REFER MP $1 TE A G CAMP A m ER .P L n L Q T. N UflliNG 6 iCHiGAN ‘- STILCS AT ' CHARACTER! STATE PARK, Thesis for that mg as Ldf'NLSg Y N: STAIEMNNENSNY 1 MIGHIGR SAN WRNG' ' DAR KI .H'Wl . . .. x”. . . c)”. . .34.. . i p . 5.... ”111$? _ a arr . an 1 2.4. c 75%. c at”, .1. . .. :4... . . 311...? ...1.. .41 Y”..luv'.r“chU.~’ t?.l~f’ 1 .0 . m2¢lA¢1wW; . . in»... ,1. ., I . J V. . ., I .1.: 1 . ,5. .6 1.92. .2»? C. .. :1 t... 1‘: Afr. .. 5., £1... 491,410.34. . fax It” afl. 1 fur/A 1 .,rl . .r . v5. . 40.7}... o {30.0 If. rt... pth 1 .. - "HUI”!!!1UHUI!!!”IHIUIIIIHHIHINI "Ill! 3 1293 10362 9782 L LIB}? ARY Michigan State ‘ University .. ABSTRACT CAMPER PREFERENCES AND CAMPSITE CHARACTERISTICS AT LUDINGTON STATE PARK, MICHIGAN BY Darsan Wang The rapid growth of family camping pressure in Michigan and other states necessitates a greater under- standing of the process by which peOple make their camping decisions. One aspect of this process is the selection of the campsite within a given campground. The objectives of this study were to collect field data on camper preferences and campsite characteristics, and then attempt to correlate the significant and desired campsite characteriStics with camper preferences, in order to establish campground design guidelines. The null hypothesis tested was that selected campsite characteristics do not exert a significant influ- ence upon observed camper preferences for specific camp- sites. Ludington State Park was used as the study area. There are three campgrounds in the park; the Pines, Cedar, and Beechwood campgrounds with a total of 414 campsites. All sites were included in this study. A lOO-day period Darsan Wang during the 1970 camping season was selected for examination of campsite use patterns. The individual campsite permits for this period were examined, and data assembled on four camper preference variables; "occupancy rate," "transfers-in," "transfers- out," and "net transfers." These four camper preference indicators were the dependent variables. Two hundred camper groups were interviewed in order to identify the most frequently mentioned campsite charac- teristics. With minor adjustments, eleven campsite charac- teristic variables were selected as being the most signifi- cant according to the campers' demand. Seven variables were evaluated in terms of a trichotomous scaling, and later transformed into dummy variables in the statistical model. They were "capacity," "topography," "tree cover," "ground cover," "drainage, number of "neighbors," and proximity to "lakes." Four variables were expressed as distances in feet; they were access to "showers," "toilets," "drinking water," and "playground." These eleven campsite characteristics were the independent variables. Linear regression analysis was used in order to estimate the nature of the relationships between the camper preference variables and the campsite character- istic variables. The confidence level specified for this analysis was 0.95. A "least squares deletion" computer Darsan Wang program was used to determine the relative significance of the independent variables. The hypothesis was rejected in the park analysis as well as in each of the campground analyses. In the stepwise deletion routine for all three campgrounds com- bined, the "occupancy rate" run had a R2 value of 0.6424. The conclusions reached following analyses were: "Occupancy rate" was the best camper preference indicator. Seven of the selected campsite characteristics exerted a significant influence upon the observed camper preferences for individual campsites. They were "drainage," access to "lake," "capacity," number of "neighbors," "ground cover, access to "showers," and remoteness to "playground." "Topography," "tree cover,‘ access to "toilets" and "drinking water" were not shown to be signifi- cant factors in camper site selection in this analysis. This is suspected to be due to the generally satisfactory situation regarding these characteristics for all Ludington State Park campsites. Fewer campsite characteristics were shown to be significant when the campgrounds were analyzed separately. Some differences existed between the three campgrounds, but generally the results were Darsan Wang accordant to those obtained when the campgrounds' data were combined for analysis. From the results of these analyses, it was recom- mended that the influence of campsite characteristics upon camper behavior demonstrated in this study be taken as a tentative scientific proof and applied in the design of future campgrounds. A tentative campsite grading system was proposed, and campsite evaluations for Ludington State Park was made using this approach. CAMPER PREFERENCES AND CAMPSITE CHARACTERISTICS AT LUDINGTON STATE PARK, MICHIGAN BY Darsan Wang A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Park and Recreation Resources 1971 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to all those who have assisted me with the preparation of this thesis. I particularly wish to thank Dr. Michael Chubb, my major professor and Director of the Recreation Research and Planning Unit, Department of Park and Recreation Resources, for his generous assistance in all phases of the study. His initial idea, enthusiastic encouragement, conscientious guidance, and patient COpyreading were largely responsible for the completion of this study. Special thanks also go to the members of my gui- dance committee: Professor Louis F. Twardzik, Chairman, Department of Park and Recreation Resources; Dr. Clifford R. Humphrys, Department of Resource DeveIOpment; Mr. Ronald Hodgson, Department of Park and Recreation Re- sources; and Mr. Paul Rearick, Parks Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The close cooperation received from Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Ludington State Park was most gratifying. Mr. Henry zurBurg, District ii Supervisor of Region 6, and Mr. Bruce Dick, Ludington State Park Supervisor, were most helpful. Thanks are also extended to Drs. Daniel E. Chappelle and Dennis Gilliland for unending patience and guidance during the statistical design and analysis phases; to Mr. William Allard for his excellent computer consul— tation; and to Mr. Rex Yu for the most valuable dis- cussions. My education at Michigan State University was made possible through the warm and deep concerns and financial assistance from my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Kong Wang; my brother—in-law and my sister, Dr. and Mrs. Eddie Chao; Taiwan Episcopal Church and the late Bishop Rt. Rev. James C. L. Wong; Miss Ena Somerville; and Dr. Larry Baker. The Departments of Park and Recreation Resources, Resource Development, and Horticulture supported my re- search by means of graduate assistantships and various services. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Camping as a Type of Recreation . . . . 1 Expansion of Camping Activity. . . . 3 Campground Attraction Research Trends . . 5 Limitations of the Study . . . . . . ll Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . 12 II. THE STUDY AREA . . . . . . . . . . l4 Ludington State Park. . . . . . . . 14 The Campgrounds and the Campers . . . . 18 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 22 III. RESEARCH DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . 25 The SCOpe of the Study . . . . . . . 25 The Camping Season. . . . . . . . 25 Sample Design . . . . . . . . . 28 Dependent Variables . . . . . . . . 29 Occupancy Rate . . . . . . . . . 29 Transfers. . . . . . . . . . . 31 Independent Variables . . . . . . . 36 The Scaling of the Characteristics . . 42 The Seven Variables Not Involving Distance Measurement . . . . . . 46 IV. DATA ANALYSIS METHODS . . . . . . . . 53 Introduction . . . . . . . . 53 Initial Statistical Model . . . . . . 57 iv Chapter Page Campsite Characteristics (Dummy Variables) . . . . . . . . . 58 Campsite Distance to Lakes (Dummy Variables) . . . . . . . 59 Campsite Distance to Facilities by the Most Direct Route (in 10- foot Units) . 59 Computer Analysis . . . . . . . . . 60 V. INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS . . . . . . . 62 Park Analysis . . . . . . . . . . 62 Significant and Deleted Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . 63 The Application of Regression Coefficients . . . . . . . . 69 Comparison of Independent Variables . . 72 Campsite Grading System . . . . . . 75 Extreme Residual Values . . . . . . 77 Campground Analyses . . . . . . . . 79 Beechwood Campground . . . . . . . 80 Cedar Campground. . . . . . . . . 83 The Pines Campground . . . . . . . 88 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . 91 VI. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . 95 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Hypothesis. . . . . . . . . . . 95 Dependent Variables. . . . . . . . 96 Independent Variables in Park Analysis . 96 Independent Variables in Campground Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . 98 Recommendations. . . . . . . . . . 99 Dependent Variables. . . . . . . . 99 Independent Variables . . . . . . . 99 Camper Demand. . . . . . . . . lOl Campsite Grading System . . . . . . 101 Improvement of Model . . . . . . . 101 Application of Results. . . . . . . 102 Future Research . . . . . . . . . 103 Chapter BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . APPENDICES Appendi I. II. III. X Camper Interviews . . Tables of Values for Camper Preferences and Campsite Characteristics Variables, Estimated Occupancy Rates and Grades Campground Statistics. vi Page 104 108 118 128 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Michigan State Parks Camp Permit, Turn Away, and Campsite Data from 1961 to 1970. . . . 4 2. Michigan State Parks Camping Total Demand, Supply, and Rate of Utilization, 1961, 1964, 1967, and 1970. . . . . . . . . 6 3. Monthly Campground "Occupancy Rates" at Ludington State Park, 1968 and 1969. . . . 26 4. Total Occupancy Value Frequency Distributions at Ludington State Park, 1970 Camping Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 5. "Net Transfers," "Transfers-in," and "Transfers-out" Frequency Distributions at Ludington State Park, 1970 Camping Season. . 35 6. Frequency of Mention of Desired Campsite Characteristics in Response to Open-ended QUGStiOD. o o o o o o o o o o o o 4]- 7. Ludington State Park Campsite Characteristics Inventory Sheet . . . . . . . . . . 43 8. Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors of Coefficients of the Independent Variables by the End of Stepwise Deletion Routine Using Four Dependent Variables . . . . . . . 64 9. Comparison Between Deleted and Significant Independent Variables by Stepwise Deletion Routine Using "Occupancy Rate" and "Net Transfers" as Dependent Variables . . . . 74 10. Frequency of Distributions of "Occupancy Rate" and "Estimated Occupancy Rate" Values . 76 vii Table Page 11. Campsites with Underestimated or Overesti- mated "Occupancy Rates" . . . . . . . 78 12. Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors of Coefficients of the Independent Vari— ables by the End of Stepwise Deletion Routine Using Four Dependent Variables in Beechwood Campground Analysis . . . . . 82 13. Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors of Coefficients of the Independent Vari- ables by the End of Stepwise Deletion Routine Using Four Dependent Variables in Cedar Campground Analysis . . . . . . 85 14. Beta Weights of the Significant Independent Variables by the End of "Occupancy Rate" Run. 0 I O O O O O O I O O O O 87 15. Regression Coefficients and Standard Errors of Coefficients of the Independent Vari- ables by the End of Stepwise Deletion Routine Using Four Dependent Variables in the Pines Campground Analysis . . . . . 90 16. Regression Coefficients of the Independent Variables by the End of Stepwise Deletion Routine Using "Occupancy Rate" and "Net Transfers" in the Individual Campground and Park Analyses . . . . . . . . . 92 17. Size and Combination of 200 Camping Groups in Ludington State Park in 1970 Camping Season. . . . . . . . . . . . . lll viii LI ST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Typical Campsites at Ludington State Park, Beechwood 81 (Above) and Cedar lll (BGIOW) o o o o o o o o o o o o o 19 2. Total Occupancy Value Frequency Distributions at Ludington State Park, 1970 Camping Season. 32 3. Total Transfer Value Frequency Distributions at Ludington State Park, 1970 Camping Season. 37 4. Scale Map of Ludington State Park Campgrounds Prepared from Michigan Department of Natural Resources Drawings and Field Observations. . 45 5. Histogram of Relationships of Five Independent Variables on the Original Trichotomous Scales in Terms of "Occupancy Rates" . . . 73 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Camping as a Type of Recreation Camping was originally a mode of living rather than a type of recreation. It is still the normal way of life for the world's remaining aboriginal peoples. In searching for the origin of camping, Irwin states, "Camp- ing is as old as the human race. For thousands of years man has slept, worked, and eaten under the Open sky."1 The rise of modern camping has turned this type of habitation into a recreation activity. To live in a tent, or a trailer, is no longer a normal part of a sub- sistence existence, but is a pleasure in itself. It is often a means to "return to nature," or a method by which the individual seeks to participate in various outdoor activities and aesthetic experiences. In the twentieth century, the growth in family camping has probably been closely related to the expansion 1Frank L. Irwin, The Theory of Camping (New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1950), p. 3. 2Paul Cardwell, Jr., America's Camping Book (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1969Y, p. 6. of automobile ownership, which has made travel easier and possible for both the young and the old. Undoubtedly, the camping programs of quasi-public organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Camp Fire Girls, YMCA, YWCA, Boy's Clubs of America, Salvation Army, and other church and welfare organizations also stimulated participation.3 At first, developed campgrounds did not exist; camping consisted of pitching up a tent in the woods at any convenient location. However, early campers did have an effect on the environment. In writing about Yellow- stone National Park, Ise states: As in all the early parks, campers did a great deal of damage. They sometimes caused forest fires by leaving their camp fires burning, killed nesting ducks, grouse and quail, and usually left a litter of tin cans, bottles, newspapers, and other debris at their camps. Tourist type camping in national parks dates back to 1878 in Yosemite, and 1892 in Yellowstone. The areas used for this purpose were the forerunners of the public camp grounds which came into being due to the need to supervise the campers. In Yellowstone National Park strict regulation of camping began in 1894 when "a system of registry of campers and directors of camping parties 3Irwin, Camping, p. vii. 4John Ise, Our National Park Policy--A Critical History (Baltimore: Johns HOpkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., 1961), p. 63. was established, which helped to reduce violations of regulations."5 Expansion of Camping Activity In less than one century, camping in the national parks has grown rapidly. In 1970, overnight stays (includ- ing other types of accommodations besides campgrounds) in the national parks exceeded sixteen million. Recent official figures reveal a steady increase of camping in the national parks, but the rate of increase has been de- creasing in recent years due to the policy of not continu- ing to increase the number of campsites within the existing parks.6 Likewise, in the national forests, campsite capacity was doubled and campground users were tripled in the decade of the 60's.7 In Michigan, camping in the state parks has gone through a similar eXpansion (see Table l). The rapid growth of family camping pressures in Michigan State Parks must also be related to the supply of opportunities if the situation is to be fully comprehended. "Total demand" can 5Ibid., pp. 27-28, 81. 6U.S., Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Public Use of the National Parks (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1962-70). 7U.S., Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Report of the Chief (Washington, D.C.: Government Print- ing Office, 1960-69), Statistical Tables. .mucwamocsoccm OHUMH an no =.m>d3¢lcusu: umwaumm Eoum muuommu ma .mmaoflnm> mo QSImCHH mcoa 8 mo unmflm map an =mm3m bonus»: mum mummEmo HMflucmuom mama monflm pcmfimp pmflmmwummcs MOM mosam> mDSHOmnm on ou pmumpwmcoo on uoccmo monam> mmmsa .mmuHmQEmo magmafim>m mo xomH map on map mm3w bonus» mum3 Dab .mamo on mcfipcmucfl mcoflumum uomucoo xumm may omnomoummm has» mmaofinm> ummamo mo mumnEsc ooumaflumm mum =mmm3m and»: no“ mmusmflm mash .Aonmauamma .mmousOmmm amusumz mo ucwEuummmo cmmflnoflz u.£oflz .mswmcmqv =mumo muflm QEMO: =.mumo mmzm cuss: =.muHEumm QEMU xumm mumum: .aoflm«>flo mxumm .mOOHDOmmm Hmnsumz mo usmEunmmmo ammfinoHZM mma.m mo.man mmn.mm mm.m + omm.aoa Homa II mm.m + vam.mm mm.ma+ www.mma mmma II m.HH+ www.mv nh.aa+ hnv.oam moma own.oa m.ma+ mmm.mv H.¢H+ vmm.ovm voma In ~.vH+ mmm.om mm.n~+ Ham.oom mama II vm.H I mon.mm N.o + mmm.mmm mmma Hmm.ma m.mm| mo¢.nm m.v + vom.ovm nmma vmm.mH m.m~+ mam.mv mm.va+ Nov.mmm mmma www.ma hm.mm+ mmm.mn H.m + ova.mo¢ mmma mmm.va mm.mH+ ~mo.om wm.ma+ va.vmv onma How» m50fl>mum mmaoano> “mow m50fi>mum m mmuflmmEmu Eoum mmcmso m umemo Eoum mosmno w m Emu now no Honfisz » nm>m3¢ cuss muflfiumm QEMO m.obma on Hmma Bonn mump muHmmEmo can .Mm3m shay .uwfiumm dado mxumm oumum cmmflnoflznl.a mamas be considered to be the total number of the camp permits and turn aways each year, whereas the number of camp permits over the number of campsites is the "rate of utilization" of the campsites. The "total demand," supply, and "rate of utilization" since 1961 for three—year inter— vals are shown in Table 2. These data reveal that the percentage change in total demand is almost a geometric progression, while the growth has been more of an arithmetical progression on the supply side. In other words, the supply of camping facili— ties is falling behind demand although both the number of campsites and the number of days these sites are used dur- ing the year have increased. Therefore, if the state is following a policy of trying to fulfill the desires of its citizens in this area, the problem is to supply more campsites to meet the up- surging camping demand. Campground Attraction Research Trends During the past years, recreation researchers have found that they must consider the supply aspects when investigating demand. As Clawson and Knetsch state, "For outdoor recreation as for any other service or commodity, supply in any meaningful sense must be related to demand."8 8Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of Outdoor Recreation (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press for Resources for the Future, Inc., 1966), p. 297. .uonusm man an pmHHmEoo .H OHQMB Eoum mumom m.ma mma.m www.mma Hmma NH+ v.mm m.Hm+ mvh.oa ms + omm.mmm vmma Hm+ m.mm m.mm+ Hmm.ma mm + mao.mhm nmma mm.Ho+ m.mm wm.mn+ mmm.va wm.mwa+ mnm.omm onma mea Eoum mmwwmmwm Homa Scum mmufimmemu mea Eouu mmsouo mmcmzo w How mmmo wmsmzo m mo Honesz omcmnu w mafimamo Hum» :oHDmNHHfluD mo mumm Saddam panama HMDOB m.onma paw .hmma .vmma .Hmma .coHDmNHHflu: mo mumu pom .mammsm .psmamp Hmuou mGHmEmo mxumm myopm cmmflsowzll.m mamas In the case of state park camping, questions concerning the nature and extent of campground improve— ments have to be approached in the context of what the campers want in relation to the resources of the parks and the need to protect these resources for future gener- ations. Hence the relationships between camper preferences and campsite characteristics must be established in order to assist administrators and designers in deciding on the nature and extent of camping facilities. The question is how to approach the challenge of understanding people and their relationships to land and man-made facilities. Current recreation research appears to be moving more and more towards quantitative analysis, as Chubb states, " . . . we will not really understand recreation and be able to effectively manage recreation resources until we have enough of the right kind of quaMitative information and the necessary statistical tools to use it correctly."9 This study is an attempt to approach this problem using statistical tools in order to relate quantitative information on campground design to camper preferences