INFORMATION TO USERS

This was produced from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. 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 material
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or notations 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 through an image and duplicating
adjacent pages to assure you of complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark it is an
indication that the film inspector noticed either blurred copy because of
movement during exposure, or duplicate copy. Unless we meant to delete
copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed, you will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photo­
graphed the photographer has followed a definite method in “sectioning”
the material. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand comer
of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with
small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning
below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For any illustrations that cannot be reproduced satisfactorily by
xerography, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and
tipped into your xerographic copy. Requests can be made to our
Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases we
have filmed the best available copy.

University
Microfilms
International
3 0 0 N. Z E E B R O A D , A N N A R B O R , Ml 4 8 1 0 6
18 B E D F O R D ROW, L O N D O N WC 1 R 4 E J , E N G L A N D

8117262

R e a d y , K e it h F r a n c is

A SPATIAL ANALYSIS OF RECREATION PERCEPTIONS, ATTITUDES, AND
BEHAVIOR RELATED TO THE GRAND RIVER IN LANSING, MICHIGAN

Michigan State University

University
Microfilms
International

PH.D. 1981

300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106

PLEASE NOTE:

In all c a se s this material has been filmed in the best possible way from the available copy.
Problems encountered with this docum ent have been identified here with a check mark V .

1.
2.

Glossy photographs or p a g e s ______
Colored illustrations, paper or p rin t_____

3.

Photographs with dark background

4.

Illustrations a re poor co p y______

5.

Pages with black marks, not original

6.

Print shows through as there is text on both sides of p a g e______

7.

Indistinct, broken or small print on several p ag es

8.

Print exceeds margin requirem ents______

9.

Tightly bound copy with print lost in spine______

10.

Computer printout pages with indistinct print______

11.

Page(s)
author.

12.

P age(s)___________ seem to be missing in numbering only a s text follows.

13.

Two pages num bered____________ . Text follows.

14.

Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______

15.

Other_______________________________________________________________________

copy__

________ lacking when material received, and not available from school or

University
Microfilms
International

A

SPATIAL AN ALYS IS
ATTITUDES,
GRAND

AND

RIVER

OF R E C R E A T I O N

PERCEPTIONS,

B EH A VI O R REL A TE D TO THE
IN L A N S I N G ,

MICHIGAN

By

Keith

Francis

Ready

A DISSERTATION
S u b m i t t e d to
Mic hi ga n State University
in p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f the r e q u i r e m e n t s
for th e d e g r e e of
D O C T O R OF
Department

PHILOSOPHY
of

1981

Geography

ABSTRACT
A

S P A T I A L A N A L Y S I S OF R E C R E A T I O N P E R C E P T I O N S ,
A T T I T U D E S , A N D B E H A V I O R R E L A T E D T O TH E
G R A N D R I V E R IN L A N S I N G , M I C H I G A N
By
Keith

This
recreation

of

the

Michigan.

ar e

The

The

examined

Grand

obtained

procedure

perceptions

tional

use.

The

The

selected

investigate

the

an d b e h a v i o r

perceptions,

they relate

used

and

to

systematic

of

residents

attitudes,

and

recreational

use

Kendall

tau

study produces
river

(N = 17 3)

Data were

recreation

river

examined

analyzed

popula­
recrea­

the

river

using

frequency

metric multidimensional

correlation

a mean

general

of a c t u a l

statistical

multidimensional

th e

concerning

an d b e h a v i o r

responses,

sample populations

sampling procedures.

investigated

survey

participants.

an d

separate

attitudes

second

of

two

and n o n - p a r a m e t r i c

chi-square

in t h i s

as

attitudes,

and p e r c e n t a g e s
scaling,

These

(N = 371)

tion's

recreation

to

attitudes,

stratified

survey

perceptions,

Ready

River.

from

first

designed

perceptions,

in L a n s i n g ,
behavior

study was

Francis

scaling

methods,

coefficients.

algorithm

distance matrix

concepts

namely,

(i.e.,

the

(MDS)
between
average

used

Keith Francis Ready

perceptual
On e

distance

stimulus

both

set

surveys.
an d

given

to

their

relevancy

results

the

idea

use

of

tha t

th e

residence

people's
River

relative

second

stated

tional

activities

participant's
sections

were

to

related

along

residential

a city

in w h i c h

reationists

reside

c a n be

area

residents'

behavioral

are

concerning

third

from

the

perceptions,

of

their

river.

The

in r e c r e a ­

related

high percentages

environmental

results

implications

fo r u r b a n

ning.

findings

These

value

The
tification
respondents
the

the

levels

The

tested

to

the

stated

that

river

rec­

interpretation
attitudes,

and

responses.

Several

heuristic

river

identified

first

l o c a t i o n of
of

participation

location.

The

the

and

activities.

attitudes

sections

an u r b a n

a pilot

concepts,

formulated.

ar e

from

for

C o n s i d e r a t i o n was

recognize

and

current

employed

recreational

to d i f f e r e n t

t hat

was

respondents).

determined

perceptions

of

of

to

River

hypotheses

all

research.

ability

Grand

for

concepts

set w a s

of p r e v i o u s

to

Grand

15

stimulus

respondents'

Three

concepts

containing

The

study

between

have

area

of r i v e r
consider
use

the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l

river

in o t h e r

first

recreational

of

recreation management

applied

urban

of

the

for

involves

Lansing

similar

Grand

Ri v e r .

the

and

iden­

activities)
or

that

dissimilar
Those

have

an d p l a n ­

areas.

(including

to be m o s t
of

value

importance

concepts

scaling

to

concepts

Keith Francis Ready

identified

by b o t h

th e

general

respondents

as m o s t

"industrial

development,"

Both

respondent

were

th e m o s t

evidence
of
and
an

the
is

groups

suitable

environmental

Grand

The
involves

second

in th e

can

best

be

the

total

are

explained
of

(15 p e r c e n t

of

of

an
the

Lansing

Grand

recreation.

The

years

it a p p e a r s

in r e g a r d

to

in th e M D S

by

four
the

the

15 c o n c e p t s

of

namely,

in b o t h

urban

river"

river

recre­

danger"

river

of the v a r i a n c e ) .

from

attitude

Currently,

of

studies

"urbanized

"non-urban

space

90 p e r c e n t

variance), "recreation

conclusions

River.

dimensions

dimensions:

(13 p e r c e n t

positive

results

common multidimensi onal

the v a r i a n c e ) , an d

residents

segment

Thus,

operating

importance

factors;

of

recreation"

overall

documented

in r e c e n t

the v a r i a n c e ) , " e n h a n c e d

Additional
(1)

"relaxing."

"clean water"

a large

of the u n d e r l y i n g

for

four

(20 p e r c e n t

oriented

of

data.

variations

(42 p e r c e n t
ation"

area

summarized

by

an d

recreation.
is

are

and

despite
for

on-site

quality.

interpretation

variations

areas,"

dramatically

lag

and
River

"swimming"

quality

contact

opinion

River water

Grand

concepts,

improved
for

the

"natural

river water
has

to

agreed

dissimilar

that

river

similar

population

th e

studies

include:

toward

recreational

however,

40 p e r c e n t

have

never

used

the

Moreover,

these

residents

Grand

River

ar e n o t

use
of

for

equally

Keith Francis Ready

distributed,
with
of

or

the

oriented
river;

attitudes,
strongly

an d

have

live

variations

behavior
by

the

physically
among

in

if d e v e l o p e d

the

river

th e m o s t

displeasing

an d

recreation

promoted

section
(4)

sections

perceptions,

of residence;

downtown

users;

and/or

juxtaposed

respondents'

location

attracting

represent

in n e i g h b o r h o o d s

regarding

of n e w p a r k s

problems

activities,
settings,

(2)

to

toward more

influenced

development
may

tending

are
(3)

the

of Lansing

user-oriented

within

viable waterfront

natural
activities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The
Michigan

helped make

sincerely
benefit

participation

hoped

them,

I would
Chubb,

whose

greatly
Also,

to

Dr.

opment

of

the

to m y w i f e ,

versions,

while

encouragement

and

of thi s

of L a n s i n g ,

to

problems,

suggestions

gave

an d p u r p o s e

Michael
contributed

f inal

advice

an d

is

appreciation.

t h a n k Dr.

in the

It

study will

author's

invaluable

version.

in the
the

devel­

author

throughout

the

dissertation.

personal

Ready,

like

obtained

encouragement
of this

th e

guidance

research

cartographic work
thanks

expressing

provided

residents

dissertation possible.
findings

clearness

Finally,
J.

544

particularly

Chubb

considerable

Bernard

the

careful

the

preparation

this

that

thus

of

who

thanks

helped with

contained
Jackie,

showing

during

the

is du e m y
the

herein.
who

typed

considerable
project.

father,

excellent
Also,

a special

several
patience

rough draft
an d p r o v i d i n g

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pa g e
LIST

OF T A B L E S .........................................

vi

LIST

OF

ix

F I G U R E S .........................................

CHAPTER
I.

INTRODUCTION

......................................

Research Problem
...............................
S t u d y O b j e c t i v e s ..........................
R e v i e w of L i t e r a t u r e
.........................
Environmental Perception Research . . .
T h e B e h a v i o r a l A p p r o a c h in G e o g r a p h y
.
R e l a t e d R e s e a r c h in P s y c h o l o g y . . . .
R e c r e a t i o n an d P e r c e p t i o n .. ..............
Urban Recreation Behavior
..............
Rec re at i on A c c e s s i b i l i t y and
P a r t i c i p a t i o n ............................
Water-Oriented RecreationResources .
.
S u m m a r y ......................................
H y p o t h e s e s ..................................
S i g n i f i c a n c e of the S t u d y ................
II.

III.

THE

1
2
2
3
3
5
8
10
12
18
21
26
28
29

S E T T I N G .........................................

34

Physical Characteristics
....................
H i s t o r i c a l B a c k g r o u n d .........................
S o c i o e c o n o m i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .. ..............
I n c o m e .................................
River R e c r ea ti on Land Use andPl an n in g
. .

35
35
39
39
44

M E T H O D O L O G Y .........................................
Gathering Instruments
..................
S c a l i n g M o d e l ...............................
T h e O n - S i t e S u r v e y .......................
Q u e s t i o n n a i r e ...............................
S a m p l e S i z e ............................
Response Rates
............................
T h e H o u s e h o l d S t u d y .......................
- S a m p l e S i z e ............................
R e s p o n s e R a t e ..........................

53

Data

iii

54
56
58
60
62
63
64
64
66

CHAPTER

Page
Method

IV.

THE

of A n a l y s i s .......................

RESULTS

OF T H E

S U R V E Y S ...............

66
68

Introduction
...................................
68
G e n e r a l A t t i t u d e R e v e a l e d in the
Household Survey
............................
68
U s e o f R i v e r s O t h e r t h a n the G r a n d
R i v e r ......................................
69
R e c r e a t i o n U s e and P e r c e p t i o n s of the
G r a n d R i v e r ..............................
69
R i v e r R e c r e a t i o n A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d the
83
Gr a n d River:
O n - S i t e P o l l u t i o n ..........
G e n e r a l A t t i t u d e s of the O n - S i t e S a m p l e . .
84
R e s u l t s o f th e M e a n D i s t a n c e M a t r i x - Household Survey
............................
93
M e a n D i s t a nc e M at r ic e s by Resid en ti al
95
L o c a t i o n .................................
M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S p a c e for the
Household Survey
.......................
97
M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l Space by R e s i de n t i a l
L o c a t i o n ............................
100
Results of Mu lt idimensional Scaling-On-Site Survey
..............................
104
Mean Distance Matrix--On-Site Survey
.
104
M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S p a c e for the OnS i t e S u r v e y ..........................
106
C o m p a r i s o n s B e t w e e n H o u s e h o l d and
On-Site Surveys Distance Matrices . .
106
U n i d i m e n s i o n a l R e s p o n s e for B o t h H o u s e h o l d
a n d O n - S i t e S u r v e y s .....................
109
S u m m a r y .................................
110
V.

T H E P E R C E P T I O N S OF L A N S I N G A R E A R E S I D E N T S
R E G A R D I N G T H E R E C R E A T I O N A L U S E OF T H E
G R A N D R I V E R ....................................

112

D i s c u s s i o n of R e s u l t s .........................
112
T h e H y p o t h e s e s ............................
118
S i g n i f i c a n c e of M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l S c a l i n g
.
122
S u m m a r y .................................
126
VI.

CONCLUSIONS

AND

IMPLICATIONS

..................

C o n c l u s i o n s .................................
T h e I n f l u e n c e of R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n
on P e r c e p t i o n s , A t t i t u d e s , and
B e h a v i o r ............................

iv

128
128

128

CHAPTER

Page
S p a t i a l D i s t r i b u t i o n of N o n - U s e r s
R e s i d e n c e s ..............................
Viable Grand River Recreational
A c t i v i t i e s ..............................
F u t u r e W a t e r f r o n t D e v e l o p m e n t ..........
Implications
...................................
F u t u r e R e s e a r c h .................................
C o n c l u s i o n ......................................

130
132
134
136
141
142

APPENDIX
A.

ON-SITE

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

B.

ON-SITE

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

C.

LANSING'S

GRAND

D.

HOUSEHOLD

SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

E.

HOUSEHOLD

SURVEY METHODO LOGY

F.

RIVER

.....................

143

..................

149

..................

160

SURVEY

................

161

..................

166

S O C I O E C O N O M I C C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S OF S A M P L E
P O P U L A T I O N S ........................................

169

G.

MULTIDIMENSIONAL

................

176

H.

UNIDIMENSIONAL

..........................

181

I.

U N I D I M E N S I O N A L R E S P O N S E BY C I T Y S E C T I O N - HOUSEHOLD SURVEY RESPONDENTS
..................

182

REFERENCES

CITED

SCALING MATRIX

RESPONSE

...........................................

v

183

LIST OF TABLES

ge
Preferred Water Oriented A c t i v i t i e s - Household Survey Respondents
..................

70

Pa s t R i v e r R e c r e a t i o n U s e b y H o u s e h o l d
Survey Respondents
...............................

71

K n o w l e d g e and P r e f e r e n c e s f o r S e c t i o n s
of the G r a n d R i v e r - - H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y
R e s p o n d e n t s .........................................

73

G r a n d R i v e r R e c r e a t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s and
L o c a t i o n s of H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s

80

. .

W a t e r O r i e n t e d A c t i v i t i e s P r e f e r r e d But
N o t U n d e r t a k e n on t h e G r a n d R i v e r and the
R e a s o n s for N o n - U s e or F u t u r e U s e - - H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s .........................

82

Preferred Water Oriented Activities--OnS i t e S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s .........................

86

Previous River Use--O n-S ite Survey
R e s p o n d e n t s .........................................

87

K n o w l e d g e C o n c e r n i n g the G r a n d R i v e r —
O n - S i t e S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s ..........
. . . .

88

General Grand River A c t i v i t i e s and M et h o d s
of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n - - O n - S i t e S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s

89

C h i l d r e n ’s U s e of R i v e r - - O n - S i t e S u r v e y
R e s p o n d e n t s .........................................

90

N u m b e r of R e c r e a t i o n O c c a s i o n s p e r M o n t h
(During Season) and Hours p er O c c a s i o n - On-Site Survey Respondents
....................

91

P r e f e r r e d W a t e r R e c r e a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s and
P r e f e r r e d A c t i v i t i e s N o t U n d e r t a k e n on
G r a n d R i v e r a n d R e a s o n s fo r N o n - U s e - On-Site Survey Respondents
....................

92

vi

Table
13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

F.l

F.2

G.l

G.2

Page
M e a n D i s t a n c e M a t r i x fo r 15 S a l i e n t U r b a n
River Rec reation C o n c e p t s --Household
Survey Respondents
..............................

94

A r i t h m e t i c D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n the M e a n
D i s t a n c e M a t r i c e s for N o n - S o u t h S i d e
R e s i d e n t s a n d S o u t h S i d e R e s i d e n t s for
15 U r b a n R e c r e a t i o n C o n c e p t s - - H o u s e h o l d
Survey Residents
.................................

96

Spatial Coordinate Matrix--Household
Survey Respondents
..............................

98

S p a t i a l C o o r d i n a t e M a t r i x for S o u t h S i d e
Residents--Household Survey Respondents . . .

101

S p a t i a l C o o r d i n a t e M a t r i x for N o n - S o u t h
Side R e s i d e n t s - -Household Survey
R e s p o n d e n t s .........................................

103

Mean Distance Matrix--On-Site Survey
R e s p o n d e n t s .........................................

105

Spatial Coordinate Matrix--On-Site Survey
R e s p o n d e n t s .........................................

107

A r i t h m e t i c D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n the M e a n
D i s t a n c e M a t r i c e s for the H o u s e h o l d an d
O n - S i t e S u r v e y s ...................................

108

C h i - S q u a r e M a t r i x for th e R e c r e a t i o n a l U s e
of the G r a n d R i v e r and S e l e c t e d V a r i a b l e s - Household Survey Respondents
..................

114

K e n d a l l T a u C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s for
Selected V a r i a b l e s - -Household Survey
R e s p o n d e n t s .........................................

117

Socioeconomic Characteristics
Household Survey Respondents

of the
..................

169

S o c i o e c o n o m i c C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the
On-Site Survey Respondents
....................

173

M e a n D i s t a n c e M a t r i x --South Side Residents,
Household Survey Respondents
..................

176

M e a n D i s t a n c e M a t r i x - - N o n - S o u t h Side
Residents, Household Survey Respondents

177

vii

. . .

Table
G.3

G .4

Page
Mean Distance Matrix--South
On-Site Survey Respondents

Side Residents,
.......................

M e a n D i s t a n c e M a t r i x - - N o n - S o u t h Side
Residents, On-Site Survey Respondents

178

..........

179

A r i t h m e t i c D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n the M e a n
D i s t a n c e M a t r i c e s for th e N o n - S o u t h S ide
R e s i d e n t s - So u t h Side Residents, On-Site
.................................
Survey Respondents

180

H.l

Unidimensional

............................

181

I.1

U n i d i m e n s i o n a l R e s p o n s e by C i t y S e c t i o n - Household Survey Respondents
....................

182

G .5

Response

LIST OF FIGURES

ge
The

Grand

River

Basin

............................

T r a di t io na l City Sections and
T r a c t s in L a n s i n g U r b a n A r e a

Census
..................

36

40

M e d i a n I n c o m e L e v e l s in L a n s i n g ,
Michigan
...........................................

41

G e n e r a l L a n d U s e C l a s s i f i c a t i o n s for
G r a n d R i v e r .........................................

45

V i s u a l A p p e a r a n c e an d R e c r e a t i o n L a n d
U s e C o m p a t i b i l i t y A r e a s A l o n g the
G r a n d R i v e r .........................................

46

T h e R e s i d e n t i a l L o c a t i o n of H o u s e h o l d
R e s p o n d e n t s .........................................

65

No K n o w l e d g e C o n c e r n i n g D e s i r a b l e G r a n d
River Loca t io n s by H o u s e h o l d R e s p o n d e n t s

74

. .

No F a m i l i a r i t y w i t h G r a n d R i v e r L a n d s by
H o u s e h o l d R e s p o n d e n t s ............................

75

Familiarity with South
L oca t i o n s by H o u s e h o l d

Side Grand River
Respondents
..........

76

S i d e L o c a t i o n s by
............................

78

D e s i r a b i l i t y of S o u t h
Household Respondents

Past R e c r e at i on a l Use of
by H o u s e h o l d R e s p o n d e n ts

th e G r a n d R i v e r
.......................

79

Residential

Grand

85

Locations

of

ix

River

Users

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Historically,
United

States

activity.
for

have

Within

a variety

have

begun

aesthetic

of
and

the

been
the

to

regard

and

waste

projects.

Currently,

recreation

a given

facilities

perceptions,

This

facilities

ar e

procedures

ar e no t

toward

river

the

the p l a n ni ng

being

and

process

and

its
is

the

an d

are

river

fails

incomplete.

1

of u r b a n
on

the

to a d d r e s s

of t h o s e

at
the

for w h o m

and d e v e lo p m e nt

of p u b l i c

recreational

renewal

facilities

If p l a n n i n g

surveys

clean-up

of u r b a n

based primarily
those

early

sewage

development

usually

an d

aesthetics

improved

a variety

an d b e h a v i o r

on

so-called

facilities,

provided.

based

in

shifted,

and p l an ne rs

sixties

for

of p r o v i d i n g

process

attitudes,

late

resulting

planning

feasibility

site.

the

has

a potential

The

concern

zoning,

emphasis

as

in the

industrial

governments

river

treatment

flood plain

thi s

city

of

in c i t i e s

intense

resource.

renewed

programs,

engineering

and

renaissance"

waterfront,

of

decade

recreational

industrial

river

last

areas

site

the u r b a n

stimulated

urban

the

of r e a s o n s ,

"environmental
seventies

riverfront

attitudes

potentials,

then

2

Research
This
based

on

social

augmenting
urban

given

idents

the
they

the

and

of

pleasing

sections

tudes,

or

with

of

citizens

least

and

likely

to us e

the

to,

those

constitute

river

and

people

opposite

are
for

they

are

toward
living

physically

the

And ,

res­
the

attitudes

the m o r e

exhibit

river

Do u r b a n

recreationists,

do

on

attention

in b o t h

of a r i v e r

Conversely,

behavior?

focuses

exposed

favorable

toward,

thereby

and behavioral

location.

future

river

It

variation

sections

the m o s t

the

an a p p r o a c h

Particular

or o t h e r w i s e

and

oriented

perceptions,

recreation.

to,

development?

to,

attitudes,

residential

current

adjacent

procedures.

spatial

appealing

citizens

waterfront

of

adjacent

physically
majority

river

impact

quality

living

to

and evaluates

research methods,

planning

perceptions,

related
the

develops

geographic

prevailing

to

resource

more

and

residents'

responses
is

dissertation

Problem

dis­
atti­

the

recreational

purposes?

Study Objectives
The
develop
and
This

objective

a tentative

behavior
will
a.

main

be

for

planning model

the

recreational

accomplished

investigating
attitudes,
residents;

of thi s

the

investigation

is

based

attitudes

use

on u s e r

of an u r b a n

to

river.

by:
spatial

preferences,

variations

and b e h a v i o r

in r e c r e a t i o n a l
of u r b a n

3

b.

assessing
within

the

an u r b a n i z e d

attitudes,
use
c.

benefits,

and

current

from urban

offering

a planning

social

current

to

of a s s e s s i n g
both

of

as

it a f f e c t s

concerning

location

perceptions,

the

the p l a n n i n g
the
and

optimal
future,

rivers;

recreational

approach based

decision-making

t hat

process,

feasibility

community
recreational

t hat

can

be

and

research methods

on e n g i n e e r i n g

residential

riv e r ;

suggestions

on m e t h o d s

derived

area

an d b e h a v i o r

of an u r b a n

offering

d.

significance

and

on

will

geographical
make

based

the

largely

funding,

more

humanistic.

Review
Research
residents'
is

Th e

recreational

found both

perception

in the

and

ensuing

mental

related

Environmental

applicability

Perception

of t h e

environment

century,

the

theme

have

of

the

identifying

attitudes,

concerning

about

traces

studies,

Geographers

th e p r o b l e m

literature

discussion

the

Literature

perceptions,

in m a t e r i a l s

perception

examines

to

of

development

of p r e v i o u s

behavior

environmental

recreational

particularly

and

urban

behavior.
of

environ­

in g e o g r a p h y ,
research

and

findings.

Research
long

been
At

interested

on

humans.

the

of

"environmental

in the

beginning

of

determinism"

effect

this
wa s

4

popular

in g e o g r a p h y .

Huntington
variation

an d

Huntington,
most

gesting
human

that

1925,

termed

also

He

the p h y s i c a l

for m a n y

the

as

the

prominently
human

groups
climate

development
reacted

inquiry

to

advocated

tha t

geographers

years.2

It

But

the

environments

involves

thi s
since

extremes
should
an d

thinking

of

consider

investigate
This
in g e o g ­

consideration

^ l s w o r t h Huntington, Civilization
(New H a v e n , Co n n . :
Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y Pr e s s ,

than

approach,

a human perspective.
scholarly

on

determinism.

geographical
avoided

influenced

rather

geographers
human

sug­

instead

factor.

that

from

the

civilization.1

focus

ecology,"

cultural

to be

environment

determinism with

and

evolved.

scientifically

should

to m o s t

a new

of

physical

d e t e r m i n i s m by

determining

unacceptable

cultural

different

culture

the p h y s i c a l

landscape

greatly

to

environmental

established

"cultural

approach
raphy

to

physical

Sauer

the n a t u r a l

in the

of

tha t

considered

geographical

determinism.
both

different

eventually

environment

it r e p l a c e d

attributed

factor

adjustments

th e

suggested

example,

theories

a pp ro ac h was

In

for

geographers

unfounded

on

be

where

important

Other

Semple,

could

environments

Its p r o p o n e n t s ,

of

the

and Climate
1915).

2C a r l 0. S a u e r , " T h e M o r p h o l o g y of L a n d s c a p e , "
U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c a t i o n s in G e o g r a p h y 2
( O c t o b e r 1925): 19-54.

5

adaptations
utilize

and

adjustments

their

environments.1

Today

the m e a n i n g

geography

ha s

moved

interpretation.
as

an

The B e ha vi or al
Geography

away

Coincidental
mental

perspective

of

behavioral

this

study

tigates

and

human

Williamson
geography

in

from

component

Approach

in

make

a strict

in t h e

is

in o r d e r

to

research within

cause

recognition

and

effect

given

to m a n

environmental

system.

in

with

the m a t u r a t i o n

geography

approach.

facilitated
spatial

humans

of e n v i r o n m e n t a l

Increasing

important

the

that

This
by

been

of t h e

the

the

approach,

quantitative

behavior.2

an o v e r v i e w

has

of

Golledge,
behavioral

environ­

development
followed

methods,
Brown,

in
inves­

and

approach

in

state:

T h e b e h a v i o r a l p o i n t of v i e w i n v o l v e s (a) the
r es e a r c h e r v i e w i n g the real w or l d from a p e r ­
s p e c t i v e of t h o s e i n d i v i d u a l s w h o s e d e c i s i o n s
a f f e c t l o c a t i o n a l or d i s t r i b u t i o n a l p a t t e r n s ,
a n d (b) t r y i n g to d e r i v e s e t s of e m p i r i c a l l y
and t h e o r e t i c a l l y sound statements about
i n d i v i d u a l , s m a l l g r o u p , or m a s s b e h a v i o r s . 3

1J u l i a n H. S t e w a r d , " T h e C o n c e p t and M e t h o d of
C u l t u r a l E c o l o g y , " in T h e o r y a n d C u l t u r a l C h a n g e (Urbana,
111.:
U n i v e r s i t y o f I l l i n o i s P r e s s , 1955), p p . 5-17.
2R o g e r M. D o w n s , " G e o g r a p h i c S p a c e P e r c e p t i o n :
Past
A p p r o a c h e s a n d F u t u r e P r o s p e c t , " in P r o g r e s s in G e o g r a p h y ,
Vol. 2, ed. C h r i s t o p h e r B o a r d et al. (New Y ork:
St.
M a r t i n ' s P r e s s , 1 9 7 0 ) , pp. 65-108.
3R e g i n a l d G. G o l l e d g e , L a w r e n c e A. B r o w n , a n d
F r a n k W i l l i a m s o n , " B e h a v i o r a l A p p r o a c h e s in G e o g r a p h y :
O v e r v i e w , ” T h e A u s t r a l i a n G e o g r a p h e r 12 (1972): 59.

An

6

This
the

study

assume
are

attempt

of

that

based

geographic
attitudes

on

individual

images

or

environment

gory
of

stores

work

large

using
A

second

the

Kates,

The

1962;

final

of

the

these

of p s y c h o l o g i c a l

in t e r m s

to

of

decision-making
adopted
of

this

category
studies,

of

1966;

including

a preference

approach.

perceptually

significant

images

been

Many

for

to
geog­

in r e s e a r c h
example,
Downs'

research
which

to

be l o w .

evaluate

related

one,

world.

cited

which

1964).

seek

real

completed

ar e

perception

studies

cate­

an d w h a t

the

(see,

the p r es e n t

Space

of

first

particularly

environmental

"Geographic

the

on h o w m a n

studies

and White,

These

of

structuring

and

have

hazards

geographic

an d

behavior.

approach,

environmental

Saarinen,

‘D o w n s ,

and

images

His

of w h i c h

spatial

an

environment,

works

those

by

classes

focuses

images

examples

held

and psychology.

perception.1

approach

environment

are

of c o g n i t i v e

three major

images

som e

the

that

identification

category pertains

have

those

the

stimulated

investigations

toward

geography

between

approach,

on p e r c e p t i o n

to

exists

environment

raphers

on

structures

environmental

and

work

behavior

Such

world

study

on g e o g r a p h i c

number

this

real

identified

perceptions.

and

the

both

relationship
A

of

involves

includes

space

and b e h a v i o r

The

has

human

perception.

group.

Downs
published

to u n d e r s t a n d

third

refers

utilize

identify

objects

an d

Perception,"

pp.

70-83.

7

and

individual

environmental
the

attitudes
behavior.

underlying

preferences
The

causes

for

works

by

of

entitled

"On Mental

of the U n i t e d
the

and

perceived

tha t

not

and

Gould

rankings

for

the

by

the

a factor

of p r e f e r e n c e ,

in t e r m s
use

of

In w r i t i n g

of r e s i d e n t i a l

phenomenon

be

quality,"

a reflection
considered

"noise"

th e v a r i a b l e s

factor-analytic

ca n

of t h e n e i g h b o r h o o d ;

Although
th e

that

physical

tha t m a y be

and "noise."

a state

of n e i g h b o r h o o d s ,

appearance

ag e

states

relationship

state.

"general
the

early

approach

individual

attributes

the v i s u a l

influenced

part

Peterson

tw o

In his p a p e r ,

illustrates

dimensions:

conditions;

interpretable

Gould

approach.1

a multidimensional

nature,"

important

environment.

tha t

three

an

individual

of

simplified

be

among

Peterson provide

the p h y s i c a l

by

ascertain

desirability

is

cultural

variations

to

familiarity with

neighborhoods

"harmony with

is

revealed

of

for

strongly

as

level

concludes

to

and

goal

He d e m o n s t r a t e s

respondents'

of p r e f e r e n c e s

is

Maps,"

objects

ultimate

in the

Gould

Stat e s .

these

spatial

preference

between

which

of

the p r e f e r e n c e

in d e t e r m i n i n g

Peterson

The

elements

examples

the

about

of

to

f a c t o r wa s

u sed.

techniques

Both
to

xP e t e r G o u l d , " O n M e n t a l M a p s , M i c h i g a n I n t e r U n i v e r s i t y C o m m u n i t y of M a t h e m a t i c a l G e o g r a p h e r s , D e p a r t m e n t
of G e o g r a p h y , U n i v e r s i t y of M i c h i g a n , A n n A r b o r , M i c h i g a n ,
D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r No. 9, 1966; a n d G e o r g e L. P e t e r s o n , "A
M o d e l of P r e f e r e n c e :
Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s of the V i s u a l
A p p e a r a n c e of R e s i d e n t i a l N e i g h b o r h o o d s , " J o u r n a l of
R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e s 7 (1967): 19-31.

