INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “ target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: received. Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 I I I 75-20,902 WANG, Darsan, 1941MEASURBffiNT OF ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN PRIVATE CAMPGROUND INDUSTRY. Michigan State University, Ph.D., 1975 Recreation Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, M ich ig a n 4 8 1 0 6 MEASUREMENT OP ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OP MICHIGAN PRIVATE CAMPGROUND INDUSTRY By Darsan Wang A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY Department of Resource Development 1974 ABSTRACT MEASUREMENT OP ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OP MICHIGAN PRIVATE CAMPGROUND INDUSTRY By Darsan Wang This study is an attempt to establish the economic magnitude of the private campground industry in Michigan. One hundred enterprises were randomly chosen from a population of 226 Michigan private campgrounds with 30 or more campsites* Economic data were collected in the field by means of interviewing the campground owner/ managers in the summer of 1972* Two multiple regression models were applied to estimate the effects of several campground features and management shills on eight economic variables, such as the occupancy rates, development investment, annual operating expenditures, net income and interest payment, and average basic camping fees. The regression equation derived from one of the models was then used to estimate the economic variables for those campgrounds not in sample. The combination of the actual data from the sample campgrounds Darsan Wang and the estimated figures for the rest of the private campgrounds was computed fcy county. A three-dimensional computer mapping technique (SYMVU) was applied to make graphic presentations on selected variables of the Michigan private campground economy. The industry represented a total of 25.4 million dollars of development investment, and its annual con­ tribution in operating expenditures and camping fees was 10 million dollars in 1972. In conclusion, the private campground industry in Michigan is a people oriented recreation activity, as opposed to a natural resource activity. Its campground distribution compensates the voids left in development of the public campgrounds, which focus on the natural resource base. It is dependent upon the occupancy rates, camping fees, and supplemental goods and services, for profit making. It bears a relationship to the traffic pattern in the state. Its success is not entirely a function of the location and size of the individual campgrounds, since the skills of management play an important role in the success of the business. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to express my sincere appreciation to the members of my guidance committee, Drs. Lewis Moncrief, Daniel Chappelle, Eugene Dice, and Dennis Gilliland for their interest, enthusiastic encouragement, and conscientious guidance which were largely responsible for the completion of this study. supervised the research. Dr, Dice directly Working closely with him during the past year was a great pleasure. Dr, Gilliland provided the most helpful consultation and review in statistics. Dr, Chappelle evaluated the manuscript carefully and rendered his criticism in great details. Special thanks also go to Dr. Robert Wittick for his assistance in computer mapping techniques, and Dr, Don Holecek for many constructive comments. The research was made possible through a grant supported by Hatch Act Rural Development Funds, Michigan State University Agricultural Experiment Station, The first part of the Ph.D, program in the Department of Resource Development was also supported by the Agricultural Experiment Station, ii I appreciatively acknowledge the valuable assistance rendered by the respondent campground owner/ managers and their customers, as well as the Vesely Company of Lapeer, Michigan and Waterland Sales of Warren, Michigan who provided the camping vehicles for the field research. Others whose encouragement and counsel aided the study include the Environmental Health Section of the Michigan Department of Public Health, the State Parks Division of Michigan Department of Natural Resources, and Mr, Leon Buist, Recreation Planning Section of the Department of Natural Resources, Substantial help came from the staff and my fellow students in the Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Anne, Vicki, Joann S,, Jo Ann R,, Diane, Steve, Kevin, and Neil, Mr, Roy Saper helped me kick the computer. Of course, the major support came from my family; my parents, my sister Sheila and brother-in-law Eddie, iii TABLE OP CONTENTS Chapter Page I. INTRODUCTION ............................ 1 Literature Review. . . . Problem Statement. . . . . . . . . Statement of Objectives. .............. Data Collection • • • • • • • • • Data Analyses......................... The Study Area......................... Limitations of the S t u d y .............. Hypotheses ............. • • • • • 1 6 6 8 10 11 13 14 II. SAMPLING PROCEDURE....................... 15 The Population. ........... Sample Size. • • Sampling Techniques . • • • • • • • Adaptation in the Field. • • • • • • .............. Review of Samples. Conclusion • • • • 15 16 17 17 18 30 III. INITIAL ANALYSES.......................... 33 Campground Economy • • • • • • • • Spending by Campground Users . . • • • 33 49 IV'. REGRESSION ANALYSES....................... 57 Dependent Variables . . . .............. Independent Variablee................. Model I . ......................... Model II............................... Model Testing ............. Interpretation of Results • • • • • • Expansion of Results............. 57 59 65 69 70 71 75 Chapter Page V. COMPUTER MAPPING.......................... Development Investment • • • • • • • Construction Expenditures . • • • • • Equipment Expenditures • • ........... Annual Operating Expenditures. . . . . Net Income and Interest Payment • • • • Occupancy R a t e s ...................... Average Basic Camping Pees.............. VI. CONCLUSIONS............................ BIBLIOGRAPHY 79 85 88 90 91 94 98 101 103 ................................. 109 I. Michigan Private Campground Industry Statistics by County. • • • • • • • 117 APPENDICES Appendix II. Management Interview Questionnaire. • • • 123 III. Statistics of Model I .................... 127 IV. Statistics of Model II.................... 135 v LIST OP TABLE Table Page 1. Measures of Spatial Distribution for the Population and Sample of Michigan Private Campgrounds........................ 25 2. Distribution Patterns of the Population and the Sample of Michigan Private Campgrounds. 28 3. Regional Distribution of 100 Random Samples and Actual Samples as Compared to the Population . 29 4* Size Distribution of 100 Random Samples and Actual Samples as Compared to the Population 29 5* Total and Average Number of Campsites of 100 Random Samples and Actual Samples as ........... Compared to the Population 31 6. Size Distribution of 100 Random Samples and Actual Samples as Compared to: the Population in Accumulative Percentages • • 31 7. Occupancy Rates by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds........... 34 8. Occupancy Rates by Sizes of Michigan Private Campgrounds............. 36 9* Investments by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds . • • • • • • • 37 10. Investments by Sizes of Michigan Private Campgrounds................... 40 11. Annual Expenditures by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds........... 41 vi Table Page 12* Annual Expenditures by Sizes of Michigan Private Campgrounds................ 13. Basic Camping Pees by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds . • • • 42 • 44 14* Basic Camping Pees by Size of Michigan Private Campgrounds................... 45 15. Net Income and Interest Payment by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds • 47 16. Net Income and Interest Payment by Sizes of Michigan Private Campgrounds . . . . . 48 17. Spending Plans of Michigan Private Campground Users . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 51 18. Family Incomes of Michigan Private Campground Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 19. Equipment Included in Camping Rigs of Michigan Private Campground Users. . . . 53 20. Cost Estimations for Camping Rigs by Michigan Private Campground Users................. 53 21. Estimated Investment in Non-rig Camping Equipment by Michigan Private Campground Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 22. Opinions of Relative Costs of Meals in Camp and at Home by Michigan Private Campground Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 23. Frequency of Restaurant Meals by Michigan Private Campground Users as Part of the Camping Experience...................... 56 24. Estimated Cost of out of Camp Meals by Michigan Private Campground Users. . . . 56 25. Facilities, Services and Recreation Activities of Michigan Private Campgrounds • • • • 61 Table 26. 27. Page Management Scores of Michigan Private Campground Owner/Managers • • • • • • 63 F and R2 Values of Two Regression Models • • 72 viii LIST OP FIGURES Figure 1. 2. The Population of Michigan Private Campgrounds (with 30 or more campsites) in 1972 ............................... 19 100 Random Samples of Michigan Private Campgrounds...................... .. 21 100 Actual Samples of Michigan Private Campgrounds........... .. ............. 22 Population Mean Center (P) and Sample Mean Center (S) of Michigan Private Campgrounds through CENTRO Computer Program • . . • 24 5. The Private Campground Belt of Michigan 27 6. Size Distribution in Accumulative Percentages of Michigan Private Campgrounds . . . • 32 Michigan Counties With No Private Campgrounds Exceeding 30 Campsites ................. 81 8. Number of Campsites by County. ........... 83 9. Development Investment by County........... 87 3. 4. 7* . Construction Expenditures by County. . 11. Equipment Expenditures by County........... 92 12. Annual Operating Expenditures by County 95 13. Net Income and Interest Payment by County. . 97 14. Occupancy Rate on Weekends by County • 99 15. Occupancy Rate on Holidays by County . . • 16. Average Basic Camping Fee by County. • • • ix • • 89 10. • CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION literature Review During the past decade, various studies with emphasis on public campgrounds have been conducted by many agencies and universities. (See Bibliography) They haven explored several camping aspects in the public sector, such as camper characteristics (Burch and Wiley; King; Wagar), camper psychology (Clark, Hendee, and Campbell), user preferences (Cordell and Sykes; Lime; Lucas), campground attractions (Hodgson; Wang), and camping equipment purchases (Marquardt, et al.)» However, the time has come when the public facilities have gradually begun to lag behind the increasing pressure of the camping demand. The recent overcrowding problems in Michigan public campgrounds stimulate more and more interest in the private sector of the camping business. Private campgrounds are likely different from public campgrounds in many ways, such as use pattern as well as economic structure. Therefore, the findings in public camping sector may not be applicable to private camping business, and it deserves a separate effort. 2 Unlike the research in the public camping sector, a great deal of studies on private campgrounds put emphasis on defining the camping market, as well as profit maximization to the individual campgrounds® They are less interested in things like extra-market values and intangibles, as compared to some of the public campground research® Attention is rather paid to topics such as market potential, investment, annual profit for individual campgrounds, willingness to pay, etc® The following are a few examples: Bevins indicates, "In the 1960’s campgrounds were developed on excess land which had few other uses® In the 1970*s, campgrounds are being developed on lands specifi­ cally chosen because they have some real market potential®"'*' LaPage made a study of the camping market in 1971, based on interviews with the heads of 2,003 representative? American households® He points out that "the total camping market is estimated to include 12®6 million active camping families, 9 million inactive, and 10 million potential camping families®" 2 Malcolm Bevins® "Focusing on the Future®" in The Private Campground Business; A Forward Focus, Proceedings of the Michigan Campground Business Seminar® Bast Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, March 24, 1972® 2W. F. LaPage® Growth Potential of the Family Camping Market. (USFS Research. Paper NE-P5P) Upper iDarby, Pa.: tfsPS Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1973® 3 Folsom and Koch made an investigation in New Jersey which defines, "The forty-one sampled campgrounds had an average investment of $141,681 in 1970* These campgrounds had an average of 134.4 campsites and average investment per site of $1,054."^ De Vriend et al. report, "Campgrounds reporting net profits for the year displayed three outstanding characteristics: 1) They were located on desirable bodies of water (gross income per site nearly double that of campgrounds without water). 2) They were located in areas familiar to the reoreationist. 3) They were larger than 4 average." In a New York study, Brown sees the "effect of sizes" upon campground profit making. He defines the concept of "net cash income less depreciation" as the annual profit of the private campground and has the following for 115 New York campgrounds in 1970: 11-49 50-99 Site Grouping 100-199 200-299 Net Cash Income less $-475 Depreciation $ 659 $ 2,450 $ 3,530 300 & Over $ 12,183 ^David Folsom and Robert Koch. Profitability Considerations for Private Campgrounds in New Jersey. (Wo. 3^7) Ktew Brunswick, N .J1.: Rutgers University, 1972. ^A. J. De Vriend, H. M. Smith, and S. W. Weiss. Keys to Successful Campground Operations. (Series No. 2) Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1972. 4 Based on the empirical data in New York, he strongly suggests larger campgrounds with at least 100 sites.' LaPage examines the campers* “willingness to pay” and derives a "hypothetical demand curve" and elasticity g on camping fees. Elsewhere LaPage points out, "The location of a campground is important to success. In a regional comparison, the less successful ventures were mostly in a region remote from major metropolitan centers, where lakes were scarce, competition (both public and private) was keen and the camping season was shorter." Other important features include "campground size, campground 7 age, investment, swimming and boating attractions, etc."' The relationship between public and private camping has been studied by several researchers, among them LaPage made a comparative study on camper characteristics in Tommy L. Brown. "How Big is Big Enough." in Campground Management Conference. Ithaca. N.Y.s Cornell TTnivef' si' ty, WfT. pp. 25-31'.--6 Wilbur P. LaPage. The Role of Fees in Campers* Decisions. (USPS Research Paper NE-I&8.) Upper Darby, i»a.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1968. pp. 6-13* 7 'Wilbur P. LaPage. The Role of Customer Satis­ faction in Managing Commeroi^'~Campgrounds. (uslFS Sesearch Paper Nfe-10^) Upper Darby7 Pa.:USPS North­ eastern Forest Experiment Station, 1968. p# 7* 5 Q New England; and Buist established the relationship g between private and public campgrounds in Michigan. The Buist study also conducted in 1972 was closely related to the present study. It covered the public as well as the private sectors in Michigan, whereas the present study concentrated on the private camping business. Buist concluded, among others: (1) 76 percent of the camping parties had camped in both private and public camp­ grounds. The camper experience varies from private campground to private campground, whereas it is expected to be similar in the public campgrounds. (2) The preference for private or public campgrounds is rather evenly distributed, one-third of the campers preferred private, one-third preferred public, and one-third had no preference. His study indicates that the private campgrounds in Michigan were at least as important as the public campgrounds in terms of providing camping opportunities to the residents as well as the out-of-state visitors. Further, since the camper experience varied from private campground to private campground, the private campground owner/managers needed more intuitiveness. Wilbur F. LaPage. Camper Characteristics Differ at Public and Commercial Campgrounds in. New England. (tf&FS Research Note ilE-W) upper Darby, Pa.: U^K> Northeastem Forest Experiment Station, 1967. Leon J. Buist. "The Relationship Between Private> and Public Campgrounds in Michigan." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington, 1973* 6 Problem Statement Between 1954 and 1972, the number of campsites in Michigan private campgrounds increased from 342 to 18,921. In the past two years, 8,121 campsites were added to the list.'*’0 To describe such a rapidly growing industry, Dice et al. made an introductory study on "Privately Operated Campgrounds in Michigan" in 1971. 11 This initial study sketches out "the nature of the privately owned campground business in Michigan. Rather than performing an analysis of the business, its intent was to portray or inventory an existing situation. Additional research will look more factually upon the nature of investments, returns and other elements of business analysis." 12 The present study is directed to respond to this urge. Statement of Objectives This study represents one aspect of a three phase investigation into the economic scale and impact of the ^Eugene P. Dice and Darsan Wang. A Study of Expenditures and Management in the Private Campground Industry! East lLansing, Michigans Michigan Staxe TJnfversity, 1973. "^Eugene P. Dice; Tah Wah Chiangj and Timothy Smythe. Privately Operated Campgrounds in Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Mtichigan State tjniversity, 1971 • 12Ibid. p. 2. 