expressed by actual use pattern in a state park. 9Michael Chubb, "Recreation Use Surveys and the Ignored Majority" (paper presented at the State Planning Workshop on "User Preference Studies and 'Demand' Analyses" sponsored by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, March 23-25, 1971), p. 2. In a chapter in the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, Van Doren emphasized that a quantitative measure reflecting the quality and attractiveness of a recreation site is a necessary feature of a recreation travel model. Numerical camping attraction indices for Michigan state parks were developed, based on the assumption that the recreation and camping attractiveness of an area is dependent upon the number and type of outdoor recreational activities that can be undertaken. The index was activity centered, but is related to the physical environment and the developed or undeveloped physical facilities and services within each park. Multiple factor analysis was selected for finding the similarities and interrelationships among seventy-two variables. Seven computer runs were conducted in order to test these vari— ables in different combinations. Various runs involving all parks tended to eXplain from 48 to 69 per cent of the total variance in the data. The composite index for each park is the average of the scores from selected runs.10 In another paper Van Doren further developed his work and produced an interaction travel model in order to explain and predict the spatial distribution of camping loCarlton S. Van Doren, "Destination Models: Development of a Camping Attraction Index for Michigan State Parks," in Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, Technical Report Number 6 (East Lansing, Mich.: Depart- ment of Resource Development, Michigan State University, 1966), pp. 5.1-2, 5.49-79. activity among Michigan state parks. The analysis includes three steps. The first step involves classifying each park in terms of its attraction as a trip destination. A second step uses regression analysis to compare the relationship between attendance at parks (camper-days) and the attrac— tion indices. A third and final step includes the use of the attraction indices as one of three components in a recreational travel model. Other components are the number of camper-days originating from each of eighty- eight nodes and the automobile travel-time between the origins and fifty-nine park destinations.11 The Van Doren studies point out that it is possible to solve recreation problems through numerical data and statistical analysis. However, his effort dealt with too many variables which might have reduced some clarity. As a continuation of Van Doren's work, Hodgson designed a research project with the goal of identifying some new campground features still unstudied and deter- mining the way in which they relate to campground attrac- tiveness. A set of most-attractive state park camp— grounds is compared to a set of least—attractive state park campgrounds in an effort to identify some of the physical, relatively permanent features that might account llCarlton S. Van Doren, "An Interaction Travel Model for Projecting Attendance of Campers at Michigan State Parks: A Study in Recreation Geography" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967). 10 for differences in campground attractiveness. Data were arranged in 2 x 2 contingency tables and apparent relation- ships were tested with the Fisher exact test. Hodgson found that campgrounds in the most-attractive set scored higher on a Recreational Opportunities Scale, as well as a Service Scale, than campgrounds in the least-attractive set. However, the relationships were not statistically significant. Nevertheless, a significant relationship was found that adjacent recreational water will have higher indices of activity potential for campgrounds in the most-attractive set than for campgrounds in the least- attractive set.12 The Hodgson study confirmed the im- portance of the total water resources factor found in Van Doren's and some other previous recreation studies. The influences of recreational opportunities and services upon campground attractiveness were found weak. The major limitation of the study results from the diffi— culties of measuring the independent variables. Quantitative approaches to camping research have just begun. The majority of studies, at least in Michigan, are at the park or campground level; little has been done concerning the relationship of the individual camper to his campsite. 12Ronald Wayne Hodgson, "Campground Features Attractive to Michigan State Park Campers" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1971). 11 Van Doren and Hodgson used Michigan state parks as a basis for the development of their statistical models. The result was a set of camping attraction indices and a ranking of the relative significance of park or campground characteristics that are most or least attractive to Michigan campers. Both authors were reasonably successful in applying scientific methods in managing large volumes of quantitative information. Following the same lines, it was decided to reduce the scale of investigation from the park or camp— ground level to consideration of the attractiveness of an individual campsite. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to collect data on camper preferences and campsite characteristics in the field and then attempt to correlate the significant and desirable campsite charac- teristics to camper preferences in a quantitative manner, in order to establish guidelines for future campground design and management. Limitations of the Study This study was conducted within the following limitations: 1. It was limited to the three campgrounds in Ludington State Park, which were thought to be reasonably representative of high use state park campgrounds in mid-Michigan. u—c ___. .____‘ 12 2. The campers' socio-economic characteristics were not investigated. The camper interviews were primarily concerned with attitudes towards campsite characteristics. 3. This study was limited to camping activity that took place during the period of May 27, 1970 to September 3, 1970. 4. The camping investigated was limited to family auto-campers in the three established family campgrounds. Organization camping in tents or at the "Outdoor Center" was not included. 5. The campsite characteristics used in the analysis are those that were shown to be significant by camper interviews. 6. Seven out of the eleven campsite characteristic variables, both qualitative and quantitative, were measured on an ordinal scale. Evaluations were based on a comparison of campsite features within Ludington State Park. Hypotheses The specific hypothesis investigated in this study was that selected campsite characteristics do not exert a significant influence upon observed camper preferences for specific campsites at Ludington State Park. A number of working hypotheses were later developed when the dependent and independent variables 13 were chosen in Chapter III. They were that the independent variables (eleven campsite characteristics variables: "capacity," "topography," "tree cover," "ground cover," "drainage, number of "neighbors," access to "lakes," "showers," "toilets," "drinking water," and "playground") of a campsite do not exert a significant influence upon the dependent variables (four camper preferences variables: "occupancy rate," "transfers-in," "transfers-out," and "net transfers.") The working hypotheses were tested by regression analysis of the data obtained at Ludington State Park. In the next chapter, the study area where the working hypotheses were tested will be described and the relevant features of the campgrounds involved will be discussed in some detail. CHAPTER II THE STUDY AREA Ludington State Park1 Through the courtesy of the Parks Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Ludington State Park was used as the study area. It is located on the west shore of Michigan's lower peninsula, and fronts on Lake Michigan at a point called by Great Lakes navigators the half-way mark between Sault Ste. Marie and Chicago. The park lies in Hamlin Township, Mason County, eight and one-half miles north of Ludington on highway M-116. Manistee is 38 miles north, Muskegon 68 miles south, Grand Rapids 108 miles southeast, Chicago 250 miles south— west and Detroit 250 miles southeast. The park consists of 3,711 acres of natural wood- land and dune areas. The sand dunes in Michigan are huge quantities of rock debris deposited on the surface by the 1Much of the information in this chapter is derived from Parks Division materials, including a "Luding- ton State Park" brochure and an article "Ludington State Park" by David Kaplan. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, "Ludington State Park" (Lansing, Mich.: Parks Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, un- dated). David Kaplan, "Ludington State Park" (Lansing, Mich.: Department of Conservation, undated). l4 15 great continental glaciers some 600,000 years ago. The Ludington dunes are classified as coastal dunes; they generally have very prominent knolls, peaks, mounds, and ridges, often with "U" shaped blowouts.2 The park as a whole is on the sand dunes, either wooded or barren. Various species of trees and shrubs thrive in the natural setting, protecting the sand dunes from wind erosion. Ground cover and flowers are also present. There is an abundance of wildlife and birds in the area. Ludington State Park has an average summer temperature of 73 degrees and claims the distinction of having an unusually large amount of lake shoreline within its boundaries. Lake Michigan waters constitute the park's western boundary for three miles. Hamlin Lake lies along part of the park's eastern limit. The distance between the Great Lakes shoreline and the inland lakes is approxi- mately one mile. A lush growth of wild rice and other aquatic plants in Hamlin Lake furnishes excellent cover and food for fish. Its 3,800 acres of water, 35 feet deep, contain good numbers of great northern pike, trout, pickerel, walleyed pike, large- and small-mouth black bass, bull— heads, bluegills, and sunfish. Fishermen consider it one of the popular and well-stocked lakes in Michigan. 2Robert W. Kelley, Michigan's Sand Dunes--A Geo— logic Sketch (Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, 1962). 16 Currently, Coho salmon fishing on Lake Michigan in the Ludington area is proving quite successful. The swimming facilities on the west side of the park offer a seemingly endless expanse of Lake Michigan waters and three miles of white sand beach. A second bathing beach is located on Hamlin Lake. The park trail system consists of eight separately marked trails; they vary in length from three-quarter of a mile to three miles. Four trail shelters and a number of rustic benches are located along the trails. Other facilities include three campgrounds, two picnic areas, three parking lots that provide space for 850 cars, and a naturalist's program area. The bathhouse, or pavilion, is located at the mouth of Big Sable River on Lake Michigan. The upper floor is used as a public lounge and gathering place; off the lounge is a large veranda overlooking Lake Michigan. The lower part of the building houses shower rooms and a park store. Hamlin Lake was established over 100 years ago during the lumber era. The lake's primary purpose was to float logs to the mill in the village to be sawed. The lumber was then taken by tramway and mules to the mouth of the Sable River to be loaded on boats laying at anchor in Lake Michigan. In 1888 a tragedy occurred which meant the death of Hamlin Village. The dam suddenly burst, l7 releasing nine miles of backed—up water, sweeping the village of forty houses, the mill, and over one million feet of white pine lumber out into Lake Michigan. The dam was replaced and now serves to regulate the water level on this large artificial lake. The village cemetery is located in this area. Remains of the old mill with some articles of machinery are left. The history of Ludington State Park proper beings in 1926 when the federal government deeded to the state almost two sections of surplus land at the abandoned coast guard station and lighthouse on Big Sable point. The Big Sable lighthouse is still in service at present, a his- toric landmark of much interest to park visitors. The tract was augmented by tax homestead lands and tax delin- quent lands in 1928 and 1929. Funds donated by private individuals, Mason County, and the city of Ludington made possible subsequent additions of land. By 1932, with final exchanges and purchases directly by the state, the site comprised an area of 3,096 acres. The creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps made federal money avail- able for improvement; work was started in 1933, under the direction of the United States Department of the Interior in conjunction with the Michigan Department of Conser- vation.3 Ludington State Park was officially opened to the public in 1936. 3The department was renamed the Department of Natural Resources in 1968. 18 The Campgrounds and the Campers The Ludington campgrounds are fairly typical of those found in Michigan state parks. Campsites are generally about 50' wide and 50' deep, with wooden posts to mark each corner on some of the sites. They are located along each side of the campground road, and are fitted into the natural vegetation and topography so that some sites are irregular in shape. Most sites can be used by either tents or recreational vehicles, but some may not accommodate larger vehicles due to topographic barriers or tree growth. The campground roads are a system of loops. They are normally one-way blacktop roads. Modern water supply and sanitary facilities are provided. There are flush toilets and hot showers in every campground, and each campground loop has drinking water faucets at intervals. An electrical outlet is supplied for each campsite in such a manner that a camping unit is seldom more than a hundred feet from electrical service. The individual campsites are not provided with a paved parking space. In most cases, no buffer zone . separates one campsite from another. A picnic table and a fire pit are found on each site. Each campground has at least one playground, equipped with swings, slides, and merry-go-rounds. Figure 1 shows two campsites with some of the campsite features shown in the pictures. Beechwood 81, FIGURE l.--Typical campsites at Ludington State Park, Beechwood 81 (above) and Cedar lll (below). 20 for example, has a flat topography, moderate tree cover, and ready access to lake. Cedar 111 is close to a play- ground, has almost no tree cover; the picnic table on site is typical in the park. There are three campgrounds in Ludington State Park. They are the Pines, Cedar, and Beechwood Camp- grounds. The Pines Campground is the oldest among the three. Generally it lies in a moderately wooded area, with solid ground cover and soil described by some campers as "black dirt." It is near to Lake Michigan, but intervening sand dunes prevent the lake being seen from the campgrounds. The front part of the Pines Campground has the newest restroom in the park, with six individual showers, but the one in the rear part does not have shower facilities. A service road leading to the Big Sable lighthouse passes through the campground. The public can reach the light- house by walking from this point. Beechwood Campground is located near to the inland lakes. There is a wooded ridge between the southern 100p of the campground and Hamlin Lake, but the central and northern loops are on the shore of Lost Lake which is actually a part of Hamlin. The majority of the campsites have a very heavy tree cover, and the ground is bare of vegetation due to shading and heavy use. There are three restrooms, one in each loop. 21 Cedar Campground lies between the Pines and Beechwood Campgrounds. It was a picnic area until a few years ago. Campers complain that it is too damp. As a matter of fact, part of it was under water all year in 1969. The campsites in the inside of the loops usually do not have adequate tree cover, while the outer campsites generally have some shade. A number of the campsites are barren, eroded sandy areas, but others have the best grass cover in the park. It has a modern restroom in the camp- ground. The naturalist's program area is also in Cedar Campground. Due to its central location between the other two campgrounds, the new park store is planned to be located here. Cedar Campground has no ready access to the lakes compared to the other two campgrounds. The author feels that the campers using Ludington State Park tend to be the typical mid-Michigan campers described by La Pointe: The southern Michigan state park-user is largely from the middle-class segments of the population. The camper exhibits middle-class characteristics even more strongly than does the day-user. State parks appear to be the outdoor recreational outlet for the middle-class, with a marked absence of the socially- disadvantaged, and the very rich.4 4David Anthony La Pointe, "Socio—economic and Behavioral Characteristic Differences Between Campers and Day-users in Southern Michigan State Parks" (unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, 1970), abstract. 22 A total of 1,038 camping permits were issued at Ludington State Park in 1938, two years after its open- ing;5 in 1968, the figure was 12,770,6 a twelve-fold increase in thirty years. Camper interviews undertaken as part of this study reveal that camping at Ludington State Park has become a family tradition to some campers. A sixteen-year—old girl first camped here when she was fourteen months old. A housewife has a grandmother who had camped there many years ago. There are campers who keep coming back every year, and there are families which have "annual reunions" at a certain time and particular location in the campgrounds. Of course, there are also many newcomers, from Michigan as well as other states, including some who will probably only use the park once. Discussion Although this study concerns camping behavior at Ludington State Park, the author feels that the findings may have application elsewhere. Of course the park has certain attributes which make it unique. For example, it differs considerably from the Manistee National Forest and Lake Michigan Recreation Area which lie immediately to the north. Major differences are management phi— losophy, campground layout, absence of inland lake and SKaplan, "Ludington State Park," p. 2. 6"Park Manager's Weekly Report, Ludington State Park, 1968. 2'3 river, etc. However, the author suggests that camping conditions in Ludington State Park can be considered to be reasonably representative of Michigan state parks situated on the western shore Of lower Michigan. In making comparisons between Ludington and other parks in Michigan it should be noted that: l. The definitions of the ordinal scales of the campsite characteristic variables are relative rather than absolute. The comparisons were made within the park. The park is located between a Great Lake and an inland lake, thus a comparison of preferences for the Opportunities offered by both is possible. However, some parks do not have Great Lakes shore- line, and few have the added advantage of inland lake shoreline as well. The Ludington State Park campgrounds are reason- ably modern. All of the campsites have the basic facilities, such as electric outlets, picnic tables, firepits, etc. On the other hand, they all lack a few conveniences found in some state parks such as laundry rooms, and a firewood supply during the summer. Camper reaction to these amenities could not therefore be studied at Ludington. Except for the three group campsites and the outdoor center on the south side of Big Sable 24 River, all of the 414 campsites in the park are intended primarily for family campers arriving by automobile. In the majority of cases, adjacent sites abut one another directly; that is, no buffer zones exist between sites unless the topography or heavy tree growth has dictated that a space be left undeveloped. With the absence of other types of camping, the conclusions and recommendations are limited to similar situations. 5. Ludington State Park is one of the most popular state parks in Michigan; its location is "away but not too far away" from the urban centers of southern Michigan. Thus the preferences of campers at Ludington may differ from those who use campgrounds less intensively, and those who go to more urbanized parks such as Grand Haven or Tawas Point state parks. 