8

determine
among

the

underlying

individual

Related

to

include:

(1)

human

as

accepted

view which

of

(2)

reasoning,
Gestalt

"Gestalt

with

school

environmental

among

the

from the
was not

first

accumulation
t hat

mental

maps

environment

as

(North

Kevin

with

rats

from

Lynch

to

the m o r e

m aps.
of

He

impressions

investigated

the

Tolman,

concluded
behavior
from

forming

strip
of

studies

rather

suggested

the w o r k u n d e r t a k e n

XM. E. H u r s t , A
Scituate, Mass.!

for

spatial

inputs

a narrow

conscious

organization.1

imag e s ,

that

olfactory

images

is

cognitive mapping.
cognitive

all

widely

individual

underpinnings

in a m a z e

and

research

environmental

s t i m u l u s - r e s p o n s e , but

cognitive

on

the

are

which views

perceptual

the

or

comprehensive

Expanding
others,

of

tactile

vary
to

provides

from

of

function

an o r d e r e d

cognition

behavior

theory,"

responses

that

that

perception

psychology,"

assumes

to w o r k

learned

variation

within psychology

environmental

conditioned

and

This

thought

"Stimulus-response

stimuli,

and

of

geographic

behavior

spatial

in P s y c h o l o g y

schools

pertinent

of

preferences.

Research
Two

dimensions

that
of

large

by T o l m a n

cognitive

an

set s
these

the
areas.2
and

images

of

G e o g r a p h y of E c o n o m i c B e h a v i o r
D u x b u r y Pr e s s , 1972).

2E d w a r d C. T o l m a n , " C o g n i t i v e M a p s
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 55 (1948): 1 8 9 -208.

in R a t s

and Men,"

9

residents in three urban environments:
and

Los A n g e l e s .

individual's
and

of t h e s e
city.1
be

urban

landmarks.

structure

In B o s t o n ,

general,

he

and

to be

Lynch writes,
or

and w i t h p l e a s u r e
detours

which

to p a s s

concluded

found

by

urban

around

th e

were

. . . several
their

some p a r t i c u l a r

of

the

to
to

its

of

the

reported

to w o r k ,

planting,

but

park,

in

urban

noted with

[people]
trip

the

Waterfronts,

features

often

of

city due

components

landscape

th e w a t e r ,

knowledge

waterfront

developments.

"The

inhabitants

their

of the

the

districts,

"imageability"

image

important

t hat m o l d

nodes,

the A t l a n t i c

in the

lengthened

factors

paths,

that

behavior

industrial

appear

five

edges,

constituting

element

the v e g e t a t i o n

them

image:

spatial

factors,

commercial

identified

Lynch

their

a negative

image.

He

Boston, Jersey City,

city,

care
daily

allowed
or b o d y

of w a t e r . " 2
Another
visual
found
better

impact
that

of th e

of e l e m e n t s

the

it c o u l d

^evin
Mass.:
M.I.T.
pp. 15-20.

study

longer
be

an

Boston

along
element

area

roadways.
remained

investigated
The

the

researchers

in v i e w ,

the

remembered.3

L y n c h , T h e I m a g e o f the C i t y ( C a m b r i d g e ,
P r e s s an d H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1960),

2 I b i d . , p . 44.
3D. A p p l e y a r d , K.
from the Road (Cambridge,
p p . 19-25.

Lynch,
Mass.:

a n d J. M e y e r .
M.I.T. Press,

The View
1964) ,

10

Environmental
are

primarily

concerned with

of the physical
ronment
about

(i.e.,

more

those

factors

concerned with
scale

studies

within

spatial

characteristics

establish

how

and

interacts

with

stimuli

(i.e.,

the

on

at

of the

personal

a t t i t u d e s ) , although psychologists
interest

under

th e

learns

the

other

environmental

their

one

envi­

sur­

hand,

the m i c r o - l e v e l ,

study

transactions

the

physical

expanding

physical

determine

Psychology,

these

the

geography

that

visualizes,

environment).

interpersonal

the

stimuli which

structures,

rounding

perception

have

on

rubric

effects
an

or

tha t

individual's

are

of

is

a lso

social

psychology.1

Recreation

and

Most
perception

geographic

has

The majority
ioral
and

focused

of

approach

attitudes

terns

Perception

these

as w e l l

as

resources.

that

on

Lu c a s ,

resource

exist

in t h e i r

among

the

have

recreation

locational

variations

among users

the

and

of w i l d e r n e s s

investigations

concerning
an d

on r e c r e a t i o n

the u s e

in e x p l a i n i n g

of b e h a v i o r

concluded

research

as

used

users'
they

decisions.
between

first

to

the

behav­

perceptions
affect

The

users

perceptions

areas.

pat­

studies

and m a n a g e r s

of r e c r e a t i o n a l

investigate

recreation

R o b e r t Beck, " S p a t i a l M e a n i n g and t h e P r o p e r t i e s of
t he E n v i r o n m e n t , " in E n v i r o n m e n t a l P e r c e p t i o n a n d B e h a v i o r ,
ed. D. L o w e n t h a l ( C h i c a g o : D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y ,
R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 109, 19 6 7 ) , p. 18-41.

11

resource
users'

perceptions,

an d m a n a g e r s '

Canoe A r e a . 1
among
the

users

He
and

perceptions

found

Marshall,

capacity

Bridger,

Stankey used

scales

on w i l d e r n e s s

concepts

respondents.

(1)

to d e f i n e

define

in

Results

(between
(1)

(4)

study

aspects,

cultural

Example
Journal

to

what

level

backgrounds

collected

types

from

study were:
utilized

spatial
(3)

variations

capacity,

of c r o w d i n g

spatial

were

to

to d e t e r m i n e
and

in e a c h

variations
capacity

related

characteristics,

and

Boundary

attitudinal

of w i l d e r n e s s

Variations

in r e s o u r c e

and

existing

extent

considerable

areas).

of w i l d e r n e s s

visitors

increase

perceptions

(3)

data

of c a p a c i t y ,

geographic

showed

users'

differences

tional

the

tha t

exist

four w i l d e r n e s s

of his

to d e t e r m i n e

necessary

to m e a s u r e

concerning

(2)

the p e r c e p t i o n

the m e a s u r e s

area.

objectives

the p a r a m e t e r s

capacity,

existed

(4)

The

of

Likert

with

Waters

of w i l d e r n e s s .

High Uinta,

Canoe A r e a . 2

contrast

regarding

perceptions

Waters

500

differences

and q u a l i t i e s

carrying

to

Boundary

and m a n a g e r s

s t u d i e d us e r s '

to the

interviews

of the

significant

extent,

Stankey

areas--Bob

roadside

between users

importance,

in r e l a t i o n

used

to:

(2)

of p r e s e n t

situa­

use,

and

of r e s p o n d e n t s .

1R o b e r t L u c a s , " W i l d e r n e s s P e r c e p t i o n a n d Use:
The
of the B o u n d a r y W a t e r s C a n o e A r e a , " N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e
3 (1964): 3 9 4 - 4 1 1 .

2G e o r g e S t a n k e y , " T h e P e r c e p t i o n of W i l d e r n e s s
R e c r e a t i o n Ca rr yi n g Capacity:
A G e o g r a p h i c S t u d y in N a t u r a l
R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t of
G e o g r a p h y , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1970).

12

Peterson

investigated

perceptions,

and p r e f e r e n c e s

Area

canoeists

the

between
study was

perceptual
used

arose:

an d

(1)

conditions
in t h e i r

have more

convenience

Urban

for

Research

in u r b a n

reasons

Writing
for

in

1972,

attitudes,

the

attitudes

of

to m i n i m i z e
Peterson

research with

perceptual

differences

about

environmental

are m o r e

recreation

Canoe

objective

groups.

canoeists

outdoor

facilities

Behavior

li m i t e d .

(2)

"purist"

Recreation

two

les s n e g a t i v e

canoeists,

preferences

canoeists
of

than

Major

The

strategies

and completed

17 m a n a g e r s .
are

the

in u s e r

Boundary Waters

management

between

interviews

managers

in the

and m a n a g e r s . 1

suggest

differences

personal

127 u s e r s

to

differences

areas,

toward

particular
and

(3)

the p r e s e n c e

than m a n a g e r s . 2

recreation
Chubb

behavior

commented

has

been

on p o s s i b l e

this:

Fi r s t , c i t y p a r k a n d r e c r e a t i o n a d m i n i s t r a t o r s
have generally not been oriented towards research
as a m e a n s o f o b t a i n i n g f a c t s o n w h i c h to b a s e
p o l i c i e s a n d p r o g r a m s ; in c o n t r a s t , n a t u r a l
r e s o u r c e a g e n c y a d m i n i s t r a t o r s are a c c u s t o m e d
to r e s e a r c h p r o g r a m s p r o v i d i n g i n f o r m a t i o n for
m a n y a s p ects of th e i r work.
Second, unlike
natural resource agencies, urban recreation
d e p a r t m e n t s do n o t h a v e r e s e a r c h d i v i s i o n s . . . .

G e o r g e L. P e t e r s o n , "A C o m p a r i s o n of the S e n t i m e n t s
a n d P e r c e p t i o n s of W i l d e r n e s s M a n a g e r s a n d C a n o e i s t s in the
B W C A , " J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 3 (1974): 1 9 4 - 2 0 6 .
2S e l e c t e d s t u d i e s s i m i l a r
H e n d e e (1968), L u c a s (1970), L i m e
V a u x (1977), an d R o s s m a n (1977).

to t h o s e c i t e d a b o v e are:
(1970), P e t e r s o n (1971),

13

T h i r d , s o c i e t y in g e n e r a l an d e l e c t e d c i t y
o f f i c i a l s in p a r t i c u l a r , are no t ye t a c c u s t o m e d
to r o u t i n e l y f u n d i n g d a t a - g a t h e r i n g in a d v a n c e
of s o c i a l d e v e l o p m e n t p r o g r a m s in th e sam e w a y
t h a t e n g i n e e r i n g d a t a - g a t h e r i n g s u r v e y s are
f u n d e d in a d v a n c e o f p h y s i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t . . . .
F o u r t h , r e c r e a t i o n b e h a v i o r an d a t t i t u d e s s u r v e y
r e s e a r c h is c o n s i d e r a b l y m o r e d i f f i c u l t to c a r r y
out in an u r b a n s e t t i n g t h a n in m o s t r e s o u r c e b a s e d r e c r e a t i o n s i t u a t i o n s so r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e
t e n d e d to n e g l e c t thi s i m p o r t a n t area.
Finally,
m o s t u n i v e r s i t y s t a f f and s t u d e n t s c a p a b l e of
t h i s t y p e of i n v e s t i g a t i o n t e n d to be o r i e n t e d
toward natural a r e a s . 1
Possibly
mental

for

reasons,

perceptions,

recreation
ar e a s ,

these

has

attitudes,

focused

particularly

research
and

primarily

to d a t e

behavior

on

environ­

related

to

on r e s o u r c e - o r i e n t e d

the w i l d e r n e s s

areas

previously

discussed.
Although
concerning
t he

issue

the

a paucity

perception

has n o t

been

market

1973;

using

1967;

1975;

has

focused

the

individuals.

Action

within which

on

space

individuals

and

other

1969;

Smith,

action

or

represents

interact

and

exists

resources,

in the

literature.

behavior

have

activities

preferences,

Downs,

McCracken,

research

recreation

attitudes,

residential

(Golledge,

research

entirely neglected

investigated

decisions,

migration
Clark,

been

geographic

of u r b a n

I n d i v i d u a l s ’ perceptions,
generally

of

and

the
have

1969;

Much

activity
total

as

intraurban

Rushton,

1979).

such

of

space

this
of

area

knowledge

M i c h a e l C h u b b , R e c r e a t i o n in th e L a n s i n g M o d e l
Cities A r e a , R e c r e a t i o n R e so ur ce C on su lt an ts , East Lansing,
M i c h i g a n , J u l y 1972, pp. 3-4.

14

(Wolpert,

1965).

represents
individuals

smaller

low

spatial

income

areas

conduct

Horton
urban

Activity

and

defined

are

familiar.

iarity
the

related

two

groups.

low-income
spatial

activities
as

an

with

and

relative
and

their

hence

reference

Australian

of U r b a n
Economic

the
to

to

the

location

l evel

investigated
the

cities.2

pronounced

First,

he

between

overall
from

the

location

of

all

potential

of

was

that

of

seen

learning
familiarity.

activity

location process

found

the

objective

environmental

residential

famil­

is,

form

wa s

th e m i d d l e -

environmental

the

of

differed

the

an d

respondents

of a t t r a c t i v e n e s s ,

of

space

levels

of

between

a middle

respondents

that

in th e

within which

Action

structure

the

city,
the

for

show that

In a d d i t i o n ,

level

variable

Johnston
with

of

spaces

a more

space ,

relationship

residents

than

neighborhood.

important

process

spatial

city

th e

Iowa.1

Results

action

routines.

area with whi ch

indicated

the

structure

a household

the

Specifically,

income n e i g h b o r h o o d
familiarity

Rapids,

as

to u r b a n

action

of

routes

activity

studied

and

in C e d a r

a subset

connecting

daily

Reynolds

operationally
generally

and

their

structure

area

space,

there

spaces
in

six

ar e

^ r a n k E. H o r t o n and D a v i d R. R e y n o l d s , " E f f e c t s
S p a t i a l S t r u c t u r e on I n d i v i d u a l B e h a v i o r , "
G e o g r a p h y 47 ( J a n u a r y 1971): 36-48.

2R. J. J o h n s t o n , " A c t i v i t y S p a c e s a n d R e s i d e n t i a l
Preferences:
S o m e T e s t s of t h e H y p o t h e s i s of S e c t o r i a l
M e n t a l M a p s , " E c o n o m i c G e o g r a p h y 48 (April 1972): 1 9 9 - 2 1 1 .

a

15

considerable
definition

similarities

of

their

tha t

respondents'

take

the

certain

form

of

by

sectoral

activity

general

using

work

ha s

recreation

been

survey

findings

are p a r t i c u l a r l y

obtained

interviews

census

tracts

concerning
(1)

the

from

in o r d e r

census

another

type

of

between

the

lations

is

leisure

to

(2)

to

the

the

an d

level

an d b e h a v i o r
research
He

and

attitudes

hypothesized
of p e o p l e

those

attitudes
used

that:

living

living

differences

criteria

homes.

of t w e l v e M i n n e a p o l i s

He

from

form

study.1

behavior

attitudes

that

to

the u r b a n

this

to

is c o n ­

Goodale's

residents

differ

spaces

preferences,

activities.

behavior

attributed

at

techniques.

and

particular

respondents'

ascertain

tract

tract,

the

concluded

neighborhoods

influences

completed

925

behavior

a particular

spaces
these

germane

to

recreational

leisure

of

attitudes,

he

residential

activity

around

in the

Second,

and dir e ct io n al

spaces

questionnaire

for

formation

distance

individuals

spaces.

preferences

The

strained

on

activity

sectoral

groups.

Some

between

in

in

observed

of t r a c t p o p u ­
in s e l e c t i n g

tracts.
Goodale
tudes

of p e o p l e

from those

found
living

persons

that

the

in on e

living

leisure
type

of

in a n o t h e r

behavior
census

type

of

and

tract
tract.

atti­
do

differ
He

1T. L. G o o d a l e , " A n A n a l y s i s of L e i s u r e B e h a v i o r
an d A t t i t u d e s in S e l e c t e d M i n n e a p o l i s C e n s u s T r a c t s "
(Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1965).

16

attributed
educational

some

of

level,

between

selected

between

tracts

after
been

tracts.

behavior

amounts

can

and

Michigan.1

obtain

were

5,400 p ot ential
analysis
159

which

came

in

of

the

leisure

from personal
of

study

interviews
the

germane

thi s

the

populations,
type

and

activities.
recreation

a total

of an

The

of

estimated

data used

that we r e

conclusions
to

have

in L a n s i n g ,

out

households).

attitudes

analyzing

investigated

for

l evel

variables

tract

residents

in age,

differences

and

city neighborhoods,

selected

are p a r t i c u l a r l y

tha t

by

census

selected

cities'

Some

that

estimates

Chubb

respondent

households.

of

income

behavior

socioeconomic

useful

(Three m o d e l

and

observed

concluded

st u d y ,

of model

households

also

attitudes

of p a r t i c i p a t i o n

participation

in

and

Goodale

In a n o t h e r

433

He

to d i f f e r e n c e s

status,

in l e i s u r e

of age

controlled.

researchers

occupational

continue

influences

leisure

these va riations

from

research

in

completed
that

study

i n c lude:

1.

U s e of n e a r b y p a r k s by f a m i l y g r o u p s a p p e a r s
to v a r y c o n s i d e r a b l y in the m o d e l c i t i e s area.
. . . A h i g h p r o p o r t i o n of t h o s e w h o d i d no t
u s e t h e i r n e a r e s t p a r k s a p p a r e n t l y h a v e no
d e s i r e to do so . . . ;

2.

P i c n i c k i n g is c l e a r l y a m o s t s i g n i f i c a n t
a c t i v i t y in the u s e of n e a r b y p a r k s by
family groups . . . ;

3.

The r e s p o n se s showed that f a m i l i a r i t y with a
p a r k is no t a l w a y s c l o s e l y r e l a t e d to p r o x i m i t y
of r e s i d e n c e to t h a t p a r k e v e n w h e n it is a
p a r k o f c i t y - w i d e s i g n i f i c a n c e . . . ; and

^hubb,
p p . 48-65.

Recreation

in t h e

Lansing

Model

Cities

Area,

17

4.

L e s s t h a n o n e - f i f t h of m o d e l c i t y a r e a
h o u s e h o l d s w e r e a w a r e of L a n s i n g P a r k s
an d R e c r e a t i o n D e p a r t m e n t p r o g r a m s .
Th e

ual's
help

knowledge
explain

by Cappelle
was

underlying

of o u t d o o r

outdoor
in two

completed with

personal

334

influence

recreation

Pittsburgh

census

randomly

space

were

individ­

The

households

int o

the

and

study
using

respondent's

that:

1.

F o r u r b a n h o u s e h o l d s w i t h o u t r e a d y a c c e s s to
o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n , t h e r e is a s t r o n g t e n d e n c y
t o w a r d d i r e c t i o n a l i t y , i n f l u e n c e d by the
c o m po si ti on of their a cq ua i n t a n c e circles;

2.

I n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t is the m o s t i m p o r t a n t
s o u r c e of k n o w l e d g e c o n c e r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s .
A c c i d e n t a l b y p a s s is the s e c o n d m o s t i m p o r t a n t
i n f o r m a t i o n sour c e ; and

3.

Non participating households indicated a greater
a w a r e n e s s of o p p o r t u n i t y w h i c h r e q u i r e s p h y s i c a l
e x e r t i o n , h i g h e r co s t s , a n d g r e a t e r t r a v e l .

(e.g.,
shown

income,
to be

recreation
1969;

education,

important
behavior

Thompson,
these

in t r a d i t i o n a l

in r e c r e a t i o n

(Clark,

behavior

do n o t

occupation)

in t h e

1957;

However,

alone

socioeconomic

an d

variables

1978).

factors

age,

that

investigated

tracts.1

chosen

suggest

an

opportunities

behavior

Investigation

awareness

Variations

that

which

recreation

interviews.

recreation

factors

1962;

is b e c o m i n g

account

have

explanation

Ferris,
it

determinants

for

all

been
of

Burdge,
apparent
variations

patterns.

B u s s e l l B. C a p p e l l e , " S p a c e S e a r c h i n g B e h a v i o r :
R e c r e a t i o n S p a c e f r o m the U r b a n R e s i d e n t ' s P o i n t of V i e w "
(Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y , U n i v e r s i t y
o f P i t t s b u r g h , 1973).

18

Lindsay

and

Ogle

outdoor

recreation

use

County,

Utah

Salt

of

600

(near

interviews.

nificant

differences

and

socioeconomic

and

availability
educated

of

groups

recreation

demand

researchers.

and

also

These

of u r b a n p a r k s

Gold,

1977).

in B a l t i m o r e

Liebman

using

of Weber

consisted

(1)

no

sig­

between

rec­

an d n o n - p a r t i c i p a n t s
to

cause
for

external

deprive

th e

the

have

and n o n - u s e

an d

of

in

nearly

all

factors

low

income

e qual

income
such
and

as
less

recreation.

an d

concerning

to

Dee

that

from participating

facilities

levels

outdoor

opportunities

recreation

1972,

income

combine

but

patterns

study

reached were

factors

groups

Questions

ation

in

The

parks

Recreation Accessibility
Participation

satisfy

City).1

at p u b l i c

fo r p u b l i c

educational

socioeconomic

the u r b a n p o p u l a t i o n

Lake

exist

participants

preference

among

Conclusions

reation
(2)

studied

optimal

ability

received

locations

of

these

attention

investigations
(Jacobs,

studied

personal

the use

interviews.2

facilities
from

focused

1961;

of u r b a n

Bangs,

on

recre­
the u s e

197 0;

and

of u r b a n p l a y g r o u n d s
A multiple

^ o h n A. L i n d s a y an d R i c h a r d A. Ogle, " S o c i o e c o n o m i c
P a t t e r n s of O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n U s e N e a r U r b a n A r e a s , "
J o u r n a l o f L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 4 (1972): 19-24.
2N o r b e r t D e e a n d J o n C. L i e b m a n , " A S t a t i s t i c a l
S t u d y o f A t t e n d a n c e at U r b a n P l a y g r o u n d s , " J o u r n a l of
L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 2 (1970): 1 4 5 - 1 5 9 .

19

regression

analysis

was

supervised playgrounds
independent
variables,
other

variables
types

recreation

included:

(1)

important

greater

related

types

use

of

were

differences.

Two

of p a r k u s e r s

service
1.

area.

personal

Survey

on e

reached
the m o s t

attendance

between playgrounds
Income

was

not

(4)

Significant

between

age

groups,

an d

"rate

for

by

in

to h a v e

ha d

the

s ame

differences

from n e i g h b o r h o o d

surveys

of h o u s e h o l d s

Four

observed

resulted

interview

selected

Rugg.1

study which
so t h a t

race,

of a tt en da nc e. "

of u r b a n p a r k s

results

to

and

resources

believed

and

(3)

investigated

selected

is

increases,

attendance;

The

and p r o x i m i t y

distance

at

socioeconomic

conclusions

at b oth;

equipment

recreational

in b e h a v i o r

the

and n o n - u s e

were

present,

attendance"

variable.

distance,

distance

was

of

dependent

The

identified

neighborhoods

neighborhoods

on e

were

"rate

th e p l a y g r o u n d

attendance

of p l a y g r o u n d

Ottawa

to

greater

to p l a y g r o u n d

The

kinds

facilities.

The

the

th e

equipment

Distance

(2)

relationships

as

included

variable--as

decreases;
the

of

used with

were

within

conducted,

the p a r k s

indicated:

V i s i t s d e c l i n e d w i t h d i s t a n c e a w a y f r o m the
p a r k in t h r e e out o f f o u r n e i g h b o r h o o d s in
the u s e r s u r v e y b u t d i s t a n c e w a s n o t a f a c t o r
in the h o u s e h o l d study;

R o b e r t D. R u g g , " T h e U s e and N o n - U s e of U r b a n
Parks:- A c c e s s i b i l i t y an d S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in R e l a t i o n
to P u b l i c O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n in S e l e c t e d N e i g h b o r h o o d s of
O t t a w a - H u l l " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y ,
U n i v e r s i t y o f O t t a w a , 1974).

20

2.

Variables which were significantly related
to p a r k a t t e n d a n c e for t h e h o u s e h o l d s t u d y
i n c l u d e the n u m b e r o f c h i l d r e n in the
household, equipment ownership, and certain
r e c r e a t i o n h a b i t s (e.g., T V w a t c h i n g t i m e s ) ;

3.

S i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s in a t t e n d a n c e w e r e
observed between neighborhoods; these appear
to be r e l a t e d to c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s an d
l a n d - u s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of e a c h n e i g h b o r ­
hood; and

4.

F i f t y p e r c e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s m a d e no u s e
of l o c a l p a r k s , a n d o n l y 2 % to 41 of the
n e i g h b o r h o o d s m a d e u s e o f l o c a l p a r k s on
the h e a v i e s t d a y o f use.
Access

key

to

to p r o v i d i n g

recreation
recreation

area.

Accessibility

is

ghetto

residents

inner

and

fixed

residential

based

recreation

is

of the

resource

base.

st u d y ,

determined

a valuable
He

source

facilities

opportunities

a particularly

considered
within

acute

city populations

locations.
limited

tha t

is

Moreover,
because

David,
flood

using
plains

of r e c r e a t i o n

land

of

problem
because

access
the

urban
for
of

to w a t e r -

fixed

Milwaukee
are n o t

the

a

as

location
a case

necessarily

in m e t r o p o l i t a n

areas.

states,
T h e k i n d s of w a t e r - b a s e d r e c r e a t i o n w h i c h
the r i v e r s p r o v i d e are l i m i t e d a n d f l o o d p l a i n
p a r k s are r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e o n l y to a s e l e c t
g r o u p of p e o p l e
Inequities occur both because
t h e y are less r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e to l o w e r i n c o m e
r e s i d e n t s an d b e c a u s e f l o o d p l a i n s ar e no t
uniformly scattered.1

JE. J. L. D a v i d ,
Recreation, A Case Study
49 (1973): 2 2 1 - 2 2 6 .

" F l o o d p l a i n L a n d s for P a r k s a n d
of M i l w a u k e e , " L a n d E c o n o m i c s

21

Whitman

studied public

Cleveland.1
are

denied

distance

He

and/or

residents

and

thus

participate

affecting

variables

greatest

i nner

city

barriers

needs

(e.g.,

recreation

recreation

residents

because

do not

inner-city

in

of

highways);

interact

areas;

an d

residents

because

with
(3)

will

of a c t u a l

not
and/

quality problems.

Recreation

individual's

perceptions

recreation

investigated.

identified

perceptions

and

the m e t r o p o l i t a n

behavior
Toronto

attitudes
has

studied

study,

related

attitudes

groups

area.

The

to o u t d o o r
f our

2.

the

JIra L. W h i t m a n ,
W a t e r w a y s and S ho relin es
I n s t i t u t e , 1971).

been

of

showed wide variation

the t y p e of r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t y
r e l a t i o n s h i p to w a t e r q u a l i t y ;
and degree

the

fou r

1.

type

no t

con­

to u r b a n w a t e r - o r i e n t e d

In t h a t
t hat

and

resources

Barker

in r e l a t i o n

facilities.2
were

resources

recreation

land-use

is p r o v i d e d ,

behavior

recreation

(1)

water-based

water-based

extensively

in

the

use

water

Water-Oriented
Resources
The

that:

in w a t e r - b a s e d

or p e r c e i v e d

user

with

access

to w a t e r

to w a t e r - b a s e d

physical

do n o t

even when

cerning

concluded

access

(2)

access

recreation

groups

and

in

were:

its

of p o l l u t i o n ;

E v a l u a t i n g U r b a n C o r e U s a g e of
(Colu m b u s , O h i o : Battelle Memorial

2M a r y L. B a r k e r , " T h e P e r c e p t i o n s of W a t e r - Q u a l i t y
as a F a c t o r in C o n s u m e r A t t i t u d e s and S p a c e P r e f e r e n c e s in
O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n " ( M a s t e r ' s t h e s i s , D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g ­
r a p h y , U n i v e r s i t y o f T o r o n t o , 1968).

22

3.

the v a r i a t i o n s in the d e g r e e
of p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e s ; and

4.

the a t t i t u d e s
environment.
Hecock

use

patterns

study were
to

of C a p e

(2)

was

completed

What

are

these

with

surf,

accessibility).

the
to

900

attendance

occupancy

to

which were

attributes

degree

indicated

ease

of
by

used

of b e a c h

water

Large

Hecock

concluded

having

groups,

proximity

groups

the b e s t
however,

to o v e r c r o w d e d

He

and

also

beaches

in

crowds

is

tha t
related

(e.g.,

to d e v e l o p e d

facilities.

study

difference

of the beaches

beaches

beach's

(e.g.,

beaches.

socioeconomic

characteristics

The

of d e v e l o p m e n t ,

a great

access.

to

eating

of b e a c h u s e r s ?

on b e a c h e s

at d i f f e r e n t

attracted

of b e a c h

interviews

is r e l a t e d

are

extent

the

to?

socioeconomic

teenagers

the

of

attributed

Within

availability

objectives

characteristics

quality).

the

is

in r e c r e a t i o n

variations

of b e a c h e s

the

The

What

topography,

groups

the

differences

to p h y s i c a l

levels

th e p h y s i c a l

socioeconomic

(1)

Results

attributed

the

kind

toward

beaches.1

in t h e

according

temperature,

were

Cod

to d e t e r m i n e :

and

th e

th e u s e r s

investigated

beach variations

classified

of

and

higher

physical
attendance
areas

showed
tha t

and
that

have

establishments.

R i c h a r d D. H e c o c k , " R e c r e a t i o n B e h a v i o r P a t t e r n s
as R e l a t e d to S i t e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f B e a c h e s , " J o u r n a l of
L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 2 (1970): 2 3 7 - 2 5 0 .

23

David

studied

the

water-based

recreational

interviewed

574 p e r s o n s

Results
ceived
scum;

indicated
"water

The

affect

f elt

an d

while
glass

Ditton

in r e l a t i o n s h i p
with

ling

techniques

cate

that

of

were
and

to

Goodale

quality.

Boaters

swimmers

were most
the

least

deterred.

period.

respondents
of

co l o r ,

indicated
swimming

algae

suds

foam.

given

most

green

and

or

of the

per­

and

sm e l l ,

was

that

special

respondents

detrimental

the p r e s e n c e

to

of

factors.

of w a t e r

quality

activities.2

riparian

fishing

She

investigated variations

behavior

were

the

scum were

interviews,

five

of

indicated

recreation

on

a three-year

80 p e r c e n t

and

perceptions

2,174
in

on

study,

algae

over

unnatural

10 p e r c e n t

pollution

in W i s c o n s i n . 1

th e p r e s e n c e

detrimental

recreation

concerned with

as

70 p e r c e n t

r e c r e a t i o n users'

completed

40 p e r c e n t

pollution

In t h a t

the p r e s e n c e

swimming,
cans

while

of w a t e r

consideration.

activities

indicated

debris;

of w a t e r

statewide

pollution"

35 p e r c e n t

floating

that

affect

obtained

The

deterred

potentials

Results

by poor

of

Bay

s t u d y wa s

correspond

Fishermen,

Green

by c l u s t e r

counties.

patterns

of

in

samp­
indi­

to w a t e r

quality,

while

however,

were more

the

than with

area

E l i z a b e t h L. D a v i d , " P u b l i c P e r c e p t i o n s of W a t e r
Q u a l i t y , " W a t e r R e s o u r c e s R e s e a r c h 3 (1971): 4 5 3 - 4 5 7 .
2R o b e r t D i t t o n a n d T h o m a s G o o d a l e , M a r i n e R e c r e a ­
t i o n a l U s e s of G r e e n Bay:
A S t u d y of H u m a n B e h a v i o r a n d
A t t i t u d e Patterns (Madison, Wis.:
U n i v e r s i t y of W i s c o n s i n ,
S e a G r a n t P r o g r a m , R e p o r t No. 17, D e c e m b e r 1972).

24

the w at e r

quality.

significant
attitudes
of wa te r

differences

toward water
of v a r y i n g

The
State

University,

study

attitudes

mental

improvements

a river

50 p e r c e n t
polluted
quality
years

of

for
has

an d

of

the

their

revealed

verbalized
actual

and R e c r e at i on

direction

concerning
that

have

of Dr.

the

some

resource may

use

at M i c h i g a n

Lewis

Red Cedar

River.1

of the n e g a t i v e

linger

been made.

even
It

Moncrief,

after

public
environ­

indicated

tha t

felt

the

river

was

too

grossly

recreational

use;

actually,

the

Red

Cedar's

vastly

contrary

preferences

and

also

"users"

been

This

use

the

study

people's

of P a r k s

"uncontrolled

occurring,

Middlesex

quality

demonstrated

of

the

between

under

images

from

quality.