7 private recreation industry in Michigan. In addition to private campgrounds, initial study is in progress on commercial horse enterprises and private golf enterprises in the state. The objectives of the total research project are two fold. The first objective is to establish the economic worth of this industry to the rural areas of the state. The second is to examine specified management skills as critical factors in success. The cost of and income from the private camping industry are expected to represent a dramatic growth pattern, yet the significant aspect of the presence of this growing industry within the state was not considered in the past. The size of the industry together with its space consuming nature testifies to the fact that it is an economic use of vast acreages of otherwise non-producing privately owned lands which provides a market opportunity for both marginal lands and marginal family labor. It is the objective of this research to make an initial measurement of its economic stature. The purpose of the research is to evaluate the industry »s contribution to the rural community. Two measurements of the dollar flow originating in this industry were chosen: (A) the investment in and annual expenditures of the campgrounds as dollar inputs into the economy, and (B) the expenditures 8 made by consumers in relation to the camping experience. Thus if measurement could be established for each of these on a sampling basis, then the two could be summed to provide a useful total measurement of the dollar flow accruing to the industry. No attempt to trace second and third turnovers of the expended dollars was anticipated. Data Collection Data were collected through field interviews with the campground owner/managers and the campground users. One hundred management interviews and one thousand user interviews were actually conducted by the staff members and four students 1^ J in the summer of 1972, starting June 13 and ending August 12. There was a possibility of interviewer-tointerviewer effect confounded with region-to-region effect in Region 1, for the fact that only one student team (two students) had interviewed the five sample campgrounds in Upper Peninsula. Regions 2 and 3 in Lower ^The entire research project was conducted by the Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University, with Dr. Lewis W. Moncrief as the chief investigator. Dr. Eugene P. Dice, Extension Specialist and Associate Professor, was in charge of the campground research, with the help from Neil Greenfield, Steve Brown, and Kevin Green, masters candidates, and Darsan Wang, Ph.D. candidate in Resource Development. 9 Peninsula were visited by both teams; the interviewers went to campgrounds in various parts of the Lower Peninsula at random, therefore, little interviewer-tointerviewer effect was evident here. All of the four interviewers had received common instructions as to the appropriate manner in which to conduct the interviews, thus the personal bias was reduced to the minimum. Although the interviews were conducted across a period of two months, the changes in time were not considered a possible source of bias, because the data were collected through conversation with the campground owner/managers, rather than actually record the information while the interviews were in process. For example, the occupancy rate apparently would have a seasonal effect if it was observed on the day the interviewers arrived at a particular campground, yet such bias was eliminated because the information was collected based on the best judgment of the owner/managers. All data were volunteered rather than lifted from actual accounts; on one hand, the accuracy of the data might be questionable; on the other hand, it might be more appropriate for our purpose in search of a macro-economic structure in the state, because by sacrificing details in individual campgrounds we gained the perspective of the whole situation. The management questionnaire (See Appendix II) 10 was designed consisting of: Item A A series of questions on the size, facilities, type, principal functions, and methods of advertisement of the campground. Item B The structure of the management and the understanding of the camping business as well as the customers. Item C The campground economic factors as regard to the income that the local community gains when private campgrounds are in operation. The information includes campground personnel, investments, annual costs, and returns. This study will attempt to make analyses based on the management information, A report on the campground users was published in 1973 hy Dice.^ Data Analyses The research consisted of three phases of data analyses. First, initial analyses sketched out the Michigan private camping industry through average figures based on the information collected. Second, regression models were designed to estimate the population parameters of several important economic aspects of the industry. ^Eugene F. Dice. A Study of Campers• Attitudes and Spending Patterns in the Private Campground Industry, East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Siate University, 197^, 11 Thus, it was possible to project from the sample investigated to the entire private camping business in the state. Finally, computer mapping techniques were applied to graphically describe the private camping business in Michigan. The Study Area The study area is the entire state of Michigan. The 83 counties in the state were divided into three regions for analysis purpose, based on the distinct economic functions to the general understanding— The Upper Peninsula has more public lands and the local economy is heavily dependent on tourism; Northern Lower Peninsula has a similar situation, but the communities are more diverse; Southern Lower Peninsula, on the other hand, is agricultural and in some parts very much industrialized. (See Figure 1 in Chapter II) In 1972, there were approximately 350 private campgrounds; 226 campgrounds had 30 or more campsites. They had altogether around twenty thousand campsites, roughly equivalent to the number of public campsites. Uin?er Peninsula (Region 1) The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is different from the rest of the state in many ways. The majority of the campers in the Lower Peninsula are Michigan residents, while in the Upper Peninsula they are mostly out-of-state visitors. 12 Regarding the length of stay, the further north one goes, the shorter he stays in one place. In those Upper Peninsula campgrounds, it is our observation that many leave in the morning, traveling or sightseeing, then in the afternoon they find another campground to stay. Although sometimes staying longer, they do not stick around the campground to be satisfied with just peace and quiet. Northern Lower Peninsula (Region 2) State and federal lands offer many parks and forests, and private campgrounds appear at the fringe. They provide overnight accommodation for those who spend their vacation in the public recreation land and water, and in some cases, they have their own things to see and do. For example, many campers come back to one campground because the owner has five hundred acres of land for hiking and bird watching. The question here is whether the private campgrounds should be satisfied as the overflow areas for the public campgrounds, or should they strive for their share of customers. Southern lower Peninsula (Region 3) This part of Michigan is primarily agricultural land, and is close to the population centers, such as Detroit, Chicago, Grand Rapids, and Toledo. Although there are some recreational attractions, scenic-wise they are relatively few and less 13 alluring as compared to those located in the Northern part of Michigan, Therefore, the function of camping seems to "get away shortly” rather than get to some place. There are more semi-permanant types of camping here than elsewhere in the state. Camping is a sanctuary to those city residents, they come to recuperate and get ready for another Monday, Limitations of the Study This study was limited to the management and economy of the Michigan private campground industry prior to the investigation period of the summer of 1972, The campgrounds investigated were limited to the general commercial type private campgrounds each with 30 or more campsites. Public campgrounds or quasi-public establish^, ments, such as church, group, or real estate campgrounds were excluded. All data were voluntarily given by the campground owner/managers upon the request from a letter sent by the project supervisor prior to the visit by the inter­ viewers. Besides a guarantee to keep individual figures confidential, no extra effort was extended to obtain proof of the information. In the study there was no opportunity to persue further the non-response items. The utilization of the results was limited to providing information for recreation planning in the I; 1; 14 state of Michigan at the present time. The economic structure of the camping industry may change over time and space. Although the results may be helpful in the planning process at another time or in another place, caution must be exerted against a direct application of the findings in this study. For example, the location variables in this study referred to three regions in the state of Michigan, the private camping industry in another state or in a foreign country may have a completely different situation, thus the identical location variables would not be appropriate. Hypotheses The two hypotheses tested in the regression analysis section of the study were: The location and size of Michigan private camp­ grounds do not exert a significant influence upon selected campground economies. The campground type, facilities, services, recreation activities, and management skills, together with the location and size do not exert a significant influence upon selected campground economies. i CHAPTER II SAMPLING PROCEDURE The Population The population of Michigan private campgrounds was taken from the list of commercial campgrounds licensed in Michigan for the 1971-72 licensing period, provided by Michigan Department of Public Health. The campgrounds in this list were arranged alphabetically by counties and names of the campgrounds. One of our major purposes was to define money exchanges in the private camping business sector at the present time. Therefore, only those campgrounds with licensed sites were taken into our population. The proposed campgrounds were excluded, because there were no management skills or users to be examined. Although our list did not include national and state campgrounds, some public campgrounds actually appeared on the list, such as township, city and village owned camping facilities; they were excluded as well. At last, it was arbitrarily decided that we would not include campgrounds with less than 30 licensed campsites, considering that 16 small campgrounds have negligible economic impact to the state-wide investigation. After the above exclusions, 226 campgrounds remained in the population. Each campground was assigned a code number, from 001 to 226. For retrieval purpose, a "county-campground code" was also used, with first two digits indicating the county code and last two digits as the campground code, according to the alphabetical order of the origin list. Sample Size In many cases, it is either impossible or unnecessary to investigate the whole population. If a proper sample size is achieved and adequate sampling techniques are employed, the population under study can be well illustrated within an acceptable sampling error. However, to those pioneer studies, there is a dilemma— one of the research objectives may be to pin down the population characteristics, yet in order to determine a proper sample size, knowing the population variance of the characteristics is a prerequisite. In the case of Michigan private campgrounds, our project is an early effort to gather raw data in the field, with the population variance unknown up to that date. Under this circumstance, the realistic approach was to arbitrarily set a sample size that was assured to be more than enough. i 17 We felt roughly one half of 226 campgrounds should make a good representation,! a sample size of 100 campgrounds was chosen, because it was easy to manipulate, and was an adequate load for two teams of student interviewers. Sampling Techniques Simple random sampling was applied. Based on the code numbers, 120 numbers were derived from a random number table,^ Twenty extra numbers were added to the required amount for substitutes, in case that some campgrounds were unavailable for investigation. Adaptation in the Field In the field, the research teams had to change the designed samples once in a while. There were different reasons that a chosen campground was not usable. Some licensed campgrounds did not exist, either going out of business or having not started; some were not in the ordinary commercial campground nature, such as church campground, or real estate development camp­ grounds exclusively for the property owners; and in some cases, the campground owner/managers were not cooperative enough to provide meaningful management information. 4 * ?. James Rohlf and Robert R. Sokal. Statistical Tables. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1969* pp. 152-56* 18 In each case, a close-by substitute was taken. There was no formal scheme to select the substitutes. In general they were neighboring campgrounds to the one which was unavailable for investigation! the locational bias was minimal. At the end, 39 campgrounds in the 120 random samples were not taken, and 19 campgrounds outside the original sample list were substitutes for the management interviews. There was no attempt to force information from the 39 campgrounds; of course, we could not extend the findings in this study to the non-responsive campgrounds• Review of Samples Although many population characteristics were unknown prior to the data analysis, information about the location and sizes was available from the original campground list. It was desirable to compare these characteristics between the population, the designed random samples, and the actual samples. Location The campgrounds were plotted on three Michigan county maps. Figure 1 shows the population of Michigan private campgrounds with 30 or more sites. It illus­ trates the scattered patterns of the private campgrounds REGION 1 LUCC |A LftE A f e u w s o iT l C H im w A SCHOOLCNAPT U (MACKINAC tKA4JtASKA|ClWWFORD|01ICOOA .ALCONA _ r iEh'T ! ■■"‘v i . i •....Ii . 1 i — i — i j •_____i__ Htnunt | wtxroMo Missaukee) nqscou. Tocemaw | io k o REGION 2 ... |»» I L_ -I 1 | I | I 4- lOCCAMA |MEWAY90 |MECOffTA 'ISABELLA |IOOLANDI REGION 3 | IO NIA / fa» » W « y KALAMaH mmmmm,I mm i jcUMTOM (8M IA W A . _ J____ |_ I___* _____ CALHOUN l"j*CK»O N ' WASHTENAW* tMTOC mmm I » » * » « I• mmm |' a» | I I | CASS 1ST. JOSEPHTeflANCH~|HILLSOALCj 1o a a a a l mmm I I I-_ ± mnaans n a n , . FIGURE 1.— The Population of Michigan Private Campgrounds (with 30 or more campsites) in 1972, Total: 226 20 in the state. Figure 2 is the distribution of 100 randomly chosen samples. The 100 campgrounds actually visited are shown in Figure 3. some similarities; These maps revealed (1) Private campgrounds are relatively few in the Upper Peninsula; (2) within the Lower Peninsula the southern half has more campgrounds than the northern half; (3) the western half is heavier than the eastern half. Visually, the sample was representative in terms of location. Further, two simple computer programs were used to check this pattern. A 7”x7" map of Michigan was gridded on X and Y axes with 8 grids to an inch. The approximate center of each county had a set of X and Y values indicating its geographic location. The 83 counties in the state were expressed as follows; C01mtv location X Y Berrien 27 2 4 2 Cass 30 2 7 3 *■ Campgrounds Zi Z2 For each county, two Z values were assigned, Zx was the number of campgrounds in the population (from Figure 1), and Zg was the number of campgrounds I—— ■ ■I — -— 1— — — JL. — — MANISTEE IWEXFORD )wsaAUK£C{ ROSCGM. j tOGEMAW | IOSCO 1 ! [_ _ i'_ - j_____ i I LAKE I I I i , ' losCEOLA | CLARE j. _ j__ TaLADW lST ARENAC I I | *" I L.I i_ 1-- 1__ I--- l“T I 1 1 i ” ! — I ' /oCEAMA INEWATSO I m c c o s t a ISABELLA IM O LANO I I -- muskTTI m o n t c a ia T * ~ r 7 s A T ia r'|s A a M « a f — "“““I ’ OTTAWA I ] I IONIA SUREliy I CAM FIGURE 2 ka J uaa T I i i -L. I------ J------- (_ I L A I W # ______ _ ——J——— (CLINTON |«M IA W A .J EATON /* M I I I INCHAH "calno on 1ST. tA09CPHTsnANCH~Ji 100 Random Samples of Michigan Private Campgrounds. | | -1 B iW T, CUM# I " '- LUCE |A L « E ft tCHOOLCftATT U (MACKINAC Hit L ^ k m x ie Xny Ik a lk a s x a [c k a « f< » « ) |0 8 c o o a \a n o .T A A v * i ( • Ia . I - ' U - _ i 1 J a lc o m a i . ' I -------- * m MANISTEE j WEXFORD | m SSAUKE£] AOSCOM. joCEUAW | IOSCO . I^ | LAKE Jl_ ___ t Ira C tO L A I CLARE _l_ _ TaLAOwiTTARENAC IOCEAMA (NEWAYOO I MECOSTA 'lE A M L L A | MIDLAND I \muskT71 ( T r a t io t " | « < ! | IO NIA ! |CLINTON (IN IA W A . JO3EEHTmANCH~|HIUA0AUj “ ! — »I | | ■■■■I FIGURE 3.-— 100 Actual Samples of Michigan Private Campgrounds• 23 in the 100 actual samples (from Figure 3)* Therefore, for each county, we had two sets of data, (X, Y, and (X, Y, Zg), to compare information contained in Figures 1 and 3. Centrographic Measures (CENTRO) computer program p "computes descriptive measures of spatial distributions from coordinated data* are allowable* Weighed or non-weighed point sets Output includes such centrographic measures as mean center, standard radius, coefficient of circularity, and angle of orientation of the distribution...." All figures in Table 1 indicate that our samples closely follow the distribution pattern of the population. To be specific, both centers fell in Montcalm County, with the sample center slightly southwest of the population center (Figure 4)• "The standard radius is a measure of dispersion of the distribution in all directions and is measured from the mean center." Therefore, the dispersion of the sample distribution was smaller than the population, yet still negligible. "A coefficient of circularity is provided to indicate the deviation of the pattern from a circular shape. p Robert I. Wittick. "Some Spatial Statistics Programs Used in Spatial Analysis." (Technical Report 71-2) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1971. pp. 3-5. MANISTEE j WEXFORD |MIS3AUKEE{ ROSCOU. j OGEMAW I IOSCO . J _ ____ J _ __ | | LAKE loSCEOLA ) CLARE I ^ T slADTWn T a KEMAC lo tXA NA jNEWATSO iMCCOSnTTsAOCLLA jM O LA M D I rMAT«nr"?i \ muskTH IONIA (CLINTON |» N IA W A . joseiri T s r a n c h ~ | h i l l s o a u J i ! 1 FIGURE 4.