6. Since some campsite features are common to most sites in the three Ludington campgrounds (for example, the sandy soil), this study cannot examine some of the campsite features which may affect camper preferences for sites at other recreation entities. The next chapter discusses the various factors which were taken into account in formulating the research design and describes the scaling techniques used to obtain numerical values for the variables selected for analysis. CHAPTER I I I RESEARCH DESIGN The Scope of the Study The Camping Season The year-round occupancy rate of individual camp— sites may not reflect camper preferences for campground facilities, because camping is a seasonal activity in Michigan.1 It takes place mostly during the summer months, and for the rest of the year the campgrounds are either closed or nearly deserted. V The Ludington State Park manager's weekly reports for 1968 and 1969 clearly show the seasonal aspect of camping (see Table 3). Tabulation of data from the indi- vidual camping permits for these two years shows that the main camping season at the park is from the Wednesday of the week before Memorial Day to the Sunday before Labor 1In the 1967 "Michigan State Park Camper Study" it is stated, "Approximately 85 percent of the campers camped during the warmest months, 14 percent during the next most harsh season, and less than 1 percent in each of the last two seasons." Michigan State University and Michigan Department of Conservation, "Michigan State Park Camper Study" (unpublished manuscript, 1967), p. 54. 25 26 TABLE 3.--Monthly campground "occupancy rates" at Ludington State Park, 1968 and 1969. Campsite-Daysa Occupancy Rateb Month 1968 1969 1968 1969 January 9 2 Less than 1% Less than 1% February 14 20 Less than 1% Less than 1% March 93 83 Less than 1% Less than 1% April 453 506 3.6% 4.0% May 1,970 2,555 15.2% 19.8% June 5,687 5,649 45.5% 45.2% July 12,279 11,151 94.2% 86.2% August 12,857 11,535 99.5% 89.2% September 1,974 1,862 15.3% 14.9% October 956 1,099 7.3% 8.5% November 71 106 Less than 1% Less than 1% December 10 17 Less than 1% Less than 1% 3A day. b campsite-day is defined as a campsite occupied by a group of campers for a period Of a day or a part of a "Occupancy rate" is the number of campsite-days divided by the "total days in corresponding month multi- plied by the total number of campsites." 27 Day. Only one of the three campgrounds is normally open during the off—season. In his camper study in the Superior National Forest, Minnesota, Lime uses a thirty-five-day sample period between August 1 and Labor Day, 1967 to indicate the patterns of use at thirty-four campgrounds, with a follow-up inventory of the patterns of use at six selected campgrounds during the same period in 1968.2 It would be impractical to use the same sample period at Ludington in studying occupancy rates. As shown in Table 3, the rates in July and August, 1968 were 94.2 per cent and 99.5 per cent respectively. (The lower percentages in 1969 were a result of the flooding problem in a part of Cedar Camp- ground.3) The campground was heavily used during the 1970 camping season, in a manner similar to the 1968 and 1969 seasons. Occupancy rates in just July and August could therefore not be used as indicators of camper preferences for the different campsites. However, this leaves only June as a study period and this would not provide an adequate sample of use. Therefore, in order to make maximum use of data from a limited time period, it was decided to use 2David W. Lime, "A Spatial Analysis of Auto-camping in the Superior National Forest of Minnesota: Models of Campground Selection Behavior" (unpublished Ph.D. disser- tation, University of Pittsburgh, 1969), pp. 43-58. 3"Park Manager's Weekly Report, Ludington State Park, December 21, 1969. 28 information for the 100 days, from Wednesday, May 27 to Thursday, September 3 as the camping season at Ludington campgrounds in 1970. Sample Design With a total of 414 campsites in the park, it was possible to include all the sites in the study. The advantage of using the entire pOpulation rather than sampling is that sample error is completely eliminated. The camping permits for the 1970 camping season were made available through the courtesy of the Parks Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The permits were arranged in chronological order and not by campsite number, so sampling would not have been easy.4 4Prior to the decision to include all campsites in the study, an investigation of probable sampling error was made. The occupancy of the 414 campsites ranged from 39 to 100 days (or from 39 per cent to 100 per cent), with a mean of 79.8 days. The standard deviation was 11.18 days. With this standard deviation value, the sample errors may be calculated as follows: Sample size Sample error (Campsites) (Occupancy days) 100 .99 50 1.49 30 1.98 If further research of this nature is conducted at Ludington or other parks with similar occupancy rates, a sample size from approximately one-fourth to one-tenth of the pOpulation may be sufficient. 29 Dependent Variables This section will discuss the camper preference variables on the left side of the following functional notation: CAMPER PREFERENCES = f(CAMPSITE CHARACTERISTICS) OccupancyLRate "Occupancy rate" has been used previously in recreation studies as an indicator of user preferences. An example is Lime's campground research mentioned pre- viously.5 "Occupancy rate" will be taken as the first camper preference variable. The Ludington camper permits were examined in chronological order and whether or not each campsite was occupied was recorded. On the work sheets, there was a space for each campsite and each day in the camping season. For each day the campsite was occupied, the space was filled with a horizontal line. If the campsite was not occupied, the space for that day was left Open. The total occupancy value, therefore, was the total number of marked spaces on the work sheets for a campsite; it is the actual number of days that a campsite was occupied during the lOO-day study period in 1970. Table 4 shows the frequencies for various total occupancy values using a two-day interval on the occupancy scale. 5Lime, "Auto-camping in Superior National Forest," pp. 43-58. 30 TABLE 4.--Total occupancy value frequency distributions at Ludington State Park, 1970 camping season. Number of Campsites Total chgpzncy Beechwood Cedar Pines All Campground Campground Campground Three 99-100 5 5 97-98 3 l 4 95-96 9 2 11 93-94 19 3 22 91-92 22 l 9 32 89-90 15 l 6 22 87-88 18 3 9 30 85-86 25 3 12 40 83-84 20 6 8 34 81-82 17 4 6 27 79-80 8 2 16 26 77-78 7 7 ll 25 75-76 3 4 5 12 73-74 2 11 12 25 71-72 1 10 9 20 69-70 1 7 5 13 67-68 1 7 4 12 65-66 1 11 3 15 63-64 9 l 10 61-62 4 4 59-60 2 l 3 57-58 5 l 6 55-56 3 3 53-54 5 5 51-52 3 3 49-50 1 1 47-48 2 2 45-46 2 2 43-44 1 1 Under 43. l l 31 These data are shown as graphs in Figure 2. Both indicate that the occupancy data probably reflects camper prefer- ences for the three campgrounds and for individual sites within those campgrounds. Transfers Nine weeks in July and August, 1970 had an average occupancy rate for the three campgrounds of 97.5 per cent.6 This extremely high figure points out that for at least 60 per cent of the days included in the study period there was comparatively little opportunity for campers to choose a campsite in the park, so examination of occupancy records alone might not provide an adequate index of camper preferences. Michigan state park policy forbids campsite reservations, rather, it is a matter of first-come-first- served. However, it is possible to transfer from one campsite to another even if the campground is "full," since some campers leave everyday. Each morning, the campground Office processes "extensions" first (those who wish to stay longer on their present campsites). Next, the "transfers" are taken care of (those who are occupying a campsite in the park and now wish to move to another). 6"Park Manager's Weekly Reports," Ludington State Park, July and August, 1970. The total number of camps in the weeks 26th through 34th is 25,605, while the total number of campsites is 417 including three group campsites which are not included in this study. .cOmmmm mcflmemo onma .xumm mumum coumcflpsq um mcoflusnfluumflp mocmsvmnm msam> mocmmsooo Hmuoell.m mmeHm mama mocmmsooo 6666688888LLLLL99999S 11144114441111411414.lawmmnwnnm I6666688888LLLLL .._.._. p megvzoagvzoegvzowwwwwmwmmmwwwm _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _L A _ _ _ u _ _ _ F _ _.L/ c _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ o z. I» .\. .1.... >, x.-. /. x x \ a \ i-§. rm f. x, o \, J u-A/ xx. \\ \\/\\// \\ \ 1 3 ‘/\ I IV /. /\ ,\>/ \\ 1 (x (\ ,> < .1; \. 1 u . .. .> \J .1.: 1‘ o ,\/ . 1;. >1, 2 2 .. . .\ t . d .x , 1 um 3 K / \ ., \./W. \\ /\ . 11,191 ,1. 1: < “.1. < INH ’.\ TVH < -3 vma ||||| ccsonmmamo mmcfim uom ..... pcsoummfimo Hmomu INN pcsoummfimu coozcomwm uvm “Ocmmmq 1.. seatsdmso go qumnN 33 Any new campers are served if there are vacant sites after "extensions" and "transfers" have been processed. In spite of the problem of restricted opportuni- ties for transfer, it was decided to further investigate transfer rates in that it might reflect camper preferences and support the "occupancy rate" data. The significance of "transfers" even in a "full" campground was illustrated during later interviews. Of 200 camping groups inter- viewed, 28 had moved from another campsite within the park, 16 were not satisfied with their present campsite, and 4 were planning to move to another campsite.7 The fact that 16 per cent of the campers had transferred or were about to transfer indicates the significance of these statistics even during the peak camping season. Two aspects of "transfers" were examined; first, the number of times a campsite was occupied by a group of campers transferring from another campsite within the park; and second, the number of times a campsite was vacated when a group of campers transferred to another campsite within the park. The camp permits were examined again. Two sections under each campsite number were set up on a work sheet in order to tally the "transfers—in" and "transfers- out." Whenever a "transfer" action took place, a tally was made under the "transfer-out" section of the campsite 7Appendix I, "Camper Interviews" by the author, Ludington State Park, 1970. 34 from which a camping group was moving; at the same time, a tally was also made under the "transfers-in" section under the campsite to which the camping group moved. The variable "transfers-in" is thus defined as the total number of the tallies under the "transfers-in" section for a campsite. It was assumed to be an index of positive camper preference for that site. Conversely, "transfers-out" is the total number of the tallies under the "transfers-out" section for a campsite, and was assumed to be an index of negative camper preference. Campers are allowed to make two "transfers" during a stay in Ludington State Park. When two "transfers" are made, only the first "transfer-out" and the last "transfer-in" were tallied, because other two "transfers" in between would offset each other. At this point, the "transfers-in" and the "transfers-out" were combined into one "transfer" count. "Transfers-in" were considered to be positive values and "transfers-out" negative. The "net transfer" is the difference between the two. Table 5 shows the frequency of "transfers" by campsite for each campground. It is noted that the range of the "net transfer" doubles those of the "transfers-in" and the "transfers-out" counts. The "net transfer" is the result of subtracting the nega- tive values from the positive ones while the "transfers- in“ and "transfers-out" are raw numbers. Consequently, the number of campsites that falls in each category is 35 TABLE 5.--"Net transfers," “transfers—in," and "transfers- out" frequency distributions at Ludington State Park, 1970 camping season. Transfer Net Transfers Transfers-in Transfers-out Days per Campsite B C P T B C P T B C P T 13 1 1 12 1 l l l 11 2 2 2 l 3 10 5 5 9 1 1 2 2 l 3 8 4 l 5 4 2 2 8 7 l l 2 4 6 4 8 18 6 6 5 11 18 7 8 33 5 9 1 8 18 32 10 17 59 4 21 ll 8 40 30 20 23 73 3 18 6 9 33 28 l4 19 61 2 18 3 10 31 24 24 22 70 1 19 5 14 38 19 17 18 54 0 23 13 17 53 7 13 5 25 19 1 ll 31 —1 14 7 16 37 ' 29 11 24 64 -2 13 12 ll 36 47 ll 20 78 -3 13 10 6 29 23 12 20 55 -4 3 9 7 19 19 13 14 46 -5 8 7 2 17 16 16 15 47 -6 2 12 l 15 9 9 5 23 -7 2 2 3 7 11 ll 6 28 -8 2 2 2 13 4 l9 -9 3 3 5 1 6 -10 l 1 2 -1l 1 2 1 2 -12 2 2 1 3 4 -13 2 1 3 2 2 -l4 1 l 4 4 -15 l l 2 -l6 2 2 -l7 1 1 Total 177 112 125 414 177 112 125 414 177 112 125 414 aAbbreviations: B = Beechwood Campground; C = Cedar Campground; P = Pines Campground; T = All Three. 36 L reduced in the "net transfer" column except in the case of zero "transfer" days. Figure 3 illustrates the data in Table 5. However, all of these four potential camper preference indicators, namely "occupancy rate," "transfers- " "transfers—out" and "net transfers" are taken as the in, dependent variables in this study. It could not be decided until the analysis phase which was the most appropriate and powerful expression of camper preference. Independent Variables There are numerous campsite characteristics which may affect camper choice of campsite. Van Doren examined seventy—two variables in the Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study in attempting to formulate a camping attraction index for state parks. Three types of factors were in- cluded in his approach to camping attraction: (l) the outdoor recreation activity preferences of campers, (2) unique physical environmental resources, and (3) physical facilities and services that enhance the camping experi— ence and the associated outdoor activities.8 Lime selected sixty—four campground characteristic variables, which considered three types of information: (1) accessi- bility or location, (2) natural environment, and (3) 8Michigan State University, Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, p. 5.2 and Table 5.7. 37 .c0mmmm oanEmo onma .xumm mumum coumcflpsq um mcofiusnfluumap wocwsqmum msam> nmmmcmuu Hmuoeuu.m mmDUHm .1.. CL T. z L I I .1.. 0 _ 68/.9CSVCCZIOT. b b mama Hmmmcmue _ searsdmeo go JeqmnN _ _ z Cc F P u— v- S... r— 9.. >— L- .— 8.. b 6.. mummmcmuu umz I ...... usoumnmmmcmus \ :.:I.I. Gwlmummmcmua r. “Unmmmq 38 cultural environment or aspect of man-made develop- ment.9 The present study deals only with the charac- teristics of individual campsites and certain campground characteristics as they affect the desirability of one campsite compared to another. These potential variables may be grouped into five classifications: 1. Physical environment: capacity, tOpography, screening, tree trunks, tree cover, ground cover, and drainage. 2. Social environment: traffic and neighbors. 3. Aesthetic environment: visual and waterfront. 4. Accessibility to facilities and services: boat storage along shore, showers, toilets, drinking water, electric outlet, campground office, and sanitation station. 5. Accessibility to recreation opportunities: inland lake, inland lake boat ramp, Great Lake, river, footbridge on river, dam, old town, lighthouse, playgrounds, and amphitheater. With modern statistical techniques, it is possible to work with a great number of variables and investigate existing relationships between them. One example is found in Crapo's study of "Recreational Activity Choice and 9Lime, "Auto-camping in Superior National Forest," pp. 61-680 39 Weather." On the independent variable side, he used as many as eighty variables. A "least squares add" computer program (LSADD) was used to eliminate those variables which were not significant at the 0.90 confidence level. The significant variables identified by the LSADD routine were entered into a "least squares delete" computer pro- gram, in order to further test the significance of the independent variables. In his conclusion, Crapo points out, "Only four independent variables appeared in more than half of the different equations."10 The interviews reveal that campers do not normally consider more than seven major campsite characteristics in choosing a campsite. The assumption was made that to be attractive, a campsite ought to supply the primary charac- teristics sought by the campers. In this study, the 200 camper interviews have been used to reduce the number of independent variables to those that are of primary signifi- cance so analysis of the interviews is a substitute for the first step in the Crapo study, the "least squares add" computer routine. In the author's interviews with campers, the following open-ended question was asked: "What features loDouglas Melvin Crapo, "Recreational Activity Choice and Weather: The Significance of Various Weather Perceptions in Influencing Preference for Selected Recre- ational Activities in Michigan State Parks" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970), pp. 54-59, 63, 65, and 84. 40 would you look for in choosing your campsite?" The campers were encouraged to list as many features as they could think of, and the results were later grouped into cate- gories and tallied as shown in Table 6. It was assumed that a campsite characteristic was significant enough to campers that it should be included in the analysis if 5 per cent or more of the campers are concerned about it. From Table 6, it is apparent that twelve campsite charac- teristics are of primary significance. They are (listed in order of their importance): "tree cover," "restroom," "tOpography," "inland lake," "capacity," "Great Lake," "neighbors," "drinking water," "drainage," "ground cover," "electric outlets,‘ and "playground." Among these desired campsite characteristics, "restroom” really has two components, "showers" and "toilets," since two out of the six restrooms at Ludington campgrounds only have toilets and are without shower facili- ties. "Inland lake" and "Great Lake" are combined into one item "lake," for they would be dependent to each other on the ordinal scale; one can predict the other in the case of Ludington. "Electric outlets" is not listed as a desired feature because every campsite has reasonable access to electricity even though the actual length of cable needed may vary from site to site depending on where the camper places his tent or trailer. K 4 l \'\ TABLE 6.--Frequency of mention of desired campsite charackL,» teristics in response to open-ended question. Number of % of Campsite Characteristics a Responses Responses Tree coverb 100 50 % Access to restroom 77 38.5% Topography 71 35.5% Access to inland lake 56 28 % Capacity 53 26.5% Access to Great Lake 39 19.5% Number of adjacent campsites 36 18 % Access to drinking water 36 18 % Drainage 29 14.5% Ground cover 27 13.5% Access to electric outlets 21 10.5% Access to playgrounds 12 6 % (The characteristics above were deemed to be significant) Traffic situation 8 4 % Access to sand dunes 7 3.5% Access to natural trails 6 3 % Clean campsite 6 3 % Good view from campsite 5 2.5% Location close to acquaintances 5 2.5% Firepit 5 2.5% Revisit campsite taken before 4 2 % Access to firewood 4 2 % Access to store . 2 l % Access to river and dam 2 1 % Sandy campsite 2 1 % Wooded area on site 2 l % Windbreak on site 2 1 % Space for playing ball 2 l % Access to boat ramp 1 0.5% Access to both inland and Great Lakes 1 0.5% Access to beach 1 0.5% Bugs sprayed on site 1 0.5% Waterfront 1 0.5% To be away from animals 1 0.5% Picnic table 1 0.5% Fire grill 1 0.5% aTotal number of camper interviews is 200. bThe definitions of the most—mentioned campsite characteristics are presented in the latter part of this chapter. 42 The Scaling of the Characteristics A combination of ordinal and interval scaling was applied to provide quantitative measures of these campsite characteristic variables. Table 7 shows that seven of the variables are treated on a trichotomous scale (namely 1, 2, and 3), they are: "capacity," "topography," "tree cover," "ground cover," "drainage," "neighbors,' and "lake." This trichotomous scale was converted to dummy variables (expressed by 0 and 1) in order to provide data suitable for computer analysis. Details of the application of dummy variables will be presented in the next chapter "Data Analysis Methods." The variables for "showers," "toilets," "drinking water,‘ and "playground" were measured in terms of the distances to the nearest facility in feet. A Ludington campground map was prepared at a scale of l" = 100' as shown in Figure 4. The distances in the nearest 10 feet from each campsite to the four categories of facilities were then measured on the map by the most direct route. At Ludington State Park campgrounds, campers sometimes take the road and other times take a shortcut through the campsites or open space to get to their destination. Therefore, either the "straight distance" or the "distance by road" was used, whichever in the judgment of the author 43 TABLE 7.