5 1:1 I.‘ . s

. 3% .M 90.3“...” «o. Lfi
~“Ivk H! v.»\
..... . 1» a. . 4..

3|}...
aufludhnflul
1' $103 .

                      

   

i a" ,, .. I ;.:£:...1.JA. .
. . - 1 «(fibgt :L... tr L1- a .. .
. . 3 . Jun .. )Uokwtbi
.... _ . Ar.x.LuM:..Vvv¢1. tub—hex}..- .d
_ ‘ , - 1 . I In
. .. on! slim.» .Koxwfluxmaétl
. . , u I. \. .c .Z s

. 1 s

‘0
‘11

 

     

   

       

.. ‘1‘: {JIM} .
\qlll‘. 11.11.59.011!!!

     

 

  

~
~
w.....L...qu...
... $7,“ . ,
.. :5... twidmkdumfir.
I I7 ‘ ‘
.
.

 

2| 1 .
.; nab... 5:5. 13 Pfimh a.“
I 1.!h\. :Ttklnh 5.35.1. .1... >
I fl» 1... ...hnn»...2
UL.\ q... . nut; .1 .
. .1 a I a-
. A «Wham 1....5...u..§:......v.
1. qu—fianI’OIwfi $1.5» EV-
:3Q 19...; 51W. 3:. av. .. . to...) ’
.nvmmthwfin. “Hung“! . 5 . . M.H|M"I|rh|l. Jinn“.
( Jr ...~.vw......vm.r.n.uue$wb« . .. . .. .1. K. ., . . fish
.gfimmiwkwtfitJlfiuNmflw‘ . .. #9 v «uh... -13, . . - . gall“
3.“. 1 f .2 .1» n5. V131), v . ‘ . . v11 tilt-105.1... d3. ‘95.. c .. . . 1 ... 1.14“;
1”,. Ho... .nh\-7fli... .- . . hunk. anarchhi .5: . . . .: , .. -1 3.5 . .I..\ss::.l|.. P‘Ill‘
11. L . L ‘u 1.. It . . I. . v - .u‘lpl I: vtll‘vool.
z .I A. By "null. 5.110. . I... I W... .ou . . .. . .. .. .. . y. ., . . «(WWII 1.-“0’ \A
. U. . 2.. I ,1 ‘5- 1 M“... v . . 2 fi. . ‘ v - .. 3)} I Q
.. ‘ .. 1... “1"... .Lu . . ...;I|tlll.w3x. nlvuwylhhnuuha.
t.» .5 . I-" £1‘1‘”:.\I1fi“l§l
{ll 1.3...

. . ..
. .1. . .1 L! n. v
..e.. .J nvswxr... ....
1 ...Dn.k&flumuflahl. .timmm “.1 3... ..
72 furl. Join»... L28. .. .
r , ,2

or .

my- .1 .. i

. WWWHNAQWNJE-.. fififiuxfiifiEJ.
.Ura. ..4»-.fl|..¢%~39 Lunarmnu. I... ..:
- .2! nnflflulrfiiiJ.“ -fiwmfiiuflt.

L

 

 

 

         

«[21. -

”0| ’

 

 

1 if.-
‘1 .
. Marya... “tun. :i!
gazesvunvi. i: . ER! .3
£95“. izx.l....u» -zcildnumLtt. tau.
. n ‘. .1! bulk?! .mwmux. .
.. “gimwmtilzifidkfifil‘fim .
4 .. 1!.‘Iu .I v n ..
m} g -- . {L H»...
.w Lu kutdiul Jaw, .. .
' .Jlliilii . .‘Ay
.

    
      

    
    

           

          

    

     

g. {Ian}. 1. mu”: .
.. Kw!“ 5 .1:
. . :19 . .
_ n .N c v t vt‘
. .7 . . «3.11 1.1:. . .
. . . I. . .iuiqlkvltztft ‘11? .
r v. V I '0‘ ‘‘‘‘‘‘ "tiiit l
o . A o . .TIILI\¢70. i-4L- ’V‘ol < n
u 1 3. qnocu;t10~d\..uo‘\c tictlluo ‘1‘? .
v 9 v u \. .1!» vt‘vl 1....» iii! .
.. a lyczflto iv "{t1' I‘ll ill] 4 ..0 II'~
n 0| .0! . VI... ‘ II! )‘t- ..|6 >11
’II Au " IA . \ ‘ o 0' {VJ . ['1‘ i
. ‘Nli . . O! | I1 \I'l ‘ltllnl‘llll
w u I fittllt . . 1".cfill‘l‘ti
.. q u “I’Lunt‘vly
. . flillxl
..

411‘-
Q

a:

. 0.
ft .
. . V1. . 0‘
In Avbm. it! v
. . “fix . ~ wvyJUau

2

  

     

(. ..lh.t
r ‘ .. r
1.1.... it. {gtvtxxtohitwuuhtxtw‘sulvfl
t l? tzs‘izsuit
. 4.3.. .5. :Jvuzli

. ‘
. .

. «$489 hurt... .

 

   

 

 

            

     

 

 

.
.n-‘ttichIQ
‘IzuflauA‘tlI-v.
«I-..1‘-uo o‘v‘liflb.
.Iz4tl .9\.n5.,.lnv\
a n. v u

 

 

A's-Oi

‘ I'll: ‘ .K‘iw |\‘D“I‘
li‘ . \IKI!
. .v .

 

 

.1: than...»
519“"?! vQOV I
Lva‘L .... 1 .
13-31.53.
( 2 1..
. .

            

 

QS‘IH.

tulu‘.

 

‘I. Jug-‘01. 'IYH ab;
Elsa}... $.11."
illxllflu .13! tull 2. 2:... rib...
liltii$rh~ «MIL...» .. :xuuluv (554....qu .

ill 25?}.é. . 36?.

i. c I n O

.o p
. . . 3
I! «.lill.‘. 7 y ,
Illllulqlrrli‘l fi.‘il§l‘\. . n . I
12:112.. 1.! 1 gm... tflhnhfihi: .;.Li...!.Lz . ,-
. MIHNO.1.NHrth-vfi:lotlo~tonlltv\ .
‘I > ‘3‘ ' Ill‘fuluo .
v. \‘u. I
III! . IKI‘II v. v
Old! VI.|
, t‘- ‘
vi 219‘ ‘ o
. -.

  

   

  

.1. .l t
«13“.! .344: x. .
'0 .."‘.\>".

.o ;

 

I0; .
1 \\ .H.‘ .00

lo.» . \ ..... s n its; 0 . . n
111‘? “:04, fit. 1 v y ‘

.fiu RI.‘NK.I.0.INnvoR-D~U\.vc noun“. .1“. la. 0. u o u . .
0‘1! ‘0‘. £7.99. .2. -kufii‘ohh‘vt-ui‘h N. v. VAR! “Nil. Ila-15‘ ‘1...”4: 3“. A" ‘ . . Hlflp.‘ A
,ngnfl'd‘hnfllu u ‘5‘..- 17! “WI”; u..- o A 1.0%“! .1. .ado’v! Uh! a I 0 I ....lc
oooooo l . avlzdlv. 30‘ uh; ‘1 13". 10“.... .n c uliiitbl‘tl‘lvr.‘vovql‘ I» 1.1"» ‘Irlllil
..... .6. :6- y \I o . antzaob- ’ . .J.1lelfl1¢2 at.“ «I. cluduuflvob? «V.H|I.o|;..v..r.hl. .HLVUHIH“ .
v , ‘lt . Q.‘.Nni§uilll'i‘o\br\oiiii\»9t 54%|! I.
lalbI-II I: 100”“. .It 50 fl...‘ cm

in,"
MI», .I ‘0'?"
. ...Q5.V|..l‘.
0.. ..B

INA. LII)“.

rHE‘Sifi

Mill

3

l

l

1

l

l

2

\\

llllllll\lllllllllllllll fig; A

93 105” 5784 Michigan State
. University .

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
COMMUNICATION NETWORKS OF VISITORS TO RECREATION
I OCATIOI? 10"" THE r"REA'" I “' ° IMPLICATTO“S
FOR INCREASING TOURISM

presented by

Cathlyn Eve Eckstein

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Master of Science degree inPark and Recreation
Resources

 

I Major professor
//74' /A5
Date 7

0-7639 MSU i: an Afirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

MSU

 

LIBRARIES

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
remove this checkout from
your record. FINES will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

.1 \(‘ T Q '\o
UQHH‘VJ bl U “JV‘J
faith
.' _ 1

" *‘N 6"» f

v A 2‘“ J m:

gal: ‘srvqi

r‘ .
/ v 1' i ‘; ' '
. ." ' p-fl_~.-a“ . - ‘ -_J
v”, "r‘d‘f' ,zb” .I' Mr-
4

MAYQQSSUZQ‘W5

W. :‘

 

ail-W

 

 

COMMUNICATION NETWORKS OF VISITORS TO RECREATION LOCATIONS
ALONG THE GREAT LAKES: IMPLICATIONS FOR
INCREASING TOURISM

By

Cathlyn Eve Eckstein

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Park and Recreation Resources

1983

ABSTRACT
COMMUNICATION NETWORKS OF VISITORS TO RECREATION LOCATIONS

ALONG THE GREAT LAKES: IMPLICATIONS FOR
INCREASING TOURISM IN MICHIGAN

By

Cathlyn Eve Eckstein

This study examines communication networks of visitors in
travelling groups to recreation locations. Kinds and sources of
information are identified for before trip and upon arrival phases
of vacation travel. Several variables possibly influencing infor-
mation networking are examined.

Data was collected during summer 1982 at campgrounds and
resorts in the Frankfort area on Lake Michigan and the Tawas area
on Lake Huron in Michigan. Personal interviews and self-administered
questionnaires were conducted to determine which format was best
suited to collecting the data.

Results suggest information networking about recreation
opportunities is highly informal. Interpersonal communication by
visitors with their travelling group, family, friends and employees
at the place they are staying represent most frequently used
information sources. Kinds and sources of information are highly
influenced by the variables phase of trip, location and number of

visits. Implications for increasing tourism in Michigan are discussed.

In loving memory of my grandfather,

Jacob A. Gordon

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge the financial support of Michigan
Sea Grant in this endeavor.

My thanks to the members of my committee, including Dr. Maureen
McDonough, Dr. Daniel Stynes, and Dr. Richard Farace for their ideas
and assistance. A special thanks to Dr. McDonough, my major advisor,
for her continued guidance and input.

Thanks also go to John Wiss, Cheryl Dyer and Ed and Mary Udd
for their aid in administering questionnaires.

Most of all, I extend a very special thanks to my parents, whose
loving support and encouragement helped me to complete this task, and

to my close friends, who have remained so despite it all.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l
PROBLEM JUSTIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Information Sources in Outdoor Recreation Studies . . . . . 5
Communication Network Research — An Overview . . . . . . . . 6
Marketing Communication and the Consumer . . . . . . . . . . 11
Communication Networks in Outdoor Recreation and

Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l4

STUDY OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Study Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Site Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Site Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Contact Locations . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Research Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Questionnaire Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Pretesting the Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Administration of Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Analysis Procedure for Questionnaires . . . . . . . . . 39
Limitations and Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Where Visitors First Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Kinds of Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Kinds of Information Received Before Trip . . . . . . . 46
Kinds of Information Received Upon Arrival . . . . . . . 48
Comparisons Between Kinds of Information Received
Before Trip and Upon Arrival . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Kinds of Information Received by Repeat Visitors . . . . 50

iv

Sources of Information . . . . . 50
Sources of Information Before Trip . . . . . . . . . . 52
Sources of Information Upon Arrival . . . . . . . 53
Comparisons Between Sources of Information Before

Trip and Upon Arrival . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Sources of Information Used by Repeat Visitors . . . . 57

Sources Used for Kinds of Information

. . . . . . . . . . 59

Most Frequently Used Sources for Kinds of Information

Before Trip

. . . . . . . . 59

Most Frequently Used Sources for Kinds of Information
Upon Arrival .

. . . . . 62

Variables Influencing Information Networking . . . . . . . 64
Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Location . 73
Age Group . . . . 76
Number of Visits . . . 76
Type of Group . . . . . . . . . 80
Role in Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Summary of Variable Influence on Information
Networking . . . . . . . . . 85
CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS . . 87
Conclusions and Implications . . . . 87
Limitations and Research Directions . 94

APPENDICES

Appendix A . . 97
Appendix B . . . . . 98
Appendix C . 112
LITERATURE CITED . . 124

Table

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Format Option and Color Coding Scheme for Type of
Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Where Visitors First Learn . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kinds of Information Received Before Trip, Combined
Frankfort and Tawas Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kinds of Information Received Upon Arrival, Combined
Frankfort and Tawas Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Kinds of Information Received by Repeat Visitors, Combined
Frankfort and Tawas Areas . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sources of Information Before Trip, Combined Frankfort
and Tawas Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sources of Information Upon Arrival, Combined Frankfort
and Tawas Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Sources of Information Used by Repeat Visitors, Combined
Frankfort and Tawas Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Most Frequently Used Sources, Ranked (1-3), for Kinds of
Information Before Trip, Combined Frankfort and Tawas
Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Most Frequently Used Sources, Ranked (1—3), for Kinds of
Information Upon Arrival, Combined Frankfort and
Tawas Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Summary of Variable Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Frequencies (%) of Respondents According to Variable
Categories for Kinds of Information Received Before

Trip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Frequencies (Z) of Respondents According to Variable
Categories for Sources of Information Before Trip . .

Frequencies (Z) of Respondents According to Variable

Categories for Kinds of Information Received Upon
Arr ival D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0

vi

Page

37

44

47

48

51

52

54

58

61

63

65

67

68

69

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Table Page

15. Frequencies (Z) of Respondents According to Variable
Categories for Sources of Information Upon Arrival . . . 70

16. Summary of Variable Influence on Information Networking
Before Trip and Upon Arrival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Time Line of Study Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2. Location of Frankfort and Tawas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3. Frankfort Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4. Tawas Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5. Contact Locations in Frankfort Area . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6. Contact Locations in Tawas Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

viii

INTRODUCTION

Although water is an important factor in attracting visitors to
an area for waterbased activities, it also provides a strong attraction
for activities not physically related to the resource (Cheek and Field,
1977; McDonough, 1979). This would indicate that the Great Lakes have
potential for increasing the amount of tourism and associated outdoor
recreation occurring in Michigan. Maximizing the potential of the Great
Lakes resource base for recreation and tourism has become increasingly
important to Michigan with diversification of the state's economy. If
the tourism and recreation industries in Michigan wish to encourage
more use of the Great Lakes recreation resources as a viable economic
alternative towards alleviating a depressed economy, then they need to
become cognizant of where people are obtaining information about these
resources. The problem becomes one of determining the best mechanism
for encouragement of more recreational use of Michigan Great Lakes.

Both formal and informal communication channels are used to
transmit information. Formal channels are mass media channels, which
are all those means of transmitting messages involving a mass medium--
such as radio, television, film, newspapers, magazines, and so on.

Mass media channels enable a source of one or more individuals to

reach a large audience. Informal communication channels are inter-
personal channels, which are those that involve a face-to-face exchange
between two or more individuals (Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971).

The Michigan tourism industry devotes much of its energy to

l

mass media types of communication to attract in-state and out—of—state
tourists. An example of this is the present "Say Yes to Michigan”
campaign--a ten million dollar investment in mass media communications
by the Michigan Travel Bureau to promote more tourism in the state.
However, the mass media approach to information accessing may not be
the most effective approach available.

There is general agreement that tourist information needs to be
targeted at the right markets or audiences. However, to effectively use
information to generate and manage tourism, the information needs to be
sent out through the channels that people use to get their information.
In order to do this, one must first realize that different kinds of
people respond to different channels as a result of different communi-
cation behavior. This means people are being selective in the channels
they use for different situations. Therefore, it is necessary to under-
stand the communication behavior of the particular audience that is
targeted. Potential visitors to a recreation site are no exception.
What channels are used by this group?

It seems that almost all people depend heavily on interpersonal
communication channels to receive information that is needed in making
important decisions. Knowing whom to obtain such information from
becomes a critical quality for individual effectiveness in today's
society (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981).

Communication networks are used by individuals for a wide range
of informational needs. By definition, a communication network consists
of inter-connected individuals who are linked by patterned flows of
information (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981). There are indications that
potential visitors to a recreation site, through interpersonal communi-

cation channels, use communication networks to find initial information

on recreation opportunities as well as to aid them in the decision-making
process of choosing a recreation location. But it is presently unclear
how these communication networks operate in the tourism/recreation area
and how they tie into more formal communication systems.

Knowledge about communication networks concerning recreation
opportunities along the Great Lakes is crucial to those interests con-
cerned with disseminating information about these resources. This type
of knowledge makes it possible to tie informal information sources into
existing formal information systems, thus establishing a more complete
picture of the various communication links involved in information
dissemination. A study of information sources and communication net-
works of visitors to coastal areas Michigan will hopefully facilitate
the means for more effective communication with users of the Great lakes
by enabling government and commercial enterprises to target specific
audiences with the type of recreation information they need or want to

know.

PROBLEM JUSTIFICATION

When people choose a recreation vacation location they differen-
tially distribute themselves across sites. Not everyone goes to the
same place or even the same types of places. In the past two decades
much research has focused on identifying variables that explain the way
this self-distribution occurs. The traditional use of socioeconomic and
demographic variables such as age, income, sex and race furnish incom-
plete explanations of the extremely diverse behavior possibilities in
outdoor recreation participation (Stynes, Bevins and Brown, 1980;

Burch, 1969). Travel distance to a recreation site is another factor
which is used to explain recreation participation behavior. The gravity
model has been used in numerous studies to relate use of a particular
recreation site to distance traveled to the site, showing that use of

a particular site decreases as the distance traveled to that site
increases (Moeller and Echelberger, 1974). Yet these factors have only
partially explained participation variation in recreation. Age of
individuals and the social group with whom one participates have been
better able to explain the variation (Field and O'Leary, 1973;
Dottavio, O'Leary and Koth, 1980). Other literature recognizes that
social interaction is an important motivation for recreation partici—
pation (Knopp, 1972; Crandall, 1979; Burch, 1969; Crompton, 1981).
Still other factors found relevant in determining recreation participa-
tion behavior are differences in personality traits and perceptions of

environmental elements of a site (Driver and Knopf, 1977; KnopP, 1972).

4

Another factor that would seem to be of some significance is information.

Information Sources in Outdoor Recreation Studies

Many recreation studies have included questions that ask where
visitors learned about the site they visited. The results indicate that
a majority of people receive information through interpersonal communi-
cation channels of friends or family. For example, in a visitor study
of reservoir users of Coulee Dam National Recreation Area in Washington,
50.7% learned about the site from family and friends (McDonough, 1979).
In another study on park familiarity of Lansing Michigan residents about
their city park system, approximately 42% learned about six different
parks through interpersonal channels of friends, family or acquaintances
(Spotts and Stynes, 1982a) A study evaluating off-road vehicle (ORV)
information and education programs in Michigan National Forests found
that 39% of ORV users received information through interpersonal channels
(Dorman and Fridgen, 1980). And finally, a 1980 visitor survey on
Michigan Travel Information Center users found that 45% used friends
and relatives as sources of information for trip planning.

These studies and others dealing with information use among
tourists have tended to only list different sources used. No systematic
inquiry was used to determine why tourists tend to rely more heavily on
some sources than others. As a step in this direction, Nolan (1976)
explored the use of the travel information system from the tourist's
point of view. Results of the study were based on a sample of resort
visitors and state visitors in Tennessee. In an overall ranking of
travel information sources used by resort and state visitors, the advice
of friends and relatives ranked highest, guidebooks ranked second, and

commercial tourist information and promotional publications ranked

third. The study goes beyond mere listing of information sources used
by tourists by investigating the credibility of these sources in the
tourist's point of view. Results of an overall ranking of travel informa—
tion source credibility by resort and state visitors indicated that
guidebooks ranked highest, official state or other government tourist
information ranked second and Automobile Club trip planning services
ranked third. The discrepancy between information use and credibility
indicates that those sources used most frequently by tourists are not

the most credible ones. Nolan attributes this lack of consistency to the
idea that people are likely to select their travel information sources
beyond personal communication on the basis of perceived utility, not
attributed credibility. In short, the tourist recognizes the bias and
promotional distortions in some travel information sources while finding
information offered by those sources to be useful.

These studies suggest that an important informal communication
network exists with respect to outdoor recreation. However, it is
unclear how these informal channels operate and how they tie into the
formal systems such as mass media and tourism literature. Although
these informal communication networks are unclear with respect to recrea-
tion and tourism, their importance is reflected in voluminous amounts of

research from areas outside this field.

Communication Network Research - An Overview

 

The theoretical significance of networks in affecting behavior
had its historical roots in literature of the German sociologist, George
Simmel in 1922 (1964). Simmel's concern was with how an individual's
"group affiliations" (links) in "social circles" (networks) affect the

individual's behavior. It was not until 1934 that Moreno provided

methodological tools to measure network variables. He pioneered the
concept of sociometry, the means by which quantitative data about com-
munication patterns among individuals in a system are obtained. In his,
book, "Who Shall Survive?" (1934), Moreno applied sociometry in studies
of small groups and laid the groundwork for present-day network analysis.
Sociometric data was used to provide sociograms, which are graphic
presentations of communication patterns of individuals in a system.

The sociogram proved most useful for illustrating the structure
of a small system and tended to become chaotic when analyzing larger
systems. Methodological advances were made with the development of the
sociomatrix by Forsyth and Katz (1946) in order to make possible a more
detailed and orderly analysis of sociometric data. Another methodolo—
gical approach to complex network representation was devised by Levine
(1972) to depict interlocking directorates of major banks. Unidimen-
sional unfolded scaling was used to compress network information into a
spherical map.