— Population Mean Center (P) and Sample Mean Center (S) of Michigan Private Campgrounds through CENTRO Computer Program, 25 This value ranges from 1,0 for a circular distribution to 0,0 for a linear one,” Both were of very similar elliptical shapes, "The angle of orientation” indicates the orientation of the major axis of the elliptical distribution in relation to the abscissa of the reference axes. Again, the value for both were very close, TABLE 1,— Measures of Spatial Distribution for the Population and Sample of Michigan Private Campgrounds, Population N=226 Samples n=100 Mean Center X Coordinate 36.965 36.510 Mean Center Y Coordinate 16.004 14.800 Standard Radius 14.143 13.566 .574 .577 1.682 1.706 Coefficient of Circularity Angle of Rotation It was concluded that the sample and population distribution patterns were very much alike and were acceptable. Another computer program Ring and Sector Counting •5 (LOCAT) "establishes a system of rings and sectors about a base point and then proceeds to count the number and ^Ibid, Technical Report 71-3* PP« 6-7. 26 values of the observations falling into each cell,”' The same data sets were used, and the base point was defined as (40,20) which is located at the northeast corner of Isabella County (Figure 5)» close to the center of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, The number of rings was 6; distance increment was 4 grids; number of sectors was 8; and angular increment was 45 degrees. Table 2 represents the distribution pattern of the population and that of the sample. were in very similar patterns. Overall, they The highest values in the rows and columns indicated that Ring 4 and Sector 5 accommodated the majority of the campgrounds. Four cells in Rings and Sectors 4 and 5 contain 34$ of the campgrounds in the population, or 36$ of the campgrounds in the sample. The same area is shown in Figure 5. This shaded area can be called the "private campground belt" in Michigan. Table 3 depicts the regional distribution of 100 random samples designed and actually taken as compared to the population. Percentage-wise, the campgrounds in the designed random samples in each region closely followed those in the population, deviations ranging from 1.2$ to 3.6$. Based on this result, we were fairly confident in our sampling. After the field adjustments, the 100 samples actually taken deviated from the HOUGHTON OOOCftiC ICHO O UftAFT (MACKINAC DE LTA CHAALEYCXX 1 "*_________ jo T S ta o fS o M W o iO A LH tN A ANTRIM ~ 1 I | r (wl I _________ \J U .(C N Z IE j j ( , 0 . T n * v ) I I I I 1---1---1 --- lK A U Population Random Samples Actual Samples 60 40 20 10 30- 60- 100- 120+ 119 SIZE PIGURE 6.— Size Distribution in Accumulative Percentages of Michigan Private Campgrounds. I CHAPTER III INITIAL ANALYSES Initial analyses were conducted through a computer 2, program (BAST&T) for the average characteristics which describe the Michigan Private campground industry. All figures reported in this chapter are based on the data from the sample campgrounds. Campground Economy Table 7 shows the statewide occupancy rates were 93.10$ on holidays, 63,26$ on weekends, and 39.53$ during the midweek periods. The occupancy rates of Region 1 were far below that of the other two regions on weekends and holidays, yet during midweek it was slightly superior. Upper Peninsula appeared to have a different camping pattern— -with less campers as well as less noticeable peak periods. Yet caution must be made on the small sample, only five campgrounds were observed. Region 3 ■^Michigan State University. BASTAT, (STAT Series No, 5) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan state University, 1969. 33 34 TABLE 7.— Occupancy Rates by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds, orgType Weekends Holidays Midweek Region 1 n=5 36*60$ 63,00$ 44.00$ Region 2 n=34 58.56 90.50 36.29 Region 3 n=60 68.15 97.80 40.98 Overnight n=19 43.74 73.84 24.42 Destination n=60 68.47 99.05 41.87 Commuter n=20 66.20 93*55 46.85 All n=99 63.26 93.10 39.53 35 was slightly better than Region 2 in terms of occupancy rates. The Michigan population concentrates in the southern part of the state, camping in the private sector thus seemed to be a population oriented recreation activity, rather than resource base oriented. The overnight type campgrounds had approximately 20 percent less occupancy rates in all cases. The destination type was slightly higher on weekends and holidays, but the commuter type had better occupancy during the midweek periods. The data suggested that the private campgrounds depend on return business and longer stay of the customers. Table 8 shows there was a steady increase of occupancy rates on weekends as the campground became larger. The trend was less predictable on holidays, and was completely out of shape during the midweek periods. Only the weekend, occupancy could be estimated by the size of the campground. On the average, the Michigan private campgrounds were pretty much filled up on holidays, and were roughly one-third to one-half full during the weekdays. In Table 9, the statewide development investment per campground averaged $117,105? this included the land and other investments in the campground. Land value was extremely hard to measure; in many cases the land 36 TABLE 8.— Occupancy Hates by Sizes of Michigan Private Campgrounds• Weekend® Holidays 30-39 n=27 55.47$ 92.68$ 35.00$ 40-59 n=23 60.43 85.62 47.52 60-79 n=16 63.38 89.38 33.00 80-99 n=13 63.89 98.89 48.11 100-119 n=8 67.63 98.53 30.95 120+ n=12 71.07 97.73 46.73 All n=99 63.26 93.10 39.53 Size Midweek 37 TABLE 9 .— Investments by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds. Region or Type Development Material Equipment $17,875 ns=4 $4,300 n=4 Region 1 o o C M if\ i n* SII CO Labor $ 3,925 n=4 Region 2 122,206 n=34 20,625 n=24 22,783 n=23 7,819 n=31 Region 3 116,857 n=56 19,323 n=42 15,350 n=42 5,657 n=56 Overnight 70,278 n=l8 19,821 n=14 13,600 n=13 5,177 n=l8 Destination 130,896 ns=58 18,850 n=44 20,135 n=42 7,109 n=54 Commuter 119,368 n=19 17,950 n=12 15,435 n=14 5,226 n=19 All 117,105 n=95 18,890 n=70 17,950 n=69 6,334 n=91 38 for campground development might have been converted from farmland, or might have been purchased several decades ago. It was not justifiable to count only the land value where the campground was located; the rest of the property also contributed to the whole camping experience. Another approach to this question was to ask the owner/manager how much he would sell the campground; therefore the development investment was a rough estimate. Among the initial expenditures when the campground was built, we asked the owner/manager how much it cost for labor, material and equipment. $43,175 per campground. These figures totaled The difference between this and the average development investment, $73 ,930 , could be contributed to the land and other investment. In all major items, Region 2 had the highest figures, followed closely by Region 3. Region 1 fell far behind except for the material costs. The extremely low labor costs in Region 1 strongly suggested the family type campground business. The average campground had 60.40 sites in Region 1, 82.66 sites in Region 3, and 100.35 sites in Region 2. To break down in campground types, the destination campgrounds had the highest investment except for labor costs. The commuter type was next, then the 39 overnight type. Again, there was a correlation between the investment scale and the size, the overnight type had an average of 57.05 sites, the destination type had 101.61 sites, and the commuter type had 73.70 sites. In Table 10, various types of investment increased in scale along with the campground size. However, the investment increased steadily in the first three categories, then dropped between campgrounds with 100 to 119 sites. (8 observations) The data suggested they were the most efficient scale of operation, with more income producing campsites at little extra costs. The annual expenditures listed in Table 11 and 12 included advertisement, operating supplies, repair of equipment, formal payrolls, and resale supplies. Advertisement and repair of equipment were small expenditures as compared to operating supplies. It must be noted that only 42 campgrounds had formal payrolls, however. In the breakdowns of types, the destination campgrounds were on top of the list, except for the resale supplies. The formal payroll in the commuter type was very low; the business was handled by the owner/managers or their family members. Table 12 once more shows the ’’drop" with the campgrounds between 100 and 119 sites. For advertisement and operating supplies, the curve leveled off there, 40 TABLE 10,— Investments by Sizes of Michigan Private Campgrounds» Size Development Labor Material Equipment 30-39 n=26 $ 41,278 $ 7,373 $ 7,628 $3,772 40-59 n=22 91,667 11,505 14,600 4,995 60-79 n=15 129,200 30,487 25,666 5,275 80-99 n=12 133,556 25,820 20,800 6,511 100-119 n=8 113,059 19,584 14,846 6,064 120+ n=12 226,333 32,375 32,327 13,353 All n=95 117,105 18,890 17,950 6,330 41 TABLE ll*— Annual Expenditures by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds* Region or Type Adver- Operating Repair of Formal Resale, tisement Supplies Equipment Payrolls Supplies Region 1 n=5 $445 $2,250 $350 Region 2 n=34 952 3,683 584 $5,570 $2,469 Region 3 n=60 689 3,496 565 4,200 5,829 Overnight n=19 510 1,406 373 3,340 6,180 Destination n=60 931 4,409 643 6,148 3,483 Commuter n=20 480 2,825 443 587 6,860 All n=99 775 3,503 559 4,755 4,533 42 TABLE 12.— Annual Expenditures by Sizes of Michigan Private Campgrounds. Adver- Operating Repair of Formal Resale tisement Supplies Equipment Payrolls Supplies 933 $340 522 1,928 60-79 n=16 630 80-99 n=13 100-119 n=8 30-39 n=27 $248 40-59 n=23 275 $7,667 431 1,580 1,517 3,120 288 1,167 5,433 686 3,044 643 3,800 3,986 715 4,788 831 3,200 3,140 120+ n=12 1,655 8,538 683 13,300 6,122 All n=99 775 3,503 559 4,755 4,533 $ $ 43 then turned upright to the last category. Zigzag shapes appeared in repair of equipment as well as formal payrolls. The statewide average fee for modem camping was $3.25 per night; the primitive campsites charged an average of $2,67 with only 23 observations. The camping fees for the primitive sites were not significant, because of the low attendance. As a matter of fact, the so-called primitive sites were just those with a rustic setting; they had access to tab water and other facilities within a reasonable distance. Camping fees for the modem sites were low in Region 3, while Region 1 and Region 2 were about equal. Destination type had the highest basic camping fees; overnight type the next; commuter type very low— an aspect of the seasonal charges. (See Table 13) In Table 14, the effect of the campground size on camping fees was very interesting. All four categories in the middle, with sites ranging from 40 to 119, had approximately the average charge. The small campgrounds with 39 or less sites charged only $2.82 per night, whereas the large campgrounds with 120 or more sites charged $3,82. There was a one-dollar difference. The net income of the campground enterprise averaged $3,818 annually. Contrary to the amounts of investments as annual costs, Region 3 was much higher 44 TABLE 13,— Basic Camping Pees by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds• Region or Type Region 1 Region 2 Modem $3.35 n=5 Primitive — n=l n=34 $2.65 n=10 Region 3 3 .18 n=60 2.63 n=12 Overnight 3.19 n=19 2.50 n»2 Destination 3.43 n=6l 2,80 n=15 Commuter 2.77 n=19 2.42 n=6 All 3.25 n=99 2.42 n=23 3.36 45 TABLE 14*— Basic Camping Pees by Size of Michigan Private Campgrounds. Size 30-39 40-59 60-79 80-99 100-119 120+ All Modern Primitive $2.82 $2.00 n=27 n=3 n=23 3.27 3.25 n=2 3.23 n=16 n=5 2.40 3.22 2.83 n=13 n=3 3.21 2.60 n=8 n=5 3.82 3.10 n=12 n=5 3 .2 5 n=99 n=23 2.67 than the other two regions— again, Region 1 had only two observations due to the non-responses in three others on this particular question. (Table 15) Both the destination type and the commuter type were between $4,000 and $4,100 per campground annually, but the overnight type had only an average of $2,416. Initial reaction on these figures suggested not to invest in overnight type campgrounds. The net income curve on sizes was quite peculiar, with a peak in category 60 to 79 sites, and a second peak at the large campgrounds. The strange "valley” between 80 to 119 sites appeared one more time. (Table 16) The dip can be explained as follows: A sampling error might lead to low values in a single characteristic. Since the characteristics may be highly positively correlated, this could explain low values in all the characteristics. On interest payment, the state average was close to $3,000 per campground annually. There was not much difference between three regions, and the variation by types was not obvious as compared to other variables, "The break even point for New York campgrounds in 1970 with regard to size was at 95 sites.” Tommy L. Brown. "How Big is Big Enough." in Campground Management Conference. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, 1$72? pTTST - 47 TABLE 15 •— Net Income and Interest Payment by Regions and Types of Michigan Private Campgrounds. Region or Type Region 1 Region 2 Region 3 Overnight Destination Commuter Net Income Interest Payment $1,000 n=2 $3,150 n=2 2,821 n=28 2,942 n=19 4,531 n=47 2,950 n=38 2,416 n=12 2,177 n=9 4,100 n=50 3,142 n=38 4,000 2,941 n=12 n=15 All 3,818 n=77 2,954 n=59 48 TABLE 16.— Net Income and Interest Payment by Sizes of Michigan Private Campgrounds. Size Net Income Interest Payment 30-39 $2,500 n=23 $1,200 n=20 40-59 3,176 n=19 1,933 n=16 60-79 6,416 n=12 1,775 n=9 80-99 2,875 n=9 4,133 n=6 100-119 2,142 n=5 4,040 n=2 120+ 5,714 n=9 4,691 n=6 3,818 2,954 n=59 All n=77 » $ - 49 with, lower figures for the overnight type. There was an upright trend of interest payment as the size of the campground increased. Campgrounds below 80 sites were expected to pay less than $2,000; campgrounds above 80 sites were expected to pay more than $4,000 for interest annually. The initial analyses suggest that there were regional differences and type differences in almost every case. As regard to size, the general trend was upward, yet there was deviation from perfect linear relationships, especially the downward trends between the campgrounds with 80 to 119 sites. Such curves suggest the non-linear regression on size which is incorporated into the regression models developed in the next chapter. Spending by Campground Users The way in which camping families spend time and money differently in the campground environment is a topic of growing interest. Do spending habits follow a strict budget allowance or do they more closely resemble impulse buying? extremes. These would be two obvious It is probable that users of private camp­ grounds cannot be positively identified at either extreme but rather fall somewhere in-between. There is evidence, however, that campers tend toward impulse 50 buying. Once one decides to become a camper, certain kinds of purchases are made to stamp one as a "real” camper. The initial step, however, is taken only after deliberate consideration of whether to make the investment to become campers. Users were asked how they plan their campground spending. Data in Table 17 show that most of the campers do not bind themselves to a general or set budget, but rather have an open budget. Most of those who had no planned budget insisted they were not spending thought­ lessly, but felt they owed themselves the opportunity to spend for enjoyment and satisfaction as long as such purchases were not extremely unwarranted. This suggests that they invoke a form of monetary stewardship that is within reason for their available disposable income and desires and expectations regarding the camping experience. Respondents were asked to categorize the family income in order to relate this factor to the use of budgeting and spending patterns. Family income is made of two sources in this analysis: the income of the first breadwinner and the income of any second breadwinner in the same family. There were 212 full-time and 99 part-time second breadwinners. The range of family incomes based upon first and second breadwinners is 51 TABLE 17.— Spending Plans of Michigan Private Campground Users. Hank Method of Budgeting No. of Responses Percentage 1 No planned budget, spend within reason for what we want 712 70.92$ 2 General plan on how much to spend 139 13.84 3 Plan ahead how much to spend 105 10.46 4 Daily spending limit for family members 28 2.79 5 Each family member has allowance 6 0.60 14 1.39 1,004 100.00 No Response Total TABLE 18.— Family Incomes of Michigan Private Campground Users. Income Range Less than $10,000 $10,000 to $15,000 $15,000 to $20,000 $ 20,000 to $30,000 $40,000 or more No Response Total No. of Responses- Percentage 272 444 27.09$ 44.22 19.52 196 1 0.30 0.10 44 4.38 1,004 99.99 3 52 shown in Table 18, Two thirds of the responses fall into the $10,000 to $20,000 income brackets, identifying them as middle income units. Another indicator of spending habits among the family camping units is derived from the kind of attached equipment on the camping rig. In Table 19, it can be seen that most of the rigs are rather fully equipped with home conveniences, A total of 762 of these pieces of equipment were on the rigs when purchased; 55 rigs were partially equipped at purchase time and 81 had added the items reported after the initial purchase of the rig. The investment made in the equipped rigs gives another measure of the spending patterns of campground users. Data in Table 20 show that the purchase cost of one-half of the rigs was in the price range of $2,000 or less, but almost one-third were in the $3,000 to $7i000 range. In addition to these estimated costs, campers revealed what they had spent for camping-related equipment which was not attached to the rig. Most camping families spend less than $400 for additional equipment, like sleeping bags, extra cooking utensils, etc. (Table 21) When asked to speculate about their next camping rig, 371 campers indicated they would purchase a new rig about the same as their present one while 405 53 TABLE 19 •— Equipment Included in Camping Rigs of Michigan Private Campground Users. No. of Responses Percentages Gas or other cooking range 849 84*56# Heater— built in 801 79.78 Refrigerator 793 78.98 Fresh water hookup 761 75.80 Toilet 605 60.26 70 6.97 Equipment Air conditioner TABLE 20.— Cost Estimations for Camping Rigs by Michigan Private Campground! Users. Cost Estimation Less than $1,000 $1,000 to.