Department

investigated
This

Data

writer
of u r b a n

County,

a polluted

improved
sewage

to p u b l i c

and

suburban

Massachusetts,
river,

th e p r e v i o u s

fiv e

d u m p i n g ' 1 is n o t

opinion.

investigated
and

during

the

attitudes

residents
concerning

the M e r r i m a c k . 2

and

in N o r t h e r n
the p o t e n t i a l

Two

hypotheses

^ e w i s M o ncrief, "User R el a t e d Study of Three
M i c h i g a n R i v e r s , " in A n E c o l o g i c a l E v a l u a t i o n of S t r e a m
E u t r o p h i c a t i o n (East L a n s i n g : M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y ,
I n s t i t u t e o f W a t e r R e s o u r c e s , T ech. R e p o r t No. 36, 1973),
pp. 1 2 . 1 - 1 2 . 5 .
2K e i t h R e a d y , " P e r c e p t i o n b y A r e a R e s i d e n t s o f the
M e r r i m a c k River:
A Spatial A na l y s i s " (Master's thesis,
D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y , M i a m i U n i v e r s i t y , O x f o r d , O hio,
1 973).

25

were

tested.

recreational
County

had

explored

The

first

preferences

significant

attitudes

to d e t e r m i n e

existed.

Conclusions
positive

the M e r r i m a c k
variations
responses
of

within

spatial

about

Merrimack

overall

investigated

the

River

showed

t hat

the

suburban

respondents

were

found

income
river

levels

sites

recreational
results
of

suggested
an u r b a n
of

idences.

Those

the

as

recreational
did

postive

t hat

use

of

are

the

percentages
(2)

the
who

this

the

the

location

respondents'
of p o s i ti v e
rec­

related

and

(4)

to

the

recreational

respondents'
of

perceived
pleasant

their
that

the

res­

areas

and u s e f u l

attitudes.

to be

to

to p r e f e r r e d

the M e r r i m a c k ;

to

levels

related

percentage

toward

regional

of p o s i t i v e

income

significantly

had p o si t i v e

attitudes.

area;

distances

related

and

perceive

study

the

aesthetically

sites

not

recreational

attitudes

respondents
be

the

to be

toward

river

river may

who

found

river

the

of

have

were

an

the M e r r i m a c k - -as

perceived

attitudes

knowledge

those

(3)

variations

significantly

so d i d

the

(1)

the

to be

of

indicated:

residents;

toward

increased,

responses;

reational

use

attitudes

use

second

study

highest

from

The

significant

toward

came

recreational

recreational

in

tha t

Northern Middlesex

from that

existed

idea

variations.

whether

attitude

the

case

Conversely,
di d

not

26

Summary
Previous
factors

which

research

influence

people's

recreation

opportunities

recreation

behavior

variables

such

as

income,

socioeconomic

the

controlling

that

factors

such

characteristics,

as

and

considerations

in t h e

use

and

non-use.

not

be v i e w e d
these

in t h e

context

distance,

variables
of

residential

preferences

Residential

location,

of

and use

residence

action
ing
of

space

area.

recreation

for

then,

recreation

be

consequently,

location

individual's
in

since

on

one's

circles,

important
resource

decisions

should

on e v a r i a b l e .

an d

collectively

in r e l a t i o n s h i p

activities

levels

the

valuable

characteristics

and

of

areas.

familiarity
one's

development

attitudes
to

of
And ,

image

relation

be p a r t i c u l a r l y

research,

all

considered

impact

concluded

recreation

any

are no t

in r e s o u r c e

opportunities.

and

should

have

are

recreation
on

socioeconomic

acquaintance

aspects
of

outdoor

important,

differences

reflects

a profound

opportunities

explain

and occupation.

Studies

recreation

has

Examining

recreation

locations

of

although

solely

should

to

education,

explanation

dependent

of o u t d o o r

traditional

background,

situational

the u n d e r l y i n g

knowledge

influences.

to p e o p l e ' s

with

age,

Ultimately,

as

Rather,

the

factors,

cultural

accessibility,

that

and w h i c h help

include

However,
only

indicates

the

place
of

surround­

and p e r c e p t i o n s
their

residential

for u r b a n
of

the

river

resource

27

usually

differ

between

different

areas

of p e o p l e

with

and

sections

within

cities

different

spaces,

could

knowledge,

and u s e

of r i v e r

different
No

research

investigation

for

assume
will

in c l o s e

unaware

of

its

of tha t

lan d

and w a t e r

th e

recreation use

While

residential

has

reation participation,
quality perception,
levels

of u s e

given

resource

an d n o n - u s e

to

at

to

Som e

if the

say

may
con­

in t e r m s

recreation

attitudes

toward

depend

greatly

to d i f f e r e n c e s

knowledge

of them.

literature

accessibility,

according

resi­

o f the p o p u l a t i o n

river

have

s eems

example,

A nd,

should

in the

by

a resource

all.

t hem,

toward

their

of

for

segments

fe w r e s e a r c h e r s

it

from different

in r e l a t i o n

and

of p r e v i o u s

But,

sections

river

vary

resource

city.

people's

an u r b a n

been

urban

potential.

Thus,

location

review

a river,

these

characteristics

attention

to

attitudes,

city?

participate

attitudes

to come.
of

the

is r e p u l s i v e

quality,

s om e y e a r s

resource

no t

recreational

fo r

in

a single

different

proximity

the

b y the

of

groups

facilities

of

individuals

or m a y

retain unfavorable

their

of

by

people's

areas

sections

that

may

on

that

Since

characteristics

recreation

us e

resource

city.

inhabited

detected

select

r e c r e a t i o n use,

dition
of

to

areas

residents
be

the

of d i f f e r e n t

reasonable
dential

it be

residential

considered

residents

are

the

socioeconomic

action

between

of

to r e c ­

and w a t e r

investigated

the

quality

of

the

28

recreation

resource

understanding

and

its

relationship

to

individual's

an d p r e f e r e n c e s .

Hypotheses
The
the

findings
1.

following

hypotheses

of p re vi ou s

are p r o p o s e d

(ba s e d

on

studies):

P e o p l e ' s p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s c o n c e r n i n g
u s e of an u r b a n r i v e r for r e c r e a t i o n a c t i v i t i e s
are r e l a t e d to the l o c a t i o n o f t h e i r r e s i d e n c e
r e l a t i v e to d i f f e r e n t s e c t i o n s of the river.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , it is h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h o s e
r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g in s e c t i o n s of a c i t y a d j a ­
c e n t to or o r i e n t e d t o w a r d m o r e a e s t h e t i c a l l y
a p p e a l i n g s e c t i o n s of a r i v e r w i l l h a v e the
m o s t f a v o r a b l e p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d
th e r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e of an u r b a n river.
Con­
v e r s e l y , t h o s e r e s i d e n t s a d j a c e n t to or o r i e n t e d
toward more aesthetically displeasing sections
of an u r b a n r i v e r w i l l h a v e m o r e u n f a v o r a b l e
p e r c e p t i o n s and a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h a t river.

2.

C u r r e n t p a r t i c i p a t i o n l e v e l s in r e c r e a t i o n a l
a c t i v i t i e s a l o n g an u r b a n r i v e r are r e l a t e d to
th e p a r t i c i p a n t s ' r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n w i t h i n
a city.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , it is h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t t h o s e
r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t to or
oriented toward more physically appealing
s e c t i o n s of a r i v e r w i l l h a v e th e h i g h e s t
p e r c e n t a g e s of r e s i d e n t s t h a t a c t u a l l y u s e
the r i v e r for r e c r e a t i o n .
C o n v e r s e l y , the
l o w e s t p e r c e n t a g e s of r e s i d e n t s u s i n g a r i v e r
w i l l be f r o m t h o s e r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s l o c a t e d
a d j a n c e n t to or o r i e n t e d t o w a r d m o r e p h y s i ­
c a l l y d i s p l e a s i n g s e c t i o n s of the river.

3.

Sections
a c i t y in w h i c h h i g h p e r c e n t a g e s
o f r i v e r r e c r e a t i o n i s t s r e s i d e c a n be i d e n t i ­
fie d f r o m th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a r e a r e s i d e n t s '
e n v i r o n m e n t a l p e r c e p t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s , and
behavioral responses.
S p e c i f i c a l l y , it is h y p o t h e s i z e d
o f a c i t y in w h i c h r e s i d e n t s are

t hat s e c t i o n s
s h o w n to h a v e

29

m o r e f a v o r a b l e p e r c e p t i o n s , a t t i t u d e s , and
b e h a v i o r a l r e s o u r c e s w i l l be the s a m e s e c ­
t i o n s in w h i c h h i g h p e r c e n t a g e s of r i v e r
r e c r e a t i o n i s t s reside.

Significance
This
and

type

attitudes

preliminary
process.

phase

of

be

the

the

Investment

study,

toward

a river
the

future

basis

focusing

recreation

of

Assessing

a source
should

of

o f the

decisions

recreation

supply

all p u b l i c

the

establish

a recreation-related

be

to d e v e l o p

founded

on

This
development

toward

type
of

perception.
quences

such

capital

in the

It c o n s i d e r s

common

relationship

entity

or

facility

the
planning

resources

as

opportunities

land-use

investment

study also

theory

recreational

a problem

an a r e a ' s

of

planning.
whether

necessary
the

to

capital

should

also

assessments.1
of

studies

land use

enterprise,

an e x i s t i n g

use

contributes

field

the

of h u m a n p e r c e p t i o n s ,

perception

is o n l y

of r e c r e a t i o n

involving

required

of

by p r i vate

initial

on p e r c e p t i o n s

resources

adequacy

for

Study

of

nature,

causes,

rivers,

in a n e w d i r e c t i o n .

to m u c h

of

the

between perceptions

research
or

the

environmental

attitudes,

of u r b a n

to

and

and

behavior

thereby
It

also

extending
addresses

in t h i s

attitudes

conse­

and

area--the
behavior.

H'.S., C o n g r e s s , O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n R e s o u r c e s
Commission., N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n S u r v e y , b y A b b o t t L.
F e r r i s s , C o m m i s s i o n R e p o r t No. T9 [ W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.:
G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1962), p. 6.

Review

30

Urban
great

applied

is b e i n g
For

planning

Area

between

t hat

need

operate

planning models

federal,

state,

and

Park

Service

Resources

have

completed

an d

for

of

Many

in o r d e r

thi s

type

behavioral

and

planning

local

agencies.

the O h i o

of

the

Recreation

questions

to p r o p e r l y p l a n

(such as

responses

of

Depart­

a multimillion

Cuyahoga National

Cleveland.

answered

a project

the

have

urban waterfront

National

Akron

and

by

effort

to be

attitudes,

Extensive

out

the

of N a t u r a l

dollar

recreational

value.

carried

example,

ment

river

and

the p e r c e p t i o n s ,
local

residents)

remain unanswered.
In

1978,

the

Interior

servation

an d

Service),

as m a n d a t e d

National

Urban

on

thirteen

to

investigate

associated
priate

Recreation

the needs,

development

of

for

in r e g a r d

delivery

relevant

to

problems,

local

of

t his

Park

Its

concentrated
goals

identify

Possible
ar e

urban

courses

identified

and m ai nt a i n i n g
of

dissertation

were

appro­

in p u b l i c

government,

Some

the

opportunities

to

roles

completed

study

an d

and

operating,

systems.

the N a t i o n a l

The

an d p r o g r a m s .

level

to p l a n n i n g ,

recreation
findings

each

and

Con­

regions."

recreation

state,

(Heritage

in 1976,

Study.1

populated

recreation
action,

and

by C o n g r e s s

with urban

federal,

Services

Recreation

"highly

Department

the n a t i o n a l

urban
study

i n c lude:

^ . S . , D e p a r t m e n t of I n t e r i o r , N a t i o n a l
R e c r e a t i o n Study, E xe c ut iv e Report (Washington,
G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1978).

Urban
D.C.:

31

As

1.

A k e y e l e m e n t in r e s p o n s i v e r e c r e a t i o n p l a n n i n g
is i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of th e d e s i r e s a n d n e e d s of
users.

2.

T h e u s e of s p e c i a l s t u d i e s , w h i c h f o c u s o n u s e r
n e e d s in u r b a n a r e a s , is e x t r e m e l y l i m i t e d . . . .
L a c k of p e r i o d i c e f f o r t s b y p a r k an d r e c r e a t i o n
a g e n c i e s to s y s t e m a t i c a l l y and s c i e n t i f i c a l l y
s u r v e y t h e i r c l i e n t e l e m a y r e s u l t in u n r e s p o n s i v e
programs.

3.

A l t h o u g h an u n d e r s t a n d i n g of u r b a n r e c r e a t i o n
n e e d s and p r o b l e m s is e s s e n t i a l to p r o v i d e a
r a t i o n a l b a s i s for p l a n n i n g and d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g ,
l i t t l e r e s e a r c h ha s b e e n c o n d u c t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y
on u r b a n r e c r e a t i o n . 1

documented

Commission

in t h e

Outdoor

Report,

80 p e r c e n t

around w a t e r . 2

takes

place

in or

urban

river

recreation

a critical

aspect

The
interested
cerning
The

in the

Director

D.C.

an d

and

of

of

concerning

opportunities

needs

and

empirical

th e p e o p l e

EPA Office

Review

recreation

research

Protection Agency

acquisition

th e

Resources

outdoor

Thus,

of de te rm in in g

resources
of

of all

behavior

Environmental

river

Washington,

Recreation

Land

should

be

desires.
(EPA)

is

also

knowledge

con­

who utilize
Coordination

them.
in

wrote,

I n d e e d w e s h a r e y o u r c o n c e r n for p r o p e r l y
a s s e s s i n g the a t t i t u d e s a n d p e r c e p t i o n s of r i v e r
c o n s t i t u e n c i e s (both a r e a r e s i d e n t s of r i v e r s as
w e l l as u s e r s in g e n e r a l ) , t h i s is a n e c e s s a r y
ste p in th e p l a n n i n g f o r (urban ri v e r ) r e c r e a ­
tional activities.
T w o of y o u r m a j o r c o n c l u s i o n s

1 I b i d . , pp.

76-84.

2U . S . , C o n g r e s s , O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n R e s o u r c e s R e v i e w
C o m m i s s i o n , O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n for A m e r i c a , a r e p o r t to the
P r e s i d e n t an d to C o n g r e s s ( W a s h i n g t o n , D .C.:
Government
P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1962).

32

c o n t a i n e d in y o u r t h e s i s r e g a r d i n g th e M e r r i m a c k
R i v e r c a n be p e r h a p s g e n e r a l i z e d for all r i v e r s
an d to r e f l e c t th e a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n s of
all r i v e r c o n s t i t u e n c i e s .
These being--that water
p o l l u t i o n is a m a j o r c o n c e r n of i n d i v i d u a l s an d
t h a t m o s t p e o p l e feel t hat d e v e l o p m e n t o f r i v e r
r e c re ation al facilities would benefit their town
or c i t y . . . . 1
In N o v e m b e r
Water

Cleanup

concluded
local,
spent

and

tha t

state,

1975,

the

since
and

Land,

cleanup

use

these

Russel

(then d i r e c t o r

Conference

Massachusetts,
dollars

of g o v e r n m e n t

efforts,

now

th e

of p u b l i c

levels

recreational
Train

of

sponsored

in B o s t o n ,

billions

federal

in w a s t e w a t e r

EPA

clean

of EPA)

proper
rivers
said

at
are

and

th e
being

planning
is

on

for

imperative.

in his

keynote

addres s :
W h a t w e h a v e n o t a l w a y s a p p r e c i a t e d in the
p a s t is t h a t the p u b l i c has a r i g h t to s h a r e
m o r e f u l l y in t h o s e e n h a n c e d v a l u e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y
in the c a s e o f c l e a n e r r i v e r s .
S i n c e it ha s b e e n
th e tax d o l l a r s - - p u b l i c d o l l a r s - - tha t m a d e p o s s i b l e
the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n of a b o d y of w a t e r f r o m an
e n v i r o n m e n t a l l i a b i l i t y to a s o u r c e of r e c r e a t i o n
and aesthetic b e a u t y . 2
At
of N a t u r a l
Service,
park
canal

is

the

state

Resources,
currently

in L o w e l l
syst e m .

level,

the M a s s a c h u s e t t s

in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h
developing

centering
Problems

developed

Park

cultural

River

with

^ r o m personal correspondence with
Director, Environmental Protection Agency,
U s e C o o r d i n a t i o n , 2 J a n u a r y 1976.

Restored
p p . 1- 2.

the N a t i o n a l

a $42 m i l l i o n

on t h e M e r r i m a c k
have

Department

this

and

its

project

She ll ey Mark,
O ff ic e of Land

2" C a r e f u l P l a n n i n g for R e c r e a t i o n A r e a s A l o n g
W a t e r w a y s , " E n v i r o n m e n t a l N e w s , 5 N o v e m b e r 1976,

33

involving
concerning
In

some u n f a v o r a b l e
its

ities

and

attitudes,
and

an d

the p l a n n i n g

development

activities
and

activities

of

t his

of

geographical

The

has

behavior
are

of

will

research
of

this

process

of urban

failed

being

dissertation

importance

among

residents

desirability.1

summary,

the p r o m o t i o n

response

to

those

to

type

recreation

address

for w h o m

provided.
be

concerned

these

to d e m o n s t r a t e

of

study

facil­

the p e r c e p t i o n s ,

The main

a contemporary

with

facilities

contribution
the

application

planning

is d i s c u s s e d

problem.

by

Morrill.
A s h i f t t o w a r d p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m [in g e o g ­
raphy] c o n f r o n t s us w i t h t h e l e g a l e n t r e n c h m e n t
of p r o f e s s i o n a l d e g r e e s in p l a n n i n g , b u s i n e s s
a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , etc.
We s h o u l d a v o i d t r a i n i n g
p l a n n e r s u n d e r a n o t h e r la b e l , b u t r a t h e r o f f e r
something different, namely geographic expertise
in its f o r m s of l o c a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , r e g i o n a l
k n o w l e d g e , a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e l a t i o n s . . . the
m o s t o b v i o u s w a y to r a i s e o u r o w n v i s i b i l i t y is
for f a c u l t y and s t u d e n t s to p a r t i c i p a t e a g g r e s ­
s i v e l y a n d c o m p e t e n t l y in all m a n n e r o f r e s e a r c h
and s e r v i c e a c t i v i t i e s , e v e n if n o t a s k e d or p a i d ,
if the i s s u e s are w i t h i n o u r a b i l i t y to c o n t r i b u t e . 2

^ h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w a s n o t e d in the w r i t e r ' s 1973
s t u d y w h i c h has b e e n i n c o r p o r a t e d int o the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s
for the L o w e l l C u l t u r a l P a r k - - f r o m c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h
A l b e r t E. P r a t t , C h i e f of P l a n n i n g , M a s s a c h u s e t t s D e p a r t m e n t
of N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s , 1 M a y 1975.
2R i c h a r d L. M o r r i l l , " V i e w a n d O p i n i o n s :
The Future
of G e o g r a p h y , " T h e P r o f e s s i o n a l G e o g r a p h e r 27 ( F e b r u a r y
1975): 1.

CHAPTER II

THE

This
behavior
current

th e

of

that

tudes

in t h i s

portion

are

specific

of

are

operationally

concerning
effects

Grand

waterfront

development.

recreation

development

City

(1)

waterfront
diverse
grams

the

have

been

of

an d

to p u b l i c

have

Atti­
toward
be

con­

and

attitudes

interest
makes

(2)
river

available

in g e n e r a l

this

river

selected
an

extensive

offers

redevelopment

debate.

river

a pressing

area was

the

and

toward

in u r b a n

is u n d e r t a k i n g

th e

34

rivers

study

program,

defined

respondents

information

of u r b a n

Lansing

(3)

in w h i c h

limited

River

Lansing.

will

to

River.

residents

Behavior

and

in L a n s i n g .

Expanding

Grand

subject

River

nationwide

Grand

predispositions

perceptions

redevelopment

environment,

is
use

of c o n s u m e r

because

within

activities

Grand

recreational

The

Lansing

propositions.

there

r e s e a r c h need.

River

respondents'

th e

Currently,

the

dissertation,
tha t

the

relate

of

recreational
along

they

use

th e
as

as

attitudes,

recreational

recreational

participate

residents

understanding

defined

the

th e p e r c e p t i o n s ,

Michigan

an d p o t e n t i a l

cognitive

sidered

examines

of L a n s i n g ,

Perceptions,
as

study

SETTING

a

pro­

35

Physical
The
Michigan,
miles

drains

(Fig u r e

length,
north

rises

and

I onia,
Lake

Grand

1).

its

Maple,

Red Cedar

Looking

residents

Lansing,
by

dairy,

s o u t h of J a c k s o n ,
Ingham,

finally

tributaries

effluent
water

emptying

in

f lows

Eaton,

Clinton,
into

is M i c h i g a n ' s

include

Thornapple,

is

and

the

Portage,

agricultural

quality

in the

the p r o d u c t

(1970

census)

Ro g u e ,
and

corn,

hay,
water

river's mo ut h

The
in L a n s i n g

history
reflects

of

(Grand
is

land used

production.
are

an d G r a n d

found

jus t

Rapids,

and

Grand

River

Haven.

Background

of d e v e l op me nt
the

1.3

run-off

agricultural

and v e g e t a b l e

Grand

Historical

Areas

Agricultural

Lansing,

near

Basin.

of a p p r o x i m a t e l y

pollution problems

from Jackson,

run-off

Grand River

Statistical

acres

fruit,

land

concentrated predominantly

and Jackson).

3.5 m i l l i o n

serious

downstream
the

square

260 m i l e s

The w a t e r sh e d

Standard Metropolitan

generated

at

Haven.

Gl a s s ,

5 ,500

approximately

County

central

Rivers.

effluent

The mo st

in s o u t h

approximately

Counties,

seven ma j o r

Municipal

for

located

through Jackson,

at G r a n d

affect

Rapids,

of

river,

Ottawa

seriously

in t h r e e

area
The

Municipal

million

Ba s i n ,

in H i l l s d a l e

and

Michigan

Flat,

an

then west

Kent,

largest,

River

Characteristics

changing

along

the

importance

of A m e r i c a ' s

36

I

f

^

INSET
NEWAYGO

*» _

_____
MON TC AL M

KENT

.*

I

J^IUSKEGON |

GRA TIOT
ROGUE
RIVER

GRAND
HAVEN
CLIN TO N

i

IONIA

,o

' SHIAWASSEE

%
>

GRAND
RAPIDS

LANSING#^xJfc

£ £ d a r «'

EATON

I
>sJcK RIVER
BARRY

□

IN GH AV
1•

v
10 15 20
SC A L E OF MILES

AA

l/

ly
G RAND RIVER

Is

j LIVINGSTON

r*

\
t
PORTAGE
JACKSON

BASIN

RIVER^O)
X C I T Y OF
L1 J A C K S O N X

/

/

SOURCE: G R A N D R IVE R WATERSHED COUNCIL

G R A N D RIVER
BASIN B O U N DA R Y
C O U N T Y LINE
-----------

S T U D Y A R E A - LANSING (SMSA)
CITIES OVER 2000 POPULATION
RIVER T R IB U T A R IE S

Figure: 1 THE G R A N D R IVE R BASIN

37

rivers.
life,
have

Once

central

particularly
declined

and

Before
in t h e

called

the

canoe

link

between

along
the

the

both

sawmills

became
river
the

vast
for

and

an d

river

became

the

However,
cation,
to

cause

American

and

th e

cities,

construction
outlets

of

by

Settlers

capital

and

known

in the

locating

and

the

the

river's

of

lines

^ o r example, between
L a n s i n g g r e w f r o m 8 , 7 0 0 to

centers

wa s

built

for
to

Stream."

advantage

industrial

1850 and
17,000.

of

power

diversifi­

transportation

along

a

transportation

importance.

took

for

river

Dams

"Old Mill

rail

and

communications

p o p u l a t i o n , 1 economic
of

they

In

exploitation

industries.

existing

their

and,

the p r o d u c t i o n

railroads

an d

1840s.

population

water-borne
as

which

established

a vital

the

began

Indians

fishing,

east

in th e

other

1850s,

reserves

River,

of M i c h i g a n

and

the

development

costs

Chippeway

the

provided

capital

limited

the

from

River Valley

expanding

a decline

the

hunting,

mechanized

power

conditions.

for

the

rivers

changing

(Big R i v e r )

log-floating

water

to

Grand

forest

provide

due

th e

During

other

economic

area used

steamers

new

and

transportation,

settlement,

Grand

river.

area's

used

Lansing

in t h e

brief period,

of

importance

European

transportation.

Lansing

cultural

technological

Ojibiway

themselves
1847,

in t e r m s

in d i r e c t

socioeconomic

living

to u r b a n

the

As
of

and
river

1 861

combined
in o t h e r

lower

commercial
front.

the p o p u l a t i o n

38

This,
the

in turn,

riverfront

in th e

1920s.

industrial
tries

particularly

River

water was

stimulated

increasing

banks

ownership,

(e.g.,

Moores
River

away

the

river

became

use

from
an

Moreover,

and/or

park

Drive,

the

urban

cities,

essence,

th e

these

to

industry
and
New

and

f ree
indus­

l ocal

disposal

river

of

the

and b u s i n e s s ­

and

littered

lands

have

a part

city

gifts

and d e d i c ations

Frances

city.

its

of

cut

both

the

as a u n i f y i n g
deprived
land-

from

the

river.

in L a n s i n g

and

other

central

central

^ h e Lansing pop ulation grew
in 193 0 an d 1 5 5 , 0 0 0 in 1958.

core,

to p r e v i o u s

off

of

dividing

usually

declining
the

and

sections

land,"

due

in

1918;

In the u r b a n

space

were

become,
of the

Park,

functioning

open

retained

generally

residents,

costs,

"imageability"

were

a "no man's

than

and

areas

were

central

rather
inner

rivers

1910;

"edge,"

acquisition

American

80,000

system.

growth

in the

through

1927),

segments

adequate

Thus,

a convenient

Householders

riverfront

mainly

Park,

river

of

automobile

for the

sewage.1

some

River

th e

force.

river

development

trash.2

public

int o

als o

population

th e

of

the

dispersal

dumped wastes

Although

city

further

volume

with

Grand

and waste

utilized

likewise,

industrial

area,

coolant

governments

men,

attracted new

from

city

51,000

city.

In

riverfront

in

1920

2J o n B a u e r , P l a n for D e v e l o p m e n t of L a n s i n g ' s
W a t e r f r o n t (La n s i n g , M i c h . :
Waterfront Development
B o a r d , F e b r u a r y 1974) .

to

39

ha s

been

conditioned

development

rather

by

industrial

than

an d

recreational

commercial

or

cultural

amenities.1

Socioeconomic
Lansing's
represents
city

Tracts

34,

Lansing
area

35,

in t h i s

north,

int o
and

Township,

purpose,

population

38 p e r c e n t

is d i v i d e d

has

east,

Characteristics

of

of

the

entire

forty-five

31.01,
have

131,546

been

the

included

tracts

(Fig u r e

city boundaries
as p a r t

study.

The

City

of L a n s i n g ,

divided

the

city

int o

west,

cens u s )

SMSA p o p u l a t i o n . 2

census

outside

(1970

f ive

of

The
2).
in

the u r b a n

for p l a n n i n g

sections:

south,

and

Lansing

Township.3

3 presents

th e

spatial

variations

the

Income
Figure
population's
t he

study

employers

income

area
are

level.

in 1 9 7 0 w a s
state

^ynch,

The

The median
$13,357.

government

Image

of

annual

The

agencies,

in the

income within

area's

principal

Michigan

t h e C i t y , pp.

State

15-20.

2 It is a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t c o n s i d e r a b l e d e m o g r a p h i c
c h a n g e h a s o c c u r r e d in L a n s i n g s i n c e 1970.
M a n y of t h e s e
c h a n g e s w i l l be e v i d e n t in s u b s e q u e n t d i s c u s s i o n s of s u r v e y
results.
R e f e r e n c e to t h e 1 9 7 0 c e n s u s is i n t e n d e d to giv e
t h e r e a d e r some g e n e r a l b a c k g r o u n d i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g
the s o c i o e c o n o m i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of L a n s i n g .
3T h e s e d i v i s i o n s d o n o t n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t
u s e d by L a n sing residents.
T h e y are u s e d h e r e for
convenience.

terms

40

q i no

NORTH
LANSING

T T

grand

38.01

r ^ ]
LANSING
TOWNSHIP

5

LANSING
I TOWNSHIP

P"

WEST
5IDE

r iv e r

36.02

SOUTH 27
SIDE

53 01

C IT Y

of

0 1000

L A N S IN G
3000

53.02

5000

Sct‘lt‘m FEET

— — — —
SECTION BOUNDRIES
28 - CENSUS TR A C T NUMBERS

i

Figure: 2 T R A D IT IO N A L C IT Y SECTIONS AND CENSUS TRACTS IN LANSING URBAN AREA

41
NORTH
LANSING
38.01

3 3 .0 2 K G !

LANSING
TOWNSHIP

LANSING
TOWNSHIP'

EAST
SIDE

WEST
SIDE

C IT Y

of

0 1000

SOUTH
SIDE

L A N S IN G
3000

5000

Scale in FEET

M ED IA N INCOME LEVELS
j BELOW- 8 , 0 0 0

iiili

8,000 - 9,999
SOURCE:
10.000 - 11,999

BUREAU OF

12.000 - 13,999

THE CENSUS

14.000 AND ABOVE
2 8 - CENSUS TRACT NUMBERS

Figure: 3 M ED IA N INCOME LEVELS IN LANSING M IC HIGA N

42

University,

an d

the

automobile

industry

and

its

ancillary

industries.
In t h i s
defined
Cedar

as

annual

areas

income)

River

Drive

Tract

25

high

17,

latter

two

percentages

59 p e r c e n t

By c o n t r a s t ,

and

21

and

as

12 p e r c e n t

has

had

high

17

of

and

Red

or

47

the m o r e

($18,172 m e d i a n
area

income)

is

people

along Moores

Lansing

characterized

an d

36.02

show rising

Country

contains

the
the

rapidly

residents

side

24,

Club.

a number

lowest

the

area

have
23,

includes
annual

since
is

River

22

th e

1970.

growth.

It

is b o u n d e d

by

on

the

Saginaw/Oakland Avenues

202,

the
on

where

income

or

less.

represent

of older
13,

These

Another

two y e a r s

tracts

ye a r s .

residents

generally

medium

on

in r e c e n t
of

tract

area pop ulation

Grand

and new

respectively).

resided
and

ol d

of b l a c k

high percentages

area

study

growth

indicative

black,

in thi s

with

by bot h

proportions

increased

25,

rapid

ar e

12 p e r c e n t

growth

east

so u t h ,

Grand

Some

income

exclusive

annual

the

65,594

Tract

experienced

tracts

of

here.

the

side,

the

ha s

area

the

of L a n s i n g

s o u t h of

area population.

found

older neighborhoods
The

side"

subdivisions.

have

of

thi s

median

and

of n e w

"south

tracts

includes

36 . 0 1 ,

(10.4 p e r c e n t

example

ar e

south

neighborhoods,

The

study

($13,235

The

Tracts

1970

as w e l l

income

the

census

In

of th e

affluent

of

those

Rivers.

percent

study,

10,

people.
11,

12,

($9,017)

an d

(16, 5 5 0 p e o p l e ) .
west,

th e R e d

the n o r t h ,

Cedar

an d

the

43

City

of E a s t

Lansing

commercialized
to

and

and

from East

on

the

east.

includes

Lansing

the major

section

These

Kalamazoo

arteries

been

development.

Th e

area

characterized

by high percentages

of blue

and pe op le

lower

status.

Tracts
comprise

the

enclosed

by

and

th e

16,

ghetto

with

Tract

just

a median
located

income
in t h i s

large

of

to

15,

on

the

study

An

e ast,

of n e w l y

and north,
24,696

l ive

black population

th e v a s t

This

is

estimated

$12,144.

as

Tract

area

is

arrived

(tract
also

(tracts

18 on

the

complex

93 p e r c e n t

C.B.D.

here,

a gilded

Oldsmobile

with

The

19

area

area population)

a slum ghetto

collar

an d

This

categorized

of

$4,929.