Considerable progress was made with the techniques of sociometry
in the 1960's. The advent of computer-based analysis of behavioral data
made possible the use of large-scale surveys. In the 1970's, a
theoretical interest in communication structure or process involved in
networking brought a resurgence to network analysis research when
specific computer programs, such as NEGOPY and CONCOR, were developed
(See Rogers and Kincaid, 1981, Ch. 4).

Meanwhile, in the early 1950's, research was pioneered by
Jacobson and Seashore (1951) to analyze communications in formal organi-
zations. In this investigation and others following it, a major thrust
was to analyze the interpersonal communication flows among the members

of an organization in order to identify such things as dyads, cliques,

liaisons and bridges linking cliques, as well as other aspects of
communication structure (Weiss and Jacobson, 1955; Davis, 1953; Blau,
1962; Schwartz, 1968; Amend, 1971).

Another type of research concentrated on the concept of opinion
leadership, the degree to which an individual is able to informally
influence other peoples' attitudes or behavior. The opinion leader con-
cept was originated by Lazarsfeld and others (1948) in their study of a
presidential campaign in Erie, Ohio. They postulated a "two-step flow
of communications" in which information is transmitted from the media
to opinion leaders and from them to their followers. This supported the
idea that people rarely act on mass media information unless it is also
transmitted through interpersonal channels (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955;
Rogers, 1962). In fact, further research has shown that the more per—
sonal the communication, the more persuasive it is (Rogers and Shoemaker,
1971).

Early studies of opinion leaders concentrated on identifying
their traits, as distinctive from those of their followers. A synthesis
of several hundred opinion leadership studies was done by Rogers and
Shoemaker (1971) in which the following generalizations were made:

"Compared to followers, opinion leaders have greater mass

media exposure, more cosmopoliteness, greater change

agent contact, greater social participation, higher social

status and more innovativeness. Opinion leaders conform

more closely to a system's norms than their followers.

When the system's norms favor change, opinion leaders

are more innovative. . . "
In these studies, opinion leadership was measured by the number of socio-
metric choices received directly by an individual in a system.

These studies established who opinion leaders were and how they

differed from nonleaders, but were limited in scope because they told

nothing about the process through which ideas flowed from opinion leaders

to their followers. Breakthroughs occurred when scholars started
plotting sociograms of communication among members of a system in a
"whom to whom" matrix (Forsyth and Katz, 1946). This facilitated
identification of cliques (subgroups) within the total system and of
specialized communication roles of individuals linking two or more
cliques. The focus of research shifted from the individual as the unit
of analysis to the network itself.

Results of network studies have shown that the most fundamental
principal of human communication is that the exchange of ideas most
frequently occurs between transceivers who are homophilous (similar)
(Rogers and Kincaid, 1981). This is because more effective communica-
tion occurs when transceivers share similar characteristics, common
meanings and mutual value position. For new ideas to diffuse, dyadic
communication must connect individuals Who are somewhat heterophilous
(different) (Lauman, 1973). This concept can be referred to as the
"strength of weak ties", the basic prOposition being that the information
exchange potential of dyadic communication is related to the degree of
heterophily between transceivers (Granovetter, 1973). In other words,
a new idea is communicated to more individuals when passed through
heterophilous (weak) links rather than homophilous (strong) links.
Granovetter relates the following example to clarify this statement:

"If one tells a rumor to all his close friends, and they
do likewise, many will hear the rumor a second and third
time, since those linked by strong ties tend to share
friends. If motivation to spread the rumor is dampened
a bit on each wave of retelling, then the rumor moving
through strong ties is much more likely to be limited. . .
than that going via weak ones."
The importance of heterophilous links in information transfer

is supported by a study done by Erbe (1962). He researched the dif—

fusion of information among a national sample of graduate students by

10

looking at the influence of the range of social contacts and membership
in an informal group. Results indicated that information is more
diffused in departments whose students possess a wide range of social
contacts and membership in informal groups. In a more recent study on
how people find jobs, Granovetter (1974) found that the majority of job
information is passed through weak ties. Fifty-six percent found jobs
through personal contacts, and of this group 31% indicated the contact
was a family or social one and 69% named a work contact. Furthermore,
only 17% of those who found jobs through personal contacts had frequent
interaction with their contacts. Such is the strength of weak ties.

Other communication network studies have shown significant
findings in the role of information transfer. Kincaid (1972) found that
sources of family planning information was one of the factors directly
affecting family planning knowledge among migrants on the periphery of
Mexico City. He also found that the majority of migrants (83%) relied
upon their friends for information, while mass media played an insigni-
ficant role in disseminating family planning information. Coleman,
Katz and Menzel (1966) studied the adoption rate of a new drug among
physicians. They found that early adopters tend to be greatly in-
fluenced by media originating outside the community while late adopters
are more likely influenced by interpersonal source. Furthermore, they
found that information must be carried through commercial channels and
legitimization through colleagues and friends must take place before
doctors who were late adopters accepted the new drug. This study was
instrumental in pointing out that different communication channels and
information sources are utilized according to adopter categories in the

innovation process.

11

Marketing Communication and the Consumer

 

Another relevant field deals with consumer purchasing decisions.
Studying consumer behavior involves the behavioral concept of information
seeking. Information—seeking receives a great deal of attention from
marketing researchers because consumers may be active rather than
passive participants in the marketing communication process. The amount
of perceived conflict (anxiety, risk, uncertainty, etc.) associated with
purchasing a product together with the attractiveness of the available
information sources will determine the extensiveness of the search
(Hansen, 1972). These factors are also important determinants of what
information the consumer will select when making purchasing decisions.
The attractiveness of the available information alternatives is parti-
cularly important and is influenced by three major factors: 1) the
effort needed to obtain the information; 2) the time pressure resulting
from postponing the choice; and 3) the likelihood that the information
will prove useful (Hansen, 1972).

Jefferson (1972) describes a study concerned with the extent to
which consumers search for information about consumer products through
interpersonal communication channels. Product ownership was found to
be a stimulus to buyers who use word-of—mouth communication. In other
words, those individuals owning a particular product may be sought by
a potential buyer for information needed in the decision to purchase
that product. The study also concluded that consumers often volunteer
product information to potential buyers through interpersonal communi-
cation channels. In this study, it is also shown that the trust-
worthiness and expertise of the communicator are particulary important.

Information selectivity is another important topic in communica-

tion theory of marketing. Studies of media habits, advertising

12

recognition and recall have found selectivity occurs in exposure to
mass media, and studies dealing with personal influence have reported
selectivity in exposure to personal communication (Arndt, 1967).
Selectivity implies that people are biased in the material to which they
become exposed, read and understand and also in what they learn and
remember (Hansen, 1972). Bias in the material to which they become
exposed may also result from limited availability of informational
material, and this may be one of the major reasons for apparent consumer
selectivity in recreational opportunities.

Another area of research in the marketing field is concerned
with family consumption behavior. Most of this research has focused
on the family decision-making behavior, centering on the role structure
of the family and thus on husband/wife influence of power (Cox, 1975).
Some studies have indicated that power is fairly equally divided, though
generally slightly in favor of the husband, while other studies have
suggested that influence is not uniformly distributed throughout all
areas of family decision-making (Cox, 1975). A study done by Jenkins
(1978) supports the idea that dominance is not uniformly distributed
in the family vacation decision—making process. Results of the study
indicated that the dominance of either spouse in vacation decision-
making depended entirely upon the particular decision. Wives perceived
husbands to be dominant in decisions regarding information collection
about the trip, length of vacation, date of vacation, and amount of
money to spend. The wife and husband had equal influence in whether
to take the children, mode of transportation, kinds of activities, and
a selection of lodging and destination points. This study also explored
the influence of children in the vacation decision-making as perceived

by the parents. Children are perceived to exert considerable influence

13

in vacation decision-making, with greatest influence exerted in deciding
upon the kinds of vacation activities for the family. Children also
exerted considerable influence in deciding upon destination points,
whether they would go on vacation and actual date of vacation. Both
spouses felt children had relatively little influence in deciding on
information collection about the trip. When asked to rank different
sources of information as to their importance in the family's vacation
planning, respondents (husband and wife teams) indicated either members
of the immediate family or close relatives as being the most important
sources of information about vacation alternatives. Friends of the
family and the American Automobile Association were also used frequently
in collecting various aspects of information on vacation possibilities.

A similar study by Myers (1974) on decision-making patterns of
travel consumers in the midwest supports Jenkin's study. The major
findings of Myer's research were that destination and lodging decisions
were found to most frequently be democratic between spouses. Myers
also found that patterns of decision—making between parents and children
are largely a function of age of the children, with increasing age
corresponding to greater influence in family decision-making. Close
to one half of the respondent families did allow children a full voice
in reaching the decision, but only six percent allowed children to
dominate the decision.

Another relatively "new" research field closely related to
family decision-making patterns is that of communication networks about

recreation opportunities in outdoor recreation and tourism.

14

Communication Networks in Outdoor Recreation and Tourism

 

Hodgson (1979) proposed a model of communication processes in
outdoor recreation experiences in which the ideas of innovation diffusion
of Rogers and Shoemaker (1971) are combined with Clawson and Knetch's
(1966) description of a recreation experience. Innovation diffusion
research has identified several steps in the innovation decision process
that may apply to recreation as well. These steps are knowledge, during
which the consumer becomes aware of the alternatives; persuasion, during
which the consumer forms attitudes about the alternatives; decision,
during which the consumer makes a choice among alternatives; and con-
firmation, when the consumer seeks reinforcement for the choice made
(Rogers and Shoemaker, 1971). Different communication channels and
information sources function at different stages in the receiver's
innovation decision process. Mass media channels are relatively more
important at the knowledge function whereas interpersonal channels are
relatively more important at the persuasion function. Continued
information seeking often occurs throughout the confirmation function
because the individual seeks to reinforce his/her decision. The out-
door recreation experience is described by Clawson and Knetch as a
series of stages: anticipation; travel to; on site experiences; travel
from; and recollection. Since consumer activities are different at
each stage, one would expect information needs to be different. In
addition, the anticipation stage presumes some sort of decision has
already been made. Therefore, these five stages should be preceded
by a decision stage during which the consumer makes choices among the
alternative recreational opportunities available.

Hodgson suggests that people use different information sources

at various phases in their recreation experiences similar to innovation

15

diffusion. Both interpersonal and mass media sources operate at the
knowledge stage; mostly interpersonal sources are used at the decision
stage; and at the anticipation stage mass media sources become important.
It is unclear which communication channels are being used during the
time of travel to a location. During the onsite experience in inter-
personal sources are most important.

In addition to the use of interpersonal and mass media sources
in the various phases of the recreation experience, a recent study by
Cockrell (1981) on wild river recreationists suggests that personal
experience can also be an information source. It was found that social
influences determined variations in information sources of experienced
and inexperienced river runners. As individuals gained experience as
river runners, there is a shift in reliance on friends, family and
working companions as important information sources to personal
experiences and other experienced individuals.

Another study supporting personal experience as an information
source outside the recreation field was done by Jefferson (1972) on
new-car buyers. He found that buyers of new cars with no previous
new-car buying experience relied more heavily on printed media than did
new-car buyers who had previous buying experience. Jefferson attri-
butes this to the observation that the consumer purchasing a new car
for the first time does not have information from personal experience
and must seek information from other sources to reduce uncertainty that
accompanies the decision to buy a car.

Information sources may vary not only according to the phase
of the recreational experience but also in terms of the type of person
engaged in that experience. In the tourism advertising area, the major

concern is at whom shouldtflmapromotional effort be aimed and what and

Writ

16

how it should be said to the prOSpective tourist. Several target
markets or segments emerge at which various promotional or advertising
strategies are aimed. In a study on advertising messages, Calantone

and others (1980) have identified five segments of the tourism market:
I) frequent visitors; 2) sightseers; 3) sports and relaxation; 4) young
nature buffs; and 5) representative subgroups (which are those indivi-
duals who could not be categorized into one of the other segments).
These segments were categorized according to principal benefits sought,
purpose of trip, and demographic and socioeconomic characteristics.

Each of these segments use different media sources and therefore require
different advertising and promotional tactics. The study found that
communication behavior of frequent visitors was such that this group
showed little interest in radio and magazines; the sports and relaxation
segment are heavy radio and T.V. users and will also get travel ideas
from newspapers and magazines; the communication behavior of young
nature buffs are unclear, and self-selective magazine or T.V. ads about
parks and nature are recommended as most effective for this group; and
finally, magazines are the common medium of the representative subgroup.
The study concludes by recommending that governmental agencies and
private enterprises interested in more effective use of tourism marketing
dollars should focus marketing and advertising programs at the "sight—
seers" and "sports and relaxation" segments. Also, the implications

of this study are that mass media communication strategies should be
used to target appropriate tourist segments for tourism promotion.
Although mass media plays a role in tourism promotion, the literature
reviewed in this section points out that its role is perhaps over-
estimated and that interpersonal or informal communication channels

represent potentially more effective means for tourism promotion.

"S

17

Past research has concentrated on mass media effects on behavior
while neglecting investigation into interpersonal communication channels.
This can partially be explained by the fact that mass media studies are
easily set up and carried out, complete with measurable and "tidy"
results. Methodologies for analyzing interpersonal communication
channels have yet to be fully developed. It is hoped that this study
will function as a methodological contribution in terms of effects of

interpersonal communication networking on behavior.

STUDY OBJECTIVES

To identify the kinds and sources of information about recreation
opportunities most frequently used by visitors to coastal areas in
Michigan. This includes both information received prior to the
trip and upon arrival in a coastal community.

To examine the influence of several variables (sex, recreation
location, age, number of visits, type of travelling group, role of
individual in the travelling group, and phase of trip) on the
relationship between kinds and sources of information used in
communication networks of visitors.

To perform a pilot study in which a variety of research instruments
are tested in order to determine the best method for yielding data
on communication networks and information sources of visitors to

Michigan coastal areas.

18

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

Introduction

 

The study of communication networks requires approaches that
differ from traditional models of communication research. Traditional
models of communication rely on a source-to-receiver, or linear process
of communication. The results of this approach have been to break up
the communication process into a set of isolated variables which proved
useful for studying the effects of messages from the source on the
behavior of receivers (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981).

Recent theorizing and research in communication literature
suggest that actual communication processes are more complex than out-
lined by the component approach (linear model) to communication effects
on individuals. A network model is proposed by Rogers and Kincaid
(1981) in which the unit of analysis becomes the information—exchange
relationship that occurs in communication links rather than communi-
cation effects. Communication network analysis is an appropriate method
of research for identifying communication structure in a system, in
which relational data about communication flows are analyzed by using
some type of interpersonal relationships as the unit of analysis
(Rogers and Kincaid, 1981). As interpersonal communication flows become
patterned over time, a communication structure or network forms that can
be used to predict behavior. An important part of communication research
using network analysis is to identify this communication structure in

order to more fully understand the bigger picture of human interaction

19

20

in a system.

Although communication networks are useful in some respects in
thinking about mass media effects, they are particularly pertinent when
dealing with the communication of new ideas and communication through
informal channels (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981; Darley and Beniger, 1982).
Given the way we think in general that people get information about
recreation opportunities through informal channels, network analysis
seems to be an appropriate approach to studying this problem. However,
the methods of network analysis with respect to informal communication
channels are still developmental in nature and can vary with the type
of network being studied (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981). Therefore, it
will be necessary to test a variety of methods and variables in the
study in order to best approach the study of communication networks

in the recreation/tourism area.

Study Design

 

This study was designed to research the communication networking
of visitors to shoreline areas of Michigan. A combination of personal
interviews and self-administered questionnaires were distributed to
individuals in travelling groups in order to determine the kinds and
source of information used by the groups both before the trip and upon
arrival to the recreation site. The travelling group can be considered
a type of small group, which is defined by Berelson and Steiner (1964)
as an aggregate of people (from 2-20) who associate together in face-
to-face relations over an extended period of time, and who are mutually
aware of their membership in the group. The travelling group, then, is
defined in this study as a small group of people who travel together

from a starting point to a recreation location and who continue to

 

 

21

associate as a group upon arrival at that location. Thus, a travelling
group can incorporate people of various ages and relations to one
another (such as family or friends).

A pretest was conducted at one campground in both Frankfort and
Tawas during July, and a total of 47 questionnaires representing 13
travelling groups were administered. The questions from the pretest
were refined and a revised draft of the questionnaire was administered
during August. A total of 77 questionnaires representing 32 groups
was administered to campers and resorters at three contact locations
in the Frankfort area and four contact locations in the Tawas area.
All revised questionnaires were administered by the researcher and one
aid during a one week period in mideAugust. Figure 1 gives the time

line followed of tasks performed for this study.

StudygArea

 

Site Selection

 

Information networking starts even before the time an individual
or group decides to take a vacation trip. Formal mass media information
sources and/or informal interpersonal information sources may be utilized
by individuals for a variety of information needs both before taking
the trip and once the trip has begun. Although Clawson and Knetch
(1966) separate the recreational experience into five distinct stages
(discussed in an earlier section of this paper), there appears to be
two broad ways of looking at information networking for purposes of
this study. First, there are pre-trip sources used by visitors to
receive information about a vacation destination. Secondly, there are

information sources for visitors within the community providing or

22

mxmoe >ooum mo mafia oEHH

.H ouswfim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

uuomom .m
Tux mfimhaocm mama .o
mofiufiosasoo
mafiaouozm aw unmanpumafi
ooafimou mo mumou uosocou .m
x unmasuumoa
. enamou one umououm .q
ucoaonumcw
%umcHaHHoua mo uooaaoao>oo .m
moHufiasaaoo
moaaouonm.uomuooo one uooaom .N
TN summon ououmuouwa ouofimaoo .H
NH HH OH n m Mm<j

 

 

582

V1

M

II}:

‘(J

'"1

'1’)

23

servicing the recreation opportunity.

Study sites were selected that would facilitate sampling visitors
to Michigan shoreline areas on a vacation trip about the kinds and
sources of recreation information they use both before the trip and upon
arrival to the recreation location. The primary factors in site selec-
tion were: 1) to find potential questionnaire participants who were
visiting a shoreline area on a vacation trip; and 2) to be able to
sample the entire group of visitors who had traveled together on the
trip (referred to as the "travelling group” in the remainder of the
text). Study sites were also chosen that would provide an adequate
number of participants for sampling.

In considering these factors, two study sites were chosen for
sampling: the Frankfort area on Lake Michigan and the Tawas area on
Lake Huron (See Figure 2.). At each study site several contact locations
were chosen from available campgrounds and resorts at which to sample
visitors. The reason for including both campgrounds and resorts at each
study site was to determine if recreation location influences the kinds
and sources of information visitors use to find out about recreation

opportunities.

Site Description

 

The Frankfort and Tawas areas possess numerous features that
prompted their selection as study sites. First of all, each community
has a small population size permitting in—depth analysis by few
researchers. The population of Frankfort is 1,603 persons and the
population of the Tawas area is 1,967 persons in Tawas City and 2,584
persons in East Tawas (Michigan 1980 Census of Population). Although

Tawas City and East Tawas are two separate cities, they physicially

     

24

   

cunt V001

n to! flunu~

    
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 2.

 

I.“ CON"
M. ”0 NO
one so was!“ v
08600.
W LCM.
(“IAMJ C.”
“CUM thavtfll
“-5000
luau-u ”“0" 06! an
mm ~o~ '°"° was
m ‘u‘ M“. ‘.
c“ ' «mm
““160
DICOS '. IQ‘LL. n‘”
'0)!ch
”a” 'c“ . 3"!“
6"“0'
ICI'
C; ~ "1'.
a,“ I 'W‘ 5".us'
Sit
.__r?;uw
"..' ' "'~ ‘~Io"‘. “r
0-.
9
‘0
5
auto.
untold (a; now. it IVA acu- r[~" at!!!
.‘OO
3! ~ .,~ . VND'!
‘ "“"~" palm; .mauu
— i ——
i _.._.

Location of Frankfort and Tawas

25

merge into each other and therefore are considered together as one study
site in this study. Furthermore, the small population sizes of each
community facilitates making comparisons between them.

An important reason for choosing these communities as study
sites is that they provide and service a large variety of waterbased
and nonwaterbased recreational opportunities. In the Frankfort area,
Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore is located a few miles north of
town accessed by highway M-22, and is a major recreational resource in
Michigan. The park provides numerous recreational activities including:
duneclimbs and hikes, woodland hikes, scenic drives, beaches and swim-
ming, canoeing, fishing and camping. Two major rivers flow into Lake
Michigan in this area--the Betsie River south of Frankfort and the
Platte River to the north (which forms the southern border of the
National Lakeshore). Several large inland lakes with public access
provide for additional waterbased activities. These are Crystal Lake,
Platte Lake and Little Platte Lake (See Figure 3.). And finally, the
Huron Manistee National Forest provides major tracts of forested lands
for public recreational use.

In the Tawas area, Tawas Point State Park is one of Michigan's
newest State Parks. It is located at the tip of Tawas Bay and provides
beaches, swimming, hiking and camping facilities. On Lake Huron all
forms of boating and other waterbased activities are available. The
Tawas area offers three campgrounds with 458 sites; two public fishing
docks; three charter boats and launching sites; the Michigan shore-to-
shore riding and hiking trail from Tawas to Empire and; thirty miles
of snowmobile and cross-country ski trails. Several fishing festivals
take place in the Tawas area throughout the year: king Salmon Derby

(July-October), Brown Trout Derby (April—May), and Perchville (February).

26

   
    
 
  
   
   
    

 

 

 

,“'—‘. a:
l 1‘: 1-‘47
1 .W q
, , . ~ ; I
1:“ - nu: n: '_u£:___
I gl
. n u
{I I '
Aw [‘9
_.‘K5 ,w/Chy'GA/v F’— I L E
- =. - as
I t
Sisal——
I

IIIAAII

8

.._JL
' E
18.1

 

I
a .
“a

I
N
‘3

 

 

 

 

l h. I
I. . ' ‘ v ‘
. . .‘ I I
- l 'EEEEE -
’ a J S
.i {I .. ii
i a E
“NJ H O - A
‘ I
l l
. g . F.
_ I I
' ’_“‘l
4\__’/r u in
I "V" ‘

 

 

Figure 3. Frankfort Area

27

Tawas Lake is an inland lake located a few miles northeast of Tawas.
From the lake the Tawas River flows through Tawas City into Lake Huron.
Also, the Huron National Forest and the AuSable River are located
north-northeast of Tawas (See Figure 4.).