$1,500 $1,500 to $2,000 $2,000 to $2,500 $2,500 to $3,000 $3,000 to $4,000 $4,000 to $7,000 $7,000 to $10,000 More than $10,000 Unknown Total No. of Responses Percentage 245 24.40% 12.75 12.65 7.17 6.47 12.75 14.34 128 127 72 65 128 144 8 5 0.80 0.50 82 8.17 1,004 100.00 54 TABLE 21*— Estimated Investment in Non-rig Camping Equipment by Michigan Private Campground Users. No. of Responses Percentage. $100 297 29*58# $200 226 22.51 $300 139 13*84 $400 46 4.58 $500 77 7.67 $600 21 2.09 106 10.56 92 9.16 1,004 99.99 Amount Invested More than $600 Unknown Total TABLE 22®— Opinions of Relative Costs of Meals in Camp and at Home by Michigan Private Campground Users. Relative Cost No. of Responses Percentage Less in camp than at home 182 18.13# More in camp than at home 247 24.60 Same in camp as at home 563 56.08 12 1.20 1,004 100.01 No Responses Total 55 said they would have more modern conveniences on their next rig. The amount spent on food and meals provides another measure of the spending habits of campers. An attempt was made to relate costs of meals while camping with costs of meals at home. More than half of those responding said there was not any particular difference. (Table 22) However, 579 family units reported that they sometimes eat in restaurants while at the campground. The frequency of these meals is given in Table 23. Table 24 gives an indication of the amount of money usually spent on these out-of-camp meals. These are considered to be a part of the experience of camping or vacationing by the users of private campgrounds since there is a particular effort to make this a family type outing. Campground users in this sample also tend to take an appreciable food supply from home. Approxi­ mately one-half take about a three day food supply. Expenditures on non-food purchases while in camp range from nothing to $4 by half of those in the sample. 56 TABLE 23.— Frequency of Restaurant Meals by Michigan Private Campground Users as Part of the Camping Experience No, of Restaurant Meals Per Week One Two Three Pour Five Six Seven More than seven None Unknown Total No. of Responses Percentage 238 17 7 41 23.71# 14.14 8.17 2.19 1.69 0.70 4.08 8 0.80 404 43 40.24 1,004 100.00 142 82 22 4.28 TABLE 24.— Estimated Cost of out of Camp Meals by Michigan Private Campground Users. Estimated Meal Cost $3 $4 $5 $6 ' $7 $8 $9 $10 or more Not Applicable Total No. of Responses 57 69 91 80 46 59 25 187 390 1,004 Percentage 5 .68# 6.87 9.06 7.97 4.58 5.88 2.49 18.63 38.84 100.00 CHAPTER IV REGRESSION ANALYSES The models were basically multiple regression models. They were designed to test whether each of the campground economic factors was a function of several campground features, goods and services, and management skills. Dependent Variables The eight dependent variables represent those campground economic factors which are of primary interest in this project: (1) Occupancy rate during weekends; (2) Occupancy rate during holidays; (3) Development investment; (4) Construction expenditures; (5) Equipment expenditures; (6) Annual operating expenditures; (7) Net income and interest payment; (8) Average basic camping fees. The campground owner/managers were asked to estimate their site occupancy rates over the season 57 58 for weekends, midweek and holidays. While a day-by-day record of occupancy rates was not in existence in the majority of the campgrounds, an estimate to the best knowledge of the owner/managers was the most realistic measurement. The weekends include Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays. The holidays are referred to the Memorial Weekend and the Labor Day Weekend. The occupancy rate during midweek was eliminated from the final analysis due to insufficient variance. The question of development investment was asked during the interview, "In round figures, about how much do you have invested in all your campground development?" This figure includes all the campground investment of land, buildings, campsite construction, as well as equipment. The next dependent variable, construction expenditures, includes the paid local labor when the campground was built, such as plumber, electrician, carpenter, mason, engineer, or surveyor. They also include the building materials of lumber, plumbing, electrical equipment, blocks, cement, and gravel. The equipment expenditures consist of the campground investment in operating equipment like pickups, tractors, mowers, graders, etc. The annual operating expenditures are composed 59 of advertisement, operating supplies, resale supplies, repair of equipment, and formal payroll* The operating supplies necessary to run a campground are toilet paper, electricity, insurance, repairs, as well as other major items like oil, gas, feed, and fuel. The campground owner/managers were asked how much net income they have left per year to reduce debt, buy Christmas gifts, for expansion or profit. And if there was borrowed capital to get started in this business, or to expand, they were asked to estimate how much they pay out in interest each year. The combination of net income and interest payment represents the overall income after annual expenditures which becomes the seventh dependent variable. Average basic camping fees represent the daily charge for each modern campsite, the primitive site charges were not accounted for. The weekly and seasonal rates were also excluded due to a great deal of varia­ tions. Some campgrounds have complicated fee schedules for additional persons as well as various camping rigs. These extras were not included here. Independent Variables Two sets of independent variables related to campground features, goods and services, and management skills were tested against the dependent variables in 60 each of the models. There are two independent variables in Model I; the location and the size of the individual campgrounds. The location is measured in three regions; Region 1 is the Upper Peninsula; Region 2 is the Northern Lower Peninsula; and Region 3 is the Southern Lower peninsula. (See Figure 1 in Chapter II) The size of the campground is measured by the number of campsites within each campground at the time of investigation. Additional independent variables on campground features, goods and services, and management skills were introduced in Model II. First, the campground types; (1) Overnight campgrounds; The traveling camping enthusiast stops at these facilities near expressway inter­ changes for a night’s rest and perhaps limited sightseeing. (2) Destination campgrounds; The awayfrom-home vacation headquarters, the camping vehicle or tent is located at a favorite campground for several days or weeks. (3) Commuter campgrounds; A campground upon which the family can park the camping vehicle for long periods of time within easy driving distance of home and work. Next, three independent variables were measured by the scores on facilities, services, and recreation activities provided by the individual campgrounds. Table 25 is a list of the total campgrounds that have 61 TABLE 25.— -Facilities, Services and Recreation Activities of Michigan Private Campgrounds. Goods and Services Number of Campgrounds Facilities: 1. Electricity at most sites 2. Water to most sites 3. Sewer hookups at some sites 4. Laundry 5. Bath buildings 6. Grocery store 7. Dumping station 98 81 45 41 89 46 82 Services: 1. Coin operated games 2. Bottled gas sales 3. Community activities 4. Art and craft room 5. Bike rentals 6. Music vending machines 22 40 37 9 17 20 Recreation Activities: 1. Swimming 2. Boating (including canoes) 3. Movies 4. Outdoor sports and games 5. Fishing 82 74 14 70 81 62 such goods and services under each item. There are seven items in facilities, six in services, and five in recreation activities. of scores will be 7-6-5. Thus the maximum combination If a campground provides six types of facilities, two types of services, and three types of recreation activities, its scores will be 6-2-3. Prom the information contained in Table 25? we found that almost all Michigan private campgrounds provided electricity; nearly 90 percent had the conven­ ience of bath buildings; only less than 40 percent of these campgrounds provided various kinds of services; more than 70 percent had one kind or another outdoor recreation activity, available in or around the camp­ grounds. Among them, swimming and fishing were most popular, accessible by the campers in 80 percent of the campgrounds. The last independent variable is composed of the total score of the individual campground owner/manager as evaluated by two student interviewers. Table 26 is a checklist of the eighteen evaluation criteria. For each of these criteria, a scale from 1 to 6 was established, ranging from "very poor" (1); "poor" (2); "below average" (3); "above average" (4); "good" (5); to "very good" (6). The evaluation was normally completed at the end of the stay at each campground. The scores only applied to the individual campground owner/manager, i 63 TABLE 26,— Management Scores of Michigan Private Campground Owner/Managers. Evaluation Criteria Number of Owner/Managers Poor Good Total 1 6 2 4 5 3 Contact with customers 1 Tidiness of grounds 0 Office efficiency 3 Evidence of quality 0 Variety of activities 5 Preparation of work crew 0 Clear division of jobs 1 Good traffic patterns 0 Water and plumbing working 1 Campers kept happy 0 Roadside and other directions 8 easily followed Type of records kept 1 Different prices realized 6 Campers* origins realized 0 Campers* activities realized 0 Occupancy rates known 1 Total investment known 6 Building costs known 15 6 1 6 4 6 0 0 6 0 1 13 3 5 9 15 19 4 4 10 8 2 19 32 20 30 33 26 8 7 41 21 24 25 38 60 39 38 29 20 12 30 52 54 22 18 12 10 8 11 0 4 8 14 16 10 10 15 1 1 0 3 15 15 10 8 6 5 5 17 20 29 31 30 25 24 12 36 26 47 52 53 43 20 12 6 6 8 13 12 10 98 98 97 98 96 32 28 95 96 97 97 94 92 93 97 97 93 89 64 not the campground itself. Based on personal contacts the two interviewers separately examined the owner/manager on the scale. together. The two evaluations were then brought If the scores on the same item were consistent to each other, they were adopted as the evaluation of that owner/manager for the particular item. If the two interviewers disagree with each other on any item, a brief discussion was conducted to minimize possible biases. For example, the first evaluation criterion was "contact with customers." The interviewers had the opportunity to observe during the one-day stay how the owner/manager handles his customers. If he knows the needs of the campers, being readily accessible most of the time, and trying hard to please the customers, he may have a score of 6 (very good), on the other extreme a score of 1 (very poor) may be applied. In Table 26, under the item of "contact with customers" we had 98 observations, among them there were one "very poor" owner/manager (with regard to this particular item only), 6 "poor" owner/managers, 3 "below average", 32 "above average", 38 "good", and 18 "very good". For each individual owner/manager, the scores on 18 items were then added up as his total evaluation. The maximum possible score was 108 , and the best owner/manager was graded at 93* The inclusion of the management scores 65 was an attempt to detect if management skills and innovativeness were important requirements for success in the campground business* Model I The null hypothesis for Model I is: The location and size of Michigan private campgrounds do not exert a significant influence upon selected campground economic factors* Y ^ = ot + # 2 ^ 2 + ^3 ^*3 ^ = the dependent variables to be estimated Y^ = Occupancy rate during weekends Yg = Occupancy rate during holidays Yg ss Development investment Y^ s= Construction expenditures Y^. = Equipment expenditures Yg s Annual operating expenditures Yr jb Net income and interest payment Yg = Average basic camping fees o( b the Y intercept s= the regrei3Sion coefficients g as error 66 X^ = 1 if the campground is located in Region 2, sb 0 if not; Xg - 1 if the campground is located in Region 1, = 0 if not* X^ = Number of campsites in the individual ** campground On the right hand side of the equation, there are two dummy locational variables representing the three study regions in the state. If both X^ and Xg have a value of zero, it indicates that the campground is located in Region 3. There are also two variables on the "number of campsites in the individual campground", o X^ and X^ • Because the initial plotting of data indicated a non-linear function of campground size, 2 X^ was introduced for quadratic function. In this model, the same equation form was used for each dependent variable. The first dependent variable "occupancy rate during weekends" was tested against the locational variables of X^ and Xg in order to see whether there is a regional effect on campground business during weekends. The majority of Michigan population concentrates in Region 3» It is interesting to find out whether the camping industry has better business during the weekends in Southern. Michigan close to the potential users, or in Northern Michigan where 67 the natural resources and recreation opportunities are more abundant. Next, it is desirable to examine whether the size of campground in terms of the number of campsites has any effect on the occupancy rate during weekends. Are the larger campgrounds doing better in business or the small ones? What is the optimal size of a commercial private campground? The second dependent variable "occupancy rate during holidays" was tested in a similar manner. It was designed to see whether the pattern of camping is different if the campers have more leisure time. Would they be willing to travel a longer distance if they have three or four days instead of two? "Occupancy rate during midweek" did not show sufficient variance when initial plotting was done. Earlier computer runs also showed that the location and size of a campground did not have significant effects on this variable. The dependent variable of "development invest­ ment", "construction expenditures" and "equipment expenditures" were tested against the locational variables to see where the investment was spent in the state. The land prices, for example, may vary from location to location. It is apparent that land would cost more in Region 3 than it would be in Regions 1 and 2. As regard to the construction expenditures, 68 the material cost may be higher in Northern Michigan, whereas the labor cost may be higher in Southern Michigan,, Expenditures on equipment would probably cost more due to additional transportation costs in the North, All of these indicated a necessity to examine the regional differences on investment, The variable on campground size was introduced to identify the optimum scale of campground operation. Initial analysis indicated that the investment increases as the scale of the campground increases, yet there is a drop in every case of the campgrounds with 100 to 119 sites. Would this be an acceptable indication that it is where the optimum scale is? The dependent variable of "annual operating expenditures" was tested in the same way. On the regional differences, it was to see whether the Northern campgrounds could spend less due to lower pay scale and more depressed local economy. Regarding the relation­ ship to the size of the campground in terms of per unit expenditure, it was suspected that the small campgrounds would have lower costs by using "family labor". As the campground gets larger, it would have the highest cost per unit when a formal payroll is introduced. The next variables "net income and interest payment" and "average basic camping fees" were tested 69 on the same ground regarding differences in region and scale. The relationships were first detected in Chapter III, and here more specific tests were conducted. Model II The null hypothesis for Model II is: The location, size, type, campground facilities^ services, recreation activities, and management skills do not exert a significant influence upon selected campground economic factors. Model II is basically the same as Model I except more independent variables were added: Yi 15 * + ^1X1 + *®2X2 + ^3X3 + V 3 2 + (35X5 + ^6X6 + ^7^ + ^8X8 + ^9X9 + ^10X10 + 6 The additional independent variables are defined as: Xr = 1 if the campground is destination type, = 0 if not; 6 = 1 if the campground is overnight type, = 0 if not. *7 ss Campground facility score X8 as Campground service score =s Campground recreation activity score 70 X^q ss Management score This second model was intended to explore possible effects of more factors on the economic variables. The dependent variables and the locational and size variables were explained in the previous section, X^ and Xg are dummy variables on campground types? if both have a value of zero, it indicated a commuter type camp­ ground® Variables through were expressed in "scores” on campground facilities, services, recreation activities, and management skills, 26), (See Tables 25 and Without this aggregation of data there would have been 36 independent variables, and the degrees of freedom would have been substantially reduced. Model Testing 1 An "ordinary least squares” computer program was used for testing the regression models. It may be used to estimate relationships between a dependent variable and a set of independent variables, and is therefore suitable for our purpose. The regression was tested at level ck= 0,05 for both models and for the eight dependent variables. Michigan State University, LS: Calculation of Least Squares (Regression) Problems on the L£> Routine. (STAT Series No. 7) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969* 71 Interpretation of Results After the exclusion of nine campgrounds in the sample due to large residuals in the preliminary runs, 91 campgrounds were left in the analyses* These exclusions were considered justifiable because some campground owner/managers appeared to be reluctant to answer questions, especially the financial information. The reliability of their figures were in doubt. In experimental research it is acceptable or sometimes even desirable to throw out the "outliers” in order to keep the analysis valid. The procedure adopted was to examine the original interview sheets of those campgrounds with extraordinary large residuals, some were retained in the analysis when considered valid, and some were thrown out if the answers were rather incomplete, apparently non­ sense, or in some instances the interviewers made remarks that the figures could not be trusted. Therefore, the critical F value for Model I (4 independent variables) was 2.49 ( 95^4 86^* ^or Model II (10 independent variables) it was 1,95 2 ( 95*20 80^* F va-*-ues as we-L1 as R values for each equation keyed to each dependent variable are listed in Table 27. In all but one case (the asterisk in Table 27) the P values exceeded the critical values. Based on 72 TABLE 27,— F and R 2 Values of Two Regression Models. F Dependent Variables .... Model. I R2 ■■■■■... — .