--Ludington State Park campsite characteristics inventory sheet. Campsite No. Campsite Characteristics Measuresa 1. Capacity 1 2 3 2. Topography 1 2 3 3. Tree cover 1 2 3 4. Ground cover 1 2 3 5. Drainage 1 2 3 6. Neighbors l 2 3 7. Lake 1 2 3 8. Showers 10 feet 9. Toilets 10 feet 10. Drinking water 10 feet 11. Playground 10 feet aMeasures are eXplained in the following text. 44 .mcoflum>uwmbo pamflm paw mmcfl3mnp mmoHSOmwm Housumz mo ucmaunmmmo cmmflzowz Eouw pmummmum mpcsonmmfimo xumm mumum coumcflpsq mo awe mamomnu.v mmeHm 45 mauuuuuvnms «- "I" “U" I” II" 3 3 § 46 through his knowledge of the campgrounds appeared to be the most likely "direct route."11 Tables of values for the dependent variables (camper preferences) and the independent variables (camp- site characteristics) are given in Appendix II. Following each of the four campsite characteristics involving measured distance in feet, a letter (R) was inserted to indicate if it was the distance by road, and a letter (S) was employed if the straight line distance was taken. The Seven Variables Not Involving Distance Measurement It may be suggested that there are other ways to measure each of the seven variables that are treated as dummy variables on the trichotomous scales. The following section will discuss some possible and more precise measurements for these variables, explain the reasons why these measurements were not used, and establish a system of definitions for each of the ordinal scales variables. Capacity.--Campsite area in square feet was not a readily usable measure of "capacity" because there is no accurate information on the park plans regarding the actual sizes of individual campsites. Although a campsite is normally 50' wide and 50' deep, the Engineering 11The author spent the summer of 1970 on the staff of Ludington State Park and was able to make frequent observations of camper behavior during his regular patrol and maintenance duties. 47 Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources points out that the actual campsite sizes deviate from the engineering drawing where field personnel adjusted the site boundaries due to problems with the topography, vegetation, or the other factors. There is no visible man-made boundary between the campsites in most of the cases. The effective space that can be used for camping and the lot shapes also vary considerably. Thus, an ordinal scale with the values of l, 2, and 3 was used and the definitions of each numerical value on that scale are as follows: l--"sma11": tent only; parking space for one car. 2--"medium": tent trailer, pickup, van, or small trailer; parking space for one or two cars. 3--"large": could accommodate even a big trailer; ample parking space. Topography.--The difference in feet between high- est and lowest point on the campsite was not considered to be an adequate measure in that it only tells a part of the story. The influence of "topography" is also rela- tive to the effective camping space and the shape of the campsite. In addition, the park maps are not at scales large enough to show the accurate contour information for individual sites. Numerical values for the effect of "tOpOgraphy" were therefore assigned on the basis of an ocular appraisal of each site and expressed as follows: 48 l--"hi11y." 2--"rolling." 3-- II flat 0 0| Tree cover.--The percentage of the campsite which is shaded is one possible solution, but a number of tech- nical difficulties emerge in attempting this measurement. Shade conditions change from time to time during the day; sun may (or may not) be desirable, depending on the season, time of day and the type of camping equipment. The desira- bility of shade may vary depending on weather, wind, temperature conditions, etc. James and Cordell conducted a "tree cover" cutting treatment at Indian Boundary Campground in Tennessee while examining camper preferences and used the following definitions: Light removal--canopy thinned to allow approxi- mately 10 percent sunlight to reach the forest floor. Moderate remova1--can0py thinned to allow approxi- mately 40 percent sunlight to reach the forest floor. Heavy removal--canopy thinned to allow approxi- mately 70 percent sunlight to reach the forest floor. 12 It was finally decided to use the following three classes to indicate the amount of "tree cover": l--"sunny." 2--"moderate." 12George A. James and Harold K. Cordell, Impor- tance of Shading to Visitors Selecting a Campsite at Indian Boundarngampground in Tennessee (Research Note SE3130, Southeast Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, 1970), p. 2. 49 3--"shady." The sites were rated from personal observation. The tree species involved were not considered. The assumption was made that the shade does not change al— though the amount of shade provided by conifers differs considerably from that provided by deciduous species during the early or late parts of the camping season. The factor of aesthetics may also vary with the species but this would also be difficult to measure. Ground cover.--Considerable research has been conducted concerning "ground cover" at recreation sites. For example, Cieslinski and Wagar suggest the possibility of predicting the durability of ground vegetation at potential recreation sites,13 while Cordell and Talhelm suggest turf management may not be a good solution to carrying capacity problem in their paper entitled Planting Grass Appears Impractical for Improvinngeteriorated Recreation Sites.14 Ludington State Park campgrounds are located on wooded sand dunes. Therefore, the question of the 13Thomas J. Cieslinski and J. Alan Wagar, Predict- ing the Durability of Forest Recreation Sites in Northern Utah—-Preliminary Results (Research Note INT-117, Inter- mountain Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, 1970). 14Harold K. Cordell and Daniel R. Talhelm, Plantinngrass Appears Impractical for Improving Deterior- ated Recreation Sites (Research Note SE-105, Southeastern Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, 1969). 50 preferred type of campsite "ground cover" is not just a matter of the extent of this cover, but also a question of whether or not the site has loose sand. Since the majority of campers at Ludington now use wheeled camping equipment, deep sand can present a real problem in getting the equipment on and off the site. Some campers also dislike a site with much bare sand because the sand tends to blow into food and equipment. However, a small number of tent campers and families with small children may tend to prefer a sandy site because of its softness. The following scale was therefore established: 1--"sandy and/or car-stuck." 2--"bare and solid." 3--"grassy." Drainage.--During the previous camping season (1969) a part of Cedar Campground was under water for a prolonged period of time. This is reflected in the Park Manager's Weekly Report for that period. In 1968, the campground "occupancy rates" in July and August were 94.2 per cent and 99.5 per cent respectively, while in 1969 the corresponding rates were 86.2 per cent and 89.2 per cent. "Drainage" is therefore a very significant aspect of use in some instances. The "drainage" of a campsite was based on whether it had a tendency to flood with water after heavy rains or in the spring. The scale used was: 51 l-—"poor": floods badly. 2——"medium": partially floods, but major part of the campsite still usable though inconvenient. 3--"good": does not flood. Neighbors.--Research conducted at various kinds of campgrounds indicates a variety of attitudes towards the nearness of camping neighbors. For example, a study in Mount McKinley National Park, Alaska, showed that the majority of the campers preferred to be some distance from their neighbors, while in Ithaca, New York, campers pre- ferred to be near to each other.15 These are definite indications that many state park campers in the eastern United States consider the social aspects of camping a very essential part of their experience and wish to be relatively close to one another. In the case of Ludington, all the campsites are relatively close together, because of the 50' x 50' design standards without buffer zones in between; forest type or wilderness campsites are absent. Therefore, a scale depending on the number of sides a campsite was bordered by other sites was adopted as an index. The neighboring sites across a road were also counted. 15J. Alan Wagar, The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation, Forest Science Monograph (n.p.: The Society of American Foresters, 1964), p. 12. 52 l--"four sides" of the campsite border on other sites. 2--"three sides" of the campsite border on other sites. 3--"zero to two sides" of the campsite border on other sites. Lgkg.--Proximity to water is an important camp- site characteristic. At Ludington, the situation is somewhat unusual because the campgrounds are located between an inland lake--Hamlin Lake, and a Great Lake—— Lake Michigan. The distance between these lakes is only about one mile. This presents an excellent opportunity for testing camper preferences for the two types of water body. Distance in feet from each campsite to the two lakes was not used, because the differences between these distances for the various campsites is negligible as com- pared to the total distance to lake. Instead, an ordinal scale was used with the location of the campgrounds them- selves acting as the three strata. l--"near to the Great Lake" (Pines Campground). 2--"relatively far from both lakes" (Cedar Campground). 3--"near to the inland lake" (Beechwood Campground). The next chapter discusses the principles and applications of linear regression analysis. A statistical model is designed and a "least squares deletion" program is chosen for analysis purposes in this study. CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS METHODS Introduction The linear regression technique was applied in this study in order to estimate the nature of the relation- ships between the camper preference variables and the campsite characteristic variables. As described in the previous chapter, four camper preference variables were chosen as dependent variables, and eleven campsite charac- teristic variables as independent variables. It was desirable that the dependent variables: "occupancy rate," "transfers-in," "transfers-out," and "net transfers" be tested one at a time against the set of independent vari— ables: "capacity," "topography," "tree cover," "ground cover," "drainage," "neighbors," "lake," "showers," "toilets," "drinking water," and "playground." Therefore, it was felt that a multiple correlation and regression analysis was the most suitable technique. As Spurr and Bonini point out: Multiple correlation and regression analysis enables us to measure the joint effect of any number of independent variables upon a dependent variable. The multiple regression equation describes the 53 54 average relationship between these variables, and this relationship is used to predict or control the dependent variable. Linear regression is now a widely applied tool in many scientific research fields. Spurr and Bonini describe the theoretical background to this technique as follows: The multiple regression equation represents the simultaneous influence of a set of independent vari- ables upon the dependent variable. The linear equation can be written as YC = a + blxl + b2X2 + b3X3 + ... where Y is the computed or estimated value of the dependent variable Y and X1, X2, X3, ... are the independent variables. The equation is said to be linear (or restilinear) since there are no terms such as X or xlxz present. The term 3 is simply the value of YC when all the X's are zero. The terms b1, b2, b3, ... are the net regression coefficients. Each measures the change in Y per unit change in that particular independent variable. However, since we are measuring the simultaneous influence of all vari- ables on Y, the net effect of X1 (or any other X) must be measured apart from any correlated influence of other variables. This is usually expressed by adding the qualifying statement: "All other variables held constant" or "adjusting for the effect of the other variables." We would say, therefore, that bl measures the change in Y per unit change in X1, holding the other indppendent variables constant.2 On the dependent variable side, the camper prefer- ences were expressed in percentage rates. For example, the 1The reader is referred to Chapter 23 "Multiple Correlation and Regression" in William A. Spurr and Charles P. Bonini's Statistical Analysis for Business Decisions (Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1967), pp. 589-630. 21bid., p. 590. 55 four dependent variables of Beechwood #l were 87 per cent occupancy rate, 5 per cent transfers-in, 4 per cent transfers-out, and l per cent net transfers. Since the sample period was chosen to be 100 days, it was convenient to turn the day counts into percentage rates. On the independent variable side, the campsite characteristics were expressed as seven variables on a trichotomous scale, and four variables were measured in 10 feet units. Through the application of "dummy variables" it is possible to adjust these trichotomous-scaled variables to a linear model. The following example of how this is done is based on Example 3.6 in Mendenhall's The Design and Analysis of Experiments.3 One independent variable, capacity, was chosen to illustrate the principle. If the three values on the trichotomous scale for "capacity" are “A’ “B' “C’ respectively, then a model for the occupancy rate, y, is Y = “A + lel + 82X2 + e The dummy independent variables, X1 and X2, would be defined as 3William Mendenhall, Introduction to Linear Models and the Design and Analysis of Experiments (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1968), pp. 57-58. .._/—**. _ 56 X = 1 if a value of 2 (medium capacity) is measured, = 0 if not; X2 = 1 if a value of 3 (large capacity) is measured, = 0 if not; and B1 = “B ' “A B2 = uc ' “A Then when a measurement has been made for a small capacity campsite (with a value of 1), X1 = 0, X2 = 0, and y=uA+€ If a value 2 is measured, X1 = 1, X2 = 0, and Y = uA + 81 + e = uA + (uB - HA) + e = “B + e If a value 3 is measured, X1 = 0, X2 = l, and y = HA + 82 + e = HA + (uc - HA) + e for 57 Two, rather than three, dummy variables were chosen each trichotomous-scaled variable in order to avoid "perfect linear multiple correlation" among these dummy variables. The (N - l) dummy variables approach (N is the the the can number of levels on each variable scale), is one of alternative techniques that could be used to solve problem. The "perfect linear multiple correlation" result in an indeterminate solution for the regression coefficients. Tomek had discussed the mechanics of using this method in an article in the Journal of Farm Economics. Initial Statistical Model The initial statistical model specified for this analysis was as follows: P 80 + Ble + B X . . . + BiXi + e jk 22 where P.k = conditional probability of camper prefer- ] ence eXpressed by indicator j at campground k. j'= l for occupancy rate 2 for transfers-in 3 for transfers-out 4 for net transfers 4William G. Tomek, "Using Zero-One Variables with Time Series Data in Regression Equations," Journal of Farm Economics, XLV, No. 4 (November, 1963). 58 k = l for Ludington campgrounds 2 for Beechwood Campground 3 for Cedar Campground 4 for the Pines Campground Campsite Characteristics (Dummy Variables) Xl (Capacty l)5 = 1 if capacity is medium, = 0 if not; X2 (Capacty 2) = 1 if capacity is large, = 0 if not; X3 (TOpo 1) = 1 if topography is rolling, = 0 if not; X4 (Topo 2) = 1 if tOpography is flat, = 0 if not; X5 (Tree 1) = 1 if tree cover is moderate, = 0 if not; X6 (Tree 2) = 1 if tree cover is shady, = 0 if not; X7 Ground 1) = 1 if ground cover is bare and SOlld, = 0 if not; X8 (Ground 2) = 1 if ground cover is grassy, = 0 if not; 5 Shorter terms are applied for the corresponding variables in order to properly feed the computer. x9 X10 X11 x12 Campsite Distance to Lakes (Drain 1) (Drain 2) (Nghbr 1) (Nghbr 2) (Dummy Variables) X13 X14 (Lake 1) (Lake 2) 59 if drainage is medium, if not; if drainage is good, if not; if three sides of the camp- site border on other sites, if not; if zero to two sides of the campsite border on other sites, if not. if the campsite is relatively far from both lakes (Cedar Campground), if not; if the campsite is near to the inland lake (Beechwood Camp- ground), if not. Campsite Distance to Facilities by the Most Direct Route (in lO-foot Units) X15 X16 X17 X18 (Shower) (Toilet) (Water) (Play) Distance from campsite to the nearest shower facility; Distance from campsite to the nearest toilet facility; Distance from campsite to the nearest drinking water; Distance from campsite to the nearest playground. 60 Computer Analysis The confidence level specified for the analysis was 0.95, which is widely accepted in social science research. A "least squares deletion" computer program (LSDEL) was used to test the significance of the inde- pendent variables.6 In stepwise deletion, an initial least squares equation is obtained involving all of the independent variables. One variable is then deleted from the equation and a new least squares equation estimated. A second variable is deleted and the least squares equation re~ calculated again. The procedure continues until a variable selected as a candidate for deletion meets one or more stopping criteria. The candidate for deletion may be thought of as selected by any of the following equi- valent criteria: (1) largest significance probability, (2) smallest Fb , (3) smallest (in absolute value) tb , (4) smallest (in absolute value) highest order partiai correlation coefficient with the dependent variable, (5) the variable which will reduce R2, EZ, R, or E the least if dropped from the equation, or (6) the variable which will increase the error sum of squares the least if dropped from the equation. 6A detailed description of least squares routine is contained in LS: Calculation of Least Sggares (Regres- sion) Problems on the LS Routine; LSDEL program is con- tained in Eguation, STAT Series Description Nos. 7 and 8, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, November, 1969. 61 The four dependent variables: "occupancy rate," "transfers-in," "transfers-out," and "net transfers" were first tested with the three campgrounds combined, in order to examine the relationships in the park as a whole. Later, they were tested for each campground, to investi- gate the relationships within the individual campgrounds. When the LSDEL routine was run on the CDC 3600 computer, a number of basic statistics were obtained for individual variables including minimum values, maximum values, means, sums, standard deviations, sum of squares, and sums of squared deviations from the means. Statistics calculated as measures between a dependent variable and a set of independent variables were the multiple correlation coefficient, standard error of estimate, least squares (regression) coefficients, beta weights, standard errors of the beta weights, F statistics and t statistics, high- est order partial correlation coefficients, estimated (predicted) value of the dependent variable for each observation and the difference between the actual value and the estimated value of the dependent variable for each observation. In the next chapter, the results of the computer analysis are presented in quantitative manner, following with general interpretations of these figures. CHAPTER V INTERPRETATION OF RESULTS The analysis phase included four parts. The first part was a stepwise deletion computer program taking all of the campsites in Ludington State Park. Later, each of the campgrounds were tested one by one on the same computer program. Therefore, this chapter includes a park analysis, three campground analyses, and a brief discussion at the end on each of the campsite characteristic variables. Park Analysis The null hypothesis of this study was that selected campsite characteristics do not exert a signifi- cant influence upon the observed camper preferences for the campsite at Ludington State Park. At the end of the stepwise deletion routine using four dependent variables separately, the F values were for "occupancy rate" 65.6520, for "transfers-in" 6.3898, for "transfers-out" 14.4686, and for "net transfers" 15.6956. Overall, the F statistics for measuring the regression were highly significant (<0.0005). The null hypothesis is rejected. 