom.o.m am..om. mm... swamugmgs mmm
mmm.mm. oom.omo.. .om.omm m..m. mougcz. mom
mm..m.. oom.mo. ....omm MN... comxumn New
.mo.mm. oom.owo m.....m .m... .cmgumamumaaflm mmm
mwo.o.. oom..~m ..m.... ...NN cgoaflmoyguamum mom
moo..mm oom..~m .m~.o.. nu... cmnsm am> .mm
.om.um~ oo..mmo mm..oo. om.m. ooumemamx mom
.m...mm oo~.mmm.. m.n.mnm co... gmmmon .umummmo mom
o.m.mmo.. oo....... om..mmm e..m. awflnumm .mm
mm..mm oom.m.~ ..o.m.. No... muumm com
mmm.mmm oo..mm~.. ~mm..m~ ~m.~. ammoaam mmm
..m.-m oo~.~mo omm.... mw.m. maoomss mmm
w.~..:o.. oo~.mmo.. ~m...m ...m. omaflcmm umm
.mm.mm... oo..m~..~ m-.o.o.. um.m~ nflmao .pm omm
~m~.-m.~ oom.~.m.~ mmm.o.~ No.0. ccnpm mmm
.o..oN oo..mmo om~.-o . .m.o~ umommqy.cww .mm
om~.~m com... o.m.~. oo.m. mmmmmzmfinm mmm
mum... oom.oo. ~Nm.mm ...m. zmcflmmm Nmm
mam... oo..~oo ......e m.... coummcfl>aqn .mm
.mm.m~ ooo.mo. mom..m ~..m. .5mamcHucopmm omm
ma..m~. oo..mm. Nfim..m mm.o~ .umuwugoucfldu mam
OMN..Nm oou..mo.. on..m~m mm.m. mgmuuo mam
mm...m~.. oo..mmm.. .o~.m~m m.... .xxwuama. ..m
.m...- ooo.m.m mom.o~. m~.m. .ucazumacoH mam
cmgmufim 03% £98.50 mug 83.3.3me .02

2H mmmmHOqH @000

mUOflHmmlmmD #08

unmonwm

 

 

 

umscflucoouum magma

117

.. .298 8898 .....Efi. and... 3 p.593 9.. 2.. ..msansmé

HS 388... «calms? 3.898 mom. Q... m. ......fifid

ABM 9.23
gm 5. ©0538 mHOHHm £80qu 5.3 woqfiooom .....n goo Em Sago mung.” ..ng

93 833%.. fi 8936 8.8 832m 8.. fi @838 83,. fl ..EQB...
.aflgm mom... CH @9330 gag Hm>0 mug 63.. $5 “gm

 

 

 

 

 

 

33.3.... oo..~mo.m.. o~m.o~w.- map...
can .3. 03.3.... .363 .. N. .8 9%.... NR
3.. .8 80...... .36.... 8.2 3.8 Km
omggm omamgm DEER. MES”... 835mg .02
5 $98.55 980
mcoflmmnmmb pmom unmouwm

 

 

gfiélm magma.

118

 

46'00'N-

“‘OO'I-

 

woo'u—

 

THOUSANDS OF BOAT USE-PERIODS

87'00'!
I

   

SCALE
II
IILES

102030‘0

-LEGENO-

I
B7'00'I

I
OJ'OO'I

GS'PO'I

'46'00'!

- «'oo'l

-d2'00'l

 

 

Figure 9.

Choropleth Map of 1980 Boating Demand at Michigan
Destination Counties Based on Population Growth
and Highway Changes Only

119

increases and highway improvements influence the quantity of
boating undertaken and the supply of boating opportunities
remains substantially the same. The only actual deficit
area would be Macomb County which would need some 100,000
additional boat use-periods. If, however, the previously
discussed requisite of a surplus of 200,000 boat use-periods
is observed, then there are sixteen other destinations which

can be said to have an inadequate supply.

Simulation with Participation Increase Included

The origin loading data for the full 1980 simulation
developed as described earlier were used (see Appendix XI).
The same 1980 highway link values were employed (see Appen-
dix IX).

The attraction index values were modified to some de-
gree (see Appendix VIII). Where the destination was endowed
with a good number of fair sized lakes in a national or state
forest, the index was increased by 5 percent on the assump-
tion that develOpment of more public access and facilities
would be likely to occur by 1980. In the case of a destina-
tion county that had many large lakes or extensive river
frontage fringed by substantial residential or resort devel-
opment, the index was increased by a factor of from 5 to 20
percent depending on the apparent potential for further de-

velOpment. The index for Alger County was increased by five

120

percent as a token of the probable effect of the develOpment
of the Pictured Rocks National Lakeshore. The counties

which are likely to be included in the Department of Conser-
vation's artificial lakes program were given a 5 to 20 percent
increase in the value of their attraction indices depending

on the type and extent of their existing lakes. (In these
counties the capacity was also increased by the amounts shown
in Table 8). The same scaling constants were used as were
employed in the 1965 simulation.

The projections of 1980 boating demand for each destina-
tion produced by this simulation were then increased or de-
creased by the percent error values obtained in Run 18 (see
Table 3). The resultant corrected estimates are given in
column "b" of Table 10. Note that the total statewide de-
mand is projected to be 51,241,000 boat use-periods or an
increase equal to 222 percent of the 1965 figure. The actual

individual percentage increases for each destination are

shown in column a.
As in the two previous simulations, the estimated de-
mand was subtracted from the supply in order to calculate
the surplus supply or, where the demand was the larger value,
the supply was subtracted from it in order to calculate the

additional supply needed to entirely satisfy the demand. The

demand, supply, surplus, and needs values are all given in

12]

 

 

N.....o.. - oom.mmo.~ mmo.m.m ...~.. mmum>mna.namuo mam
....Nm... - oom...o.~ .m..a~m .m..m. wflnamm .Nm
oma.mm. - ooo.moo.. o-.~.~ om... mHmH msvmmum MNm
m.m.mm. - oo..~w. .mo.mum .o.mm. ommmpo Nam
Nam ...m - 08.3. .8. .3 N. .3. managers... .8
mmm.m.m.. - oom.m~... amm.m.. NN.m.. ”amen. cam
m.m.~mm.. - oom...m.m .mm..m. .o.... :mmsonmgu m.m
m...~mm.. - oom.am~.m .No.m~m .m.m.. xflo>maumnu w.m
m....~m.~ - com.....~ mNm..m. ...om. genus. ~.m
mam.~m..~ - oom...m.~ .-.~m~ m...m. mawaaa. ..m
mm...mo.m - oo~.o.~.m mom.mm. m~.mm ammuoaoonvm m.m
on...mm.m - ooa.m.~.m 0mm.... mm..m omaflxums. ..m
~om...... - oom...... mmo.om ...... moan“ m.m
mm..~.m.. - oca.moo.m ..N.mm~ mm.wo. mzmamflnu ~.m
mo...m..m - oom...... am..m.m ~m.oo~ mpumavnmz. ..m
-m..-.m - oom..~m.m m...oom m...m. muama o.m
ma....~.m - oo..~om.m ..m... mm.m~ umma.. mom
m.~.m~o.. - oo..m.m.. .N...mm N..... mmaflsoamz. mom
.m~.mom.. - oo~..-.. ..m...~ .~.om. aonH Rom
mm....~ - co..mm. m...~o~ n..~m. coquxUfla mom
Num.m.... - com...... m~a..m No.mm commences mom
MN..-..~ - oom..m..~ ..m.o. m...~. .zmgmmzmx .om
..m.o.~.~ - oo..~.m.~ .N....~ mm.~m. copamsom mom
.m....m.~ - oom.m-.m m...mm~ om..~. aflnmmoo Nam
mm~.mam.. - ooo.m.o.~ m....o. ~..... mmmnmm .om
mmsHmHsm pmpooz uwamgm Dynamo manna—3 8......ng .02

098905 @000

muonummumms umom unwoumm

 

 

panama unmuasmmm mangonm .aofluomuunm.ucm .mxadq magnaflz
.aOHumaaofipHmm .cOHumasaom :. mmmcmgu_maflms coaumaasam a... mo muasmmz .o. magma

122

 

 

- .....i 8..... ....8. ..~... 8305.8»... ...
... . ~o. - 8~. .- ~...o~. .. .... poflmnoufipfiao ...
- 8.... 8...... 8...... ...... £58 ...
....o.. - 8...... ....... ..~. . 8.9.82 ...
- 0.. . ..~ 0.. ..~ 0.. .... ... .... 05.0.8. ...
- ~.~.... 8...... ..~... ..~... .00.. ...
- ...... 8..... .....m. .o.... 3088:6302 ...
o....~ - 8....~ o....o~ ~....~ 05.0.2 ...
- ...... 8.. -. .... ... .....~ 3.083 ~..
- ... ..~ ..~. ... ... ...... . ~..... 030.008 ...
..~...... - oo~.~.... ....... ...... mum ...
.....~. - 8.8.... .~..~.. ...... 0mg ...
.~....~.. - 8...... .....~... ....8 09:00.8. ...
8.... - 8..... ...... .~.8. 888:.8 ...
.o.. .9. - o8.~.. ... .8. .. .... 0.0.0.3 ...
...... - 8...... ......... ...... 080. ...
..~. .. - 8..... ~..... ~..... 0.0.3.5 ...
.....-.. - 8...... 2.... ...... 88?. ...
.....o. - 8..... ... .... ...... €0.00... ~..
...... .. 8~..~o.. 8.. ..~ ...-. .8800 ...
- ......~ 8..... .....8.. ...... 0......02 ...
..o.o~o.. - o8...~.. ......N ...... 08mg .~.
8...... - 8..~._... ...... ...... 8mm... .~.
..~ - 8..... 8..... ...... 00.3 .~.
.....-.. - 8...... .....~_. ...... 85.03 .~.
mmsamnsm pmpmoz owagm Q9359 Mpg 8305389 .02
a. 08805 008

8000.0... ”.00. pg

 

 

gasolloa 0.38.

123

.comum_:E_m mom. c. vmc_m.no m:_m> Lm>o nameov

C.

wmm0.uc. ucou.mmm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.......... ........~. ....~...... ......~... ..<...
- ......... .....N... ....~...~ ...... mammz ~..
- ......... ......... ......... ...... .cmaxmo ...
- ......... ......... ........~ ...... “gnu... ...
- ~...... ....... ~...... ...... .zmnmunmmz ...
~.~.... - ......... ..~.... ...... woman: ...
- .-.... ....... .~....... ...... comxum. ...
- ~.~.... ....... ~.....~.. ...... .amqumamcmaaflm ...
- .~..... .....~. .~...~... ...... czocdmoLcucmum ...
- .....- .....~. ......... ...... amnsm cm> ...
- ~.....~ ....... ....... ...... commamamm ...
- ......... ..~...... ........~ ...... summon .umummmo ~..
....... - ......... .....~. ...... cwfluumm ...
- ....... ....... ....~.... ...... .uumm ...
....... - ......~.. ....... ...~.. cm.m.am. ...
....... - ..~.... ......~ ...... mHoompa ...
....... - ..~...... ....... ...... omaflamm ...
....... - ........~ ......~.~ ...~.. uflmau .pm ...
........~ - ....~...~ ....~.. ...... cons. ...
- .~..~.. ....~.. .~...m... ...... ummmmqn.cmo ...
...... - ....... ....~. ...... mommmzmflnm ...
.....~ - ....... ....... .....~ sacflmmm ~..
- ....... ....~.. ......... ...... coummcfl>aq ...
mmsamusm .mcmwz omammsm magmamx. mocmemo coaumcflummn .02
9.855” 800

muowummummo umom unwoumm

I
1'!

vmscflucoolloa wanna

124

C.

:.ucmsoo: mummuxm :>_aa:m: no.5: >3 acaosm 0;. m. :m:_a.:m:m

:.>_aa:m: mvmouxo :ncmemo: £0.53 >a uczosm on. m. :mnmmzzu

.___> x_ucmaa< momuum:.m> >u.umamu 0mm. mg. m. :>.aa:m:u
.cs. mc_c:u .mc.m c. noc_muno m.o..o uchLoa cu.3 mucmt.ouum

uuuumLLOU .co_uum.uum co_umc.ummv ucm mx:__ >m3;m_c .muum. co_uma_u_u.ma .mco_um_:aoa
c_m_.o c. mmmcmcu wussmmm mc_m: co_um_:E_m owm. c. vmc_muno m:_m> m. :ucmemozn

125

Table 10. Four separate SYMAP programs were then run, one
for each of these sets of values. The same left-hand ex-
panded logarithmic scaling employed in the earlier simula-
tions was used. The chorOpleth maps for each of the four
phenomena were mounted and photographically reproduced to
form the illustrations in this chapter. The iSOpleth maps
are not included since this type of map was found to be
less useful in the regionalization of 1965 demand, supply,

and surplus.1

Regionalization of Demand, Supply, Needs and Surplus

 

‘ 1980 Boating Demand

 

In Figure 10, the choropleth map of 1980 demand, a
region of high demand occupies the southern third of the
state except for a large central area caused by a lower level
of demand being experienced in the "lakeless" area discussed
earlier.2 This high demand area designated as Region I is
about six times larger than the four county area covered by
Region I in 1965 (see Figure 8). Other segments of Region I
are beginning to appear further up the state. The region of

medium - high demand, Region II, covers most of the balance

 

1The iSOpleth maps were mounted and reproduced in the
report for the Department of Conservation and were also con-
sulted in develOping the regionalization.

‘ZSupra., pp. 89-90.

126

 

 

 

      

 

 

artoo'v arloo'v
osmdn- —4smom
«'oo'u- "4'00“!
-LEGEND-
THOUSANDS OF BOAT USE-PERIODS
0mm 25
""" 2,6 to 60
6| Io 14.9
I5 0 to 36 5
36.6 to 898
89.9 to 220.8
220.9 lo 542 9
use mu,u52
L335 3 to 3,23I6
E 3,23: 7 co 8,0677
42-oo'u- «room
I I
87'00" 83'00'!
Figure 10. Choropleth Map of 1980 Boating Demand at Michigan

Destination Counties Based on Increased Popula-
tion, Participation Growth, and Other Lultipliers

127

of the Lower Peninsula and nearly all of the Upper Peninsula.
The region of medium - low demand, Region IV, centered around
Clinton County has been replaced with a much smaller region
of medium demand, Region III. The regionalization of 1980

boating demand is summarized in Table 11.