Both of these shoreline areas possess an abundance of natural
resources providing recreation opportunities on a Great Lake or in
surrounding inland areas. Because of this, these two areas were chosen

as study sites for this research.

Contact Locations

 

Several contact locations were selected at which to sample
visitors to each shoreline area. In the Frankfort area, the Platte
River Campground was chosen for sampling campers. The campground con-
tains 200 sites with running water and no electrical hookups. It is
located at the southern end of Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore,
with the Platte River bordering the southernmost side of the campground.
Two resorts were selected on the basis of interviewer access to cus—
tomers. Chimney Corners Resort located on Crystal Drive (highway M-22)
between Frankfort and Sleeping Bear Dunes, and Crystal Mountain Resort
on M-llS near Thompsonville. At Chimney Corners Resort, sampling was
performed at the resort's private beach on Crystal Lake. Crystal
Mountain primarily services golfers in the summer months, so golfers
were sampled at the snack shop located by the golfing greens while they
waited to tee-off in their game (See Figure 5.).

In the Tawas area, campers were sampled at Tawas Point State
Park. This campground contains 200 sites with hot water facilities
and electrical hookups. Sampling was also conducted at two resorts

located on Lake Huron in Tawas City and at one resort on the lake in

28

 

 

_
_
_
_
_
_
_

 

Tawas Area

Figure 4.

29

    
   
  
   
    

e
Y
0
\ smfif‘} a"'\\ SLEEPING
t /
9
Q I If
3
\ a
\E
V)
§ Visitor Center ‘

TU TI“ ”/18! CITY

1 Frsnld rt
headquarters. information

3 gnaw River Point
4 Treil’s End Road

I

after;
Lighthouse 7 Visitor Con tor

OXhlblB Information. Windv Moraine Trail
8 Pierce Stockin ng Scenic

self-guiding motor vehicle (orur pncnlcking
9 Sleeping Beer Dunes enLake

Dune Climb. swimming, picnicking
10 Glen Haven

Coast Guard Station. beech am. mm
11 D H. yCampground

Alligatoora Hill Trail
12 Good Herb or Buy

beat: 71 .picmckmg
BEULAH 13 Good Harbor Bey

him 5 (unpe

14 South Manitou lslen d

lighthouse. vrsnor center. camping, hiking
15 North Manitou lsland

ately owned—no pub is

 
 
 
 

FRANKFORT
ELBERTA

C5) [373

Figure 5. Contact Locations in Frankfort Area

+ Contact locations

30

East Tawas. All three resorts had a small beach area for patrons.
Sampling was conducted at each resort's beach area (See Figure 6.).
Permission to sample visitors at each site was verbally obtained
from the owners/managers of the campground or resort facility, except
for Platte River Campground for which a letter addressed to the
Superintendant of Sleeping Bear Dunes was necessary to obtain permission

(See Appendix A.).

Research Instruments

 

Questionnaire Development

Preliminary work in questionnaire development was carried out
at Michigan State University and in the East Lansing and Lansing areas
before pretesting questionnaires in coastal areas of Northern Michigan.
Several steps were taken with questionnaire design. The first step
involved asking sociometric questions about recreation information to
students in classrooms at Michigan State University. From responses to
sociometric questions, questionnaires were designed and distributed to
community groups and individuals at various park locations in East
Lansing and Lansing. These questionnaires asked respondents to "map"
out the steps of information gathering by filling in a series of boxes
with the kinds and sources of information used before taking a vacation
trip to a coastal area of Michigan. Respondents were also asked to
list what they felt to be the most important information sources upon
arrival to their destination area.

Data from the first few batches of mapping questionnaires pro-
vided evidence that individuals relied on other people they travelled

with for different kinds of information. Therefore, later batches of

31

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Contact Locations in Tawas Area

+ Contact locations

32

questionnaires were administered to groups of people who had travelled
together on a vacation trip, so that communication flows between these
individuals could be more readily established. Data from these question-
naires also indicated that the kinds of information and sources of
information used by individuals differed according to phase of trip.

The final step in developing questionnaires involved the use of
matrices to determine information flows, as well as the use of a separate
matrix for before trip and upon arrival phases of travel to clarify
differences in information use. The questionnaires were designed to:

1) determine the kinds and sources of information about recreational
resources received by visitors both before taking a trip and upon arrival
to a recreation location; 2) identify information networking occurring
between individuals in travelling groups in regards to kinds and sources
of information received; and 3) determine variables that may be useful

in network analysis including each respondent's age, sex, role in the
group, number of visits to the area, as well as the type of group and
location of group.

The questionnaires incorporated techniques used in personal
interviews and self-administered questionnaires. Several limitations
are associated with these techniques. The disadvantages of personal
interviews include: 1) interviewer bias; 2) high cost; 3) need for
extensive interviewer training; and 4) time consuming aspects of the
interview itself (Poister, 1978; Sommer and Sommer, 1980). On the
other hand, the advantages of personal interviews outweigh the disad-
vantages for purposes of this study. The advantages are: l) allowance
for in-depth questioning, probing and clarification for complex subject
matters and 2) higher response rate than other types of surveys (Babbie,

1973; Poister, 1978). Disadvantages of self-administered questionnaires

33

include: 1) the problem of follow—ups; 2) higher non-respondent rates;
and 3) getting a recreationist to take leisure time to fill out the
questionnaire (Babbie, 1973; Poister, 1978).

Two formats are used in questionnaire design in this study.

One format is almost entirely personal interview, the respondent filling
out only a small portion of the questionnaire. The other format is
entirely self-administered questionnaires, with the interviewer present
to clarify instructions and other items on the questionnaire if necessary.
The reason for using two formats in questionnaire design is to determine
which of these formats is best suited for collecting data on the complex
subject matter under study here. Use of questionnaire formats and
specific wording on questionnaires are discussed in the section on
administration of questionnaires.

In recent years many researchers have pointed out the weaknesses
of using only one measurement strategy, and that more accurate and
unbiased information is obtained through the integration of multiple
research designs and data collection strategies (Webb et al., 1964;
Campbell, 1970; Sieber, 1973; Clark, 1977). Although this study ex-
hibits the very weakness of using only one measurement strategy, an
attempt to alleviate this problem is made by using different formats in

questionnaire design discussed above.

Pretesting the Questionnaires

 

In order to determine problems in the question format and survey
technique a questionnaire was pretested before final production. The
questionnaire was distributed by the researchers and two other trained
assistants at two sites--the Platte River Campground in Sleeping Bear

Dunes National Lakeshore (SBD) and the Tawas Point State Park in East

34

Tawas. The researcher and two trained assistants spent approximately
two and a half hours per site for two days sampling visitors. A total
of 29 questionnaires comprising 13 travelling groups was collected at
the Platte River Campground and 18 questionnaires comprising six
travelling groups was collected at Tawas Point State Park. The pretest
was set up as a self-administered questionnaire to be distributed to
all members of the travelling group ages 12 years and older.

Although the pretest sample was small, it provided insights into
necessary revisions of the questionnaire. First, the lower age limit
set for respondent inclusion was too low to produce reliable data on
such a complex subject matter. Therefore, the lower age limit for sub—
ject participation was increased to 16 years old in the next round of
questionnaires after pretesting. Another problem was that many subjects
had difficulty in filling out the matrices. This can partially be
attributed to the ambiguity of the questions concerning use of the
matrices. The questions asked: "Before your trip to this location,
where did you get information about your destination?" and "When you
arrive at your destination, where do you seek recreation information?"
The ambiguous wording of these questions confused respondents as to
which trip the questions referred to (for repeat visitors) and if the
words "location" and "destination" referred to the place they were
staying or to the general area visited. Also, recall problems about
behavior on past trips were encountered by repeat visitors.

In an attempt to eliminate these problems, question structure
and design of questionnaire were altered. The questionnaire was split
into three different questionnaires based on frequency of visits.
Questions concerning use of the matrices were reworded to elicit infor-

mation about the most recent trip. Other minor revisions were made in

35

matrix design to facilitate better comprehension and ease of use by
respondents. And finally, both personal interviews and self-administered
questionnaire formats were used in revised questionnaires to determine
which format is best suited for use in future research projects

concerned with similar subject matter.

Sampling Procedure

 

This study was designed to sample visitors at specific locations
in the Frankfort and Tawas areas. Sampling was performed during peak
visitation summer season to obtain a large enough sample size. Pre-
testing of questionnaires was done at the Platte River Campground on
July 16 and at Tawas State Park campground on July 17. The late after-
noon to early evening hours were felt to be the most productive times
of day to administer questionnaires because many campers returned to
the campground during this time after a day's activities elsewhere,
thereby enabling the interviewer to make the most possible number of
contacts with groups.

Questionnaires were distributed by two researchers during the
week of August 11-17. In the Frankfort area, questionnaires were dis-
tributed at the Platte River Campground on August 11 and 13 and at
Chimney Corners Resort and Crystal Mountain Resort on August 13. In
the Tawas area, questionnaires were distributed at Tawas State Park on
August 14-16 and at the resorts on August 16. Sampling took place
during the late afternoon and early evening hours at the campgrounds
and in the afternoon hours at resorts in order to facilitate optimal
contact with visitors.

It should be stressed here that purposive sampling was used in

this study rather than probability (random) sampling. This research

(J A

36

represents a pilot study meant to facilitate exploratory examination

of data collected, and a high degree of precision or ability to gen-
eralize conclusions is not necessary. Therefore, this study uses chunk
sampling--the collection of cases readily available to the researcher,
to serve as exploratory analysis aimed at identifying research issues
rather than actually testing hypotheses (Poister, 1978). Although
chunks are the least desirable kinds of samples in terms of reliability

and sampling error, they are useful for purposes of this study.

Administration of Questionnaires

 

The following procedure was followed for questionnaire adminis-
tration. The interviewer introduced him/herself and briefly explained
the study and why the respondents' contributions were important. The
interviewer then asked if all members of the travelling group 16 years
of age and older would consent to filling out the questionnaire. If
consent was not given by all members of the travelling group who quali-
fied for participation, or if all members who qualified were not present
at the site, interviewer contact with the group was broken and another
group approached. If all group members qualified to participate in the
questionnaires gave their consent, the interviewer proceeded to ask two
filter questions to each respondent to determine if they were visitors
to the area and the numbers of previous visits made. (See Appendix B
for specific wording of Filter Questions.) Interviewer contact with
the group was broken if any respondents were not visitors to the area.

For each respondent, the number of visits made to the area
determined which of three types of questionnaires she/he was given.

All questionnaires were color coded to facilitate ease of distribution.

Table 1 gives the format option and color coding scheme for type of

37

questionnaire.

Table 1

Format Option and Color Coding Scheme for type of Questionnaire

 

Type of Questionnaire Format Option Color Code

 

 

First Time Visitor Personal Interview Blue
Self Administered Questionnaire Light Yellow

 

Second Time Visitor Personal Interview Dark Yellow
Self-Administered Questionnaire White

 

Repeat Visitor Self Administered Questionnaire Green

 

 

 

 

The interviewer had the choice of using either a personal interview
format or self-administered format with first and second time visitors.
But, only one format was used with first and second time visitors in any
one travelling group. In other words, either personal interviews or
self-administered questionnaires (but not both) were conducted with
these respondent types within the same group. This was done in order

to promote consistency of sampling techniques within groups to control
for interviewer bias.

In the self-administered format, matrices were used to determine
the kinds and sources of recreational information received both before
taking the trip and upon arrival to the shoreline area. Matrix rows
indicated kinds of information and columns indicated different sources
used. The respondents were asked to indicate which sources they used
for each kind of information. The personal interview format involved
the researcher filling out the matrices according to subject response

rather than having the subject fill out the matrices. (See Appendix B

38

for specific wording of Personal Interview for Recent Visitors, Option
AA and Option BB.)

Different questionnaires were administered to first and second
time visitors. The only structural difference between questionnaires
was in the wording of the questions concerning use of the matrices.
(See Appendix B for specific wording of questionnaire for Recent Visitors
Option A and Option B.) The questions were worded slightly different
in order to promote uniformity in subject response about the most recent
trip so that group networking analysis could be accomplished.

A personal interview was conducted with all respondents who
were repeat visitors (making three or more visits to the area). The
format involved the researcher asking a series of open-ended questions.
(See Appendix B for specific wording of Personal Interview for Repeat
Visitors Option C.) These questions do not closely approximate those
asked to first and second time visitors because of possible recall and
non-response problems. Rather, the questionnaire asks open-ended ques—
tions in place of the matrices used for first and second time visitors
in an attempt to elicit comparable data for all respondents in a
travelling group.

All questionnaires included a self-administered section which
asked close and open-ended questions to elicit descriptive and behav-
ioral data. (See Appendix B for specific wording of Respondent
Characteristics.)

Groups chosen for sampling were randomly selected by the inter-
viewer at all contact sites. All participants were encouraged to
respond only to their own questionnaire and not ask for or give "help"
to any other group member present. Time for questionnaire completion

varied from ten to forty minutes depending upon the individual respondent

39

and questionnaire format used.

Completed questionnaires were stapled together for each
travelling group sampled. The last step in the procedure involved the
interviewer filling out an Observer Record. The Observer Record identi-
fied the activity of the group at the time of interviewer contact, group
type, contact site location, and the first names and roles of all
respondents in the group. In groups where the roles of individuals were
not clear to the interviewer, she/he asked for this information. (See
Appendix B for specific wording of Observer Record.) Respondents were
then thanked for their cooperation and interviewer contact with the

group was broken.

Analysis Procedure for Questionnaires

 

Analysis was performed by hand tabulating all questions. Data
from the matrices and questions #2, #3, #4 and #7 on the Repeat Visitor
questionnaire was coded if necessary and put into frequency tables.
These tables were then used to analyze the kinds and sources of infor-
mation used before the trip and upon arrival. Frequencies were also
calculated for the variables age, sex, location, number of visits, type
of group and role in group, and used to determine the influence on
information networking occurring. Details on the procedures used to

calculate frequencies are given in the Results and Discussion section.

Limitations and Contributions

 

The limitations of nonaccurate subject responses to behavior
recall questions were discussed in the section on questionnaire develop-
ment. A number of other limitations are also present in this study.

During sampling, measures were taken to control for interviewer bias,

40

but despite precautions a small amount of interviewer bias must be
accounted for. The researcher and aid conducted all on-site sampling.
The researcher spent half a day training the aid in procedures for
questionnaire administration and interviewing. This included dry run
practices as well as having the aid stand by and observe the researcher
administer questionnaires to three different groups. Although minor
differences existed in individual presentations between researcher and
aid, it is felt that interviewer training kept this bias to a minimum.

Since this study was designed to be exploratory in nature,
results were not intended to be representative of all visitors to
Michigan shoreline areas. Several factors limit its usefulness to the
Frankfort and Tawas areas. The number of groups sampled is too small
to make valid conclusions applicable to the larger population. Also,

a larger variety of contact locations is needed to obtain a represen-
tative sample. Only campgrounds and resorts were sampled and these
locations do not adequately represent the variety of recreation loca-
tions serving different recreational needs of visitors. Contraints of
time, budget and researcher availability prevented sampling at other
sites.

Another limitation is that the cross-sectional research design
of this study restricts applicability of results to the time period
when sampling was performed. Since data was generated in the summer
months, it does not provide insights as to possible variations in
information networking caused by seasonality of use of recreation
locations. And finally, results are biased in that only overnight
visitors were sampled. The possibility that information use may differ
for day users of a recreation location as Opposed to overnight visitors

is not examined in this study. Despite all these limitations, this

41

study offers several research contributions.

An important contribution is a methodological one. The study is
concerned with communication networking visitors used to find recreation
information. It is unique in that it uses the travelling group as the
unit of analysis to reveal the networking process rather than the indivi-
dual (which would not accomplish this task). Past research in this field
has elected to follow the latter method and therefore has not adequately
identified the process involved in information transfer. The researcher
believes this process to be vital in information utilization by visitors
and attempts to gain further insights by identifying communication net-
works between individuals that travel together as a group to a recreation
location.

It is believed that the data collected will be of use to those
interested in generating more tourism and recreation in the State of
Michigan. It will enable government and commercial enterprises to gain
preliminary ideas on where to tap into existing information systems and
how to do this in terms of who and what are perceived as credible sources
of information. They will therefore have a better idea on how to
effectively communicate with potential tourists in order to generate
more tourism. Communities such as Frankfort and Tawas will also be able
to provide the visitor with more and better information that will con—

tribute to a quality recreation or vacation experience.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Introduction

 

The results section is divided into five sections which relate
and discuss results of the questionnaire. Section one looks at where
visitors first learned about the area they are visiting. Section two
discusses the kinds of information visitors receive both before a vaca—
tion trip and upon arrival to a recreation location. Section three
discusses the sources of information used by visitors in the pre-trip
and upon arrival stages of the vacation trip. Section four ties the
kinds of information received together with sources of this information.
The three most frequently used sources for each kind of information are
examined before the trip and upon arrival stages of vacation travel.

And finally, the last section attempts to determine information net—
working by examining several variables which might influence the kinds
and sources of information visitors use before the trip and upon arrival
to the recreation location. Information networking is operationalized
as the variations present between respondents in the kinds and sources
of information used. The following variables are used to examine
information networking: 1) sex; 2) location; 3) age; 4) number of
visits; 5) type of group; and 6) role in the group.

Before presenting results, the use of certain terminology should
be clarified in order to avoid misconceptions that might result. The

terminology "information received" is used purposely in text rather

42

43

than "information sought" or "information used." What is being implied
here is that individuals do not necessarily actively seek out or even
use some of the information they find out. Rather, this information
can be passively acquired by the individual. Therefore, the term
"received" is used in regards to information because it embraces the
totality of active and passive measures taken by individuals.

Also important is that when asking the visitor to relate the
kinds of information she/he receives, the term "information" is left
to be self—defined by each respondent. In other words, information is
perceived on an individualistic basis and may be defined in slightly
different terms by each person. So, what one person perceives as being

"information" another person may not.

Where Visitors First Learn

 

Asking visitors where they first learn about the area they are
visiting gives information on the original sources used. The frequency
or percentage of respondents is calculated using a total of 77
respondents. Table 2 summarizes this information. Before discussing
results in Table 2, the distinction should be made between several
sources listed. As discussed earlier, the travelling group can be
comprised of individuals of different relations to one another as long
as these individuals travel together. Thus, the travelling group can
be any combination of family or friends. However, in this table and
all others following in the results section, the sources "family" and
"friends" pertain to individuals who are not part of the travelling
group at the time of sampling. Another source requiring clarification

(not listed in Table 2 but encountered in a later part of this section)

44

Table 2

Where Visitors First Learn (N=77)

 

 

 

Sources % Respondents
Travelling Group 33.8
Friends 24.6
Family 10.4
Trips taken as child 7.7
Passed through on previous trip 6.5
Michigan Tourist Associations (EMTA/WMTA) 4.0
Co-worker 2.6
Map 2.6
Organized Group 2.6
AAA Campguide 2.6
Vacation travel guide 2.6
Total % 100.0

 

is "place staying." This source refers to where visitors are staying
(i.e. lodging facilities) once they reach the recreation location they
are visiting.

Results of Table 2 indicate that the most frequently used source
is the travelling group (33.8%), the second is friends (24.6%) and the
third is family (10.4%). These three sources represent 68 percent of
the respondents. Adding to this another 16.8 percent that learned about
the area through other trips and work-related sources (trips as child,
7.7%; previous trips, 6.5%; and work sources, 2.6%) gives a total of
85.6 percent that used informal communication channels. In contrast,
only 14.4 percent learned about the area visited through formal communi-
cation channels (mass media). This suggests that informal channels play

a much more important role than formal channels in awareness of

45

individuals that new places exist.

Kinds of Information

 

This section examines the kinds of information received by
visitors both before their trip and upon arrival to the recreation
location. The travelling group, rather than the individual, represents
the unit of analysis used to calculate percentages (unless stated
otherwise). This methodology rests on the premise that the travelling
group better represents the flow or networking of information than the
individual. If percentages were calculated using individuals as the
unit of ana]ysis, the resulting data would not adequately reflect what
is happening to the group (in regards to kinds and sources of informa-
tion). Furthermore, only one individual is needed to bring information
to the group that can be used by everyone in that group. Therefore,
data presented in this section and subsequent sections uses the travel—
ling group as the unit of analysis for calculating frequencies of use.
A particular kind of source of information used by one or more individ—
uals, from the same group is counted as one travelling group in
calculations; no significance is attributed to more than one individual
in each group using the same kinds or sources of information (unless
stated otherwise).

Certain complications arise when dealing with data on respondents
Id“) are repeat visitors (three or more visits) which should be discussed
befcare presenting results. Since repeat visitors were asked slightly
different questions than first or second time visitors, it is necessary
to dciscuss data obtained on repeat visitors separately from other visi-

tors. The only instance where data can be combined for first, second

46

and repeat visitors is when examining kinds and sources of information
used upon arrival to the recreation area. No data was generated on the
kinds and sources of information used by repeat visitors before their
present trip. These respondents were asked only to recall "new" and
"different" activities engaged in upon arrival to the recreation loca—
tion. Since data were generated only for new activities or places
visited, two cases of non-response were obtained for groups comprised
solely of repeat visitors. Therefore, the exclusion of the repeat
visitor in frequency calculations for before trip data and the’inclusion
of this group for upon arrival data results in different base numbers
for kinds and sources of information according to phase of trip. A
total of tWenty-one respondent groups are represented in before trip
data (for combined Frankfort and Tawas areas) and thirty-two respondent
groups are represented in upon arrival data.