— ,>. > Model II Model I Model II Occupancy Rate During Weekends 3.48 2.27 0.14 0.22 Occupancy Rate During Holidays 3.94 2.10 0.15 0.21 Development Investment 7.73 4.71 0.26 0.38 Construction Expenditures 2.00* 2.30 0.09 0.22 Equipment Expenditures 7.83 2.23 0.27 0.30 17.09 8.54 0.44 0.52 Net Income and Interest Payment 5.95 3.36 0.22 0.29 Average Basic Camping Fee 5.02 5.63 0.19 0.41 Annual Operating Expenditures 73 the results from the tests, the following comments can be made: In Model I, the null hypothesis was rejected for seven dependent variables, i.e., the location and size of Michigan private campgrounds do exert a significant influence upon occupancy rates, development investment, equipment expenditures, annual operating expenditures, net income and interest payment, and average basic camping fees; but the location and size do not exert a significant influence on the construction expenditures in the sample. (Appendix III) In Model II, the null hypothesis was rejected for all of the dependent variables. It shows that the location, size, type, campground facilities, services, recreation activities, and management skills do exert a significant influence upon the eight selected camp­ ground economic factors. After the expansion of independent variables, the test on the construction expenditures turned out to be significant. (Appendix IV) o The coefficients of determination (R ) did not exceed 0.44 in Model I. The coefficient of determination measures the variation in the dependent variable explained by the independent variables in the model. For most dependent variables, the independent variables explained between 10 and 30 percent of the variation. 74 2 These rather low R from the following factors: values could be contributed (1) The data were collected through personal interviews, the campground owner/managers were asked to recall the economic information of his campground, sometimes such information dated back several years (such as the total development investment since the campground first started) • We did not attempt to check to records of the campgrounds due to the time restraints and the lack of authority. (2) The economic situation of each campground was sometimes quite unique from one to another. For example, the cost of land may not accurately reflect the actual, market value simply because it has not been sold over several generations. The same situation applies to other economic measure­ ments, "formal payroll" is an outstanding case due to the family labor utilized in the campground operation. (3) Although several discussion sessions were arranged prior to the investigation, the four student interviewers may still have some personal differences to reduce the reliability of the data collected. In Model II all F-statistics were significant at level o< = 0.05 and the coefficients of determination were improved up to 0.52 and none below 0.2. This is an indication that the other independent variables in addition to location and size were important predictors 75 for *’ie dependent variables related to the Michigan private campgrounds* Expansion of Results For the eight dependent variables, the regression analyses provided eight prediction equations* Among them the hypothesis for the dependent variable of "construction expenditures" was not rejected in the analysis. The location and the size of a campground alone would not be sufficient to predict its construction expenditures, III-4) (F = 2,0030, SIG = 0,101, see Appendix Only after the additional independent variables were introduced, was the new hypothesis of this dependent variable rejected, see Appendix IV-4) (F = 2,2960, SIG = 0,0020, In other words, the amount of "construction expenditures" must be explained by factors other than the region and size of the campground. The campground type, facilities, goods and services, recreation activities and management skills were also influential. As regard to the individual tests on the independent variables, they were not all significant on different dependent variables. For example, in Appendix III-2, Region 1, size, and squared size were significant, but Region 2 was not significant upon the "occupancy rate during holidays"; in Appendix III-3, 76 on the other hand, the two locational variables were not significant upon the '•development investment"* The "development investment" can be predicted by the size of the campground, but not by its location. A similar way of interpretation can be applied to other dependent variables. Although, all the prediction variables were used for the purpose of achieving a uniform specification. Recall the multiple regression equation for Model I was: Y± = c* + /31x1 + 0 2x 2 + /33x 3 + /34x 32 + t Substituting the constant and the regression coefficients, it becomes the prediction equations for the various dependent variables. For example, the prediction equation for "occupancy rate during weekends" is: Y1 = 56.57 - 11.29X1 - 30.77X2 + 0.20X3 + 0.00032495X32 As before, X^ indicates if the campground is located in Region 2, and X2 indicates if the campground is located in Region 1. At the same time, X3 represents the number of campsites in the individual campground, 2 whereas X3 is its quadratic function. Because our data were limited to those 77 campgrounds with 30 sites or more, no prediction could be made to smaller campgrounds* A campground in Region 3 with 30 campsites might have 56.57$ hypothetical '•basic" occupancy rate during weekends (the constant), plus 6$ through the effect of the 30 sites and minus approximately 0*3$ through the curvilinear effect of the 30 sites. It is the predicted occupancy rate of this campground during the weekends in the camping season. Another example, a campground in Region 2, with 100 campsites would expect: Y1 = 56.57 - 11.29(1) + 0.20(100) - 0.00032495(1002) = 56.57 - 11.29 + 20.00 - 3.25 = 62.03 Such a campground was estimated to have an occupancy rate during weekends of 62.0395. This prediction is subject to the standard error of 26.36$. (Appendix III-l) Sixty-eight percent of the time, the weekend occupancy of this particular campground would likely range from 35.67$ to 88.39$. The rest of the equations for the dependent variables are referred to Appendix III. The same method applies to the rest of the dependent variables, and is used in Chapter V to estimate the campground economic factors. We can also arrive at county and state totals 78 by summing the individual campgrounds, for the fact that we had a sufficient sample size and had applied random sampling techniques, (Appendix I) CHAPTER V COMPUTER MAPPING The first regression model obtained a series of constants and regression coefficients which can be used to estimate the dependent variables from the independent variables of location and size. Simple random sampling procedures were strictly followed prior to the field investigation. 100 sample campgrounds were chosen from the population of 226 private campgrounds with 30 or more campsites in existence during the summer of 1972. It is our belief that the sample size was more than enough to represent the population. Detailed discussions on the spatial and size distribution of the sample campgrounds in connection with the population were presented in Chapter II. There was strong proof that our sample was a good representation of the population at that time. Thus, estimates can be made for those campgrounds not used in the sample. In other words, for any private campground in Michigan, the occupancy rates, development investment, etc. (except the construction expenditures) can be predicted from 79 80 its location (by region) and size (by the number of campsites). From the list provided by the Michigan Department of Public Health, the location and size of each of the licensed private campgrounds are known. A simple computer program was able to estimate the economic factors of any Michigan private campground based on such information. Each county in the state has a total value for each of the eight economic dependent variables. This was derived from the combination of the actual data of the campgrounds investigated and the estimated values from the regression model for those campgrounds not in the sample. There are 19 counties with no campgrounds exceeding 30 campsites. These are considered as legiti­ mate voids on the computer maps. (Figure 7) There were also a few counties having only one campground each with 30 or more campsites. In such case, an estimated figure was used instead of the actual figure even if this campground was indeed investigated. The actual data may be an extreme case which could distort the picture. Revealing the data could identify the individual owner, which was undesirable for the fact that the research team had promised to keep individual financial information confidential. Therefore, in such cases, the regression coefficients from Model I LUCC (A lA E R SCHOOUWAFT U 3 N wMism | m x r o n o “““"“I1 jCfUUtfFORO |O9C00A B H D . r a iu ' |m b3juikee| koscom . "J o o e m jm .ALCONA I io s c o foCUM A |NEWAY0O iM CCO SnTlSAaCLLA | WOUtNO \ mu»k171 J O a m T iflA J tC tT jH IU J O A u j ! ! 1 FIGURE 7.— Michigan Counties With No Private Campgrounds Exceeding 30 Campsites, 82 were applied to estimate the eight dependent variables from the independent variables of location and size of that particular campground*, Average figures were used for the occupancy rates and the basic camping fees. Other information on investment and annual expenditures utilized the total values. SYMVU computer mapping technique has been developed by the Laboratory for Computer Graphics, Graduate School of Design, Harvard University.1 Its product is a three-dimensional graphic which shows the heights of geographic points on a topography map. Outside the geography field, this method can be applied to illustrate the distribution of other values, such as dollars. For our purpose, the distribution of economic scales and dollar transactions in the Michigan private campground industry can be so mapped. The 83 counties in the state of Michigan each has values for different economic variables, which, in the SYMVU maps, are shown as heights in inches through the use of a Calcomp plotter. For example, Figure 8 is a choropleth map on the number of campsites by county. Harvard University. SYMVU Manual. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1971; 'and. Robert I. Wittick. SYMVU. (Technical Report 73-2) East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1973• 2 .3 0 1 1 3 3 .0 0 2.00 9 6 6 .0 2 1 .5 0 739-61 1.00 .. 4 9 3 .0 1 0 .5 0 .. 2 4 6 .6 0 0.00 .. 0.00 INCHES CAMPSITES CD 84 The viewer is looking at the state of Michigan from a point Southwest of the state (roughly west of Chicago), and looking downward at an angle of 40 degrees* There- fore, on the left-hand side of the map, the low hills represent the limited number of campsites in the private campgrounds in Region 1 (Upper Peninsula), in the case of a "plain", it shows there are no campgrounds with 30 or more campsites for that county. The peak in the middle of the map is the highest number of campsites by county (Cheboygan county). The height on the map for Cheboygan is 2.3 inches, which indicates an equi­ valent of 1,133 campsites in that county. The number of campsites in other counties are measured by the same scale at the upper right corner of the map. On the right-hand side of Michigan*s Lower Peninsula, there are more campsites in each county than in Upper Peninsula counties. Comparing the Southern half of the Lower Peninsula (Region 3)» and the Northern half (Region 2), the former has more campsites. The top ten counties with regard to the number of campsites are as follows: Cheboygan Branch Allegan Lenawee Mecosta Jackson 1,133 868 858 755 732 701 85 Kent Mason Crawford Leelanau 581 531 525 516 This SYMVU map makes it possible to grasp a visual impression of the whole state through a glance* Besides the top ten counties, the rest of the sum values or averages for each county were listed in Appendix I* Development Investment The estimated total development investment for Michigan private campground industry was $25,410,000. This figure is not a direct measure, but rather the value appraised by the campground owner/managers. Many factors would reduce the accuracy of this appraisal, among these are the fact that both land and buildings held in ownership by many current operators prior to going into the campground business have been converted to campground usage. While current value of land can be rather easily estimated by most, not many people can accurately estimate the residual value of buildings which were later converted to suit the needs of the campground. The following is a list of top ten counties of development investment: Branch Mecosta $1,537,000 1,333,000 86 Allegan Jackson Huron Cheboygan Lenawee Oakland Kent Lake 1 ,092,000 1,028,000 913.000 797.000 796.000 725.000 723.000 697.000 Figure 9 is a SYMVU map for the 25.4 million dollars in development investment,, The maximum invest­ ment takes place in Branch county with one and a half million dollars in private campground investment. Mecosta, Allegan, and Jackson all exceed one million. The majority of the counties have less than $500,000 each. It is not surprising to find that the investment measures closely relate to the distribution of campsites. Seven out of ten reappear on both lists. There is an interesting line of highland area across the Lower Peninsula from Gary vicinity to the Mackinac Bridge, indicating the North-South traffic pattern. This is possibly the direction the camper traffic flow. Nevertheless, the low hills and plain in the Upper Peninsula points out a relationship to the public camping facilities. -'C• ■ ’iHSISSi 2 .3 0 2.00 1 .5 0 1003.21 1 I .0 .00 0 6 6 8 -8 0 3 3 4 -4 0 0*00 INCHES I 0.00 THOUSAND DOLLARS 00 -J MICHIGAN PRIVATE CAMPGROUND RESEARCH ALTITUDE = 40 AZIMUTH = 51 ■HEIGHT = 3.00 ■WIDTH = 7.00 ■ BEFORE FORESHORTENING 05/04/73 FIGURE 9. — Development Investment by County 88 Construction Expenditures The total construction expenditures for Michigan Private campgrounds were estimated at $8,984,600. This figure includes the labor cost to the construction of the campgrounds, and the construction materials purchased from the local community. It represents the economic contribution to Michigan rural areas from the private campground industry. Compared to the total development investment, the construction expenditures are roughly one-third of the grand figure. The following is a list of top ten counties of construction expenditures: $163,500 151,100 148,900 142,700 124,100 118,900 118,300 116,400 107,000 104,900 Jackson Mecosta Clare Allegan Mason Lenawee' Kent Wexford Oakland Leelanau Figure 10 is a SYMVU map for the 9 million dollars in construction expenditures. The maximum construction expenditures take place in Jackson county with up to 160 thousand dollars. The other nine counties all exceed 100 thousand dollars. 2 .3 0 163.50 2.00 1 4 2 .2 9 1 .5 0 10 6 .7 2 1 .0 0 .. 7 1 .1 4 0 .5 0 .. 3 6 .6 7 0.00 INCHES 0.00 THOUSAND DOLLARS 00 vo 90 Branch and Huron dropped from the list of top ten, while Jackson, Mecosta and Allegan remained. Southern Michigan still has much higher values than Upper Peninsula as expected. Yet, we can see the variances in the construction expenditures are somewhat smaller than those in the development investment. The distribution pattern is nevertheless similar to that of the development investment. Equipment Expenditures The total equipment expenditures were estimated at $1,135,300. This figure includes campground machines, such as lawn mowers, tractors, trucks, cars, and other tools. This equipment must have been bought within Michigan for the most part, if not all; though it is not necessarily purchased within the local community. These expenditures no doubt also contribute to the Michigan economy. The equipment expenditures are roughly 4 to 5 percent of the development investment. The following is a list of top ten counties of equipment expenditures: Jackson Cheboygan Branch Lenawee' Mecosta Allegan $57,500 52,900 51,200 49,900 40,800 35,000 91 Montmorency Muskegon Livingston Montcalm 33,600 30,500 29,700 29,300 Figure 11 is a SYMVU map for the one-milliondollar equipment expenditures. Jackson county comes out on top one more time, with 57,500 dollars spent on equipment. Eight counties altogether have more than 30 thousand dollars each invested in this item. Jackson and Mecosta persistently appear in the top five list. in the state. Branch county returns as Number Three The contrast between Upper and Lower Peninsulas appears as before. However, the Eastern half of the Lower Peninsula seems to be higher than the Western half. Numerous public campgrounds are scattered in the Western half of the Lower Peninsula; the private campgrounds may be complimentary to such trend. Annual Operating Expenditures The next measure of the dollar consequence of this industry in the rural community is derived from the annual expenditures for various goods and services to sustain the operation of the micro units. Items of cost for the industry are items of income to the supporting community, which include: resale supplies, operating supplies, payrolls, advertising, and equipment 2 .3 0 — 2 .0 0 5 7 .5 0 5 0 .0 4 1 .5 0 .. 3 7 .5 3 1.00 .. 2 5 .0 2 12.51 0 -5 0 0.00 INCHES .. 