1980 Boating Supply_

 

As discussed earlier, it appears that the supply of
boating Opportunities is not likely to change substantially

by 1980.1

The supply map, therefore, remains the same as in
1965 (see Figure 5) except for a small decrease in the size
of Region IV, the region of medium - low supply centered about

Clinton, Eaton and Ingham Counties, and, therefore, has not

been reproduced.

1980 Boating Needs

 

The considerable increase in demand predicted for 1980
results in many areas having an insufficient supply of boat-
ing Opportunities to satisfy demand. Consequently, these
areas need an additional supply of boating resources as shown
in Figure 11. The lowest level of shading includes zero need
which has been entered where the destination concerned had a
surplus of boating opportunities. The boating supply need
areas are shown as five regions on Map C in Figure 13. The

characteristics of these regions are summarized in Table 12.

 

1Ibid.

128

Table 11. List of Boating Destination Danand Regions for 1980

 

 

 

Limits in
Thousands
of Boat
Region Characteristic Use-Periods Area
I High Demand Over 543.0 ~ A large area involving
sure 28 counties in south-
ern Michigan. Also five
satellite areas in Grand
Traverse, Roscarmon, Iosco,
Huron, and (heboygan Coun-
ties
II Median - High 89.9 to The remainder of the Lower
Danand 542. 9 Peninsula except for one
small area; all of the
Upper Peninsula except for
three small areas
III Median Demand 36.6 to A small area in Clinton,
89.8 Shiawassee, Saginaw, and
Gratiot Counties; most of
Luce County, and the north-
ern part of Ontonagon
IV Median-low 6.11:0 Thenorthempartofthe
Demand 89.8 Keweenaw Peninsula

 

129

 

as'oo'u -

«'oo'u -

42°oo'u -

 

BT'PO'I

 

1... . . .
... . .. .-
-. .. . .
..~... ,
.. . A. .
. . ... . . '
.
. . )0. u ......
. .0

.‘t- '-.~<*.

 

I02030¢o

'LEGEIO-
THOUSANDS 0' ”AT USE-PERIODS

A

   

'~n - “I.
i
c ~-
1
‘ ....
H ”In ..‘
. ..

 

 

.Io‘lrIIIOOCC-vul
...o--.tlovu cg..-“

 

  
    
 
   

...-. ,, ' ....

 

 

 

-..--o.a.........u-.un-..ouo-o.cgau.~ ..

 

 

 

 

 

'III-Oolloncuvuon.un-oclunno-IIuIOO--.-....,
:-

 

 

 

 

 

~' nun-anon I

 

 

 

0.00 b

2.5

 

2.6
6.I

I50
36.6

 
 

EE ”3
ans

543.0

I'IJEJ
- 3.20:.7

to 6.0
to 14.9
h 36.5
to 89.8
In 220.3
to 542.9
to man
u 3,20L6
to 8,067.?

I
BT'OO'I

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      
      

 

 

 

 

,.....-'l-l
» nu

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"" -~‘r«vm
" l U“ ' fi‘D'HO‘O‘fl‘
o ,

 

...~.....
pr“ «~..

   

03'0'0' I

'QG'N' I

- 44°oo‘n

‘42°00'l

 

Figure

11.

ChorOpleth Map of 1980 Boating Supply
Iichigan Destination Counties

Needs by

 

130

Table 12. List of Boating Supply Needs Regions for 1980

 

 

 

Limits in
Thousands
of Boat
Region Characteristic Use-Periods Area
I High Needs 1,335.3 to A small region in southern
8,067.7 Macanb and Oakland Counties
II Median - High 543.0 to Surrounds Region I includ-
Needs l,335.2 ing parts of Maccmb, Lapeer,
Genesse, Livingston and
Wayne Counties plus the rest
of Oakland. Snall area in
Jackson County
III Median Needs 89.9 to A substantial part of the
542.9 inland section of southern
Michigan involving the first
four tiers of counties
IV Median - Low 15.0 to A belt across the southern
Needs 89.8 part of the state above
Region III. It enlarges in-
to a northward pointing
protrusion covering Meoosta,
Isabella, Clare and Gladwin
Counties
V Low Needs 2.6 to Another belt across the
14 . 9 state following the outer

edge of Region IV

 

131

1980 Boating Surplus

 

The SYMAP print-out for the surplus supply of boating
Opportunities in 1980 is shown in Figure 12. A zero value
was entered in the data deck for all those destinations where
the supply did not exceed the demand. This means that the
lowest level Of shading includes areas that have no surplus
or are actually shown in Figure 11 as destinations needing
additional boating Opportunities. The areas with a surplus
Of boating Opportunities have been divided into five regions

as shown on Map D Of Figure 13 and listed in Table 13.

Differences and SimilaritiesLil965-1980

 

A comparison Of the 1980 simulation results with those
Of 1965 reveals the following significant points:

1. By 1980, the southern third Of the
Lower Peninsula will constitute an
area Of extremely high boating de-
mand while in 1965 only the four
county Detroit metropolitan area
was in this category.

2. There will have been little signi-
ficant change in the supply Of
boating Opportunities by 1980 even
in the region selected for the
artificial lakes program.

3. A zone where additional boating
facilities are needed which was
not present in 1965, will have de-
velOped over much Of the southern
third Of Lower Michigan by 1980.
The need will be greatest in the
Detroit metropolitan area, in
Jackson County, and in parts Of
Barry and Eaton counties.

132

 

46'00'! —

“'OO'I-

42'00'I-

 

 

  
     
   

 

 

ST'PO'I 6900‘!
I
z W”
-“'00'I

i1!

1......

  

=...s= -
...—......
-..... ..
...~.....
‘° W
...—......
W:
m
SCALE WM...
20 III 3::
nuts :2.
:0 ‘_
:0 20 so w
-«'oo'l
-LEGEND-

THOUSANDS OF BOAT USE-PERIODS

 

000» 25
2.6 Io 6.0
6.: :o :43
:50 lo 365
36.6 :o 89.0
09.9 In 220.0
2209 :o 6629
543.0 to :.335.2
_. :,335.s :o 3.28|.6
3.20:7 Io 6,067.7

‘42“00'"

.-
~—
-——~
w
...—-
...-..~
...-..~.

 

I
or'oo'v

 

Figure 12.

Choropleth Map of 1980 Boating Supply Surplus
by Michigan Destination Counties

133

 

 

     
  
 
  
    

 

A. DEMAND B. SUPPLY

I ' HIGH II ' HEDIUU-HIGH
III ' MEDIUH II' UEDIUH- LOW
I ' LOW

D. SURPLUS

 

C. NEEDS

 

 

Figure 13. Generalized Maps Of Demand, Supply, Needs, and
Surplus Regions in 1980

 

134

Table 13. List Of Boating Supply Surplus Regions for 1980

 

 

Limi' 'ts in
Thousands
Of Boat
Region Characteristic Use-Periods Area
I High Surplus 1,335.3 to Most Of the Upper Peninsula
8,067.7 except for an area centered
around Dickinson and Menomi-
nee Counties. The north-
west corner Of Lower Michi-
gan and parts Of Alpena
and Alcona Counties. The
N.E. part Of the "thumb."
II Medium - High 543.0 to A belt around the upper half
Surplus 1,335.2 Of the Lower Peninsula and
across the base Of the thumb
III Medium Surplus 89.9 to A belt Of varying width
542.9 across the middle and upper
part Of Lower Michigan which
broadens out into a wide
zone in Kalkaska, Crawford
and Roscommon Counties
IV Medium - Low 15.0 to Another irregularly shaped
Surplus 89.8 belt across the state with
major enlargements into a
five county area around
Saginaw County and into
Ogemow and Oscoda Counties
V Low Surplus 2.6 to A fourth belt around and
14.9 across the center Of the

Lower Peninsula

 

4.

135

An area with nO surplus boating
Opportunities will have develOped
in the southern third Of the

Lower Peninsula and much Of the
northern section Of Lower Michigan
will have a low surplus in 1980.
In contrast, all Of Michigan had

a surplus in 1965 and about one-
fifth Of the State had a high or

medium - high surplus at that
time.

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Performance Of the Systems Model Technique

The procedures and results described in the previous
chapters have shown that the RECSYS-SYMAP approach does
demonstrate the probable future spatial distribution Of
recreation demand, supply, needs and surplus and thus is a
valuable tOOl in the statewide recreation planning. The
technique has been shown to fulfill the specifications for
an ideal method contained in Chapter I to a very large degree.
In particular, the test Of the technique by means Of the boat-
ing case study has clearly indicated that the following main
Specifications are fulfilled. The method:

1. -is basically realistic since it
is an actual mathematical model
with all the major components Of
the recreation system represented
quantitatively and in their cor-

rect spatial relationships.

2. -can be applied to all the recrea-
tion activity groupings established.

3. -in its present form, uses origin
and destinations that are small
enough to give sufficient areal
differentiation to be of great
value in statewide recreation plan-
ning.

136

137

4. —assures that the estimation of the
probable present and future distri-
bution of recreation demand is
likely to be accurate since it is
based on the actual measurement
of the use of individual destina-
tions by residents of each origin.

5. -is structured so that its accuracy
in estimating the probable magni-
tude and distribution of present
and future recreation demand, needs,
and surplus is enhanced by the fact
that all the participation pressures
are applied to the system simulta-
neously and the various components
interact in a spatial context.

6. -can relate supply to demand in a
direct mathematical manner since
both parameters are expressed in
the same units.

7. -is fast and easily repeatable.

8. -requires a minimum of judgment be-
cause a fixed computer program is
used to estimate the probable Spa-
tial distribution of demand.

9. -produces tabulations and maps that
can be used directly in publications
and presentations.

10. -can be carried out by comparatively
low level technical staff once it is
designed and tested.

However, the RECSYS-SYMAP technique has some serious
drawbacks as was demonstrated in the case-study. The main
disadvantages are as follows:

1. The technique requires a large

amount of precise data on sup-
ply and demand which can normally

 

 

 

138

only be obtained by special surveys.l

This is a problem common to all rea-
sonably realistic statewide recrea-
tion planning methods.

2. The designing and testing of a RECSYS-
SYMAP process requires highly spe-
cialized personnel that are not uni-
versally available.

3. The running of the RECSYS—SYMAP pro-

grams requires SOphisticated computer
facilities.

Reliability of Demand Distribution Projections

 

It is obviously not possible to judge absolutely the
accuracy of the RECSYS-SYMAP process of predicting recrea-
tion demand distribution. Such judgment will only be possi-
ble if an inventory of actual boating demand is done during
the year for which demand has been projected. It should al-
so be pointed out if the RECSYS model is as realistic as it
appears to be, the greatest source of error will be in the
data that are fed into it. As has been demonstrated, the
greatest changes in demand will occur because of changes in
participation rates rather than because of increases in pOpu-

lation.

 

1In the many months of research associated with this

thesis, at least half the time was spent on reviewing possi-
ble information sources and attempting to manipulate data so
they could be used in the RECSYS simulation. It appears that
the problem of obtaining adequate data will only be solved
when the gathering of annual recreation statistics is care-
‘fully co-ordinated throughout the various agencies concerned
and specifically designed to give the essential information.

139

No matter which technique is used, the accuracy of pre-
dictions of future demand depend on our ability to predict
what factors will control participation and by what amount.
No organization in Michigan is yet attempting to gathering
annual recreation use statistics in a way that can begin to
shed light on the identity and functioning of these influ—
ences. In order to estimate possible future participation
the statewide recreation planner needs to know such things
as the probable effect of rising income; will it gradually
mean more "country club" type recreation participation and
less participation in activities such as camping, fishing
and boating? Will we have a shorter work-week which would
mean heavier use of more distant recreation resources or is a
shorter work-day more likely which will probably result in
increased use of city and suburban park areas? There are
many questions of this kind which can only be answered with
some degree of assurance if frequent demand studies involving
careful analysis of the socio-economic characteristics and
preferences of the users are undertaken.

But the purpose of this project was not to determine
the absolute accuracy of the RECSYS-SYMAP simulation of boat-
ing demand in 1980. Rather, it was to test the approach to
see if it appeared to adequately predict demand,1relate de-

mand to supply in a numberical manner in order to indicate

140

needs, and show the spatial distribution of these parameters
in a significant manner. It is contended that it has been
demonstrated adequately that the RECSYS-SYMAP technique does
indeed perform all these functions in a reasonably satis-

factory way.l

Validity of the Case Study

 

At the beginning of this thesis it was hypothesized
that the prOposed RECSYS-SYMAP analysis of boating in Michigan
would test the technique and indicate its probable reliabil-
ity and potential in planning the allocation of resources for
the development of all types of outdoor recreation facilities.
As indicated earlier, there were a number of reasons for se-
lecting boating for this case study not the least of which
was the availability of statewide use data by origin and
destination. However, it appears that boating was a good
activity to select in that it was possible to calibrate and
tune the model so that it gave demand predictions that closely
approximated the observed values.

Certainly the first part of the hypothesis has been

shown to be correct in that it was possible to test the

 

1Some comments on the performance of SYMAP and on the
possible future develOpment and application of RECSYS are
contained in Appendix XII.

141

RECSYS-SYMAP technique by using boating in a case study. The
second part of the hypothesis is not as clearly proven. As
indicated in the previous section of this chapter, the re-
liability of the technique is entirely dependent on how
closely future recreation activity preferences and behavior
resemble the present day preferences and behavior on which
the model tuning is based. Using boating as a case study
does appear to have demonstrated that the technique is
probably reasonably reliable if the patterns of recreation
preferences and behavior remain much the same in the future
and our estimates of the rate of change in participation are
approximately correct.