18,

south,

the west.

income
of

16,

side.

of La ns i ng 's

section.

black

14)

is
and

is

characterized

foreign

born people,

tracts

to the n o r t h

Hispanics.

The north

section

of O a k l a n d / S a g i n a w A v e n u e s

includes
and

has

26,417

people

(19 p e r c e n t

and

is t h e

oldest

section

9 contain

14,

16 m a y be

percentages

particularly

7,

the w e s t

the

north

of

socioeconomic

River

of

a median

River

6,

Township

representative

by

Grand

61 p e r c e n t

18).

5,

called

(18 p e r c e n t

including

Grand

4,

area

by L an sing

people

15,

3,

of

Street,

have

to

workers

strip

arteries

subject
is

commercial

is h i g h l y

east-west

(Michigan Avenue,

and O a k l a n d / S a g i n a w Avenues).
extensive

This

old,

established

of

the
of

all

Grand

the

Ri v e r .

study

t h e C ity.

area

area population)

Tracts

neighborhoods,

This

2,

8,

including

and
the

44

original

C. B . D .

high

lo w

are

and

2

affluent

Tucumseh

the

west

east

side)

Like

the

growth

area

are
of

and

is

affluent

of

side,

$15,929

this

riparian

classification
south
west
are

s ide
side

for

Figure

recreational

l a n d use ,
and

(6)

of

is

tracts
area;

by mixed

Lansing

tracts

has

been

the

the

31.01

35 on

31.01

the

and

34

respectively.

subject

Grand

to r e c e n t

has

4 is a g e n e r a l

a
land-use

Lansing.

land,

predominate.

while

Other

The
on

the

sections

l a n d uses.
that p or t i o n

according

of

to v i s u a l

includes

(1)

the n a t u r e
(4)

River

River within

compatibility

factors

34 an d

$14,544,

use

other

an d

30 a n d

an d

largely park

areas

scenery,

($9,710).

($15,888)

(tracts

land

(3)

1

($14,877).

Figure

Grand

5 classifies

through

criteria

the

industrial

and

R e cr e a t i o n Land Use
and P l a n n i n g

stretch

riverfront

incomes

by new neighborhoods.

landscape.

characterized

flowing

area

characterized

Lansing

annual me di an

32.02

the City

a fairly

of bot h

2 1.02

side

of

areas

( $ 9,658),

tracts

tract

River

diverse

32

area

incomes

The

lowest

Township

south

and

The

It c o n t a i n s

Lansing

is

have median

2.

($8,766),

areas

Park
The

on

inco m e .

in t r a c t s

More

in t r a c t

areas.

the

appearance

contributing

(5)

to the

River
and

Classification

o f the r i v e r ,

vegetation,

Grand

(2)

riparian

topography,
river's

visual

45

NORTH
LANSING

TUCUMSEH |
PARK

3 3 .02

NORTH
LANSING
DAM

THOMAS F
KEENAN
N A TU R A L |
AREA
LANSING
TOWNSHIP

I

WEST
RIVER
FRONT
PARK

GRAND
R IV E R \
PARK

\

RIVER

/

MOORES

FRANCES
PARK

SOUTH

MOORES
RIVER
DRIVE

L

C IT Y

I

MOORES
PARK
23

0 1000

of

L A N S IN G
3000

5000

Scale in F E E T
GENERAL L AND USE

w

IN D U ST R IA L
BUSINESS/COMMERCIAL

iiiiiil
CZZD
— —. —

«

RESID EN TIA L
PARK LANDS

SECTION BOUNDRIES

2 8 - CENSUS T R A C T NUMBERS

Figure: 4 GENER AL LAND USE CLASSIFICATIONS FOR G RAND RIVER

46

NORTH
L A N S IN G

«*•!

U

1

| LA N SIN G
|
| T O W N S H IP |

|
«

L A N S IN G
T O W N S H IP

| |
J,

WEST
SIDE

11
EAST
SIDE

CEDAR
22

SO U T H
SIDE

C IT Y

of

0 1000

L A N S IN G
3000

5000

Scaly in FEET
V IS U A L APPEARA NCE A N D R E C R E A T IO N A L L AND
USE C O M P A T IB LIT Y AR E A S
G E N E R A L L Y CLEAR VIE W OF THE RIV E R
WITH C O M PAT IBLE L A N D USE
P A R T I A L L Y OBSCURED V IE W OF THE R IV E R
W IT H C O M PAT IBLE L A N D USE
T O T A L L Y OBSCU RED V IE W OF T HE R IV E R
W ITH SO M EW H AT CO M PATIB LE L A N D USE
T O T A L L Y OBSC URED V IE W OF THE RIV E R
W IT H NON C O M PAT IBLE L A N D USE
— • «— — —
SECTIO N B O U N D R IE S
2 8 - CEN SUS T R A C T N U M B E R S

SOURCE: AUTHOR AND
LANSING'S
W A TER FR ON T
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN, 1974

Figure: 5 VIS U A L APPEARANCE A ND RECREATION LAND USE
C O M P A T A B IL IT Y AREAS ALONG THE GRAND RIVER

47

appearance
(Figure

Grand
and

an d

recreational

The

first

areas

River

which

are w i d e ,

lands

th e

in t h i s

criteria
area
The

Grand
Only

River
Grand

river

river
that

Park,

is w i d e

is

uses.

at

least

the

are

currents
area

lands

are

the T h o m a s

an d

along

lands

of

the

is p a r t i a l l y

area

include

Riverfront

Park.

a section where

the

slow.
includes

compatible

area

with

F.

Keenen

of the

t hat

generally developed

from v ie w with

in t h i s

river

sections

in thi s

Park,

the

r e c r e a t i o n use.

road

are

identified

somewhat

confluence

are

an d o t h e r

Riparian

for

nearest

located

of

Drive.

developed

Street

is

obscured

Sections

land uses
(i.e.,

and

section

of the

currents,

to v e h i c u l a r

River

th e

sections

slow-moving

Major parks

River

are

identified

from

Park

third

totally

only

riparian

use.

River

The

areas

where

recreation

The

generally

the v i ew

but

with

is M o o r e s

second

river where
obscured

are

identified

highly visible

t r a n s p o r t a t i o n modes.

for

compatibility

4).1

riparian

fit s

land use

Grand

sections

riparian
with

the

land use

recreational

completely

compatible

N at u ra Area,
and

of

Re d C e d a r

the

"Point"

Rivers),

JT h e i n f o r m a t i o n n e e d e d to e s t a b l i s h v i s u a l
a p pe ar an ce and r ec r ea t io n al land use c o m p a t i b i l i t y areas
was o bt a in e d from Grand River p l an n i n g reports, interviews
w i t h c i t y p e r s o n n e l , and e m p i r i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s of th e s t u d y
area.
T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n is o n l y i n t e n d e d to h e l p the r e a d e r
u n d e r s t a n d th e n a t u r e of the G r a n d R i v e r ; v i s u a l a p p e a r a n c e
an d r e c r e a t i o n l a n d u s e c o m p a t i b i l i t y a r e a s do no t
n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t the v i e w s o f L a n s i n g a r e a r e s i d e n t s .

48

and T u c u m s e h

Park.

the

boundary

between

th e

City.

but

are

and

restricted

Most

The

of

largest

the

north

these

th e

ri v e r .

In t h i s

subject

to h e a v y p o l l u t i o n

levels
water

during
levels

recreational
Canoeing,

The
river

is

example,

The
vast

that

up

and

less

planning

During

has
July

commercial
with
and

development

recreational
has

riparian

Complex,

tract

18)

of

process

lands

forming
and

the

waterfront

has

taken

by W h i t e :

decisions

by

the

In t h i s

area

the

area

(tract

levels.

include
of

the

the

black

14).

planning
have

is

been

or c o m p l e t e d

engineering

(1)

by
us e

Designs

"authorizing

of the

land

research.

considering

sections

and w h e r e

development

social

of

in A u g u s t .

boundary

C.B . D .

low

impossible.

at b r i d g e s ,

in thi s

construction planned
adequate

types

high pollution

the

cities.

is n a r r o w ,

and A u g u s t ,

if n o t

use.

relatively

the

low water

in c e r t a i n

appealing,

to

river

very

except

expensive

characterized

and

the

from view,

in o t h e r A m e r i c a n

planning

lo a d s ,

development

adjacent

obscured

important

a foundation

of

includes

Lansing's
to

side

identified

and

(i.e.,

the w e s t

area

final

Oldsmobile

ghetto

from

difficult

is n a r r o w

most

area

is u s u a l l y

incompatible

river

this

are u n d e v e l o p e d ,

st e e p ,

participation

activities

totally

industrial

are

summer months.

for

lands

immediately

slopes

may make

and

of

commercial/industrial

lands

area,

side

riparian

interspersed with
to

sections

similar
drawn

without

The w at erfront
approach,

agencies
attitudes

have
of

as
reached

the

49

people
(2)

sharing

opinions

in th e

as

o p i n i o n s ) ; (3)
(i.e.,

to w h a t

John

been

groups:

(1)

Watershed

Council

ment

financial

council

included
1974,

(3)

vigorously
in

support.

and

and

of

the

the
were

Grand

city
as
1.

'

personal

should prefer

divided

general

secretary

promoted

its

demise,

canoeing

lack

maps

Major

bicentennial

its p l a n s

council.

Development
for

approved

The major

goals

the

of

Grand

River

The

Water­

local

however,
the

council
canoe
canoe

govern­
the

entire

programs
trip

in

trip.

Board was

general

three

improvements.

for

a sweeping
as

int o

canoeing.

Before

tributaries.

River were

of

many

downtown

river

74,” a c o u n c i l -sponsored

and

(2)

to

extensive

its

c a n be

in L a n s i n g ,

due

"CC-7 6, ” a major

1973,

others

1977,

L a n s i n g ’s W a t e r f r o n '
in J u l y

(i.e.,

improvements,

executive

disbanded

"Alpha

and

canoeing

former

published

River

to w h a t

implemented,

Council,

shed

prefer

other planners);

recreation plans

development,

Kennaugh,

Grand

river

have

waterfront

as

(i.e.,

bias).” 1

Current

broad

others

opinions

personal

of w h i c h

decisions

created

rehabilitation
guidelines

of the W a t e r f r o n t

by

Board

follows:
Make

the

city

a better place

in w h i c h

to

live;

G i l b e r t F. W h i t e , " F o r m a t i o n a n d R o l e of P u b l i c
A t t i t u d e s , " in E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y in a G r o w i n g E c o n o m y
(Baltimore:
R e s o u r c e s for the F u t u r e , I n c . , an d J o h n s
H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 6 6 ) , p. 106.

50

The

2.

Link
with

th e
the

3.

Promote peopl e-o ri en te d
the w a t e r f r o n t ; an d

4.

E n c o u r a g e t h e a d j a c e n t u n i t s o f g o v e r n m e n t to
d e v e l o p th e w a t e r f r o n t w i t h i n t h e i r j u r i s d i c t i o n
and to c o o r d i n a t e tha t d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h the C i t y
of L a n s i n g as w e l l as o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . 1

Development

constructed
Park

and

services

a total

in t h e s e

s tru c t .
area,

includes

walkway,

August

1977,

rooms,

lighting

tennis
the

Finally,
projects
pie,
City

of

have
in

Lansing

1B a u e r ,
f r o n t , p. 94.

adjacent

of

to

support,
Park

has

and M o o r e s

landings
canoe

1976,

a canoe

courts,

cos t

landing,

trails,

$1.7

downtown

on R i v e r f r o n t
4,

in o p e r ­

rental

and

Park

(Fig u r e

$680,000

extensive

for

additional

4).

to c o n ­

amphitheater,

Administration
million

riverfront

play

landscaping.

gr a n t ,

in

construction
landscaping,

of
and

riverfront.

a number

been

1977

canoe

emphasis,

Development

included

along

city

establishment

July

bicycle

Economic

council

waterfront

parks.

dedicated

It

city

five

the

land use

at R i v e r f r o n t

concentrates

A U.S.

rest

of

second major

rejuvenation,
park,

with

landings

approved

The

This

Board,

canoe

(making

ation)

i m a g e of a w e l l - d e v e l o p e d
C i t y of L a n s i n g .

of g e n e r a l

undertaken

a $29,000
funds

Plan

in r e c e n t

state

to p r o m o t e

for

river

grant

years.
was

a general

Development

improvement
For

matched
river

of L a n s i n g ' s

with

clean-up

Water­

51

and

added

to

it w a s

Administration
areas

near

under

way

Natural
th e

grant

by

the

Lansing

Fisheries

Resources)

along

the

Dam.

raised
Grand

ladder project

in the

The

City

of L a n s i n g

also

Lansing

tion

of

to R i v e r f r o n t

the D o d g e

County

Regional

of

Federal

the

striving
by

Mansion

Planning
Water

to m a k e

in L a n s i n g ,
include

to
th e

and

Lansing

installation

are

Control

path

swimmable

of

from

restora­

t h e T ri-

Section

Act,

with

$650,000.

completed

(under

of

of

costs

a bicycle

In a d d i t i o n ,

River

efforts

area were

ha s

Commission

Grand

to

Estimated

planned

area.

an d v i e w i n g

1972)
an d

208
is

fishable

1983.
In s u m m a r y ,

its

and

Lansing

Pollution

the

fishing

fish

Park

fishing

(Michigan Department

River.

fish

has

of

Development

In a d d i t i o n ,

salmon

the

East

Economic

Division

to b r i n g

of h a t c h e r y

ladders

U.S.

for d e v e l o p m e n t

the N o r t h

release

fish

a $966,306

as

in m o s t

a survey

recreational
successful
city

using

knows

patterns

idents

do not

to

and

th e

of use.

may

editor

in U n i t e d

States,

toward

Questions

the p e o p l e

relationship
It m a y
Grand

be

River

be w i d e s p r e a d
in t h e

Lansing

the

which

remain unanswered:
about

the

and d e v e l o p m e n t

attitudes

potentials.

view

There
the

of p u b l i c

little

future

letter

cities

planning

the river

resource.

the p l a n n i n g

who

does

not

river

are

and

critical

for

instance,

are

presently

such usage

that ma ny
as

procedure

has

Lansing

with
res­

a recreational

agreement

with

State Journal:

this

52

L o o k i n g on t o n i g h t ' s f r o n t p a g e the w h o l e of
the J o u r n a l 's s u b s c r i b e r s a g a i n get to see h o w
s e n s e l e s s the L a n s i n g c i t y g o v e r n m e n t ca n be.
For
on e to e v e n h o p e , i m a g i n e , or p r a y t h a t a n y t h i n g
s u c h as t h e i r s m e l l y w a t e r f r o n t ( R i v e r f r o n t Park)
c o u l d b r i n g p e o p l e , a c t i o n , or a n y b o d y , e x c e p t
r i f f - r a f f to d o w n t o w n L a n s i n g I w i l l n e v e r know.
T h a t t h i n g ' s d o o m e d . . . . Th e d a y of c i t y
d o w n t o w n a c t i v i t y has p a s s e d . . . . N o on e in t h e i r
r i g h t m i n d w a l k s the s t r e e t s of L a n s i n g at night.
O n e h a s to r e m e m b e r L a n s i n g is a b o v e all e l s e
an i n d u s t r i a l c i t y and i n d u s t r i a l p e o p l e , n o t a
t o w n t h a t g o e s for V i e n n a W a l t z e s , S h a k e s p e a r e ,
and l o n g - h a i r e d mu s i c .
Why can't the city face reality?
It n e e d s
m o n e y b u t s p e n d s it this way.
I d o u b t if y o u
w o u l d s h o w " D e e p T h r o a t " fre e of c h a r g e if y o u
could get 1,580 p eo pl e do wn t h e r e . 1

Lansing

H i l t o n Posey,
State Journal,

" C i t y Not F a c i n g R e a l i t y , "
5 N o v e m b e r 1975, p. 5.

The

CHAPTER

III

METHODOLOGY

The
on
The

attempts

behavioral
to b e t t e r

emphasis

(e.g.,

acting

an

environment

divided

an d
to

spatial

concerning
geographic

yet

th e

first

and

all

three

understanding
stimulus

an d

Most

of

as

human

are

and

efforts

as

patterns.

process-

have

found

establish

into

the

has

three

realms:

environment;

effect

have

on

t hat

concentrated

an d

relates
As

processes

the p h y s i c a l

perceptions,

it

behavior.

Lowenthal

human

interrelated

nature

response

about

focused

decision maker

an d

on b e h a v i o r

realms,

This

Researchers

define,

attitudes

ha s

on m e n t a l

relationship.

research

facets

is

between

behavior.

behavior;

these

spatial

a rational

variable

research

environmental

environment.1
on

thi s

human

formation).

conceptualize,

human perceptions
human

sees m a n

in g e o g r a p h y

research

attitude

intervening

it d i f f i c u l t
theories

and

approach

as

understand

in b e h a v i o r a l

learning

oriented

revolution

and

attitudes,

essential
to

Pierce

to

environmental
in 1 974

observed:

^ a v i d L o w e n t h a l , " E n v i r o n m e n t a l P e r c e p t i o n and
B e h a v i o r , " in E n v i r o n m e n t a l P e r c e p t i o n an d B e h a v i o r , ed.
D. L o w e n t h a l ( C h i c a g o : D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y , R e s e a r c h
P a p e r No. 109, 196 7 ) , p. 7.

53

54

O n e of t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t r e s u l t s s t e m m i n g
f r o m r e s e a r c h (in p e r c e p t i o n a n d b e h a v i o r ) c o u l d
be the d e v e l o p m e n t an d a p p l i c a t i o n of a m o d e l t h a t
a d d s to t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h u m a n b e h a v i o r .
Too
l i t t l e w o r k has b e e n c o n d u c t e d b y b e h a v i o r a l g e o g ­
r a p h e r s in the p a s t w h i c h g oes b e y o n d the m o d e l
b u i l d i n g stage.
A s a r e s u l t we h a v e a s e r i e s of
f r a m e w o r k s w h i c h p u r p o r t to e x p l a i n h u m a n b e h a v i o r
b u t w i t h l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e to s u p p o r t t h e s e
theories.1
Assuming

that

appropriate

variables

are

a conceptual

schema

identified,

and

explicit

that

theory

development

are

stated,

lead

remains
le m

is

the

critical

compounded

essence,
on

to

problem

by

th e

the v a l i d i t y

how well

th e
which

hypotheses

of

comprise

their

A major

attitudes

to

surveys

in o r d e r

the

actual

"household

perceptions

an d

entire

research

still

This

prob­

nature.
design

th e m y r i a d

the variables,

Gathering

ha s

In

depends

psychological

concepts,

an d

address

study,"

Instruments

geographic

been

behavior.
to

of h u m a n

measure

problem with

factors

there

study.

Data

and

an

researchers

attributes

ceptions

of

hypotheses

of m e a s u r e m e n t .

complexity

defined,

an

This
this

inability
study

concerning

the

The

sample

river

int o p e r ­

to r e l a t e

employs

problem.

investigates

attitudes

inquiry

tw o

these

separate

first

survey,

population's

recreation

use.

R o b e r t P i e r c e , " B e h a v i o r a l C o r r e l a t e s of P e r c e i v e d
S t r e s s in t h e U r b a n E n v i r o n m e n t :
S p a t i a l R e s t r i c t i o n in
M e t r o p o l i t a n D e t r o i t " (Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t of
G e o g r a p h y , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 19 7 4 ) , p. 11.

55

The

second

behavior,

survey,

"on-site

perceptions,

recreation

suitable

studies.

an d

decided

both

costs

in b o t h

bias

from differing

time

techniques.

these

problems

were

of t h e

author

interview
response
survey

to

1 975

rates,
suit

th e

river

and

probing

is n e e d e d .

and

the

the

for

approach

allows

1976.

to

The

to m o d i f y

city
of

questions

th e

on-site

sample

comparisons

of

as

and
days

seg­

conducted

are:

by

higher

being

surveys

of the
inter­

if a d d i t i o n a l

employ

spatial

survey

of the

of the p e r s o n a l

survey

(see

were

interview­

language

the p e r s o n

sections

the

th e

or m i n i m i z e

were

advantages

of

inade­

of c e r t a i n

questionnaire

and

include

and/or

example,

on v a r i o u s

lengthen

household

selection

For

of

the

and on-site

to r e d u c e

interviews

a mailed

ability

the

performances

and

Most

ability

traditional

analysis

statistics.

times

were

the p o s s i b i l i t y

Measures

the v e r n a c u l a r

viewed,

tracts

the

interviews

underrepresentation

and
to

household

avoid misunderstanding,

population.

in

Both

to

avoid

compared

to

actual

interviews

of p e r s o n a l

instituted.

at v a r i o u s

in o r d e r

ments
the

designed

the

interviewer

sampling

week

examines

of

and m o n e y

quate

done

for

disadvantages

high

ing w a s

attitudes

that p e r s o n a l

approach

The

carefully

study,"

participants.

It w a s
most

the

Figure

units
2).

findings

to

census
of
This
census

56

Scaling Model
Attitude
and

household

sional

social

surveys

scaling

Attitude

and

(MDS)

are m e a s u r e d
as w e l l

measurement

scaling which

has

attempts

construct

using

scale

a "negative"

and

limitation
obtained

is

applicable

of
at

to

this

several

asked

to

the

technique

is

tha t

stimulus
than

dimensions

objects

a simple

models

were

in t h e

1950s.

Torgerson,
scaling

the

analysis

the

ranking

developed
of

contrasts

techniques

or

as

methods.

on L i k e r t - t y p e

en d

other.
the

of

the

The major

information

limiting

the

range

attributes.

respondent

on one

of

techniques.
stimuli

The

or d i s s i m i l a r i t y

basis

of

several

particular

from research
the

multidimen­

scaling measures

similarity

on

On e

at o n e

at

statistical

judge

value

sc a l e ,

on-site

a "unidimensional"

value

an o r d i n a l

the

traditional

been based

identify

a "positive"

for b o t h

using metric

as m o r e

usually

Multidimensional
to

variables

leading

is

between

attributes
attribute.

on p s y c h o m e t r i c

proponents

unidimensional

according

of M D S ,

rather
The

MDS

theory
W.

and m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l

follows:

The n o t i o n of a single u n i d i m e n s i o n a l ,
u n d e r l y i n g c o n t i n u u m is r e p l a c e d b y the n o t i o n
of an u n d e r l y i n g m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l space.
Instead
of c o n s i d e r i n g t h e s t i m u l i to be r e p r e s e n t e d by
p o i n t s a l o n g a s i n g l e d i m e n s i o n , the s t i m u l i are
r e p r e s e n t e d by p o i n t s in a s p a c e of s e v e r a l d i m e n ­
s ions.
I n s t e a d of a s s i g n i n g a s i n g l e n u m b e r
(scale v a l u e ) to r e p r e s e n t the p o s i t i o n of the
p o i n t a l o n g t h e d i m e n s i o n , as m a n y n u m b e r s are
a s s i g n e d to e a c h s t i m u l u s as t h e r e are i n d e p e n d e n t

G.

57

d i m e n s i o n s in th e r e l e v a n t m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l
space.
E a c h n u m b e r c o r r e s p o n d s to the p r o ­
j e c t i o n s (scale v a l u e ) of the p o i n t s on one
of t h e axe s ( d i m e n s i o n s ) of the s p a c e . 1
The MDS model
between
Grand

two

establishes

theoretically

derived

River

an d

clean water

respondents

are

asked

to

(e.g.,

Grand

River

concepts
on

the

basis

distance
ical

using
The
be

t his

as d e s i r e d

space"

points

of

to

an

is

scale

employed

MDS

thus

of

in t h i s

and

concepts.

of

have

to

may

select

apart)
as m u c h

a "psycholog­

reduces

these

dimensionality
factor

interval

analysis.

levels

and

can

algorithms.

demonstrated

an h y p o t h e s i s

to r e v e a l

other

75 u n i t s

Thus,

analogous
are

between

are

least

the

a p a r t ) , and

The MDS model

is n o t

study

fishing

analytical

studies

(e.g.,

distances

Respondents

obtained

MDS

100 u n i t s

space

conceptually

the M D S m o d e l . 2
is u s e d

between

in p a r a m e t r i c

A number
of

scale.

identifiable

values

are

concepts

estimate

established.

a process

an a r b i t r a r y d i s t a n c e

basic

the

validity

testing model.

environmental

JW a r r e n T o r g e r s o n , T h e o r y and M e t h o d s
(New Y ork:
J o h n W i l e y § S o n s , 1958) , p . 248.

of

Scaling

2See G. A. B a r n e t t , " A M e t h o d for P o l i t i c a l
C o m m u n i c a t i o n R e s e a r c h , " p a p e r p r e s e n t e d at the A n n u a l
C o n v e n t i o n of th e A s s o c i a t i o n for E d u c a t i o n in J o u r n a l i s m ,
S a n D i e g o , C a l i f o r n i a , 1974; R. G. G o l l e d g e , C o n f i g u r a t i o n
of D i s t a n c e in I n t r a - U r b a n S p a c e , P r o c e e d i n g s of the A s s o ­
c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a n G e o g r a p h e r s, Vol. 1 ( W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.:
A s s o c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a n G e o g r a p h e r s , 19 6 9 ) , pp. 60 - 6 5 ; and
J a m e s 0. W h e e l e r , " L o c a t i o n of M o b i l e H o m e M a n u f a c t u r i n g :
A Multidime ns io na l Scaling Analysis," The Professional
G e o g r a p h e r 28 ( A u g u s t 1976): 261-266.

58

preferences.
task

as

The model

Golledge

an d

is p a r t i c u l a r l y

Rushton

applicable

to the

observe:

T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of n o n - m e t r i c M D S has t h e r e ­
for e p r o v i d e d t h e g e o g r a p h e r w i t h c o n c e p t s and
t e c h n i q u e s b y w h i c h he c a n e x p e c t to s o l v e some
of the p u z z l i n g m e a s u r e m e n t p r o b l e m s t h a t h a v e
i m p e d e d the d e v e l o p m e n t of b e h a v i o r a l g e o g r a p h y .
For e x a m p l e , g e o g r a p h y has o n l y j u s t b e g u n to
r e s e a r c h an d to m e a s u r e f o r m of p r e f e r e n c e s t r u c ­
tures.
We ca n s u r e l y e x p e c t tha t m a n ' s a d j u s t m e n t
w i l l m o r e c o m m o n l y be i n t e r p r e t e d and r e s e a r c h e d
as his r e a c t i o n to a p e r c e i v e d set of s t i m u l i .
Hi s e v a l u a t i o n o f t h e s e s t i m u l i w i l l b e c o m e a
primary research problem.
D e c i s i o n s m a d e in
t his e n v i r o n m e n t w i l l i n c r e a s i n g l y be v i e w e d
as a p r o c e s s b y w h i c h b a s i c p r e f e r e n c e s are
l i n k e d to p e r c e i v e d sets of s t i m u l i . 1
Previous
have

been

MDS

limited

in j u d g i n g

to

applications
identifying

in r e c r e a t i o n
perceptual

the

similarity

of r e c r e a t i o n a l

considerations

concerning

perceptions

( R itchie,
the

1975;

similarity

relationship

Becker,
of

to

1976).

recreational

the

resource

The
On-site
interviews.
based

on

tions

of th e

The

user

study

with
area,

activities

study

without

resource

considers
and

used

base
both

their

base.

On-Site

design

Survey

for

collected
the

city personnel,
and

dimensions

of the

activities

study data were

sampling

interviews

This

research

from

a pilot

by p e r s o n a l

on-site

study

empirical
study

of

wa s

observa­
forty

JR. G. G o l l e d g e and G e r a r d R u s h t o n , " M u l t i d i m e n ­
sional Scaling:
R e v i e w an d G e o g r a p h i c a l A p p l i c a t i o n s , "
C o m m i s s i o n on C o l l e g e G e o g r a p h y T e c h n i c a l P a p e r No. 10
( W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.:
A s s o c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a n G e o g r a p h e r s ,
1972) , p. 74.

59

randomly
in J u n e
Grand

selected
1975.

River

of

tions.

groups

This

made

and

population

hour

time
City

units
The

based

s ize

areas

on u s e

length
basis

varied.

For

on e

lands

t hus

units

loca­

sample

homogeneity
variance.

Grand

River

of

the

Four

two

within

ten g eo graphic

sampling

in the p i l o t
to

both

study.

establish

of r e c r e a t i o n p a r t i c ­

individual

riparian parks

individual

sampling

were

example,

the

the

selected

numbers

sampling

where

was

include

Non-park

constituted

undeveloped

units

lands,

the

identified

comparable
units

the

into

different

and v a r i o u s

sample

and

divided

patterns

l a n d use.

the

t hat

of d i f f e r e n t

stratify

increase

conducted

indicated

in m a n y

times

to

selected

was

as n o n - p a r k

of

to

sampling

Sampling

as w e l l

participate

decrease

Lansing

the

comprised

it n e c e s s a r y

were

containing

ipants.

area

of

ar e

at d i f f e r e n t

and

frames
of

that

temporally

user

the

investigations

recreationists

activities

spatially

recreation participants

Preliminary

socioeconomic
types

river

also

the

unit

Grand

selected

Oldsmobile

as

did

the

un i t s '

on

the

industrial

"Point"

an d R e d C e d a r

(the

Rivers

meet) .
During
units

were

random

the

actual

assigned

numbers

table

numbers
for

site

selected

was m a t c h e d

then

traveled

to

divided

th e

the

survey,

to

a time
site

into

frames

selected

each day's

sample

site m e n t a l l y

an d

time

at

an d

at r a n d o m u s i n g

interviewing.
frame.
the

sampling

The

correct

quadrants,

a

Each

researcher
time,

assigned

each

60

quadrant

a number,

and

selected

th e

in w h i c h

As m a n y

order

users

quadrant.
sampling

using

as p o s s i b l e

(A m o r e

each quadrant

were

complete

procedure

a random numbers

would

interviewed

description

is p r e s e n t e d

table,

of

be

within
the

surveyed.
each

on-site

in A p p e n d i x A.)

Questionnaire
The
sections.
which
an d

original
Part

had

on e

several

attitudes

of

questionnaire
contained

parts)
river

teen mu lt idi men sio nal
of river
and

recreation

empirical

paired

Appendix

Part

questions;

original

five m i n u t e s
terminated
to r e d u c e

questions

into

(many of

two

consisted

of

fourteen unidimensional
derived

this
three
many

research

in a t o t a l

contained

four

several

seven­

measures

from previous

resulted

had

three

recreation preferences

Part

th e
the

to be

est),

several

Comparisons

a total

interview before
time

required

a crucial
of

such

caused

included

questionnaire

to c o m p l e t e ;

shown

not

and

divided

of

150

socioeconomic

parts

(see

B).
The

events

users.

observation;

identification

eleven

concerning

concepts

comparisons.

was

the
as

factor
paired

old

confusion,

age,

for

took
of

fifteen

it w a s
each

approximately

interview

comparisons
flood

took mu ch

time,

In o r d e r

(which was

respondents'
were

danger,

in t h e m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l

respondents

completed.

in k e e p i n g

fo r t y -

inter­

eliminated.

and

cultural

an d w e r e

analysis.

therefore

In a d d i t i o n ,

61

these
that

comparisons
respondents

valid

were

eliminated

understand

original

the p i l o t

questionnaire

order

was

asked

before

changed

respondents

so

part

to

tw o

the

of the
som e

contained

final

entire

respondents'

relevancy

to

Each
Verbal
cepts

to

Grand

first

Lansing:

question

an d

to

the

obtain

include

several

contained

apart
(For

scaling

was

a ratio

are

a an d

a more

in
an

were

of

(i.e.,

ques­

105

concepts.

an d

124

given
their

comparisons.

between

b)

on a p r o v i d e d

based

description

on e

analyzed.