A separate section examines the kinds and sources of information
used by repeat visitors on their first few visits to the area, in order
to facilitate comparisons between repeat visitors and first and second
time visitors. A total of forty repeat visitors provides the unit of

analysis for combined Frankfort and Tawas areas.

Kinds of Information Received Before Trip

 

First and second time visitors were asked to indicate the kinds
of information they received before making their trip. Results for all
respondent groups (combined Frankfort and Tawas areas) are shown in
Table 3. (See Appendix C for separate results by area.) The kind of
information most frequently obtained by groups before taking a trip
was places to stay (85.7%), followed by recreational activities (81%),

and scenic areas and directions (57.1%). On the bottom end of the

47

scale, little information on shopping, local residents and museums was
obtained. Interestingly enough, less than 15% of the respondents did

not obtain information on places to stay, which can be interpreted to
mean that the majority of groups do a certain amount of pre-trip planning
as to where they will be staying once they reach a trip destination. A
recent study done by the Michigan Travel Bureau (1982) supports this
suggestion. The study found that 82 percent of the respondents knew the
specific main destination of their trip and 63.2 percent knew where they
would stay at the main destination before leaving home. The former
Travel Bureau figure (82%) corresponds closely to the figure obtained

in this study (85.7%).

Table 3

Kinds of Information Received Before Trip, Combined
Frankfort and Tawas Areas (N=21)

 

 

Kinds of Information % of Respondent Groups
Places to stay 85.7
Recreational Activities 81.0
Scenic Areas 57.1
Directions to a place 57.1
Natural Environment 52.4
Community Events 42.9
Tourist Attractions 42.9
Places to eat 38.1
Shopping 23.8
Local Residents 19.0

Museums 14.3

 

48

Kinds of Information Received Upon Arrival

 

The kinds of information groups receive upon arrival to a recrea-
tion area was determined in the same manner as before trip kinds of
information in the preceding section. Groups comprised solely of repeat
visitors are included in these calculations. Table 4 shows the results
of the kinds of information used by groups upon arrival to a recreation
location (for combined Frankfort and Tawas Areas). (See Appendix C for

separate results by area.)

Table 4

Kinds of Information Received Upon Arrival, Combined
Frankfort and Tawas Areas (N=32)

 

 

Kinds of Information % Respondent Groups
Recreation Activities 59.3
Places to Eat 53.1
Directions to a Place 46.9
Shopping 40.6
Community Events 31.3
Scenic Areas 31.3
Tourist Attractions 28.1
Natural Environment 25.0
Places to Stay 18.8
Museums 12.5
Local Residents 6.3

 

Results in Table 4 indicate the three kinds of information
'visitors most frequently receive upon arrival are information about
recreational activities (59.3%), places to eat (53.1%) and directions to
a Place (46.9%). The least obtained kinds of information are on museums

(IZLSZD and local residents (6.3%). This data shows that the majority

49

of groups obtain some kind of information on recreation activities and
places to eat—-these kinds of information being most important to

travelling groups upon arrival to the area they are visiting.

Comparisons Between Kinds of Information
Received Before Trip and Upon Arrival

 

The purpose of separating out the kinds of information visitors
receive according to phase of trip (before and upon arrival) is to
establish if people really do exhibit different information needs at
various phases in their vacation trip. The data in Tables 3 and 4 pro-
vides sufficient evidence to suggest that significant differences do
exist in the kinds of information obtained by visitors in pre—trip and
arrival stages of the trip. Before taking a trip, information on places
to stay, recreational activities, natural features of the area and
directions is most important. However, upon arrival at the recreation
location information use shifts. Information on recreation activities
maintains its importance, but places to eat and shopping become key
informational items while receiving information on places to stay greatly
decreases in importance (the majority of visitors having already pre-
planned where they will be staying before taking the trip).

It is also interesting to note the overall percentages of groups
receiving information upon arrival (Table 4) are considerably lower than
those percentages of groups receiving information before the trip (Table
3). This can be explained by the inclusion of repeat visitors and non-
response cases in Table 4. Overall percentages drop because these groups
may be seeking or receiving less information than first and second time
visitors who are not as familiar with the areas they are visiting. In

fact, the more familiar repeat visitors become (or think they become)

50

with the area on each visit, the less additional information is sought

or obtained on subsequent visits.

Kinds of Information Received by Repeat Visitors

 

Results discussed so far indicate that repeat visitors receive
less additional kinds of new information upon arrival to a recreation
location than do first and second time visitors. But repeat visitors
were once unfamiliar with the areas. What were the informational needs
of this group when they first started visiting these areas? Did they
receive information similar to first and second time visitors already
examined? In order to sort this out, repeat visitors were asked about
the kinds of information most important to them on their first few trips
to the area. Table 5 shows these results (for combined Frankfort and
Tawas areas).l Percentages for each kind of information were calculated
according to the number of repeat visitors (individuals) using a parti-
cular kind of information out of the total number of repeat visitors
(N=40). Frequencies in Table 5 are based on individuals, not groups,
because respondents are asked to recall behavior on previous trips and
the group they are presently travelling with cannot be assumed to be the
same group as those on previous trips. Therefore, the group cannot be

used as the unit of analysis here.

 

1It is important to note that the kinds of information listed in
Table 5 represent both information received before the trip and upon
arrival for the first few trips. The reason for not asking the repeat
visitor about kinds of information received according to phase of the
trip is that severe recall problems would result in high non-response
or distortion of data.

51

Table 5

Kinds of Information Received by Repeat Visitors
Combined Frankfort and Tawas Areas (N=40)

 

 

Kinds of Information % Respondents
Recreational Activities 67.5
General Information About Area 55.0
Scenic Areas 35.0
Places to Eat 32.5
Places to Stay 25.0
Tourist Attractions 15.0
Directions 12.5
Natural Environment 7.5
Shopping 7.5
Community Events 2.5
Entertainment 2.5

 

Information most frequently received was on recreation activities (67.5%)
followed by general information about the area (55%) and then scenic
areas (35%). The kinds of information received by repeat visitors on
their first few trips is similar to the kinds of information in Tables

3 and 4. In comparing Tables 3 and 4 with Table 5, a general pattern
emerges. Repeat visitors generally obtained the same kinds of informa-
tion on their first few trips as did first and second time visitors

sampled in this questionnaire.

Sources of Information

 

Table 6 shows the percentage of groups using various sources for
the different kinds of information received before their trip and upon

arrdyal. Frequencies of sources used by groups are calculated in the

52

same manner as were frequencies for kinds of information received. This
section also compares sources used at the two phases of the trip for any
similarities and/or differences that may exist. Finally, sources used
by repeat visitors on their first few trips are examined for similari-
ties to and/or differences from sources used by first and second time

visitors and repeat visitors on their present trips.

Table 6

Sources of Information Before Trip, Combined
Frankfort and Tawas Areas (N=24)

 

 

Vacation Travel Show

Sources % Respondent Groups
Travelling Group 57.1
Friends 42.9
AAA 33.3
Map 23.8
Family 14.3
Travel Information Centers 14.3
Magazines 14.3
Newspapers 9.5
Chamber of Commerce 9.5
State Police 4.8
Radio 4.8
T.V. 4.8
Flyer 4.8
Bookstore 4.8
4.8
4.8

Place Staying

 

Sources of Information Before Trip

 

Table 6 shows the percentage of groups using various sources

for the different kinds of information received before their trip

53

(combined Frankfort and Tawas areas). (See Appendix C for separate
results by area.)

The most frequently used source of information is the travelling
group (57.1%) followed by friends (42.9%) and AAA (33.3%). Although
sixteen different sources are represented in Table 6, over 56% of these
sources are used by less than 10% of the respondent groups. What is
important here is that most visitors are using other individuals they
travel with and friends as sources of information. Approximately 43%
of the groups represented in this table contain individuals who varied
as to number of visits to the area, combining first and second time
visitors and/or repeat visitors together in one group. Knowing this, it
is not surprising to find that the travelling group is the most fre—
quently used source of information--those individuals not familiar with
the area they are going to visit relying upon others in their group who
are more familiar with the area. The only formal information source
receiving frequent use by groups is the AAA.

When viewed in a different manner, this data suggests a hier-
archy of information sources being used by visitors. The travelling
group represents the primary level, in which most information is
obtained in a closely knit network where communication flows link
individuals together. All other sources outside the travelling group
represent the second level, in which information is obtained from a
loosely bound network of sources which are generally not linked to

one another by communication flows.

Source of Information Upon Arrival
Table 7 shows the sources of information visitors use upon

arrival to the recreation area (combined Frankfort and Tawas areas).

54

(See Appendix C for separate results by area.) Data in this Table is

based on all respondent groups (including repeat visitors).

Table 7

Sources of Information Upon Arrival, Combined
Frankfort and Tawas Areas (N=32)

 

 

Sources % Respondent Groups
Place Staying 65.6
Drove/walked by 46.9
Travelling group 34.4
Chamber of Commerce 15.6
Local Visitor Center 12.5
Gas Stations 12.5
Local Residents 9.4
Restaurants 9.4
Radio 9.4
Merchant Shops 6.3
Newspapers 6.3
Local Police 3.1
T.V. 3.1

 

The most frequently used source of information is the place where visitors
are staying (65.6%), followed by driving/walking by (46.9%) and then the
travelling group (34.4%). These three sources represent very informal
means of obtaining information. Also important but not shown in Table

7 is how these sources are used. The majority of visitors listing

"place staying" as a source on their questionnaires also indicated word-
Of-mouth communication with owners/employees as the method used to obtain
information (as opposed to using brochures or other available mass media

:hnformation). This suggests that visitors receive most of their

55

information through interpersonal communication with other members of
their travelling group or with employees at the place they are staying.
Almost half the groups found information by driving or walking by a
place, which suggests that signs play an important role in transmitting
information.

The formal information sources Chamber of Commerce and local
visitor center were utilized respectively by 15.6 percent and 12.5 per-
cent of the groups, with visitors indicating they received mass media
types of information (such as maps and brochures) from these sources.
These percentages are lower than might be expected. The use of gas
stations as an information source ranked equal to local visitor centers!
However certain results of the Michigan Travel Bureau Study (1982)
conflict with those found in this study. The Travel Bureau Study found
that 23.2 percent of respondents used local visitor information centers
and 48.5 percent used TIC's (refer to Table 6 for figures on TIC's in
this study), representing substantially higher figures than ones
obtained in this study. A possible reason for this discrepancy is that
the Travel Bureau Study asked if respondents had ever used a TIC or
visitor information center for travel information, whereas this study
asked only if these sources were used on the present trip. Another
possibility is that many individuals confuse sources out of ignorance,
in that they may not know the difference between a local visitor infor-
‘mation center, a travel information center, or a Chamber of Commerce.
Therefore, non-accurate reporting of exact sources used by these
individuals may contribute to the large variations between frequencies
Obtained in the two studies.

In conclusion results in Table 7 give strong evidence that the

most frequently used sources by groups upon arrival are informal ones.

56

It was also hoped that these results might indicate the use of children
as information sources by other members of their travelling groups upon
arrival to a recreation location. However, the few numbers of children
sampled in this study does not permit this conclusion to be drawn. Had
this data enabled making this conclusion, it would have supported
results of previous studies done by Myers (1974) and Jenkins (1978)
indicating the role of children in family decision making in vacation

travel discussed earlier in this paper.

Comparisons Between Sources of Information
Before Trip_and Upon Arrival

 

As with kinds of information received by visitors, sources are
separated according to phase of trip to establish any differences that
might exist. Once again, the phase of trip seems to strongly influence
kinds of sources used as well as their frequency of use by visitors
(as seen in Tables 6 and 7). This data offers strong support for
Hodgson's Study (1979) which proposes that people use different infor-
mation sources at various phases in their recreation experiences. Before
the trip the travelling group is the most frequently used source. Upon
arrival, the most frequently used source becomes the place visitors are
staying, whereas before the trip it was one of the least used sources.
This can be explained in terms of proximity of these sources to the
visitor at each phase of the trip. Before trip sources are mostly ones
within the respondent's area of permanent residence, with the exception
of the Chamber of Commerce and place staying sources. Use of these
two sources requires greater effort through active pursuit than other
before trip sources. Hence, they receive less use. But upon arrival

to the area these sources become immediately available to the visitor,

57

and their use increases (6% for Chamber of Commerce and over 60% for
place staying).

When comparing frequencies obtained on the travelling group as
an information source before the trip and upon arrival, the use of this
source decreases over 23 percent upon arrival (dropping from the most
frequently used source before the trip to the third most frequently
used source upon arrival). An explanation for this lies in considera-
tion of the usefulness of expertise of the travelling group as an
information source. Before taking a trip, the travelling group may be
the most useful informative or convenient source of information. How-
ever, upon arrival to the recreation location other sources such as the
place staying or driving/walking around may be more informative,
resulting in more frequent use of these sources and less frequent use

of the travelling group.

Sources of Information Used by Repeat Visitors

Table 8 gives the percentage of repeat visitors using different
sources on their first few trips for combined Frankfort and Tawas areas.
The same procedures for calculating frequencies are used here as were
used for Table 5.

The sources receiving most use by repeat visitors are place
staying (70%), driving/walking by and the travelling group (20%) and
family, friends or the Chamber of Commerce (17.5%). The data presented
in Table 8 is quite similar to data in Tables 6 and 7. The same pat-
terning emerges with sources as with kinds of information. Data in
Tkflale 8 also suggests that informal sources played an important role to
repeat.visitors in providing them with information when they were new

tn) the area and unfamiliar with its resources.

58

Table 8

Sources of Information Used by Repeat Visitors,
Combined Frankfort and Tawas Areas (N=40)

 

 

Source % Respondents
Place Staying 70.0
Travelling Group 20.0
Driving/Walking by 20.0
Family 17.5
Friends 17.5
Chamber of Commerce 17.5
AAA 5.0
Map 5.0
Mobile Travel Guide 5.0
Local Visitor Center 5.0
Travel Information Center 5.0
Merchant Shops 2.5
Newspapers 2.5
Magazines 2.5

 

Taking this one step further, these informal sources of family,
travelling group, driving/walking around, and place staying represent
homophilous links, with information being exchanged through strongly
connected individuals. The communication network literature reviewed
in this paper presented the idea that for new information to diffuse
dyadic communication must connect individuals who are somewhat hetero-
philous (Lauman, 1973). This concept further clarifies why percentages
of groups receiving information upon arrival to a recreation location
(Table 4) are lower than before trip percentages (Table 3). It was
rioted earlier that repeat visitors (included only in upon arrival data)

rnay be seeking or obtaining less information than first or second time

59

visitors. When examining the sources of information this idea is more
strongly supported in that repeat visitors are using the same sources
on subsequent visits, resulting in the transfer of less information with

repeated use of these homophilous communication links.

Sources Used for Kinds of Information

 

This section relates the various kinds of information received
by visitors with the sources of this information in the different
stages of travel. The three most frequently used sources for each
kind of information are determined for before trip and upon arrival
stages of the trip. Frequencies are determined by calculating the
number of respondent groups using a particular source into the summed
total respondent groups using all sources for each kind of information.
Any group is counted more than once in the summed total if that group
used two or more sources for one kind of information. The purpose of
calculating frequencies in this manner is to obtain relative percent-
ages of use on a scale from 0% to 100%. In cases where more than one
source is used by the same number of groups for a particular kind of
information, sources are weighted according to numbers of individuals.
The source represented by groups containing more individuals receives
higher ranking than a source represented by the same number of groups

with fewer individuals.

Mos t.Frequently Used Sources for
Eminds of Information Before Trip

Table 9 shows the three most frequently used sources for each
kirui of information before the trip (for combined Frankfort and Tawas

areaer). (See Appendix B for separate results by area.) In the following

60

table, the rows indicate kinds of information; the columns rank the
three most frequently used sources from highest (#1) to lowest (#3) and
also give the percentage (%) of groups using each source. In any box
listing two or more sources possessing the same frequencies of use (%),
the following procedure is used to weight sources: 1) the source
listed on top is used by more individuals (but the same number of
groups) as the source below it, and therefore receives a higher rating;
2) the sources with a slash (/) between them are equal in terms of
numbers of groups and numbers of individuals and are rated equally.

Table 9 indicates that the travelling group is the most fre-
quently used source for places to stay, places to eat, recreational
activities, community events (shared with TIC's), shopping, tourist
attractions, scenic areas, local residents (shared with four other
sources) and natural environment (shared with friends). The AAA is
most frequently used for information on museums and maps are most fre-
quently used for information on directions. However, the travelling
group is ranked second in use for these two kinds of information. The
use of mass media sources plays a minor role except for information on
shopping, tourist attractions and natural environment, where newspapers
and magazines rank second in use.

The general trend here is that the travelling group is most
frequently consulted as a source for almost all kinds of information
received before the trip. Furthermore, formal information sources
(AAA, TIC's, Chambers of Commerce) and mass media sources (newspapers,
magazines, radio, T.V.) are less frequently used by groups for infor-
mation. This data substantiates the idea that information networking
occurs on a highly informal level (mostly between homophilous links

of family, friends and other individuals going on the trip), and that

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m.o mouoeeoo mo m.NH mooflummmz o.m~ opossum ucoacoua>am Hounumz
emaamau\oHe\>e\0Hsmm <<< \asouu mafiaam>mue
o.o~ mwowummmz\mooofium mucooflmou Hmuoq
\oHe\.auo.>mue\<<<
w.HH <<< e.kH anonu wanafio>mee m.mN a: maonuumufim
UHH
m.mm ammuo wmwaaw>mue s.oe <<< magmas:
~.wH <<< q.HN UHH m.mq macho mafiaao>mpe mmou< oHooom
H.o mocoflum N.wH UHH\uoammmBoe\<<< m.m~ macho waHHHo>ouH moOfiuoouuu< umflusoe
\ouuoaaoo mo nonsmso
o.o~ uoaoamzoz o.ow macho moHHHo>ouH wcfimmmmm
H.HH Hommnmsoz N.NN monofium m.mm msouo mcflaao>mpe muoo>mrwwflanafioo
poucou .0mcH .Ho>mue
o.mH OHH o.om monofium n.NN macho wcfifiao>mu9 moane>fiuo<
¢<< HmGOfiumouoom
0.0H mmwmem oumam\uHH o.o~ <<< o.oa dmonlwnHHHo>muH umm ou moumam
o.mH mocoaum 0.0m <<< o.oq asouo wcwaao>oua zoom cu moomHm

 

 

me

 

N

 

we

 

 

He

 

 

mMUMDOm QmMz<M

 

ZOHH¢EMOmZH
mo mQZHM

 

moou< mosey one uuowxcmum ooownaoo
.QHHH ouomom :oaumfiuowcH mo wonHM How .AMIHV ooxcom moouaom oomb hauaosvoum umoz

a magma

 

62

heterophilous links of more formalized sources of information are not

heavily used before taking a vacation trip.

Most Frequently Used Sources for Kinds
of Information Upon Arrival

 

Table 10 shows the three most frequently used sources for each
kind of information received upon arrival to the recreation area. The
same procedures are used in calculations for the Table as were used for
Table 9. (For separate results by area, see Appendix C.)

Data in Table 10 shows that the place where the visitor is
staying is the most frequently used source for information on recreaa
tional activities, community events, tourist attractions, scenic areas,
museums (shared with three other sources), directions and natural
environment. This information source ranks second in use for places
to stay, places to eat, and shopping (shared with the travelling group).
Driving or walking by a place is the most frequently used source for
information on places to stay (shared with the travelling group and
local visitor centers), places to eat, shopping and museums (shared
with three other sources). Upon arrival to the area, the general trend
is that most visitors are receiving information from the place they
are staying, the travelling group, and by driving or walking around.
This indicates that owners/employees at lodging facilities (campgrounds,
resorts, etc.) play a very important role as sources of different kinds
of information for their customers. Gas stations, restaurants, local
shops and local residents are used as information sources on a more
infrequent basis. Finally, local visitor centers receive more use by
visitors as information sources than do Chambers of Commerce. It is

surprising how infrequently Chambers of Commerce are used when

63

 

 

unuueuo ocean

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«menace amuzam

 

n.a .uuo acouun> deco; ~.o~ uncounooe deco; mu
\owoouxoouuoa unood
\eouueun eemxeosm
uuonm\.euo.>euh
halooxneaxo>oua
n.nn ouwdom deco; emcee;
\uoieso . one . >95.
cu eunooueou deuce nu unequeue one no n«~Mue ouedm uncuuoouun
xenon» mnu-o>euh
mu rune olaoeax
.>euh\un«»eue coeds
.uuo neuueu> mecca
\an ooxuejxo>oun
cu nounoo neuuea> as lunuaeue ocean enoue ounoom
nauonxsa scans:
lxo>ouo\.auo.>eua
5.5 eunooueou geuoa ¢.n~ as ooxnea n.¢n runuhwue ooeflm enouuoeuuu< unannoa
nounoo acuuew> \o>ouo\.auo.>euh
aooo4\uonao£o
n .uaeueozxeunoouuou cm aaouuludaduo>eua mm as ooxueaxo>oun Munummosm
goooa\:o«uoum new weakens ocean
someone
n.c. eunooueou deco; nu naouulumw-o>eus n.nn .lunuaeue ocean euno>o mwunnaaoo
\uounou.e«> anuoa
\eozm euoam\uoaaagu
nuaneaeaoz
o.c~ .uuo neuueu> Macon o.- maomulunumuo>euh ~.nn unqaeue oun~m eofiuw>fiuoo unnouunouoom
s.~n macaw ugnnno>aua ~.o~ magnum. «can» o.ns an euxnnaxo>oea sou on «moans
.I,n.e~ «umwxmwe ooeum o.o~ mm ooxueaxo>oua mean ou eooeum
\uounoo acuueu>
aeooA\.auo.>eua
a nu u a. u a. zc~h<zxcmz~
no «can:

 

moou< ensue ono uuowxnoum oonfinsou
.Hm>fiuu< non: nOHuoEHOHnH we monfix new Anlfiv ooxnom moonnom own: maunonvoum one:

on «name

 

64

considering that providing information to visitors is one of the main
functions of this organization. Obviously, a wide gap exists between
visitors' behavior upon arrival to a recreation location and their use
of Chambers of Commerce as information sources. On the other hand,
the idea suggested earlier that low use of the Chamber could partially
be a result that visitors do not know the name of the source they are
using could mean that this source is being used more often than
credited for.