Finally, using boating as a case study has indicated
the potential of the technique for planning the allocation
of resources for all types of outdoor recreation activities
and facilities. There appears to be no reason why any of
the other eleven basic outdoor recreation activity groupings
could not be analysed in a similar manner if the necessary
use data and growth predictions were available. As pointed
out earlier, there will probably have to be some modifica-
tions in the technique if activities such as "playing sports"
are to be analysed because the county to county construction
will not give sufficient detail. On the other hand, it appears

that the technique will perform even more satisfactorily for

 

142

most of the other activities. For example, in the case of
sightseeing, picnicking, hunting, camping, and winter Sports,
it is probable that there will be fewer difficulties in
applying the technique if relatively good basic use data are
provided. In these cases the researcher would not have to
face problems such as the determination of the contribution
of the Great Lakes to the supply of opportunities and the
factors affecting user preferences are much better known than
in the case of boating. It is concluded, therefore, that the
hypothesis has been proved to be correct in that the boating
case study did test the technique adequately, indicate its
potential for use in planning resource allocation for other

recreation activities.

Spatial Distribution of Boating Parameters in 1965

 

The analysis and regionalization carried out in Chapter
III indicates the following distribution of boating supply,
demand, and supply surplus in 1965:

1. Boating demand was concentrated in
the Detroit area particularly in
Wayne, Oakland, Macomb and St. Clair
counties.

2. Boating demand was at a medium - high
level throughout the rest of Lower
Michigan except for a zone across the
comparatively "lakeless" area south-
west of Saginaw Bay.

3. Boating supply was highest in the
Upper Peninsula and around the shore-
line of Lower Michigan.

4.

143

A region of very low supply exists
in the "lakeless" area, particularly
parts of Clinton, Shiawassee, Eaton
and Ingham counties.

During 1965 the total annual demand

for boating Opportunities.did not

reach or exceed the supply in any
county in the State but there was a
large region with a very low surplus
centered about the Clinton County
"lakeless" area. Much of the remainder
of southern Michigan was in a region of
medium - low surplus.

The Upper Peninsula and certain Great
Lakes counties in the upper part of
Lower Michigan had a high surplus of
boating Opportunities as did Huron
County in the "thumb."

Spatial Distribution cf Boating ParameterS'in‘l980

The analysis and regionalization carried out in Chapter

IV indicates the following probable distribution of boating

supply, demand, needs, and supply surplus in 1980:

1.

The region of high demand will have
spread from the four county area
around Detroit to cover all or part

of twenty-eight counties constituting
approximately one quarter of the State.

Areas of high demand will also appear
in Grand Traverse, Cheboygan, Isoco,
Roscommon and Huron Counties.

The Upper Peninsula will have become
almost exclusively a medium - high
demand region.

The "lakeless" area will have medium de-
mand unless the supply of water surface
there is substantially increased.

144

5. The proposed addition of water surface
under the Department of Conservation's
artificial lakes program will have made
little difference to the overall sup-
ply of boating Opportunities in the
"dry area" and the general boating
supply situation in 1980 will be approx-
imately the same as in 1965.

6. The much greater demand in 1980 will
result in additional supplies of boat-
ing opportunities be needed in all the
counties in the southern half of Lower
Michigan.1 Areas with high or medium -
high needs will exist in the vicinity
of Detroit, in Jackson County and in
Barry and Eaton counties.

7. The northern half of the Lower Peninsula
and all of the Upper Peninsula will still
have a surplus of boating opportunities.

Measures Necessary to Improve the Spatial Imbalance
Between Boating Supplypand Demand

 

 

From the above analysis it is evident that by 1980
there will be a substantial spatial imbalance between the
supply of recreational boating Opportunities and the demand.
The demand will exceed the supply over the southern half of
the Lower Peninsula. There is a number of possible steps
that could be taken to reduce this imbalance. Some of these

are as follows:

 

1This area obviously has the pOpulation, income levels,
good highway network and fairly readily available boating
Opportunities necessary to produce a high level of demand.

145

l. The State could undertake a much
greater artificial lake building
program in the twenty-eight county
region of high demand, concentrat-
ing on those suitable sites that are
closest to the origins generating the
most boating participation.

2. The travel time between the major
origin areas and the regions with a
surplus of boating Opportunities could
be reduced. This could be done to a
limited extent by improving critical
highway linkages. Only a radical change
in the time required to reach the regions
of high surplus would have a marked ef-
fect and this could only be achieved by
a revolution in the transportation sys-
tems between these origins and the high
surplus destinations. Remote possi-
bilities for such a revolutionary
change are low fare high volume air
travel, monorail trains, or much higher
highway speed using a guidance system.

3. Greater use could be made of Great Lakes
waters by building a system of break-
waters parallel to the shoreline with
harbors of refuge and marinas spaced
at about five mile intervals. This
would provide a much greater area of
water which would be safe for boating
through much of the summer season.

All of these possibilities are extremely eXpensive and
appear to be unlikely considering the present financial prob-
lems of the State. It is more likely that the supply situ-
ation will remain much as it is today and boating partici-
pants will adjust to the gradual decline in the number of
boating Opportunities Open to them by boating less, by boat-

ing at other than peak periods, by going on boating holidays

146

to surplus regions and by accepting a much higher density of

use than is presently considered pleasant.

In Conclusion

 

This case study of the use of the RECSYS-SYMAP tech-
nique to demonstrate the spatial distribution of boating
supply, demand, needs, and surplus in 1965 and 1980 has
demonstrated that the approach is a valuable geographic tool
that should be further developed to obtain even greater re-
liability and at the same time simplify its application. In
particular, it has produced a method for making more precise
areal analyses of the major components of recreation systems,
namely, origins, destinations, and linkages. It should now
be applied to the investigation of other recreational activi-
ties in order to provide a wider understanding of the spatial
implications of this rapidly growing land use. Studies of
this kind can contribute much to our comprehension of the
mechanics of the recreational use of resources and add greatly
to our knowledge of the recreational geography of an area such

as Michigan.

APPENDIX I
A GLOSSARY OF TERMSl

Annual Carrying Capacity. The number of user-unit use-
periods that a recreation site can provide each year
without permanent biological or physical deteriora-
tion of the site's ability to support recreation or
appreciable impairment of the recreational experience.

BOR. Commonly used abbreviation for Bureau of Outdoor Rec-
reation.

Destination. A general term for the recreation entity or
area to which a user goes for recreation. In the
RECSYS model individual counties or pairs of counties
are the destination units.

 

MORDS. Commonly used abbreviation for Michigan Outdoor Rec-
reation Demand Study.

Origin. A general term for the place of residence of the
recreation user. In the RECSYS model individual coun-
ties or pairs of counties are the origin units.

ORRRC. Commonly used abbreviation for Outdoor Recreation
Resources Review Commission.

Participation Rate. The number of user-unit use-periods of
a particular recreation activity undertaken per capita
during a year or some other specified length of time.

 

 

lThis Glossary is not intended to be exhaustive. It
only covers some of the terms that are peculiar to this thesis
or that may be unfamiliar to those not well acquainted with
outdoor recreation. Some additional useful definitions are
contained in Chubb, "Outdoor Recreation Land Capacity: Con-
cepts, Usage and Definitions," cited earlier.

147

148

ReCreation Entity. An area of land with or without structures
which Is used for recreation and which is considered as
one entity even though it may consist of a number of
functional divisions.

 

RECSYS. The county to county recreation systems modelling
computer program for Michigan develOped in this study.

Sustained Yield Capacity‘Standard. The Optimum number of
user-units per unit area that the recreation site can
be designed or managed to accommodate at any one time
so that normal patterns of usage will result in the
total annual use being close to but not in excess of
the annual carrying capacity.

 

SYMAP. Commonly used abbreviation for the computer mapping
technique known as synographic mapping which produces
maps on an ordinary line printer.

Use:period. Any period of recreation use that is twenty-four
hours or less in duration.

 

' User. A person who obtains a recreation experience from the
use of a recreation entity. This term is used to avoid
the implication in the word "visitor" that the person
has to make some conscious effort to visit a particular
distant location.

USer-unit. The spatially significant unit by which use is
measured. It may be one person, one boat or one auto-
mobile.

 

User-unit‘Use-period. The unit that is spatially and chrono-
logically significant in determining the allocation of
space and time for recreation use. For example, for
boating it is a boat use-period signifying the use of
a boat for a day or part of a day.

 

149

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mum SR + ..o.+ mm... 8..; mm... 8an magma me.
No... 3.3 + 8... R... 3.6.: cm... 02.3 833...... ..~:
$5 3.3 + m~.+ ...... com.me 3.. 8.3K. smfiamflusg do 2..
2... 3.2 - .~.- fl... 8%? 9.... 8.2m 358m 3..
Ra £5. + mo... ..m... ..~...Nm .m... 8.th meH 888m .2
2.... 3.2 + .8: mm... 81% 3.0 03.3 gangs“: 8..
3.. at: + m..+ $5 8TB. am... 3%; ”.85 a...
QR $.91 + R... S... 08.3. 9.... ROS an; m...
cm... 3.8 + «of .m.o 08.3 mm... 8...: 593.85 ~...
..~... 8..... + ..o... S... 3a.... 3... 83m gem G...
m~.m 8.: + ...- S... 80...: 2... 036.. 8&2 m...
.....m mm.~ + ...- .m... 03.9. 2.0 98.? £8.30th a...
8.2 3.3 + m~.+ 3... 8th: 8... 89m. unsung m...
Rd 3.8 + .o.+ T... 03.8 N... 03.2 83 N...
mtu £2 + m..- 3... 8a.; R... 8...... $.83 ....
on. 8.2 .. «T. .m... ozé S... 8.25 mfimfinmz o...
..m.. 2.3 + 8... mm... 25.3 2... 8..; flame 8..
mm. ~95 - m..- mo... 08... ..~... SOS 3m? me.
i. $6. - s..- SN... 8..... 9.... 93.9. $8... 3..
Ra modw .. 2.. mm... Rafa 3.0 Smut :03 m3
NTN 8.3. + N..+ mm... cats 2... exam 895.03 ms.
m~.~ 3.8. + 8... T... omm.- mo... 2...: 88.98 ......
m... ......N + mo... mm... 03.8 .3... 93.8 Engage me.
m..m 3.3. + ...... 9.... .56. SN... o..~.m~ ofinwmoo 3..
.....m ....R. + 8... ...... omm.- mo... omm.m mmmnmm .9.
$3.8m 842: SAGE H58 flan .38 «.8038 952 .oz
:3: u 5.5 w an? we? a umom and. umm: “mom
5 8mm “firm m nmuflm uwufim .38 Imufim H38.
83% 358 fi no a mo ...
.8%... 38.385 umdm
$3 38 $3 3.8 $5. 558 fimflo
fimflo no 558 50%? E 8358 83¢.qu 536E
:0 pm $05.33 umom 835mm .38. $3 on... $3 mo 8.0.9.960 .HH x859...

150

 

 

mm. om.m: - ...- mo.o o.o.~. m... on..- umaflqmm mm:
mo.~ 0:... + om.+ ~m.. o:m.mm~ ~... omm.mm. uflmao .um Nm:
mm.. m..:~. + m..+ mm.o o.m..m o~.o omm.- cause. .m:
um.. :..:. + .m.+ ~..m omo...m ...: ow..~mm nmmmmqymommgwo om:
m... ...mN + 00.- m..o o::.mm m..o. o.~.m. mommmzmflgm m::
um.. :m.m~ + N... oo.~ o.....m ~..N om~.~:~ .zmcflmmm .::
mo.: -- -- :... o:o.... m:.m owo.mmm maapmmcw>aq .::
.... -- -- m..m ooo.wm: m..o 0mm.mm _nam;maanoumm .::
...N ~m.o + .~.+ m... om..m.. «m.o o:~.mm uoaumuorgouqflao m::
m:.~ m...m + w..+ ~... o.m...~ :m.. o.~.... mzmuuo. :::
.... m..m~ + G... .... omw.mmu ~o.~ omm.om~ .nnxsame. m::
ad 3.3 + ....+ m... ommaou .... exam. gémgH 2:
mm.. m..om + -.- oo.m omm.m.. «~.m o~o.mmm ucmx .::
.~.m mo..:. + Nm.+ ~..o o~m.~.. o:.o om..m: maomomOLmumoomz. o::
m:.~ m..mm + ...... mm... owns}. :m... 8%.... O53? mm:
~... .:..: - m:.- .~.o om~.~: o..o om:.om madmnmmH .mm:
.~.: mm.m. + o..+ No.0 com..m «m.o omo.mm cflznmaoumumao .m:
:m.. .m..~ + o N... omN.m.. ~... omm.om. mum om:
:..~ :m.~ + mo.- m..o omm.o~ m..o o:o.o~ um:mn«_ mm:
3:. 3:... + m~.+ :5... coma: S... omNJm 8..—608m :m:
::.m G... - m..- S... 8...? S... 0...:m omn8m0ém6mo mm:
mm.m ....m. + mo... MN... 93.3 ...... aka. wQBmamEudfinmx Nm:
mm.m no.:~ + .o.- ...o o:~.:o. :..o owo.:m oomoH .m:
mm. .~.m. - o..- no.0 o...: m..o om..:. unoczmno om:
.m.: ~m.:. + mo.- m..o omm..~ .~.o ooo.:~ meooaa. mu:
m... m... - .:.- .:.o o~m.:. .m.o o.~.m. cgomxmz mN:
mm. ~..? + 8..: m... omm.om 5... eta. «5800 E:
mm.m ...: - :~.- .m.o com... .... omm.~m omamzmz_ .N:

muoflnmm mmuvoma mou:mma Hanna flnmm Hanna m .Hmm .

umma umom gnaw. m mung. mugs. ummmpumom «v.3. mpbnmom mama. oz
a. mumm uMHnw w umpmum umpmum fiance umpmum Hanna
.:oaumm \£80 an «o w .0 m
lanauumm amscfl>aucH “warm
mom. mama mom. mama :om. mucsoo manage

 

 

 

I;

!

GOOSESOIIHH x «989mm

151

.gmficoooumofig
mouflfimtsum ..megfimmgumogcammoflgouuonmflmmmqmongmsaflefimcgmoflbmo

, ...3 5.. 8.828 39“.... 3.82 3.38.... Q...
6.... .... 5.. 938.. 8 ...-.... ...mfimflo .8%-E... EB... .8..ng .0 pg... 5362..