0 .0 0 THOUSAND DOLLARS . VO to 93 repair. The purpose of these measurements was to generate an approximate contribution from the private campgrounds to the local economy, we did not attempt to exhaust all possible costs. Unlike many other industries, the camp­ ground business has a rather diversified pattern on annual operating expenditures. These data indicate that there is an annual payment by the industry to providers of goods and services in the state in the nature of $1,875,900. Among all the expend!tures examined, by far the most difficult to document is that of the payroll. Not only does a great majority of this industry operate basically with unpaid family labor, numerous other labor providing devices are utilized. Among these is the gift of space rentals for one or more individuals who may then perform some task in the operation of the campground as well as friends of the children contributing to temporary work tasks as a favor or to obtain some privilege. The end result is that the actual value of the total labor input is discussed with a very low level of confidence. The following is a list of top ten counties of annual operating expenditures: Branch Crawford Mecosta $139,900 97,800 83,000 94 Allegan Kent Cheboygan Livingston Jackson Huron Oakland 81,900 79.200 76,900 72.200 70,500 63,800 62,600 Figure 12 is a SYMVU map for the 2.4 million dollars in annual operating expenditures. The pattern looks very similar to that of the development investment. Branch county with an annual operating expenditure of $139,000 is first. Most of the counties expend less than 30 thousand dollars a year. Ten counties exceed 60 thousand dollars annually; among them eight are located in Region 3, only Cheboygan and Crawford in Region 2 (along the major highway), none in Region 1. Net Income and Interest Payment Now we come to the last measure of the dollar flow of the industry— the annual returns, which is combined by the annual net income and interest payment. arrive at an annual figure of $1,108,100. We This figure divided by the total development investment of $25,410,000 results in an annual interest rate of 4.36$. This interest rate indicates the kind of return one can expect when he ponder over the idea of going into the private campground business in the state of Michigan. 2 -30 13 9 .9 0 e.oo 12 1 .7 5 1 .so 9 1 .3 1 i.00 6 0 .8 8 o.so 3 0 .4 4 0.00 0.00 INCHES THOUSAND DOLLARS vb ui 96 The rate of return of this industry, according to the present analysis, is lower than the going interest rate in a bank deposit. Consider the unpaid labor the owner/manager and his family put in, one must enjoy operating a private campground for satisfaction other than monetary returns, or he should invest in another type of business. The following is a list of the top ten counties of the sums of net income and interest payment: Branch Allegan Jackson Livingston Lenawee Barry Cheboygan Kent Mecosta Clare $64,600 61,700 55,500 53,300 47,800 39,000 38,600 38,100 37,300 35,600 Figure 13 is a SYMVU map for the sums of the net income and interest payment of $1,108,100. Branch county has the highest returns, which reflects the amount of its campsites and total development investment. Allegan, Jackson, and Livingston have more than 50 thousand dollars a year. The map indicates that the counties with higher returns concentrate in Region 3, which is where the Michigan population concentrates. Y/ith only one 2 .3 0 - 6 4 .6 0 2.00 .. 66.22 1 .6 0 .. 4 2 .1 5 1 .0 0 2 8 .1 1 0 .5 0 1 4 .0 6 0.00 0.00 INCHES THOUSAND DOLLARS VD ^3 98 exception, Region 2 has lower returns, although its investments are comparable to that of Region 3. Occupancy Rates The occupancy rates on weekends and holidays show smaller variances. (Figures 14 and 15) The following is a list of the top ten counties of occupancy rates on weekends: Washtenaw Livingston Oakland Muskegon Montcalm Macomb Genesee Kalamazoo Wayne Ionia 87•4 3$ 83.54 81.22 79.22 79.16 75.10 75.05 74.82 73.39 72.71 And for the holidays: Muskegon Macomb Genesee Oakland Wayne Livingston Montcalm Ionia Alcona Lenawee 115. 102.73 102.66 101.76 101.38 101.04 100.98 100.82 100.25 100.11 During the weekends, 30 percent less occupancy rates are expected in Upper Peninsula. Within # INCHES MICHIGAN PRIVATE CAMPGROUND RESEARCH AZIMUTH = 51 ALTITUDE = 4f kWIDTH = 7.00 *HEIGHT = 3.C « BEFORE FORESHORTENING 05/08/73 figure 14. — Occupancy Rate on Weekends by County PERCENT 2 .3 0 1 1 5 .6 0 2 .0 0 .. 1 0 0 .6 0 1 .5 0 .. 7 5 .4 5 1 .0 0 5 0 .3 0 0 .5 0 2 5 .1 5 0.00 0.00 INCHES PERCENT 100 101 the Lower Peninsulaj Region 3 is higher than Region 2. However, during the holidays, it almost looks like a plateau. Average Basic Camping Fees V/ith a statewide average of $3.25 per night, those cajnpgrounds charging above $3*50 per night appear in the list of the top ten counties: Alger Alcona Allegon Charlevoix Crawford Livings ton Ogemaw Dickinson Leelanau Kent $4.25 3.92 3.91 3.88 3.66 3.64 3.62 3.57 3.54 3.52 Four counties in the list, Allegon, Kent Crawford, and Leelanau, duplicate those with top numbers of campsites. Overall, five counties are located in Region 2; three in Region 3; and two in Region 1. Figure 16 is a SYMVU map for the average basic camping fees, showing a range between $2.00 and $3.92. The extreme value in Alger is not shown, in order to exagerate the variation. The fee charge varies from county to county, no apparent pattern can be traced. £ .3 0 I .9 2 £ .0 0 1 .6 7 1-50 1.25 1 -0 0 .. 0 .5 0 0.00 INCHES 0 .8 4 0 .4 2 1 0.00 DOLLARS ABOVE $2 102 CHAPTER VI CONCLUSIONS This study has attempted to describe the economic worth of Michigan private campground industry to the rural areas of the state. Through different approaches, such as the campground distribution study in Chapter II, the averages of economic factors in Chapter III, and the three-dimensional computer maps in Chapter V, the nature of this 25-million-dollar industry has been sketched out. Although the question of "why" was slightly touched in Chapter IV on regression analyses, our research objective was not intended to be explanatory. The following is a description of the Michigan private campground industry: 1, Michigan private campground industry is a people oriented recreation activity, rather than a resource base oriented recreation activity. The distribution of the private campgrounds closely relates to the population distribution of the state, and appropriately compensates the voids left in development by the public agencies. As regard to occupancy rates, 103 104 the picture is quite clear; they are a function of the ' distance to the population centers. The development investment and annual operating expenditures are also highly related to such pattern. It is recommended that for better profit making, Michigan private campgrounds need be located close to the population. 2. Besides the locational effect, the campground type is another important factor. The initial analyses show that the overnight type campgrounds have persistently 20 percent less occupancy rates than those of the destination and commuter types. (Table 7) Accordingly, the net income of the overnight type is only a little more than half of the other two types. (Table 15) It seems that Michigan private campgrounds should not solely depend on overnight customers. In other words, the length of stay is crucial for profit making. The regression analyses in Model II (Appendix IV) confirm this argument concerning the occupancy rates. Appendix IV-1 shows that the destination type campgrounds have 2.40$ higher occupancy rate on weekends than that of the commuter type, whereas the overnight type campgrounds are 8.12$ below the commuter type. Appendix IV-2 shows similar results for the occupancy rate on holidays. However, in Appendix IV-7 the regression analysis appears to be contradictory to the initial analysis. It shows 105 that the overnight type campgrounds have $521 annual " net income and interest payment more than that of the commuter type, whereas the destination type has $424 above that of the commuter type. A possible explanation is that there is an interaction effect between the region and the type of the campgrounds. 3. Michigan private campground industry is quite uniform in average basic camping fees. Due to the competition from the public sector as well as other private campgrounds, the majority charges between $3.00 and $3.60 per night. Yet, the occupancy rates on week­ ends and holidays made the difference, whereas the mid­ week period had no effect on profit making. How to fill the campgrounds with customers during the midweek period is a challenge to the campground owner/managers. 4. The investment maps show a consistent pattern of close relationship between the high values of various economic factors and the major traffic routes in the state. In most of the maps, there is almost a continuous line of counties with high values connecting the Gary area to the Mackinac Strait. The same is true, but less obvious, with the East-West traffic routes in Southern Michigan. This confirms a general belief that an easy access to a recreation area is of great importance. 5. The returns on total development investment 106 for Michigan private campground industry reach an annual interest rate of merely 4.36$. The rate of return for this industry, according to the present analysis, is lower than the going interest rate in a bank deposit. Consider the unpaid labor that the owner/manager and his family put in, one must enjoy operating a private campground for satisfaction other than monetary returns, or he should invest in another type of business. The implications for further studies in a similar nature are as follows: 1. Recreation research has reached a point that theoretical discussions no longer satisfy the needs in sound planning. This study joins other research efforts in the field in accumulating empirical information in private campgrounds. It is one of few attempts in large-scale data collection and macro analysis. 2. The current trends in camping research seem to be more oriented towards studies in the public sectors. Prior to this study, information concerning private campground industry in Michigan, as well as elsewhere, had been merely piecemeal. The initial data analysis supported by a careful sample design to cover the whole state was most helpful in understanding the industry for the first time. It serves the function of descriptive statistics which provide solid figures for 107 some very important topics such as the occupancy rates, investment, expenditures, and other economic structures, 3. Multiple regression analysis has been more and more accepted in the field as a powerful tool in explanatory statistics. This study has achieved an initial success in campground anatomy. Although the models and the regression coefficients could not be claimed perfect (R in Model II ranged between 0,21 and 0,52), this was probably the best we could get, given the complicated situation in sampling, data collection, and the nature of this young and fast growing industry. For the time being, the prediction equations can be useful to guide new and old investers in the private campground industry as to wha.t kind of investment and profit they would likely to expect, 4, The application of the new three-dimensional computer ma.pping techniques to illustrate the macro economy on a statewide scale is a pioneer in recreation research. The previous version of this SYMVU program was called SYMAP, which had several applications a few years ago, and still is prevailing in the field, SYMVU seems to be more vivid and striking to the reader. Its function is to perceive a large-scale and complicated economic structure in a glance, and may be proven useful to present great volumes of data in a short form for 108 the executives and to the laymen. 5. It is my personal feeling that recreation research is like a gigantic puzzle. Every piece of new study is a contribution, yet the whole picture has never been revealed, and will not be in the foreseeable future. Unlike many other fields, in recreation research "monumental" discoveries seldom took place, and "giantsr" were few. Our study object is an ever-changing monster which ruthlessly denies any claim to be everlasting. Therefore, we are not marble sculptors, but auto manufacturers. On one hand, our efforts may end up in a junkyard fairly quickly, yet on the other hand, the products may be more practical for the welfare of the people. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY General References Berry, Brian J. L.; and Marble, Duane F. Spatial Analysis, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-liall, inc., I§68. Blalock, Jr., Hubert M. Social Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., i960. Campbell, Donald T.; and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research. Chicago: ftand McNally and do., 1963 . Chubb, Michael. "A System Analysis and Spatial Demand Approach to Statewide Recreation Planning: A Case Study of Boating in Michigan.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1967* Dugger, Donald D.; and Wittick, Robert I. SYMAP. (Technical Report No. 100) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1972. Clawson. Marion. Methods of Measuring the Demand for and Value of C'ut'doorTtecreaHcm^ Resources for the Future, inc., 1959* Cochran, William G. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1963. Draper, N. R.j and Smith, M. Applied Regression Analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966. Glass, Gene V.; and Stanley, Julian C. Statistical Methods Education and Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1970. Harvard University. SYMVU Manual. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University, 1971. 109 110 Manthy, Robert S.; and Tucker, Thomas L. Supply Costs for Public Forest Land Recreation. (Research Report Ho. 158) East iansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1972, Martin, Francis F. Computer Modeling and Simulation. New York: John Wiley and Sons, ±nc„, 19bd. Mendenhall, William. Introduction to Linear Models and the Design and Analysis of Experiments. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., H b B . Michigan State University. BASTAT. and IDSTAT. (STAT Series Nos. 5 and 6) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969® Michigan State University. Computer Laboratory User*s Guide. Vol. III. East Lansing, Michigan: *“ Michigan State University, 1972. Michigan State University. LS: Calculation of Least Squares (Regression) Problems on theLS Routine. (SlAT Series Ho. 7) last Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969® Michigan State University. LSDEL: Stepwise Deletion of Variables from a Least Squares" Equation. (5#Af Series No. H) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1969® Rohlf, F. James; and Sokal, Robert R. Statistical Tables. San Franscisco: W. H. Freeman and do., 1^69. Wittick, Robert I. Some Spatial Statistics Programs Used in Spatial Analysis. (Technical Report7i~2) Eiast lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1971. Wittick, Robert I. SYMVU. (Technical Report 73-2) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1973® Young, C. SYMAP. (Technical Report No. 100) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1972. Yeates, Maurice H. An Introduction to Quantitative Analysis in*"Economic Geography. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Col, 196d; Ill Selected Campground Research Bateman, Arnold J., and Cole, Gerald L. A Report on Private Campground Operations in Delaware 7" Maryland9 and southeastern Pennsylvania. Newark, Delawares University of Delaware, 1972, Bevins, Malcolm I, (Editor) Planning Tomorrow's Campround« (Workshop Proceedings) Burlington, ermont: University of Vermont, March, 1970. f Brown, E. Evan, and Holemo, Fred J. Private Campground Operations in Georgia. (Research Bulletin 89) Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia, 1971. Brown, Tommy L. and Wilkens, Bruce T. A Study of Campground Business in New York Staie. Ithaca, hew York: 6omell IJniversity, 1972. Buist, Leon J. ’’The Relationship Between Privately Owned and Public Campgrounds in the State of Michigan.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. University of Washington, 1973. Bultena, Gordon L., and Klessig, Lowell L. "Satisfaction in Camping: A Conceptualization and Guide to Social Research." in Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 1, No. 4® Autumn, l9C>9. Burch, Jr., William R., and Wenger, Jr., Wiley D. The Social Characteristics of Participants in Qjhree .Style's of family" damping. USDA Forest Service Research “"paper PNW-4&. Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station, 1967. Cardenuto, Joseph R. A Study of the Pricing Practices on Pennsylvania dampgrounhs. (Research Series bio. 1) tfoiversiiy Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, 1972. Christiansen, Rudolph A., et al. Privately Owned Camprounds in Wisconsin: An Economic Repori. 1 Research Report 43) Madison: University of Wisconsin, 1969 f 112 Clark, Roger N., Hendee, John C., and Campbell, Frederick, "Values, Behavior, and Conflict in Modern Camping Culture." in Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 3, No. 3, Summer, i$71. Cooper, R. B. Private Outdoor Recreation in Wisconsin— An Industrial Organizallon Analysis. Madison, Wis".tiriiversi-fcy of Wisconsin,' undated. Cordell, Harold K., and Sykes, Clinton K. User Preferences Developed-Site Camping. (USDA Forest Service Research Note Ste~i2£) Asheville, North Carolina: Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1969. Cornell University. Campground Management Conference. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, 1972. Dahle, Thomas L. Michigan State Park Users Survey. 1956. (Research Report No. 19) East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, undated. De Vriend, A. J., Smith, H. M., and Weiss, S. W. Keys to Successful Campground Operations. (Series fro. I£) Maclison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin, 1972. Dice, Eugene Frederick. "The Influence of an Educational Awareness Experience on Components of Psycho­ logical Position Toward an Issue in Conservation; A Methodological Study." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, 1965* Chiang, Tah Wah, and Smythe, Timothy. Privately "Operated Campgrounds in Michigan. (Extension Bulletin E-717) East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, 1971. • Private Enterprise Recreation Dav; Selected “Papers. East Lansing: Michigan State University, l5?l. .» ed. The Private Campground Business: A Forward “Focus.East Lansing: Michigan Stale University, 1972. _, and Wang, Darsan. A Study of Expenditures and “Management in the Private Campground! Industry. (Extension Bulletin E-7^6) Easx Lansing: Michigan State University, 1973* 113 . A Study of Camper*s Attitudes and Si Patterns in the Private Campground Industry7 (Extension Bulletin E-Y51/) East Lansing; Michigan State University, 1973* . A Self--Teaching Workbook Before Going the PrivateCampground Business, (Extension Bulletin E-761) East Lansing; Michigan State University, 1973. , and Wang, Darsano Economic Scale and Dollar Exchanges in the Michigan Privately Owned dampground Industry. (Research Report' "2~2ff) iSast Lansing: Michigan State University, 1973* Polsom, David, and Koch, Robert* Profitability Consid­ erations for Private Campgrounds in' New Jersey, (A.E. No. 337) New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University, 1972. Gilbert, Alphonse Henry. "A Survey of Vacation Camping in Iron County.” Unpublished M.S. thesis. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1963. Green, Bernal L., and Wadsworth, H. A. Campers: What Affects Participation and What ~5o They 1/Vant? (Research Bulletin No. Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University, 1966. Hodgson, Ronald 'Wayne. "Campground Features Attractive to Michigan State Park Campers." Unpublished M.S. thesis. East Lansing: Michigan State University, 1971. King, David A. Characteristics of Family Campers Using the Huron-Manistee National Forests. (USDA forest Service Research Paper LS-19) St. Paul, Minnesota: Lake States Forest Experiment Station, 1965. LaPage, Wilbur F. Success of Campgrounds Studied As Guide to Recreation Planners! (USDA forest Service Research Note NE-43) Upper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1966. _______ • Successful Private Campgrounds: A Study of Factors Thai Influence the Length and Frequency of Camper Visits. (USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-58) Upper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1967. 114 . "The Camper Views the Interview." in Journal of leisure Research. Vol. 1, No. 2, Spring, 1569. • Campground Marketing: The Heavy-Half Strategy. (USDA Foresi Service Research Note Nlfe-9^) ilpper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1969. . Camper Characteristics Differ at Public and Commercial dampgrounds in New England. (UiSDA forest Kesearch Note NE-$9) tfpper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1967. . The Role of Customer Satisfaction in Managing Commercial Campgrounds. "(llsi)A Forest Service Research taper Nfi-i6(p) Upper Darby, Pa.: North­ eastern Forest Experiment Station, 1968. . The Role of Fees in Campers9 Decisions. (USDA Forest Service Research taper NE-118)tipper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1968. , and Cormier, Paula L. The Commercial Campground Industry in New Hampshire: A Report on~a~"T97I (j^PCTQund Census. (hSDh forest Research Paper rffi-25$) Upper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1972. . Growth Potential of the Family Camping Market. (USDA Forest Service Research Paper NE-25^) Upper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1973. Lime. David W. Factors Influencing Campground Use in the Superior Nationl aT ¥orest^T^Iinne¥o'taT"'' (USDA Foresi Service Research Paper NC-66) St. Paul, Minnesota: North Central Forest Experiment Station, 1971. Lucas, Robert C. User Evaluation of Campgrounds on Two Michigan National Forests. (USDA Forest' Service Research Paper NC-44) &t. Paul, Minnesota: North Central Forest Experiment Station, 1970. McCurdy, Dwight R., and Mischon, Raymond M. A Look at the Private Campground User. (USDA Forest Service Research Paper CS-I8 ) Columbus, Ohio: Central States Forest Experiment Station, 1965. 115 Marquardt, Raymond A., et al. "The Cognitive Dissonance Model as a Predictor of Customer Satisfaction Among Camper Owners." in Journal of Leisure Research. Vol. 4, No. 4, ^all, 19?2. Michigan Department of Public Health. Publicly and Privately Owned Campgrounds: Act 171 of ilie Public Acts of1 1^76 and Administrative Rule's. Lansing, Michigan, October 1^71. . "Licensed and Proposed Campgrounds in Michigan.” Lansing, Michigan, February 1972. Moeller, George H. Growth of the Camping Market in the Northeast. (USDA Forest Service Research Paper tipper Darby, Pa.: Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, 1971. Montville, Francis E. Private Campgrounds in Maine 4 (Bulletins 122 & 123) Orono, Maine: University of Maine, 1964* National Recreation and Park Association. Journal of Leisure Research. 1969-1972. Sherling, A. B., and McCoy, E. W. Costs and Returns of Overnight Campgrounds in Alabama. Auburn, Ala.: Auburn university, 19^2. 3M National Advertising Company. The 1969 Study of Vacation Camping. Argo, 111.; 1970. “ . The 1971 Study of Vacation Camping. Argo, 111.; 19*71. University of Massachusetts. Analysis of the Campground Market in the Northeast— Public Policy. Amherst', Mass.: University of Massachusetts, 1973. Wagar, J. Alan. Relationships Between Visitor Character-istics and Recreation Activities on Two National Forest i[reas. tJSDA Forest Service Research IPaper E-7) UpperDarby, Pa.: USDA, 1963. Campgrounds for Many Tastes. (USDA Forest "Service Research Paper INT-6) Ogden, Utah: Intermountain Forest Range Experiment Station, 1963. 116 Wang, Darsan. "Camper Preferences and Campsite Character­ istics at Ludington State Park, Michigan," Unpublished M.S'. thesis. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University, 1971, Wilkins, Bruce T., and Loomis, Clifton W. A Study of Campground Business in New York State. (Research Bulletin 32§") Ithaca, New York: Cornell University, 1971* Williams, J. W., and Sehermerhorn, R. W. Economic Analysis of the Potential for Developing Overnight damping Facilities on or Near Mador Highways in oklahomaT (Bulletin fe-6bO) Oklahoma state University, 1%8. APPENDICES APPENDIX I MICHIGAN PRIVATE CAMPGROUND INDUSTRY STATISTICS BY COUNTY APPENDIX I MICHIGAN PRIVATE CAMPGROUND INDUSTRY STATISTICS BY COUNTY COUNTY Alcona Alg er AVE. OCCUPANCY (%) WEEKENDS HOLIDAYS AVE. CAMPING FEE ($) DEVEL­ OPMENT CONSTRUC­ TION EQUIP­ MENT ANNUAL INCOME 'OPERATING INTERES' 159 68.98 100.25 3.92 222 39.4 7.6 22.0 8.3 50 33.00 100.00 4.25 85 51.1 1.0 5.1 5.6 858 63.83 94.73 3.91 1,092 142.7 35.0 81.9 61.7 Alpena 0 - - - - - - - - A n tr i m 0 - - - - - - - - Arenac 147 54.31 88.56 Baraga 0 Barry Bay Benzie 479 0 261 - - 60.66 98.34 - - 68.33 93.69 3.11 - 2. 34 - 3.35 250 - 437 - 494 ^"Investment and income figures are in thousand dollars. 61.5 - 88.1 - 73.9 13.5 - 20.6 - 15.2 10.8 - 34.2 - 23.0 7.2 - 39.0 - 33.1 117 Allegon NO. OF SITES 1 APPENDIX I ( jn'd) NO. OF SITES COUNTY WEEKENDS HOLIDAYS AVE. CAMPING FEE ($) AVE. OCCUPANCY (%) DEVELOPMENT COtJSTRUCTION ’ EQUIPMENT ANNUAL INCOME & OPERATING INTEREST 366 77.17 98.99 3.29 370 46.7 9.9 41.3 23.4 Branch 868 67.33 94.75 3.06 1,537 95.6 51.2 139 .9 64.6 Calhoun 319 63.36 98.96 3.25 448 46.9 11.0 22.3 20.5 Cass 447 60.78 95.71 3.35 658 73.0 21.8 41.5 21.8 C harlevoix 152 68.28 99.80 3.88 215 38.4 7.4 21.0 8.0 1,133 54.41 70.67 3.46 797 95.0 52.9 76.9 38.6 Chippewa 167 46 .44 72.73 3.07 141 41.7 5.6 2.9 2.2 Clare 308 68.28 95.20 3.49 584 148.9 28.4 34.7 35.6 636 90.7 26.3 97.8 19.9 121 22.1 4.1 7.5 3.1 Cheboygan Clinton Crawford Delta Dickinson 0 ' 525 0 85 Eaton 0 Enur.et Genesee - - 59.38 94.42 - - 40.52 66.40 3.66 - 3.57 - - - 142 54.05 88.33 3.09 243 60 .5 13.4 9.9 6.9 226 75.05 102.66 3.40 316 56.1 12.1 30.6 15.9 118 Berrien APPENDIX I (con'd) COUNTY NO. OF SITES AVE. OCCUPANCY (%) WEEKENDS . HOLIDAYS AVE. CAMPING FEE ($) DEVEL­ OPMENT Gladwin 0 - - - - Gogebic 0 - - - - 48.51 89.47 G r a n d T r a v e r s e 220 Gratiot Hillsdale Huron Ingham 229 0 300 0 - - 69.59 98.06 - - 64.24 96.84 - - - 3.09 - 2.96 - 262 EQUIPMENT ANNUAL INCOME & OPERATING INTEREST 36.6 14.0 24.0 7.4 63.9 15.2 26.1 •17.5 47.3 20 .6 63.8 27.4 - 324 119 Houghton 0 3.41 CONSTRU'CTION - 913 - Ionia 95 72.71 100.82 3.26 136 25.0 5.5 12.3 7.0 Iosco 211 56.07 93.72 3.40 408 46.5 14.9 •27. 8 6.5 - - Iron 0 - - Isabella 141 48.33 91. 25 3.00 333 50.1 15.4 7.4 9.6 Jackson 701 71.77 98.08 3.03 1/028 163.5 57.5 70.5 55.5 Kalamazoo 136 74. 82 99.13 3. 30 228 21.2 12.0 9 .i 7.3 33 15.00 90.00 2.25 20 6.5 1.3 Kalkaska APPENDIX I (con'd) P A T T M '1P X V L.VJUIN NO. OF SITES AVE. .OCCUPANCY (%) WEEKENDS HOLIDAYS AVE. CAMPING FEE ($) DEVEL­ OPMENT CONSTRUCTION ' equip- MENT annual income & OPERATING INTEREST k Kent 581 6 2 . 32 98.29 - - 0 Keweenaw 723 3 . 52 - 118.3 28.7 79.2 38.1 — 294 58.48 9 5 . 64 3 . 20 697 69.6 19 . 6 28.8 17.0 Lapeer 124 62.07 96.92 2.82 157 13.8 18.2 19.9 6.2 Leelanau 516 61.69 90.47 3 . 54 521 10 4 . 9 25.7 49.3 20 . 4 Lenawee 755 65.17 1 0 0 . 1 1 3.06 796 118.9 49.9 54.8 47.8 Livingston 409 8 3 . 54 101.04 3.64 623 58.7 29.1 72.2 53.3 Luce 50 35.03 61.67 3.26 71 15.5 3.2 .9 1.1 Mackinac 68 37.95 64.23 3.43 97 19.0 3.6 4.4 2.1 Macomb 113 75.10 102.73 3.40 158 28.1 6.1 15.3 7.9 Manistee 135 53.61 87.93 3.07 232 59.1 13.2 8.6 6.5 45 34.18 60.91 3.22 63 14.5 3.0 Mason 531 64.96 8 3 . 29 3.17 611 124.1 21.2 21.5 13.7 Mecosta 732 65.94 98.03 3.44 1/333 151.1 40.8 83.0 37.3 - - Marquette Menominee 0 — - - .7 120 Lake APPENDIX I ( COUNTY NO. OF SITES AVE. OCCUPANCY (%) WEEKENDS HOLIDAYS r t v u • CAMPING FEE ($) *d) DEVELOPMENT CONSTEUCTION EQUIPMENT ANNUAL INCOME & OPERATING INTEREST 57.36 91.13 3.27 223 48.5 10.1 14.6 7.2 30 15.00 66.00 3 . 00 75 22.3 1.2 1.6 .7 Monroe 368 72.07 99.36 3.13 368 70.7 25.9 37.2 20.4 Montcalm 342 79.16 100.98 3.28 338 84.6 29.3 27.7 28.8 Montmorency 175 44.79 94.40 2.94 347 61.9 33.6 12.7 6.0 Muskegon 345 7 9 . 22 115.60 3 . 21 482 50.4“ 30.5 37.4 26.7 Newaygo 114 35.00 100.00 3.50 92 63.0 6.2 5.0 4.8 Oakland 568 81.22 101.76 3.32 725 107.0 22.7 62.6 28.3 Oceana 254 62.05 92.52 3.40 359 68.5 19.5 21.5 21.2 Ogemaw 260 6 3 . 54 95.22 3.62 348 66.5 13.8 31.6 12.7 50 35.03 61.67 3 . 26 15.5 3.2 .9 1.1 210 61.79 94.53 3.52 308 60.3 12.2 25.9 10.8 Oscoda 40 52.79 87.21 3.02 70 18.7 4.3 1.8 1.8 Otsego 161 58.92 92.42 3.36 252 52.5 10.7 18.4 8.4 Ottawa 266 69.07 98.01 3.16 411 62.9 18.8 26.8 19.6 Missaukee Ontanagon Osceola 71 ' 121 139 Midland APPENDIX I ( c o n 'd ) i NO. OF SITES COUNTY Presque Is le R oscom m on 0 203 AVE. OCCUPANCY (%) WEEKENDS HOLIDAYS - - 52.85 87.25 - - AVE. CAMPING FEE ($) - 3.U3 DEVEL­ OPMENT - CONSTRUC­ TION - 352 - EQUIP­ MENT - ANNUAL INCOME OPERATING INTERES - - 9.8 94.0 21.4 - - - 9.4 - 0 S a lin a c 140 47.04 96.69 ? . 89 57 14.6 4.1 2.1 3.7 S ch o o lcra ft 152 25.00 38.33 3.17 291 18.8 14.7 6.0 .7 Shiawassee 279 71.99 99.06 -3.35 334 46.9 12.1 28.4 19.3 - - 68.25 96.04 2.72 - - - S t. C la ir S t. Joseph T u s c o la 0 209 0 - - - 204 - 35.1 - - 13.9 . -■ - - 11.2 - 42.2 8.1 25.8 V an B u re n 368 •68.90 95.59 3.29 525 94.7 25.6 W a s h te n a w 107 8 7 . 43 97.25 2.73 52 13.0 9.8 W ayne 100 7 3 . 39 101.38 3.30 142 25.9 5.7 13.2 7.3 Wexford 463 60.10 96.21 3.34 604 116.4 24.3 52.3 22.5 8,984.6 1,135.3 1,875.9 1,108.1 TOTAL 18,453 25,410 1.5 . 7.1 122 S d ig in a w APPENDIX II MANAGEMENT INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 123 fj t - . Code No. «•— Respondent : P a te Il.il" _ _ K e rre it io n R esearch D e p a rtm e n t of M ic h ig a n East ITEM A x;ftvx,i.ier*5.zeiStunesaa^zxji—V. - - - . _ giva.,q*^raxrt\ ___ __ ___ A c i f . i A J ':: , '; 1. R esources ' •'.8E23 HOW MANY SITES ART IN T H IS CAMP UNDER THE FOLLOWING? 1-nsodern 2. In te rv ie w e r i 10S P a r k anti R e c r e a t i o n M ic h ig a n C C o u p l e _______ Co::.:: 1 11 e e _______ I'r e te d S ta te I'n tv e t:.!! L a n s in g , B 2 - p r i r . i l t i v c _______ IS THIS MORE THAN EAST YEAR? 3 - t o t n l __ 1 -Y e s ____ 2 -N o ____ 3. ARE ANY NEW S I M S BEING ADDED THIS YEAH? I f y e s , how tti.'iny m o d e rn _ p rim itiv e 1-Yes* __ 2 - N o _____ _ _____ A. I F ANY NO N-SITE CaNSTRGCTlON IS GOING ON, EXPLAIN TYPE AND S IZ E OF AUD IT K ' N ( S ) _______________________________________________ ____ ______________ 5. WHICH OF THE CAMPCEOrNt) TYPES i s T H IS ? 2-D est. i n a t 1i n i 3 -C u c s r . u lo r _ 6. WHICH o r THE FOLLOWING ARE C l IT. RED IN THIS CAMPGROUND? E le c t r ic it y at nost s ite s 10 C r r t s u n i t y a c t i v i t y and b a t h W a t e r t o :.io al s i t e s 1 1 __I'.ui I d i n g Sewer h o o k u p s a t s t m c s i t o n 12__ G r o c e r y s t o r e L .u jn d rv 13 O u t d o o r s p o r t s and gatucs C o i n o p e r a t e d panics 1A__ ? i s h i n g 6 Nv iron i tip 1 b _ A r t and c r a f t room 7 _ lio a t in g ( I n c l . ca n o e s ) 16 B ile re n ta ls 8 _ i i o t . 1 l e d pat; s a l e s 1 7_ P u m p in g s t a t i o n 3 __ M o v i e s 18 Music: v e n d i n g m a c h i n e s 7. IN MUCH tSF THE FOLLOWING WAYS !>■'} YOU ADVERTISE YOUR CAMPGROUND? 1 B ro ch u re 2 Cut d o o r r u g u’ i n r s 1 R a d io A N ew spapers 5 T .Y . 6 _ S p u r t s nicecs 7 D ire c to rie s fi. IN I T K V I F W L K : A l t e r a l l o* h . -r >M«.ru«*. I'»:i hue k e e n s c o i i n g i.ho-.i ] d ro c c td e d : l e g t o l l ' s . ; ng gt u d i n g ; 1- O v e r n i g h t _____ cats]-.! e t e d , t h e <>, 3 ,•», 3 , 2 ,1 fo llo w in g I . C e n t , i d s w i t h i . c s l . i H i rr. A. P r r p u r at. I o n o f v r r k c r o w ________ __ 7 . T t d 1rao.e t i g r o u n d s 7 . C l e a r d i v i s i o n o f i c h s _____________ i . O i i l t e r t : : io :c y _ 3. Go. .1 t r a f f i c p a tte rn s ___ 4 . fcv it n n ee o f y e u l l t v 3 , Wat e r a:vi p l e . r . b i n g w o r k i n g __ 5 . V a r i i t v i i f n.-i l v f f i e s 10, utr pe r s V . ip t h a p p y ________________ __ 11. Read-, i d e end ot t i e r d i r e c t io n * , e a s i i v t o i l c v e d 124 ITEM !i 1. WHO IS 7HF. MANAGER OF Y O 'v lUMMUUK'VST)? S e lf 2. _ - KEEDS l i i K i-1 F _ e F a il SOMKS ON EXi'ENvES AND INCOME? N p e u i . e ____ H a it i W:!<> DECIDES ON WHAT IN TO iU. SFi.NT I\ i! LAKCi A. 1. y c r v i >• _ :N E U H A i E S ? __________________ WHAT TYFE OF RECORDS NO YOU KEEH? D a ily Veer. 1y ___ K ./i'liily S e . ic o n u l l y _ Score: 6 5 A 3 2 1 5. DO YOU KEEP IN U l V11 UAL RECDEDS ON A! 1. Y('l'H Dl KFi FT N i KINDS OF INCOME A C T IV IT IE S ? STORE., S I T E S , B IK ES, BOATS, FTC.? Y , . . - , ___ S o ______ 6. WHAT I S THE MOST I Mi’0 RIANT ITEM THAT W Ul. H CAUSE YO f TO CHANCE YOUR SITE FEE? IN OTHER WORDS. FOR VHAT HA IN REASON WOULD YOU CHANCE? 7. DO YOU HAVE D lE iF K E N T TRICES FOR DIFFERENT SUE S.* S. WHY IS THIS? D iffe re n t Score 8. D I 11 o r e n c e in L o c a tio n v a lu e I 'o e s ant.wi.r u n c e rta in ? i n d i c a t e he lia s 6 S A 3 2 1 e v a lu a te d Does a n s w e r s u p p e s t he V.novs ? the 6 S A 3 2 10 . WHO 1’ LANNED THE LAYOUT OF THE CAMDCKOUND? 11. WHO DES I t , NF.il YOU" K JLD1NC.5? s ite s s o u rce o r (> S 4 3 2 1 is he 1 ______ WHAT TER CENT OF Y< UR SITES A RE KENT ED ON WEEKENDS TUESDAY, WEDNESDAY, 'iHUKSDAY _ ? S core: 13. O ilie r d iff.-ie n t DO YOUK CUSTOMERS V I S I T MANY LOCAL A C T I V I T I E S Will I K THEY ARE CAMITNG HERE OR DO Tiii.Y STAY RIGHT IN i.AMi1 M.-ST OF THE TIME? S core: 12. oi No WHERE IX) MOST OF YOUR CAM1T.RS COME Kia’M? S core: 9. Hookups c a r d on w h e t T e r he r< c o y n i ::cs Yen ___ t> N A 3 HOLIDAYS 1 WHO I i DUN Hi I E WE A 1 . UE I R JUS 1I. Hew ! ‘ l IS. WHO HANDIES KIV I STRA'i 1• N.'S : IB. WHO EANDLi S IS: ___________________ __________ _________ YOU " n EAR I N " A N!W EUVi..' Y Pi _ S EF V A 7 1■'NS ___ E . : . __ _ _ _ ________ _____ ___________ 3 125 ]1 K?*C i':v«*ni‘?.; »;i.r ii t.» :* ii;. -c v i r . ( v>11:.o .» »* J y ;.jf i. row ma ny a ; ' [.is lu ll F art 2. HOW MANY (ih ,\:.o u ’ i d u r ie . p t if..: d u r i n g LNLLK A ll •’ a r t IB WORK n JN .‘. r o . , 'r v u t >. e a n o a i c s t . ««s a r e i n t e r e s t e d th e i - c.»• i * . , o r ; .! 1 ) w -kf is yu: k • ; ^ u r c s , c a m :-g r o u n d ? : i asm s r . For p a y F o r p a y ___ y o i ’ K CAMPGROUND? __ i ‘o r pay K o r pay ! ira** SCALE HO YOU HAUL ? 3. WHAT KINO OK PA: 4. AFPF.OXIMATI'.l.Y t.'HAT IS YOUR TOTAL P A Y R O L L ? ____________________p e r y e a r 5. IN FOUND FIGURES, ABOUT HOW MICH DO YOU ilAVK INVESTED I N ALL YOUR CAKFCROUND DEVELOPMENT ? „ core: S , ar 4 / a •» ,1 6 3 2 6. ABOUT HOW MUCH DOES I T COST YOU A YK.AR TO ADVERTISE? 7. DID YOU AND YOUR FAMILY Do A LOT OK THE WORK I N BUILDIN G THU CAMPGROUND? Yes 8. ABOUT HOW MUCH DID YOU HAY LOCAL HELP VHPN YOU BUIL T T H IS CAM PCROUND? P lu c b o r E le c tric ia n E n g in e e r o r V. No____ _ ou rvi yor IN ROUNDED r H U L L S , Lurcher _ __ C a r p e n t e r ___________ M a s o n ____ Road b u i l d e r s O t l i c r ______________ ABCUT 1MW MUCH IbWK YeU L A ID TO LOCAL SUPPLIERS TOR Pl u r c h i n g __________E l e c t r i c a l ____________ B l o c k s _____________ Cenonl G ravel Or a l l of these In te rv ie w e r: 1 f he d o e s n ' t seen; t o V.r.ow, d o n ' t S core: Do.--: n r . - v e r shew hr- kn ows? 6 3 4 3 2 1 10. ROUGHLY, HOW M T .il DO YOU SPEND A YEAR KOR SUPPLIES T o i l e t p ..per R e p a ir:, il. ____ HOW MIC!! R1 Y'.'.r SPEND ! A, !i SEASON I OP. Grc-ceri," Bottled IL . E le c t r i c i t y L i n t any o th e i ( ! ;■•: HOW MUCH :*'i T U CHARGE KOR ’M I L S Med- r i p e r Pi i r i : i v • duv (lav is s u e . LIK E ? In s u ra n ce i t , l i k e oil, r c . ije r g .ia , fe e d , SUPPLIES WHICH YOU p.l'SELL? Giits i . e. p re s s the _ Soap ___________ _____ O t h e r s ) ________________________________ ______ (BASIC K I E S ) : i «-r week (k _ per •• •’ -i■-o.n m a.,on fu e l. 126 13. ABOUT l!OW MUCH D o YOU HAVE INVESTED IN OPERATING KOUIPNENT L I K E H C K U P S , T F A C lu K S , MOWERS, GRADER OR OTHER;', L I K E THIS? B e tw e e n 14. and ESTIMATE VI!'.AT YOU PAY THE PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY ON ANY REP AIRS , OR MECHANICS PER YEAR ON OPEIV.TING EyU IP M K N t. PARTS, B e t w e e n ____________ a n d _______________ 15. AFTER YOU HAVE PA 1D ALL THESE, WHICH OK THE FOLLOWINC COMES CLOSEST TO WHAT YOU HAVE LICIT PI.P. YEAR TO REDUCE r>! P.T, BUY CHRISTMAS G I F T S , LOR EXPANS i ON OK V U T E V E R YOU I S L THE PROFIT FOR? a b “ ___ c d ____ e f ___ B li 16. __ __ $ 1 000 1 $ 9 000 $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 $ 1 1 ,0 0 0 __ $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 $ 1 3 ,0 0 0 $ 1 4 ,0 0 0 $ 1 5 ,0 0 0 P ____ M ore t h a n $ :o o a j k 1 D n o S3 000 $•'.000 $ 3 0 00 $ 6 0 00 $7000 $8000 __ this, g iv e e s tim a te I F THERE WAS BORROWED CAPITAL TO GET STARTED IN THIS BUSINESS, OR TO EXPAND, WHAT WOULD EE YOUR ESTIMATE OF HOW MUCH YOU PAY OUT' IN INTEREST EACH YEAR? B e tw e e n and APPENDIX III STATISTICS OP MODEL I APPENDIX III-l STATISTICS OP MODEL I MICHIGAN »8tV*TF C a m PGRQU'O si'rtiP £ VALUES CURRENT TIME IflJP * 81 DATE 83/21/73 ELA’SEO SINCE LAgT CURRENT TJ“t 6.01 SECONDS X(4)#4(<9)iX(6),)((22>#X(15>>X(?3),),(?4)>X(14)gP(X(19)#X(20).X(3)E?S!0!. CCcEf1’IENTS 5*.5/149716 -11.78 'lS3)4-.21l ;rd;errors OF c j?f f :; i e -i t s r>,»>->'>i">t >i 11.542V3372 0.09299792 0.0001/034 R 0.3934 BETA HEIGHTS •0.1lil7 •0.29398 O.5n60C • 0 .58913 C0FFS P DAR i 0.1153 STD. ERRORS OF BETAS 0.10219 C.1C396 0.24624 0.24956 F SIS 3.9374 128 9580.03124735 PE'.RFSSIQ'i (A3 JUT -EM.) ES«UR MEAN SQUARE DEG OF FREEDOM eisoft S R BAR 0.3398 standard UF e s t i m a t e 24.66304984 error CORR COEFS K2 DELETES • 0 ,11650 •0J29S59 0121468 •0.24669 0.14316 0,09327 0,11395 0.10002 partial T9 12.'