The most frequently used sources for different kinds of infor-
mation by repeat visitors on their first few trips is very similar to
sources used in Tables 9 and 10. Most frequently used sources by repeat
visitors for the different kinds of information received are the travel-
ling group, place staying and friends. (See Appendix C for these
results.) Thus, a similar pattern emerges with this data as was seen
with previous data on the repeat visitor in that the kinds and sources
of information and frequency of sources used correspond to those of

first and second time visitors.

Variables Influencinngnformation Networking

 

The last section of the results examines several variables which
might influence information networking of visitors. For both phases
of the trip (before and upon arrival), the kinds and sources of infor-
mation visitors use are examined according to six variables: 1) sex;
2) location; 3) age group; 4) number of visits; 5) type of group; and
6) role in group. Each variable is divided into two or more descrip-
tive categories used to explain information networking (the variations

present between respondents regarding the kinds and sources of

65

information used).
network analysis.

Some of the categories
elaboration. The variable age

similar to those used in other

gorized initially according to

Table 11

studies.

Table 11 summarizes the variable categories used in

for variables used in Table 11 require

group is categorized into age ranges

Numbers of visits are cate-

number of visits for all three categories.

Summary of Variable Categories

 

VARIABLE CATEGORIES

 

Type of Gropp

 

U'IJ-‘UJNH

Family with children
Family no children
Friend

Mixed

Alone

Role in Group

 

1.

Sex

1. Male

2. Female
Location

1. Campground

2. Resort
Age Group

1. 16-25

2. 26-45

3. 46-64

4. 65+
Npmber of Visits 2.

 

1. First Time Visitor
2.
3. Repeat Visitor

Second Time Visitor

a. 3-4 yrs.
b. 5-7 yrs.
c. 8-16 yrs.
d. 17-38 yrs.

Individual's role

a. Mother/wife

b. Father/husband
c. Son

d. Daughter

e. Friend

Most influential (perceived)

a. Male
b. Female
c. Joint

 

66

However, subcategories under repeat visitor were determined according
to clustering of respondents occurring within the range of years.

Years are used rather than number of visits in order to facilitate more
accurate recall by the repeat visitor. The categories for type of group
were determined using the following criteria. Groups comprised of
husband and/or wife with children under age 26 were classified as
"family with children." Also included in this category is the extended
family spanning three or more age generations. A husband and/or wife
with children aged 26 years and over or married couples with no chil—
dren in the travelling group were classified as "family with children."
A family travelling with other unrelated individuals (friends) or two
or more unrelated families travelling together were classified as
"mixed." The unique case of one respondent group comprised of four
related families spanning three age generations was classified as
"mixed." And finally, for the role in group variable, subcategories

of "most influential" indicate whether the person perceived as most
influential in the group is male, female, or joint (equal influence

of all respondents). To determine who was perceived as most influ-
ential in the group, ratings for each individual (by him/herself and
all others in the group) were summed, and the respondent receiving the
highest score was thus classified.

Tables 12—15 summarize the variable categories used to examine
information networking before the trip and upon arrival to the recrea-
tion location. A total of 36 respondents comprising 21 groups provides
the base for calculating frequencies of before trip networking (Tables
12 and 13). A total of 77 respondents comprising 32 groups provides
the base for calculating frequencies of upon arrival networking (Tables

14 and 15). The reason for differences in base numbers here is that

67

linll... .I..I|.I.. .J l... 1.4 .... ....ll 116-1.9 lullIIIII-il. . lJllrlitllll.

 

 

             

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

: .5 a .5 . n .5 n .5 3 .... ...... a .5 a .5 a .5 n .5 a .5 ...N... .5 .o .5 S .5 ,.:l:.........:.,....... awn.-
n... All. a .1. 3 - - .- 2 ..2 n a R m. we.
a .... ll _ .5 . n. .... jinn-”fl 18.14351 . . .. .... n . .. .... a .. .l-u.....-_.n an.
a 2 - a s . _ .. - - . ..1RJL no . - - P. ~ 2 - .3 a. ..
a. .5 r .5 . z .5 . ... 1 .M5 N. a . n . an .5 . ... 2 .5 +35] 13451 S... m .l. 53.8....
..m - -.. ...ul. .. 2 - 1:. mm - - ... ...C m 2 nub-l . -..l
d .5 ~. .5 .ldl .5 .. ... j a. . ~ . inmum d .5 n ... --l-latfl
T: - n. a. . o. Mm - - .- ll_.m - .. “.2 - m - 5.: .
A~ .5 3 .2 I: .5 . 13 l...“ c ... o .3 «I - ...m u . c .3 - .5 2 .5 an .5 ~o .5 o .8 ewe.- 8:03
5: «.2 .. 3 . o 2 - - 3 .2 . 8. 8. . L F H: ~... ..8 .
lain-5 2 .5 . alum“ : .5 o ... .... 2 .5 m. ...5 2 .5 A. .5 2 .5 3 5 a. .51 A. .5 ~. .5 .8..?...:... :28.
a... - ...... . o ..N - - 9 «.2 8 8 ..m.mm 5. H: a - 2 ..2 . on .
2 .5 A. .5 . c .5 375 ~n .5 _ .5 . ... a . fl ... - .l~ Is... on .5 QIJ»... l.- . -ll ,.-15r=.uum...w
...: - «Ur. .. ...... - - o. i 1: - S a... - 7: a ..2 n 2
in :15. l: .5 . ~. ... 7. .5 13qu .... - .5 la .5 n ...m a. .5 2 .5 ~MI.5 2 H5 2 .5 lame-h .....llumm
R a... o. 2 . o. 3 - - . a 8. .. llalnuJ _ ._ m. 2 ..2 n 2 ll! .l
2 . d .5 d .5 . 3 .5 ~... ~ ... n .. o ... fig 375 3 .5 375 #75 ...:uU-uu ....Ewmflufl
3 ...... - .. -..l . .. S - - 8. 8. 8 . mmll - R - a. 0... To... ...: |
fifill d ...alfidn ... .... drum. . ... llabmdllnm .5 2 .5 7 .5 7.an Nada-..ndlnyi llll . .... comm-3.“
3 lb - .. E -. ..2 - - l . : 3 T: 3 52 2 3 ..mml ...: - Q:
jin- : ...-ml 7. .5 ”jun“ - It“ ~o .3“ o ..u ..x ~ .5. ~n .u 7 .5 A. .llv :75 f .25 4...... 137:“ ~23; Nflum-o-wneeue:
5.3 Tee a. no .- q. 2 he. - ill 9. mm on 8. 8 B. min 2 a. so a... 1: 8 ..alll - l lll ll
3 .5 N. .5 2 .5 . : .... 2 .5 3.5 #75 3... ~- - .5 n . n . o .5 r425 r. .l5 :..5 2751 3...... - . , 5.255....
.5... ...I: ...... 5:... ......a... 8m 2.4:... ...: ...... ...... 3...: .3230 3.2.6 3...... 2...... . 3 3 - 3 3 - a 2 - .. :3... 538.. ...... ...... .c we...
. _ - u - l - - - - - - -.MJE.-. Time... ... ...... I: I: -....u
l - $2.23.... ”......sw- .---.,-:l .m.ll.=.. v1.5.2.3... .FIF E7... nSSn-l ...: i -l- ----l lit-l1, ll-
“wt-...: - . assumes ...-11. -lla : .88 g 5: mm: 3 we... Ill-Eelgl t-.-.---- 5:58 a. - .l. -- ll-.--

 

 

 

 

QHHH onowom oo>wooom coaumEHOWnH mo monfix n05 mofinowoumu manofinm> cu wnfionooo< munoonoammm mo ANV mofionmnconm

NH enema

68

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

._ .... z .5. 2 .5 2 .... . .... 2 .... 2 .5 .n .... 3 .... 2 .5
...: - ...... . ...: a... S ..2 2 a... 2 a...
.
1 ... -.. ., — . . .
2 .5. 2 .5
. .. -. ..p _ RE... ...:i
2 .5. . 2 .2.
...-.2:- : . .-..w...
2 .5 2 .5.
NB. ..- 5.....- -. .- ... . .- .. . .-.-
......I 7 -..... -
~1— OZV Nd 02.-
1. - ..mm Thee-r .-
: .... d .5 2 .5. 2 .5
..m - ...ww - ...-w a : ..m...
2 .5 2 .5. .2 .5
.H: ..- 1.51 -.1.
2 .5 .2 .5.
. .. - ...: -
.. ... -- -..nmmw ..m
P.” v.1“- - ...-E1 7 ...-m
- .5. 2 .5 .2 .5. .3
...: kmm: i 9&1? ...... . - -
3 .5 2 .5 .2 .5. 21.5 4..- .5.
...... ...... ...... 5:... .355... 2.3:... ...: .8... you... 2...: ....» ....»
--- - -.1- -.---. -3955..- NI. I: I:
..--1.55.535. W3..- - ...-- -Em.
11-1-: - - - 15.5. .... Webs-11-.

afiue muOWmm cowumEHOMCH mo mmopsom ~05 mmwuomoumo manmfium> cu

m. mHQme

 

  

 

 

                      

   

 

I .... 2 .z. : .... 3 2...... .22...
. - r4. n.0- 5.: Ec- 5..,...> “......r...:£
30>: ...-...: 7).».
1 1-1-1 1 "09:05 5...“... .55.:
.25 .--~:mz.x «.....miw uq-L
z -
1 - .M nu. 1- :1! ...-.....amué
- Ga - .o
.... - 1 f. .m. «m1 -- mos-.25....
:1- --.1 ft . .
2 .5 9.1.... at...
I. - .1 fit ,
5 2 .5 2 .5 -- ;. 75......-
- - 1K1 f:
_ .5 2J5 .- ace-:5
.m1 limlr “$1. 1 1 .- :1.-
..: A. ... 03-5 .0 50.15....
.11 -11.. M611 -
c .5 1- 1 - 4.3:...
.--- 1P- Ini 32.43:; Sakai
1...: 2 .5 3 .5 95:. 2.2.2.5.
. 1-1-mm1-m... --1 - t- 1
.5 2 .5 2 .5 - .- 52
. a ~
28...“. ...-mmwf..mmv 11. 525.953
2 n~ - a. :30. u: mm,.x_.:m
1 -.- . -1 1-

 

wcfivuouu< mucmvcoammm mo ANV

 

mmwucmscwpm

 

69

: .5 : .... .
hm‘xi EIAAfiI In! . biIIH I.
.

34.... is ...w... “.39
iv: cumin mad.
Way -tl “may.
rum an: «Haring
x ...- ‘bl‘mmamfiu
WW. :9 any}?
flaw :fiflgwmkadmmwfi

«my
him .IBI. Ewgl

3
a. 0.“

u— n . I I n, n I O . . I H.‘-
fpaw: 2 u . M2...“ . o .... .2... Tau-.4
2.... lion 0.! .13... 2:1” V004... .05! vi: log—‘40 .ouu ..up .9: .9; _30h sou-nap 0 at .0. a. no - o~

- - _ - - . I - ..- - u . ‘ . Edd. Taxman on ...... an”; t Bu. 3» «Ha I u - no: .8—
IEKEE E?».li- 1 l
h E25 E

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hm>fiuu< com: wm>fimumm :ofiumEu0wcH we mvcfix wok mmwucuwumu wanxfium> cu acwcpoup< mucmvcoammm wo ANV mmwucwacmum

«H magma

Table 15

Frequencies (7) of Respondents According to Variable Categories for Sources of Information Upon Arrival

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEF-_at—c‘i_ ._ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t managea- T

25:23:"th ' +26} ' '

E:$E§$§3‘$§§?§
fifill 7
i: a l *
=32?” :

:_:4th...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

71

before trip networking does not include non—response cases (these cases
representing repeat visitors for which no data exists) and upon arrival
networking does include non-response cases so that resulting frequencies
are not distorted. The influence of each variable on the kinds and
sources of information is discussed in text succeeding Tables 12-15.

(See Appendix C for units of analysis used and percentages of respondents

for variable categories.)

Sex
Frequencies for variable categories were calculated using indivi-
dual respondents as the unit of analysis.

Kinds of Information Before Trip. Males most frequently receive

 

information on places to stay (80%), directions (53.3%) and recreational
activities/scenic areas (46.7%). Females most frequently receive infor—
mation on places to stay (71.4%), recreational activities (61.9%) and
tourist attractions/scenic areas (31.8%). When comparing categories a
much higher percentage of males are receiving information on places to
stay, directions and scenic areas, which seems to indicate male dominance
in regards to this kind of information. Females show much higher per—
centages for information on recreational activities, community events,
shopping, tourist attractions and museums, which seems to indicate
female dominance in regards to this kind of information. This suggests
that the variable sex influences the kinds of information received by
visitors before their trip, each sex exhibiting more influence or
dominance over the other regarding certain kinds of information received
before the trip.

Kinds of Information Upon Arrival. Males most frequently receive

 

information on recreational activities (51.4%) and places to eat and/or

72

directions (29.7%). Females most frequently receive information on

places to eat (47.5%) and recreational activities/shopping (37.5%).

When comparing categories, a higher percentage of males receive infor-
mation on recreational activities whereas a higher percentage of females
receive information on places to stay and eat, community events,
shopping, museums and local residents. This suggests that the variable
sex also influences the kinds of information received upon arrival.

Most obvious variations are seen in percentages obtained for recreational
activities, places to eat and shopping, suggesting that this variable
most strongly influences these particular kinds of information.

Sources of Information Before Trip. Males most frequently use

 

the AAA, travelling group and maps (33.3%) as sources before the trip
whereas females most frequently use the travelling group (42.9%). When
comparing categories, the only large variations in percentages occur
with males much more frequently using maps and females more frequently
using the travelling group. All other sources show either small varia-
tions or approximately equal percentages between categories. This
suggests that the variable sex does not seem to influence sources used
by visitors before their trip.

Sources of Information Upon Arrival. Males most frequently

 

use the place staying (37.8%) and driving/walking by/travelling group
(21.6%) as sources upon arrival, whereas females most frequently use
driving/walking by/place staying (32.5%) and the travelling group
(17.5%). Although percentages vary between categories, the differences
are slight with exception to a substantially larger percentage of
females using the source driving/walking by. This suggests that the
variable sex does not seem to influence sources used by visitors upon

arrival to a recreation location.

73

Location
Frequencies for variable categories were calculated using
respondent groups as the unit of analysis.

Kinds of Information Before Trip. Campers most frequently

 

receive information on directions/places to stay (84.6%), recreational
activities (76.9%) and scenic areas/natural environment (69.2%).
Visitors at resorts most frequently receive information on places to
stay (87.5%), recreational activities (75%) and places to eat (50%).
This suggests that location may influence the kinds of information
visitors use before their trip. When comparing categories, a much
higher percentage of campers receive information on community events,
tourist attractions, scenic areas, museums, directions, local residents
and natural environment; a much higher percentage of resorters receive
information on places to eat. The large variation in percentages
between categories not only confirms that the variable location strongly
influences kinds of information received but also suggests that campers
receive more pre-trip information (showing much higher frequencies than
resorters).

Kinds of Information Upon Arrival. Campers most frequently

 

receive information on recreational activities (77.8%) and directions
(61%) upon arrival to a recreation location whereas resorters most
frequently receive information on places to eat (64.3%) and shopping
(50%). When comparing categories, a much higher percentage of campers
receive information on places to stay, recreational activities, tourist
attractions, scenic areas, museums, directions and natural environment.
A much higher percentage of resorters receive information on places to
eat and shopping. This data not only suggests that location strongly

influences the kinds of information visitors receive upon arrival, but

74

also that a dissimilarity of interests exists between campers and

resorters. The largest discrepancies in percentages between categories

are shown for recreational activities, scenic areas and directions, with

very high percentages of campers receiving this information compared

to very low percentages of resorters. This seems to indicate that

campers are very active in seeking out information on different activi-

ties while resorters are much more passive in this regard. General

observations of the researcher at contact sites confirm that campers

usually leave their sites during the day, while resorters tend to engage

in activities at the resort where they are staying. This data also

suggests preferences by campers for information on natural amenities

of the area they are visiting while resorters prefer information on

dining and shopping. What becomes important here is that tourism organi-

zations need to target information according to the needs and preferences
of the different tourist markets represented by campers and resorters
both before the trip and upon arrival to a recreation location.

Sources of Information Before Trip. Both campers and resorters

most frequently use the travelling group and friends as sources of pre-

trip information. This would suggest that location does not highly

influence pre-trip sources used by visitors. However, some differences

are elicited when comparisons are made between categories. Although

frequencies do not vary much between sources used by both categories,

there are several sources used only by one category. Travel informa-

tion centers, newspapers and maps are used solely by campers. Before

jumping to conclusions, it should. be stated here that the possibility

exists that small sample size has distorted this data. However, if

this data is representative of the larger population, it suggests that

before the trip campers can be targeted more effectively than resorters

" ' -=‘~~w—v . m s ' r

75

through promotional schemes using formal information sources and mass

media communicat ion .

Sources of Information Upon Arrival. Campers most frequently

use place staying (77.8%), driving/walking by (38.9%) and the travelling

group (33.3%) as sources of information upon arrival to a recreation

location. Resorters most frequently use driving/walking by (57.1%),

place staying (42.9%), and the travelling group (35.7%). When comparing

campers and resorters, a much higher percentage of campers use the place
they are staying, local visitor centers, and gas stations, whereas a

much higher percentage of resorters use driving/walking by, Chamber of

Commerce and radio. Some of these results can be explained by referring

back to the kinds of information these groups use upon arrival to a

recreation location. Campers make higher use of the place staying

because they may perceive this source as very credible in terms of
receiving information on the natural amenities of the area whereas

resorters may not perceive the place they are staying to be as credible

in terms of this information. Furthermore, resorters are most inter-

ested in information on places to eat and shopping which explains why
this group uses driving/walking around much more frequently. (Table
10 indicates that driving/walking around was the most frequently used

source for these two kinds of information.) This data also suggests

that resorters rely more heavily on certain formal information sources

(Chamber of Commerce) and mass media sources. This is in direct con-

tradiction to kinds of sources used before the trip. Therefore, phase

of trip must be accounted for when trying to target tourist markets.

76

Age Group

Frequencies for variable categories were calculated using indi-

vidual respondents as the unit of analysis. Over 70 percent of

respondents fall into the second age group category (26-45) while

approximately 30 percent comprise the remaining three categories (both

before trip and upon arrival). Small sample sizes in three categories

most likely distorts resulting frequencies. Therefore, conclusions

cannot be made about the influence of age on information networking of

visitors. But, intuitively speaking, it seems that age would at least

influence the kinds of information received by visitors because of

varying interests in different kinds of activities based primarily on

physiological differences due to aging processes. Therefore, possible

influence of this variable on information networking should be pursued

in more detail with future studies.

Number of Visits

Frequencies for variable categories were calculated using the

individual as the unit of analysis. Of the total numbers of respondents,

20.8 percent are first time visitors, 26 percent are second time

visitors and 53.2 percent are repeat visitors. In reality, second time

visitors are also repeat visitors, so combining the two categories

results in approximately 80 percent of all respondents being repeat

visitors. This means that four-fifths of the visitors to the Frankfort

and Tawas areas were already somewhat familiar with the area they were

visiting (having been there at least once before). The implications

of this are discussed below. Also, before discussing results, it should

be pointed out that two subcategories of repeat visitor (8-16 yrs. and

17-38 yrs.) contain sample sizes too small to permit meaningful

77

interpretation of data. Therefore, these categories are not discussed
in the following text.

Kind of Information Before Trip. Both first and second time
visitors most frequently receive information on places to stay and
recreational activities. When comparing categories, higher percentages
of first time visitors receive all kinds of information. This suggests
that repeat visitation not only brings increased familiarity about an
area, but also results in decreased use (and possibly need) of different
kinds of information before the trip. In fact, the only kinds of infor-
mation not experiencing large decreases in use between first and second
time visitors (less than 10% decrease between categories) are recrea-
tional activities, scenic areas, and directions. This suggests that
not all information is completely learned or absorbed by visitors on
their first trip, and that continued information seeking is pursued to
learn more about the area before the next trip.

Kinds of Information Upon Arrival. First and second time
visitors most frequently receive information on recreational activities
and directions, followed by places to eat. Repeat visitors ("total"
column) most frequently receive information on recreational activities
followed by places to eat. The percentage of repeat visitors receiving
directional information is almost negligible (2.4%) which suggests that
increasing familiarity with the area decreases the need for this type
of information. The kinds of information most frequently received by
subcategories of repeat visitors are recreational activities for the
first category (3-4 yrs.) and places to eat for the second category
(5-7 yrs.).

When comparing categories (using "total" repeat visitor cate-

gory), the general trend seems to be that repeat visitors much less

78

frequently receive different kinds of information and receive fewer
kinds of new information than first and second time visitors. But,
there are exceptions to this trend. The second subcategory of repeat
visitor (5-7 yrs.) shows frequencies approximately equal to or higher
than other categories for information on places to eat, recreational
activities and shopping. Also, second time visitors represent the
category most frequently receiving information on recreational activi-
ties, scenic areas, directions, local residents and natural environment.
Expected results would show the first time visitor most frequently
receiving all kinds of information as was the case with information
received before the trip. This discrepancy supports the earlier postu-
lation that continued information seeking occurs with subsequent trips.
However, visitation seems to influence the kinds of information received
upon arrival to a recreation location.