...... ....mfizm 338. 3838.89... mfi 89.. ...... 3 93.8 8 B... 353.8 . ....H
mash 69.8550 «0 ugh-mama 535.9. "8.35.2 .0563. NOB... @5289 Going noon-.50 :mmHSUHS
.Sflmfimgfim 83g . fin... 3:99.969 8.488.. .0 “fin-.88.. .fififlgfl. 8.3. 53.2...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

....N 8... + - 8.8 08.8.... 8...... 0.0.8:... 398...
.m. a... + .m.- 8... SOS... .m... ....o..:...~ we»... ...:
m... ...... + 8.- ...... 02...... ....m ......N... and? ..:
8.. ....N: + ..~.+ .... 8..... ....m 8...... 989... ...:
.... .:... + 8.- .... ...:...N m... 8...... 5...: ...:
:... ...... + m..+ m... 8..:2 m:.o 3.... 8882 :.:
.... 8... + 8... 8.. ......o.: .... 8..... BER... m...
o... 8.8 + ....- o..~ 8..... .... 8.8:. gag-.33.... 3:
~:.. ~... + .m.- 8.. 8...... m... 8...? 59355.... S:
m..: 3... + mm... .m. ...~.:.~ 8... 3...: 8.35.. ...:
.:.~ 9... + 2: ....m ......o.: :~.m 0...... 8538. 8:
m... .:..m + m..- .... 8...... ...: 3.8: 588.. ...-ammo 8:
.... ...... + ...- .... 3...... ...-.... 8...: 8E8 8:
8.: .... + ...- ..... 8..... .... 0...... gm ...:
....m m... + ...+ .... 8:.:.. 8.. 8..... gamma 8:
~... 8... + ~..+ .m... .....8 .... 8.... 38.3 :m:
$3.8m ...-.... ...-...... .30.... ...-.8... H38. mmnoflmm 952 6..

4.... p .6... .. m8... 8..: .. umom m8: um... umom

53mm and... ufifim um»... Bo... ufifim ...-5..

83...... .958 a... m6. .6.

uflgm ESE ...-A...

m... 38 m... 38 .... .358 fimflo

 

 

 

 

 

gag-[H in;

152

.839 52.5 8.5.8. 2.. .oz 53.8 no... mum. ...... 9F.
.83... 5.9.... 8305 ,8: on .:: 6.. fimflo now. 38 :8. 9....

153

 

 

Rim + om.+ mm; o_o.o_m .3.— owm.mm_ mmugg Gamma mum
No.~_ - _:.- o~.o om_.___ .... o::.m~_ mmucwm mmm
Nm.m~ + mo.- mm.o o~:.mo_ :~.o omm.mm mHmH mammmum mum
.~.mm + ~_.+ mu.o on.m__ mo.o cum.- oaomgo NNm
mm.~ + _N.- mm.o o~m.~m m~.o o_o.om mucmnospggz .~m
8..: + «7+ 3.0 03.8. .35 Si? p.25. 8m
oo.m_ + mm.- mm._ omu.m_m mm.~ omm.mm~ mmmaonmnu m_m
am.- + 50.- m~.o ooo.o~_ ~m.o omo.¢m xaoamaumgu m_m
.m.;m + 4o.- _N._ omo.~m_ m~._ omm.~:_ eauuqm ~_m
mm.m_ + m..- um.o omo.~o_ .m.o ooo.~m mammam. o_m
:m.m~ - m:.- m:.o om~.- :m.o o_m.mo_ ummnuaoomum m_m
so.~m + o_.+ -._ oum.mm_ ~... o_~.w~_ omcflxumz. :_m
~..m~ - m~.- m~.o om~._: .m.o om~.mm moan m_m
.~.mm + _~.- ~m.o o__.mm_ m_._ om~.mN_ mammmqmu ~.m
um.:~ - _:.- m:.o om:.- om.o omm.~o_ mnumavnmz. __m
~..mm_ + m_.+ mm.o omm.mm m_.o o~:._~ mpamn o_m
om.o~ - a..- m_.o o~:.m~ mm.o o_~.~m nmmam. mom
tam + 8.- :5 Swan 35 8.}: gag mom
mm... - m~.- m:.o 0:5.mm mm.o ooN.- mouH mom
:~.- + mo.- mm.o omm.mm o:.o o_m.m: momamxuma mom
m:.m_ + m_.o om:.o~ m_.o om~.~_ mcammoumo mom
mm.mu - m..- mo.o omo.: ~..o om_.m_ _zm:wmzmx mom
Nm.nm + mo.+ hm.o om~._m m:.o omm.;m mopmmgnm mom
mm.om_ + o~.+ om.o oom.om om.o om:.:m omnmmou Nom
om.m: + _o.+ .~.o o~_.:m o~.o om~.m~ mmmumm .om
8.3.3 mmamofl H38. ammoflwm H38. mmmoflmm .952 .oz

magma w mmflz_ moms, umms umom moms, umma “mom

ummnm m nmumum nmumu .qmguu umumum Hmuoa

mucsoo am no m mo m

Hmama>amaH ummmm
mama mmma mama mmma mumsoo momumcmummn

 

 

 

 

 

am Sun mmoflmmumma mmom mommafimm 3.8. $3 mam $3 mo 8mg

mmflucgou momumqmummo cmmagumznaam_um manage mo mmmumsoo mmmazumz

.HHH a;

154

 

 

 

 

 

:3... + 8... m..o Sci ~..o 8%: Emma «mm
3.3 + -- mag 02.8.. $.~ SEEM mgoamgd .mm
@593 + -- mm... oom.$ ....o 93:: nfiagugama omm
mm.m~m + .. .1... OS; .3... on...“ aoaafiwufiafiao 93
3.3 + S... m~.~ 8...an 3.. ...~..“... mzmaao ....m
3.2 + 8.- ~... o$.m- 9... 85.3. 88in: 2m
$5. + an... 3.. o~m.mm~ ...... om..$. 35,..ng 93
8.3 + o~.+ 3.. o.~.mm~ mm. 98.3. any. mam
a»... - .3... mm. 2mg: m..~ Sufi; 3880:3882 ....m
3.2. + mo... mm... omo.~m mu... 8%.: SE 2m
ma.~m. + o..+ .~.o omm.mm ...o omo.m. maamammH «am
8.... + 8... ma.“ .553 m... .568 gamma :3
3.9; + 3... 3.. 93.3. 2... 83... mma Sm
mo... - m..- mm... 813 $5 81$ 0952 mmm
3.... .. 9...- mom 8.63 0.... on}? 99:003.. mmm
$8 + ..~... 3.. 22.: mm. oiam. 0888;3ng Rm
8.3. + S... 8.. omoJm. mm... 82$ «93mmfl2ummfimv. mmm
mmé + 3.- ...N o.m.mmm MTN o.m.~.m oomoH mmm
3am - a... «.... 8mg; ...... 8...: €8.68 :3
R... .. mm... mm... omamm. 3.. ommé: 882 3..
...... + 8.- 8.0 223. mm... 9.55. macaw... NR
8..... + .N.+ mm... 31% R... 8%? 388 .mm
8.2 + m..- o..~ Siam m~.~ 0.33 02m; omm
$6. .. Rf mm... 85.3 3.0 03.3. 833m: mg
3.2 + m..- fl... 8%.... ma... 8&8. 8mm: mam
Ram - Rx 3.0 80...... 2.. 2%.: 9.3 .3
:9; + 3.. ma... 8%.... am... 8.12 amamamma mam
manmmfl 8:663 38. ammofiwa H38 mmmoflma mfiz .02

5am a8? 8.3 lama amoa m3: ummaamoa

aflfia umamam umamam amapa. .mamam Hmaoa

39.50 5 no... mo...
3335 aaEm

mama. $3 mama $3 358 Bflmfiamoa

.IIIIIIIIILIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlILlllllli

 

aQqBSQIHHH Nag

 

 

155

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m:.mm + -- mm.mm coo.m~m.m. oo.oo. omo.o~a... amaos
-- -- mo.~ o.m.omm mzoaxaa .amma
Rm.- + :m.- mm.m on:..mm mm.o om..omn mama: Nam
~m.w: + oa.+ o~.m oo~.mmm om.m omm.~om mamaxmo .Nm
om.- + on.. mo.m omm.¢oa m..m o.m.mmm “anxxaz cum
am.mm + mm.+ ao.~ omm.m~m mm.. oma..m. zmamaagas mom
mm.om. + .m.+ N~.. aaa.:m. .m.o oo~.mm mmonaaz mom
.m.n~ + ;N.. um.~ o.m..o: m~.~ o...m.m aomxuma mom
a...: + mo.+ .m.~ onm.umm m~.~ omm.oo~ mmzmamaumamamaaam mom
um.~m + m..- um.N om:.m~: m..m oam.~mm maoaamotauamaa mom
om.~m + u~.+ «0.. omm.~m~ mm.. oa..:m. amaam am> aom
mo.wm + .o.- o~.. om..o- .... ooa.mm. ooamsmamx mam
w..~m + mo.- mm.m omm.m~m .o.: oom.mm: summon .amummmu Nam
am.mm + no.. o~.. o.m.om. m~.. oo~.oa. cmaaamm .mm
mm.mm + o..+ mo.m oum.mma mm.~ o.m.nmm mauma com
mo.~m + no.. o~.. oma..m. “~.. o-.m:. ammoaam. mmm
.a.m- + om.+ Nm.o oom.mm N~.o oum.m~ maoomaa mmm
mm.4m + .o.- m~.o oam.mm a~.o om..- omaaamm nmm
o:.:o + um.+ mm.: oom.mmm ~..m omw.:~a aamao .am 0mm
m~.~m + “0.- :~.. omo.mm. .m.. o-.m:. conga mmm
.~.mu + am.+ Nm.~ oom.:ma :M.N o.m.~m~ ammamamwmmmawo amm
~m.:.. + ~o.+ mo.o owm.m :o.o om..a mommmzmaam mam
mmummma mmnmmma Hmaoa ammoaama Hmaoe mmmoaama msmz .oz
.:xn. a maaz. maaz. umma_amoa maaz. umma_amoa
aaaam a umamam umamam Hmapa nmamam Hmaoa
mamsoo ma mo a no a
Hmaaa>aaaH aaaam .
mama mama mama mama mamaoo moaamqaamma

 

 

 

 

 

mmaaaamaouuHHH xauamaaa

156

.mmaaag snag mmgaofi Hmm .Oz aflmfiwmv How Mummy vmma mafia
.mmaaag Ema $9.393. “on 00 0mm .02 Sfigmg How Bad vmmd 05.0

.MDHHw @5600 38396 w
B 8a mafia mama maa 5.. mmam>umoa> mam 828. ca 8.53% mama Ema mm... mama 888 880

.aama ma mmaoamso ...amfiaa «.802 338a,. «6. 8h mama
5a mfimon go Sac Hague 503.33 mamfimpmz .83? mo ugbhmmmo gmdfifif

.83 CH mama

..gm m......ntaom gang: mflu spam $3 5 ammo.“ :0 35 3930 . Gama 085 693560

a0 aamfiamama ammaauaz "ammafiaz .maamaaa. mmaaa magma coaamwaoma a8aa8 ammaaoaz .Baamaaaa
lg 903mg cram xnmm Jaws—meg gommm mo #38 .muwmfigflcs Baum fivfififiam

157

 

895. nmomflumommaw om. ..m ...~... 2
93.3 8mmm3m2m m... R .22.. 3
8...; 58m ...... 3 086% smaflwflusg can“... 3.. ..~
23.2. 839.53 D... .m 83m 9.5.8 ~... ..~
80.8.. ggufiufl 9... cm 2.2m mHmH mama“... .... MN
3...... Bflm¢§qfio m... 9. .5... 2
8m.$~ «.338 ...... .... 81% 3.3.2.9. 2.. .N
8.5.x 88.9... e... t. 8...... ”.85 m... ..~
omm.mo~ E.mu.coz-m.co_ ~.. g. ome.om. cmm>oausu m.. m.
8de 9.8.. :3 m. 8...? .9933... 5.. m.
SMJ: So8$3m8§ ...... .. 3a.; 5.35. m... D
03...... 33.5. mm. o. 03...: «and. m... 2
8.5. mflmnmmH 3.. N. 30.9. “manuaoofim .... m.
8mg fiéflwéfiu B. .. 8.6.. 033.3... m... ..
om~.m: >3 mm. .... om...o~ 83 N... m.
omm.o~ 85H... mm. 3 8a.; «6&3 .... N.
8%.... 5.889. ...? mm 2.5. Bug 0... ..
8...? 8828 8. R 895 3.8 me. o.
o..m...m 4.98%; «m. a 8m... .83.. ...... m
...~..... 88H .9. mm 2.... .3... 8m +$q28mz 3.. m
8.... Boga“. on. ..m 08:; g 8.. n
03.3 «802 2.. mm 2...... 8mg... 3.. m
03.... vacuum... ..~. NM omm.- SEES ...... m
02.8 888 2.. .m V.5... ..
oomdm ogmzwz 3.. on .56.. Eng? 8.. m
8.... fig 3.. ma or...“ .95. vom+oflnmm8 3.. N
or}... 39...... ..~. ..~ OMMJN «Sham .9. .
80.8.. 8..... ... 88 fimflo 6.. muoflwm 8.2. a 88 fimflo 6..
:8: umom 38 .8: umom 38

E

 

 

 

«33.3 $3 How 33 .08 9E3. fimflo mg .0 um... .2. £83..