«198 -i;C899 -2;°630 2.3384 -2 J36 36 FB SIG 166;92.*4 <0.0005 1.1634 0.260 8.2945 0.005 4 i1551 0.045 5;»/27 0,021 -f*. yflfa.r-3fr 129 ««r> « K) ( M f i r « « CMO U U H mm m• a o a a V *4 CM c o c o o c/> • T4 4 t A 4 ) 4> Cl f v *0 a a *c n or,«% (/> c »o ac o or • «n tn C 0 -O O O IT k u o a o Ui CM N fS a or -3 • A M V rim « C J fV < r<*r a H 4 O O O La n n o e n o o a i r i O tr~ in h- a 7 ui *V'i1N H <0 LB 7) rur r* n rr < ia ci k M7® M O M ff r < ir o o - o ^ j LI UI »•••••« (I«l• a r- O O OMMO X 4 O aL r* M* O* O fO 0? MODEL cm *4 K! a i r ® cr H •'M STATISTICS K) C O N N u. o n r w tn «• o o IPlOJ P^ O O r t-f • • • • o a Ho fv H «) 1 /1S f«NNN < 0 i> rs *4rl (\i « l/)^.MOO“llfi rr u i t*“- h 4 o O- *1 Ot) ri O •.t c- »' o - o i r h o t - O'C lts < ■o uj u c- n n f- n IA fj to t - i"» O •— U / f> —* f ►«| V I '* • A. X o *- r* p IT L) « 4* c »l f > tr a u 'v ;) U • r; *0 ■ * C V . O ^ r- r> » • • • i . u c N h «>i r» 1 D I r< I • 1. » C *H ■+ * T O O CM • •* •« u ut k » -■» O N N f~» w U- •• UCT / t «A«9 <«H o o 130 r* w4 to * a / i K t > «D « *0 *0 a CM • T q o • a o • o a * o J U ^ Uu c o (V 10♦ n D -« o h o r » « o a c i< « -« ac a. x c c c o n u CC V fs , > © l" »C V I •— CM H K ) ro r# i/: v v a n M O O b O O a O O <0N0» o * «c P*» O lf» fM O u N U in rr n M uj N N O 'A C M •r o O « a or * rvi v> t n >o I OF HODBL C i rl (\l 0 0 0 (1 4 *1 (C o i- STATISTICS r> h O C\i MI f tn a l» < UI c c*. o «p Vf* o • rt r< m Ol a a c a n o is *r N I A V rl 9> ( O N ' O o o o o i / i r . r» o -o < r o n *0 O fH I'C .H O N t*' •— •— Uj UJ r ■ -> • * ^4 ++ c: u uj •- *•« u a «r « M 131 O O O O r* CJ « *P M CM • N. 0 n v a a r- v •» *-4 n •* H f v P. C « N to o O (V Jr h jj *40 n 0000 Uj x >4 •4 * - re. o u £_. (S o - r» ►TE Ucm ac O CL C c r •4 rf J B ►H a o N U 0 C 4 0 P ►- Q 7 UI u i 00 cr O ar ■< o H t 4 f •< CJ M O *4 rl p*. *: U. a to fO •>* CM O' C' k : k i o CJ PM CM 1u . o V! (T K 3 U. <4 CM cr • STATISTICS u P's. PO rr, (M a o a WC M-0 f** •O >0 0 <0 ■»4 C « MJ t * 0 * 0 *1 • • • • C I O O O (/» ip i n o> «n o P - r*N C M« -* <0 (/> ' * 4) < cr u> O cr .0m * 4 to cn •— X»tO4 > !M M i ' r p O >3 i) i/ j n o ►1 r . »l ( f > ■o o o T •- « o . •« » • ■I *0 *•* »• tr* Ps ■> < * • > • * • —. Ol <* V O «M X 4 yr ► -o n cm u* a> ? :l ■» *4*4 C* u U j * » •— u a >K M M 132 (/) Ui H rv ui (■ J (VONO Ct » rl >0 N«l«Ok * r/Ni> V V rl fki • » • • o a a o Ui q m V) _ t u_ z ^ u» ►v> 1-0 U < u a. r uj « *> < # v a » *v «ir w o «r x rg x c u u O H a. X*9» IflCfr ac w a » UI tfl « w> u> C ^ A X O Ci M e a i o o o it. o o « o a • • 4* • • o o o n o V V a a ■< a N N W O <1 a: r^c* •-« v CO X H WlflCI U a: m w Z> x *— IA ►- o 7 UJ 'M IX V N Ui C/1 ru or A .- a H c o m o o r -c CT a r * N O N i _» U UI C V j O -3•€ I K> OF MODEL n x ru rl CO (3 IT O O ••*• •*• r o c o • • • o w in m X • iU ar J X C3 UJ m cc UJ X W u. o a Ui ra V «o a> a o* ra n» r-» n a- w u . x «r u a o o C OL - i) n w O 1/1 a -x a *~ U UJ CD n C3 U. »- o in u o a a e c i f t ’O n w w N a - * o CJ UI *M kO f t Lr H c*. u"> w o ;r — -4 .•© rs.-i o u . u. H ir r w • • • ••u. n A r < T O ^ H r t a • • o o •- U (f> «* -O I I W N r *- « - » t o r o f ^ rr 1>K!N »• u > '•< « <* 1 • * ' V w* •** A i*“ I • <*u u : «• * s.> rv ^ <* i? u ?u U-‘ u r* *r n nj n r. rv. . i (M I T U * v» . u 1u* (1 M N O U U *• ** o nc a t i i w APPENDIX III-7 STATISTICS OF MODEL I Mjcura*-! «*sivate campground strap = values current ttme 1050 * dj date 93/21/73 ELAPSES SINCE L*5T C u RHENT TIME 0.J0 SgCONOS (UNRESTRICTED LEAST SQUARES) DEPENDENT VA«!ASLE--X( 24) NET INCOME AKD INTEREST PAYMENT AOV FOR OVERALL REGRESSION SUM OF SQUARES ERROR TOTAL (ABOUT *41317 -0 J. 1b (OE4T5 5 ,4'«4::2'>fl -O.OC.TRORd STO; ERRORS OF coefficients 14.3548 3152 13.1225:926 24.68543134 0.19664309 C.00036421 MULTIPLE COMR COEFS R RA» 2 R 0.4655 0.1403 nF TA weights •0.14362 -0.13015 0.63645 •0.51493 STD. ERRORS nr b e t a s 0.09838 0.09709 0.23897 0.24Q25 SIC 5.9489 1 33 aEQRf.SSJOIl (ABOUT "EAR) F MEAN SQUARE DEG OF FREEDOM 20;0003 S R B ar 0. 4246 standard error of estimate 52,73323S37 tr 0 ;73 74 -1:4815 -1.'3405 3;S013 -211422 fr c;5;3o 2.4384 1.7949 1?;2516 415922 SIS 0.451 0.12? 0.184 OlOCl 0.035 pabtial B2 CORR COEFS deletes *0.16605 .0;i4396 C.J4313 *0.2?5l5 0.19*52 0.20036 0.10514 0.17*90 APPENDIX III-8 STATISTICS OP MODEL I hicmjsas m iv*tf CiHp-.KOy-iO s»h*p = values cjsrbnt tthe itsso - 03 Sate es/2l/7J ELA3SFD SINCE LAST C u »8ENT TJHb 0.20 SgCflNOS (UNRESTRICTED LF AST SQUARES) DEPENDENT V*R|A3LE*-X( 14) AVEHACE BASIC CAMPING PEES AOV FOR OVERALL REGRESSION SL'H OF SGUARES FRFQP TOTAL (ABOUT **EAi,) 9. 48316400 4 2;37D7913fi 40, 607288 75 86 0147217778 50, 39045275 90 09SERV4TJ0NS R2 3.1893 41 CI'.T'AtT AFOSusr SF,IONl SWF SJ2E2 VAU C 19 20 0 21 KraRFOS! J*« r ;-;•,ts 2. T7 t U:< 17 0.23 157(15 3,161.52415 5.ci;9S67a •e.oajoi7?s r ^ n £ T3; r r r q r s OF OOFFFIOlfNTS 3.'.554:223 5. 15795649 0.3216:375 0.30259137 0,30000475 MULTIPLE CORR COFFS R P PAR 2 0.1516 0,4351 EETA HEIGHTS C. 14830 0.11712 1.03175 •0.59114 STJ. ERRORS OF BETAS 0.13009 0,09678 3.24311 3.24441 SIS F 5.0218 0 .00; 134 REQHF. SS ION (ABOUT «EA|.) HEAR SDUARF DEG OF FREEDOM S R bar 0, 3894 standard UF F S U M 6 T 6 0.68715193 efbpr CDRR CUFFS 82 DELETES 0,1574* 0.12632 0.41613 •0,36598 0,16971 0.17407 0.31954 0.06401 partial tR 1?;74?4 i;4747 1 .1857 4:2439 •3:6488 Fb SIS 162.3677 <0.0005 2119*6 0-.143 1.4 0^9 0,239 18.3136 <0.0005 15.2936 <0.0005 APPENDIX IV STATISTICS OP MODEL II APPENDIX IV-1 3TATI3TIC3 OP MODEL II CURRENT TIMF 1614 - 23 DATF 03/71/73 ELAPSCD SINCE LAST C U R R E N T TJHfc 33.09 SECCNCS ca‘'pcpdund stmap e values H -v/iTz [STAT CONTRDL C A R t 1 (CONTINUATION TO ABOVE CARD) .X(57),x(3)'. X (58).<(99>,X(6:),Xt44),X(67),X(S8>,X(69))RESiNR 2 (UNRESTRICTED .CAST S0UARFS) DEPENDENT VARIARLE--X( 23) OCCUPANCY HATE DUN 1NO '..KKi-KNDS AOV EOR OVERALL REGRESSION SUM or S3UARES 15334,20136493 10 1 5 3 3 , 4 0 0 1 3 0 69 = 41*J» 54073,46394764 O0 675.9 1836178 60407, £<7032414 90 oaSEsvxri'NS 51/i! l r 2 e x : \ t i l c /:•: i a;: ^ i r f t? • I ' I ACT** ! f1 SCORES u 6 67 3 6a ’ : . ‘*9 f !* *ft ft7 <8 69 B2 0.2209 91 r ; g :q a? rf . i n i mean) 41 *> ’E'GION - > r • ir i-NTs 4 1 =6187610 . i ■ ' 50n '740 - JV 47a14^**x * ‘6 '<172 19 -r 3 114073 9 4 c 7 6 *o 4 9 •A 1 2! '•*4970 J.f-'' Cr,6 , 35’3 .281 -? f t*4’7 14 t 30012647 S TU . rf(ROr;S or rorrri'-iCNTS 16,02714665 6 . 4Cn51<00 1?.71659557 n.12^64363 (1. (;0 2 6 4 5 7 7,‘>4 = 78811 8.974.80963 3.17118637 7.00427699 2,407 29 033 0.19942336 MJLTIPLE COKR COFFS R BAR 2 R 0.1235 0.47Q0 Jf T a WEIG m TS -0,19478 -0.26798 0,15595 -0.194.1 0.04337 -D.13177 -0.0=586 08473 3.12494 3.17168 STD. ERRORS OF OF I AS C.10938 0,10403 0 . 3 0 409 0.28303 0 .14337 0.14507 0.11160 0.17475 C . 11313 0.11408 R HAP 0.3515 TR 2.4993 -1.4940 . 2.6540 0.61=9 -0.6865 0.3075 -0.9048 -0.7694 0.4762 1,1043 1.5050 r 2.2886 slG 0.0?2 135 •l-;CR'SC!0>i (ABOJT HCAfi) Tr TAL (ABOUT Co n s t a n t MEAN SOUARF DEG or FREEDOM S STANDARD ERROR OF ESTIMATE 75.99042999 ra 7.786 2 7.8695 6.6279 0.2630 0.4699 0.0915 0. 81F 7 0.5970 0.4569 1.7195 7.2649 SIG 0.005 0,094 0,013 0,609 0.496 0,783 0 ,36 5 0,444 0,501 0,273 0,136 PARTIAL CORR rCFFS a= CF E r Tc S -0.18608 -0.27457 0.0'7?4 -0.07642 0,07380 -0,1r 0s5 -0.0857U 0. 0 7 57 8 0.17254 0.16593 0.19296 0.1*741 0.2*837 0.21675 0.27074 a.2 i2«6 0 .215* 6 0.2*649 0.2=«7b 0.19887 APPENDIX IV-2 STATISTICS OP MODEL II ni;nlCA>i PAt;A T- CA-iPCR.Iu n D SYm AP E VALUES CURRENT TI i-F 1614 - 24 DATF 0Y/P1/7J ElAPSFD SINCE last CURRFNT TIME 0,59 SEc Cn CS (UNRESTRICTED LEAST S9UARFS) CEPE'iOENT V A R U R l E--X( 24) OCCUPANCY NATE DURING HOLIDAYS AOV FOR OVERALL REDRESS ION SUM OF SQUARES 1 So DS-.TINATIOin? cvis :i 43 »I H J F A- r _ * r ▼ 46 Sf !"-:s ATri.tT' SO ~j'~ F ' 6/ *.« 6V “EAN SlUARF 10 1284 .89042267 ? 49041. 59J87099 80 613. 02496089 61890. 901C9325 90 R2 0,2076 91 CI.STA^T R E j I j -i ? a e •;ic n l 511' freedom 12848. 90422873 multiple tH ; '5 s; of »:CHs5 s n ‘l (ABOUT MEAN) TPTAL (a b o u t MEAN) 4 deg 4< ST'-SICT: "O' - r 1C ! ‘ iT'j 3*1 .6995 '4,4 .7"i U'-0*6 •J*.73‘3 5 6 2 * . 3 is-’i -". OIL"*''! A.U - M . V U - 1 .44 1 J /i ,94 -? . '6: 5 '8*6 1.42)97342 • ’ .13 4 07 c >2 r J13-H5 OF STD. FHnOr?S C J r l r [f [1 r;TS lr .26 ’29042 6. !0 3 U 2 3 3 12.11 ’57070 '-.11489364 0.10',l94«2 7.S6423.5F2 *.54*02119 7.02.04715 1.9087*265 ?.7925*881 0.18991882 3 3.4356 CORR (10FFS R RAR 2 0.10d6 JOT a ME IO’lTO STD. FRRORS OF UFTAS -0.11936 -0.37271 0.25717 -3.40865 D.1212b -3.05890 -3.11033 3.09371 -3.01673 0.14042 0.110C1 C.10532 0.30668 0.28544 0.14460 0.14631 0.11255 0.12582 0,11410 C.11505 R OAR 0 .3295 TR 5.c492 •1.0822 .3,0497 0.8326 • 1 .4317 0.5387 -o.4o->6 •0.9803 0.7448 •0.1466 1.2205 F 2.0960 SlG 0.034 c STANDARD ERROR OF FSTlMATE 24.7*934068 sir. F8 30.7940 <0,0005 1.1713 0,28? 9.7086 0,003 0,4 14 0.7032 0,156 2.0497 0,434 0.7075 0.668 0.1671 0,330 0.9610 0.459 0.5548 0,384 0.0215 0,726 1.4897 PART IAL CORR rCf F 6 e f l *tfs R7 -0.17012 -0.37272 C.09334 -0.15805 0. ii9336 -0,04496 -0.10695 0.0*299 -0.01639 0.13521 0.19603 0.11846 0.27064 0.1*770 0.2*364 0.2o6f0 0,198*9 0.2*211 0.2*779 0.192*8 APPENDIX IV-3 STATISTICS OP MODEL II MICHIGAN PH!/IT? r*>.pCH,-iunD SVMAP E VALUES CURRENT TIMF I M A - 24 DATF 0l/?l/7s ELAPSFD SINCE LAST CURRFNT TtHE 0,3l SECONDS {UNRESTS ICTFD LEAST SQUARES) DFPFNDENT VAR| a RLE--X< AQv for overall SUM CF S3UASES R i C R : 3 S ! Qq (AB"J7 m EAr ) S < M o r > o jr » *9 o o r > <\ f\ i- r\ir- » O l f l r ( 't rvj i <4 ru n H i v r < • » • « • • • • • *) h a 7' *-« • o o o o o o a o o o V o -J u. *a u, — O r > i/\ o ( k, * . a r>i o o « n f o kj ■ »a a in io - ^ H r y jH H 'o o N C v j < Tv « o r, o d o l_ c <, < 1 / r \j o o ^ c h o o o o o n o r s o o c u / fj s o » o » 0 (o o a o o *» C 3« C ,A , M 0 M kuto tr < c to ifohv(\< O O O O O O O U O O & £-t cco. e r «mo c -r C j *> r - r v ./> *,m < j ^ i a . < r r o i t iT o »« u. * " c. r . k: \t c «C( o o c o o a h* r - k. w o o o r; o o if. O O O C '-O-OO O O •C U' If K, m ^ O j N O ^ r t V ) 0 0> 'O . * c. U If *-1 o lII • STATISTICS n o a a u c i a u o a Or-«»-4K)n»0 NiC3f\.0 lr. H ;i fi If »- C* O -r-. 7*. ■ Tm if » iA 'v a N Ifv r if f s .( / o h i <5 O L H a ^ H C J O O l M • • • » • ■ • • • • n n n o n o n o o o 1 f s ( Mi n* 0NOf 0' 0! 0f f ) <0 • h ■o . C ? ri o H5 NK ,S'C * f h coc I-N c> f T-. O f\* *0 • o u H v > o o < r j\N O ‘ d C ' c. if Or. .> O r _ *#7* • w> *■»o -o o o *r v v h > V p r> < P( i > 3 k' IO t I f o - h r- r, c >r o. 04 CO S' X K - T? V ' If' OL * »O O *r fN0 * T v^ « * > « T► * V a •- r- (\ 7 - X< * *-« C « ;■ f . h v o a v h n o i f «o - VH • » * ■ > •< ► « •* -7 S < •? o v» .%• o oj ,> f <*• n “■) a fs o b l.1 (v I . ^ :.i ^ fSV *»v a '-L . —c * > *f» .» ..■ » o r *: c o r ^ ... «* 7 - . *s ,. «■ ** -O „• *T v H o ’> n O h ll I “ 4' ¥~ j* ►v* ► ••* • * • - ••* * » 5*r*H < r r *- o t,' ;> f’U lu uor X <" <* «o ' r * . • • _t *-« > m a , • n u . j,; I i ,T 7* o (AtAki < 'UlJ I) M 4 U1 (\,T APPENDIX IV-5 STATISTICS 0? KODKL II HIIHjIVi pr !/a T: CA-PCROtl'lD SVMAP E VAL'JES CL'HPE'-'T TIHF K 1 4 - 75 DATF 07/21/73 ELAPSCD SINFE LAST C JRRFAiT TI“E 0,32 SE c C k CS (UNRESTRICTED LEAST SOUARFS) DEPENDENT VAR IARLE”*X ( A(1V for OVERALL SUM OF S3UAPES -'!rw-:3e !Ti (ABoiLT *E*N) r< F D J l { A B L iT “ fcAf ,) 0"SF8VaM'N< COn .TA (T ft? i 1 I Oft2 96 fte llO N l SIZE “ 7 ( S I ZE 2 ' ■a .t ie :r*9 i 6 C f 66 47 a :i l i r » S E S /IC iS ACTIVITY 4 6 SCORES 69 f■ «ic i! -(rs 46.49179764 -t. la^cAij4 -1*. 196 17141 ,. . . ’ 3 > : 6 ! 1 4 9 I. '0 (2 ’ 1*4 -• . "2 41 8 79 1 ■ 9 2 - 5 ’- l * ' - 5 - 6 . ,-5>9 "6 7 5 * . 749C2839 -3 .4 1 1 9 1 6 1 2 ’ . 5216 1555 of DEC of FREEDO* R£»N SOUARF 13 6166.39463317 144962.23781190 80 1812.02759391 206626,15384293 90 0,2984 ftf r. -F'SIO-! »»« regression 61663,9453319ft 02 91 EiUIFHENT EXFENDITUNES STD, FH90OS cun r i ' M r N T j 2*.. 241671 35 10. 19286232 20.82121845 0.19753285 ’ .U 0 M 3 34 9 6 13. 0 4 9.37 49 14.7V'33044 8 .192267 56 3,78164676 3.94152017 0.32652115 “ JLT1PLE CORR COEFS ft R PAR 2 3.54-3 S.2107 3E T A w: I5J [r -3.00186 -3.0 0707 3.33719 3,18 3(1 -3.01071 3.0)542 -0.1738a 0,04586 - 0.0929J 3.10795 F aF jA g 0.10352 0 .39957 0.28657 0.26856 0.13606 0.13767 C . 10590 0.116.38 C . 10736 0.10825 0.001 3.4(30 R PAR 0.4591 STANDARD errtr of FSTl«ATE 42.5^791743 STD. ERRORS OF SlG 139 TF T a 34) rCFF,. A7 DFLRTF s - 0.0(200 - 0 , 00830 0.15944 3 , C’596 -0.008SO 0 . 0'7 0 0 -0.17934 0,0*251 -0 . 09633 0,11OSi 0.298*3 0.291*9 0.2*646 0.29 4 * 6 0.298*8 0.298*0 0.2=650 0.29716 0.291*6 0.2*971 p a r t i a l Tn 1.6955 -0.0179 -0.8835 1.1685 0.4614 -0.0768 0.0676 -1.16(7 0.3606 -0.8656 0.9973 Ffi 7.8749 0.0003 O.R605 1 .16’ 3 0.4643 0 .00(2 0.0039 1 .3nl 1 0.14*9 0.7493 0.9946 s'n 0,094 0,956 0,380 0,?4( 0,455 0,937 0 .9a0 0,247 0,705 0,389 0,327 CPRR APPENDIX IV-6 STATISTICS 0? MODEL II MICH I <5A-| PR t /ftTr CAMPOR'IUND S^MAp E VALUES CURRENT TIMF 1614 - 55 DATE 05/51/73 ELAPSED SINCE L»ST CJRRFNT fl*£ C,3l SECONDS (UNRESTRICTEQ LEAST SQUARES) CFPFNDEVT VARUBLE--XI aqv "o r overall SUM OF SjUARES ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES REGRESSION DEG OF FREEDOM MEAN SOUARF 26500066. 65750003 10 2650006. 66876721 34651174, 609.3 9844 80 437139. 68260193 61151241, 29559844 90 (a b o u t REAM 0 ? j R w v a ' 16>(3 R2 0.4334 91 R- ;i-’r-'SlO’l : j . i ! !'lrN ’S - M 3 . '■594 7771 127 .M ‘5 ‘636 -1 . ,67 744 74 11. Ji1-3.3 76 . ■:1 ? 3 37 ’3 57. 777121 !6 1A' .7 3 »6 *■6 16 5- . 14761966 56. 77137630 *16. 1 6 M 7-373 ?. ‘>59««1‘j5 STJ. TR6QC3 or rjr(FI'I(uTS 436.71687865 157 t7279y476 331.917 4135 0 3, 05401351 a.C0K l7H68 201.06606595 ?57.51'H7067 d",7/653727 50.73697910 6C,93900166 5.04527379 “ JLTIPLE COfiR OOtFS R PAR 2 R 0.3625 0.6533 3FT A !G‘‘T5 STD. F RRORS PF tfETAG 0.07048 -0.00030 0,97366 -0.575f,6 3,03526 3.0799Q 3.08050 3.19615 -0.02927 3. 043.36 0.0O303 C.089 4 8 0.25934 0.24138 0.12278 0.17373 0.09518 C.10639 0.09646 0.09729 v z R BAR 0. 6021 T9 -2,0060 0.7670 « n .0073 3.7543 •2.7874 0.7343 0.6458 0.54P9 1.7496 -0.3033 0,4971 F 6.1181 SlG <0,0005 140 s =CR?5SJ!Vl (Ab o u t »EAN) r RPQR Tc t a l »;s 0 COnSTA i T REGION!* 56 PFIIOLI 57 si:? 3 s i :-2 56 '.t i c ;;•>» ov/ ’ .5 65 f a : i l i r» 66 SERVICES 67 6fl Acrivirv 6V SCJPfcS 63) R STAND AFD ERROR yr FS t Ih ATE 658.13346387 5 111 FB 4.024 0 C ,048 0.5740 0,461 0,997 0.OOCU 14.0951 <0,0005 *.6769 0,020 0.774 0.0831 0.4171 0,520 0,398 0.7206 0 ,084 3.0612 0,767 0.0970 0.2471 0,620 PARTIAL CD r P rOFFS R7 CMFTeS 0.08440 -0,00037 0.38703 -0.25739 0.07222 0 . 07 2 0 2 0. J9449 0.10196 -0.0 7389 0.05549 0.47979 0.47375 0.37352 0 .3 9 315 0.4T276 0.47043 0.468J5 0.4il67 0.47373 0.47160 APPENDIX IV-7 STATISTICS OP EODEL II •U jM lG tt P h U a T? CAMPGROUND STHAp £ VALUES CURRENT T 1MF 1614 • 26 DATF 0V21/7.1 ELAPSFD SINCE LAST CURRENT TJNfc 0,3? ScCOVCe (UNRESTRICTED LEAST S9UARFS) DEPENDENT V A RURLF--XI 64) NET INCOLIE AND INTEREST PAYNENT AOV FDR OVERALL REGRESSION SUH OF SDUARES »:GR = 5S!C-N (A0DUT MEAN) f mean) VAR 10 ?1’2 .82851160 53096.39620209 80 663.70495752 74324,60131828 90 Co n s t a n t 3 M£ i|OH' 66 67 SF3IOM1 c SIZE S1ZF2 'a os...:..'vr:t id.> cw . ■>;; :T f i o i l i rr SERVICES ACTIVITY SCORES ' 1 60 47 4 0 '/ “ j l t i p l e conn B2 0.2856 RFC ’EES! O1' C3< f' !C !: N T3 - V . '0 9 6 ’7 19 2 1146 .7 , ■81 799 < 4 ■5*4 !•) 17 !o’i 4 ..'4Cc ’-j1.9 , 1!1 t. • >1 J 1 - f i ,44*t/.3U 3 1■ ’204 5 0 4 5 < . 4 9 C O’ D l 1 c . *>'5-2 |7 SCDAHF 21226.2 a511626 o o s e m v a t i ' ni 91 h £AN STD. FRRQPS OF CJFfFIcIlnTS lS.0U,6r-646 * . TO j 371 j2 17.40518148 0.11704659 0.03:: 21272 7 . = 7 ;7 „ o 6 5 0 , A 9434641 ,.14?4u012 1 , ‘> 6 4 0 > ' 6 4 5 2.16544209 1.19761342 R 0.5144 3FT a W i IGm TS -0.01654 -0.05547 3.61732 -3.44223 3.07406 3.0=146 -3.01519 0.19419 0.C’676 3.16225 F s 3.1965 IG 0,002 141 TOTAL (AB-iUT DE2 OF FREEDOM cores H PAR 2 0.1963 STD. ERRORS OF UF TAS 0.10446 0,10 048 0.29119 0 . 27102 0.13729 0.13y‘>2 0.10686 0.11946 0.10833 0.10924 R RAR 0.4431 TR • 1.°0A5 •0,4458 • 11,5670 2.1200 -1.4317 0 . K374 0.5864 •0.1471 1.6255 0.7085 1.4853 STAND Afiu &PRCH OF ESTIMATE 25.76247179 ru 3.6422 0.1965 0 .3 1c 8 4.4942 2.6675 0.7910 0.347 9 0.0202 2.6423 0.5070 2.2062 S IG 0,060 0,457 0,576 0 ,037 0,107 0,591 0.5 5 9 0,687 0. 108 0,461 0,141 Pa r t i a l Ci v r r c n s fi? CFLETFS 04975 -0.06271 0,23063 -0,1794/ 0.16070 0 .2“30 4 0 .2=200 0.24548 0.26144 0.2=302 0 . 2=254 0.2=544 0 .2*202 0.2=113 0.26591 - C . 3.06542 - 0 . 0=589 0.17681 0 , 01697 0,16382 APPENDIX IV-8 STATISTICS OP MODEL II H t J H J O A W P R ! / * T = C a “ P C R O u m D S T M Ap E V A L U E S C U R R E N T TI MF 1614 - ? a DAT F 07/21/73 E L A P S F D S I N C E L A S T C U R R E N T TIME 0, 3 ? S E C O N D S CJHRESTRICTFC LEAST SQUAHES) DFPFvnENT VARIARLE--XI AOV FOR 3VERALL SUM CF S3UAPES R-:r.Hs 3 M C U r (AIK1UT M tAh) »FO» o ct a r<5TA»T = :io*t? =1I0NI SUE i '.If2 u s..: ! v»< 56 57 5s c r t ; iCJ faoiuirv 55 A'TIVIT» SF RVlCjS 57 44 SCORES 49 66 C. 2441 ?'.,,2 . I' 0414t, „j * " . ' 3 C0 - E ”i 4 *>. = A?4r, 4 ' 4 I* . fi 4 4 !, 7 9 3 0.162215,4 !.•7?9.014 r,f77991*54 i 043 ) 2 ? 1 S 7 U . r R nO D S 0 mean SCUARE 2.06676383 29,4020144c ao 0.36753518 50.09045275 90 multiple OF C u r rri rlFNTS 0.77373053 C . 1494J799 0.79453311 0.UC?01324 4 ,J 0 C u4 7 7 C.16521444 5,70930325 t . :7 <94740 C . 04473602 0.05613462 .00465027 CEG OF FREEDOM 10 R2 0.4130 <' rri/F «F I *i CO J« FSI .ON ’S 1 , . 42 *i ?5 46 O.lOARNj!? regression 20.6876 3835 CR5FRVAMOnT 91 AVERAGE BASIC CAICTING PEES R 0.6427 SFT a W=IG"TS 0.0465C 0.07530 o. 3 ,*S92 -3.41422 3. 322.74 0.27775 0.2125 2 3 , 1 4 2 A1 3 . 1 t644 3.09226 CORR CUFFS R R AR 2 0.3396 FmRORS OF WLTAS F 5.6268 R BAR STANDARD 0.5828 s r r mr <0,0005 OF ESTIMATE o.6r6?44ao STD. 0.09469 0.09106 0.26396 0.24567 0.12445 0.12593 0.09o«7 0.10629 G.09620 0.09902 FIG 142 TCTAL (ABOUT HEAR) 33) p a r t i a l T9 2.7903 .7023 0.«234 1.<774 . 6641 3.1502 2,7215 0 •1 2.1979 1.6882 1.3894 0.9317 fb 7.7859 0,4973 0.6783 2.1709 ?. 9 9 .97 }5 sir, O.DC? 0,434 0.413 C, 144 A4; 0 , 094 ,00 ? 4. °5‘1 00,029 4 .8 17 3 2.8499 1 .93T4 0, 031 0,095 0, 169 0. R 6 ( 1 0,354 COk p rUFFs 0 ,07628 0.00167 0,16244 - 0 . 1*5?5 4220 0,24105 2?ti? 0 , 1» 5 4 7 0.3 0. 3 C . 15340 0 . in3Al .**•. «rt- ■» CrK? LcTFS 0,4^979 0.40633 0 . 3970b 0 .3 o 2 ;5 0.34019 0 .3’67« 0.37769 0.3S209 0.35634 0 . 4f i e64 WAT -