62 63 In the stepwise deletion routine, seven to ten independent variables were considered not significant in explaining the dependent variables. In the "occupancy rate" run, there were seven variables deleted, which reduced the R2 value from 0.6478 to 0.6424. R2 is the coefficient of determination (the square of the multiple correlation coefficient). It may be defined as the pro- portion of the sum of the squared deviation from the mean of the dependent variable accounted for by the independent variables. In other words, it illustrates the "goodness of fit" of the model; a value of 0.6424 meant that 64.24 per cent of the variance of the dependent variables could be explained by the independent variables. The R2 value in "occupancy rate" run was fairly acceptable. However, the other three runs did not have ideal results; by the end of the runs, R2 of "transfers-in" was 0.1121, "transfers-out" 0.2438, and "net transfers" 0.2652. Significant and Deleted Independent Variables Table 8 shows the regression coefficients and standard errors of coefficients of the independent vari- ables by the end of the stepwise deletion routine using four dependent variables. (The definitions and scaling of the variables are referred to in Chapter III; the applications of dummy variables are shown in Chapter IV.) The results show that: 64 TABLE 8.--Regression coefficients and standard errors of coefficients of the independent variables by the end of stepwise deletion routine using four dependent variables.a Occupancy Trans-in Trans-out Net trans. Indep. Variables b.b S c b. S b. S b. S l bi l bi 1 bi l bi Capacty ld 4.72 2.04 -— -- -3.33 0.78 5.09 1.09 Capacty 2 8.57 2.04 0.54 0.24 -4.14 0.78 6.65 1.09 Topo l -- —- 1.35 0.54 -- -- -— -- TOpo 2 -- -- 1.90 0.56 —— -- -- -- Tree 1 -- -- -- -- —— -- -- -- Tree 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- —- -- Ground 1 5.72 1.20 —- -- -1.63 0.71 2.52 0.98 Ground 2 -- -- -- -- -l.85 0.74 2.72 1.04 Drain l 10.14 2.18 1.75 0.70 -- -- 3.02 1.18 Drain 2 13.10 2.10 1.74 0.67 -l.33 0.42 4.13 1.14 Nghbr l 4.07 0.77 0.77 0.25 -0.63 0.29 1.21 0.41 Nghbr 2 4.80 1.00 0.74 0.32 -0.84 0.38 1.19 0.52 Lake 1 -9.02 1.35 -0.95 0.28 2.30 0.45 -2.85 0.62 Lake 2 3.68 0.89 —- -- -- -- -- —- Shower -0.12 0.02 -- -- 0.01 0.01 -- -- Toilet -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Water -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Play 0.04 0.01 -- -- -- -- -- -- aFigures are rounded to two decimal places. The deleted variables are shown by dashes. bbi is the regression coefficient. C S is the standard error of bi' b. l dThroughout the tables in this chapter, the independent variables are shown in short form as used in the computer programming. (See Chapter IV for independent variable abbreviations.) l. "Drainage," "neighbors,' 65 and "capacity" appeared to be very significant campsite characteristics. a. "Drainage" was doubtlessly the most signifi- cant campsite characteristic with regard to the "occupancy rate." A campsite with good drainage is slightly preferred over a campsite that is partially flooded during the rainy days. On the contrary, poor drainage is definitely detrimental. The "transfers—out" figures showed that a well-drained campsite was less likely to have campers transfer out. "Capacity" appeared on tOp of the list regard- ing "net transfers" as well as "transfers-out." There was a noticeable difference between the two dummy variables in "occupancy rate," but not as much in transfers, which might reflect the reluctance of the campers to transfer from a medium-size campsite to a large one. The figures in the "transfers-in" section appeared to show that medium campsite size induced practically no campers to transfer in; even the large sites were not strongly attractive. Number of "neighbors" did not appear to be extremely significant. However, this charac- teristic was the only one which proved to be significant for all of the four dependent The 66 variables. There was a negligible variance between the campsites that had three sides bordering on adjacent campsites ("neighbor l") and those having less than three adjacent sites ("neighbor 2"). But, it was not favored by the campers to have a campsite with four sides surrounded by adjacent sites. variables of the "ground cover" and the "lake" both had a "split personality." "Ground cover 1" differed substantially from "ground cover 2," so did a. "lake 1" from "lake 2." "Lake 1," which means being relatively far away from both the inland lake and the Great Lake, was the only strong and negative attri- bute to campsites. Its absolute value was next in significance to those of "drainage." Obviously, the campers very much like to be near to water. The inland lake is moderately preferred over the Great Lake in the "occupancy rate" analysis. The inference is that campers tend to transfer out of Cedar Campground in order to get closer to the water, but they will not from the Pines to Beechwood simply due to the preference between the two types of lakes. Beechwood is closer to Hamlin Lake than the Pines is to Lake Michigan; this may 67 have implications that the inland lake being preferred over the Great Lake merely because of its closer location to the campground. b. The data shows that continuous "ground cover" is important to campers. Once this standard is met, there are other more significant characteristics involved in campsite prefer- ence than the grass on the ground. This was indicated by the "occupancy rate" values for this item. At the same time, "ground cover" was of no importance to "transfers-in," but its signifiCance under "transfers-out" was very high. It is inferred that people move away from the sandy sites which may cause problems with vehicles, but are not necessarily looking for a site with a good "ground cover" in mind; they will be happy with a bare site as long as it is not sandy presumably because of diffi— culty with vehicles and camping equipment. In analysis of the distance-to-facility variables, "toilets" and "drinking water" did not prove to be important. "Showers" had a negative regression coefficient value of -O.12. This means that the campers slightly preferred to be near the shower facility. For each additional distance of 10 feet from the showers, there was a decrease of 0.12 per 68 cent on the "occupancy rate,’ or an increase of 0.01 per cent on the "transfers-out." For example, a campsite 130 feet away from the shower facility is likely to have 1.2 per cent less "occupancy rate" or 0.1 per cent more "transfers-out" rate than a campsite only 30 feet away. At the same time, "playgroun had a very low positive re- gression coefficient value, which means that campers tend to stay away from playgrounds. Did this indicate that toilets and drinking water were of no importance to the campers? The answer is no; rather, because they are probably essential, and the quality of the facilities is fairly high and they are evenly distributed at the Ludington campgrounds, therefore, no prefer- ence was expressed. "Topography" was a very significant variable for "transfers-in," but for none of the other camper preference indicators. "Topography 2" had the highest value in this section and "topography l" was also close to the top. It is inferred that when the campers decide to transfer on to another campsite, they look for the flatness of the site. "Topography" is only second to "drainage" in importance for "transfers-in." 69 5. The most surprising result was that the "tree cover" variables were all deleted. It was the most—mentioned campsite feature in the camper interviews; exactly half of the campers regarded "tree cover" as one of the campsite characteris- tics they concerned when selecting a site. (See Table 6 in Chapter III and Appendix I.) However, the results show that "tree cover" was of no significance. 6. In Table 6, Chapter III, "frequency of mention of desired campsite characteristics in response to Open-ended question," all the three most mentioned desirable campsite features at the tOp of the list were deleted by the stepwise deletion routine. Does this suggest inconsistency between the campers' attitudes and their behavior? Does this mean that what they ask for in interviews is not always what they actually want? This is a hypothesis which should be tested in future studies of this kind. The Application of Regression Coefficients The regression coefficients, shown in Table 8, predict the effect of each individual dummy variable over the situation if this variable is absent (if the corres- ponding 8 value equals zero), and with all other variables 70 fixed. As it was noted in Chapter IV each of the original trichotomous variables was turned into two dummy variables. Therefore, the first dummy variable indicates the differ- ence between "2" and "l" on the trichotomous scale, and the second dummy variable indicates the difference between "3" and "l" on the same scale. The regression coefficients tell how much the dependent variables rely upon these independent variables, by taking them one at a time and while other independent variables are held constant. In order to find the difference between "3" and "2" on the trichotomous scale, it is practical to use the difference of the regression coefficient values of the paired dummy variables. This principle can be applied to the difference between any two of the dummy variables. These regression coefficient values were inter- preted as equal to the percentage change of the dependent variables when each of the independent variables shifted from one level to another. For example, the effect of "medium capacity" over "small capacity" with all other variables held constant would be a 4.72 per cent increase in "occupancy rate," or in the case of Ludington, an increase of 4.72 occupancy days in the 1970 camping season. Similarly, a "large capacity" campsite would likely have a 8.57 per cent increase in "occupancy rate" compared to a "small capacity" campsite. A "large capacity“ campsite over a "medium capacity" campsite is the difference between 71 these two figures (8.57 per cent - 4.72 per cent = 3.85 per cent). At this point, it is more convenient to return to the original trichotomous scaling (see Chapter III). It is understood that all the "1" values on the trichotomous scales were regarded as basic (or untreated) situations, and the two dummy variables (representing "2" and "3" on the trichotomous scales) are different levels of treat- ments. Then the different effects upon "occupancy rate" of the treatments on the trichotomous scale for "capacity" are: Capacity (2 - l) 4.72 per cent of "occupancy rate," 8.57 per cent, and Capacity (3 - 1) Capacity (3 - 2) = 3.85 per cent. Applying the same procedure: Ground cover (2 - l) 5.72 per cent of "occupancy rate," Ground cover (3 — 1) = 0, Ground cover (3 - 2) = -5.72 per cent; Drainage (2 - 1) 10.14 per cent, 13.10 per cent, Drainage (3 - l) Drainage (3 - 2) 2.96 per cent; Neighbors (2 - l) = 4.07 per cent, Neighbors (3 - l) = 4.80 per cent, Neighbors (3 - 2) = 0.73 per cent; 72 Lake (2 - 1) -9.02 per cent, Lake (3 - 1) 3.68 per cent, Lake (3 - 2) = 12.70 per cent. Figure 5 shows these relationships regarding "occupancy rate" as a histogram. Two variables, "topo- graphy" and "tree cover," do not appear for they were deleted. Variables of distance-to—facilities were ex- pressed in a different way (-0.12 per cent per lO-foot unit for "showers" and 0.04 per cent per lO-foot unit for "playground"), and therefore are not shown here. Comparison of Independent Variables The above analyses take the four dependent vari- able runs at the same time. It must be noted that the variable "net transfers" is derived from "transfers-in" minus "transfers-out." Assuming that the information in the variable "net transfers" has correctly combined the values of the original variables, then Table 9 shows a comparison between deleted and significant independent variables by stepwise deletion routine using "occupancy rate" and "net transfers" as dependent variables. Table 9 summarizes the information in Table 8. The advantage of the present table is that it clearly shows that significant and insignificant independent variables are separated, and that the majority of the dummy variables are paired. The significance of the four 73 Capacity 1 2 [4.72% 3.85% I 8.57% 1 Ground cover 1 2 5.72% l -5.72% : L ..... .0 3 2 Drainage 1 2 3 10.14% 2.96% 13.10% 1 3 Neighbors l 2 3 4-07% --> 0.73% 4.80% l 3 Lake 2 1 F """"""" W L __________ 3 3.68% 12.70% 2 3 FIGURE 5.--Histogram of relationships of five independent variables on the original trichotomous scales in terms of "occupancy rates." 74 TABLE 9.--Comparison between deleted and significant inde- pendent variables by stepwise deletion routine using "occu- pancy rate" and "net transfers" as dependent variables. Deleted Significant Isgggggiggt 32:2; Tiifis- Igjggggiggt 2:32; Tiifis- Rate fers Rate fers Toilet x x Capacty 1 x x Water x x Capacty 2 x x Tree 1 x x Drain l x x Tree 2 x x Drain 2 x x Topo l x x Nghbr l x x Topo 2 x x Nghbr 2 x x Ground 1 x x Lake 1a x x Ground 2 x Ground 2 x Lake 2 x Lake 2 x Shower x Showera x Play x Play , x a O I I O Negative regre531on coefflc1ent values. 75 independent variables exhibits different patterns between the "occupancy rate" and the "net transfers" runs. "Ground cover 2," which means a grass cover on campsites, was fairly important in considering transfer actions, but not for the arriving campers. On the contrary, "lake 2," near to the inlank lake, was significant as the campers first chose the campsites. But there was insufficient proof to show that the campers would transfer in order to be close to the inland lake once they are in the other two campgrounds. Likewise, distances to "showers" and "playground" were significant for "occupancy rate" but not for transfer actions. Campsite Grading System The estimated values of each of the dependent variables were produced by the end of the computer pro— gram. The standard error of estimate was 6.78 (%) for the "occupancy rate" which is acceptable. This means campsite characteristics can be used to estimate occupancy rates with reasonable accuracy. The frequency of distri- butions of "occupancy rate" and estimated "occupancy rate" values are shown in Table 10. The categories and the frequency distributions in Table 10 are closely similar to the commonly used percent grading system. The same group of categories can also be turned into a letter grading system, using A-B-C-D-F for evaluating the campsites. The estimated 76 TABLE 10.--Frequency of distributions of "occupancy rate" and "estimated occupancy rate" values. Beechwood Cedar Pines Ludington Occupancy Campground Campground Campground State Park Rate (%) a b Y E(Y) Y E(Y) Y E(Y) Y E(Y) 90—100 65 35 19 84 35 80-89 91 135 19 2 47 69 157 206 70-79 19 7 33 48 47 54 99 109 60-69 2 38 49 10 2 50 51 Below 59 22 13 2 24 13 Total 177 177 112 112 125 125 414 414 aY is the number of that fall in the respective "occupancy rate." bE(Y) is the number that fall in the respective "estimated occupancy rate." campsites in the campgrounds category according to the of campsites in the campgrounds category according to the 77 values of "occupancy rate" are taken and the respective grades (A = 90-100, B = 80-89, C = 70-79, D = 60-69, F = below 59) assigned for each campsite are shown in Appendix II. Extreme Residual Values Doubling the standard error of estimate, a value of 13.56 shows that approximately 95 per cent of the esti- mated "occupancy rate" residuals would fall in this range. Out of 414 campsites, there were only 12 campsites with this residual value greater than 13.56, which could be pure chance. However, it is interesting to identify these campsites and examine the possible reasons for their high residual values. The campsites with underestimated or overestimated "occupancy rates" are shown in Table 11. Three campsites in Cedar Campground, C-33, C-36, and C-40 were underestimated. They are located close to each other in Cedar's east loop. The probable reason why they were occupied more is that they have an extra high- quality grass cover which is unusual in the park. The unexPectedly high performance of Beechwood Campground's site number B-67 may be due to its ready access to Lost Lake. The high value for P-68 in the Pines Campground is hard to explain. However, in the case of P-8l it is hypothesized that its location at the exit of the camp- ground leading to the sand dunes, beach, and lighthouse is responsible. .HHH Hmummnu CH pmcHMmem mum3 mmsHm> HmoHHmEdc HHmna =.pcsoumNMHd= UCM =~H0UM3 UCHMCHHU= :emUQHHOU: =smH0303m: =~QMMH= :smHOQfimHGC: :smmMCHMHU: :~H0>OU pnsoume =.Hw>oo mmuu: =.mcmmnmomoga =.muHommmoa mum moHumHHmuumumso muHmmEmon .Houum pmumEHumm may mH HmspHmwu u=mumn wocmmsooo pmumEHumme on» mH vam “empty mocmmsoooe may mH M .pmumcHEHHm mum mMHspHmmu pcm m.vam mo mucHom HmEHomom 78 mm o Nm Nm N H m m H m m hNI mm I an em 0 v5 v mv we N H N m H m m ONI mm I mv an 0 mm v mw we N H m m H m m mHI mm I 5% mm 0 NH m mN mN H H m N m N m wHI Nm I mm NN m Nb NH vm vm H m m N m N N mHI vm I mm H m mH 0 NH NH N N m H N m N mHI mm I vm Hm 0 mm m mm mm N N m m N m m vH . Nb mm mm 0 mN m MN Hm H N m N m m m mH Nm hm Hm m Nu m mH mm H N m N m H N mH on Hm mm m mm v mH mH m H N N N m N 5H Hm mm mm m mm wH NH 5H N H N m N m m mH mm ¢m ow 0 mo OH «N «N N H m m H m m mH mm mm mm 0 HwQEdz QmUHumHumuomumcu muHmmEmo MHmspHmmm mfiwvm I M mUHmmEmu :.mmumu mocmmsooo: pmumEHummHm>o no pmumEHummHmpcs suHs mmuHmmEMUII.HH mqm<9 79 A similar grouping in the Cedar Campground was found in the overestimation category. C-79, C-84, and C-88 are adjacent campsites at the farther end of the west 100p which is subject to flooding. Although they were not rated low for the "drainage" variable, the road leading to these campsites is flooded when this section of the camp- ground is under water. C-61 is actually a "sand pit," long considered by the rangers the least popular campsite in the park. P-l has some undesirable tree trunks which interfere with the movement of camper vehicles in and out of the site. P-22, again, is unexplainable. From the analysis of these campsites with extremely high residual values on "occupancy rate,’ some improve- ments of the model could be suggested. The trichotomous scaling on "ground cover," "drainage," and "lake" may have to be more precise in order to function. More levels on the scale are urged for measuring "ground cover" and "drainage." Actual distance to water from each campsite is another example of possible solution. Campground Analyses The stepwise deletion routine was again conducted taking the campgrounds one at a time in order to detect the significant variables within each campground, and the differences between the three campgrounds. The null hypothesis was the same as for the park analysis. However, due to the similarity within the 80 campgrounds,_some of the independent variables had to be discarded in order to avoid the matrix singularity problem. First of all, the two dummy variables on "lake" were elimi- nated, because all campsites in each campground have exactly the same value. Beechwood Campground At the end of the stepwise deletion routine using four dependent variables separately, the F values were for "occupancy rate" 9.6138, for "transfers-in" 10.4843, for "transfers-out" 9.6905, and for "net transfers" 8.6043. The significance probability for F was less than 0.0005 in each case. The null hypothesis is rejected in Beech- wood Campground. In the stepwise deletion routine, nine to thirteen independent variables were considered not significant in explaining the dependent variables. In addition, three independent variables were discarded prior to the routine, so less than six variables did survive; in the "transfers- in" and "transfers-out" runs, as few as two were left. It may be interpreted that in Beechwood Campground, the campsite characteristics and the accesses to the facili- ties are fairly uniform. In the "occupancy rate" run, there were nine variables deleted, which reduced the R2 value from 0.2837 to 0.2533. By the end of the runs on the other three dependent variables, the R2 values were 0.1075, 0.1002, 81 and 0.2505. Compared to the runs on the park analysis, the R2 value has been drastically reduced. Table 12 shows the regression coefficients and standard errors of coefficients of the independent vari- ables. It was found that "capacity" and "neighbors" were the only substantially significant variables, with "capacity" on top of the list. The effect of the "neigh- bors" on "net transfers" was not too strong, since neither "transfers-in" nor "transfers-out" showed any trace of significance. "Topography 1" had a negative regression coefficient on the "occupancy rate" run which was con- tradictory to the researcher's eXpectation, because a rolling topography was not supposed to be less desirable than a hilly topography. Consider the three campgrounds in Ludington State Park--Cedar had the lowest occupancy rate (68.57 per cent) but also had the least "undesirable" hilly campsites (1 per cent), while Beechwood and the Pines had higher occupancy rates (86.89 per cent and 79.98 per cent) and more hilly campsites (6 per cent each)(see Appendix III). It was suspected that there was an interaction between "tOpography" and another independent variable which con- tributed to the negative regression coefficient value on "tOpography l." The assumption was made that the campsite characteristics variables are independent of each other and there is no interactions between these individual 82 TABLE 12.