The

con­

of

the

B.)

involved

attention-getting
not

on e

three

see A p p e n d i x

section

who

distance

complete

procedure,

question

responses

concepts

activities.

for

and

fifteen

section

a list

the

Sections

c o n s i d e r a t i o n was

given

the

respondents

recreation
was

the

(1)

if

segment,

concepts

call

thi s

survey

to r e c o g n i z e

River

far

because

part.

parts;

of

three were

was

final

final

concepts,

respondent

how

the

three

nineteen unidimensional

ability

multidimensional

toward

had

final

standard distance.

The

during

an d

instructions
(i.e.,

were

multidimensional

comparisons)
the

th e

questionnaire

of w h i c h

thirteen

In s e l e c t i n g
to

imperative

However,

in p a r t

complete

analysis

survey

and

This

some

terminated

on e

components.

(2)

paired

is

in o r d e r

unchanged.

questions

questions

it p e r m i t t e d

parts

remained

that

tw o

tended

study,

multidimensional

tions,

concept

it

results.
After

an d

th e

because

attitudes

"warm-up"
second

62

question measured
scale

from

zer o

isfaction) .
river

the

Question

addressed
tions

of

dissatisfaction)
three

determined

Grand

responses

activities,

determined

of p r e s e n t

respondents'
the

satisfaction

respondents

Locations

city were

ited

(t o t a l

with which

basis.

recreation

the

100

(total

sections

on

and

residence

former

knowledge

and

and

those

Question

through

attitudes

concerned

of the

throughout

environmental
six

sat­

a continuing

four.

Questions

on p r e f e r e n c e s

particularly

to

an o r d i n a l

interacted

by q u e s t i o n

Ri v e r .

on

for

with

fiv e

percep­

ten

elic­

recreational

the

Grand

River.
The

second

socioeconomic
lect e d .
pation,

The

remarks
out

by

variables.
information

income,

children,

segment

or
the

comments

minutes.

Lansing

at

Sample

an d

model,

included

marital

concerning

least

Each

Only

the

were

age,

sex,

In t h i s

section,

erview were
took

respondents
of

col­
occu­

number

ir

years

no t

status,

interview

those

eighteen

considering

exploratory nature

river

sought

names

of
general

written

approximately
residing

age w e r e

in

included.

Siz e
After

the

questionnaire measured

of vehicles.

interviewer.

thirty-five

the

Respondent

education,

an d n u m b e r

of

recreation
it w a s

use,

of
an d

determined

the
thi s
the
that

aggregate
research,
precision
150

unit
the

of

extent

of the

respondents

analysis,
of

sampling
would

63

constitute
described

an

adequate

above

socioeconomic
Strenuous
and
tion

of

insured

groups

efforts

fiscal

that

an d

size.1

would

sampling
cross

of a c t i v i t i e s

to c o n t a c t
allow.

considerations

The

an a d e q u a t e

types

were made

resources

the

sample

given

section

were

complete

sample

siz e

of

selected.

as m a n y u s e r s

(A m o r e
to

design

as

time

descrip­

is p r e s e n t e d

in A p p e n d i x A . )

Response

Rates
Pilot

rate

of

rates

the p r o j e c t
surveys

helped

individual
an d

these

185

giving

incomplete

responses,

hostility,

or

the

on-site

survey

views.

All

between July

1975

total

of

varied.

rates

185

age

rate

the

of

10,

support
fo r

both

because

on

the

were

13 d i d n o t

of

barriers,

respondent.

by

for

83 p e r c e n t .

language

based

conducted

an d A u g u s t

and

eliminated

of

Shortening

interviews

to p a r t i c i p a t e

factors,

response

expected.

government

is t h e r e f o r e
were

be

response

12 w e r e

advanced

analysis

local

a response

health

interviews
1,

A

refused

interviews,

could

higher

C).

an o v e r a l l

questions

securing

secure

25 p e o p l e

in L a n s i n g ,

indicated

80 p e r c e n t

(see A p p e n d i x

conducted;

Of

for

questionnaire

reside

results

approximately

Response
the

study

173

Th e
inter­

author

1975.

1A f t e r i n t e r v i e w s w i t h c i t y p l a n n e r s , it w a s
c o n c l u d e d t h a t a v e r y l i b e r a l e s t i m a t e of t h e t o t a l u s e r
p o p u l a t i o n is 10 p e r c e n t of the t o t a l L a n s i n g p o p u l a t i o n .
T h u s , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 3 , 5 0 0 p e o p l e c o m p r i s e the t o t a l u s e r
population.
T h e s a m p l e siz e of N = 150 is a g r e a t e r t h a n
1 p e r c e n t sample of this estimate.

64

The
The
conduct

high

costs

household

in a l o n g e r

to A p r i l

30,

1976)

employed

study

(see A p p e n d i x

use

is

use

of

the

sampling
shows

stratified,

schedule

Question

geographic

(September

household

Grand

study.

to

that

number

River

15,

The

nine

to
area
1975

question­

in the

to p a s t

proportional,

technique was

the

Sample

residential

ings,

was

on-site
changed

an d p o t e n t i a l

the

aggregate

study,

establishing
the M D S

more

and

an

was

unit
the

(see A p p e n d i x

geographic
E).

of h o u s e h o l d

technique
th e

than

75

individual

for

300

to p r e v i o u s

analysis,

precision

coefficient

Lansing,

contact

of

survey

Figure

6

respondents.

as

th e

are

were

and

find­

exploratory nature

The
size
out

of

the

greatly

an a d e q u a t e
efforts

fiscal

model

in

reliability

included.1

Strenuous
time

research

sampling

size.

flattening

responses

Michigan.

th e

th e

with

respondents

as m a n y u s e r s

of

sample

increases

of

that

given

appropriate

curve

determined
size

random

Size

of t h i s

the

used

location

Consideration

to

over a large

identical

D).

time n e c e s s a r y

or n o n - u s e .
A

of

the

almost

Study

extensive

survey

for

naire

actual

and

interviews

resulted

from

Household

sample;
once

It w a s
sample

were made

resources

would

XG. A. B a r n e t t , " R e l i a b i l i t y and M e t r i c M u l t i d i m e n ­
sional Scaling," u n p ub lis he d research report, Michi ga n State
U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , 1972.

65

NORTH *
L A N S IN G

L G RANft
I

I V
I

«*

•
=£/—

i
1

•
• :* 4
L A N S IN G • i

I

T O W N S H IP

9.!
I

d

L A N S IN G * ,

township
31.01

• 1

•
I
m ■?! » Ssi

“ T"i> “ *«“

“i'

l«

| %

• - ONE HOUSHOLD RESPONDENT

Figure: 6

TH E RES ID EN TIA L LOCATION OF HOUSEHOLD RESPONDENTS

66

allow.
given

(A m o r e
to

Response

sample

study.

is p r e s e n t e d

anticipated

lower
Of

people

size

an

for

the

initial

refused

response,

households,
(i.e.,

on

314

36 w e r e

371

42 p e o p l e
th r e e )

for

giving

a total

factors,

on-site

sample

the M D S

eliminated
the M D S

407

the

407

of

The

129

of

incom­

language

thi s

complete

15 w e r e

Therefore,

Of

Of

because

of r e s p o n d e n t .

to

the

536 h o u s e h o l d s ,

76 p e r c e n t .

interviews.

and

than

be

barriers,
survey
of

analysis

because

analysis

371

of

is b a s e d

interviews.

scanned

for

survey

In C h a p t e r
variable

mean

errors.

operators,

to d a t a p r o c e s s i n g

who

each
Each

answer

sheet

was

questionnaire

was

transferred

the

coded

information

data

cards.
IV,

distance

section.

of A n a l y s i s

completion,

recording

keypunch

city

E.)

rates would

eliminated

age

refused

response.

Upon

by

of

health

Method

for

survey

size

rate

advanced

with

section

incomplete

sample

respondent

the

completed

household

of

conducted,

or

response

a response

interviews

hostility,

that

thu s

an d

was

of t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s

in A p p e n d i x

to p a r t i c i p a t e ,

interviews

plete

description

Rate
It w a s

somewhat

complete

The

multidimensional
matrices

ar e

and u n i d i m en s i o n a l

examined

and

analyzed

Galileo Metric-Multidimensional

67

Scaling

Program,

developed

identify underlying
a ge

distributions

for b o t h
tive
to

relationships.

are

illustrate

are

geographic

chi-square

investigate
for

both

and

sample

all

th e

and p e r c e n t ­
other

responses.
census

to

Some

questions
descrip­

tracts

in o r d e r

statistical

methods,

distributions.

non-parametric

( x 2 ) an d

possible

by

employed

Frequency

fo r

on-site

then mapped

In C h a p t e r V,
namely

calculated

the h o u s e h o l d

statistics

b y W o e l f e l , 1 is

Kendal

relationships

tau

tests

between

are
some

employed

to

variables

populations.

M o s e p h W o e l f e l an d J o h n S a l t i e l , " C o g n i t i v e
P r o c e s s e s as M o t i o n in a M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l Sp a c e :
A General
Linear Model," monograph, M i chi ga n State University, East
L a n s i n g , M i c h i g a n , 1975.

CHAPTER IV

THE

RESULTS

OF THE

SURVEYS

Introduction
Both
differences
of t h e
ences

the

exist

River wi th in
between

users

activities.

city

In

similarities

are

371

the

household

complete

individuals

is p r e s e n t e d

sections
and

an d

among

between

section

described

types

these

analyzed.

socioeconomic

data were

completed
the

presentation

in A p p e n d i x

section

current
0

(total

recreation

mean value

was

of

activities

62.3,

collected

one

and

two

for
of

A more
data

F

levels

dissatisfaction)

river

socioeconomic

General Attitudes Revealed
th e H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y
Respondents'

recrea­

differences

C i t y of L a n s i n g .

of t h i s

tracts,

of

of

and use
Differ­

census

groups

an d

who

revealed

preferences,

in d i f f e r e n t

survey within

tabular

studies

sampled population.

following

Considerable
th e

th e

involved

the

on-site

attitudes,

and no n - u s e r s ,

tion pa rt ici pan ts

and

an d

in p e r c e p t i o n s ,

Grand

between

household

to

in

satisfaction
were measured

100

indicating

68

(total
that

with
on

their

a scale

satisfaction).

respondents

were

from
The

69

considerably

les s

participation

than

in r e c r e a t i o n

Table

1 tabulates

oriented

activities.

swimming

and p o w e r

strong

rivers

than

other

than

the

of

cent)

never

have

Re d

Cedar

to

Michigan

used

River

respondents.

This

Lansing

Fishing

for w a t e r -

activities

also

runs.

Grand

a river

had

were

relatively

is

and

likely

while

important

l es s

significant

familiarity with

canoeing

water

aspect

R ec r e a t i o n Use and
of the G r a n d R i v e r
Questions

an d

swimming

for

largest

to

th e p o p u l a r i t y
campus

activities

of P o t t e r

Park
the

the m o s t

boating,

of

2).

of
the

and

the

Red Cedar

popular

although

in g e n e r a l ,

recreation

(37 p e r ­

proportion

the p r o x i m i t y

were

in r i v e r

(see T a b l e

through which

and po we r

of r i v e r

minority

recreation

use

indicate

participated

a large

the

due

recreational

in L a n s i n g

have

for

by

the

River

However,

is u s e d

Fishing

most

of

concerning

State U n iv e rs it y

activities,

tions

preferences

preferred

respondents

activities.

River

current

the

questions

the m a j o r i t y

river

respondent

The most

recreation

The

their

activities.

boating.

Other

Several

that

satisfied with

preference.

U s e of R i v e r s
Grand River

of

totally

were

a

(Table

2).

knowledge

and

Perceptions

examining
different

the d e s i r a b i l i t y

respondents'
parts

for

of

the

recreation

river
of

and p e r c e p ­

these

sections

70

Table

1

Preferred Water Oriented A c t i v i t i e s - -Household
Survey Respondents

Activity

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Swimming

186

23

Boating

178

22

Fishing

95

12

71

9

69

9

Relaxing

49

6

Canoeing

48

6

Picnicking

43

5

Playing

17

2

45

6

801

100

Walking
Water

for p l e a s u r e

skiing

None
Total

sports

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

71

Table 2
Past

River

R e cr e a t i o n Use by H o u s e h o l d
Survey Respondents

Variable
1.

Use

of R i v e r

River

232
139
371

63
37
100

0
112
10
12
13
26
44
23
122
362

0
31
3
3
4
7
12
6
36
100

92
69
90
3
50
40
6
14
30
394

23
18
23
1
13
10
2
4
8
100

Used:

G r a n d (ther t h a n
Lansing
Red Cedar
Maple
Thornapple
L oo ki ng Glass
Pine
Au Sable
Manistee
Other
Total
3.

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

Previously:

Yes
No
Total
2.

N u m b e r of
Respondents

in

A c t i v i t i e s on R i v e r s (other
t h a n the G r a n d - - i n L a n s i n g ) I
Fishing
Relaxing/playing
Canoeing
W a l k i n g for p le a s ur e
Picnicking
Boating
Water skiing
P laying sports
Swimming
Total

72

indicate
and

that

the

desirability

shows

the

concerning

were

most

respondents

cated

least
of

the

ranked

familiar

of the

side

and d es irable

areas

side

residents

tended

sid e

river

locations

than

side

an d n o r t h

south
side
dents

side

compared
9 percent

geographic
of

south

side

shown

south

3).

compared

4 percent

of e a s t

for

River

s ide
the
as

respon­

total
the m o s t

9 shows

side

south

particular]/

respondents.
the

percent

l ands

30

of n o r t h

familiar with

of eas t

of

as m o s t

respondents

8

indi­

Only

Grand

Figure

concerning

side

sid e

south

with

Figure

east

73 p e r c e n t

a familiarity with

Sixty-six

indicated

familiar

lands.

Approximately

s ide

respondents
to

propor­

sizable

locations

3 percent

of n o r t h

locations.

A

residents,

indicated

is

of

knowl­

s ide

28 p e r c e n t

to be m o r e

other

to o n l y

difference

and

River

residents.

respondents

lands
and

side

River

(Table

of

7

and n o r t h

Respondents

Grand

Figure

residents

and n o r t h

74 p e r c e n t

familiarity.

south

side

familiarity with

hand,

3).

(23 p e r c e n t ) .

side

Grand

familiarity,

degrees

themselves

river

e ast

indicated

side

ignorance.

consider

the

(Table

South

eas t

respondents

other

indicated

sample

south

side

respondents

dents

greatest

from

sid e

of v a r y i n g

while

di d n o t

knowledge,

lands.

familiarity with
eas t

On

south

River

stretch

shows

l ands.

the

distribution

indicated

any particular

side

on

Grand

of r e s i d e n t s

percent

of g r e a t e s t

knowledgeable,

residents
tion

are

spatial

edge

areas

side
A

of

south
respon­

similar

desirability
south

sid e

desirable
and

6 percent

73

Table 3
K n o w l e d g e a n d P r e f e r e n c e s f o r S e c t i o n s of the
Grand River--Household Survey Respondents

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Variable
1.

Most

Familiar Area:

S o u t h W a v e r l y to M o o r e s P a r k
S o u t h W a v e r l y to O l d s m o b i l e
plant
O ld s mo b il e plant area
M oo re s Park area
River Street--Point
Downtown
N o r t h Lansing dam
North Lansing
Tucumseh
N o idea
Total
2. M o s t

Desirable

Least

Desirable

111

30

16
15
15
17
43
11
20
25
85
371

4
4
4
5
12
3
5
7
23
100

154

42

22
1
25
4
9
6
5
16
129
371

6
0
7
1
2
2
1
4
35
100

0

0

0
37
7
32
78
15
30
13
159
371

0
10
4
9
21
4
8
4
43
100

Area:

S o u t h W a v e r l y to M o o r e s P a r k
S o u t h W a v e r l y to O l d s m o b i l e
plant
Ol ds m ob i le plant area
Mo or es Park area
River S t r e e t --Point
Downtown
North Lansing dam
North Lansing
Tucumseh
No ide a
Total
3.

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

Area:

S o u t h W a v e r l y to M o o r e s P a r k
S o u t h W a v e r l y to O l d s m o b i l e
plant
O ld s mo b il e plant area
Mo or es Park area
River Street--Point
Downtown
North Lansing dam
North Lansing
Tucumseh
No i d e a
Total

74

38.01

31.02

;::::$:”i33'62'::::::' ^

I P

r l

~
LAN
TOW N SH IP
31.01

L A N S IN G
T O W N SH IP

w est

* ^ ^

jjS jS f-: :-:

sidej |||:£|

:: j w

SI HL

.

".■19::” :

«

iM n s?.B^ B
S*
*$ssr
20

24

36 02

l1. n t . <<•» t »

s o u t h >:: 27
SIDE

36 01

C IT Y

of

0 1000

L A N S IN G
3000

j

5000

Scale in FEET

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS IN D IC A TIN G NO KNOWLEDGE
CONCERNING DESIRABLE G R A N D R IV E R LOCATIONS

in

]

0 -2 0

PERCENT

21 - 4 1
4 2 -6 2
6 3 -8 3
84 A ND ABOVE
— — — — SECTION BOUNDRIES
2 8 - CENSUS TR A C T NUMBERS
Figure: 7 NO KNOWLEDGE CONCERNING DESIRABLE GRAND RIVER LOCATIONS
BY HOUSEHOLD RESPONDENTS

75
33.01
38.01

31.02

&:+<<: n o r t h

MR

L A N S Ifi(

33.02^^,
GRAND^

LANSING
TOWNSHIP
1"oir-S:-

■ L
La n s i n g
T O W N S H IP

w est

P^gg.SIDE
EAST
S ID E

Dr i v e r

36 02

SOUTH .y 27 rvv-'v
SIDE

C IT Y

of

L A N S IN G

0 1000

3000

j

5000

Seal*' hi FEET

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS IN D IC A TIN G NO
F A M IL IA R IT Y W ITH G RAND RIVER LOCATIONS
1 0 — 10

1

PERCENT

:;v:v::::TSv]| 1 1 - 2 1
yrWSWAJ 22
l :m

m m

32

3 3 - 4 3

44 A ND ABOVE
SECTION BOUNDRIES
2 8 - CENSUS TR A C T NUMBERS
Figure:8 NO F A M IL IA R IT Y W ITH G RAND R IVE R LANDS BY HOUSEHOLD RESPONDENTS

76

NORTH
L A N S IN G

33.02

31.02

38.01

m m m m i

GRAN

L A N S IN G
T O W N S H IP

L A N S IN G
T O W N SH IP

I

WEST
SID E

s 3 6 .02-:

so uth

36 01

-:*:*27

AW

53.01

C IT Y

of

L A N S IN G

0 1000

3000

j

53.02

5000

Scale in FEET

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS IN D IC A TIN G
F A M IL IA R IT Y WITH SOUTH SIDE GRAND RIVER LANDS
j
C
1
Em w m r T j

w m m

0 - 2 0 PERCENT
41

«

62

63

83

84 A N D ABOVE
- — — SECTION BOUNDRIES
28 - CENSUS TR AC T NUMBERS
Figure: 9 F A M IL I A R IT Y WITH SOUTH SIDE G R A N D R IVE R LOCATIONS BY HOUSEHOLD RESPONDENTS

77

of n o r t h
of the
not

s ide

respondents

respondents

rate

an y

percentage
desirable
percent)

for

stretch

at

the

least

(40 p e r c e n t )
spatial
u se).
in

have

side

a sectoral

highest
the
past

in L a n s i n g
north

areas,

sections

th e

lowest

in w h i c h

respondents

are

in T a b l e

4.

listed

picnicking
for

children.

only
the

85

for

The
is

the

(37 p e r c e n t )

river

holds

Of

230

of

th e

concentrated
of u s e

11

shows

the

recreational
living

show

past

use

the
of

indicated
use

occurs

(45 p e r c e n t ) , and
and

locations
along

who

the

activities

fishing
had

children

of
river

were

(34 p e r c e n t )
children,
had

used

in t h e past.

Grand
on

or

proportion

Drive,

popular

their

river

River

residents

respondents

(21

residents

indicating

an d

a least

those

types

adults

indicated

recreation

use

low p r o p o r t i o n

for

larger

the

of past

participated

The most

(35 p e r c e n t )

used

of p r e v i o u s

The

di d

desirable.

(Fig u r e

(40 p e r c e n t ) , eas t

activities

least

degrees

s ide

one-third

percentage

river

percentage

(48 p e r c e n t ) .

even

identify

have

of M o o r e s

south

An

a substantial

respondents
of

than

(35 p e r c e n t )

is

particularly

south

of

Township

area

of v a r y i n g

pattern

The

to

a sizeable

however,

never used

(70 p e r c e n t

use).

unable

downtown

once;

percentages

river

were

More

desirable.

of r e s p o n d e n t s

distribution
South

sample

however,

indicated

lands

total

as m o s t

The ma j o ri ty
its

10).

the

(43 p e r c e n t )
stretch;

(Figure

the

River

by

south

side.

occurring

in th e

Lansing
The

area

house­

relatively

South Waverly

Street

78

N O R TH
L A N S IN G

31.02

1

3 TO2

38.01

rJ

gran

L A N S IN G
T O W N SH IP

: 36.02 •:

I Ps®
SO UTH
SIDE

36 0 1 H;"

>■ <27

>>>>>}

53 01

C IT Y

of

0 1000

L A N S IN G
3000

53.02

5000

ScdU‘ >n FEET

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS IN D IC A TING SOUTH SIDE
LOCATIONS AS MOST DESIRABLE
1

I 0 -2 0

PERCENT

21 - 4 1
42 - 6 2

‘

63 - 83
84 A ND ABOVE
— — — — SECTION BOUNDRIES
2 8 - CENSUS TR AC T NUMBERS
Figure: 10 D E S IR A B IL IT Y OF SOUTH SIDE LOCATIONS BY HOUSEHOLD RESPONDENTS

79

33.01
NORTH
L A N S IN G

L A N S IN G

|

L A N S IN G

|

TOW NSHIP

I

.4 C^'WEST

side

35

EAST
SIDE

C IT Y

of

0 1000

L A N S IN G
30 00

5000

Scale in FEET

PERCENT OF RESPONDENTS T H A T PREVIOUSLY
USED G R A N D RIVER
0-20

PERCENT

21 - 41
42 - 62
63-83
84 A N D ABOVE
SECTION BOUNDRIES
28 - CENSUS TRAC K NUMBERS
Figure: 11 PAST R EC R EA T IO N A L USE OF THE G R A N D R IVE R BY HOUSEHOLD RESPONDENTS

80

Table

4

G r and R i v e r R e c r e a t i o n a l A c t i v i t i e s and L o c a t i o n s of
H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y R e s p o nd e n t s

V a ri a b l e

N u m b e r of
Respondents

P e r c e n t of
R e s p o n de nt s

120
61
62
42
20
19
15
13
7

35
17
17
12
6
5
4
4
2

1. A dul t A c t i v i t i e s :
Picnicking
Fish i n g
R e la x i n g
Boat ing
W a t e r skiing
W a l k i n g for p l e a s u r e
C a no e i n g
Play i n g sports
S w im m i n g
T o tal

TW

2. C h i l d r e n ’s R e c r e a t i o n a l U s e of River:
Yes
No
To tal

85
145
TTO

37
63
100

29
22
15
7
6
3

34
27
18
9
7
4

1
1
1
“ sr

1
1

3. C h il d r e n ' s A c t i v i t i e s :
Fishing
Picnicking
Relaxing/playing
Boating
P la y i n g sports
W a t e r s k iing
C a no e i n g
W a lk i n g for p l e a s u r e
S w i mm i n g
Total

1

Too

4. L oc a t i o n of A c t i v i t i e s :
S o u t h W a v e r l y to M o o r e s Pa r k
S o u t h W a v e r l y to O l d s m o b i l e p l ant
O l d s m o b i l e p l a n t ar e a
M o o r e s P a r k area
R i ve r S t r e e t - - P o i n t
Downtown
N o r t h L a n s i n g dam
N o r t h L an s i n g
T u c u m s e h area
To tal

140
46
2
45
3
6
6
6
11
265

53
17

1
17
1
2
2
2
4

Too

81

to

the

Oldsmobile

surprising
and

since

contain

Park,

had not

lands

frequent

were

cent) , and
raphic

sections

the Tucumse h

are

area

is

aesthetically pleasing

River

Park

and T e c u m s e h

cen t

indicated

give

an

would

abatement
survey

pollution
they would

no t

reside

in a l o n g

preferred

the

were

activities
the

to

were

not

and

asked

that

that

people

greatest

even

were

of

but

indi­
side
use

50 p e r ­
to

respon­

pollution
Household

any water

d i d no t

shown

for

unable

the

after

locations.

di d no t

was

corrected,

15 p e r c e n t

was

geog­

of n o n - s o u t h

if t h e r e w e r e

Swimming

(18 p e r ­

if t h e y w o u l d

were

they prefer

three most

desire"

85 p e r c e n t

side

sur­

respondents

asked

River

som e

its

variables

side

problems

or

The

The

30 p e r c e n t

Grand

ri v e r .

activity

5).

these

south

in n o n - s o u t h

respondents

oriented

of

for

Approximately
use

the r i v e

(19 p e r c e n t ) .

compared

opinion.

used

(20 p e r c e n t ) , "no

When non-users

after

investigated why

(Table

in r e s p o n s e

desire"

river

recreation

Ten percent

respondents.

also

previously

"n o n e e d "

difference

"no

dents

for

survey

"pollution"

desire."

cated

the

and

parks--Grand

household

rounding

part

area

respectively.

respondents

the

both

large

The

" no

Plant

take

to be

a highly

participate

in a l o n g

also

by m a n y

river.
Fishing

respondents
c ent)

as

and

(i.e.,

activities

power

boating were

fishing,
that

16 p e r c e n t ;

were

preferred,

and
ye t

listed

boating,
not

13 p e r ­

undertaken

82

Table

5

W at e r O r i e n t e d A c t i v i t i e s P r e f e r r e d But Not U n d e r t a k e n on the G r and River
and the R e a s o n s for N o n - U s e or F u t u r e U s e - - H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s

N u m b e r of
Respondents

V ar ia b l e
1. N o n - U s e r s

R ea s o n s

for Not Using:

P ol l u t i o n
Not s u i t a b l e
D is t a n c e
No e q u i p m e n t
No f a c i l i t i e s
No chance
No des i r e
No nee d
Total
2. Would U s e R i v e r

32
13
0
6
18
22
28
30
179

21
9
0
4
12
15
18
20
TOO

53
75
21
TT9

35
50
15
100

74
23
33
14
186
62
18
51
13
474

16
5
7
3
39
13
4
11
3
100

212
14
62
0
22
56
17
21
25
779

49
3
14
0
5
13
4
5
6

If Improved:

Yes
No
No idea
Total
3.

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

Preferred Water Activities--Not
U n d e r t a k e n on the G r an d River:
Fishin g
Rel a x i n g
C a n oe i n g
W a l k i n g for p l e a s u r e
S wi m m i n g
P ower b o a t i n g
P i cn i c k i n g
P l a y i n g s ports
W a te r s kiing
Total

4. R e a s o n s W h y R i v e r Not U s e d - - F o r
p r e fe r r e d A c t i v i t i e s :
Pollution
Debris/trash
Not su i t a b l e
D i st a n c e
No e q u i p m e n t
N o f ac il i t i e s
No cha n c e
N o des i r e
No n e e d
Total

loo

83

along

the

river.

being

the m a j o r
Because

contacts

are

information
dents

were

W a t e r p o l l u t i o n wa s
restraining
previous

concerning
asked

by w h i c h

their

use

requested

to

rank

5

desirable)

how

they

river.

the

total

about

the

Of

that

that

river was

users
was

thought

Grand

on a s c a l e

believed
the

the

their

friends

as

of

friends

respon­

attitudes

concerning

in L a n s i n g . 1

They were

(totally undesirable)

thought

their

non-users,
either
About

were

obtain

opportunities,

1

were

interpersonal

individuals

River

undesirable.

their

shown

friends'

recreational

(highly

of

has

recreation

about

often

factor.

research

a maj or means

cited most

friends

149

or

80 p e r c e n t
or

felt

(84 p e r c e n t )

neutral

neutral

to

fel t

fel t
of

the

the
river

desirable.

R i v e r R e c r e a t i o n A t t i t u d e s T o w a r d the
G r a n d Ri v e r :
On-Site Pollution
The
data

on-site

from respondents.

of these

data

socioeconomic
a 27 y e a r
tion

survey

of

profile

^appelle,

compared

of

river

were

income

"Space

socioeconomic

tabular presentation

in A p p e n d i x

white

respondents
an a n n u a l

collected

A complete

included

old m a r r i e d

the

education,

is

also

F.

In

summary,

the

recreation participants

male

(although

black) 2 w i th
slightly

Searching

over

was

a large p r o p o r ­
a high

school

$9,000,

Behavior,"

pp.

a

150-170.

2T w e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s w e r e b l a c k
to 9 p e r c e n t of b l a c k s l i v i n g in the city.

84

blue-collar

job,

and

one

automobile.

Figure

u s e r s ’ residential

locations.

The

users

south

particularly

to

lived

the

in t h e

river

sections

and

south

contained

side,

of M o o r e s

relatively

highest

River

12

illustrates

percentages
in a r e a s

Drive.

All

of

close

other

f e w users.

G e n e r a l A t t i t u d e s of the
O n ~ S i t e SampleT
The
their
same

users'

current
question

satisfaction
degree

general

recreation
as

in the

value

was

of r e c r e a t i o n

level

of

satisfaction with

activities
household

69.9,

was m e a s u re d

study.

indicating

satisfaction

than

by

the

The users'
a slightly

t hat

of

mean

higher

the

household

respondents.
Table
water

related

6 summarizes

responses

activities.

Swimming was

(25 p e r c e n t ) , w i t h
Canoeing

was

mentioned

Several

3 percent

questions

were

asked

River

in L a n s i n g .

A

to L a n s i n g

Lansing.
activities
ranked

activities
A

small

Fishing

portion
an d

on o t h e r

l o w as

other

of u s e r s
were

(Table

activity.

the

other

rivers

and M a p l e ) .
far

from

important

Swimming

Respondents

Grand

rivers

traveled

the m o s t

7).

respondents'

those

Gl a s s ,
ha d

respondents.

than

ha d u s e d

Looking

canoeing

rivers

a river

of the

(72 p e r c e n t ) , m o s t l y

(Red C e d a r ,

popular

(24 p e r c e n t ) .

regarding

in a r e a s

large m a j o r i t y

occasions

relatively

second

only

recreation

close

a close

favorite

the m o s t

by

river

on p r e v i o u s

fishing

concerning

again

were

asked

85

north

LANSING

LANSING ] |
TOWNSHIP j|
31.01
r

*
I

LANSING
TOWNSHIP

I |
| |

4

WEST
SIDE

PERCENT RESIDING IN TRACT

1

„..J

° - ,9%
2 - 3.9%
6 -7 .9 %

S H S I

8%+

SECTION BOUNDRIES
28 - CENSUS TRACK NUMBERS
Figure: 12 RESIDENTIAL LOCATIONS OF GRAND RIVER USERS

86

Table 6
P r e f e rr e d W a t e r Oriented A c t i v i t i e s - -On-Site
Survey Respondents

Activity

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Swimming

90

25

Fishing

85

24

Boating

50

14

Water

42

12

Relaxing

27

8

Picnicking

21

6

Walking

for p l e a s u r e

19

5

Playing

sports

10

3

10

3

354

.100

skiing

Canoeing
Total

the

areas

Responses
Waverly

with which

they were most

demonstrated

Road

the

and M o o r e s

great

River

familiar

importance

Drive

in

recreation.