Sources of Information Before Trip. Most frequently used
sources of information by first time visitors are the travelling group
(56.3%) and maps (31.3%) while second time visitors most frequently use
the AAA (40%) and friends (30%). This suggests that visitation influ-
ences the kinds and frequencies of sources used. When comparing the
two categories, first time visitors most frequently use the travelling
group, travel information centers, Chamber of Commerce, magazines,
newspapers and maps. This suggests heavier use of formal information
sources and mass media communications by first time visitors. Thus,
the first time visitor represents the tourist market or segment most
receptive to formalized types of tourism promotion strategies.

Sources of Information Upon Arrival. First and second time
visitors most frequently use the place they are staying as an informa—

tion source followed by driving/walking by. The repeat visitor ("total"

79

column) most frequently uses driving/walking by followed by the travel-
ling group. Sources of information most frequently used by subcategories
of repeat visitors are the Chamber of Commerce for the subcategories

3-4 years and 5-7 years as well as driving/walking around for the sub—
category 5-7 years.

When comparing categories (using "total" repeat visitor category)
highest percentages of first time visitors use driving/walking by, local
visitor centers and gas stations as information sources; highest
percentages of second time visitors use the place they are staying,
local residents, Chamber of Commerce, restaurants, radio and merchant
shops. No sources are used more frequently by the repeat visitor (total
column). However, the second subcategory of repeat visitors more
frequently uses the travelling group than any other category.

The following interpretation provides a possible explanation
for these results. First of all, the place staying receives most use
by first and second time visitors and less use by repeat visitors.
Obviously, the same source(s) can be used only so often before depleting
its usefulness in providing new information, thereby explaining decreasing
percentages in categories of increasing visitation. Another important
statistic is that lowest use is made of the travelling group as an
information source by first time visitors. The fact that almost all
first time visitors sampled were travelling together in uniform groups
(without individuals who were repeat visitors) possibly explains why
the travelling group is a less desirable information source than other
sources outside the group. Furthermore, the fact that repeat visitors
also tended to travel in uniform groups can be considered an asset in
this situation because it allows the use of other potentially informa—

tive individuals in the group for additional information. A final

80

point to be made is that driving/walking around was frequently used as
an information source by all categories because it accomplishes a dual
function: 1) it represents a passive and easily accessible way to find
out new information; and 2) it also functions as a "recreational
activity" for many individuals.

These findings offer strong support for Cockrell's research
(1981) discussed earlier. He found that as individuals gained expe-
rience as river runners there is a shift in reliance on friends, family
and working companions as important information sources to personal
experience and other experienced individuals. These findings also
apply to those in this study on level of visitation. As visitation to
a recreation location increases, there is a shift from reliance on the
place staying as an important information source to the travelling
group and personal experiences gained by driving or walking around the

area .

Type of Group

 

Frequencies for variable categories were determined using
respondent groups as the unit of analysis. The same problem of small
sample size occurs with several categories for this variable as were
encountered with variable categories for age. The first two categories
(family with children and family no children) comprise 75% of total
respondent groups while the other three categories combined comprise
the remaining 25%. Therefore, no substantive conclusions can be made
about the influence of this variable on information networking. How-
ever, Tables 12-15 indicate large variations in percentages between
categories for kinds and sources of information used before the trip

and upon arrival. This suggests possible influence of group type on

81

fidbnmmimInetworking and may be worth analyzing in more detail in

future studies.

Role in Group
Ftapmncies for variable categories were determined using

indhfldualrespondents as the unit of analysis. Non-response cases

are not:flufluded in these calculations so that meaningful data is

For the variable category of individual role, over 80% of

obtained.
all respondents are represented in the mother/wife or father/husband

subcategories for upon arrival data and over 70% in these subcategories

for before trip data. Small sample sizes were obtained for the "son",
”daughter" and "friend" subcategories. There are a few possibilities
as to why such large percentages are obtained in the first few sub-

First, most groups sampled were families (with or without

categories.
children), which explains low sample size for the "friend" category.

Secondly, the lower age limit of 16 years for respondent inclusion was

too high to permit inclusion of almost all children in these groups,

thereby resulting in low sample sizes for "son" and "daughter" sub-

The distribution of respondents in these subcategories

categories.
cannot be considered representative of the larger population due to
Therefore,

limitations imposed by small sample size of this study.
small sample sizes in several subcategories prohibit conclusions from
being made about the influence of the individual's role on information

'However, the possible influence of mother/wife, father/

networking.
husband and friend categories are explored in the attempt to determine

if individual role should be examined in more detail.
Ir: time "most influential" (perceived) category, 44% of respond—

ent: groups rated male most influential, 19% rated females and 37%

82

rated joint influence for before trip data (Tables 12 and 13). In upon
arrival data (Tables 14 and 15), 48% of respondent groups rated males
as mmst influential, 19% rated females and 33% rated joint influence.
Males represent the largest percentage of respondents who are perceived
as being most influential by the group. When coding the questionnaires,
the researcher noticed that the majority of husbands rated themselves
higher:than their.wives, whereas the majority of wives rated themselves
equal to or slightly lower than their husbands. This suggests that
individuals may not be very reliable judges of themselves in terms of
perceived influence and that self-ratings do not provide adequate
measure of actual influence. This suggestion is supported in a study
done on urban park familiarity (Spotts and Stynes, 1982b) in which
similar conclusions are reached regarding self—ratings about park
awareness.

Kinds of Information Before Trip. Respondents with the role
of mother/wife most frequently received information on places to stay
(64%), recreational activities (54.1%) and directions (50%). Respondents
with the role of father/husband most frequently received information on
places to stay (90%) and directions (50%). Respondents with the role
of friend most frequently received information on recreational activities
(85.7%) and places to stay (71.4%). When comparing categories, the
highest percentage of fathers/husbands received information on places
to stay; the highest percentage of mothers/wives received information
on tourist attractions; and the highest percentage of friends receive
information on community events, shopping, places to eat, recreational
activities and museums. This data suggests that the individual's role
influences the kinds of information she/he receives before the trip.

‘Most influential males most frequently received information

83

on places to stay (85.7%), recreational activities (71.4%) and scenic

Most influential females received information only on

areas (57.1%).
places to stay and recreational activities (66.7%) and community events

and scenic areas (33.3%). Respondents with shared influence (joint)
most frequently received information on directions and places to stay

This suggests that respondents who are rated most influential

(66.7%).
are dominant in regards to receiving certain kinds of information.

This data also suggests differences in the kinds of information re-

ceived by most influential individuals due to their sex or shared

influence.
Kinds of Information Upon Arrival. Respondents with the role

of mother/wife and father/husband most frequently received information

on first recreational activities and second, places to eat upon arrival.

with the role of friend. When

This order is reversed for individuals

comparing categories, a higher percentage of mothers/wives receive

information on places to stay and community events; higher percentages

of fathers/husbands receive information on tourist attractions and

natural environment; and a higher percentage of friends receive infor-
However, only large

mation on places to eat, shopping, and directions.

differences in percentages between categories result with information
on places to stay, places to eat, and shopping. This suggests the

individual's role does not strongly influence the kinds of information

received upon arrival to a recreation location.

Most influential males most frequently receive information on
recreational activities (76.9%), females on places to eat (60%) and
individuals with shared influence on places to eat and shopping (66.7%).

When comparing subcategories, a higher percentage of males receive

information on recreational activities, places to stay and museums

84

while the joint subcategory shows highest percentages for the remaining

kinds of information. Because this category is represented by more

than one individual per group, higher percentages result for many kinds

This data suggests that the variable category most

of information.
influential exerts some degree of influence on the kinds of information

received upon arrival.
Respondents with the role

Sources of Information Before Trip.

of mother/wife most frequently use the travelling group and friends
(28.6%) as information sources before their trip. Respondents with

the role father/husband most frequently use the AAA (50%); and friends

most frequently use the travelling group (71.4%).

When comparing categories, a higher percentage of mothers/wives
use TIC's, family, magazines and "other" category; a higher percentage

of fathers/husbands use the place staying and maps; and a higher per-

centage of friends are using the AAA, travelling group, Chamber of

Commerce, and newspapers. This suggests that the individual's role

in the group influences the sources used before the trip.

Most influential males most frequently use friends and maps
(42.9%); females show no preference between AAA, friends and family;

and groups with shared influence most frequently used the travelling

When comparing subcategories a higher percentage of

group (66.7%).
males use friends, maps, and "other" category; a higher percentage of

females use family; and a higher percentage of respondents sharing

influence in groups use the travelling group, TIC's, Chamber of Commerce,

place staying, magazines and newspapers. This suggests that in groups
where influence is shared, a larger number of sources are used more

frequently than in groups where either males or females are most
influential . However, variations in percentages between categories

85

are substantially large only for the sources travelling group and maps,
which suggests that the variable category most influential only slightly
influences the sources of information used before the trip.

Sources of Information Upon Arrival. Individuals in all three

 

role groups most frequently use the place staying as an information
source upon arrival. Also, frequencies differ only slightly between
categories. This data suggests that the individual's role in the group
does not influence the sources of information used upon arrival.

All three subcategories of most influential most frequently
use the place staying and driving/walking by as an information source.
The joint subcategory shows highest percentages for the different
sources used, and some variations between percentages exist between
the male and female subcategories. However, all these percentages are
generally low (except for place staying), which suggests that the
variable category most influential only slightly influences the sources

of information used upon arrival.

Summary of Variable Influence on Information Networking

Table 16 summarizes the results for all variables used to
examine information networking.

In general, Table 16 shows that the variables examined more
strongly influence the kinds of information visitors receive (before
the trip and upon arrival to a recreation location) than sources of
information used. Furthermore, the variables location and number of

visits are the most influential in regards to information networking.

86

Table 16

Summary of Variable Influence on Information Networking,

Before Trip and Upon Arrival

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BEFORE TRIP UPON ARRIVAL
KINDS OF SOURCES OF KINDS OF SOURCES OF
VARIABLE INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION INFORMATION
Not Not
Sex Influential Influential Influential Influential
Somewhat
Location Influential Influential Influential Influential
Age Group Inconclusive Inconclusive Inconclusive Inconclusive
Number of
Visits Influential Influential Influential Influential
Type of Group Inconclusive Inconclusive Inconclusive Inconclusive
Role in Group
Individual's Somewhat Not
role Influential Influential Influential Influential
..................... .. ..-...-._..._ -.....1.....- ..- _.
Somewhat Somewhat
Most Influential Influential Influential Influential Influential

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

Conclusions and Implications

 

Results of this study indicate that informal communication
channels are the primary means people use to receive information about
recreation opportunities, and that formal communication channels play a
minor role in accessing information. The travelling group, place where
visitors are staying, driving/walking around, family and friends repre-
sent the most important sources for a variety of informational needs.
The AAA is the only formal organization used frequently by individuals
for recreation information, and use of this source is primarily to
obtain maps and travel guides before taking a trip.

These results imply that the majority of visitors to Michigan
Shoreline areas do not actively seek out information from formalized
sources such as Chambers of Commerce, visitor centers, Travel Information
Centers, etc. Instead, many individuals play a more passive role in
that they make use of sources most accessible to them or else do not
seek information at all and let others in their travelling group
‘provide them with necessary information.

Results also indicate that kinds and sources of information
used by visitors are strongly influenced by phase of trip, number of
'visits and location where the visitor is staying. The findings that
source use varies according to phase of trip is supported by Hodgson's
research (1979). Furthermore, this study found that source use changes

‘with increased visitation. As visitors become more familiar with an

87

88

area through repeated visits, they rely more heavily on other potentially
informative members of their travelling groups and their own discoveries
as information sources. This coincides with Cockrell's findings (1981)
that as wild river recreationists gain experience as river runners,
information source use shifts to personal experience. Also important
is that repeat visitors less frequently receive new information than
first or second time visitors, which suggests that communication links
of visitors are primarily homophilous. According to Rogers and Kincaid
(1981) the exchange of ideas most frequently occurs between trans-
ceivers who are homophilous because more effective communication occurs.
However, Lauman (1973) found that for new ideas to diffuse, communica-
tion links must be heterophilous. Hence, less information use by repeat
visitors in this study may be explained by homophilous communication
links rather than heterophilous ones.

It was hoped that this research would provide insights as to
how to more effectively promote and manage tourism in Michigan. The
results of this study indicate that this is no easy task. The problem
becomes one of tying formal information systems into informal systems
in order to access the kinds of information potential visitors need or
want to know.

There are several possibilities as to how to accomplish this.
In order to promote tourism, people must first be made aware that a
place exists and then targeted to visit that place. This study suggests
that an individual's awareness of a place comes mostly from informal
sources such as family, friends and the group travelled with on a vaca-
tion trip. If people are not actively seeking out information about
possible places to visit from formal sources, then how can these sources

be used to create awareness of recreation opportunity? A possible

89

answer to this is that formal organizations involved with tourism must
actively seek out tourist/recreationist markets and provide them with
information rather than the traditional role of providing information
only to those that seek it out. Much of mass media communications are
ineffective in terms of accessing the kinds of information people want
or in providing information perceived as "credible" or "useful" by
potential users. However, formal tourist-related organizations need
to make use of mass media in order to create initial awareness in
individuals as to their functions and information-providing capabilities.
Hopefully, creating an awareness about these sources will provide the
impetus for more use of them.

A second possibility lies in tapping "weak ties" or hetero-
philous links in communication networks. An individual's family, friends
and travelling group comprise interlocking personal networks, which are
networks where an individual interacts with a set of dyadic partners who
interact with each other (Rogers and Kincaid, 1981). Rogers and Kincaid
(1981) suggest that ingrown communication patterns in interlocking per-
sonal communication networks discourage the exchange of new information
with the environment beyond the personal network and that interlocking
networks facilitate "the pooling of ignorance" among individual members.
This study has provided evidence that strongly supports the case that
visitors receive information through homophilous links. The literature
suggests that information is communicated to more individuals through
heterophilous links, not homophilous links of family, friends and the
travelling group, and that heterophilous links are more powerful than
homophilous links in transmitting new and different kinds of information.
Heterophilous links are represented by sources individuals use such as

the Chamber of Commerce, AAA, merchant shops in communities where

90

'visitors are vacationing, employees at the visitors lodging place, any
religious social or recreational groups to which an individual belongs.
So, in order to tap into informal communication networks dealing with
recreation opportunities, organizations concerned with promoting tourism
must access information to an individual's weak ties or heterophilous
links. One way to accomplish this would be for tourism agencies to
access information to a variety of formal organizations to which indivi—
duals belong, such as service clubs, religious groups, and outdoor
oriented associations and clubs. Another way would be to provide
recreation information to outdoor recreation or sports magazines, whose
readers would potentially use this information. The important concept
here is that tourism agencies should target weak links of communication
networks with recreation information as a possible method of promoting
more tourism.

A third possibility lies in isolating specific tourist markets
at which to target appropriate promotional strategies. Although this
research has identified several variables which influence the kinds and
sources of information used by visitors, it is important to realize
that the application of these variables towards determining promotional
strategies for specific tourist segments can only be tentatively estab—
lished here because of the highly exploratory conditions of this study.
Since the variable phase of trip was seen to strongly influence the
kinds and sources of information used by visitors, tourism organiza—
tions should keep this in mind when planning promotional strategies.
Correct timing in distributing different kinds of information through
appropriate communication channels is the key to providing the kinds
of information people need or want to know at various phases of their

vacation trip.

91

This study indicates that information on places to stay,
recreational activities, scenic areas and directions is most important
before taking a vacation trip. Furthermore, this type of information
should be made available at AAA's, Travel Information Centers and in
maps (for directional information) in order to facilitate maximum use.
Upon arrival to a recreation location information on recreational activi-
ties, places to eat, directions and shopping becomes most important to
visitors. This information is most frequently obtained from the place
where the visitor is staying and by driving or walking around. So, it
makes sense to focus on providing lodging facilities with this kind of
information.

Although results of this study indicate the importance of maps
as directional sources of information for before trip and upon arrival
stages of travel, maps are not easily accessible. In many areas gas
stations charge money for maps. On top of this, maps that are available
in the State are of general poor quality in regards to giving detailed
information on recreation opportunities. Michigan maps issued by AAA
and Chambers of Commerce do not usually indicate publicly owned
recreation lands such as national forests, State forests or Sleeping
Bear Dunes. Providing better quality maps in places such as Chambers,
.AAA and gas stations is necessary in order to access a much used source
of information to more people who need it.

The variables location and number of visits would likely prove
Imost productive in identifying tourist markets at which to target
tourism promotion efforts. This study indicates that campers are more
‘Ieceptive to mass media promotional schemes before taking a vacation
trip than resorters. Therefore, efforts should be made to access

<2ampers with information on recreational activities, places to stay

92

and directions through Travel Information Centers, newspapers and maps.
Upon arrival to a recreation location it is recommended that campers

be supplied with information on recreational activities, directions and
natural amenities of the area through the campground where they are
staying, local visitor centers and gas stations. On the other hand,
targeting resorters requires slightly different tactics. This group

is most receptive to information on shopping, places to eat and recrea-
tional activities which should be accessed through Chambers of Commerce,
radio, and the resort where they are staying.

The variable number of visits identifies other tourist markets
for which varying promotional schemes are appropriate. Data in this
study suggests that the first time visitor would be most receptive to
mass media types of promotion before the trip. This is because a
higher percentage of first time visitors use mass media sources than
second time visitors before taking a trip and would be more receptive
to information placed in Travel Information Centers, Chambers of Commerce,
'magazines, newspapers and maps. Second time visitors would be more recep-
tive to using the AAA for information on places to stay, recreational
activities and directions. Upon arrival to recreation locations, first
and second time visitors are most interested in information on recrea-
tional activities, directions, and places to eat, which should be
jprovided at the place they are staying. The repeat visitor not only
ireceives less information but relies most heavily on informal sources
<of driving or walking around and the travelling group. The study done
13y Calantone and others (1980) found that frequent visitors show little
interest in radio and magazines. Therefore, it is not recommended that
'this group be targeted through formal communication channels.

Aside from the use of formal information sources, several

93

possibilities exist for using informal communication channels to effec-
tively promote tourism. These possibilities are found within the local
communities that provide or service recreation opportunities for visitors.
Most important is how visitors are treated once they arrive in the
community. The adage "a good customer is a satisfied customer" also
applies to the visitor to a recreation location. A satisfied visitor
probably does more to promote an area as a good place to visit than
mass media efforts because of the potential to pass on information to

a large number of people through informal communication networks. The
visitor, then, becomes the vehicle by which an area is promoted for
tourism. Therefore, it becomes very important that the communities
servicing or providing recreation opportunities treat visitors as well
as possible so that they take back to friends and family a positive
image of the area visited.

There are also ways in which these communities can better pro—
vide for the informational needs of their visitors. Since the place
where visitors are staying represents the most frequently used source
of information, it makes sense to focus efforts here. Employees and
owners of lodging facilities (such as resorts, motels, campgrounds,
etc.) need to be highly informed about the variety of opportunities
available to visitors so that these establishments can provide the kinds
of information visitors need or want to know. Many employees presently
working in lodging industries are seasonal labor and not well informed
about the area. A worthwhile endeavor, then, would be for tourist-
related enterprises to organize educational workshops and training
sessions for their employees in order to make them more knowledgeable
sources of information to visitors.

Another result of this study giving insight as to how

94

communication can better access information to visitors is that driving
or walking around is a frequently used information source by visitors.
This means that placement and information content of road signs is very
important in creating awareness and use of certain recreation opportuni-
ties. Most needed are directional and informative signs on recreational
facilities or opportunities such as campgrounds, public beach, scenic

views, etc.

Limitations and Research Directions

 

There are several limitations present in the data utilized in
this study. The first is that small sample size did not allow for
conclusive evidence of the influence of several variables on information
networking. This problem is not so crucial when considering that this
research was a pilot study meant to determine important issues and
methodologies for examination in future studies.

The second limitation is contained within the methodology of the
study. Problems were encountered with treating repeat visitors dif-
ferently than first or second timers. Different questionnaires were
administered to repeat visitors to avoid high non-response that could
have resulted had they been given the same questionnaire as first and
second timers. The realization came too late that non-responses would
have been an indication that less new information is received as a
result of increased visitation. Administering different questionnaires
to this group also did not allow for comparisons between other respond-
ents regarding kinds and sources of information before the trip.
Therefore, results are incomplete for before trip data because repeat
visitors are excluded. The fact that before trip data and upon arrival

data are based on different sample sizes could have caused resulting

95

frequencies to be distorted.

An objective of this study has been to determine which format
in questionnaire administration is best suited to studying this subject
matter. There is no doubt that personal interviews represent the best
format. In the self—administered format, respondents experienced a
fair amount of difficulty in filling out matrices, whereas with personal
interviews this problem was not only eliminated, but less time was
necessary to complete questionnaires. Use of the personal interview
format would also enable lowering the age limit for respondent inclu-
sion. As was stated earlier, the lower age limit for respondent
inclusion (set at 16 years old) was too high to permit gathering data
on the majority of children in respondent groups. This problem can be
eliminated with the personal interview format. In future studies it
is therefore highly recommended that sole use he made of the personal
interview format for this subject matter to facilitate more accurate
response and examination of the role of children in travelling groups
as information sources.

Also suggested for future studies is that more work should be
done with the variables chosen to examine influence on networking.
Larger sample sizes are needed to obtain usable data on variables role
in group, type of group, and age group. Since the variable location
suggested a large degree of influence on networking, it might be
advisable for future studies to expand on the different kinds of
locations used. For example, this variable could include cottages,
motels, inns, private campgrounds, etc. in addition to public camp-
grounds and resorts used in this study.

As well as expanding examination of certain variables in this

study, it is recommended that some additional variables be studied.