--Regression coefficients and standard errors of coefficients of the independent variables by the end of stepwise deletion routine using four dependent variables in Beechwood Campground analysis.a Occupancy Trans-in Trans-out Net Trans. Indep. Variables bi Sb. bi Sb. bi Sb. bi Sb 1 1 l l Capacty l 6.36 2.50 -- -- -2.81 0.82 4.42 1.32 Capacty 2 8.44 2.48 0.93 0.35 -3.40 0.81 5.81 1.34 Topo 1 -2.47 1.04 -- -- —- -- -- -- Topo 2 -- -- 0.98 0.36 —- -- 1.41 0.53 Tree 1 —- -— -- -- —- -- -- -- Tree 2 -- -- -- -- -- —— -- -- Ground 1 -- -- -- -- -- —- -- -- Ground 2 --b —- -- -- -- -- -- -- Drain 1 * * * * * * * * Drain 2 -- -- -- -- -- -- -- —- Nghbr l 4.14 1.00 -- -- -- -- 1.16 0.55 Nghbr 2 4 18 1.29 -- -- -- -- 1.38 0.69 Lake 1 * * * * * * * * Lake 2 * * 'k * * * * * Shower -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Toilet -- —- -- -- -- -- -- -- Water -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Play 0.05 0.01 -- -- -- -— __ __ aSymbols, abbreviations, and roundings of figures same as Table 8. bVariables discarded prior to deletion routine in order to avoid matrix singularity. 83 variables. As a result, in Chapter IV, the initial statistical model was ij = 80 + lel + 82x2 ... + Bixi + a without any interactions involved. Assuming that an interaction between "topography l" and "lake 1" is under consideration, plus other possible interactions, the model would be no longer linear, but quadratic: ij = 80 + Ble + 82x2 ... + BiXi ... + + e B1+1X3Xl3 °°° ("topo l" x "lake 1") "Playground" was the only distance-to—facility variable that survived. Both the "transfers—in" and "transfers-out" had only two variables left; it was obvious that only a large-capacity campsite was signifi- cant for both, while a medium—capacity campsite was unlikely to lose a camper, and the campers were moving to the flat campsites only. Cedar Campground At the end of the stepwise deletion routine using four dependent variables separately, the F values were for "occupancy rate" 16.8448, for "transfers-in" 5.0109, for "transfers-out" 7.2429, and for "net transfers" 5.0407. The significance probability for F on the "occupancy rate" 84 run was less than 0.0005, but for the rest of the runs were 0.016, 0.008, and 0.001 respectively-~still significant enough. The null hypothesis is rejected in Cedar Camp- ground. In the stepwise deletion routine, six to twelve independent variables were considered not significant in explaining the dependent variables. "Capacity," "lake," and "toilets" were eliminated prior to the routine. In the "transfers-out" run, only one variable, "drainage 2," was left. In the "occupancy rate" run, six variables were deleted, which reduced the R2 value from 0.5420 to 0.5313. These values were less than the park analysis, but were the highest among the three campgrounds. By the end of the runs on the other three dependent variables, the R2 values were 0.0909, 0.0618, and 0.1586, very low. Table 13 shows the regression coefficients and standard errors of coefficients of the independent vari- ables. "Drainage" and "ground cover" appeared to be the only substantially significant variables. Concerning "occupancy rate," "drainage" was the most important camp- site characteristic, and a well-drained site was more desirable than a medium drained site. A bare and solid ground cover was significant for "occupancy rate," but a grass cover was not necessary. The variable "neighbors" was significant; data showed the less adjacent sites a 85 TABLE l3.--Regression coefficients and standard errors of coefficients of the independent variables by the end of stepwise deletion routine using four dependent variables in Cedar Campground analysis.a Occupancy Trans—in Trans-out Net Trans. Indep. Variables bi Sbi bi Sbi bi sbi bi sbi Capacty l * * * * * * * * Capacty 2 * * * * * * * * Topo l —- -- -- —— -_ __ -- -_ Topo 2 -- —- —— —- __ -_ __ __ Tree 1 -- —- -- —— -_ _- -_ __ Tree 2 —- -- -- —— _- __ _- __ Ground 1 4.29 1.79 -- -— -- -- 3.30 1,53 Ground 2 -- —- 0.38 0.43 -— -- 3.74 1.45 Drain l 7.58 2.58 1.71 0.70 -- -- 2.89 1.40 Drain 2 12.14 2.48 2.19 0.67 -1.70 0.63 4.92 1.34 Nghbr 1 3.46 1.68 -— —- —— —— __ -- Nghbr 2 5.49 2.52 -- -- -- -- —- -- Lake 1 * * * * * * * * Lake 2 * * * * * * * * Shower -0.39 0.07 -- —— —— —- -_ -_ Toilet * * * * * * * * Water -- —- —— —- __ _- __ __ Play 0.13 0.04 -- —- —— —- __ -— aSymbols, abbreviations, and roundings of figures same as Tables 8 and 12. bThere is only one restroom in Cedar Campground which contains both showers and toilets. The variable of "toilets" was thrown away in the computer run, but was actually combined into the variable "showers." 86 campsite had, the more popular it was. "Showers" and "playground" were listed, and had appeared to be the highest values among all runs. The variable "toilets" was included in the "showers," for the only restroom in Cedar Campground contains both types of facilities. It is worthwhile to note at this point what kind of effect the four numerically measured variables had upon the dependent variables as compared to the dummy variables. It was defined previously in this chapter that the regression coefficients were the effect of each lO-foot unit, and should be multiplied by the number of the 10-foot units in order to show the total effect of the distance between the campsite and the facility. In Cedar Campground, the regression coefficient of "showers" was -0.39, the minimum value of the distance to shower facility was 80 feet, the maximum value was 610 feet (see Appendix III). The effect on "occupancy rate" between two sites nearest to and most remote from the showers would be: (-0.39) x (610 - 80)/10 = -20.67 This value is higher than any regression coefficients of the dummy variables. However, since these variables were in different units than those of the dummy variables, it was difficult to ascertain the relative importance of distance-in-feet 87 variables and dummy variables in influencing the dependent variables. Spurr and Bonini state, One means of accomplishing this is by using 8 (beta) coefficients. . . . The B coefficients are merely the net regression coefficients adjusted by expression each variable in units of its own standard deviation. This adjustment eliminates the effects of the differ- ent size and type of the variables and puts the regression coefficients on a comparable basis.l Table 14 shows the beta weights of the significant inde- pendent variables by the end of "occupancy rate" run. TABLE l4.--Beta weights of the significant independent variables by the end of "occupancy rate" run. Independent Beta Variables Weights Drain 2 0.42 Capacty 2 0.38 Lake 1 -0.36 Drain l 0.29 Shower -0.25+ Ground 1 0.21_ Capacty l 0.21 Nghbr l 0.18 Nghbr 2 0.17 Lake 2 0.16 Play 0.11 It was revealed that among these significant vari- ables, "showers" had an influence next to "drainage 2," "capacity 2," "lake 1," and "drainage 1," and was above any other independent variables. At the same time lSpurr and Bonini, Business Decisions, p. 603. 88 "playground" was the last one on the list in order of significance. It is likely that distance to facilities has an effect on desirability which is not linear. Being too close or being too far probably cuts down on the desira— bility of a campsite. Therefore, it is suggested that future studies include higher order terms in these vari- ables so that the curvature in the effects are adequately taken care of. Probably, the addition of second and third powers will suffice. In Cedar Campground, practically nothing has a strong effect on the transfer actions except "ground cover" and "drainage." As it is noted in Appendix III, this campground is composed of the majority of the sunny campsites in the park. As the most frequently mentioned campsite feature by the campers, here is the best chance for "tree cover" to appear as a significant campsite characteristic, but it failed once more. The Pines Campground At the end of the stepwise deletion routine using four dependent variables separately, the F values were for "occupancy rate" 14.7758, for "transfers-in" 4.8779, for "transfers-out" 11.6790, and for "net transfers" 9.4743. The significance probability for F was less than 0.0005, except for "transfers-in" run was 0.029, which was still 89 below 0.05. The null hypothesis is rejected in the Pines Campground. In the stepwise deletion routine, ten to fourteen independent variables were considered not significant in explaining the dependent variables. The discarded vari- ables prior to the routine were the same as in Beechwood Campground, therefore, only one to five variables were significant enough. Eleven variables were deleted in the "occupancy rate" run; R2 value was reduced from 0.4380 to 0.3684. Although this value is not as good as the park analysis, but is acceptable to the researchers in the social science field, and is better than that of Beechwood Campground. On the "transfers-out" and "net transfers," the R2 values were even better than that of the park analysis, 0.3292 and 0.2847 respectively. Table 15 shows the regression coefficients and standard errors of coefficients of the independent vari- ables. Once more, "capacity" and "neighbors" appeared to be the most significant independent variables, with "neighbors" more important in "occupancy rate" and "capacity" more significant in "net transfers." It is to be noted that among the variables measured by distance to facilities, "drinking water" survived this time in "transfers-in" run, while all other variables were deleted. It was quite a contrast to the other runs, which 90 TABLE 15.--Regression coefficients and standard errors of coefficients of the independent variables by the end of stepwise deletion routine using four dependent variables in the Pines Campground analysis.a Occupancy Trans-in Trans-out Net Trans. Indep. Varlables bi Sb. bi Sb. bi Sb. bi Sb 1 l l l Capacty l -- -- -- -- —5.62 1.18 7.26 1.64 Capacty 2 5.25 1.28 -- -- -6.26 1.20 7.99 1.67 Topo 1 -— -- -— -— -- -- —- -- Tepo 2 -- -- -- -- -- -— -— -- Tree 1 -- -- -- —— —- -— —— -- Tree 2 -- -- -- -- -— -— -- -- Ground 1 —- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Ground 2 -- -- -— —- —- -— -— -- Drain 1 * * * * * ** * * Drain 2 -- -- -— —- -- -— -- -- Nghbr l 6.99 1.44 -- -- -1.95 0.52 2.82 0.73 Nghbr 2 7.86 1.77 -- —- -2.78 0.65 3.48 0.90 Lake 1 * * * * * * * * Lake 2 * * * * * * 'k * Shower -0.10 0.02 -- -- -- -- -— -— Toilet -- -- -- -- -— -- -- -- Water -- —- 0.11 0.05 -- -- -- -- Play -— -- -- -- 0.03 0.01 —0.03 0.01 aSymbols, abbreviations, and roundings of figures same as Tables 8 and 12. 91 meant that drinking fountains were not distributed as evenly as they were in the other two campgrounds. Regard- ing "capacity, only a large campsite was significant to "occupancy rate." Discussion On different dependent variable runs in various campgrounds, the independent variables turned out to be significant in a similar but not identical way. Table 16 shows the regression coefficients of the independent vari- ables by the end of stepwise deletion routine using "occupancy rate" and "net transfers" in the park and individual campground analyses. The significance of each independent variable is interpreted as follows: Capacity was very significant except in Cedar Campground where most of the campsites have an adequate capacity. This variable was discarded in Cedar Campground prior to the stepwise deletion routine in order to avoid the matrix singularity problem. Topography was insignificant, although mentioned very often by the campers in the interviews. In Beechwood Campground on "occupancy rate" run, a rolling topography was even considered a negative contribution, and was less desirable than a hilly topography. A flat campsite in the same campground would attract some campers to move in. Tree cover was not significant at all! This was absolutely contradictory to the camper interviews. Further 92 .NH .Ucoonmmamo Hmpmo cH mumBOQm mnu CH meSHUGH mHmB mumHHoe a mom m mmema mm mEmm mmuomHm mo mmchcoou pom .mcoHDMH>mnonm .mHonfihmm II mo.eI I- II ee.e II mH.o me.o seem II II II II II II II II umumz II II « II II II he II umHHoe II II II II NH.0I OH.OI mm.OI II umBOcm II « « « mm.m « « a N mxmq mm.NI « « « No.ml « h a H mxmq mH.H mv.m II mm.H mo.¢ om.> me.m mH.v N Honmz HN.H Nm.N II mH.H no.v mm.m me.m VH.v H unnmz mH.w II Nm.v II 0H.MH II vH.NH II N chuo No.m « mm.N a «H.0H « mm.h « H sHmuo N>.N II em.m II II II II II N poncho Nm.N II om.m II Nn.m II mN.v II H pcsouu II II II II II II II II N mmHB II II II II II II II II H mmuB II II II Hv.H II II II II N OQOB II II II II II II II nv.NI H omoa me.e mm.“ . Hm.m km.m mm.m . ee.m N suoeemo ao.m e~.k . me.e ~>.e II . em.e H suomamo mmnne mmch Hmpmo p003 mmnna mmch umpmo p003 IHH< Inommm HH< Inommm mmHanHm> .mmch mummmcmua umz mosmmsooo m.mmmmHmcm xumm pom poncho ImEmo HmspH>Hch may 2H :mnmmmcmnu ums: pom emumu mosmmsoooe mchs mcHuoou COHumHmp mmH3mmum mo pom ms» mo mmHQMHHm> ucmpcmmmch may no mucmHonmmoo GOHmmmHmmMII.mH mamfia 93 research is needed in order to support or reject this finding in this study. Ground cover was significant in Cedar Campground, and was so reflected in the park analysis. Beechwood and the Pines Campgrounds simply do not have variety on this variable. Drainage was the most significant characteristic in Cedar Campground, and turned out to be very significant in the park analysis. "Drainage 1" was discarded in Beechwood and the Pines Campgrounds prior to the stepwise deletion routine due to matrix singularity problem, and "drainage 2" was deleted afterwards; no poorly drained campsites exist in these two campgrounds. Neighbors was considered significant in all runs except the "net transfers" run in Cedar Campground. The regression coefficient values were not extremely high in any of the runs. Also, the values of the two dummy vari- ables were very close to each other. This meant that the campers would accept a campsite having less than four sides being surrounded by adjacent sites. Lgkg was very significant, but was not subject to test in the individual campground analyses. Showers appeared to be most significant in Cedar Campground than in the other two campgrounds regarding "occupancy rate." It was much less significant in the Pines Campground, and was not significant at all in 94 Beechwood Campground. In "net transfers" it was deleted in every run; nobody cares about moving just for the shower facility. Toilets was deleted in every run except in Cedar Campground in the "occupancy rate" run which was combined into the variable of "showers." Drinking water was not significant at all. This should be a result of good distribution of drinking fountains in the campgrounds. Playground appeared to be significant in Beechwood and Cedar Campgrounds for "occupancy rate,‘ and in the Pines Campground for "net transfers." However, the data were explained that the greater distance a campsite is from the playground, the higher "occupancy rate" it is likely to have. The last chapter will make conclusions from the results presented in this chapter, and some recommendations will be derived from the conclusions. CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The conclusions and recommendations are made pri- marily from the results of the analysis of the combined data for the three campgrounds except where specified. This study was conducted at Ludington State Park, Michigan, in the 1970 camping season, therefore, the statements in this chapter are only applicable to this park for this period. It is the author's hope that the conclusions and recommendations may be helpful in considering camping at other locations. However, due to the fact that research concerning this tOpic has been limited, all the results in this study must be looked at as tentative, and subject to discussion and revision. Conclusions Hypothesis 1. Some of the selected campsite characteristics do exert a significant influence upon the observed camper preferences for the campsites at Ludington State Park, and in the three campgrounds. 95 96 Dependent Variables 2. "Occupancy rate" is the best indicator of camper preference for a particular site, even in rela- tively crowded campgrounds. The significant camp- site characteristics can explain 64 per cent of the variance in the "occupancy rate." The other three camper preference variables, "transfers-in," "transfers-out," and "net transfers," explained 11 per cent, 24 per cent, and 27 per cent, re- spectively. "Occupancy rate" can be properly predicted by the campsite characteristics. Independent Variables in Park Ana1ysis 4. "Drainage," "lake," "capacity," "neighbors," and "ground cover" appear to be significant charac- teristics in camper selection of sites: a. A poor drainage is detrimental; a medium drainage is acceptable; however, a good drain- age is more desirable. A campsite should not be flooded for a durable period of time. b. The inland lake is slightly preferred over the Great Lake, but at Ludington State Park there is a possibility of bias in that the inland lake is closer to one campground than the Great Lake is to the other. Data strongly 97 suggested that the campers want to be close to water as much as possible. c. Campsites with a large capacity are very much preferred; those with a medium capacity by Ludington standard are satisfactory. A small campsite is not liked by trailer campers, but still can accommodate a tent. d. Campers do not like to be completely sur- rounded by adjacent campsites; however, they do not urge to be isolated from other campers. Having neighbors on three or less than three sides is preferred. In the loop layout, the campsites outside the 100p are preferred to those inside the loop. e. Solid ground is essential for a campsite; campers do not care much whether it has grass cover or not. Access to "showers" is a desirable campsite charac- teristic. Some distance from "playgrounds" is slightly preferred. "Topography" and "tree cover" do not appear to be significant campsite characteristics in either the analysis of the campgrounds combined or in the individual campground analyses, with the exception that "topography" has some significance in Beech- wood Campground where there is probably more variance of this characteristic. 98 The deletion of access to "toilets" and "drinking water" may indicate that the quality and distri- bution of these facilities are satisfactory in the campgrounds at Ludington State Park. Independent Variables in Campground Analyses 8. 