158

 

89:5 ofigflz mm: m: 8%; mzwmmflu :: :m
:52: :: 25.3 mung: 2: mm
om~.~: mimnmmH mm: m: 03.; 3:8 mo: Na
8me gflgu R: N: 085 .63: mo: 5
om~.m: mam mm: :_ V22: 8
omm.o~ 8:8,: mm: o: 8...: .mE 8m+8§ .8: mm
Smfiz 5:50QO :m: mo. 2a.:m couH 8: MK
89m: «88013958 mm: mo. 3:.5 Smfion mo: R
o:m.mm gammflzumxmsg Nm: 3. 08.3 c8888 :3 on
o:~.:o_ 88H a: 8. 298 §:§a§m 8: mm
03.: 88330 on: me RE: .95: :om +oEwmoo No: i
03.3 38? S: :2 ommJN mmmudm S: Q
02:: £8wa 3: mo. 8m.~:m.~ mean: 8: «N
03.8 «:88 3: NS om: 2m _ ofiflfio S: E
08.8 oggz 3: z: 0%. NS 968: 8: R
09.3 mmumdaz mm: 8. 2: :8 gamma 3: $
02.9: 8mm2193 :N: mm 8%:2 oEo mom+moaaz :m: 3
83:3 59833.5myu @880 3: mm 80.8: 898% S: S
83% mfiqwm «N: R 32% .Enfluoammvmflfim No: 8
o~:.~m meH «amok .N: mm o8.m:m gang 5: mm
81% 0930.30.58: 2: mm Swim gang 8: :o
8N5: pg 9: :m 80.2: 8N§ mm: S
:53 mm 838 .mon .863 mm: 3
$0.92 $2088 2: mm in men +
393 592.85 2: a Sign .:H Nom+8H§ R: 5
8%; figs: 2: om 832 E3 mm: 8
03:2 3&2 3: mm om:.:w_ Emma? mm: mm
035: pmfloaoofim :3 3 823 2889 :m: mm
89:: ES: 2: S 80.2 Bag mm: S
3:.8 83 2: 3 035mm .uco Sm +330 :5 S: mm
08.; «Eng :: mm 2%; gm E: mm
38$me 3 a 88 5.520 .oz muodmm 8% a 88 fimfio .02
..mm: umom v58 Imus #8 E8

 

 

CSGBSUIIB g

. mfimfluo 53.:qu Em mumpmon an fifiawoflhdm was 83.35 $9.3m 9.38m
Hgflgmm mmma .Swmfifia mwmzfimumz .Bflmzmmso mo aghamo $3.50? I 83.0w 33m

 

159

 

8m.~:o.~ 9%: 8: mi 82% 3889 :m: om.
8:62.. 9828 S: .3. 08.2 Bag...“ mm: 2.
8qu 9582 3: mi 9152 58 SM +5.88 .pm mm: mm.
3:68 gammz 3: Ni o_m._m spasm .m: R.
8%:2 oEo mom +828: :o: :1 89:3 umomflnmommqu cm: 3.
23.8: Smfimn S: o:_ 93.3 8mm§mdm m:: 3.
025m gnflmcmfifl S: mm. Swim zmfimmm w:: :2
805:: gfinfim 3: mm. .93.“: Bumgfl ::: MN.
83.: §m§> 8: R. 25.8: ggngmm 9:: NE
83K: 833% mm: mm. 318. uoflflwufiufiU m:: a.
02.8: summon .umummmu mm: mm. 8m.$~ 958 ::: S.
o 9.8933 gm :2 0853 83x92 2: m:
35.2; 65 mom +5§ 3: mm. ommafi Eggnmfloa N:: m:
8.6.: E 3: N2 ommdt pawn .:: E.
8:23. 58:2 mm: .2 Ema: magma; o:: 2.
$3.8m 8.2. a 88 fimflo .oz magnum 8% a 88 fimflo .02
$38 38 ummoumom 88

 

 

 

oSqBSV$H gamma

160

 

 

 

 

8:.:MM ommmEz _ oMm CM
8m... mommmfiflm MMM Mm OMM.S 833.“: MNM MN
2...:N 358m NMM NM 93.1. 8mm: ..Nm ..N
8:6? 83%; .mm .M 89:... 9.3 MNM MN

. com. :1 5....ng mN oN
08 R :88 omm om o.o.o.M gage Emma MNm MN
. uoflflw 8. . . . . 3.2mm :Nm :N
OMN .N c3920 m:m m: 2:.3. onH 8E9... MNM MN
oMm.RM @3qu 3m m: ONE... 0830 NNM NN
SQMNN 88:39: :3 M: CNM.Nm EEG... .Nm .N
. 5880... om: . OM. “may: ON... ON
oNM MMN 3.9 ::M m: 8N6; :mmmonufi Ma m.
o.N.MMN “Ema m:m m: 80.8. 593.86 2M m.
. £880 8: . NM. gem N .M .
2M N:N Bm8mz ::m :: 03.3. 8&2 2M ....
9.3.3 @582 M:m M: OMNKM ummnoNonm M; M.
8:.MM 3:33.” N: N: 03.:9 omfixomz :.M :.
. go 8N. .: 83 M; M.
OMN NMM 2m: .:m .: 2.5:. Eda N; N.
0:...3. m8 3.. o: 8:.R Bug :m . .
ON. .3 egg mMm MM 8M . :M «38 2m 2
ON. .:N: 5589. NMM M.M E:.MN 834 mom M
SiSN 888.39me Rm NM 805M £2082 mom w
. 8:283... 33.... can Mom M
o.m.MMM 08$ MMM MM oM:.ON 88:38 Mom m
036M 30380 :8 :M 80.: 3mg :8 :
OMNJM. «802 Mm MM 8N. .M Sung Mom M
2M6... Roam... NMM NM 83... oEwmoo Nom N
oM..Nm 888 M... .M ON..:M «mean .8 M
838:: .358 88 .oz $3.8m .3980 88 .oz
Immo umom .uwma End 1.80 umom .umwo undo
«wagon 83 you 33 v.08 8.3333: 83 mg «0 ...qu .> gamma...

. mfimflo Bfimumobso Eoum $5 632.38 mam 8305... won mmon .gm mauflmom
Hmaoflmmuog mmma €03.33 £63333 .goflflfimmcoo mo panama :mmHfiHz I gown

 

161

 

‘ , mg 8.63 8353 Sm S

at}? «.3 2m 2 . summon .ym
oonéwm @538 Km K 8m m3 38 «mm S
can . com 988: OR OR o _ m . om. 8g .8 3
8m . 3m gamma mmm 3 ca . :3 E3 8m 8
93.3 8.802 mom 3 8m. .9 59:2 9.3 mm
Sm. :3 89.8w Sm 3 03.3 3083 mmm mm
. g 03.3 035 Rm R
o5 mom mdmcflaa 8m 3 REES HHS .um 93 3
Sin? 59:8 3m 3 8° m9 8.8m mmm mm
£58 833 8&3 :mm a

23.5mm 89m 53 :8 3 mmmmamw
muoflmm 3:98 88 .02 $3me 358 88 .oz
1%: umom .ummo Emu umms umom Ammo Emu

 

 

 

@9534, flag

162

Appendix VI. List of Values Added to Origin loading
Deck to Simulate 1965 Non-Resident Boating in Michigan

 

 

 

 

Assigned
Origin Peroentagea Boat USe-Periodsb
Minnesota .25 31,440
Wisconsin 1.10 171,515
Ontario .25 31,440
Illinois 1.80 280,661
Ohio 5.80 904,353
Indiana 4.50 701,654
13.70 2,121,053

 

aOut-of-state boating was assured to be equal to
13.7 percent of boating by in-state registered boats
in the proportions shown.

bI‘he estimates of boat use-periods for each cut-
of—state origin were obtained by multiplying the total
in-state use by the assigned percentage.

163

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.~as._ m.m_ o.mm o.oom o.os a.m _. o.mao o.m saunas mNm
o.mom -- -- -- -- -- -- o.moM m.a oeoq “Na
m.mmo.m m.~s o.sm o.~oo.~ ..oo_ s.omm o.o m.~m~._ s.m_ sosoaooq omm
m.mmo.~ -- -- o.~_o._ o.om o.e~ m. m.ooo._ m.m_ mommaona .oo mNm
m.soo.~ m.~_ o.mm o.o_m m.mm ~.oe m._ ~.No~._ 0.“. monawm :Nm
o.moo._ o.mm o.w~ o.omo._ o.sm m.so ~.. o.moo._ o.s_ oaoH ossmonm MNm
s.~ms -- -- -- -- -- -- a.~ms 5.0 newawxo Nam
cog .. -- -- -- -- -- cog m. : @5551; am
m.m~o._ m.mm _.~N o.~em o.ms ~.ms w. o.oem o.m .emsem on
m.oom.m m.m_ o.~m o.mmm.. w.o~ o.m~ :._ w.ome.m m._m commonmno m_m
m.~m~.m o.os o.om o.owm.~ o.m__ w.~m a. o.oom._ o.m~ xeosoauono m_m
m.o~n.~ ..m N.o_ o.soo ~.om -- -- ~.eo_.~ ..om annuam. N_m
o.sem.~ m._~ m.ms o.o_o._ m.om ~.am m._ o.ma~._ m.e_ oamoao. o_m
~.o_~.m ~.NN s.sa o.mo~._ a.oo -- -- 0.0mm._ m.- umonoaooeom m_m
~.mas.m m.so o.m~_ o.s:m.m ~.-_ s.m__ ..~ o.~mo.~ m.m~ oooogonz s_m
c.5oo._ o.- o.sa o.aom ~.ms -- -- o._sm m.o_ moon m_m
“.moo.m m.mo o.mm_ o.mmm.s m.m_~ m._me.~ “._m a.oom ~... osoamaso ~_m
m.ss_.a m.om o.oo_ o.~_o.~ o.oo_ o.~o_ m._ o.omm._ m.m~ opposwnoz. __m
m._~m.m o.- o.s~ o.omm.N m.o~_ o.mso o.~_ m.o_m s.s onaon o_m
s.~om.m o.m~ ~..a o.a~o.~ ~._o_ ~.Nom m.o o.mmm m.~_ nomao. mom
soon; 0.: mi comm mi .13 _._ 0.3m ms 35 mom
~._ea._ -- -- -- -- -- -- ~..ae._ o.:~ oouH Rom
o.mms -- -- -- -- -- -- o.mma m.o aonnoxoao mom
m.s~o._ ..mN ~.os o.s~m N.oa -- -- ~.NNN _.o_ aooosonso mom
m.am_.~ m.oa ~._w o.~ao._ o.mm m.:o ~.. m.oom a.m soaoosmx som
s.~am.~ s._~ m.~s o.omm ”.~s ~.o_ m. m.wso._ m.- aoonmsom mom
m.m-.m m.~_ m.m~ o.oom m.m~ -- -- ~.~o~.~ 0.5m oonomoo Nom
o.m~o.~ m.a_ m.m~ o.~m_._ ..mm o._m~ s.m a.omm ~.m omonom .om
nooouomwomo a1: noom nonoo on: uoom nonoo moo uoom monom o1: noon monom sunsoo .oz
noom Hoops .umoo
ooSN 9:8 mooou 93pm <83 9:8 gofidn in

 

 

 

mamgmg 5” mmsdo> .25

Home” now 80.33me noon 5 Bflommwu Eggnog mo swag . HH> ones—mand

164

..—
rlvl.‘ cc. . I ..fn awarir. (.94 . :::!k .f‘.

I
...I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

onsoHnsoouuHH>.xnoaoonn

 

 

 

a.Nmo -- -- -- -- -- -- s.mmo N.m nonnmnnsnn .mm
. u- u- u- -- -- -- o. w. smnmcu
o mo. -- -- -- -- -- -- s.om N. canon omm
. -- -- -- -- -- -- m.oo_ a._ noanonn
# mm— II II II II II II Qon @- «EEO MJm
N.smo._ m.N_ o.mm o.o_N m.mm -- -- N.Nom ..m ozonno mam
s.mmm._ o.m_ o.mm o.oNN m.wm -- -- a.on N.m_ Annoyanas Nam
. -- -- -- -- -- -- s.w_ N. annnnznnz
0 mam 1: nu .... I: In nu o.m~_ m._ mgH mam
o.on -- -- -- -- -- -- o.MNm o.m noun mam
. -- -- -- -- -- -- N. w. o.N onooooo
N mmn .... -- -- .i I. nu o.N$ m.m mumoomL gm
o.om_ -- -- -- -- -- -- o.om_ m.N nonunna mom
N.mN -- -- -- -- -- -- N.mN ... oanononn Nam
. -- -- -- -- -- -- m.oms m.o onsconn
N —N® II II II II II II {..NNM N.m EU —.~m
N.Nsm._ m.m_ o.N o.smN N.o o.omo._ o.oN s.s_ N. non can
m.o_o._ s.oN N.os o.on m.ms -- -- s.s_ N. oonnnn mmm
N.m_m.N -- -- -- -- -- -- N.m_m.N ”.mm aossoonon nmm
. -- -- -- -- -- -- o.om .m oooono
@ MM” II II II II II II Q.N—# mom $8 Nmm
. .. .... .. .. .. -- no; ...: mooaonnnz
o Nmm -- -- -- -- -- -- o.onm m.m oxnoxaon 0mm
m.m_N._ o._N o.Na o.omm m.ws :.Nm o. s.oNN N.o_ oomoH mmm
o.om_ -- -- -- -- -- -- o.om_ m.N onomsono amm
m.mNo._ m.m m.om o.oaN o.Nm -- -- o._Nm m.N_ oaooan. mmm
o.nos -- -- -- -- -- -- o.mos m.o _ononxnz. Nmm
N.mNo._ m.m_ m.om o.osN o.Nm -- -- s.ooN N.m osoooo .mm
o.mNm -- -- -- -- -- -- o.mNm m... ossosmz omm
o.mmN._ m.N_ o.mm o.oMN m.o -- -- N.Nsm o.N oonmnooz. mNm
noonnonronn aTo noon monon am: noon nonun n1: noon nonon non noon nonon nnnsoo .oz
noon Honoe .nmon
o moon .nxn .no n osoN .nxn .no n oaoN .nxn .no noxon onoaan

 

165

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mofiomsofi 5 mun Amooauomoms node can mono—3 83g dam
n.Nmo.m__ N.Noo._. ...Nno.N o.wom.om n.mNm.N s.mom.o_ ..OON N.mMN.Nm m.mmN manage
s.mNm._ 0.0 . ...m. o.mom n.n_ w.nNm N.o_ o.on o.N oesoz, NNm
o.omo._ -- -- -- -- -- -- o.omo._ o.MN onoaxoo _Nm
s.mmo._ o.m _.__ o.noN n.m N.m_N m.m_ o.mm m._ .nnxsnn on
mono .. -.. .. -.. .. .. 99$ ad gnome mom
m.omo._ m.mN o.os o.o_m n.mn o.mN_ n.N o._N m. oonsoz mom
o.mON -- -- -- -- -- -- o.moN m.m someone Nom