C o n v e r s e l y , th e d o w n t o w n ,

River

areas were

Street

least

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

known

(Table
of the

South

familiarity
North

8).

and

Lansing,

an d r a t e d

as

river
and

least

desirable.
Table
respondents
th e m o d e s

of

an d

relaxing

was

also

9 lists

th e

participated

activities
along

transportation
were

fairly

the most

popular.

the

in w h i c h

Grand

they used
popular

Canoeing

to

the

River
get

and

indicates

there.

activities.
was

on-site

Fishing

Picnicking

only men tio ned

by

87

Table 7
Previous

River

Use--On-Site

Variable
1.

Use

of R i v e r

Rivers

Respondents

N u m b e r of
Respondents

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

124
47
2
173

72
27
1
100

12
60
17
11
27
9
16
10
40
202

6
30
8
5
13
4
8
5
20
100

72
24
38
7
7
14
16
3
3
184

39
13
21
4
4
8
9
2
2
100

Previously:

Had used another river
Had not used another river
No a n s w e r
Total
2.

Survey

Used:

G r a n d (o t h e r t h a n
Red Cedar
Maple
Thornapple
Looking Glass
Pine
Au Sable
Manistee
Other
Total
3. A c t i v i t i e s
than Grand

Lansing)

on R i v e r s (other
in L a n s i n g ) :

Fishing
R e l a x i n g (kids p l a y i n g )
Canoeing
W a l k i n g for p l e a s u r e
Swimming
Power boating
Picnicking
Water skiing
Playing sports
Total

88

Table 8
Knowledge

C o n c e r n i n g the G r a n d R i v e r - - O n - S i t e
Survey Respondents

Variable
1.

Most

Most

Desirable

Least

71
27
3
28
7
5
7
7
12
6
173

41
16
2
16
4
4
3
4
7
4
100

113
25
0
15
2
1
2
2
7
6
173

65
15
0
9
1
1
1
1
4
4
100

1
0
33
14
33
23
5
26
1
37
173

1
0
19
8
19
13
3
15
1
21
100

Area:

S o u t h W a v e r l y to M o o r e s P a r k
S o u t h W a v e r l y to O l d s p l a n t
Olds area
Moores Park area
R i v e r S t r e e t - -Point
Downtown
No rth Lansing dam
North Lansing
T u c u m s e h area
None
Total
3.

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

F a m i l ia r Area:

S o u t h W a v e r l y to M o o r e s P a r k
S o u t h W a v e r l y to O l d s p l a n t
Olds area
M o o r e s Park area
River Street--Point
Downtown
Nort h Lansing dam
North Lansing
Tu cu m se h area
None
Total
2.

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Desirable

Area:

S o u t h W a v e r l y to M o o r e s P a r k
S o u t h W a v e r l y to O l d s a r e a
Olds area
M oo r e s Park area
Rive'r S t r e e t - - P o i n t
Downtown
North Lansing dam
North Lansing
T u c u m s e h area
None
Total

89

Table 9
G e n e r a l G r a n d R i v e r A c t i v i t i e s a n d M e t h o d s of
Transport at ion- -O n- Si te Survey Respondents

Variable
M e t h o d of T r a n s p o r t a t i o n
the River:

N u m b e r of
Respondents

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

137
27
9
173

79
16
5
100

78
72
1
12
2
18
38
6
16
243

32
30
1
5
1
7
16
2
4
100

to

D r i v e to r i v e r
Walk
Bik e
Total
Activities

on

Grand

(Lansing):

Fishing
R e l a x i n g (or c h i l d r e n
Canoeing
W a l k i n g for p l e a s u r e
Swimming
Power boating
Picnicking
Water skiing
Playing sports
Total

one

respondent.

Most

Use

of

River

the

summarized
on-site

Grand

in T a b l e

playing)

users
by

10.

on-site

had

children.

children used

the

river

patterns

similar

and p i c n i c k i n g
Th e
per

occasion

were

number

to

the river

for

About

90 p e r c e n t

recreation

an d

frequent

automobile.

children

52 p e r c e n t

their parents'

th e m o s t

by

respondents'

Approximately

users

were

reached

of

their

( f i shing,

is

of the
these
activity
relaxing,

activities).

of

times

per month

and number

of G r a n d

River

recreational

use

were

of h o u r s
recorded

90

Table
C h i l d r e n ’s U s e

10

of R i v e r - - O n - S i t e

Survey Respondentsa

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Variable
C h i l d r e n Used the
for R e c r e a t i o n :

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

River

Ye s
No
Total

80
10
90

89
11
100

39
37
1
2
2
9
24
0
4
118

33
31
1
2
2
8
20
0
3
100

Activities Undertaken
by Children:
Fishing
Relaxing/playing
Canoeing
W a l k i n g fo r p l e a s u r e
Swimming
Power boating
Picnicking
Water skiing
P laying sports
Total

Ninety respondents

for

each

respondent

occasions
of

the

used

the

number

per month was

users

Moreover,

went

to

7 percent
Grand River

of h o u r s
Table

swimming

the
of

11).

four;

the

activities.

(25 p e r c e n t ) ,

The me di an

more

on-site

every day

tabulates

children.

however,

river

of u s e p e r

12

water-oriented
was

(Table

had

nearly

than

15

of the m o n t h

respondent
The most

a month.

said
The

they

average

three.

preferences
preferred

fishing

of

15 p e r c e n t

times

respondents

o c c a s i o n was

with

number

for

activity

a strong

second

91

Table 11
N u m b e r of R e c r e a t i o n O c c a s i o n s p e r M o n t h ( D u r i n g S e a s o n )
and Hours p er O c c a s i o n - - O n - S i t e S u r ve y R e sp on de nt s

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Variable
N u m b e r of O c c a s i o n s p e r
M o n t h D u r i n g the S u m m e r
S e a s o n :a
0-2

64

37

3-5

48

28

6-8

14

8

9-11

14

8

12-14

7

4

25

15

172

100

O
i
tXJ

1.

77

45

3-5

83

.49

6-8

11

7

2

1

173

100

15 +
Total
2.

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

N u m b e r of H o u r s
O c c a s i o n :b

per

9+
Total

aM e a n

= 7; m e d i a n

^Mean

= 2.8.

= 4.

92

Table '12
P r e f e r r e d Water R e c r e a t i o n A c t i v i t i e s and P r e f e rr e d
A c t i v i t i e s N o t U n d e r t a k e n on G r a n d R i v e r a n d R e a s o n s
for N o n - U s e - - O n - S i t e S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s

Variable

N u m b e r of
Respondents

P e r c e n t of
Respondents

85
27
10
19
90
50
21
42
10
354

24
8
3
5
25
14
6
7
3
100

19
2
7
7
85
26
1
34
3
184

10
1
4
4
46
4
1
18
2
100

104
18
1
21
17
8
3
9
181

58
10
1
12
9
4
2
5
100

Preferred Activity:
Fishing
R e l a x i n g (kids p l a y i n g )
Canoeing
W a l k i n g for p l e a s u r e
Swimming
Power boating
Picnicking
Water skiing
P la ying sports
Total
Preferred Water Recreation
A c t i v i t i e s Not U n d e r t a k e n
on G r a n d Ri v e r :
Fishing
R e l a x i n g (kids p l a y i n g )
Canoeing
W a l k i n g for p l e a s u r e
Swimming
Power boating
Picnicking
Water skiing
P la ying sports
Total
Reasons Why River Not Used
fo r P r e f e r r e d A c t i v i t i e s :
Pollution
Not suitable (logistics)
Distance
No equi pm en t
No f ac ilities
No chance
No d esire
No need
Total

93

(24 p e r c e n t ) .
mentions

(3 p e r c e n t
The

were

Canoeing

di d not
shown

take

survey

oriented

part

playing

sports

h ad

in

respondents

activities

along

the

were

th a t

riv er .

asked

Swimming

a highly

preferred

activity

participate

in a l o n g

the

river

(see T a b l e

12).

highly

preferred,

was

which

considered

was

also

to be

a desirable

Grand

Finally,

respondents

were

attitudes

concerning

La n s i n g .

Of

felt

their

th a t

desirable,
perceive
had

no

the

30

the

on-site

friends

River

use

that

The

multidimensional

the p e r c e p t u a l

to

all

the

the

concepts

similarity,
The
hold

distances

respondents.

investigate

among

di d not

Fishing,
generally

the

and

their
Grand

107

River

in

(62 p e r c e n t )

river

to be

friends
36

f r ie nd s'

would

(21 p e r c e n t )

opinion.

R e s u l t s of the M e a n
Matrix--Household

for

the

their

to be u n d e s i r a b l e ,

but

a g a i n was

people

about

respondents,

felt

if t h e r e

activity.

of

would perceive

(17 p e r c e n t )

th a t

asked

recreational

total

river

fe we s t

they preferred

to be

however,

the

each).

on-site

any water

and

sample

perceived
(i.e.,

greater
mean

shows

the

algorithm measures

original

15

distance matrix
dissimilarity

smaller

distances

distance

( N = 314)

scaling

among

A mean

Distance
Survey

distances

indicate

less

matrix

(Tab le

th a t

concepts

13)

concepts

is c o m p u t e d

(or

similarity)

indicate

more

similarity).
for

the

perceived

house­
as mo s t

Table

13

M e a n D i s t a n c e M a t r i x f o r 15 S a l i e n t U r b a n R i v e r R e c r e a t i o n C o n c e p t s - - H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y R e s p o n d e n t s

Concepts

1. G r a n d R i v e r

Grand
River

Me

Females

Males

Children

Picnicking

Fishing

Swimming

Industry

Nature

Relaxing

Bicycling

Danger

Clean
Water

0.00

2. M e

77.53

0.00

3. F e m a l e s

80.81

27 . 7 8

0.00

4. M a l e s

65.28

31 . 3 8

50 . 7 2

0.00

5. C h i l d r e n

59.60

27.53

31.19

42.23

0.00

6.

56.73

37 . 7 8

34 . 6 4

52 . 4 8

24.71

0.00

64 . 2 8

62.45

76 . 0 8

28.96

36 . 6 8

36.80

123.31

61.01

46.16

34.39

26 . 6 5

31.58

48 . 9 4

0.00

41 . 7 2

80 . 9 5

73 . 3 8

35 . 4 8

113.44

119.37

115.68

127.34

0.00

10. N a t u r e

54 . 5 8

29 . 4 6

41 . 3 8

37 . 1 7

30 . 2 8

24.37

29.38

32 . 5 3

116.88

0. 0 0

11. R e l a x i n g

56.70

30.70

35.39

32 . 3 2

38.05

20.82

26.93

26.54

127.01

24.94

0.00

12.

70.18

63.55

44.29

46 . 5 4

22.00

34.27

64 . 8 5

53.94

12 0 . 5 0

26.64

32.47

0.00

62.65

94.55

53.57

59.02

54.21

92.35

68 . 0 7

58 . 0 8

57 . 0 2

77.08

107.24

70.50

0.00

126.96

38.47

35 . 0 9

37.62

44.69

31 . 8 5

43.46

27 . 2 9

112.67

37.74

44.48

83.21

90.40

0.00

62.20

76.62

60 . 2 5

34.21

60 . 7 2

50.79

64.40

74.93

99 . 7 2

56.16

52.68

109.91

61.99

62 . 1 1

Picnicking

Power
Boating

CO
-F*

7. F i s h i n g
8. S w i m m i n g
9.

Industry

Bicycling

13. D a n g e r
14. C l e a n w a t e r
IS.

Power boating

0. 0 0

0.00

95

similar
nature

to

the

(54.58

picnicking
units
the

river
units

include
apart),

(56.73 u n i t s

apart).

The

respondents

relaxing

ap ar t ) ,

concepts

themselves

a pa r t ) ,

females

(29.46

units

ap ar t ) ,

and

(94.55
power

units

to

the

apart),

boating

(76.62

(56.70

an d p o w e r

(i.e.,

units

dissimilar

(27.78

units

(62.20

similar

include

(30.70 u n i t s

to

children

apart),

"me,"

apart),
ap a r t ),

boating

units

self-concept,

industry

units

as m o s t

"me")

relaxing

units

(41.72

perceived

(27.53

Most

industry

nature

apart) .

are d a n g e r

(80.95 u n i t s

apart),

and

apart ).

M e a n D i s t a n c e M a t r i c e s by
Residential Location
In o r d e r
location,

th e

(1)

side

south

to

household

the

of

in o t h e r

sections

city

Township)

of

(a v e r a g e

than

side

indicated
average,

th a t
49.56

(Table
the

space.

placed

two

away

Similarly,

the d i f f e r e n c e s

perceptual

distances

were

from

east,

as

the

as

follows

wa s ,

on

of
the

subgroups'

(units

living
and

apart)
responses
on

of " d a n g e r "

sections

the

other

being more

residents'

apart,

gr ou p s ,

north,

farther

concept

units

all

those

a concept

of o t h e r

two

we st ,

concepts

side

between
as

of

Generally,

South

73.45

residents

8.5 u n i t s

River"

to r e s i d e n t i a l

into

15

of

due

divided

(i.e.,

the

Residents

concepts

(2)

city

"Grand

w as

14).

distance

units

perceptual
the

and

residents.
the

differences

sample

perceived

dissimilar
south

for

residents,

sections

Lansing

te st

the

the
in
city

average.
average

in p a r e n t h e s e s

Table

14

A r i t h m e t i c D i f f e r e n c e s B e t w e e n t h e M e a n D i s t a n c e M a t r i c e s fo r N o n - S o u t h S i d e R e s i d e n t s and
S o u t h S i d e R e s i d e n t s fo r 15 U r b a n R e c r e a t i o n C o n c e p t s - - H o u s e h o l d S u r v e y R e s i d e n t s 3

Grand
Ri v e r

Concepts

1. G r a n d R i v e r

Me

Females

Males

Children

Picnicking

Fishing

Swimming

Industry

Nature

17 . 4 9

0.00

3.

11.12

7.05

0.00

18.83

14.05

5.39

1.84

15.55

0.62

2.82

0.00

17.72

4.98

7.03

0.71

15.89

0.00

7. F i s h i n g

1.07

1.12

-2.82

11 . 8 3

12 . 1 0

8.05

0.00

8. S w i m m i n g

6.56

8.20

4.53

5. 9 5

8.41

8.07

10.52

0.00

9.

5.92

9. 6 3

-6 . 0 9

4.11

-6.75

9.61

14.86

18.15

0.00

-1.04

6.90

7.63

6.67

10.82

12.54

15.58

17.33

13.90

0.00

4. M a l e s
5. C h i l d r e n
6. P i c n i c k i n g

Industry

10. N a t u r e

Bicycling

Danger

Cl e a n
Water

0.00

11.

Relaxing

6.56

5.81

9.58

11.17

0. 4 4

9.96

11.48

8.64

8.30

11.98

12.

Bicycling

7.24

4. 9 4

9.75

12.03

3. 4 4

5.66

19.18

18.63

14.87

9.76

8.56

0.00

13. D a n g e T

23.89

6. 0 5

-11.79

-5 . 2 4

0. 0 4

22.23

7.24

7.03

16.01

-9.64

18 . 1 6

17.88

0.00

14. C l e a n w a t e r

-1.55

9.32

10.36

6.63

4. 0 8

4.51

-35.40

7.10

32.83

17.41

20.34

17.08

17.00

0.00

15.

14.14

6. 5 2

2.06

7.86

8.41

1.68

11.07

11.41

9.41

12.27

5.64

4.21

16.69

15.62

Power boating

^ean

Power
Boat i n g

0.00

2. Me
Females

Relaxing

D i f f e r e n c e = 8.48.

0.00

0.00

97

ar e

the differences

residents
included

average
the

residents

non-south

distances).

"Grand

24 u n i t s

"children"

between

River"

a nd

farther

(non-south

Most

side

different

"Danger"

residents

River"

and

"picnicking"

a p a r t ) , "Grand

River"

and

"m e"

South

si de

concepts

residents

closer

to

generally

"danger"

"females,"

"children,"

idents

fishing

s aw

water.

Additional

are p r e s e n t e d

variance
tors.

loadings
an d

The
by

for

The

Positive
tional

the

for

"nature").

of

less

a nd n e g a t i v e

res­

on c l e a n
scaling

were

"Grand

and n e g a t i v e
(-35.10)

loadings
the

space

were

can best

by

be

total

these

fac­

with high positive
River"

loadings

and

ana­

algorithm

of the

explained

bipolar

factor

scaling

90 p e r c e n t

(89.75) ,

among

side

dependent

multidimensional

"clean water"

(excep t

the

concepts

(40 .78),

given

G.

dimension was

relationships

the

d i s s i m i l a r i t y m a t r i x w as

"industry"

apart).

the m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l

dimensions;

15

farther

Non-south

common multidimensional

fo ur

first

"danger"

(- 40 .78 ),

for

the m e t r i c

15).

summarized

Space

original

lyzed using
(Table

results

farther

to " c l e a n w a t e r "

considerably

in A p p e n d i x

Multidimensional
Household Survey
The

as

and

of

side

and

farther

rated most

and

River"

(18 u n i t s

(18 u n i t s

side

perceptions

19 u n i t s

a p a r t ) , "Grand

south

(non-south

a p a r t ) , "Grand

side

and

(52.44)

for

"relaxing"
indicative

variables,

n ot

"swimming"
(-32.81).
of d i r e c ­

of p o s i t i v e

Table
Spatial

15

Coordinate Matrix--Household

Survey Respondents

Urbanized
River

Enhanced
Urban River
Recreation

Grand River

52.44

53.68

-9.35

-5.30

Me

-5. 02

-4. 49

-12.7 9

38 .20

2.34

-16.22

9.68

19. 25

14.47

14.47

-1 4. 70

-5.76

Children

-1 5. 7 3

8.40

14. 25

-6.68

Picnicking

-2 6.18

16.6 0

-10. 10

1.82

Fishing

-15 .9 3

10. 56

-7.31

-23.36

Swimming

-4 0. 8 9

-28.13

20.43

-11.98

Industry

89. 75

-22.28

-2. 63

21.76

Nature

-20.97

14. 99

-1.13

-2.13

Relaxing

-32.81

22.83

-18. 40

8.67

Bicycling

-17 .8 9

29.14

4 3 .1 6

15.05

4 0. 78

-19 .0 4

36 .10

-34.03

-3 5. 1 0

-48.68

-1 4. 9 0

-7.48

10 .7 6

-9. 65

-40.13

-34.51

421

20%

Concepts

Females
Males

Danger
Clean water
Power

boating

Percent

explanation

Recreation
Danger

15%

Non-Urban
River Oriented
Recreation

13%

99

or n e g a t i v e

attitudes

Dimension

I,

in the

concepts.

15

accounted

dimension because
are

indicative

versely,

by

This

factor,
total

for

42 p e r c e n t

of the

is

considered

an " u r b a n i z e d

It

the

concepts

with high positive

of u r b a n i z e d / i n d u s t r i a l i z e d

concepts

curtailed

of respondents.

with

high negative

the p r e s e n c e

variation

loadings

ri ve r s ;

loadings

are

river"

con­
severely

of h i g h l y u r b a n i z e d / i n d u s t r i a l i z e d

areas.
The
20 p e r c e n t
positive
in g,"

urban

of

dimension,
data
for

"industry."

recreation"

to be

the

loadings

were

critical
were

related

and

while

concepts,

of the

"clean water"

dimension

is

labeled

to d i f f e r e n t i a t e

dangerous

from those

is

high
"relax­

for

"clean

labeled

"enhanced

environmental

setting

Concepts

high

to the

with

environmental
with

qual­

hi g h n e g a t i v e

qu a l i t y .

"bicycling,"

positive

total

the

ha d

loadings

concepts

to w a t e r

factor

It

fa cto r.

related

lan ds ,

ming," were strongly
15 p e r c e n t

because

explained

"bicycling,"

a nd

Three

be

River,"

"swimming,"

loadings

appears

"Grand

This

high negative

ity of r i p a r i a n

T he

variance.

bipolar,

a nd

positive

ing ,"

also

"nature,"

river

appears

the

loadings

and

water,"

second

"danger,"

on D i m e n s i o n

variance.

"Power

loaded negatively
"recreation
concepts
considered

"swim­

III, w hi ch e x p l a i n s
boating,"
on th i s

danger"

tha t

a nd

"relax­

dimension.

because

it

are p e r c e i v e d

to

to be

safe.

100

The
fo r

f i na l ,

13 p e r c e n t

loaded
try,"

"females,"

concepts,

t he

total

were

of

river
and

"power

"fishing,"

boating,"

oriented

This

recreation.”
which

as was

and

therefore,

in r i v e r

("me"), "indus­

oriented

"industry,"
IV,

that

loaded negatively.

strongly negative,

Dimension

interest

while

an d " s w i m m i n g "

accounted

The v a riables

self-concept

"bicycling,"

self-concept,

positively.

the

boating,"

dimension

variance.

"non-urban

"power

on w a t e r ,

a lack

and

named

significant,

include

"fishing,"

f a c t o r was

while

the

positively

"danger,"

dent

of

least

are

depen­

"danger,"

"females"

m a y be

Two

loaded

identifying

recreational

activities.

Multidimensional Space
Residential Location
In o r d e r
location

on

to

by

te s t

the p o s s i b l e

river perceptions,

divided

into

two

side).

Each

g r o u p ’s o r i g i n a l

factor

analyzed using

algorithm.
the
by

15
fou r

nificant

factors

for

metric

south

(Tab le

"urbanized

factor

somewhat

(i.e.,

Approximately

concepts

The

was

groups

for

household

south

side

of

residential

p o p u l a t i o n was

and n o n - s o u t h

d i s s i m i l a r i t y m a t r i x w as
multidimensional

88 p e r c e n t
si de

of

residents

scaling

the v a r i a n c e
was

in

explained

16).
river"

extracted;

less

the

effects

the

d i m e n s i o n was

however,
south

si de

its

the m o s t

relative

residence

sig­

importance

group

tha n

Table 16
Spatial

Coordinate Matrix

for

South

Side

Residents--Household

Survey

Respondents

Urbanized
River

Enhanced
Urban River
Recreation

53. 91

49.71

16. 58

-3.55

Me

-3.74

-6.50

0. 53

-39 .4 4

Females

-1.48

-10.32

-15.37

-17.14

Males

13.87

-13.61

1.55

-8.37

Children

-21. 04

14.41

-4.72

9.13

Picnicking

-22 .8 4

16. 51

9. 78

-5.86

Fishing

-15 .7 8

6.46

13. 85

17.85

Swimming

-3 9 . 2 0

-21.24

-19.66

1 7. 89

Industry

84. 04

-28 .9 5

-10.95

-15.53

Nature

-19 .0 8

9. 80

2.98

2.47

Relaxing

-3 1 . 0 0

17.36

16.86

-15.73

Bicylcling

-15.67

34. 51

-41.31

-2.81

37.61

-6.17

-22.31

43. 29

-3 0. 80

-48.72

6.18

-5.61

11. 25

-13.25

46.01

21.44

14%

13%

Concepts
Grand

River

Danger
Clean water
Power

boating

Percent

explanation

40%

21%

Urban
River
Danger

Non-Urban
River Oriented
Recreation

102

for

the

percent

entire

population

of

total

"enhanced

the
river

population,
percent

and w a s

recreation,"

although

Th e

third most

more

the

positive
ing,"

and

(i.e.,
and

high

negative

lation

side

as

final

"power
from

for

the

entire

(i.e.,

loadings

on

extracted

south

21

side

"Grand

to be

thus

(i.e.,

River,"

dangerous

is

residents

activities

"fish­

activities

"bicycling,"

dimension

explained

It a p p e a r e d

river

the m o r e

from

appeared

as

recreation"

sub-group,

"danger,"

labeled

rivers

side

residents

dimensional
explain

space

as

for

the

is

dimension.

"urban

c a n be

90 p e r c e n t

a whole

entire

the

popu­
a "nonfo r

somewhat

th i s

more

south

dimen­

associated

population.

in T a b l e

total

as

Thus,

since

dangers

summarized
of

the

III w a s

scaling m atrix

shown

of

characterized

characterizing

than

case

only Dimension

the p o p u l a t i o n
to be

in the

to be

The multidimensional

that

factor

boating,"

appeared

oriented

residence

with urban

south

to

important

i n te r p r e t .

dimension,

a whole,

river

different
si o n

dimension,

danger."
The

urban

to

This

40

explained).

acceptable

"relaxing")

"swimming").

river

on

explained

second

similar

total v a r i a t i o n

safe,

loadings

was

important

difficult

differentiating

The

slightly more

the v a r i a n c e

of

it o n l y

variance).

of

14 p e r c e n t

(i.e.,

by

for

the

non­

17.

The m u l t i ­

four

dimensions

variance

in the

Table 17
S p a t i a l C o o r d i n a t e M a t r i x for N o n - S o u t h Side
Residents--Household Survey Respondents

Urbanized
River

Enhanced
Urban River
Recreation

50. 67

56.48

1.26

-9.69

-6.13

-1.13

-16. 00

37.41

5. 35

-19.93

4. 56

20. 07

14.95

-14.83

-10.51

3.92

Children

-1 1 .4 5

2.15

18. 30

-3.82

Picnicking

-29 .0 8

17.10

-10.08

2.11

Fishing

-1 5 . 3 6

12.35

-1.67

-28.03

Swimming

-42 .0 3

-34 .6 1

15.12

-10.75

Industry

94 .7 9

-14.11

-10.01

23.61

Nature

-22. 31

19. 40

2.78

-2.15

Relaxing

-34. 02

27. 56

-14.47

5.34

Bicycling

-19.88

21. 87

46. 33

18.48

43. 59

-3 2. 2 0

35. 54

-29. 70

-39. 24

-34.53

-20.44

9.72

10.17

-4. 59

-40.70

-36.51

43%

20%

Concepts
Grand

River

Me
Females
Males

Clean water
Power

boating

Percent

explanation

14%

Non-Urban
River Oriented
Recreation

13%

103

Danger

Recreation
Danger

104

15

concepts.

this
of

Again,

sub-group

the

total

comparable

the m o s t

is th e

"urbanized

variation).

to t h e

important
river"

Dimensions

entire

dimension

respondent

factor

II,

III,

for

'

(43 p e r c e n t
and

IV are

population.

R e s u l t s of M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l
Scaling--On-Site Survey
Each

on-site

paired

concept

entire

sample

Mean Distance
Survey

distance
similar
were

matrix

presented

units
(20 .2 2

Most
and

105

study.

The

(N = 173).

units

Again,

close

all

apart),

apart),

and
were

included

(64.29 u n i t s

concepts,

the

units

"clean water"
units

apart),

and

a p ar t) .
(16.78
"nature"

"danger"

apart),

"relaxing"

river

(35.81

"children"

"swimming"

except

most

"industry"

(106.92

dissimilar were

and

to

"nature"

(17.78 u n i t s

an d

the m e a n

Concepts

space)

apart),

"swimming"

Most

"nature"

other

18.

dissimilar

to "me"

"industry"

apart).
to

same

data produced

in T a b l e

units

"relaxing"
a p ar t) .

apart),
(57.01

apart)
concepts

units

sample

(35.83 u n i t s

ap a r t ) .

apart),

the

household

survey

in p e r c e p t i o n

(29.52

"fishing"

similar

given

in the

the M D S

of u s e r

units

as

was

Matrix--On-Site

"relaxing"

(110.83

ing"

completed

Analysis

(37 .1 0 u n i t s

units

comparisons

(i.e. , c l o s e r

apart),

Most

respondent

(80.10

"power

boat­

(51.56 u n i t s
were

relatively

"industry"

and

"danger."

T a b l e 18
Mean Distance Matrix--On-Site Survey Respondents

Grand
Concepts

1. G r a n d R i v e r

River

Me

Females

Males

Children

Picnicking

Fishing

Swinging

Industry

Nature

Relaxing

Bicycling

Danger

Clean
Water

0.00

2. M e

41.74

0.00

3. F e m a l e s

72.92

22 . 4 5

0.00

4. M a l e s

48 . 7 2

22 . 9 9

47.88

0.00

5. C h i l d r e n

47.23

16.78

23 . 8 8

31.55

0.00

6. P i c n i c k i n g

43 . 7 5

27 . 7 5

23.76

39 . 7 8

15 . 9 6

0.00

7. F i s h i n g

35.83

36 . 3 8

53 . 9 5

21 . 7 3

24.83

31.19

0.00

1.56

33 . 9 7

27 . 1 3

19.71

26.65

46.15

0.00

37.

64.29

61 . 4 2

29 . 2 2

98.51

101.26

87 . 8 4

100.54

0.00

10. N a t u r e

35.81

20 . 2 2

32.61

23.75

23.87

17.10

18.31

25.92

101.27

0.00

11.

Relaxing

29.52

17.78

32.20

24.41

36.46

19.15

21.88

19.51

10 8 . 8 0

24.11

0.00

12.

Bicycling

55.09

47 . 3 2

36.81

35 . 7 2

20 . 3 8

37 . 9 8

69 . 3 2

53 . 6 8

99 . 1 7

21.87

40.74

0.00

45.92

80.10

58 . 1 3

50.17

52 . 6 7

67.81

60 . 9 7

43.02

48.93

60.30

89 . 8 6

53.22

0.00

110.83

32.04

31 . 2 9

20.49

39 . 1 0

30 . 6 5

35.76

24 . 7 4

90 . 0 2

23.58

36 . 1 0

79.81

78 . 7 9

0.00

46 . 7 4

57.01

52.58

28.21

46.59

43.48

47 . 7 4

56.08

87 . 6 4

48.50

48 . 6 8

96. 1 7

52 . 3 9

60 . 5 4

8. S w i m m i n g
9.

Industry

13. D a n g e r
14. C l e a n w a t e r
15.

Power boating

Po w e r
Boating

106

0.00

106

Multidimensional
On-Site Survey
The
using

original

the m e t r i c

provides
sional
best

percent

(Table

similar

sion

I

to

(urban

in th e

survey

riv er )

scaling

analyzed

algorithm which

dimensions

in m u l t i d i m e n ­

fo u r

dimensions

in the

patterns
found
was

can

explained

91

15 c o n c e pt s.

and

dimensions

in the

slightly
of

that

space

the

extracted were

household
less

study.

important

t ot al

variance)

(43 p e r c e n t

explanation).

river

recreation)

was

(22 p e r c e n t )

tha n

Dimen­

in the

survey

for u s e r s

population

was

The multidimensional

(39 p e r c e n t

(enhanced

important

by

those

household

II

19).

loading

very

on-site

orthogonal

the v a r i a n c e

The

the

dissimilarity matrix

on

summarized
of

for

multidimensional

loadings

space

be

sion

Space

than
Dimen­

slightly more

the

general

(20 p e r c e n t ) .

C o m p a r i s o n s B e t w e e n H o u s e h o l d and
On-Site Surveys Distance M a t r i c e s
A
on-site

sample

Household
10.26

comparison

farther

respondents.

are

distance

th e

matrices

respondents' average

units

perceptual

between

The

apart

for

difference

distances

the

differences

average

distances).

were

as

between
Most

household
is

shown

perceptual
all

sample
in T a b l e

than

between

the

follows

(units

different

and

the

20.

distances

concepts

household

an d

were

on-site

subgroups'

average

in p a r e n t h e s e s

on-site

perceptions

residents'

included

the

Table
Spatial

Coordinate

19

Matrix--On-Site

Survey Respondents

Urbanized
River

Enhanced
Urban River
Recreation

Recreation
Danger

Non-Urban
River Oriented
Recreation

45.33

45.40

-10. 60

2.77

Me

-1. 59

4.48

-9. 54

-29. 26

Females

-4.39

-14.11

10.95

-14.77

Males

11. 28

-11. 74

-4.17

-6.46

Children

-16 .05

9.38

8.47

8.17

Picnicking

-20 .96

12.75

-1.32

1.99

-6.15

6. 92

-20. 26

7 . 26

Swimming

-33.34

-27.20

14. 82

14.54

Industry

72 .1 9

-28.34

-0. 24

-20.08

Nature

-18.57

13. 91

1.79

3.87

Relaxing

-26.93

22.07

-14.35

-9.32

Bicycling

-7. 53

24. 75

45. 28

-9.33

Danger

33.17

-15.13

25.86

34. 21

-32.51

-36. 85

-12.17

-13. 06

6. 07

-6.30

-34.51

29.47

Concepts
Grand

River

Fishing

Clean water
Power

boating

Percent

explanation

39%

22%

16%

13%

T a b le 20
Arithmetic Differences Between the Mean Distance Matrices for the Household and On-Site Surveys

Concepts8

1. G r a n d R i v e r
2. Me

Grand
River

Me

Females

Males

Picnicking

Fishing

Swimming

Industry

Nature

Relaxing

Bicycling

Danger

Clean
Water

0.00

7.89

5.33

0. 0 0

4. M a l e s

15.56

8.39

2.84

0.00

r

t1

6n

1.31

in . 68

T"»

14

0. 0 0

6.