10. ll. Fewer campsite characteristics are shown to be significant in the individual campground analyses than in the park analysis. In the individual campground analyses, these independent variables explain the camper preference variables less satisfactorily. "Capacity,' "neighbors,' and "topography" are the significant variables in Beechwood Campground. Remoteness to "playgrounds" is the only significant variable measured by distance. "Ground cover" and "drainage" are significant variables in Cedar Campground. The variable "neighbors" is significant for "occupancy rate," but has no influence on transfer actions. Access to "showers" and "toilets,' and remoteness to "playgrounds" are significant only for "occupancy rate,‘ too. "Capacity" and "neighbors" are significant vari- ables in the Pines Campground. Access to "showers" and "drinking water,‘ plus remoteness to 99 "playgrounds" are significant variables measured by distance. Recommendations Dependent Variables 1. It is recommended that "occupancy rate" be used as an index of camper preference in selecting campsites in Michigan state parks. In extreme cases, such as an "occupancy rate" even higher than the campgrounds in Ludington State Park, "net transfers" could be applied in order to serve as supporting evidence. It is not realistic to use "transfers-in" and "transfers-out" as camper preference variables. Independent Variables 2. It is recommended that different approaches to quantification of the variables be tested in future research of this nature. Examples of possible improvements are: a. Change the trichotomous scaling into more precise measures: Capacity-~square foot. Topography--foot. Tree cover--percentage and species. Ground cover—-percentage of grass and soil type. 100 Drainage--average number of days flooded. Neighbors--5-1evel scale counting number of adjacent campsites, plus distance measure- ments. Lake--distance in feet. b. The variables presently measured by "distance- in-feet" may be simplified and turned into trichotomous scales if some standards could be established. The statistics on the four vari- ables concerning accesses to facilities in Appendix III may have some clues to a solution. It is recommended that future research include concentration on less variables with which problems were experienced, in order to conclusively estab- lish relationships between variables. For example, One tOpic could be about the questionable findings on "tree cover" in this study. Distance in feet to water body is another interesting tOpic; there may be a significant difference in this variable from campsite to campsite; in the present study the distance to the lakes was very roughly measured. It is recommended that other less deve10ped camp- grounds with greater differences in quality and access to modern facilities be examined. The present model failed in establishing relationships 101 between camper preferences and some of the modern facilities. Laundry is absent in the park; electric outlets are fairly uniform to each camp- site. "Toilets" and "drinking water" that did appear in the model turned out to be insignifi- cant. Camper Demand 5. It is recommended that a large quantity of infor- mation on camper demand be acquired in order to establish a state-wide or nation—wide "campsite characteristics checklist" by modifying the design of variables and measurements in this study. Campsite Grading System 6. It is recommended that "estimated occupancy rates" be used in a percentage grading system for evalu- ating campsites. A simplification of this in terms of a letter grading system may be more functional and could assist campers in choosing their campsites (see Appendix II). Improvement of Model 7. It is recommended that in future studies the interactions of the independent variables be con- sidered, in order to produce a model with an improved "goodness of fit." 102 It is recommended that higher powers of measure— ments on the distance-to-facility variables be included in future studies, in order to test the possibility of a quadratic fit to the data. Application of Results 9. It is recommended that the differential effects of the independent variables upon the dependent variables be tentatively applied on campground design. The following are a few examples that might be derived from the park analysis on the "occupancy rate" run: a. The Optimum economical return of a campground could be obtained at its design stage through the application of regression coefficients of "capacity" as percentage increase of "occupancy rate." b. It may not be necessary to plant grass in campgrounds. The analyses show that "ground cover 2" (grassy) was either deleted or not preferred than a bare and solid ground cover. c. Avoid the damp areas and choose high and dry land for campground location. The results show that a good drainage is most significant to a campsite. d. At least leave one side of every campsite Open. Therefore, in the loop design, the number of 103 campsites inside the loop may have to be reduced, in order to save some Open space for better camping experience. Otherwise, dis- card the loop layout and use other designs to avoid four—side-surrounded campsites. Campsites should have a lake view or access to water body if it is possible, for a water- front is very desirable to a campsite. The effect of every lO-foot unit from each campsite to facilities may hint the prOper locations of restrooms, drinking fountains, and playgrounds. It is desirable to have a buffer zone between the "playground" and the rest of the camp- ground; the analyses showed a slight tendency to keep away from the playgrounds. Future Research 10. It is too early to be confident about the results from this study and make any definite recommen- dations. Very little research has dealt with the similar topic. Therefore, the last recommendation is that more campsite attraction research be conducted, in order to better design the camp- grounds and better serve the campers. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Books Cardwell, Paul, Jr. America's Camping Book. New York: Charles ScribnefTs Sons, 1969. Clawson, Marion, and Knetsch, Jack L. Economics of Outdoor Recreation. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, Resources for the Future, Inc., 1966. Irwin, Frank L. The Theory of Camping. New York: A. S. Barnes and Company, 1950. Ise, John. Our National Park Policy--a Critical History. Baltimore: The Johns HOpkins Press, Resources for the Future, Inc., 1961. Mendenhall, William. Introduction to Probability and Statistics. 2nd ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1968. . Introduction to Linear Models and the Design and Analysis of Experiments. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Company, Inc., 1968. Spurr, William A., and Bonini, Charles P. Statistical Analysis for Business Decisions. Homewood, Ill.: Richard D. Irwin, Inc., 1967. Articles Tomek, William G. "Using Zero-One Variables with Time Series Data in Regression Equations." Journal of Farm Economics, XLV, No. 4 (November, 1963). Public Documents Kaplan, David. "Ludington State Park." Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, n.d. 104 105 Michigan Department of Natural Resources. "Ludington State Park." Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, n.d. . "State Park Camp Permits." "Turn Away Data." "Camp Site Data." Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Natural Resources, 1961-1970. (Mimeograph.) National Park Service. "Public Use of the National Parks." Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1962-1970. U.S. Forest Service. "Report of the Chief." Washington, D.C.: U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1940, 1941, 1945, 1949, 1950, 1960- 1969. Reports Chubb, Michael. "Recreation Use Surveys and the Ignored Majority." Paper presented at the State Planning Workshop on "User Preference Studies and 'Demand' . Analyses" sponsored by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Ann Arbor, Michigan, March 23—25, 1971. Cieslinski, Thomas J., and Wagar, J. Alan. "Predicting the Durability of Forest Recreation Sites in Northern Utah-~Pre1iminary Results." Research Note INT-117, Intermountain Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, 1970. Cordell, Harold K., and Talhelm, Daniel R. "Planting Grass Appears Impractical for Improving Deterior— ated Recreation Sites." Research Note SE-105, Southeastern Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, 1969. (James, George A., and Cordell, Harold K. "Importance of Shading to Visitors Selecting a Campsite at Indian Boundary Campground in Tennessee." Research Note SE-130, Southeastern Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Service, 1970. Kelley, Robert W. "Michigan's Sand Dunes--A Geologic Sketch." Lansing, Mich.: Michigan Department of Conservation, 1962. Ludington State Park. "Park Manager's Weekly Report." Ludington, Mich.: 1968-1970. (File) 106 Michigan State University and Michigan Department of Conservation. "Michigan State Park Camper Study." East Lansing, Michigan, 1967. (Manuscript) Michigan State University. LS: Calculation of Least Squares (Regression) Problems on the LS Routine. STAT Series Description No. 7. East Lansing, Mich.: Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1969. Michigan State University. LSDEL: Stepwise Deletion of Variables from a Least Squares Equation. STAT Series Description No. 8. East Lansing, Mich.: Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1969. Van Doren, Carlton S. "Destination Models: DeveIOpment of a Camping Attraction Index for Michigan State Parks." In Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand Study, Technical Report Number 6. East Lansing, Mich.: Department of Resource Development, Michi- gan State University, 1966. Wagar, J. Alan. The Carrying Capacity of Wild Lands for Recreation. Forest Science Monograph. n.p.: The Society of American Foresters, 1964. Theses Crapo, Douglas Melvin. "Recreational Activity Choice and Weather: The Significance of Various Weather Perceptions and Influencing Preference for Selected Recreational Activities in Michigan State Parks." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Hodgson, Ronald Wayne. "Campground Features Attractive to Michigan State Park Campers." Unpublished M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, 1971. La Pointe, David Anthony. "Socio—economic and Behavioral Characteristic Differences Between Campers and Day-users in Southern Michigan State Parks." Unpublished M.S. thesis, Michigan State University, 1970. Lime, David W. "A Spatial Analysis of Auto-camping in the Superior National Forest of Minnesota: Models of Campground Selection Behavior." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pittsburgh, 1969. 107 Van Doren, Carlton S. "An Interaction Travel Model for Projecting Attendance of Campers at Michigan State Parks: A Study in Recreation Geography." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. APPENDICES APPENDIX I CAMPER INTERVIEWS APPENDIX I CAMPER INTERVIEWS Two hundred camper groups were interviewed at Ludington state park campgrounds from August 20 to September 6, 1970. The design of the camper interview was kept simple deliberately. The main objective was to identify the "most frequently mentioned campsite charac- teristics" as described in Chapter III. The interviews were all done by the author. In most of the cases, the questions were asked exactly as printed on the schedule in order to reduce personal bias. However, the interviews ranged from five minutes to more than two hours and often turned into friendly campfire talks or sunny afternoon conversations. All the campers were receptive to the interviewer. The fact that the interviews were conducted ”late in the season for a period of two weeks may have resulted in some bias. The sampling was more or less evenly distributed in all parts of the campgrounds. Background Information As noted before, no effort was made to examine the campers' background. Nevertheless, the following 108 109 information has been collected as to provide possible clues concerning the validity of the interviews. Egu1pment The majority of the camping groups came by car; out of the 200 interviewed, 34 had two cars, and the rest had one car; 26 had a car-top boat, 27 had brought a trailer boat. The camping equipment used by the 200 groups includes 83 tents, 69 tent trailers, 11 pickups, 5 vans, 37 small trailers, 12 big trailers, and one group using only sleeping bags. (The total number of items is more than 200 since some of the groups use more than one kind.) Approximately three-fourths of the campers used either a tent or a tent trailer. Respondents The survey design did not specify which member of a group was to be interviewed. Instead, the author approached the campers and allowed the conversation to develop in a natural manner. This resulted in 130 husbands, 78 wives, 6 children, and 12 in other classi- fications being interviewed. (The latter group consisted of those who were not typical family camping units; usually these were parties of friends.) Sometimes more than one person participated in answering the questions. 110 Size and Composition of Camping Groups Table 17 shows the structure of the camping groups included in this survey. Camping group size ranged from one to ten persons. The majority of the groups had be- tween two and six persons. Of the parties consisting entirely of adults, more than three-fourths had two adults, and many of these were husbands and wives camping together. The majority of the groups which had children contained less than four persons, which is in the usual average size range for families. Qpestions and Answers Eight questions were asked. They consist of both Open and closed types. In the case of the open-ended questions, the campers were allowed to say as much as they wanted in reply and their responses were grouped under apprOpriate classifications either in advance or during the coding process. In the following pages, the pattern of responses to the various questions will be summarized. The figure before each item is the number of camping groups which responded in that particular way. Question 1. "Did you have a choice of your campsite? Who made the choice?" 95--No choice 73--Husband 111 TABLE 17.-—Size and combination of 200 camping groups in Ludington State Park in 1970 camping season. Size of Groups Group Combination Persons Number Adults in Number Persons Number in Camp- of Camping of ggdgzmgi of lng Group Groups Group Groups ing Group Groups 0 3 0 34 l 2 1 10 1 30 2 28 2 159 2 54 3 28 3 10 3 31 4 53 4 15 4 29 5 36 5 2 5 9 6 26 6 1 6 6 7 10 7 -- 7 5 8 8 8 -- 8 2 9 6 9 -- 9 -— 10 3 10 -- 10 -- 112 33--Wife 12--Others 5--Ranger l--Children Approximately a half of the campers did not have a choice of campsite, because the interviews were done in late August and early September when the camp was full. The 95 "no choice" respondents also include those who only had very few campsites from which to choose. Among those who had choices, the husband made the choice in most cases. Rangers made very few campsite selection decisions for campers. Question 2. "Are you satisfied with your campsite? Did you move from another campsite, or do you intend to move out?" 184--Satisfied 16--Unsatisfied 28--Moved in 4--Intend to move out Regardless of the fact that a half of the campers did not have a choice of campsite, nine out of ten were satisfied with their campsites. This could indicate that generally the campsites are in good shape. Sixteen groups were not satisfied with their campsites, but only four groups intended to move out. This illustrates the hesi- tation of the campers to move, thus transfers may be a 113 very strong indicator of camper preferences; on the other hand, the range of transfer figures may not be wide enough to reflect the camper preferences. Question 3. "What features would you look for in choosing your campsite?" This question was used to identify the signifi- cant campsite characteristic variables as described in Chapter III. Question 4. "What types of recreation activities have you undertaken, or do you plan to undertake, during your stay in this park?" 159--Swimming 129--Trail hiking 89--Fishing 48--Boating 18--Relaxing 18--Ball playing 15--Dune walking 13—-Biking 11—-Naturalist's program 10--Campfire Other activities with less than ten responses were: walking, going downtown, girl watching, sunbathing, dune rides, motorcycling, visiting the dam, reading, feeding squirrels, playing cards, group singing, drinking, 114 picnicking, caring for children, meeting people, star observation, going to the fair, surfing, campground tour- ing, photography, diving, running, visiting the lighthouse, watching holiday fireworks, and "surfing" on the sand dunes. It is clear that water-oriented activities, swim— ming, fishing, and boating, were most pOpular. Trail hiking was the next most important activity. Qgestion 5. "Would you prefer to be near other campers or away from them?" 55--Near 78--Medium 71—-Away This question was designed to determine camper preferences for the relative distance between campsites. The three classes used are very roughly defined. The distances to adjacent campers are psychological rather than in actual measures. The results show the campers had no definite preference on this item. Question 6. "Would you rather like your campsite to be sunny or shady?" 27--Sunny 96--Medium 81--Shady About half of the campers liked a half sun and a half shade on their campsites. Two-fifths preferred the 115 campsite to be mostly or completely shaded. The rest, a little more than one out of every ten, liked the campsite in the sun. Question 7. "Please choose from the pictures which campsite you would prefer?" Five color prints made from 35mm Kodachrome trans- parencies of some typical views from campsites at Ludington State Park were chosen to test visual preferences. Each view had one main feature as listed below. The pictures ranged from a confined man—made view to an open scene by gradual steps in the following order. The order of the pictures were changed at random as the interviews went along. 5--Campsite with restroom close by 15--Other campsites in background 30--Nearby hill in background 43--Deep woods in background 122-—View of a lake This question revealed that the campers preferred an Open scenic View to a confined view dominated by man— made objects. Question 8. "Do you have any suggestions and comments concerning this park?" The answers were generally directed to park improvements as a whole, however, some did concern 116 campground design. When the answers refer to a particular section in the campgrounds, this is noted in parentheses on the following list. Suggestions and comments on a particular campsite are not included. Items mentioned by less than three groups are omitted. 55--It is a nice park. 21—-It is too crowded; need expansion of the camping facilities. l4--Need better or cleaner restrooms. ll--The restrooms are clean. 11--Need better ground cover, more grass. 8--Need firewood supply in campgrounds. 8--Need more showers in campground restrooms. 8--The campground is too wet. (West loop in Cedar) 8-—Need insect spraying. 6--Need more hot water. 6--Need more sinks in restrooms. 6—-The individual showers (rather than gang showers elsewhere) are good. (South Pines restroom) 6--Need more boat ramps. (Lake Michigan, Lost Lake, and Big Sable River. The only boat ramp in the park is on Hamlin Lake.) 5--Ban the motorcycles and minibikes in campgrounds. 5--Too much noise made by fellow campers in campgrounds. 4—-Need shower doors or curtains. (South Beechwood restroom) 117 4--Need better design for restrooms. 4--Michigan parks for Michigan people first; raise the out-of-state fees. 4—-Need water hookups. 3--Want to be able to get a better choice of campsite. 3--The campsite allocation priority system is fair. 3--Need more playgrounds in the campgrounds. 3--Need sewer hookups. 3—-The trails are good. 3--Need 5-mi1e-an—hour speed limit signs in campgrounds. 3--Need a line-up sign at front gate. (When the campgrounds are full, the park policy allows turned-away campers to stay in their vehicles overnight outside the front gate in line for the next day's opening.) 3--The electric outlets are too far away in some campsites. 3--Clean the foliage on the ground. 3--Need more screening between campsites for privacy. APPENDIX II TABLES OF VALUES FOR CAMPER PREFERENCES AND CAMPSITE CHARACTERISTICS VARIABLES, ESTIMATED OCCUPANCY RATES AND GRADES APPENDIX II TABLES 0F VALUES FDR CAMPER PREFERENCES AND CAMPSITE CHARACTERISTICS VARIABLES. ESTIMATED OCCUPANCY RATES AND GRADES. ovouo Axucannuuov m vcsoumaadm noun: neaxeaue nuoHHOH ouozosm «so; ouonguquz ouncHuua uo>ou vaaouc uo>oo noun ace-uncaOH yuan-gnu unoauuouonuuh :HIouou-cuuh Du: hoc¢93660 to: ouHunlqu 87.12 65 as” 25 25 65 as as ss 67R 63R 39! 073‘ 431 87 65 87 87.61 85 39! 88 81 85.25 95 115 I65 235 35R I95 235 87.99 82.06 80.05 35! 195 86 81 155 318 I55 318 83 86.73 23R 22R ZS IS 28 155 27R 115 238 92 85.51 27! 115 23R 95 90 87.39 81.61 23R 26R 10 11 88.06 82.06 92.83 87.76 75 35 33R 30R 19R 75 198 I2 35 25 35 13 I6 15 I6 17 18 I9 20 21 39R 35 125 35 125 90 91 368 8 8 A 88.26 38R 62R 50! 55R 66R 69R 95 95 88 86 81 88.63 15 75 55 55 55 105 75 65 75 65 85 93.16 88.79 85 A 92.66 88.09 86.62 75 125 75 125 92 91 58R 53R 51! 85 I25 85 125 22 23 88.68 115 77 86 87.81 115 I75 I65 205 175 I65 205 26 25 26 27 87.78 67R 63R 68R 69R ZS 93 91.00 83.97 79 78 IS ZS IOS I65 I65 83.89 83.61 155 235 295 155 235 295 28 29 37R 31R 26R 78 88 89.67 65 35 65 75 35 25 86.85 86.66 365 365 81 31 20! 605 265 215 215 135 235 605 82 32 86.06 95 115 57R 10 83 33 36 85.18 59R 83 82.23 19R 56R 87 35 81.73 18R 26R 56R 70 89 36 37 86.27 75 56R 82.08 82.90 18R 21R 155 53R 67R 78 83 38 39 65 165 R 0 Distance by road in lO-foot unitl. a b .S - Straight distance in lO-foot unitl. 