. u- u- .. .. l .. comm m.m gan
m owo -- -- -- -- -- -- m.omN m.m onoonnnnn mom

. -- -- -- -- -- -- n.mmm .n asonnoo
0 —Nm II II II ...I II II Nomwm —.m fifiHm mmm
m._Nn m.m m.m_ o.omm o.m_ -- -- o.Nmn o.o aonsn ao> nom
s.mmo -- -- -- -- -- -- n.mmo N.M nmmmmsonon mom

. . -- -- -- -- -- -- N. o _. o .nm
N mmm — II II II II II II Oonw mom WW8 Nmm
...nn._ m.mN o.mm o.o_N._ m.oo -- -- o._oN m.N aonnnon .om
m.mnN -- -- -- -- -- -- m.mnN s.o_ mnnon oom
..mmN._ m.N_ o.mm o.o_N m.mm -- -- o._om n.N aomoann_ mmm
N.Nmo o.N o.:_ o.o_a m.oN n.m__ _.N m.oo_ n._ onooosa_ mmm
N.mmo._ o.oN o.Nm o.ooo._ o.mm -- -- N.N _. oonnnom Nmm
_.oNn.N _.N_ ..nm o.Nnm _.NN n.m~m._ N.nm N.mn o. nnonu .nm omm
o.Nnm.N o.mm N.No_ o.nN_.N N.o__ o.omN m.m_ n.n_ N. nmwmmm mmm

. -- -- -- -- -- -- n.mmm n.m
: wmo In In E. In I... .... m.mom m.: 83.80 #mm
w.so -- -- -- -- -- -- n.no m. ooomosonnm mmm
m.oo_ -- -- -- -- -- -- m.oo_ n._ soanmon Nmm
noonnon own no: noon oopnn. awn noon monon. awn noon nonon. awn noon nonun. annsoo .oz
noon nonoe .noon
0 ocoN .nxn .no n oooN .nxn .no ¢.oooN .nxn .no nonon_ooonan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

§E$HH> Neg

166

..I.

fill:

 

o mo.. mm.o o.mom om.o oxon .Nm
o No.m mN.N m.mmo.m NN.. aosonoon on
o RNA NTN m.mmo.N 9... oohgg ...6 mNm
o no. mn.o m.noo.N 00.. onuaon nNm
o o..n Nm.m o.moo.. om.o onnH osnoonn mNm
o 3.0 :06 ...Nmn No... 0830 Na
o om.m no.m odum om... muggé .Nm
o om.m. mo... m.mNo.. Nm.. Hansen ONm
o s..m mN.. m.oom.m Nm.. oomsonono m.m
o oN.n mm.m m.NmN.m oa.. xnoaonnono m.m
o om.o om.m m.oNN.N mm.. .nnnsaa N.m
o No.. mm.o o.st.N mo.. ozondn o.m
o on.m om.m N.o.N.m mo.o nnononoonom m.m
o 3.. mm. TMRK mo. 093.82 ...m
o am... mn.o. o.Noo.. mm.o oosn m.m
o Nm.o mN.m N.moo.m m... osoamngo N.m
o mN._ m... m.na..a No._ onnosnnnz ..m
o .o.s Nw.m m..Nm.m Ns.. onnon o.m
o om.o .m.o n.Nom.m Nm.o noman. mom
o 3.0 and .33.. mm... gan: mom
o MN.. No.. N..NN.. o... noun Nam
o mw.m mo.m o.mms om.o coonnnono mom
o Nm.o mn.o m.nho.. mo.. oomosonso mom
o no.o no.0 m.Nm..N oo.. zonooson nom
o No.m mN.N s.Nnm.N om._ aonnmoon mom
o oN.N on.N m.mNN.m no.. onnomoo Nom
o .o.o .o.o o.mNo.N om.o omonon .om
nannooaoo xoosn .nnnn. noosn .nnnn. nannooooo oxoosH nuance oooo
oonnnooz oonnnooz” moan aonnoonnnn .noon
335mm

 

 

noun coon .

 

 

 

 

 

cum HMHHHGH mead

 

 

coon ooo moon .mannoon non onon noon aonnuonnnn.aonnoannoon

.HHH>_xnoaonnn

167

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . . . . #0....“on
N MNN ON o m. o n mm. mm 0 song mam
o mm... om... 3.8.. t... ozonno ......
o mN... mN... ...mmm; NN.. 88x92. DR
.....S i... S... as: as... soon $5.2 2...
o S... NN... ...on No... noon“ mom

. . . . onooomo
o mm o E o N mm. mm o 388.... .3...
9N2 mm... mm... 98. mm... osononz mam
...NN. N... 3.. Na. Na... oflonom Nam

. . . . good
u mm . ... . N .3 mm o ononow ...m
o t... 25 NN..... 3... on com
o 8... 0N... 92.... N..... 85.2 m3
o SN 3.. N.E...N on. goon «mm
o a... 8a 0.2.. cm... zoooooaooo Rm

. . . . oooaooooz
o 8 N S N 0 NS Nm o oxoofios omm
o Nm.. 3.. .::: NN.. 88H mmm
o No.N SN 98. on... ononzono ..mm
o .... 3.. m.m$.. 8.. 38? mmm
o 2... NN.. one. om... Bonxoz Nmm
o NN... NN... N.mNo.. on... 388 .mm
o 8.. . S... ...me R... egosoz omm
o mm... ..m... o.mmN.. m... oonmonoz mNm
o mN... MN... m.NN.... 3.. mono... mNm
nannoonoo xoofi .nnnn xoun .nnno obnoonoo ...."an mnfioo oooo
nonnnooz confines moon Bfloonnnn .noon

nonnson
mean 83 , En ..onnnfi moan

 

 

 

 

oozfinsoQIHHE fiosonnn

168

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

u 0:.0 o:.o {.mNm.. Nw.o quay: NNm
u mm.o m:.o o.omo.. mm.o ucmaxmo .Nm
0 mm.o mm.o a.mmo.. m... nanxxaz ONm
0 ma... 9.... 99$ $6 gamma mom
u ...o ...o m.omo.. om.o mougoz. mom
0 mm.o m:.o m.mON oo.o aomxomn Nom
. . . . mmzmcmq
0 mm o m: o w mam om o manomaaflm mom
. . . . csosamo
... R ... s o o E. 8 o 555 mm...
o m:.o Nm.o m..Nm 00.0 cmnsm qm> :om
u m:.o mm.o ‘ :.Nmo NN.o commamme mmm
u :o.o mm.o N.mmm.. Nw.o ggmmonmmwww Nmm
u N..o m..o ...::.. mN.o cmfiuumm .mm
o Nm.o NN.o N.m:N oN.o human com
o .N.o m..o ..mmN.. Nm.o ammmNNN. mmm
u m..o m..o N.Nmm o:.o maoompe Nmm
u No.0 mo.o N.mmo.. o:.o, umaflqmm Nmm
u Nm.o mN.o ..mN:.N om.. uNmNu .um mmm
u o..o mo.o m.N:m.N o... .Nunz. mmm
N.N.N 0N.o mm.o ..wmm w:.o mmwwmwm_ Nmm
o.mo. m..o N..o m.:o oN.o mommmzmflgm mmm
m.mm. NN.o NN.o m.oo. o¢.o .maqmmm Nmm
u No.o Nm.o :.Noo om.o coummafl>aq .mm
.....m. a... 2.... 0...... mm... ...—«hawk. 3m
gMWNommwo xmocH .nuum xmccH .uuu¢_ amuwommmo mxmncH Nuance «coo
NMNcgz _cmNuNooz mmmN caauomnuum .ummo
ume>mm
qum ommN «‘u. ..L cum NMNquH mmmN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

omscaucpouuHHH>_anqwgmm

169

 

.5. $3 How. mm 83, Same
.Hmmm Hum 30.36909 umon m0 @5893 fin

$365” 8.30%.?» 03.308 um. “ENE Hmfldhnm

170

 

..—s-

 

-- m:\om N.\N. mNo -- m:\o: ..\.. coo
-- om\om N.\N. NNm -- o:\o: N\N mam
-- mm\mm N.\N. on -- omxom mxm mam
-- om\m: m.\m. mNo -- o:\mm o.\o. Nam
-- m:\oa m.\m. .Nm -- mmNm: o.\o. omm
-- m¢\oo N.\N. MNo -- mm\o: m.\m. mmm
-- mm\m: N.\N. NNo -- oq\mm {NN.N 4mm
-- mm\mm o.\o. .No -- m:\m: m.\m. mam
.. mm\mm N.\N. on -- maxoa N.\N. Nmm
-- mM\om ..\.. m.o -- o:\mm m.\m. .mm
-- om\om o.\o. N.o -- m:\o: N.\N. omm
-- mo\om :.\:. ~.. -- m:\mm m\m mam
-- mm\o: NN\NN 0.0 -- om\m: ..\.. mam
-- mm\oo o.\o. m.m -- m:\o: m.\m. Nam
-- mm\om o.\o. ... -- m:\o: mM\mm omm
.. oo\om m\m m.o -- mm\mm o:\o: mmm
-- mm\oo m\o N.o -- mm\om N.\N. «mm
-- mm\m: ..\:. ..m -- o:\o: :N\;N mmm
-- om\m: m.\m. o.o -- o:\mm oM\om Nam
-- o:\o: m.\m. moo -- mmxm: .:\N. .mm
-- mm\om NN\NN moo -- m.\o¢ .:\.: omm
-- mmNOm OM\om Now -- m:\o: oNNoN mNm
.. o:\mm o\o moo -- mm\m: m.\m. mum
-- om\mm o.\o. mom -- mm\mm om\om hum
-- om\om m\m :om -- m:\m: NN\NN on
.. oa\o: o\m moo -- o:\mm m.\m. mNm
-- om\m. N.\N. Noe -- mmNm: mNNmN :Nm
-- mm\om o.\o. .om -- m:\o: ¢.\:. MNm
do... .....mé. ENE. .02 do... .....mé. ENE. .02
umwmm magnumNa xaNq comma mocmumfla _xQNN

 

 

 

 

.mgouum msvflago map No gnwflm may go ommN .ummq may no mmsam> mmmN.

cam. can «mom. “on nmcmflmm¢.muma xaaq mmznwflm mwmumm mo umfiq .xH xaucmmma

171

.- .... . . . .
F2 ulfuitl‘i'blpvclulfil". 'llu 1w.

 

 

-- mmNQm NN\NN
-- m¢\om MN\mN OON
-- om\m: .N\.N mmo -- om\ma NN\NN mam
-- 33m 33m NS -- $3.. mN\mN 3,.
-- mo\om NN\om Nam -- mm\m. om\ow 3.3
-- om\mq m.\m. 3mm -- mmNg: 3N\ON mqo
-- mm\om MNNMN mmw -- m3\om ONNON 3.3
-- mmNOm oN\3N {mo -- m:\oa m.\m. mam
-- omNm. m.\m. Mme -- mmNmm m.\m. N33
.. 83.. :1... NS .. 9.3.. m3 2%
-- mm\o: o.\o. owe -- mo\om o.\o. 3.3
-- om\m: N:\N: mm. -- m3Nm: mNm mmm
-- mm\m: NN\NN 3mm -- mm\o¢ OM\OM 3mm
-- mmNO. NN\mm Nmm -- mmNQm 0N\oN Nmm
-- mm\om NMNNM 3mm -- m3\oo o.\o. 3mm
-- om\om .o\.o mmo -- omNm: m\m mmm
-- mmNm. a:\.: 4mm om..\om.. m¢\oq o¢\om :mm
-- mm\m4 o.\o: mmm -- m¢\om o.\o. mm.
-- mmNOm m:\mq Nmm -- m.\o: N.\N. Nmo
-- m:\oa o:\o. .mo -- omNm. ..\3. .mo
-- mm\o: MM\mm 3mm -- m:\m. N\N one
-- o.\o: .m\.m ago -- m:\m: m.\m. me
So... .....m..... .835 .oz 38. .....mé. .835 .oz
nommm magnumNo. xqfiu umomw magnumflo xqfiH

 

 

cmscflucoouuxH xflccwmmm

 

 

172

 

3.3N- N 3N- ..3N- N.3N- ..NN- ..3N- mmumpmya ncmuw 3N3
3.3N- 3.3 3.7 3.3. 3.33- .13..- wflucmm 3N3
..33- 3.N3- ...3- 3.33- 3.3N- 3.3.- mNmH mswmmum 3N3
N.33- 3.33- N.N3- 3.33- 3..N- N.33- omomuo NN3
N.N3- 3.33- ..33- 3.N3- 3.33- N.33- .nzmmzunuuaz .N3
3 .33- N. .3- 3.33- N .NN- 3.33- N .33- ”E35 3N3
3.N3- . 3.- N..N- . 3N- 3.3N- 3.NN- .3awnX32n. 3.3
3.33- N..N- ..3N- N.3.- 3.N3- 3.33- xHo>mNumnu 3.3
N.33- N.33- ..33- 3..3- 3.33- 3.3N- .:3Hugm N.3
3.. N.3. 3.3 3.3. 3.N- 3...- 333333. 3.3
.33..- N.N3- 3.33- 3.33- N.33- N33- unguaogtm 3.3
3.3- 3.3N- N.33- 3 3N- N.33- 3..3- omcflxumz. 3.3
3.33- 3.NN- N.3N- 3.3N- ...NN- 3.3N- 83 3.3
3.N3- N.33- N.33- 3.33- 3.33- 3.33- mammmfizu N.3
3.3.- 3.N.- ..N.- 3.N- ..3N- 3.NN- mapmswumz. ..3
..33- N..3- 3.33- N.3N- 3..3- ..33- 333mm 3.3
N.3. ..3N 3.33 3.33 3.NN ..3N “3333 333
3..N 3.33 3.33 NN.. ..3N 3.3N 853.83.: 333
N.3. 3.3 ...- 3.3- 3.3 .3 :cuH N33
3.N3- ..33- 3.N3- 3.N3- 3.N3- .33- 303333333 333
3.N3 N.33 3.33 3.33 ..33 .33 303333333 333
N33 N.N3. 3.3NN N.33N 3.N3. .Nm. 3.38.39. ..33
N.33- 3.33- 3.33- N.N3- ..33- 3..3- 3093333: 333
3.33- ..33- 3.N3- ..33- 3.33- 3.N3- 0333303 N33
3.33 3.33 3.33 ..33 3.3N 3.33 mmmnmm .33
.33 3:3 UN cam 33 cam .33 cum 3 sum N cum :ONumCNummo .oz

 

mg .3 3.0-DUE mo uoHHm mmmucmonmm

 

 

ammo: mmmomm mfi mo 83.3.3330
335.39 mg mamamm How 8.30.68.“ mo HOHHm wmmucmpnmm

.x 33.68%...