Picnicking

12.98

10.03

10.88

12.70

8.75

7.

Fishing

28.45

26.47

22.13

7.23

11.85

5.61

0. 0 0

16.39

9.45

12.19

7. 2 6

6.94

4. 9 3

2.79

0. 0 0

4. 6 2

16.66

11.96

6.26

14.73

18.11

27.84

26.80

0. 0 0

10. N a t u r e

18.77

9.24

8.77

13.42

6.41

7.27

11.07

6.61

15.61

11.

Relaxing

27 . 1 8

12.92

3.19

7.91

1.58

1.67

5.05

7.03

18.21

0.83

0.00

12.

Bicycling

15.09

16.23

7.48

10.82

1.62

-3.71

-4.47

0. 2 6

21.33

4.77

-8.27

0.00

13. D a n g e r

16.73

14.45

-4 . 5 6

8.85

1.54

24.54

7.10

15.06

8.09

16.78

17.38

17.28

0.00

14. C l e a n w a t e r

16.13

6. 4 3

3. 8 0

17.13

5.59

1.00

7.70

2.55

22.65

14.16

8.38

3.40

11.61

0.00

15.

15.46

19.61

7.67

6.00

14.31

7.31

16.66

18.85

12.08

7 . 66

4.00

13.74

9.60

1.57

9.

I n d ustr y

Power boating

a A v e r a g e d i f f e r e n c e = 10.26.

0.00

108

8. S w i m m i n g

Power
Boating

0. 0 0
35 . 7 9

3. Fema l e s

Children

0 . 00

0.00

109

"Grand

River"

farther

"fishing"

a p a r t ) , "Grand

residents

27.18

"industry"
"fishing"
apart),
units

and

units

"me"

(household

an d

residents

residents

residents

"clean

22.65

units

units

28.45 units

(household

"Grand

26 .80

and "fishing"

a p a r t ) , and

residents

"relaxing"

apart),

(household

"industry"

farther

River"
farther

(household
and

(household

River"

and

farther

26.47

apart),

units

farther

(household

residents

water"

"industry"

and

farther

27.84

apart).

U n i d i m e n s i o n a l R e s p o n s e for B o t h
H o u s e h o l d and O n - S i t e S u r v e y s
Unidimensional
survey

groups

concepts
scaling
ties

on n i n e t e e n

were

not

between users

in p e r c e p t i o n s

rap es ,

with

users

t h a n d id

suitable
d id

the

for

section
tha t

nineteen

sid e

drug
these

as m o r e

sp or t s ,

were

use,

concepts
The

and w a l k i n g

variables

dispari­

observed
prevalence

edible
more

fish,

with

household

the

popu­

danger,

more

for p l e a s u r e

than

al s o

I).

associated

These

H).

were

(see A p p e n d i x

and

of a f l o o d

(see A p p e n d i x

residents

greatest

responses

both

multidimensional

accessibility,

and

for

concepts.

the

respondents.

river

sample

of r e s i d e n c e

south

river

associating

the

solicited

the m e t r i c

household

alcohol

playing

on-site
These

an d

household

lation perceived

in

these measures

concerning

of m u g g i n g s ,

river

of

were

river-related

considered

algorithm,

on-site

responses

the

compared

Results

by

city

indicate

river more

with

110

older

people,

playing

rape,

alcohol

and d r u g s ,

sibility;

while

sports,

lo v e r s '

non-south

association between

the

water

side

river

skiing,

lane,

and

residents
and

prostitution,
greater

acces­

perceived

canoeing

and

greater

edible

fish.

Summary
In s u m m a t i o n ,
between

r i v e r use rs '

Differences

were

attitudes,

and

use

Grand

of the

also

surveys

tions.

of

the

Results,

greatest

locations,

shown

questions

for

both

responses

examined

river.

proportion
dents

river

side

of u s e r s

indicating

comprised

response

for

for

perception,
the

or

its

the

recreational

of

indicated

south

lands

si d e

least

respondents

use.

69 p e r c e n t

had never

of

the

activity participation.

the

areas

south

side

(60 p e r c e n t )

once;

total

however,
used

the

south

Picnicking,
of

for

sec­

residents.

constituted

70 p e r c e n t

and p e r ­

these

th at

respondents

at

knowledge

river

recreation

(40 p e r c e n t )

with

of

desirability were

among

previous

relaxing

parts

of h o u s e h o l d

proportion

South

toward

lo c a t i o n .

respondents'

surveys,

and

particularly

substantial

residence

in r e s p o n d e n t s '

desirability

familiarity

the

differences

River.

The majority
h ad u s e d

revealed

non-users'

familiarity with different

ceptions

of

and

behavioral

Several
an d

both

a

the

largest

si de

respon­

fishing,
household

and

Ill

The

highest

percentage

lived

in c e n s u s

south

si d e

(i.e.,

tracts

north

si d e

(tra ct

33.02).

relatively
fishing,

the

and

mean

showed

river

for

both

which
been

th a t

include

explain
labeled

recreation,"
oriented

As

over

23,

in the

be

90 p e r c e n t

"recreation

recreation."

user

activity.

the MDS,

were

for b o t h

as m o s t

similar

"relaxing,"

"clean water"

summarized
of

river,"

by

fo u r

the v a r i a n c e ;
"enhanced

danger,"

an d

the

t hr ee

common multidimensional

can best

"urbanized

for

on

contained

top

"nature,"

dissimilar

the

total

the

survey ,

the

perceived

"industry,"

and

sections

were
of

along

24)

household

matrices

concepts

respondents

river
and

other

78 p e r c e n t

Most

Finally,

surveys,

20,

All

distance

"picnicking."

"swimming."

17,

on the

and p i c n i c k i n g

comprising

The

to

fronting

f e w u s er s .

relaxing,

activities

surveys,

tract

of o n - s i t e

space,
dimensions

these

urban

"non-urban

and

have

river
river

CHAPTER V
THE

PERCEPTIONS
REGARDING

OP
THE

OF T HE

This
and

chapter

behavioral

recreational
tical

techniques,

coefficients,
are

compared

locations

of

are

and

Grand

users

part

The

the

perceptions,
area

River.

attitudes,

residents

to

Non-parametric

CX2) an ^ Kendal

to a n a l y z e

hypotheses

sample

concerning

tau

statis­

correlation

responses.
the

the

Results

residential

and n o n - u s e r s .

of this

the M D S m o d e l

and m a n a g e m e n t .
matrix

used

river
last

the

RIVER

Lansing

chi-square

with

of

The
tance

of

GRAND

of

RESIDENTS

RECREATIONAL USE

analyzes

responses

u se

LANSING AREA

chapter

for u r b a n

river

significances

interpretation

concerns

the

impor­

recreation planning

of the M D S m e a n

of p e r c e p t u a l

distance

dimensions

are

discussed.

Discussion
Study
a viable

recreational

alternative
the

Grand

money

results

site

River

savings

sugrest
are:

for m o r e
as

an

of R e s u l t s
th at

within
distant

alternative

for u s e r s .

the
the

city

River

and

locations.
sit e

In a d d i t i o n ,

112

Grand

results
the

offers

acts
The

as

use

in t i m e

recreation

an
of
and
impact

113

on

rural

rivers

environments.
were
of

not

the

Grand

is

reduced,

However,

utilizing

household
River

recreation).
distributed
non-south

indicated

north

45 p e r c e n t

the

of

Lansing

relationship

between

variables

for

the

past
of

the

use

of

the

related

to

respondents'

river

south
tion

that

most

recreational
suggests

south

sections

land-uses

users,

and

desirable

and

the
si d e
of
good

considered
river

to

respondents,

River.

environments.

A review

areas

and

river

sections
toward
of

the

familiar

compatible

appearance

same

the

the

were

use

Significant

attitudes

having

shows

statistically

between

who

40

selected

th at

is

prefer,

Grand

residents

and

lo ca ti on .

existed

21

of

(x 2 ) s t a t i s t i c

sh ow s

recreation

side

and

Table

River

It

in

48 p e r c e n t

chi-square

most

visual

equitably

south

Grand

river

not

of

fri en ds '

these

were

for

70 p e r c e n t

and

the

Lansing,

reside

residential
al so

any

to

study.
for

(40 p e r c e n t

tended

side

the

respondents

of

of

compared

of the

River

familiar,

use

th a t

sid e

by

relationships

environments
the

Grand

City

natural

the p o p u l a t i o n

never used

respondents).

household

non-use

statistical

use
east

measured

had

residents

(i.e.,

of

resource

c i t y but

Township

recreational

the

these

locations

respondents

percent

within

to p r e s e r v e

segments

population

Moreover,

si de

helping

alternative

sample

throughout

side,

certain

this

locations,

thus

tended

to be

A relationship

of
the

data
with

recrea­

to be

the m o s t
als o

existed

Table 21
C h i - S q u a r e M a t r i x for the R e c r e a t i o n a l U s e of the G r a n d R i v e r
Selected Variables--Household Survey Respondents

Variable

1 . L e v e l of r e c r e a t i o n s a t i s f a c t i o n

21. 95
17.87
95. 08
40. 86
83. 55
64. 90
11.54
20.46
33. 97
36 .15
9.11
12.36
17.96
6. 08
17.27
3.63
1.45
16.78
50.40

Significance
No
. 001
. 001
No
. 001
. 001
No
. 001
. 001
.001
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
. 001

Le ve l

114

2. C i t y s e c t i o n of r e s i d e n c e
3. C e n s u s t r a ct of r e s i d e n c e
4. Y e a r s at c u r r e n t a d d r e s s
5. R i v e r e n v i r o n m e n t m o s t f a m i l i a r
6. R i v e r e n v i r o n m e n t m o s t p r e f e r r e d
7. R i v e r e n v i r o n m e n t lease p r e f e r r e d
8. U se of o t h e r r i v e r p r e v i o u s l y
9. M o s t p r e f e r r e d w a t e r a c t i v i t i e s
10. F r i e n d s a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d the r i v e r
11. O c c u p a t i o n
12. A g e level
13. Inc om e level
14. E d u c a t i o n level
15. M a r i t a l stat us
16. Rac e
17. Sex
18. R e s p o n d e n t ' s n u m b e r of c h i l d r e n
19. C h i l d r e n ' s use of the r i v e r

X2

and

115

between

recreational

respondents

This

recreation

ipate

in G r a n d R i v e r

river

as

the

teneded

river

recreation

respondents

an d

with

inclined

th a t

the

opportunity

to

household

north

other

to p a r t i c ­

Grand

for m o r e

this
River

low p e r c e n t a g e s
limited

of u s e r s ,

River may
distant

of

which provided

the

provide

a view

of

raphy.

In a d d i t i o n ,

image

of

the m a n y

position

of

visibility

th e

side

particularly
Grand

River

sections

of

trend was
Park.

observed

A possible

residing

Grand

River

access

because

the p a r k
as

a public

residences

the

with

the p a r k was

the

in the

oriented
river.
Township

si g n w a s

and
Club.

in the

the
the

Street,

did
and

not
topog­

obscured.

further

area
Bo a t

be

Main

the p a r k ,

reflected

for

area m a y

park was

Lansing

also

or

of a l i g n m e n t

entrance

south

recreationists

the

West

the

the

explanation

Park.
to

h ad

in L a n s i n g

in this

road

of

in a r e a s

appealing

riparian

of

south

to,

th e p a r k

park

sections

adjacent

only

area

The

in p e r c e n t a g e

located

of u s e r s

visibility

different

Generally

in a r e a s

to

variations

survey.

physically

of G r a n d

within

Drive .

liv e

exception

spatial

residing

River

toward more

by

in o t h e r

activities

shows

percentages

of M o o r e s

The

and w h e t h e r

were more

intervening

11

users

fo r

highest

An

River

locations.

river

city

Grand

that

experiences

an

Figure
of

the

suggests

river

serving

of

had p a r t i c i p a t e d

experiences.

be

use

impaired

the

juxta­

The

low

somewhat

116

low p e r c e n t a g e s
with

this

section

North
appealing

F.

due

riparian

parks

the

h ad

on

This

may

among

residents
not

area

(see

the

side.

Figure

of r i v e r

to,

or

of

the

city

Grand
was

and

Although

side
of

is

residents

census

restricted

has

south

s ide

Hence

social

River

recreation

contacts

selected

22

16,

from

may

have

areas

in the

shows

Kendall

variables

from

the

the

ar e a
sides,
area.

for

income

18).

from

expanded

tau

in

low

fishing
ghetto

Fishing

thu s

the w e s t

case

side

on t h r e e

a great

particularly

ha d

less

preferences

land,

Moreover,

River

the w e s t

and

to p a r k

occurred

Lansing,

Table

15,

the

t o wa rd ,

somewhat

(particularly

tracts

available.

of

high user

of

was

particularly

reside

to

also

This

oriented

This

and

5).

of u s e r s

due

4),

us e r s .

high percentage
been

Park

and v i s i b i l i t y

Figure

use rs .

of

see

access

some p h y s i c a l l y

Tucumseh

l an ds

city migration

among

(i.e.,

by

riparian

necessarily

user

bisected

displeasing

have

west

3).

sections

si d e

the w e s t

(see T a b l e

Area,

adjacent

of r i v e r

ea s t

physically

a relative

area

displeasing

the

a familiarity

river

limited

located

indicating

although
the

in t he

l ow p e r c e n t a g e s

apparent

of

river

low percentages

to

Areas
physically

the

Keenan Natural

probably

for

of

Lansing,

relatively

tr u e

respondents

sections

the T h o m a s
had

of

is

an e x p a n d e d

deal

of

intra­

side,

to

the

ghetto

areas.

awarenss

of w e s t

side

correlation
household

of G r a n d
residents.

coefficients

study.

Income

Table 22
Kendall Tau Correlation Coefficients for Selected
Variables--Household Survey Respondents

Variable
1

.

Income level

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

.00
.2710**

.00

3. Level of recreation
satisfaction

.1464**

.0187

.00

4. Age level

.1082*

.0656

.0656

.00

5. Perceived attitude of friends
toward Grand River

.0445

.1785

.1785

.0628

.00

6. Number of years residing at
current address

.0550

-.1020*

.0177

.4115**

.0911

.00

7. Number of children in family

.1621** -.0787

.0503

.0647

.1458**

.0126

.00

-.0538

.0224

.2825**

.0048

-.0417

*Significant at .01.
**Significant at .001.

-.0070

-.0461

117

2. Education level

8. Respondent's attitude toward
the recreational use of the
Grand River

8

.00

118

l e ve ls ,

as

expected,

educational
the

levels

famil y.

the

Grand

friends'
These

Lansing
are

attitudes

fa ct s

were

residents

were

more

ti m e

no t

areas

were

for

first

recreation

their
river,

residence

statistical

the

of

of the

income
which

river.

l e ve ls
are a

(i.e.,

inclined

higher

to u s e

th a t m o r e

the

affluent

opportunities

to be m o r e
city.

their

several

River

and

of

active,

However,

and

income

in d e t e r m i n i n g w h i c h

inclined

to u s e

the

Grand

activities.

Hypotheses
hypothesis,

concerning

activities
relative

is a c c e p t e d

tended

factor

more

general

attitudes

Grand

suggested

within

the m a j o r

recreational

and

that

alternatives

an d m o n e y ) ,

The

ceptions

si nc e

opinion

to be m o r e

findings

recreation

residents

The

th e

expected

Study

in c e r t a i n

for

interest

the

(i.e.,

River

expressed

use

use

to u s e

had more

Lansing

recreational

in

with

perceptions

inclined

are

were

recreational

in d e t e r m i n i n g

people

levels

the

factor

River).

resided

the

correlated

important

income people
Grand

not

respondents'

toward

of c h i l d r e n

was

of p a r t i c u l a r

officials

the m o s t

toward

or w i t h

correlated with

the n u m b e r

however,

attitudes

River

positively

an d w i t h

Incom e,

respondents'

were

since

relationships

ar e

use

related

to d i f f e r e n t
the

data

exist

that

people's

of an u r b a n
to

the

between

river

location

sections

revealed

per­

th a t

of

of

the

significant

respondents'

desires

119

to u s e

the

Grand

locations.
ceptual,
the

attitudinal,

river

requires

vide

recreation

si d e

to

as w e l l

ha ve
the

that

adjacent
ing

ceptions
urban

of

of

the

show
to

and

or

that

residents

of a r i v e r
attitudes

more

th at

side

of

living

wi l l

have
the

those

are

the m o s t

toward pleasant

to

riv er .

hypothesis
of

a city
appeal­
per­

use

of

an

adjacent

to

or

sections

perceptions

and

contentions

in a r e a s

The

data

adjacent

environments

items

ha d

favorable

in part.

riparian

favorably

Non-south

the

displeasing

specific

were

side)

recreational

live

to p r o ­

attitudes

aesthetically

accepted

respondents

east

first

residents

The

and

River.

toward

have u n f a v o r a b l e
river.

respond most

the

the

of p o t e n ­

residents

in s e c t i o n s

aesthetically

hypothesis

south

on

attitudes

toward

river will

toward

Grand

toward more

Conversely,

oriented

generally

and

in p l a n ­

resources

side

to

Planning

desires

perceptions

those

relating

is u s e f u l

of the

of the

in p e r ­

facilities.

South

contentions

oriented

towards

first

use

variables

a nd

favorable

residential

variations

River

ability

(particularly

to or

an u r b a n

attitudes

the

and

recreation

opportunities.

those

river.

oriented

as

specific

sections

Grand

of the

perceptions

The

behavioral

the

recreational

unfavorable

spatial

activities

the m o s t

residents

state

of

consideration

users

towards

us e

recreation

about

and

recreation

tial

found

for

Information

recreational

ning

River

related

to

and

120

Grand
and

River

attitudes

south

sid e

Rather,
ar e

toward

the m o s t

Dr i v e .

South

The
current
urban

as w a s

restricted
This

along

Logan

to

the
may

Moores

second

genera]

specific

that

those

areas

more

physically

in r e c r e a t i o n

to or

sections

of

were

shown

local

residents

Drive,

and

of

actually use

have
the

Lansing's

or

for

therefore,

hypothesis
oriented

riverfront
Thus,

toward

ar e

have

displeasing
of r e s i ­

recreation.
data

parks
highest
to

These

show

the

to be m o r e
use
the

the

located

percentages

adjacent

are

act ua ll y use

that

The

an

residential

physically

supported.

immediately

along

this;

that

areas

river

people's

of a r i v e r w i l l

lowest

anticipated.

in a r e a s

to

toward more

are p a r t i a l l y

than

of t h i s

residents
those

that

activities

support

sections

and

oriented

of

data

adjacent

appealing

states

th e p a r t i c i p a n t ' s

The

a river will

areas

restrictive

to

located

percentages

adjacent

service

high degrees

River

hypothesis

contentions

recreation,

contentions

to

R oad,

is a c c e p t e d .

that

be d u e

Stre e t .

hypothesis

dents

hypothesized.

of M o o r e s

Waverly

this

for

among

south

River by

a city.

river

as u n i v e r s a l

attitudes

Grand

location within

highest

area

perceptions

and

the

related

th e

are n o t

originally

are

The

favorable

perceptions

pattern

participation

river

river

favorable

interaction with

traveling

However,

the

residents

spatially

River
of

recreation.

levels
river,

121

particularly
of n o r t h

in th e

Lansing

(i.e.,

Residents
(tracts
and

and

attitudes

given
This
few

34

the
may

35)

streets

residents,

along
sid e

expected

be

attributed

given

River

other

locations.
The

the

third

can be

exhibit
Grand

as

river

the

and

general

their

the

show a relationship

river

tions,
which

attitudes,

of

of

a city which

high percentages

of

river

river

ghetto

than might

area.

states

This
of

that

of r i v e r

the

sections

of a r e a
an d b e h a v ­

environmental
of

since
per­

area

participation.

the

be

the

accepted

responses

third

reveal

will

is

may

recreationists

attitudes,

recreation

and behavior

the

in t h e

between

an d

sections

(i.e.,

income

interpretation

residents

that

area.

to u t i l i z e

and b e h a v i o r a l

are

low

hypothesis

contentions

in th e

inability

attitudes,

specific

expected

use

ceptions,

actual

to

perceptions,

general

be

area).

hypothesis

from

perceptions

families'

high percentages

This

parks

particularly

quality

area

Township

interaction

positively

river

environmental

The

as m i g h t

river

in thi s

residents,

of L a n s i n g
favorable

limited vehicular
the

Tucumseh

33.0 2 ) .

River

of the

identified

responses.

data

the

fishing

in w h i c h

residents'
ioral

for

in the

tract

to b l a c k s ’ a n d p o o r

Grand

reside

do not

responded more

be

a city

to

an d

of the w e s t e r n p a r t

toward

be d u e

sid e

census

attractiveness

West

of

south

hypothesis

favorable

the

same

recreationists

percep­

sections
reside.

in
The

122

data

did

not

fully

discrepancies
indicated

exist

behavior

participation
according

to

This may

for

the

th e

household

River),

attributed
side

fishing.

yet

and

Thus,

to

concerning

the

recreation

participation,

is n e e d e d

at

effects

the

Significance
As
not

previously

a hypothesis

by which

empirical

data matrix

to

identify

respondents'

views

eral

of

results

recreation

the
of

the

and

indicated

users

location
survey
block

or u n d e r l y i n g

is r e v e a l e d .
perceptual
an u r b a n

th e M D S

MDS

have

MDS

are

implication

and management.

who

are

eached

on r i v e r
research
levels.

scaling

regularity
is u s e d

is

in an

in thi s

around which

organized.
for

F).

reside

is a d e s c r i p t i v e

dimensions

river

com­

Scaling

multidimensional

technique.

shows

exclusively

conclusions

census

past

(see A p p e n d i x

almost

in-depth

example,

recreationists

survey

core"

river

definite

stated,

hidden

planning

"hard

For

of

residents

River

of M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l

testing

technique

study

the

tract

side

section

of r e s i d e n t i a l

census

study.

on-site

this

more

respondents'

respondents

th e

since

observations

west

for

utilize
before

on-site

of G r a n d

side

levels

field

survey,

numbers

of west

low use

in the w e s t
for

large

Grand

be

household

recorded

59 p e r c e n t

paratively

the

actual

(i.e.,

the

between

hypothesis,

the

comprise

of

this

and

should

use

support

Grand

Sev­
River

123

The

first

identification
that
to

most

by bot h

similar

to

ment,"

"natural

groups

agreed

dissimilar

the

that

quality

years

(particularly

The

similar

popular

river

indicated

along

the

between

recreational
By

urban

Moores
opinion

for

Thus,

as

and

concepts

respondents

"industrial
Both

as

develop­

respondent

were

the m o s t

evidence

tha t

dramatically

in r e c e n t

Dam).

it a p p e a r s

Thus,

lag w a s

operating

in

quality.1

the

there

along

perceived

picnicking

and picnicking

thi s

perceptions

investigating

Those

documented

river,

activities

officials,
river

the

River.

clean water

population

picnics

river.

and

activities)
or d i s s i m i l a r

"relaxing."

water

activity

tions

public

to

were

the

similar

on-site

improved

above

River

Grand

River

an d

has

(including

an d

despite

household

as v e r y

tionship

Grand

environmental
Grand

the

swimming

water

to

of

areas,"

involves

to be m o s t

household

river

regard

concepts

use

concepts,

Moncrief's

importance

consider

recreational

identified

of

of river

respondents

the

area

group.

On-site

third most
appears

to be

the M D S

Grand

the m o s t
observa­

popular

an d b e h a v i o r a l
the

was

activity

a strong

rela­

responses

for

Ri v e r .

distance matrix,

recreation managers

recreational

factors

critical

^ o n c r i e f , "User
R i v e r s , " pp. 1 2 . 3 - 1 2 . 5 .

Related

Study

can

planners,

identify many

to p l a n n i n g ,

of Th re e M i c h i g a n

124

decision making,
for

and management.

compatibility

example,

and possible

study

demonstrates

are p e r c e i v e d

to be

quite

survey results

(fishing
along
use ,

and

the

river with

respectively.

fishing

sites

may

suitable

for

fishing,

which

activity,
for

of

ization

sible.

fishing

industrial

use

is

areas

of
of

to

fish

the

along

river

water

This

is

als o m e e t
on-site

the

Grand

the

along

corridor

desirable

s u p p o r te d by

of th e
the

for

that

ha d

quality.

with natural

the

locations

for

distribution

river).

for

that

particularly

as u n f a v o r a b l e

despite

areas

shows

respondents

the

of

recreational

River,

by

total

river

also

the

and u n f a v o r a b l e

suggests

activities

the n e e d

associated

river,

pastimes.

river water

is s u p p o r t e d

For

relaxing

common

survey

although

areas

compared

activities

along

preferred water
of

and

40 p e r c e n t

are p er c e i v e d

quality,

other more

and

closely

habitat

fishing

the m o s t

concerning

(this p e r c e p t i o n

concerning
travel

The

a highly

perceptions

suitable

larity

should)

and blac k males,

Additionally,

fishing

is

by fa r

these

the p r o v i s i o n

relaxation.

children

areas;

Thus,

fishing

recreational

that

35 p e r c e n t

is a v i a b l e

unfavorable

are

(and

that

similar

indicate

relaxing)

can be

"substitutability."1

this

On-site

Activities

The

popu­

industrial­
perceptions

some

m ay not

the u n i d i m e n s i o n a l

residents
be p o s ­
matrix

^ o h n C. H e n d e e a n d R a b e l B u r d g e , " T h e S u b s t i ­
tut ability Concept:
I m p l i c a t i o n for R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h
a n d M e a s u r e m e n t , " J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 6 (1974):
! 5 7 -! 6 2 .

125

(Appendix
more

I).

in t e r m s

group.

A

believe

the

River
this

fish

variation
less

than

second

area

tha t

appear

first

of

15

important

are

also

for

interact

with

than

the

for

household

on-site

survey

respondents

suitability

of G r a n d

is q u e s t i o n a b l e ) .
as b e i n g

r ape,

more

muggings,

importance

But

inaccessible

etc.)

than does

for

identified

four

research

influence

on-site
the m o r e
household

users

the

and

it

recreational

percent

and/or
that

s ide

south

side

sections

of

in g e n e r a l .

residents

gained

secondary
extent

river

(enhanced

"naturalness"

all

of r i v e r

th e

influence

dimension

an d

natural

to

south

of

dimension

knowledge

appears

s ite

survey

river

Perceptions

resource

tends

users

62

of p r i m a r y

second

involves

urban

explain

residents.

Thus,

ha s

The urba ni za ti on

on-site

a function

The

results

This
to

sid e

in the M D S

of

concepts.

s o u rces.

behavior.

important

river

dimensions

interaction with

recreation)

the

of th e u n d e r l y i n g

of p e r c e i v e d u r b a n i z a t i o n
ational

the

(the

two d i m e n s i o n s

in the

information

the

river

(e.g.,

data.

urbanization

of

sees

population.

for n o n - s o u t h

through

the

in the

dimensions
The

than does

edible

interpretation

variation

group

consumption

to d a n g e r s

The

is

human

also views

household

use.

on-site

fishing

f i s h to be
for

group

involves

of

the

large p e r c e nt a ge

and prone
the

Here,

and

recre­
river

is m o r e

residents,
the
This

Grand

who
River,

concept

is

126

also

a function

resource

and/or
This

questions

individual

secondary

regarding

s ome

the

attitudes,

an d

helps

an d

behavior

is

activity

of

fishing

is an

Fishing,

as

a river

recreational

strong

(who p r i m a r i l y
of L a n s i n g ) .
of

the

River

reside
For

non-south
for

side

Also,

indicated

while

14 p e r c e n t

Moreover,

in a r e a s

59 p e r c e n t

tha t

It a p p e a r s

to

to

this

than

on-site

appears

the

side

west

for

south

side

s ide

50 p e r c e n t

they use

the

of

s ide

south

non-south

said

to

blacks

survey,

21 p e r c e n t

The

pattern.

the

indicated

of

south

perceptions,

and non-use.

they participated

of all

recreational

particularly

residents

of

use

other

the

by r esidential

activity,

in the

21 p e r c e n t

population
only

appeal,

compared

of

behavior.

exception

example,

fishing,

residents.

influences

traditional

among

influenced

which

have

some

recreationists'

location

the

information.

answer

actual

in r i v e r

in t u r n

of

relationships

attitudes,

variation

interaction with

sources

investigation

perceptions,
that

of

s ide

Grand

household

in f i s h i n g ,

they

t o o k part.

residents

are

fishermen.

Summary
In
part.

The

Grand

River

location
of the

of

summation,
data
for

show

that

first

residence

However,

hypothesis

respondents'

recreation

their

river.

the

activities
relative

favorable

is

desires
are

accepted
to u s e

related

to d i f f e r e n t

perceptions

and

to

in
the

the

sections
attitudes

127

toward

the

residents
most

river
as w a s

favorable

restricted
second

to

the

current

favorable

black

p art.

household

field

data

Th e

show

t hat

However,

were

restricted
than was
is

side.
to

indicated

and

river

exist,

In

areas

accepted

relationship

actual

from

originally

also

attitudes,

do

recorded

in th e w e s t

a statistical

Discrepancies

Drive.

of r e s i d e n c e .

live

and

spatially

activities

hypothesis

respondents'

The

expected

perceptions,

are

the

in r e c r e a t i o n

river

quality

responses

MDS

shows

that

between perceived

relationship

also

third

Rather,

River

in part.

are m o r e

the

so u t h side

in

between

indicated

recreation

however,

behavior

between

and actual

observations.

exists

water

of M o o r e s

than

residents

Finally,
lag

to

show

area

participation.

attitudes

location

levels

The

environmental
of

south

who pri mar ily

The data

behavior

and

participation
the

among

hypothesized.

accepted

adjacent

hypothesized.

th e

is

high use

immediately

the

area

responses

residents

addition,

as u n i v e r s a l

perceptions

influenced by

more

not

originally

hypothesis

people's
ar e

are

exists

fo r

appears

perceptions,
residential

conditions.

environmental

river water

MDS

results

between perception

recreation
that

an

activities

some v a r i a t i o n s

attitudes,
location.

and

quality

indicate
and

along

behavior

are

and

actual

a strong

behavioral
the

in r i v e r

opinion

ri v e r .

It

recreationists'

i n f l u e n c e d by

CHAPTER VI

CONCLUSIONS AND

This

investigation

perceptions,
Lansing,

attitudes,

Michigan

recreational
have

been

use

as
of

and

behavior

and

no

data

toward
have

they

on

examines

the

an d b e h a v i o r

the

available

IMPLICATIONS

affect

Grand

the

perceptions,

existed

residents

use
for

few data

attitudes,

of u r b a n
the

of

and p otential

To d a t e ,

recreational

previously

the

actual

River.

consumer

the

of

recreational

rivers

Grand

River.