96

The variables seasonality and length of visit might prove influential
in determining information networking. To examine the effects of
seasonality on information networking the use of a more longitudinal
research design is suggested, in which sampling would be performed at
various intervals (i.e. once each season) throughout a one year period.
To examine the effects of length of visit, it is necessary to sample
groups at recreation locations that comprise a combination of day
visits, overnight visits, and visits of longer duration.

Finally, analysis procedures in this study were very simplistic
in that only descriptive data was generated to examine communication
networks. The use of frequencies does not establish statistical signi-
ficance nor distinguish relationships between variables. Suggestions
for future studies are to use computerized programs to analyze this
data, with special efforts to isolate the influence of variables on
information networking as well as to determine any correlations that

may exist between variables.

APPENDIX A

97

APPENDIX A
Letter of Permission

July 29, 1982

Pete Peterson
Superintendant
Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore
400 Main Street
Frankfort, MI 49635

Dear Mr. Peterson:

This letter is a written request for permission to conduct informal
interviews at the Platte River Campground in Sleeping Bear Dunes
National Lakeshore during the months of July, August, and possibly
September of 1982. These interviews are part of a Sea Grant research
project for the Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan
State University.

The interviews will be very informal in nature. The participation by
campers in the interviewing process will be entirely voluntary. Only
those individuals willing to participate will be approached. Further-
more, the sampling procedure is neither systematic nor random, which
means that there will be no pressure to interview select campers over
others. The total number of samples taken will be small. An estimated
fifty interviews will be conducted over a four or five day period in
these months.

You should also be made aware of the fact that these interviews are
exploratory. The first year of this Sea Grant Project is devoted to
gathering information for the design of a formal research instrument
for the following year of the project (starting January, 1983). Next
year this formal research instrument will be distributed state-wide
and in surrounding states. If researchers working on this project
should need to conduct surveys next year in Sleeping Bear Dunes, they
will work through the proper channels to obtain permission.

I hope the present arrangement is satisfactory and that no problems
arise. Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Cathy Eckstein
Research Assistant

CE:mjt

APPENDIX B

98

FILTER QUESTIONS

1. Are you a visitor to this area? Yes No

 

STOP INTERVIEW

2. Is this your first visit to this area?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes _____No.__+; Have you made more than one
| other visit to this area?
Use SELF-ADMINISTERED N 2 Y (3 or
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR 1 06mm; —— es more
RECENT VISITORS (OPTION A) Use SELF-ADMINI- I visits)
“1 SEEDFSEEEEEES; Use PERSONAL
Use PERSONAL INTERVIEW INTERVIEW FOR

 

 

FOR RECENT VISITORS VISITORS<OPTION B) REPEAT VISITORS
(OPTION AA) or (OPTION C)

Use PERSONAL IN-
TERVIEW FOR RECENT
VISITORS(OPTION BB)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note: Interview or give questionnaires to all members of travelling group
16 years and older.

3. What is the main purpose of your trip? (Check one)

business
accompanying someone

on business
visiting relatives and/or friends

outdoor recreation(specify)

 

 

other(specify)

4. Is this area a main destination of your trip or is it a stopover?
(Check one)

main destination
stopover
5. Are you staying overnight in the area?

Yes No

 

 

If yes, what type of lodging? (Check one)

hotel/motel/inn (circle) friends/relatives (circle)
resort/cottage/cabin (circle) other (specify)

 

public/private campground
(circle)

99

PERSONAL INTERVIEW FOR RECENT VISITORS (OPTION AA)

1. Before your trip, what information did you get about this area?
PROBE if necessary to get started.
2. Where did you get this information from?

2a. From a person? Who?
2b. From literature? What kind?

3. PROBE - Did you get any additional information before taking this trip?

Interviewer fills in Chart 1 according to responses. Procedure: ask for one
type of information and then it's source(s) before going on to next type of
information.

4. When you arrived in this area, what information did you get?

PROBE if necessary.

5. Where did you get this information from?
5a. From a person? Who?
5b. From literature? What kind?

6. PROBE - Did you get any additional information after you arrived?

Interviewer fills in Chart 2 according to responses. Procedure: same as for
Chart 1.

100

PERSONAL INTERVIEW FOR RECENT VISITORS (OPTION BB)

1. Before this trip, what information did you get about this area?
PROBE if necessarv to get started.
2. Where did you get this information from?

2a. From people? Who?
2b. From literature? What kind?

Interviewer fills in Chart 1 according to responses. Procedure: ask for one
type of information and then it's source(s) before going on to next type of
information.

3. On this trip, where did you get information when you arrived in this area?
PROBE if necessary to get started.
4. Where did you get this information from?

4a. From people? Who?
4b. From literature? What kind?

Interviewer fills out Chart 2 according to responses. Procedure: same as for
Chart 1.

101

 

..~

. ‘Il'tlu. l.) ‘c 1.‘l.l¢ l {1' A)! Il.‘ it I I'. n. Ir 7. 'T: Ixnt II

 

.-
5.3-...

Hopi-Cb .D‘. ...b’ a:

lull!!! ‘l.’ I! I'llc'lsll'.‘hu ill-III
cl . 0.6V

 

 

 

‘llll l.cll.ll"

III-III ls. 'l’

 

 

3;: .- ne... 0... 2...:
all. big 321...? 5‘. l.

our... c :- use-.63:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(I... iillltiilii

cease 9.:093

 

 

 

.-. ,‘l‘ll ll'l‘ill‘ ..

0:... .91.; .0 anti.-

 

 

 

 

II
I

 

k _0G¢ .- DIS-.2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll! --
...-.35...
It). allll 02:50 5.5:...
Into: ..l. .II. ...—:33: Essa-0...:
.3 3 use—..—
I1 ..lllllllllll at I! I .1. h! illil.
as. a. news...
a up... ... no.3:
t I E®. I» W .5 Id -EIII.®E 1 11$ lflflaflfld. 4.4m” in...” I -llilnlilii Iii. ,.
m— g cue-lav fleece". so: ...... 51:0 a: 2:... 3:) at. so since. :97; cos.-
<<< no .2120 uni-8.; .03.: ...-a .3330: usual-I ...-e- le... so... 0:: I. a. 0...: .b... -0303 our...
....5 :- 8. .38 ...I. .2538... ..86:6 1...... ......
maxi-u .5. 2.3.2.: .2. $9.:

 

 

 

— use

 

fixiixotfi 7:2: .. ....
amazes... cit—2:21. u: 0:27.92. - ah
sterilis. n z

5...! n 8
...-.129... .6 0:59.55 1 n m
quzémh—a 2...: I

5.55.. ....x... - ®¥

 

 

 

>61

N can:

 

102

 

 

 

ll

 

..I.tli 'Iy' ,

.—
..gue

 

u¢0l5u1§0 ~02. an:

 

 

 

 

 

A' 'III

o—a;o—

..J__ -- loan 0:. ans:

 

 

cue-e I o. nee—uzo._:

 

 

now-I uucouo

 

 

ll

nee-uuesou- uo_.:o.

 

.00. 0. one—:—

 

 

uc_a;::v

 

 

 

Iago». s..¢:llbo

 

 

 

IlllllllaHRHHHMHHHHMUWflflflflflflflflflflu
Illllll11llllll.

oo_~.h_uun _a¢cuuqa.uou

”as c. unseen

 

 

you on noun—m

 

 

 

 

Wu

g

:50

uses» one.»

 

 

 

 

w aw

need-nun one

 

nu“.
it...

Insane-onus

 

mu Lu"
«caucu- one
so» cue-u

 

 

mu ““0

henna-a

 

 

W «0 m

none-u
nous..- .Iuoa

ovuoiiou
no goal-so

has. on noun-n

 

oases—o0:
_-uoa

 

 

9.5.:

....o.
.0934

 

 

 

 

 

nausacm

 

8°—~<2¢:b:— no nymph

 

 

~ H-duu

 

 

Ill!

 

.s_a::;\$t.:u _s>c.. : up

>.:..;._e c..c_e>«.. L: c::;eu.su - :—

usgeaeaw: n z
3:! I 8
~s_;Llna a: t.::90~£ I n

nuxzp<duh—a 2:35 I

55.11.!253..>
seas—Bl; a 5

"its: :2: - ®

m.

 

 

>ax

n one:

 

103

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RECENT VISITORS (OPTION A)

How did you first learn about this area?

 

 

Go to page 2 for this question.

Please list all the people in your group by their first name, including yourself.
Then rate each of them in terms of their influence on the decision of the group
to come to this area. (Circle the correct number for each person you list).

Didn't Influenced Influenced Influenced Entirely
Influence very little somewhat very much their

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

at all Decision
Yourself: 1 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5

 

 

Go to page 3 for this question.

Do people ever ask you for information about recreation opportunities?

Yes No

 

Do you enjoy talking to others about your trips? Check the one that applies to you.

Yes, I look for opportunities to tell people about my trips.
Yes, occasionally when somebody asks.

I will talk about the trip but only reluctantly.

I try to avoid talking about my trips.

 

 

 

What is your age?

What is your sex?

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

II I -..! I III III" ‘ 'Il 'ltl. l ‘Il'- I I II I I- A 0~
I - - III . III. II-' III I'. I. I." -III III- I- .- . .-
.32:
-. I II. . -, o. . .-.I- I'9 ..- ... IIIII IIII'IIII' 'IIII .'I"I I- - 3.1-......)05 2.3.00
1" ..... .... . - I- .-I ".. I-'. -'III II' . 'II'II'II ,II 1". - 'I.'. 0.02..
.0:- 0. co... 0..- 2:5
I. . . - . 0...... 0 0. 000:0...
.. | . II . I . , o I '1'. . ' . 'III ' I -..:
. I -I -I II--- 'I I 'II II ' 'II' " "-III II. Ito-0 3:550
'9. y I] I ..t. I. .l . ' I an..." 11"!" .I 1'; .I'I'ix '0. '1. IIIII'I D'. . . ..l I . . I I I
II - ' 3......c:= ...-a...
.000 0- 03......
.III t" I .I. II. I. I3' ' 'I '."I II oat—......-
-I '- -- I I . . ..II .I': -'I 'II III! " 'I 02.2.- 53.880...»
1-: . I- -- . -II III .I II" III? I-I'I 09.....3. .0..a:00:s.
.0. ..- 03:...-
u00 0. 0050...
‘0: :- 00.0.5
I Av 3 a m.-. Imv E I .-.mv Immense ....
M ' 0:00.099 I .230 so: 0-:- ...-.0 u: .21. 4:0 5.: 00 :2... 0!..-
<<¢ -0 .2138 00.3... .03: ...-0 .0:0h:¢ :0-040-0 .0-0- 0000 001. 0.3- ...h .268 6.8. o
...-.5 :0 0... 9.0.0 :10. nos-ovoztu I...
.325. 3:35.30. 5: at:

 

 

 

- bade

...—a....&\.-.—.:u .34..... .. q.—

..1. 7...? 0. ...-t)...- ... 3.5.1... .o I :—
u...—...-r)..: . 8

....I t
I

_..-..LII:_ ... 5:... ....A I E
33:52.... 3:... I
......I .3... - ®

. . . . . . . . . . ,:_ cox . o. a :
Lou us: 3p .5; cows—aster; 3.... E... CECZV xi. yum: no... x925 .3:_.:_ >3. 2: 53.... Lemon; .. at .05.... ... eons—5 r ... :__:o.»._ “a 5%.”. ommemw .N
339.5 ”:2: — 9:23 a: mmufzi :c mace—...; mace: ...; ..___=_:_:_ .5 on: :22. us... 262w 7.2: uses... .....uréfip; TE :3» En 970.3 _ .

N 3:...—

105

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

III“ lb 1'

IIIIII‘IIIIIII

I‘ll“.

'IIIIIIIII‘ ,IIIIIIII

Iinli‘

...IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .~
1"..-llli-.." iillll 0‘
00s.:

 

II, III“

 

83":06 u}... .0 ~30:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.000.

.04: 0. 00.0 0... .013

 

 

 

000.. 0 0. 003.30....

 

 

 

 

00000 0.0000

 

 

 

 

 

0':- d9..- UU. 0.. 0’9.

.000 0. 0.0...—

 

 

 

03.50:..-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

003 00

000.3 a in

 

0.0000 5:30

 

00. 30:00 .2330. .0.

.00 ... 000...—

 

 

 

 

.00 0. 0000:

 

 

 

 

Julia.

2.3.0.. 000

 

 

IEI

0.00.00.00-

 

 

IEI

00—00.. 0.0
I: 000:

 

 

 

    

 

0.005..

 

“
00.000
03.0: .0004

 

50.0 0. 0000:

 

' 0080!;
00 00000.5

 

0:3-

0000300-
.03..

 

00:0;
.00...-

 

 

 

 

nuuugo

IllilIIIIII

39- agar-8. 56 mos-—

 

 

 

.uwu no: adv 30> :0..¢E.:.:w Asa 0c. Amzczv x32 um... 0:. xuo:u
.angm umzu N uum;u cw mwu.:cm -m wumuduc. wmsofia .:cau:E.c.:« .0 ma». some 0:.

u #39

 

 

.01....06‘09...‘ .23.. I ..h

5.3.0.; 010.000.. 0.. 0.5.10.0. I .3

0000...)!» I 3

‘00 I 8
...-45.30 .0 0.1.5... I I

.sc...<c..=.—.— .9... I

m.

...-.0.) 008.80 I .
009:5!» I u

3.0:... ...! - 0

m age;

 

.3o_on xmx 9:. E30. .wuuo~ a .0 .man: a .xumzu a uwzuqa uzz mwxca 0:. :—

wcofiucs.:.:. .0w :0; w.t 000:3 .amum m.;. s. vm>auum :sz :m:3

<

40

106

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR RECENT VISITORS (OPTION 3)

How did you first learn about this area?

 

 

Go to page 2 for this question.

Please list all the people in your group by their first name, including yourself.
Then rate each of them in terms of their influence on the decision of the group
to come to this area. (Circle the correct number for each person you list).

Didn't Influenced Influenced Influenced Entirely

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Influence very little somewhat very much their
at all Decision
Yourself: 1 2 3 4 S
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 S
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 S
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 S

 

 

Go to page 3 for this question.

Do people ever ask you for information about recreation opportunities?

Yes No

 

Do you enjoy talking to others about your trips? Check the one that applies to you.

Yes, I look for opportunities to tell people about my trips.
Yes, occasionally when somebody asks.
I will talk about the trip but only reluctantly.

 

 

 

I try to avoid talking about my trips.

What is your age?

What is your sex?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I - - III I .II I I-I-..l.----f. 33! I13 I I}... i -- . I ..~
«. --- -- 2.-. Q-II. --I --II! IIIIIII- IIIII --.IIIIIIII' -I I. I -. - I .-
:3...
- {In I - I - .-.I- 110’? {III «...-I53»... ....t-Il
III! . --. .III- .Iv I» 3.? 1:09 I!!! ... ...-
...... a. so: 0..— :3!
owe—s I a. 23:3...
. | a II lo.“
I I 1.. _ IS:- 380...
II. I III IIIII II II I, l o"l {lull-'3‘ I! .11! ill I. .lzlx ,I II..' Ill‘l. '11 III «I - . ,II I r I II I
Cato-oclb-ul via-:3.
...-o O. 08.....—
- III: ...-55:...
I! I II I ......)I .35!!-
It...>:uc .i-otO-gt.
.as :. ne:.a.
7 III-III .....III lalll.»;. .Ol|l.. -..: .blllulll ’O'IO IIIIIII ulll’ O I- not?! IIIIIIIDLIIIII.
0 on. e. co»...-
1; I- II. ..111 i: II! IIII- .III. I! EIIIIII-- IIIII lyin.-.-- --I-‘. I: I f 2
so: ... 00...:
.n. .8 , E - MW Wu, Ilmv IE! -8 Jflflaflufl IIIIVVIIIIIAHW III. II- I III: .
I 1 3.3150 \ 3.89 so: it. ...... u; 2...: .2..— 3: so :2... :3.-
<<¢ ... .2126 -..-0.... .23: ...-D ...—o»... :3.“ .30- 00: an... 0.3- ...h .2... -..-8
...-.5 :0 l.- saoa 5:0.- uluoaowszu 2:...
«Maui; ...-353.... 2. 9...:
. and...

.umw yo: v.5 :ta :o_mmEu:_:« >:: no. A2222v x:; “at“. ¢:m xeosu
.a—gaa mesa — ucmsu c“ moccasm ~_c muco_=:m omega; ::_.tE.:_:_ _:

 

.... 9.5-54...; 72;...- .

>.... .t..—. a. ...—..2..- ... ...—.11....b.
. ......_:)..:

Eel

...—.273... ... .13.. ...-A

6.5:...— :.=; I

>53

.vaAu

N 9.2....

@—

.3:_t; xox 9;» EC»; mugged 5 no .oEm: c .xom:u m mo;u~m Hz: moxcc oz“ :—
:o:o you

much: m_;u “more :2Hum5m:_:w mom :3; can macs: .mwuu ww:u museum

.N

108

 

 

 

ill‘l'llul III! I!
«I

'liil. till-Ill l.‘IIIIII '1‘. IIIIi-
it Ill; I.“ '1'qu Ill}! ll}!!! j,|lnlllI

 

 

 

{IIII;, IIIIIIIIIIfillili-
..

~08 u:

 

 

2.0.5. ...... .1... a...

 

 

 

 

 

o.s;$.

.ua.. .— scan 0:. .91:

b

 

 

 

 

o»... a e. use-.....a

 

 

 

 

I:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

goo.- v.¢tvu

 

 

 

 

 

ICE-Okluuc. ... id

.00. 9. nus—3.

 

 

 

 

 

 

03.35::-

 

 

 

 

 

o.so>o uu.¢allau

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

... U_)-UUI .20. 0.8- VI.

.01 on oas.£.

 

 

 

so. 0. sou...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

noun a. new...

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

IE g E I Im 83::- 0= nous-u 09.0.0... easy: so. 9......
nos-c usesn uses» nee-uoun ecu case-30...: so. on... ».-.a.. sea-... .09.. .0 .OAIIAU 0.1.. .cvo. .ouaa 0:3:
nuucaoo 3c.p<:d=.a. no man-—

 

 

 

u had-v

 

.s_.:t..sa.sh .0»... I Up
......3.... I. 3.3;: 2. 0.5.1.0... I up
goats!!! I I

....I . o.

.5.;LI15 .0 s.:;.:.& I I
"...-..-<un.... 3.3. I E

25...... .933... I b
509.775 I u

f , I , -.-I. 1......5 .3... - Q

 

 

 

.umw
Ev so» cote—Est; a...» no. 32:2. xco our... of 4.5.5 .3273 >5. .2: so... spasm. ... a: .952. 0 £35.. .. .22: on: moxcs v.3 c. .35.... :23
N H.225 c. PVT—=0... 3... 03.525. exam... ......chcEE I... 2;. ...:r. Er. News... v.12 c. mowmmwfi 53> :2... .52....53... .3. :9. 3.. 9.3:: (3.4 .mfim :3 ..

s

m Qua:

MI

109

PERSONAL INTERVIEW FOR REPEAT VISITORS (OPTION C)

How did you first learn about the (Frankfort) area?

 

(Tawas)

 

 

How long have you been coming to the (Frankfort) area?

 

(Tawas)

 

 

How familiar do you feel you are with this area? (Circle one)

extremely very somewhat not very not at all
familiar familiar familiar familiar familiar

In general, are you the ype of person that looks for new things to do or
places to go, or do you like to do the same things and go back to the same
places?

like to do same things, go back to same places

like to do different things, go to different places

other(specify)

 

 

 

When you arrived in the area on this trip, have you been finding out about
new things to do or places to go that you didn't already know about?
Yes No (Go to question 7)

5a. like what?

 

 

 

5b. PROBE. Did/Will you (go there) (visit this place) (do........)

Opportunity(from 5a): Yes Ko

 

 

 

On this visit to the area, what were the sources of information you used to
find out about these new things to do or places to go? (Refer to opportuni-
ties in question 5 for this question.)

a. source:

 

information:

 

b. source:

 

information:

 

C. source:

 

information:

 

On
of

110

your firsc few visits to the area. what were the three mosc important sources
information you used to find out about things to do or places to go?

source:

 

information:

 

source:

 

information:

 

source:

 

information:

 

lll

RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Please list all the people in your group by their first name, including yourself.
Then rate each of them in terms of their influence on the decision of the group
to come to this area. (Circle the correct number for each person you list).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Didn't Influenced Influenced Influenced Entirely
Influence very little somewhat very much their
at all Decision
Yourself: 1 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 S
l 2 3 4 3
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 5
l 2 3 4 3
l 2 3 4 3
l 2 3 4 5

 

Do people ever ask you for information about recreation opportunities?

Yes No

 

 

Do you enjoy talking to others about your trips? Check the one that applies to you.
Yes, I look for opportunities to tell people about my trips.
Yes, occasionally when somebody asks.
I will talk about the trip but only reluctantly.

I try to avoid talking about my trips.

What is your age?

What is your sex?