1.1.53 119 ovmuu Axucaaauuov m vcaounhuam you-3 uawxafiua .uodioa auuabzm 0:14 uuonnuuoz awocudun APPENDIX 11 (can'd) uu>oo vasouu uo>oo soak hzndquGOH Auauonqo uaonuuou-n-uh nan-uuucauuh Iudl hucnasuuo 0°: cud-aliu C 79.29 83.88 80.03 278 678 205 95 628 628 76 82 60 61 318 75 55 105 125 318 368 175 105 81 62 63 81.70 86.66 378 83 368 35 105 165 378 328 92 66 65 66 67 85.66 81.59 86.69 618 618 105 165 105 76 68 88 87 55 328 255 255 205 678 55 55 82.61 668 165 135 68 69 87.27 528 25 82 8 8 8 8 8 C 8 87.39 86“, 528 185 255 275 195 10 93 298 125 568 51 368 83.05 105 528 678 628 698 52 87.68 88.07 398 65 295 7“ 96 53 56 55 668 35 65 285 235 275 225 91 79.33 368 87 698 89.35 35 368 93 86.27 618 628 90 96 57 86.33 558 698 78 275 225 285 318 58 59 60 61 8 A 8 8 8 85.05 388 265 82 90.95 608 96 82 85.79 538 658 225 55 115 338 225 87.77 225 93 62 82.69 88.60 83.31 588 698 65 215 308 83 63 185 95 225 185 265 165 96 66 618 65 95 96 65 88.79 678 658 I65 98 99 66 67 8 A A 81.09 93.71 195 65 105 I95 115 678 115 68 69 96.10 718 75 65 95 95 11 99 99 93 A 96.26 758 95 95 10 70 71 90.86 838 878 928 96R 1088 1018 1128 1068 1168 1128 1218 1178 1258 1238 75 35 35 65 85 I35 85 135 A A A 8 A A 8 A 93.53 92 72 73 76 75 76 77 78 79 93.16 185 238 185 238 82 92.71 95 93 88.65 358 155 278 358 278 398 11 92.63 85 125 96 91.66 87.85 91.16 398 97 105 115 338 638 388 688 668 338 638 97 10 96 95 8 A 8 A 83.65 65 388 688 668 90.75 105 100 81 86.99 65 95 99 96 82 91.28 82.79 518 698 518 698 83 65 ovuuo Axon-aauuov n vasouuacau nous: nauac.ua .uo~.o~ uuoaozm ...; nuonguuoa ouncnaua APPENDIX 11 (con'd) uo>ou vascuo uu»ou coup unnauuoaOH huuouanu uaonououuaduh can-qu-cauh can: bucqnauuo .oz euuosI-u 83.73 83.73 1238 1238 1188 1178 1168 1138 1108 618 35 1098 618 618 618 87 85 86 378 35 378 368 87 87.93 88.28 368 86 55 55 328 328 79 95 88.36 318 318 90 91 85.66 88.66 28R 65 298 288 298 105 75 82 92 85.02 1058 1058 1018 1018 65 95 268 268 93 88.87 268 268 208 95 96 85.33 65 208 208 91 95 96 97 75 89.18 55 208 92 89.69 978 978 968 168 168 93 89.69 75 75 168 168 125 92 98 99 8 100 8 101 8 102 8 103 I 106 8 105 8 106 8 107 8 108 8 109 8 110 8 111 8 112 8 113 8 116 8 115 8 116 8 117 90.07 125 96 96 91 96.00 91.79 91.18 91.61 878 1298 1298 1298 1278 1268 1238 1208 1218 1178 1188 1128 95 688 678 658 638 608 95 688 678 658 638 A A A A A 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 75 75 93 85 105 115 91.57 91.81 87.69 88.15 89 89 75 95 608 608 87 378 378 378 92 87.97 75 65 378 338 358 298 86 85 88.51 338 88.08 85 358 90 92 88.78 25 35 25 298 88.32 1158 1088 1128 328 258 298 328 258 91 89.09 88.55 92 298 85 89.33 1058 1108 1038 1068 1008 228 65 228 91 8 A 88.83 268 268 93.33 208 85 208 90 77 96 8 A 86.07 35 105 238 165 238 165 10 8 118 8 119 8 120 8 121 96.61 A A 93.72 988 65 155 155 165 155 155 165 89 82 92.20 598 15 25 588 618 508 81 8 122 A 8 A 8 8 8 93.83 85 85 155 85 155 91 8 123 8 126 83.93 25 72 92 75 578 92.71 65 105 105 8 125 88.55 558 658 528 125 125 96 8 126 8 127 83.03 95 25 I75 215 85 87.85 15 65 175 368 85 8 128 8 129 85.09 388 65 9O 121 APPENDIX 11 (con'd) occuu Awusaauuov u vcaouumuum been: ocuxcuua Influaou. cacaonm all; ouoazuuon cutaway: nobou anyone 60560 0069 ngauunOAOH suaucnuu uaonnuou-aquh cutnuou-nduh ouqu yon-anuuo 0°: sea-Allu 86.60 86.82 508 165 278 83 8 130 8 131 8 132 8 133 8 136 8 135 8 136 8 137 I 138 8 139 8 160 8 161 8 162 8 163 8 166 8 165 668 25 125 95 308 608 79 82 86.62 338 288 238 55 8 C 8 87.68 95 55 658 86 85 78.78 87.16 65 508 528 228 65 85 125 88 91 85.86 81.33 198 65 568 115 198 55 598 638 85 75 35 65 238 278 86 80.90 95 608 568 668 85.95 35 178 218 125 318 92 86.05 87.91 86.88 65 668 82 15 398 398 85 278 328 368 368 85 8 8 A A 85.78 35 105 288 255 225 215 215 258 288 255 225 215 215 258 318 90 83 86.37 388 638 698 90.76 95 86 8 166 8 167 91.11 55 25 87.50 558 698 79 76 87 8 168 8 169 8 150 8 151 8 152 8 153 8 156 I 155 8 156 8 157 8 158 8 159 8 160 8 161 8 162 I 163 8 166 8 165 8 166 8 167 8 168 8 169 8 170 8 171 8 172 8 173 8 176 3! A 90.63 638 318 378 138 198 258 225 205 378 378 378 378 318 86 85 8 C 8 8 89.26 318 378 378 78.73 258 205 86 81 85.69 318 89.66 185 318 398 318 96 86.99 268 285 398 93 88.60 82.86 82.38 83.58 86.16 268 285 275 235 618 618 618 92 258 208 618 378 378 86 I65 318 I65 318 85 I78 125 378 205 388 378 86 65 78.86 175 388 65 358 95 358 368 88 79 86 8 C 83.79 55 368 78.81 86.50 89.62 308 65 65 308 8 8 C 8 55 105 308 75 115 308 87 278 268 278 268 92 76.99 86.29 115 105 17S 78 89 93 188 198 198 87.06 91.15 198 188 228 198 198 A 238 278 318 125 125 96 8 A 88.05 268 75 35 65 75 35 83 93.25 308 89.66 608 398 65 77 122 cacao Ahucaaauuov u vcaouuhnah noun: uaflxcgua ouoquH ouuaoam 0:64 .uoa;.«oz ouununun APPENDIX 11 (con'd) av»ou vasouu uo>au yank agnuquAOH undo-ado uflOlIhOuahH can-uouoa-ua «and sundaauuo .oz «nu-also 86.32 658 658 105 668 105 115 85 8 175 8 176 8 177 89.01 65 115 155 698 83.25 15 155 73 D C C D C C C D C C 67.16 298 355 95 355 78 76 71 71.63 77.63 66.76 368 335 55 325 335 325 388 618 638 678 508 35 255 315 285 255 67 77.01 73.67 35 315 285 255 215 235 55 13 71.18 68.62 85 255 215 235 76 78 698 65 125 78.62 558 76.89 75.89 69.56 568 185 215 185 215 69 66 10 11 95 D C C 588 668 115 165 215 165 76 71 12 13 16 15 16 17 70.16 65 65 215 71.76 638 688 155 155 155 175 265 155 155 155 175 265 205 10 75 87 25 25 ”.05 738 788 798 76 75 72 72.09 73.16 55 C C C D 65 105 115 18 19 20 21 72.79 79.08 69.79 828 205 275 868 275 265 72 155 165 265 77 75 71 81 C 75.07 66.60 305 305 22 23 26 25 26 27 968 968 1008 105 135 285 365 285 365 C D C D C 72.92 69.32 55 105 325 325 73 76 76.66 68.07 998 375 365 375 15 75 65 365 72 76 76 85 77.28 76.28 615 615 635 605 28 29 C C D D 858 635 605 77.51 68.22 838 25 758 798 335 365 335 365 68 70 87 31 68.26 35 32 33 72.30 758 65.66 55 55 335 285 335 285 295 D C 708 71 72.61 68.89 718 658 658 75 105 295 35 265 265 88 86 C 72.96 69.09 69.39 265 265 115 215 205 37 D D D 618 155 155 165 215 205 83 38 39 60 61 608 78 86 175 568 66.60 155 I75 155 8 80.08 558 135 86 123 APPENDIX 11 (con'd) ovnuo naucdaauuov u teacun>¢~m noun: ucfixcuua ..ofldoa ouoabsm 0x14 uuonzuuoz undeauua uo>cu vascuu uo>ou oouh nan-quAOH unauqnnu uaonouom-uauh nus-uuuncuuh flu: rucdnnuuo 8°: ouuunliu C C C C C D C D C D C 75.20 79.51 678 678 628 378 365 135 125 115 135 115 76 82 62 85 63 79.55 75 75 95 95 95 83 66 76.60 95 95 77 81 65 66 67 73.28 68.76 115 115 165 155 195 225 315 265 29S 95 165 73 73 72 70.20 68.07 85 155 195 225 68 69 50 51 65 76.29 63.60 73.56 77.06 72.53 67.78 225 285 225 55 86 265 275 295 265 275 295 69 71 55 105 165 165 52 195 165 68 53 C D D C C 335 315 335 315 285 265 255 76 77 56 105 55 66.06 76.31 65 85 95 285 265 255 215 165 125 65 56 57 58 59 60 61 105 12 78 66 68 71.26 68.30 71.95 68.69 55 125 155 185 185 225 225 275 35 16 65 215 C D D 55 65 165 65 125 16 56 69.35 165 65 165 66 65 62 C C C C C 70.05 72.70 72.89 70.13 85 85 125 125 85 125 125 135 115 63 95 115 66 69 66 65 358 608 95 135 66 66 67 70.39 55.80 55.56 71.” 55.17 115 115 165 205 235 255 63 F E 618 678 55 165 205 235 255 62 68 69 55 125 63 528 63 70 71 F D D D D 528 75 155 115 56 65 68.88 66.72 578 318 318 72 588 628 328 328 55 58 61 73 76 75 76 77 66.66 66.33 66.25 175 165 368 368 638 678 688 378 618 638 668 378 618 135 11 60 51 P 53.68 53.71 95 638 668 688 F D D 728 85 65 53 63 78 79 63.67 768 688 67.16 798 55 538 538 578 618 538 538 59 69 51 F F E D D D 52.96 56.31 798 15 35 16 81 738 698 578 618 525 82 55.69 65.53 25 13 67 83 638 678 638 525 39 69 86 60.86 555 35 525 555 85 65.76 55 525 63 86 124 ovauu Axundanuuov m vcaouquam you-3 unuxcuua nu0~u0h aboaozm 83 unansuuoz unacucun APPENDIX 11 (con'd) uo>oo vcaouu wobou oouh announoaou undo-nae anon-noucaaua caucuou-CGDH «aux zucaaauuo Ioz vuwnaldu D D C D C D 69.96 608 75 65 105 685 665 665 615 605 685 665 665 12 62 87 66.08 70.23 598 67 88 558 65 56 69 67 66.67 568 95 165 615 90 91 70.56 518 698 605 63.90 70.86 67.17 165 125 105 365 365 92 678 658 638 618 365 365 65 93 D D P C D D P D E D 325 325 335 275 285 235 265 63 96 68.10 85 335 275 285 235 265 67 95 56.51 55 35 15 25 57 96 97 71.66 66.92 388 368 63 63 98 99 C 100 C 101 C 102 C 103 68.69 328 69 57 55.05 66.72 318 288 278 228 195 195 26S 65 265 58 52 56 55.02 66.69 185 55 265 185 265 16 P D 56.82 68.16 228 95 125 185 265 185 265 185 265 58 62 C 106 C 105 C 106 C 107 C 108 C 109 C 110 C 111 C 112 178 168 17 F 50.76 95 185 265 55 10 66.61 66. 128 85 66 D D D C 118 65 55 195 195 265 56 68 66 67.63 67.18 105 125 265 215 215 265 71.16 65 63.86 135 35 265 82 I75 175 72 83.69 728 688 678 678 638 368 125 368 69 83.27 308 308 76 78 77 83.70 65 268 238 208 268 .05 86.25 55 238 208 8 C 78 76 80 76 80 70 80 218 578 79.82 618 218 52 80.22 75 25 105 178 178 138 178 558 178 88.76 598 138 128 80.65 518 75 85 128 10 89.27 578 678 85 85 80.96 55 65 85 85 87 12 I3 16 15 I6 17 18 86.62 558 628 55 55 78 93 86.61 85 35 85 56 86.17 388 35 65 95 115 165 95 115 165 79 81 368 8 C 80.71 308 55 80 225 75.86 185 35 185 12 86 125 (cun'd) APPENDIX 11 ovuuu A>6:665uuov m vascuwhnam uouan 6:358 .uoflgoa auoaonm 33 982302 ouccaaua uo>ou vasouo uo>oo ouuw azaqquQOH huauqaqu anon-uouonlua nun-wouucnua Quad aucmasuuo Aoz cud-gliu 8 C 88.17 285 205 275 185 255 185 265 165 105 I65 88 87 19 20 21 79.28 86.93 35 95 215 185 215 185 268 83 81.57 8 65 105 268 66 90 22 86.26 238 318 238 23 26 80.98 65 65 318 71 85 85.87 268 268 25 80.63 185 265 185 285 318 25 368 91 26 27 8 C C 318 15 82.17 25 378 318 71 71.71 378 70 86 28 29 76.79 76.06 79.68 79.61 35 65 388 388 618 658 688 205 215 235 255 338 71 3O 31 32 C C C C 55 25 308 72 67 268 238 79.02 79.55 m. 21 15 55 105 528 75 72 85 83 33 36 35 36 295 228 558 528 568 178 578 618 79.90 95 95 C C 8 8 C C 79.59 608 55 55 658 688 37 76.63 82.73 82.62 638 698 65 55 55 76 73 81 35 25 125 768 39 60 61 738 908 65 268 788 958 988 1028 1068 77.26 72.20 71 85 938 978 85 268 67 62 65 308 1 71 93 63 80.38 998 1028 1068 1038 1058 65 65 15 25 338 368 66 65 66 67 C C D C C C 73.35 76.15 1078 1098 1 11 85 378 358 388 628 638 338 398 76 65 65.70 1088 1108 1038 1098 1 1 1 75.36 73 58 89 63 68 69 50 51 71.81 76.15 988 1068 1058 1118 1008 35 65 65 85 12 C C C C C C C D C C C C C 71.97 75.57 1068 1108 1028 1108 1098 1 1 1 1 16 76 73 87 52 72.01 318 53 76.31 1078 1038 998 55 35 25 105 398 56 79.22 388 55 79.07 76.96 66.83 388 218 258 288 288 1098 1 76 76 59 72 68 60 7O 73 80 56 57 928 928 968 998 968 998 85 58 59 60 61 70.66 65 55 35 35 65 105 77.12 998 1038 978 938 908 998 1038 1068 1128 1168 71.36 71.50 75.37 328 1 1 1 16 358 12 62 398 63 C 75.01 368 1 66 126 ovnno Amucqaauuov m venouuaqmm noun: mcfixciuo ouu~HOH auoaocm m m 9.3 H muonzwdoz x w m «macaque H A h0>00 vGQOMU uo>oo oops hcauuu0309 xuuuanau uflOllhOuOCflhP cauououucauh ouox zucaaauuo 0°70 ouunaluu C 76.19 758 165 55 998 70 86 65 80.03 758 195 65 998 66 C C 79.70 708 15 35 135 165 968 958 73 91 67 75.81 80.05 728 678 688 628 668 68 69 95 908 68 71 C C C C 76.12 135 25 918 70 71 72.60 76.66 85 65 125 868 71 35 878 808 72 76.98 80.68 578 608 85 65 135 125 73 81 73 76 75 95 115 868 81.83 80.87 528 768 79 75 76 77 558 155 798 81.11 528 165 165 768 73 77 86 86 97 78.30 82. 688 155 135 105 175 728 698 628 615 78 79 80 81 668 185 155 235 265 C 8 8 79.28 81.93 82.12 638 285 265 85 65 585 85 82 C 8 C C C 76.83 82.55 378 205 185 55 265 575 535 695 78 86 83 25 25 86 76.10 175 228 285 265 88 65 85 76.07 695 165 79.29 55 65 85 315 285 665 655 92 87 38 73.86 79.65 77.97 80.06 195 79 78 82 125 335 635 C C 175 105 155 305 75 115 625 605 90 91 36S 75 128 335 375 355 385 375 79 93 92 C 79.85 80.36 75 165 93 75 105 355 79 92 96 31 76.82 78 135 355 355 95 C 75 65 325 325 75 89 96 78 81.16 80. 75 135 105 315 315 97 55 285 285 265 285 285 268 81 98 82.16 35 15 25 91 99 P 100 P 101 P 102 P 103 P 106 P 105 P 106 P 107 P 108 P 109 P 110 81.68 81 155 79 87 .76 115 165 265 265 205 225 175 205 82.11 205 225 77 80 83 82.15 155 175 185 205 35 82.58 35 65 175 205 82.50 82.93 79 87 155 65 195 155 195 82.73 215 95 115 135 155 92 83.21 265 265 165 165 78 95 86.69 195 195 83.36 285 165 165 78 .17 J.L. APPENDIX 11 (con'd) ovauo Axucanauuov w vascumho~m noun: ucfixcuua wuoH«0H nuoaonm «Jag nuonnwaoz owucuquo uo>ou vcaouu uv>ou oouh Azaaumon0H >u«uuamu uaououuuucauh cunnuuuoquuh ouax kucaaauuo .oz ouaoaluu B B 8 C 8 8 86.73 285 165 115 205 165 215 205 86 P 111 P 112 P 113 P 116 P 115 P 116 P 117 83.68 315 165 86 86.73 315 355 355 395 605 105 215 90 78 83 79.55 65 165 235 195 255 265 275 285 165 235 82.58 75 25 35 25 83.20 195 81 86.61 255 265 88 86.69 655 685 525 91 P 118 P 119 P 120 P 121 P 122 P 123 P 126 P 125 35 82.85 8 65 275 285 89 86.73 92 86.61 555 75 115 155 195 225 308 308 95 82.57 595 635 675 338 378 618 668 338 378 618 13 90 92 86.83 86.52 86 82.68 715 668 87 APPENDIX III CAMPGROUND STATISTICS APPENDIX III CAMPGROUND STATISTICS The following statistics concerning the dependent and independent variables were extracted from the computer output. They serve as a general description of the usage and physical features of the Ludington State Park camp- grounds. Each variable will be discussed in general terms first and then specific values will be given in tabular form. Dependent Variables The dependent variables are expressions of camper preferences. The units are numbers of days. Since the sample period was 100 days, they are interchangeable with percentage rates. Occupancy Rate The average occupancy days of campsites in all three campgrounds was about eighty days. Occupancy rates ranged from 39 per cent to 100 per cent. Beechwood had the highest value, the Pines the next highest (very close to the park mean), and Cedar the lowest. However, the 128 129 variance of occupancy rate is in the reverse order; Cedar had the greatest difference, Beechwood the least. Standard Campround Min. Value Max. Value Mean Deviation Beechwood 65 100 86.89 6.35 Cedar 39 89 68.57 10.60 Pines 58 97 79.98 8.53 All three 39 100 79.85 11.18 Transfers-in The maximum transfers-in value was thirteen times. On the average, each campsite in the park received about three and a half groups of campers transferred in; Beech- wood had about four, Cedar received three, and the Pines Campground was again close to the park average. The vari- ance in each campground was quite similar. Most of the campsites had a fairly low transfers-in value, and the standard deviation about the mean was comparatively large. Standard Campground Min. Value Max. Value Mean Deviation Beechwood 0 11 3.97 2.33 Cedar 0 12 2.96 2.18 Pines 0 13 3.58 2.27 All three 0 l3 3.58 2.31 130 Transfers-out The maximum value of transfers-out was seventeen times. On the average, a little more than three and a half groups of campers transferred out of each campsite. The mean for Cedar Campground was much above the other two, which means that it may be less desirable to campers. There was more variance in transfers-out than in transfers- in. Standard Campground Min. Value Max. Value Mean Deviation Beechwood 0 8 2.79 2.03 Cedar 0 17 5.46 3.41 Pines 0 16 3.49 3.00 All three 0 17 3.72 2.96 Net Transfers The variable of net transfers was the difference of transfers-in minus transfers-out. When the transfers- out value of a campsite was greater than its transfers-in value, the net transfers value became negative. The range of the net transfers value was 27 times, from -15 to 12. Cedar lost approximately two and a half groups of campers per site to the other two campgrounds, mainly to Beechwood. The Pines Campground had a very slight credit on the net transfers. Campground Beechwood Cedar Pines All three Min. Value -7 -15 -15 -15 Independent Variables 131 Max. Value 11 9 12 12 Standard Mean DeV1ation 1.18 3.33 -2.51 4.51 0.10 4.04 -O.l4 4.17 There were two groups of independent variables; those that were expressed as dummy variables and those that were not. The statistics for the seven pairs of dummy variables were transformed into percentages in order to show the distributions that fall into each category of the original trichotomous scaling. in units of 10 feet were transformed into feet. Capacity The variables measured More than half of the campsites in the park were categorized as "large" campsites; only a very small number were considered "small." The distribution of large and medium sites in the Beechwood and the Pines Campgrounds are roughly equal, while in Cedar, three-fourths of the camp- sites are large. 132 Campground Small Medium Lagge Beechwood 4% 41% 55% Cedar 1% 26% 73% Pines 4% 51% 45% All Three 3% 40% 57% Topography Six out of ten campsites in the park were con- sidered to be "flat," and only a very small number were described as "hilly." In general, Cedar sites were classed as flat and the Pines sites as more rolling, Beechwood was felt to fall somewhere in between. Campground Billy. Rolling E123 Beechwood 6% 34% 60% Cedar 1% 21% 78% Pines 6% 50% 44% All three 4% 36% 60% Tree Cover The majority of the campsites in the Beechwood and the Pines Campgrounds were classified being either half shaded or completely shaded. However, a little less than a half of the campsites in Cedar do not have adequate shade. 133 Campground Sppgy Half Shaded Shady Beechwood 2% 41% 57% Cedar 42% 46% 12% Pines 4% 39% 57% All three 13% 42% 45% Ground Cover Over 90 per cent of the campsites in the Beechwood and the Pines are bare of ground cover, but are not loose sand. Most of the grass covered sites are in Cedar. It has more sandy sites, too. Overall, three-fourths of the campsites in the park do not have grass cover, but are solid enough not to cause vehicle problems. Only one out of five sites have adequate grass cover. The few sandy sites are generally undesirable due to vehicle problems. Bare and Campground Sapdy Solid Grassy Beechwood 2% 95% 3% Cedar 9% 28% 63% Pines 2% 96% 2% All three 4% 77% 19% Drainage There are practically no campsites in either the Beechwood or the Pines Campgrounds which have poor drain- age. Twelve per cent of the campsites in Cedar have a serious flooding problem. These, together with those with a less serious situation constitute more than 40 per cent 134 of the Cedar sites. Most of these are on one loop in that campground. Campground Poor Medium Good Beechwood 0 3% 97% Cedar 12% 31% 57% Pines 0 6% 94% All three 3% 12% 85% Neighbors All the campsites that are on the inside in the loops have neighbors on four sides. The campsites on the outsides of the loops have neighbors on three or less than three sides. Less Than Campground 4 Sides 3 Sides 3 Sides Beechwood 35% 47% 18% Cedar 38% 48% 14% Pines 32% 44% 24% All three 35% 46% 19% £353 The proximity of sites to a lake was scaled by saying that all the campsites in Beechwood were near to the inland lake, those in Cedar were far from both lakes, and those in the pines were near the Great Lake. 135 Near to Far From Near to Campground Great Lake Both Lakes Inland Lake Beechwood O 0 100% Cedar O 100% 0 Pines 100% 0 0 All three 30% 27% 43% Showers The greatest distance to a shower facility was in the Pines Campground, where some sites were more than one thousand feet from these facilities. There was more vari- ation in the Pines with regard to this variable than in the other two campgrounds. The situations in Beechwood and Cedar were quite similar. Standard Campground Min. Value Max. Value Mean Deviation Beechwood 30 630 293.3 142.9 Cedar 80 610 274.2 117.9 Pines 50 1,140 520.4 341.4 All three 30 1,140 356.7 243.1 Toilets Because every restroom has toilet facilities, the variation here is smaller than in the case of showers. The values in Cedar are exactly the same as those for showers, because there is only one restroom with both facilities. The maximum value, mean, and standard 136 deviation of Beechwood and the Pines are substantially reduced from the values for showers. Standard Campground Min. Value Max. Value Mean Deviation Beechwood 30 510 234.1 117.3 Cedar 80 610 274.2 117.9 Pines 50 440 237.4 98.7 All three 30 610 246.2 113.2 Drinking Water Drinking water taps were more evenly distributed than the other facilities. The minimum values were zero for those campsites having a drinking fountain right on site. The mean was about sixty or seventy feet. Standard Campground Min. Value Max. Value Mean Deviation Beechwood 0 440 73.4 70.6 Cedar 0 170 72.8 43.4 Pines 0 220 60.3 41.4 All three 0 440 69.3 56.4 Playground Each of the campsites had access to a playground within the campground. The distance to the playground varied from about thirty feet to more than a thousand feet. However, the mean values for each campground were similar. Campground Min. Value Beechwood 30 Cedar 4O Pines 70 All three 30 137 Max. Value 1,290 1,000 1,110 1,290 Mean 559.7 486.6 499.9 521.9 Standard Deviation 379.0 246.1 306.5 326.8 1.9.1 .[1’. 1 MICHIGAN STnTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 111111111111 11111111111"WWI"WWW 31293103629782