173

 

33303302

 

N N3- 3 33- 3 N3- 3 33- N 3.- 3 NN- 33303 333
3.3.- 3.33- 3.3N- 3.33- ...- 3..N 0303 333
. . . . . . 3300000
3 33- 3 .3- 3 33- 3 33- 3 33- N 33- 3300002 333
3.33- N.33- 3.33- 3.N3- ..NN 3.3.3 0.33303... 333
..33- 3.33- 3.33- 3.33- N .33- N.33 3338.303 N33
. . . . . . .3330330
. 33- 3 33- 3 33- 3 33- 3 33- 3 33- 03330 .33
3.33. 3.3.. 3.3.. N.33. 3.N3. 3.3N 33m 333
..3. 3.3N ..3 N... 3.3N- 3.33- 033333_ 333
N.N3- 3.3N: 3. .3- ..mN- 3.3N: 3 .33.. 8550093 333
. . . . . . 330000
3 33- 3 33- N 33- 3 33 3 33- 3 33- 3368 N33
. . . . . . 00303003:
N 33. 3 NN- 3 NN- 3 .N- 3 3N- 3 33 33333333 333
3.N3- 3.33- 3.N3- 3.33- 3..N- 3.3N- 00003 333
3.3N- 3.3N- N.NN- 3.NN- 3.NN- 3.3N- 03033330 333
3.33- ..33- 3.33- 3.33- 3.3N- N.3N- 330033. 333
3.3N- N.N3- 3.3N- N.N3- 3...- 3.3 .3303x0z N33
3.3T N.3. 3.3. 3.3N N... 3.N 3.33000 .33
3.33- 3.3N- 3.NN- 3.3N- ..33- ..33- 0333302 333
3.N- 3.33 3.33 N.33 N.3- 3.3N- 00303.33... 3N3
3.3N N.N3 3.33 3..N 3.3.- 3.33- 30032 3N3
3.33- N..3- 3.33- 3.33.. ..33- 3.33- 00.3.3 NN3
3.33- 3.3N- 3.33- 3.3- 3..3- 3.3N- 03333003 3N3
33 cam 03 333 m3 3:3 33 cum 3 3:3 3 3:3 30333333000 .02

 

0:33 33. 330.330.300.33... mo Hon-um 03303503033

I"
I

 

 

30::33300u-x x3330003

174

 

3.3- 3.N.- 3.3- 3.3.- 3.N- N..3- 0000030 N33
. . . . . . 0033000
3 3- N 3N- . 3.- 3 NN- N 3 3 3. 033003330 333
. . . . . . 0000330
3 33- N 33- 3 3N- 3 3N- 3 33- 3 3N- 000333. 333
N.3- N.3- 3.3- 3.3- N.3 3.3N 00300 03> 333
..33 3.N3 3.33 3.33 3.N3. 3.3.N 000300333 333
3... 3.3 3.3 3.N 3..- 3.N.- 00000330ww N33
3.33 3.3.. 3.33. 3.3.. 3.3N 3.3N- 0033300 .33
..3N- 3 N3- N.3N- 3.N3- 3..- N.. .33333 333
N.3N. 3.N3. 3.33. 3.33. 3.3.. ..3N 0330330. 333
3.33 3.N3 3.33 N.33 N.33. N.33. 3300003 333
3.33N 3.3N3 3.333 3.N33 3..3N ..3.. 0333030 N33
N.3- N.3N 3.N 3.3N N.33- ..N3- 33330 .00 333
3.3 N.33 3.33 3.3.. N..3- 3.NN- .00300 333
N.3N- 3. .3- N.33- ..33- N.3 3. .3 33330300300303 333
m.~w 3.33 N.33 3.03 ..03N N.3—mm 0ommmzwflnm 333
3.33 N.3N N.N3 3.3N 3.33N 3.333 3303330 N33
3.33 N.3. 3..3 3.N. 3.3.. 3.3NN 0000303mmw .33
. . . . . . 330.
3 3N- 3 33- 3 33- 3 .3- 3 33 N 3N3 00030 333
. . . . . . 0030330
3 N3. N 33 N 33. 3 N3 3 33N 3 N33 0000330 333
N.3N 3.33 N.33 3.33 3.N. 3.3- 333000 333
N.3N 3.33 3.N3 3.33 ..3N- 3.33- 303333333 N33
33 00m 03 000 m3 000 .33 000 3 000 3 000 00303030000 .02

 

000m an 003003009m mo 3033a 000000030m

l
i/

GOQGHHQDUIIX xflncwmm<

 

 

175

 

N.ow

 

 

 

8.8 88 8.8 98 m.~8 68m mo 84.888 .85
884 88.~ 884 884 884 884 .950 88.94.49 83 8388
888 88.8 88.8 888 88.8 888 £883 p.80 v8.3 8&8:
884 884 884 884 884 884 498 488m v8.3 ‘4ng
888. 888. 888. 888. 888. 884 488 988m 8.3 4me
:8 8.2 m8 m8 m8. o.o- 0:83 NR
88 m8 m8 0.8 ~..m 8.8 @5480 .8
33 O8 m.m ozm- N8 «.4: 9082 OR
8.8. ..m N8 .1 md 58- 88:83 8m
..3N ..mww m8; m.mw~ m.omm mdmm 8.482 mom
88m 85m 85m $5 85m 45m Sflmfiumwa .oz

 

mfifi an 8.30? mo HDHHm mmmugwm

 

 

UQScHHGOUILX xflvcwgmm

176

 

88.8. 8484 84 :4. 84 8mg 44:
.848 44.84 84 8.. 8.: 8m; :4:
8848 8848 84. $4 88 83.88me Emma 8:
4.8.8 844 24. ..4 8.4 883 44:
4884. 4.88. 84 8.. 84 38 88mg .4:
88.8. 8.48. 8... 8.. 8.: 0830.45,. 84:
48.84 484. 4:4. 84 84 ”.95 4.:
$8.84 884. $44 $4 84 5248.90 8.:
5848. 89:. 88. :4... 8.: 826485 4.:
88.84 8:8. 84. 844 :48 84.9.94 8.:
4.8.84 :844 84 44.. 844 «582 8.:
48.8. 844 R4. 84 E4 “£83088 .::
4848 888. 8.4 84 84. gm: 4.:
8.8: :88 88 4... 84 83 4.:
888:4 .844 88 4... 84 884.6 2:
48.84 8.4.; .44 88 8.. Bug 8.:
.884. 8:884 84 88 8.. B48 8:
8.8. 884 844 8:8 88 882 8:
88 8:8 888:. m 4. 8 88 :88 598843

84.8. :844 84.: K8 :5. $2456: 8:
484:. 8:4. 8.... 8.. R4 8.4 8:
45.8. 8844 88 .... 84 895.03 8:
4848 .:m... 84 .88 84 88.98 :8:
8.4.8. .844 84.: 88 8.. figuémam 8:
4.4.... :888.: 88 :88 .88 3895.2

::444. 844. 84 8.. 8.4 08.88 8:
448.8 .84 88 8.... ::4 83mm 48
_ mmcoflmm 883mg 03mm 0.39. 83mm 588 .oz
:8: 80m 884 m 884 .24 884 884

884 9. oflmm

 

 

584.6 88 you 88> 8834

as... 8.3. 838838... 3.3.88 884 8982 no 83888 6. 8884

177

 

444.44: .44.48 44.4 44.. .84 88844.4 44:
44:.84. 8:8.4: 4.4 :48 44.. 8488.4. :4:
884.:4 8.8.84 44.8 8.8 84. 04.44.88 44:
4:4.44 888.:448 .88 488.8 44:88.8 04438
4:4.:44 :4.4: ::.8 48.. 88.4 44.840 .48 44:
448.44. 844.44 44.4 48.8 44.. 8.3.. .4:
444.4844 88..488 .8.: 84.8 44.. 4843.....8 84:
444.84 448.48 .4.: 44 .8 84.. 84823488 4::
48448 .44.4:4 88.4 48.8 44. . 34.84488 8::
484.444 448.:4 48.4 :8. . 48.: 8.8me.944 4::
848.4.4.. :8.484 :..: 84.8 .4.. 3594:8454 8::
88.4.4 48:84 84.4 48.8 8.4 84484884288 4::
484.8... 444.44. 48.4 44.8 4:.4 8338 :::
.4:.4:4 884..4. 44.: :48 .8. 8439... 4::
884.444 48444 .4.8 48.. 84 .4 58854.8484 4::
884.8844 44:.44: 44.: .88 84.. 4:3. .::
484.484 444.44 88.4 44.. 44.4 840840.388mz 8::
8844.: 4:4..4 48.4 44.8 4:.4 8584842 44:
884.8: ::48: 44.4 8:.8 4... 844884 84:
.84..44 484.:4 4.8. 44.. .4.: Ego 44:
88:.84: 8444: 44.4 48.8 :4.. 48m. 84:
844..4 884.4 :..4 48.8 :..4 85...... 44:
84.4.4 :84.8 ...84 ...8 84:. 5:689. :4:
844.48. .444. 44.8 8:.. ::4 84.88.39.840 44:
444. .4 848.8. 48.8 8:. . 84.4 84.58444zuia. 44:
8.8:: 448.:4 88.4. 8.4 44.4 884 .4:
48.4. 848.8 4.4 84.8 88. 484043840 84:
84448 4.8.8 8:.8. 84.. .4.: 8.8044 44:
488.88. 4:..4. .88 4:.. 48.4 840me 84:
.4..44 888.8. 44.: 44.8 88.. 8580 44:
8.8..:4 444.44 48.8 8:.. 44.4 084852 84:
8804.84 488484.504 038m 838m 8354 c4843 .02
now: .284. 8844 8444 .24 4844 4844
8444 8 0444...

 

 

88588-8 84.68484

mfimnmcogaoofigaggmxfluugflvmncwfimpnowgggHBfioflmumga

328on mun Ham» Hmm 338 me mwOHHmmnmms H83 9.” 3m.” gfifiwofi mmmam

.mv.~ mo mmgw mcgmum

.HH xaucwmm¢.aa czozm msam>

 

 

 

178

 

mmm.qu.mm mam.mwm.oo magnum“ mmmum2¢
wN_.mmm.o mm:.oo~.~ om.N .o mammzv we:
moo.oom.: mom.om_._ om.m .o namaxmo no:
2.63% ~mm$mm ~5m .o £682 3:
:o~.:mm ~mm.oom .m.m .c zmcmusmmz mo:
:wn.:m_.m ~mm.mm~.m_ :~.o .o oflgo
.mm.m~m mum.~m_ mm.m .o mango: Jo:
wmm.~m_._ o:_.::_ om.~ ._ comxumn no:
mqm.~mm m:m.o__ mo.m .o mmzmcmqrmamcmaaflm No:
_-.o~m.~ mae.mw. m¢.m_ .N guacamoLsocmum _o¢
-m.~oo mm~.om mm.m ._ cmusm cm> om:
:o_.m~m._ w~_.NN~ nm.m ._ ooumsmamx mm:
~m¢.__m._ m~o.mm om.o_ .N summon .umummmo mm:
~_N.:_o.~ nom.:mn.m mm.o .o mamflocH
om_.mmm o:m.m_m.~_ mo.o .o mflocflHHH
o_o.omm mmm._m_ m:.: .o cwfluumm um:
m_o.:em Rm:.om am... .N muumm on:
mmuoqumm uccflumqgmam ompmm aamago .oz
Imam umom omma omma
omma op oaumm

 

 

 

GOSEHBUIIUA a;

179

.mmufi 85.30 3 “Bow 8530 Exam“? 3 vmumdfidwo mg gan 95.38

.33 9980 93 mo

amousm co comma magmoum can mamaoflwo gm 3.3m 803g :33 8%

Sum 338 33??qu .873 dm .m .02 gm 9383 :82 Emma .8380

m0 panama $0.20.“: 55% gm gowmm 33m "5.0.3on .gmgv omma
cam 82 8338a $332 .358 532 c5 .5038 GEE "830mg

.53» me Sammo
8m «82%? £8. :3 mo 3% :oflmmfloflufi magnum 83 336mm mfi B 95
538 fi 033 Eu mfifimfiflu E Banana mm: BE Sflmfloflhmm 83 mfio

appendix XII. Some Comments on the Performance of
SYMAP and on the Future Development and
Application of RECSYS

Performance of the Computer Mapping Technique

As the illustrations in Chapters III and IV have demon-
strated, the SYMAP technique of producing maps is a very
significant adjunct to the RECSYS method of simulating recrea-
tion demand. The researcher only has to transfer the RECSYS
output to a deck of eighty-five data processing cards and
submit these new cards along with the rest of the SYMAP pro-
gram which is not changed. Once the program is actually fed
into the computer, the iSOpleth map and the choropleth map
together with the calculations necessary to determine the
shading level to be assigned to each node are completed in
about two minutes. If the researcher is able to obtain
rapid card punching service or can punch his own data pro-
cessing cards, he can take the output from the RECSYS program
(which takes approximately four minutes computer running time),
prepare the SYMAP data deck and submit the SYMAP program all
within about half an hour. Since normally the recreation

planner requires maps of demand, supply, needs, and surplus

180

181

the best method is to have four SYMAP programs set up. Four
SYMAP data decks can then be prepared and the programs for
the four separate phenomena submitted simultaneously.

If reasonably good computer service is available, it
is possible for a researcher to go completely through a
RECSYS program run and then produce the eight SYMAP graphic
representations of the output data all in a single day.
Without the SYMAP program, it would probably be necessary to
wait many days, perhaps weeks, until the calculations had
been made and the maps drafted. Obviously the researcher who
uses the SYMAP program obtains a visual impression of the
situation much sooner than if he had to wait for manual
drafting. This can quite be significant especially-if he is
asked to prepare a report on a special prOposal and present
it at a forthcoming staff meeting.