APPENDIX C

112

APPENDIX C

Supplementary Tables

Table Cl

Where First Learned, Tawas Area

(N=37)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total

 

SOURCES Z Respondents
Travelling Group 37.8
Friends 13.5
Family 10.8
Trips taken as child 8.1
Passed through on previous trip 5.4
Organized Group 5.4
AAA Campguide 5.4
Vacation guide 5.4
Map 2.7
EMTA 2.7
Co~worker 2.7
100.0

 

 

113

Table C2

Where First Learned, Frankfort Area (N=40)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOURCES Z Respondents
Friends 35.0
Travelling group 30.0
Family 10.0
,Trips taken as child 7.5
Passed through on previous trip 7.5
WMTA 5.0
Map 2.5
Co-worker 2.5
Total 100.0
Table C3

Kinds of Information Received Before Trip, Tawas Area (N=12)

 

 

 

Kinds of % of Respondent
Information Groups
Places to stay 91.7
Recreational activities 75.0
Scenic areas 50.0
Natural environment 50.0
Community Events 41.6
Directions to a place 41.6
Tourist atrractions 41.6
Places to eat 33.3
Local residents 16.7
Shopping 16.7
Museums 8.3

 

 

 

 

114

Table C4

Kinds of Information Received Before Trip, Frankford Area (N=9)

 

 

 

 

 

Kinds of % of Respondent
Information Groups
Places to stay 77.7
Recreational Activities 77.7
Directions to a place 77.7
Scenic Areas 66.6
Natural environment 55.6
Places to eat 44.4
Tourist attractions 44,4
Community events 44.5
Shopping 33.3
Local residents 22.2
Museums 22.2

 

Table C5

Kinds of Information Received Upon Arrival,

Tawas Area (N=15)

L_

 

 

 

Museums

 

 

kinds of Z Respondent
Information Groups
Places to eat 66.7
fiecreational activities 53.3
Shopping 46.7
Directions to a place 46.7
Scenic Areas 26.7
Natural environment 26.7
Tourist attractions 20.0
Places to stay 13.3
Community events 13.3
Local residents 6.7

6.7

 

 

 

115

Table C6

Kinds of Information Received Upon Arrival,
Frankfort Area (N=17)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kinds of Z Respondent
Information Groups
Recreational activities 64.7
Community events 47.1
Directions to a place 47.1
Places to eat 41.2
Shopping 35.3
Tourist Attractions 35.3
Scenic areas 35.3
Places to stay 23.5
Natural environment 23.5
Museums 17.6
Local residents 5.9
Table C7

Sources of Information Before Trip, Tawas Area (N=12)

 

 

 

 

-‘ Z Respondent
Sources Groups
ravelling Group 50.0
Friends 41.7
AAA 33.3
Magazines 25.0
Chamber of Commerce 16.7
Travel Information Center 16.7
Ea; _________________ I —————— 8_3—-—
Radio 8 3
T.V. 8.3
Flyer 8 3
Bookstore 8 3

 

 

 

 

116

Table C8

Sources of Information Before Trip, Frankfort Area (N=9)

 

Z Respondent

 

 

 

 

Sources Groups
Travelling group 66.7
Friends 44,4
Map 44.4
, AAA 33.3
Newspaper 22.2
Family 11.1
Travel Information Center 11.1
State Police 11.1
Vacation travel show 11.1
Place staying 11.1

 

T

able C9

Sources of Information Upon Arrival, Tawas Area (N=15)

 

 

Z Respondent

 

 

Sources Groups
Place staying 66.7
Drove/walked by 66.7
Travelling Group 26.7
Chamber of Commerce 13.3
Local residents 13.3

Local police
Gas stations
Radio

T.V.
Newspaper

Local visitor center

 

 

 

 

117

Table C10

Sources of Information Upon Arrival, Frankfort Area (N=17)

 

Z Respondent

 

 

 

Sources Groups

Place Staying 64.7
Travelling group 41.2
Drove/walked by 29.4
Chamber of Commerce 17.6
Gas Stations 17.6
Local Visitor Center 17.6
Local Merchant Shops 11.8
Restaurants 11.8
Radio 11.8
Local residents 5.9
Newspapers 5.9

 

 

 

118

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmoMDom mez<m

 

.>.H\0vam
o.oH \UHH\duo.>mua\uwn5mno o.o~ mwcfinmwma\mvcwfium unmasoufi>cw amusumz
<<<
m.mm monfiumwwe mucmvfimmu Hmoou
\UHH\muamHum
n.0H zafismm\uwnamno m.mm <<< mcowuowufin
UHH
o.ooH <<< madwmdz
m.NH Naflamw\uonsmno o.m~ macho .>muH wmmum vacuum
0HH\<<<
o.o~ uwnfimso\.muu.>wue o.oq <<¢ mCONuomuuum umHRSOH
QHH
o. 8 0.02 955 .5: 145321...
o.o~ mwcmwum o.oq doouo .>muH mucm>m hwfiaaaaoo
QHH
5.5 mucumxoon «.mH mocwfium H.mm macho .>muH mmHuH>Huo< HmGOHummuowm
\mmnfiumwma\mafiamm UHH <<<
o.o~ uwnamno o.o~ UHH\¢<< o.oq moose .>mHH own on wwomHm
H.HH umnfimso n.0H mvcmfium N.NN macho .>muH amum cu mwumam
UHH <<<
N mN N «N N HN onH<zmomzH
mo wnzHM

 

mou¢ mwsma .nfiua wuowum coaumauomaH mo mwnwu

HHU

How .AMIHV voxnmm .mouusow vow: hauawnvoum umoz

manna

 

119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

n.0H <<< 0.0m munmflum 0.00 ozone wCHHHo>muH unwacoufi>no
amusumz

0.00 anouo mafiafim>mue\<<< mucovfimwu
Hmooq
H.HH 0He\mwcmapm m.NN nacho mafiaam>mue q.qq am: macauomuao

wcfihmum wumHm\oUHHoo mumum

0.00 doouu wnfiHHo>muH\<¢< masomsz
n.0H UHH\mucwHum 5.00 macho mafiaaw>muH mmmu< aficmum

n.0H QHH\mw:mHum m.mm uwmmmmec\.nuo .>mu9 mGONuomuuu<
uwfiusoe
m.mm uwdmdmsmz 5.00 amouo mcHHHm>muH wcfimmmmw

o.mm kwmmmmmamc\oHH muco>w
\mwcwfluw\moouw mafiaaw>mua zufinsano

Bosw.>muu :oaumow>

H.HH \0H9\umamaw3wc\<<< N.NN mucofiu0\n=ouu mafiHHo>muH mmfiufi>fluo<
wcfizmum woman chowumwuomm

o.om ummmmw30c\<<¢ 0.00 msouo wGHHHm>muH umm
mcfixmuw momam ou mwumam

m.w safiemw o.mu <<< m.mm anouu wsaaao>mua swam
wnfizmum woman ou woumam
N mN N NN N AN onH<zmomzH
mo mazHM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmUMDOm QMMZ<M

 

 

 

NHU odomh

mau< uuowxcmum .mfiuH mHoMmm coaumauouaH mo wvafim now .AMIHV wuxnmm .mmuuaom com: haunmovmuh umoz

 

120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

wouomu .m.> Hmoou
0.NH \0H0m0\wofiaom Hmooa 0.0m mucwufimmu Hmooa unmacouw>co Hmunumz
ma vmxam3\m>ou0 mcfl>Mum mumam
0.00 mUHHom Hmooa muaovfimmu Hmooq
\Hwnsmno
H.HH woaaom Hmooa\umnamno ~.NN mucmwflwmu Hmooq 0.00 waa0mum madam chHuumuHo
0.00H mm coxam3\w>ou0 waommmm
0.0m mp wmxam3\w>ou0 0.05 wnflhmum madam ammum vacuum
0.0N muamwwmwu 0.00 wCH>Mum madam wGOHuomuuu< umfiuooy
Hwooa\%nxam3 m>ou0
uan:Mumwm
0.0 \mucmwwmmu Hmuoq 5.0H wCN%Mum momam 0.00 >2 woxam3\m>ou0 mafiamonm
\GOHuMum mm0\.mu0.>mu9
0.00 waH>Mum woman mudo>w muficsaaou
Hmmmmmawm_
uwucwo uouwmfi>
5.5 Hmooq\umnam:0 0.0m macho wcfiHHm>muH 0.00 wafimmum momam mwfiufl>fiuo< Humoaumouomm
\.>.H\%nxfim3\w>ou0
ucmusmumom
5.5 \mofifiom Hmoog 0.00 waH>Mum mumfim N.0q >9 vwxam3\m>oun umw ou mmomam
macho .>mne
0.00 poucmo uouwwfi> mmum
mmuoa\wcwmmum womam ou mwomam
kn wmxam3\m>ou0
N 0N N NN N HN ZOHH<zmomzH
mo mnzHM
mMOMDOm amMz<m .L

 

 

mwu< mmamy .Hm>fiuu< comb coaumauowcH mo mwcfix now .AMIHV voxsmm .mwuusom vow: 0Hucm=kum umoz

0H0 mHnMH

 

121

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0m mcoauMum moo unmacoua>cm amunumz
\noSm uuonm\n:ou0
.>muH\mcanmuw woman
0.00a noouoxwdaaam>muH mucmvammo amooa
a.m nonm uuonm 0.5m mdoaumum wow «.00 wdanwum woman maoauomuao
\nsouo waaaam>muH
0.00 .nu0.>muH\mGHNMMMImmman madmmnz
Moucmo .ma> amooa
5.0a youamu .ma> amooa 5.00 immanmum woman mmoum oacoom
\nsouo moaaao>MHH
ucmuomumom\mn
a.aa wmxam3\o>ou0 N.Nm nacho wnaaao>moH 0.00 moanmum woman mcoauomuuum umau=OH
nounoo .wa>
amooa\uwnfimno
0.~a uw05m50\nn 0.0m mnwwmww woman 0.5m nacho woaaaw>mu9 wnanmmmw
wmxam3\w>oua
0.0a mucowamom awooa 0.0m nwouo mucw>o wuacdano
\.uu0 nouama> amooa .>muH\wca>mum woman
\nonm uuonm\oonEm£0
0.Na uu0.ma> amooa 5.0a nmouwlwcaaao>mue 0.00 weanmum monan mwaua>aoom amcoaommuomm
0.0m wcanmum woman 0.00 nacho wcaaaw>moH 0.00 50 woxam3\o>ou0 umo ou mooman
0.0m Houcwo uouama> 0.00 naouw mcaaao>muH anm cu mmoman
amooa\%n Mam3\w>ou0
N 0% N NN N aN ZOHH<xmonZH
no mQZHM

 

 

mmoMDOm QMMZ<M

 

 

mwn< uuomxamnn .am>auu< con: noaumaqucH no mwcaM H00 Amuav uoxcmm .moousom 00m: naucookun umoz

«a0 Nanny

 

122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0.0a pwnamgu 5.~N noouw mdaaaw>muH 0.0m moanmum woman coaumauOmca amuwpwo
0.00 nsouw maaaaw>muH 5.00 mvcwaun uochoua>dw amuoumz

n.0a waaamum woman 0.w~ wwaao aw>mue Hanoz maoauuwoao

\prEm£o\mvcwaun
q.aN mwcwaun 0.0m an wwxam3\w>ow0 0.00 wcanmum woman wmwum oamwom
0.0a <¢<\uwn5m£0 m.~q moanmuw woman mcoauomnuum uwaHDOH
\nn wwxam3\w>ou0\%aaamn

0.00 mcanmum woman 5.00 ha 0wxam3\w>opo moannonm

0.00a mwcwaun muuw>m nuaooaaou

0.00a no wwxam3\w>ou0 nowadamuowucm

0.0a 0.0a 5aa8mn 5.00 wcammum woman wwaoa>auom amcoaumwuowm
0.0a no wwxam3\w>ou0 0.0m noouw wcaaaw>muh 0.00 wnammuw woman umw ou wwoman
0.0a weanmum woman 0.0m uwnEmn0\nmz nmuw ou mwoman

\.nuw.>muH\mvaaun

 

 

0N

 

 

NN

 

 

aN

 

 

wMoMDOm QMMZ<M

 

ZOHH<ZmonZH
no mQZHM

 

aoaumauowca no wvnaM How .Amlav 0wxcmm .muouama> umwnwm an wwouaom wwwD naucwokun uwoz

0ao wanmh

 

LITERATURE CITED

123

Table C16

Units of Analysis and Percentage of Respondents, Before
Trip and Upon Arrival, For Variable Categories

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

UNIT OF BEFORE TRIP UPON ARRIVAL
ANALYSIS Z Respondents Z Respondents
(N=36) (N=77)
Individ- Z Respondent Z Respondent
VARIABLE CATEGORIES ual Groups Groups(N=21) Groups(N=32)
SEX
Males / 41.6 (N=15) 48.1 (N=37)
Females 58.3 (N-21) 51.9 (N=40)
LOCATION
Camp ground \/ 61.9 (N=13) 56 . 3 (N=18)
Resort 38.1 (N= 8) 43.7 (N=14)
AGE GROUP
16-25 years 11.1 (N= 4) 10.4 (N= 8)
26-45 years v/' 72.2 (N=26) 70.1 (N=54)
46-64 years 11.1 (N= 4) 13.0 (N=10)
65 + years 5.6 (N= 2) 6.5 (N= 5)
NUMBER OF VISITS
First 44.4 (N=16) 20.8 (N=16)
Second v// 56.1 (N=20) 26.0 (N=20)
Repeat (total) J ---- 53.2 (N=41)
aang“ * —— "——4 ——————— TEE—@55—
5-7 years V/' 16.9 (N=13)
8-16 years 7.7 (N= 6)
17-38 years 11.7 (N= 9)
TYPE OF GROUP
Family with children 42.9 (N= 9) 46.9 (N=15)
Family no children V// 23.8 (N= 5) 28.1 (N= 9)
Friends 14.3 (N= 3) 9.4 (N= 3)
Mixed 9.5 (N= 2) 9.4 (N= 3)
Alone 9.5 (N= 2) 6.3 (N= 2)
ROLE IN GROUP* (N=34) (N=66)
Individual's Role
Mother/wife 41.2 (N=14) 40.9 (N=27)
Father/husband v/’ 29.4 (N=10) 39.4 (N=26)
Son .0 (N= 0) 1.5 (N= 1)
Daughter 8.8 (N= 3) 4.5 (N= 3)
Friend 20.6 (N= 7) 19.7 (N= 9)
— ficEt—IEquEnBEl _________ I _ _ _ J” — Vii-567 — — "— — TNZZ7)_ — A
Male v/' 43.8 = 7) 48.1 (N=13)
Female 18.8 (N= 3) 18.5 (N= 5)
Joint 37.5 (N= 6) 33.4 (N= 9)

 

 

 

 

 

*Role in Group variable uses different base numbers to

calculate per-

centages because "individual's role" subcategory does not include
respondents travelling alone and both subcategories do not include

non-response cases.

LITERATURE CITED

Amend, Edwin H. 1971. Liason communication roles of professionals
in a research dissemination organization. Unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation, Michigan State University.

Arndt, J. 1967. Word of Mouth Advertising. New York: Advertising
Research Foundation.

 

Berelson, Bernard and Gary Steiner. 1964. Human Behavior. New York:
Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc. 712 pp.

 

Blau, Peter M. 1962. Patterns of choice in Interpersonal relations.
American Sociological Review 27:42.

Calantone, Roger, C. Scheive and C. Allen. 1980. Targeting specific
advertising messages at tourist segments. IB_D.E. Hawkins,
E.L. Shafer and J.M. Rovelstad (eds). Tourism Marketing and
Management Issues. Washington D.C.: George Washington
University.

 

 

Campbell, Frederick L. 1970. Participant observation in Outdoor
Recreation. Journal of Leisure Research 2(4):226-236.

Clark, Roger N. 1977. Alternative strategies for studying river
recreationists. In Proceedings: River Recreation Management
and Research Symposium. Minneapolis, Minnesota. USDA Forest
Service General Technical Report NC-28. pp. 91-100.

Clawson, M. and J.L. Knetsch. 1966. Economics of Outdoor Recreation.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press. 328 pp.

 

Cockrell, David and William J. McLaughlin. 1981. Social influence on
wild river recreationists. Unpublished research paper.

Coleman, James S., Elihu Katz and Herbert Menzel. 1966. Medical
Innovation: A Diffusion Study. New York: The Bobs-Merrill
Co., Inc.

 

Cox, D.F. 1963. The measurement of information value: a study in
consumer decision-making. IE_W.S. Deckers (ed.). Emerging
Concepts in Marketing. Chicago, Illinois: American Marketing
Association.

 

Cox, Eli P. 1975. Family purchase decision-making and the process
of adjustment. Journal of Marketing Research 12(May):189-95.

124

125

Crandall, Rick. 1979. Social interaction, affect and leisure. Journal
of Leisure Research 11(3):165-179.

Crompton, John L. 1981. Dimensions of the social group role in pleasure
vacations. Annals of Tourism Research 8(4):550-567.

Darley, John M. and James R. Beniger. 1981. Diffusion of energy-
conserving innovations. Journal of Social Issues 37(2):150-171.

Davis, Keith. 1953. A method of studying communication patterns in
organizations. Personnel Psychology 6:301-312.

Dorman, Phyllis and Joseph Fridgen. 1981. A case study evaluation of
an off-road vehicle information and education program in the
national forests in Michigan. Michigan State University
Agricultural Experiment Station Research Paper.

Dottavio, F.D., J.T. O'Leary and B.A. Koth. 1980. The social group
variable in recreation participation studies. Journal of
Leisure Research 12(4):357-367.

Driver, B.L. and R.L. Knopf. 1977. Personality, outdoor recreation
and expected consequences. Environment and Behavior 9(2):
169-193.

Erbe, William. 1962. Gregariousness, group membership and the flow
of information. American Journal of Sociology 67:502-516.

Field, Donald R. and Joseph T. O'Leary. 1973. Social groups as a
basis for assuming participation in selected water activities.
Journal of Leisure Research 5(1):16-25.

Forsyth, Elaine and Leo Katz. 1946. A matrix approach to the analysis
of sociometric data: Preliminary report. Sociometry 9:340-347.

Granovetter, Mark S. 1973. The strength of weak ties. American
Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360-1380.

1974. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers.
Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

 

Hansen, Flemming. 1972. Consumer Choice Behavior. New York: The
Free Press. 548 pp.

 

Hodgson, Ronald W. 1971. Campground features attractive to Michigan
State Park campers. Masters Thesis, Michigan State University.
77 pp.

Highway Travel Information Center and Michigan Tourism Visitor Survey.
1981. Michigan Department of Transportation. 44 pp.

1981. Communication research in outdoor recreation and the
public interest. In Outdoor Recreation and the Public Interest:
Proceedings of the 1979 Meeting of W-133. Agriculture Exerpiment
Station, Oregon State University. p. 189-198.

126

Jacobson, E. and S. Seashore. 1951. Communication patterns in complex
organizations. Journal of Social Issues 7:28-40.

Jefferson, R.W. 1972. An analysis of information seeking behavior
involved in the consumer decision to buy a new car. Ph.D.
Dissertation. University of Iowa, Iowa City. 182 pp.

Jenkins, RObert L. 1978. Family vacation decision—making. Journal
of Travel Research 16(4):2-7.

Katz, Elihu and Paul Lazarsfeld. 1955. Personal Influence: The Part
Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communication. Glencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press.

 

 

Kincaid, D. Lawrence. 1972. Communication networks, Locus of Control,
and family planning among migrants to the periphery of Mexico
City. Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University. 163 pp.

Knopp, Timothy B. 1972. Environmental determinants of recreation
behavior. Journal of Leisure Research 4(2):129-138.

Lauman, Edward O. 1973. Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance
of Urban Social Networks. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
342 pp.

 

 

Lazarsfeld, Paul F., B. Berelson and H. Gaudet. 1948. The People's
Choice. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.

 

Levine, Joel L. 1972. The sphere of influence. American Sociological
Review 37(2):14-27.

McDonough, Maureen H. and Donald Field. 1979. Coulee Dam National
Recreation Area: Visitor Use Patterns and Preferences.
Washington: CPSU/UWS-79-4.

Michigan Travel Bureau. 1982. Michigan Recreation and Travel Study.
Unpublished Report.

Moeller, George H. and H.E. Echelberger. 1974. Approaches to fore-
casting recreation consumption. IE_Proceedings: Outdoor
recreation research: applying the results. U.S.D.A. Forest
Service General Technical Report NC-9.

Moeller, George H. and others. 1980. The information interview as
a technique for recreation research. Journal of Leisure
Research 12(2):174-196.

Moreno, Jacob L. 1934. Who Shall Survive? Foundations of Sociometry,
Group Psychotherapyiand Sociodrama. Wash., D.C. Nervous and
Mental Disease Monograph 58; republished in 1953, N.Y.: Beacon
House. 763 pp.

 

 

Myers, Paul B. 1974. Decision-making and travel behavior. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation. Michigan State University, East Lansing,
Michigan.

127

Nolan, Sidney D., Jr. 1976. Tourists use and evaluation of travel
information services. Journal of Travel Research l4(3):6-8.

Poister, Theodore H. 1978. Public Program Analysis. Baltimore, Md.:
University Park Press. 625 pp.

 

Rogers, Everett M. 1962. Diffusions of Innovations. New York: The
Free Press.

 

Rogers, Everett M. and F. Floyd Shoemaker. 1971. Communication of
Innovations: A Cross Cultural Approach. New York: The Free
Press. 476 pp.

 

, and D.L. Kincaid. 1981. Communication Networks: Toward a
New Paradigm for Research. New York: The Free Press. 386 pp.

Schwartz, Donald F. 1968. Liaison Communication role in formal
organization. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. Michigan State
University.

Sieber, Sam D. 1973. The integration of field work and survey methods.
American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1335-1359.

Simmel, George. 1964. The Web of Group Affiliations, translated by
Reinhard Bendix, New York: The Free Press.

Spotts, Daniel M. and Daniel J. Stynes. 1982a. 1981 Lansing park
familiarity Survey. Preliminary results. Dept. of Park and
Recreation Resources. Michigan State University.

Spotts, Daniel M. and Daniel J. Stynes. 1982b. Measuring knowledge
of park systems. .13 Abstracts 1982 Symposium on Leisure Research.
National Recreation and Park Association. Alexandria, Virginia.
p. 76.

Stynes, Daniel J., M.I. Bevins and T.L. Brown. 1980. Trends or
methodological differences? Paper presented at the National
Outdoor Recreation Trends Symposium. Durham, New Hampshire.

Webb, Eugene J. and others. 1966. Unobtrusive Measures: Nonreactive
Research in Social Sciences. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.
225 pp.

 

 

Weiss, Robert S. and E. Jacobson. 1955. A method for the analysis of

the structure of complex organizations. American Sociological
Review 20:661-668.