Time can also be important where documents such as
statewide recreation plans have to be brought up-to-date at
frequent intervals. If only limited drafting facilities are
available, the preparation of illustrative maps for such a
plan could take several months if some ten or twelve activi-
ties have to be analysed separately. SYMAP would be of
particular value in such cases. Possibly many reports could
use reductions of copy photographs of the SYMAP print-outs

exactly as they come from the computer printer without mount-

182

ing or the addition of any lettering except a typed caption
which would be added after production of the plate or stencil.
In such cases, it is conceivable that the entire RECSYS-SYMAP
process and the reproduction and printing of multiple c0pies
of the maps could take place in one day.

It will be seen from the illustrations in the preceeding
Chapters that the SYMAP technique can produce very acceptable
maps. A discussion of the accuracy of the choropleth maps
is beyond the sc0pe of this thesis but it is clear that ac-
curacy could be improved by the use of more numerous smaller
areal units and hence more frequent nodes. The possibility
of using townships as origins and destinations will be dis-
cussed in the next section.

One technical problem in connection with the production
of SYMAP should be pointed out. It will be seen from Figure
5 that differences in the darkness of the symbols produced
by the computer printer due to the amount of use received by
the ribbon can cause considerable variation in the reproduc-
tion of the same level of shading between the two halves of
the map. This problem can be eliminated if the computer
Operator is alerted to the fact that the two halves of the
map must be printed uniformly so they can be joined. It will
be seen that the problem has been avoided in most of the
other chorOpleth maps and in some cases it is not possible

to detect where the join was made. This was done by carefully

183
selecting the lines along which the join would be made so
that the contours continued in a natural manner and the de-
gree of darkness of the symbols both sides of the junction

was reasonably equal.

Future Development of the Technique

It should be clearly understood that the attempt to
use the RECSYS-SYMAP technique as a planning tool described

in this thesis is a preliminary demonstration and test of

[LW‘Q—‘AJEOPM m. nu- gar-.34. - :‘w-r l‘1
. . I u o _ q I

the method and cannot be considered a perfect example of
the use of this technique. As is the case with any new
device, it can be greatly improved by repeated use and re-
finement of all its component parts and procedures. The
intensive refinement of one aspect of the technique will
not result in an equivalent overall improvement. Each com-
ponent must receive attention if the entire process is to
be substantially improved.

As indicated earlier, the lack of adequate recreation
use data by origin and destination is perhaps the greatest
problem at present. Refinement of the model itself is not
warranted until this problem is solved. A number of data
difficulties in connection with boating have been described
in Chapters II. Similar problems exist in the case of other
recreation activities. In many instances, information on the

amount of use occuring at commercial and private recreation

184

entities is entirely lacking. Data on use by out-of-state
residents are also often absent. A concerted program of data
gathering both in the form of periodic statewide home surveys
and regular destination use studies is needed to provide a
sound basis for recreation planning whether the RECSYS-SYMAP
approach or some other technique is used.1

A by-product of regular use studies would be data on the
growth trends in recreation. Such data are needed in order
to more accurately predict future participation rates. The
problems created by the present lack of adequate trend in-
formation is indicated by the difficulties encountered in
projecting the probable participation in boating by 1980
as described in Chapter IV.

Investigation of the various facets of the supply in-
formation used in the RECSYS simulation is also needed. A
coordinated program of recreation resource inventories and
user preference studies is needed in order to produce the
necessary data on recreation capacity and attraction indices.

If progress can be made towards the develOpment of

better information on recreation supply and demand then fur-

ther refinement of the RECSYS-SYMAP technique will be warranted.

 

1Suggestions on the structure of such a program are con-
tained in the author's report to the Michigan Department of
Conservation.

v nlfium'.‘ x.) run-Q

mauv-mfl "d._'l

185

The first logical step in this direction would appear to be
the reduction of the size of the origin and destination
spatial units. This would not be accomplished easily. If
the entire model was changed to using townships instead of
counties, the program would become much longer and require
extensive use of memory tapes. It would also be necessary
to have use data by township of origin and township of des-
tination. This would require a very advanced and compli-
cated data gathering system which is hard to envisage at
present when even information on a county to county basis is
lacking. It is, therefore, probably more realistic to sug-
gest that an intermediate step would be best in which origin
counties with high demand and destination counties with high
use would be treated on a township basis.

If part of the model was based on the township as a
spatial unit, the accuracy of the SYMAP representations
would be improved in the regions so divided. Nodes would
be closer together and demand and supply phenomena would be
represented more precisely. However, it is doubtful if the
modification of the SYMAP program to give a triple width
map would be warranted until a major part of the state or
all of it was being treated on a township by township basis.
It should be recognized that the mdofication of RECSYS-SYMAP

to the use of spatial units smaller than counties would not

186

only result in data gathering problems but also cause the
entire process to be much slower and more costly. Indeed,
the much greater time needed for the production of the

input data would to some extent eliminate the advantage of

obtaining results rapidly cited earlier.

Further Applications of the RECSYS-SYMAP Approach

\

Discussion of the possible uses of the RECSYS-SYMAP
approach in recreation planning could occupy another com-
plete thesis of this length. Ellis has already suggested
some possible applications of the technique as a planning
tool and for various recreation research problems.1 It
should be pointed out, however, that the technique could
also be used for recreation planning and research involving
areas other than single states. With appropriate modifi—
cations, the approach could be employed in nationwide rec-
reation planning such as is now being attempted by the
Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in the Department of the In-
terior. Regional recreation planning covering five or six
states like the planning being done by the Bureau in the
case of a number of major watersheds is also quite feasible.
Again with suitable modification, the approach could be used

for regions within states such as the areas in Michigan

 

lEllis, Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach, Part I, op.cit., pp. 51-61.

187

covered by the Detroit Metropolitan Regional Planning Com-
mission or the Tri-County Planning Commission in Ingham,
Eaton and Clinton Counties. On an even smaller scale, the
technique has potential for planning the recreational fa-
cilities of a city or for deciding on the scale and type of
development at an individual recreation entity.

Prospects for the successful use of RECSYS-SYMAP in
such situations are bright if planners, geographers, and other
research workers remember that the reliability of the method
depends on the reliability of the data used. With good in-
formation on supply and demand, there is no presently known
technique which is able to predict the probable future spa-
tial distribution of recreation supply, demand, surplus, and
needs with equivalent assurance that the predictions are
likely to closely approximate the actual distribution under

the given conditions.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Public Documents

Bailey, Donald E., Preliminary Population Projections for
Small Areas in Michigan, Lansing, Michigan: State
Resource Planning Program, Michigan Department of
Commerce, January 1966. Working Paper No. l.

Battelle Memorial Institute. Michigan Manpower Study.
Columbus, Ohio: Battelle Memorial Institute,
November 1966.

California, California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan Com-
mittee. California Public Outdoor Recreation Plan.
Sacramento, California: California State Printing
Office, 1960.

Central Michigan University, Center for Economic EXpansion
and Technical Assistance. Michigan Tourism, Vols.
I and II. Mount Pleasant, Michigan: Central
Michigan University, 1966.

 

Chubb, M., Outdoor Recreation Planning_in Michigan by a Sys-
tems Analysis A roach: Part III - The Practical
Application of Program RECSYS1t and 1rSYMAP." Lansing,
Michigan: Michigan Department of Commerce, August
1967. Technical Report No. 13.

-Ellis, Jack B., Outdoor Recreation Planning in Michigan by

a Systems Analysis Approach: Part I - A Manual for
Program RECSYS. Lansing, Michigan: State Resource
Planning Program, Michigan Department of Commerce,
May 1966. Technical Report No. 1.

 

. Outdoor Recreation PlanninginIMichigan by a
Systems Analysis Approach: Part II - Computer Map-
ping for Recreation Planning. Lansing, Michigan:
State Resource Planning Program, Michigan Department
of Commerce, August 1966. Technical Report No. 7.

 

188

189

Lee, Hill, and Jewett, Inc. California Small Craft Harbors
and Facilities Plan. San Francisco, California:
Lee, Hill, and Jewett Inc., March 1964.

Lutz, Randolph B. The Motor Vehicle of the Future. Lansing,
Michigan: State Resource Planning Program, Michigan
Department of Commerce, February 1966. Technical
Report No. 2.

 

Michigan, Department of Conservation, Recreation Resource
Planning Division. Guidelines for Local Participa—
tion in Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Michigan De-
partment of_Conservation, April 1965.

 

. Michigan's Recreation Future. Lansnng, Michigan:
Michigan Department of Conservation, September 1966.

 

’Michigan State University, Department of Resource DevelOpment.
Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study. Lansing,
Michigan: State Resource Planning Program, Michigan
Department of Commerce, June 1966. Technical Report
No. 6, Vols. I and II.

New York, Joint Legislative Committee on Motor Boats. Report
of the Joint Legislative Committee on Motor Boats.
Albany, New York: LegisIaEive Document (1963?
No. 45, March 31, 1963.

University of Michigan, POpulation Studies Center. Michigan
Population 1960 to 1980. Lansing, Michigan: State
Resource Planning Program, Michigan Department of
Commerce, January 1966. Working Paper No. l.

 

University of Michigan, Research Seminar in Quantitative
Economics. Econometric Model of Michigan. Lansing,
Michigan: State ResourcePlanning Program, Michigan
Department of Commerce, April 1966. Technical Re-
port No. 3.

U.S., Outdoor Recreation Resource Review Commission. Stud
Report No. 19, National Recreation Survey. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

 

. Study Report No. 26, PerSpective Demand for Out-
door Recreation. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1962.

 

190

Wisconsin, Wisconsin Conservation Department. A Comprehen-
sive Plan for Wisconsin Outdoor Recreation. Madison,
Wisconsin: Wisconsin Conservation Department, 1966.

 

Wisconsin, Wisconsin Department of Resource DevelOpment. The
Outdoor Recreation Plan. Madison, Wisconsin: De-
partment of Resource Development, July 1966.

Books

Barlowe, Raleigh, "Land for Recreation," Land Use Policy and
Problems in the United States. Lincoln, Nebraska:
UniVersity of Nebraska Press, 1963.

 

Davis, Charles M., Readings in the Geography of Michigan. Ann
Arbor, Michigan: Ann Arbor Publishers, 1964.

Hough, Jack L., Geology'of the Great Lakes. Urbana, Illinois:
University of Illinois Press, 1965.

1965 Yachtsman's Guide to the Great Lakes. Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Seaport Publishing Co., 1965.

Articles and Periodicals

Ferriss, Abbott L., "Applications of Recreation Surveys."
Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. XXVII, No. 3, (Fall,
1963).

Gresenfeld, Norman and Leeber, Thomas S., "A Computer-Based
Approach to Planning in UnderdevelOped Areas,"
The Professional Geographer, Vol. XVII, No. 2,
(March, 1965).

The Editors, The Boating Industry. "The Boating Business."
The Boating Industry, January issues 1960-1966.

JMonmonier, Mark S., "The Production of Shaded Maps on the
Digital Computer," The Professional Geographer,
Vol. XVII, No. 5, (September, 1965).
Towne Courier. East Lansing, November 29, 1966.

Van Doren, Carlton 8., "Recreational Boating in South Dakota."
Business Review Supplement (November, 1960).

191

Wolfe, R.I., "Perspective on Outdoor Recreation." The
Geographical Review, VOl. LIV, (April, 1964).

 

Reports and Proceedings

Clawson, Marion, Methods of Measuring the Demand for and
Values of Outdoor Recreation. Washington, D.C.:
Resources for the Future, Inc., February 1959.
Reprint No. 10.

Ellis, Jack B., A Systems Model for Recreational Travel in
Ontario. Waterloo, Ontario: Department of Elec-
trical Engineering, University of Waterloo, undated.
A report under the Ontario Joint Highway Research
Programs.

Milstein, David N., Michigan's Outdoor Recreation and Tourism.
East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University,
1966. A Research Report in the "Project 80" series.

National Advisory Council on Regional Recreation Planning.
A User-Resource Recreation Planning Method. Hidden
Valiey, Leomis, California: N.A.C.R.R.P., 1959.

LSchmidt, Allan H. and Charles Modjeski, SYMAP - A User's
Manual. Lansing, Michigan: Tri-County Regional
Planning Commission, May 1966. Technical Report
No. 6.

 

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Evaluation and
Refinement of Population and Employment Data from
R.L. Polk Company. Lansing, Michigan: Tri-County
RegiOnal Planning Commission, Staff Report.

 

Unpublished Materials

Chubb, M., "Outdoor Recreation Land Capacity: Concepts,
Usage, and Definitions.” Unpublished M.S. thesis
Park and Recreation Administration, Department of
Resource Development, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, 1964.

192

\/Ellis, Jack B., "Graph Theoretic Formulation of Socio-Economic
System Models." Paper presented at the International
Seminar on Graph Theory and Its Applications, Rome,
Italy, July 1966.

. "The Description and Analysis of Socio-Economic
Systems by Physical Systems Techniques." Unpublished
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Electrical Engi-
neering, Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan, 1965.

 

Ellis, Jack B. and Van Doren, Carlton S., "A Comparative
Evaluation of Gravity and Systems Theory Models
for Statewide Recreational Traffic Flows." A
Paper presented at the Twelfth U.S. Annual Meeting,
Regional Science Association, Philadelphia, Penn-
sylvania, November 1965.

Michigan Department of Conservation, Recreation Resource
Planning Division. "Michigan Lake Frontage."
Unpublished computer print-out, dated October 1966.

Van Doren, Carlton S., "An Interaction Travel Model for
Projecting Attendance of Campers at Michigan State
Parks: A Study in Recreation Geography." Unpub-
lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan,
1967.

Other Sources

Bailey, W.E., Assistant Chief, System Planning Section,
Michigan Department of State Highways. Personal
Interviews, 1966-67.

Ogden, Daniel M., Jr., Assistant Director, Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, U.S. Department of the Interior. Letter
of transmittal, March 5, 1965 which accompanied the
Demand and Heeds chapters of the Nationwide Plan
ManuaI.

”Ifillillfllfilllfllfi'iEs