Conclusions
Several
this

conclusions

research which

are

can

be

drawn

significant

as

from

a result

of

a geographic

viewpoint.

The I n fluence of R e s i d e n t i a l
L o c a t i o n on Perce]p t i o n s ,
A t t i t u d e s , an d Be]lavior
Testing
that

levels

of

opportunities
able
the

of

users,

varies

River,

were

hypotheses

familiarity with

perceptions
Grand

the

found

and

with

in

and u s e

residential

attitudes

as w e l l

supported

as

toward

the

sections

of

128

of u r b a n

location.
the

greatest
the

the

city

concept
recreation
Most

favor­

recreation use
numbers

of

of a c t u a l

oriented

in a

129

sectoral

pattern

pleasing

sections

perceptions,
sections
or

juxtaposed
river.

for

both

The

findings

that

the

city

with

the

of

and

thi s

that
of

their

quality

respondents

t his

idential

it

is

and

study

patterns

an d

levels

interact

appear

that

toward

sections

of

identified

preferences.1
research
hence

in

the

l evel

influenced

to p o t e n t i a l

of

the p e r c e p t u a l
related

characteristics
of t e n .

been primari ly
perceptual
preferences

recreation

pattern

a city was

to be

with most

for n e i g h b o r h o o d

an d

in

attractiveness.2

importance

Similar

found

been

previous

relative
of

natural

has

have

learning process

non-favorable

were

recreational

support

studies

location.

concluded

users

in a s e c t o r a l

river

in the

interaction

identified

fewest

of r e s i d e n t s

in b o t h

aesthetically

Conversely,

familiarity within

Variations
dimensions

and

oriented

environmental

activities

river.

spatial

residential

location

physical

the

juxtaposed with

aesthetically displeasing

Similar

of e n v i r o n m e n t a l
by

of

or

attitudes,

of th e

the

toward

of
The

to

the

the

river

location

determined

by

res­

dimensions

have

in C h i c a g o . 3

perceptions,

been
Thus,

attitudes,

and

^ e e J o h n s t o n , " A c t i v i t y S p a c e s an d R e s i d e n t i a l
P r e f e r e n c e s , " pp. 1 9 9 - 2 1 1 ; and R e a d y , " P e r c e p t i o n s by A r e a
R e s i d e n t s of the M e r r i m a c k R i v e r , " pp. 1 0 6 - 1 0 8 .
2H o r t o n a n d R e y n o l d s , " E f f e c t s
S t r u c t u r e on I n d i v i d u a l B e h a v i o r , " pp.
3P e t e r s o n ,

"A Model

of

of U r b a n
36-48.

Preference,"

pp.

Spatial

19-31.

130

behavior

concerning

residential

an u r b a n

The

showed

recreational

It

is a l s o
for

40 p e r c e n t

not

equally

juxtaposed
pleasing
residents

have

the

Grand

apparent

recreation.

or

sections

the

in the m o d e l

desire

to u s e

identified

to

Grand

cities

parks.1

Chubb

area

the
However,

used

residents

the
were

in n e i g h b o r h o o d s
physically

also

Similarly,

in t h e

had

never

in

resi­

levels.

these

either

phenomenon

these

area

River

had

live

of

toward

improvement

Lansing

toward more

river.

1C h u b b , R e c r e a t i o n
A r e a , pp. 48-65.

for

sampled

tending

the n o n - u s e

for

Moreover,

oriented
of

Analysis

room

the

on-site

attitudes

satisfaction

residents

distributed,
with

River.

t hat

these

and

favorable

satisfaction

improving

for

household

considerable

of L a n s i n g

River

little

of

indicated

potential

Grand

use

of b o t h

essentially

of r e c r e a t i o n

de n t s .

by

of N o n - U s e r s

responses

populations

levels

influenced

location.

Spatial Distribution
Residences

responses

river were

found

dis­
Lansing

unaware

or

having

a number

of

studies

of

local

parks.2

Lansing

Model

Cities

2See H. P. B a n g s a n d S. M u h l e r , " U s e r s of L o c a l
P a r k s , " J o u r n a l of t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e o f P l a n n e r s 36
(1970): 3 3 0 - 3 3 4 ; S e y m o r e M. G o l d , " N o n u s e of N e i g h b o r h o o d
P a r k s , " J o u r n a l of t h e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s 38
( N o v e m b e r 197 2): 3 6 9 - 3 7 8; R e a d y , " P e r c e p t i o n s b y A r e a
R e s i d e n t s of the M e r r i m a c k R i v e r , " pp. 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ; a n d R ugg,
" T h e U s e a n d N o n - U s e of U r b a n P a r k s , " pp. 77-1 1 3 .

131

This

investigation

previous

research

differed

between

existed

as

to

in t hat

of a c i t y

availability

activities.1

Simply

accessibility

to w a t e r - b a s e d

not

the p r o b l e m .

eliminate

between

city

sections

1970

for

study were

istics

of

a recreation
user

groups

indicated

t hat

residents

selected
or

did

not

different

not

known

recreation

must

be

or w a s

an d

since

recreation
and p ro v id i ng

shown

may

of v a r i a t i o n s
resource
of

and
the

of H e c o c k ' s

the p h y s i c a l
are

attitudes

however,

of the

conclusions

of

inequities

the p o t e n t i a l s

to d i f f e r e n t

areas

participate

quality

resource

different

that

is b e c a u s e

regarding

supported

an d

disparities

This

The

findings

behavior

opportunities,

in th e

recreation.

the

of w a t e r - b a s e d

recognizing

citizens’ understanding
resource

supported

recreation

sections

th e

also

character­

to a t t r a c t

location.2

Results

of d i f f e r e n t

sections

of

river

for

r e c r e a t i o n use,

because

the

river

at

perceived

the

all

unfavorably

for

of a c i t y

their

was

simply

preferred

activities.

Variations

in r e s i d e n t s '

knowledge

an d p r e f e r e n c e s

taken

consideration

to

insure

responsive

and management.

Thus,

recreation

int o

planning

it

is

river

concluded

^ e e G o o d a l e , " L e i s u r e B e h a v i o r and A t t i t u d e s
in S e l e c t e d M i n n e a p o l i s C e n s u s T r a c t s , " p. 101; R e a d y ,
" P e r c e p t i o n s b y A r e a R e s i d e n t s of the M e r r i m a c k R i v e r , "
pp. 1 0 6 - 1 0 7 ; a n d D a v i d , " F l o o d p l a i n L a n d s for P a r k s and
R e c r e a t i o n , " pp. 2 2 1 - 2 2 6 .

pp.

2H e c o c k ,
237-250.

"Recreation

Behavior

Patterns,"

132

that
was

the

Grand

capable

uted

River,

of

offering

recreation

management

River

were

tha t

the

recreational
Respondents
in t h e s e

use

of

the

Grand

respondents

often

River

residents.1

settings,
Fishing,
river
ence

as

it

activities

represent

a l t h o u g h not

did

^hubb,
p p . 54 - 55.

also

activity

perceived

receiving

found

these

being

household
partici­
environments
picnicking

for model

cities

within natural
activities.

as b e i n g p a r t i c u l a r l y

generally

in t h e

to

user-oriented

waterfront

high personal

show high recreational

Recreation

These

this

the n at ural

viable

River

relaxing

in w h i c h

that

surveys

Grand

and

and/or promoted

the most

both

for p a r t i c i p a t i n g

Moreover,

Chubb

appears

if d e v e l o p e d

ratings,

and

in r e c r e a t i o n a l

picnicking

recreational

or

planning

environment.

reflected

with

Drive.

Thus,

oriented

distrib­

and picnicking.

a preference

occurred within

a significant

activities,

were

for

preferred

relaxing

had participated.

along Moores
be

matrices

in a n a t u r a l

River

primarily

equitably

if a p p r o p r i a t e

most

were

indicated

preferences

indicated most

pation

distance

activities

activities

expressed

an d m o r e

resource,

instituted.

respondents'

also

recreation

Recreational

The MDS mean
show

a viable

greater

opportunities

measures

Viable Grand
Activities

although

use

levels

Lansing Model

urban

prefer­
in

Cities

the

Area,

133

household

survey.

indicated

that

fishing,

was

a prevalent

was

of p a r t i c u l a r

levels

among

Moreover,

Grand

along with

River

blacks

who

utilize

resource-oriented

a valuable

Although

thi s

of users,
for

and/or

resource
group

longer periods

represented

an

participation
usually
user

an d p l a n n e r s

The

regarding

possible

development

that

ratings

the
users

the

require

with

ability
the

total

the

more

user

and

thu s

and

policies
desires

of

between users

potential

quality

and

of r e c r ea ti on

exist

along

number

frequently

literature.2

W i s h i n g a l s o ha s the h i g h e s t
for l o w e r i n c o m e r e s p o n d e n t s .

river

to

the

such disparities.

high water

to

subsistence.

development

areas

in r e s i ­

and/or

the n e e d s

in the

Fishing

high preference

in t e r m s

recreational

swimming

its

average

differences

documented

problem

and

reflect

that

of

the

activity.

blacks,

River

group

Planning

fact

For

survey

and picnicking,

in t h e i r

compared

than

on-site

restricted

recreation

user

adequately

are w e l l

shown

time

levels.

resource

illustrates

sites.1

the: G r a n d

important

do n o t

groups.

of

limited

small

they utilized

of

spatially

are

for

was

relaxing

because

were

locations

of the

recreational

importance

dential

was

results

of
The

Grand
It has

standards

preference

a

River
been
for

and use

2Se e L u c a s , " W i l d e r n e s s P e r c e p t i o n a n d U s e , "
pp. 18-41; S t a n k e y , " P e r c e p t i o n o f W i l d e r n e s s R e c r e a t i o n
C a r r y i n g C a p a c i t y , " pp. 2 9 9 - 3 0 2 ; an d P e t e r s o n , " A C o m ­
p a r i s o n of S e n t i m e n t s an d P e r c e p t i o n s , " pp. 1 9 4 - 2 0 6 .

134

swimming.1

This

study

overwhelmingly viewed
primarily

because

quality.

Conversely,

be p a r t i c u l a r l y
Ditton

and

relaxing,

River

well

have

s ide

riparian

river
an d

as

no t

for

swimming,

appear

for

finding

should

Green

that
be

to

fishing.

for

is

water

Bay

fishing,

developed

Ri v e r .

these

in

sampled

in t h i s

concerning

in r e c r e a t i o n

living

on

the

concerning

the

in the

these

repulsive

retained

di d no t

conclusion

perceptions

perceptions

parks

t hat

Grand

reflected

accounted

to b e l i e v e

study

for

concerning

quality

a similar

residents

Residents

had u nf av or a bl e

residents

Development

environmental

behavior.

users

opportunities

the

sample

perception

with water

a third

Lansing

which were

th e

as u n d e s i r a b l e

River

reported

along

Waterfront

definite

Grand

an d p i c n i c k i n g

The

river

concerned

Thus,

and/or promoted

Future

th e

that

of u n f a v o r a b l e

Goodale

fishermen.2

showed

very
past.

residents
terms

attitudes

of

study
the

Grand

attitudes

south
the

side

river

limited use
Moreover,

had

an d
generally

which may

of n o n - s o u t h
there

is

generally perceived
land

for

and w at er

some

years,

reason
the

quality
despite

'See D a v i d , " P u b l i c P e r c e p t i o n s of W a t e r Q u a l i t y , "
pp. 4 5 3 - 4 5 7 ; D i t t o n a n d G o o d a l e , M a r i n e R e c r e a t i o n a l U s e s
of G r e e n B a y , pp. 73-74; M o n c r i e f ^ " U s e r R e l a t e d S t u d y o f
T h r e e M i c h i g a n R i v e r s , " pp. 1 2 . 3 - 1 2 . 5 ; a n d R e a d y , " P e r c e p ­
t i o n s by A r e a R e s i d e n t s of th e M e r r i m a c k R i v e r , " pp. 61-73 .

Green

2D i t t o n an d G o o d a l e ,
Bay, pp. 71-72.

Marine

Recreational

Uses

of

135

environmental
problem
and

concerning

tentative

in n o n - s o u t h
numbers
in

represent

several

reasons.

tw o

in

o f the
Survey

these

based

of

riparian

relaxing
fishing

as

hood

a family

activities
to be

renewal
service

posed

with

Residents
(i.e.,

who

east

unfavorably

have

sid e

decided

carried

and,

in an y

and

public

greatest

low

M o n c r i e f , "User
R i v e r s , " pp. 1 2 . 3 - 1 2 . 5 .

section

partic­

of a river

fishing

and

in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h
necessarily
Riverfront

park
Park

location.

Secondly,

the p o t e n t i a l
The

education

generally

area

th e

perceived
use

Study

neighbor­

is j u x t a ­

developments.

interaction with

Related

recreational

Both

Park.

recreational

relaxation

quality

fishing

Riverfront

an d

natural

not

of

on a c o nt in ui ng

the

eve n t ,

poor

completed

residents

which

out

new parks

river

that

and

a fourth

Park,

fishing

indicate

a similar

significant

users

respectively.

residents)

an d h a d

attract

important

a c t i v i t y ) , are

for

business

that

is

Riverfront

eliminated much

area

study

potentials

a relatively
has

Thus,

m a y no t

most

activities

lan d s ,

River.1

Fir s t ,

results

fishing

identified

attracting

three

(the l a t t e r o f t e n

oriented

urban

on

thi s

example,

problems

to u s e

appears

locations
For

Moncrief
Cedar

of

have

activities.
ipating

Re d

conclusion
sid e

may

for

the

the

of u s e r s .

1976,

basis

improvements.

area
the

river

levels.

of T h r e e M i c h i g a n

136

I m p l i c a t ions
The
as

to h o w

results

of

effectively

and m a n a g e d

for

this
the

that

planning

play

or

planning

and m a n a ge me nt ,

will

have

Grand

recreation.

investigation

an d m a n a g e m e n t

study

social

should

policies

implications

have

River

It

is

surveys

play

raised

ha s b e e n p l a n n e d

a major
and

both present
reflect

beyond

thesis

subsequent

a critical

that

questions

role

and

this

social

in e f f e c t i v e

futu r e .

user needs

the u r b a n

of

area.

Planning

and

desires

Leatherberry

writes:
I b e l i e v e t h a t to e f f e c t i v e l y m a n a g e c o u n t r y
r i v e r s f o r o p t i m u m use , a l t e r n a t i v e or c o m p l e ­
m e n t a r y r e s o u r c e s m u s t be a v a i l a b l e to the u s e r
public.
U r b a n - u r b a n f r i n g e r i v e r ar e a p o t e n ­
t ia l r e s o u r c e fo r s o m e w h o are n o w u s i n g or h o p e
to u s e b a c k c o u n t r y r i v e r s .
As I see it, u r b a n
r i v e r s are n o t m a n a g e d to t h e i r ful l p o t e n t i a l . 1
The

results

implications
agement
These

in

of

for u r b a n

th e

City

implications

of
ar e

1.
recreation
indicate

this
river

as

that

most

important

time

of

these

Grand

surveys.

and

river

It

other

urban

and m a n ­

areas.

recreation planning

The

picnicking,

River

two m a i n

follows:

research.

fishing,

have

recreation planning

Lansing

Future
behavior

investigation

results
an d

recreational
is

apparent

described

relaxing
pastimes
t hat,

^ a r l C. L e a t h e r b e r r y , G e o g r a p h e r ,
Forest Experiment Station, Forest Service,
c o r r e s p o n d e n c e w i t h a u t h o r , J u n e 1975.

were
at

within

should
earlier
the
the
Lansing,

North Central
personal

include

137

the

Grand

River

Recreationists
had

low

was

a day use

with

incomes,

the

were

high propor tio n were
residents

it w a s

recreation
River was
and

living

population

Thus,

increased

be

anticipated

carrying
among
within

city

certain

use

entering

from

reaching

dangerous

quotas,

a private

quite

the

s uch

an d

possible

area

was

can

recreation
conflicts

the d e b a t e

limitation

on the

and b o a t e r s ,

the

rapidly.

increases

conflict

boating

launch

Parks).

river's

a lso

Drive

Grand

many

(the L a n s i n g

River.

of the

B oat

of

latter

C l u b ) , were

proportions.

future

management

black

Grand

River

River Drive

exceed

regarding

fishermen

a

some

of the

be u s e r s ,

growing

of r e c r e a t i o n a l

between

to

Increased use

government

Thus,

tended

of

use

and M o o r e s

th e M o o r e s

example

an d

for

along Moores

Frances

and m a y w e l l

One

types

Conflicts

social

of

bl a c k ,

Moreover,

Recreational

area

levels

only viable water-oriented

involved was

capacity.1

users.

the

(i.e.,

in t h i s

local

participation

unemployed.

concentrated

parks

area.

disproportionately

opportunity.

adjacent

People

highest

probably

heavily

recreation

river

that ma y

or r e c r e a t i o n a l

use

recreation planning must
take

the

zoning

form
for

of t i m e

certain

involve

limitations,

activities.

R e c r e a t i o n c a r r y i n g c a p a c i t y is d e f i n e d as the
a m o u n t of r e c r e a t i o n a l u s e an a r e a c a n s u p p o r t , b o t h
p h y s i c a l l y a n d s o c i a l l y , w i t h o u t a r e d u c t i o n in the q u a l i t y
of the r e c r e a t i o n a l e x p e r i e n c e for the user.

138

Appropriate
studies

been

date,
based

of p r o v i d i n g

urban

recreation

a population

those

needs

are

Recent

to

methods.

This

of w a t e r f r o n t

the

and

they

that

more
A

and

have

to m o r e
need

is

1977

first

or no

are

Park A s s o c i a t i o n

reflects

to

Study,

by

the

numbers
across

aspirations

recommendation
in

1978,

within urban

th e N a t i o n a l
same

planning

great

completed
done

planning

formulated

the

A major

needs

what

social

because

being

regard

statement

fo r

It

river

engineering

today

s h o u l d be

sites.

recreation

urban

plans

methods

determining

the n e e d

on

and b e h a v i o r .

specific

river

traditional

planning

based

feasibility

concerning

Recreation

policy

at

th e

constituents.

Urban

social

engineering

be met.

critical

little

be

ca n b e s t

shown

development

of r i v e r

National

that

without

country with

behavior

the

are m e t
how

must

attitudes,

facilities

developments

a supplement

the

methods

recreation planning

on

assume

recreation planning
as

river

primarily

is p o o r p l a n n i n g
of

management

of recreation perceptions,
To

have

social

and
of
is

areas.

Recreation

theme:

N R P A a n d the r e c r e a t i o n a n d p a r k a g e n c i e s
s h o u l d p r o m o t e s o c i a l p l a n n i n g to e n c o u r a g e
i d e n ti f ic a ti o n of needs, c o o r d i n a t i o n and m o b i l ­
i z a t i o n of p u b l i c a n d p r i v a t e r e s o u r c e s , i n t e ­
g r a t i o n o f s e r v i c e s , and m e a n i n g f u l c i t i z e n
participation.
S o c i a l p l a n n i n g s h o u l d be g i v e n
an i n c r e a s e d i m p o r t a n c e in t h e s e l e c t i o n and
p r i o r i t i z a t i o n o f r e c r e a t i o n s e r v i c e s and
resources.1

N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n and Park A s so ci at io n, Statement
of N a t i o n a l P o l i c y ( A r l i n g t o n , V a . : N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n and
P a r k A s s o c i a t i o n , D r a f t No. 2, 19 7 7 ) , pp. 3, 23-27.

139

Section

201

Federal

Water

in

1978

to m a n d a t e

an

integral

The

and

Section

Pollution

part

amendments

Control Act

recreation

of

read

and

area-wide,
as

208

(PL

92-500)

(1972)

open

were

of the
amended

space planning

as

water-quality management.

follows:

S e c t i o n 3.
S e c t i o n 201 (g) of s u c h A c t
(33 U . S . C . 1284) is a m e n d e d b y a d d i n g at the
e n d t h e r e o f th e f o l l o w i n g n e w p a r a g r a p h :
5.
T h e A d m i n i s t r a t o r (E.P.A.) s h a l l n o t
m a k e g r a n t s f r o m f u n d s a u t h o r i z e d fo r a n y f i s c a l
y e a r b e g i n n i n g a f t e r S e p t e m b e r 30, 1978, to a n y
state, m u n i c i p a l i t y or i n t e r m u n i c i p a l or i n t e r ­
s t a t e a g e n c y f o r the e r e c t i o n , b u i l d i n g , a c q u i ­
s i t i o n , a l t e r a t i o n , r e m o d e l i n g , i m p r o v e m e n t , or
e x t e n s i o n of t r e a t m e n t w o r k s u n l e s s the g r a n t
a p p l i c a n t has s a t i s f a c t o r i l y ( e m p h a s i s added)
d e m o n s t r a t e d to th e A d m i n i s t r a t o r (E.P.A) t h a t
th e a p p l i c a n t h a s a n a l y z e d the p o t e n t i a l r e c r e a ­
t i o n and o p e n s p a c e o p p o r t u n i t i e s in th e p l a n n i n g
o f p r o p o s e d t r e a t m e n t work. . . .
S e c t i o n 24.
S e c t i o n 208 . . .
is a m e n d e d
an d an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of o p e n s p a c e a n d r e c r e ­
a t i o n o p p o r t u n i t i e s tha t ca n be e x p e c t e d to
result from improved water quality, including
c o n s i d e r a t i o n of p o t e n t i a l u s e of l a n d s a s s o ­
c iated w it h t re atm en t works and i ncreased
a c c e s s to w a t e r - b a s e d r e c r e a t i o n . 1
Results
satisfactory
space

analysis

opportunities

accomplished
cate

of thi s

that

essential

the

without
agency

aspect

investigation

of the

from

"potential

improved water

social

planning.

also views

of urban

demonstrate

river

social

that

recreation
quality"

and

cannot

EPA officials
planning

as

open
be

indi­

an

recreation planning.

^ . S . , Congress, House, A
W a t e r P o l l u t i o n C o n t r o l A c t , H.R.
S e s s ., 1977, p p . 1-4.

Bil l to A m e n d the
9464, 9 5 t h C o n g . ,

Federal
1st

140

This

s t u d y has

considered
ments

and

should

an

shown

integral

that

other

initiate
2.

similar

a large

riverfront

ally,

sid e

recreational

important

t hat

to

the

Grand

River

the

Natural

A rea.

cerning

existing

ticularly

fishing.

inform black
These

be

city-wide

directed
A wide

range

simple

things

Park

to

the

riverfront

investigation
of r e s i d e n t s

with

higher
side

an d

methods

or

organization

of

be

th e

be

partic­

It

is

particularly
Keenan

available

con­
par­

should

to

not

be

used

opportunities.

be d i r e c t e d
groups,

east

entrance

solely
bu t

should

attention being
and n o r t h

initiated,

facility

existing

opportunities,

fishing

the

Gener­

about

the T h o m a s

particular

could

unaware

education program

interest

of

als o

recreation

sites,

should

should

were

residents.

existing

residents

reversing

informed

a public

of

has

opportunities.

more
had

families

of p r o j e c t s
as

about

recreational

associations

th e

informed

Park,

Special

in s c o p e ,

toward

and

about

information programs

at n e i g h b o r h o o d

were

information

an d p o o r

require­

agencies

This

conduct

Tecumseh

river

funding

be

local

did n o n - s o u t h
city

More

should

an d

recreational

citizenry

Park,

state,

proportion

residents

than

research

PL-92-500

to be

opportunities

levels

inform

of

survey

requirements.

need

of e x i s t i n g

ipation

part

opportunities.

that

south

social

federal,

Citizens

recreational
revealed

that

sign

to u r s ,

from
at

sides.

such

Grand

slide

River

sh o w s ,

141

exhibits,

fishing' c o m p e t i t i o n s , w o r k s h o p s ,

and

similar

events.

Future
The
Lansing

residents

perceptions
that

results

about

of

the

downtown

and

attitudes.

This

the

City

in

general,

will

be

Lansing
Park

was

may

downtown.
in

It
the

the

have

the per ce pt io ns ,

residents
rithm
of

development

regarding

could prove

showing

results

research

and

could

future

that

c h an g e s

Grand

determine

an d

general

ognized

an d

acted

water

time.

or n o t

by

or n o t

citizens
the

as

it w o u l d

it

For

(or,

studies
effect,

areas

will

of Lan sing

scaling
is

algo­

capable

example,

concept

of

Subsequent

improved

improvements

water

ar e

rec­

to u s e M o n c r i e f ' s

"environmental

An MDS p ro gr am providing

es pecially useful,

since

quality.

environmental

upon

whether

over

citizens,

behavior

The MDS

for

of

what

recreation

River.

whether

use

similar

sparity between

River

perceptions

problems

to d e t e r m i n e

attitudes,
Grand

their

in a t t r a c t i n g

is h o p e d

a grea

an d

reduced).

and

an d

indicated

recreational

particularly useful

quality

expression,

It a l s o
by

that

attitudes

considerable

of d o w n t o w n

the

perceptual

indicate

clean water

cause

in p r o m o t i n g

if any,
on

area.

influenced

in p a r t i c u l a r

conducted

indicated

generally unfavorable

behavior

Riverfront

investigation

had

people's

of

thi s

Research

factor

facilitate

lag"

scores
factor

ha s

been

would

be

score

142

mapping

and

further

recrea tio n use
that

this

rithm

and

study

to u r b a n

applications
utility

of

illuminate
attitudes.

is

th e

river

ar e

this

spatial

first

It

to

should

of

research

further

the

in

be n o t e d ,

application

recreation

needed

variations

however,

the M D S

data.

algo­

Additional

appropriateness

and

technique.

Conclusion
In c o n c l u s i o n ,
planning
suited
the

and

to

geographic

the

attitudes,
the

development

knowledge

strates

Grand

expertise
urban

problems

behavior

River.

Thus,

in a s i m i l a r

recreation

park use

nature

of

recreation

geographers

planning

to

This

recreation

study

and n on-use

of L a n s i n g

way

river

to be p a r t i c u l a r l y w e l l

investigation.

concerning

spatial
and

appear

of urban

solve many

problems.

and

demon­

perceptions,

residents
can

extends

involving

apply
other

their

spatial

contemporary

APPENDIX A

-SITE

SURVEY ME THODOLOGY

APPENDIX A

ON-SITE

Sample

Siz e
The

an

major

adequate

considerations

sample

1.

The

size

in n a t u r e

standing

of

area

behavior

toward

are

could not

structured
2.

therefore

at

allow

on

in t h e

The

significance

are

River).

either
to

attitudes,

Therefore,

confidence

of data

nominal

or

samples,

for

Both

s t u d y data.
an d

(only

the

on-site

ordinal

scales;

considered).

143

of

the

sampling

only non-parametric
chi-square

and

these

techniques

are

of
The

levels
.01

hypotheses

(i.e.,

and n o m i n a l

tests,

confidence
The

by

the n o r m a l i t y
Thus,

and

limit.

obtained

ar e u t i l i z e d

levels

a basic u n d e r ­

established.

respectively.

conservative

investigation were

perceptions,

requirement

these

in d e t e r m i n i n g

achieve

appropriate.

on-site

for

to

a wide

as

techniques

random

this

stringently

are n o t

scales,

is a d e q u a t e
set

to

tau).

independent

are m e t

be

assumptions

statistical

surement

Grand

measured

distribution

Kendall's

(i.e.,

The ma jor ity

study were

of

residents'
the

given

included:

objectives

exploratory

limits

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

and

and

ordinal

these
sample
of

mea­

requirements
s ize

( N = 150)

significance

.001

levels

of

were

144

3.
the

size

Determination

of

the

total

groups

or

sample

(i.e.,

as

the

decreases,
size m u s t
survey
was

the
also

a n d the

the

of

increase).

City

of L a n s i n g .

increase

the

homogeneity

decrease

the

sample

4.

multidimensional

scaling

cepts,

t hat

indicates

increases
between

curve

and

100

cases.

75

are

(considered

in the

concepts

cepts

are

of the

of the

sample

since

Moreover,

investigations

explaining water-based

using

to be

taken

and

of

as

below).

the m e t r i c

deal

significant

con­

sample

size

with

out

fo r M D S

populations

homogeneity

study,

to

thus

flattening

sample

concepts were

recreation

desired

environmental

the

t his

thi s

were

requirements

and

t h e y all

for

procedure

coefficient

For

these

sample

sample

increases

of the

sub­

are made

were

reliability

design)

to be m e a s u r e d .

an d

sampling

by

analysis

efforts

The major

homogeneity

homogeneous

recreation.
previous

the

(see

reliability

the

of

of a n a l y s i s

on-site

process,

with

reliability

the

of the

Investigation

of

generalizations

Strenuous

variance

unit

increases

The unit

for w h i c h

' ~ influenced

generalizations

aggregate

variances

siz e

a n d the n u m b e r

for w h i c h
the

sample

level

sample

population

units

size

of

all

15

of
con­

Grand

River

determined
variables

from

in

activities.1

JDr. J o s e p h W o e l f e l , D e p a r t m e n t of C o m m u n i c a t i o n ,
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , w h o d e v e l o p e d the M D S m e t h o d
u s e d in t h i s r e s e a r c h , i n d i c a t e d tha t s a m p l e s i z e s u s e d
for t h i s s t u d y are w e l l w i t h i n t o l e r a n c e s for a c c e p t a b l e
m e t r i c a p p l i c a t i o n (see B a r n e t t , 1972).

145

Sampling

Procedure
The

an d

sample

temporal
1.

defined
Grand

units

River.

users

as

Public

as p e o p l e

planners,

population

described

recreating

results

represent

observations,

of

the p i l o t

user population;

therefore

lation was

from public

reation

areas

considered

include

Grand

River

North

Lansing

The parks
random

Dam,

to be

the

interviewer

the

park

a number
the

surveyed

area

int o
1,

order

a random numbers
either

1 or

quadrant

2,

would

th e

of

users.

P ark,

of

time

a clockwise

for

table.

4)

each

were

as

quadrant

The

was

interviewer

a fish bowl

surveyed
(2)

in

in a c i r c u l a r

manner.
they were

JT h e L a n s i n g B o a t C l u b
t h i s stu d y , so p e r c e n t a g e s for
p o w e r b o a t e r s ar e low.

Users

rec­

selected
frame.

was

When

assigned

selected

and
from

numbers,

whether

clockwise

encountered.

at

divided

determined

within

Park,

Park.

direction

to d e t e r m i n e

River

popu­

River

he m e n t a l l a y
quadrant

park

study

River

day were

city

that

sample

Moores

selected

park,

with

Grand

the

and Moo re s

given

the

The major

2,

3,

the

the

Each

counterclockwise
interviewed

any

of

were

along

indicate

quadrants.

from
be

at

spatial

interviews

segment

P ark,

a randomly

arrived

(i.e.,

sampling

to

park

Frances

on

parks

85 p e r c e n t

in t h i s

Park,

i nto

park users

study

85 p e r c e n t

Tucumseh

and m a t c h e d

Public

in p u b l i c

approximately

drawn

divided

be l o w :

park u s e r s .1

Empirical

and

was

each

(1)

or

each quadrant
If a q u a d r a n t

d e c l i n e d to p a r t i c i p a t e in
the o n- s it e study c on cerning

146

was

vacant,

users

interviewed.
minutes,

the

alternative

If an

Side

Par k,

and

technique
each

described
summarized

of

area was vacant

would move

insufficient

Cooley

the T h o m a s
from

used

survey

quadrant

would
for

be

10

to a p r e d e t e r m i n e d

park.

Park,

differently

selected

entire park

researcher

Because
River

in the n e x t

the

for

day.

Gardens/Scott

areas

If a n y u s e r s
employed.

was
were
A

populations,

Park,

Keenan Natural

parks mentioned

these

above was
below:

F.

on-site

Riverfront

Areas

above.

to

select

observed,

typical

were

treated

The

sampling

one

park

the

survey

for

procedure

day

is

147

T ypical

10:00

a.m.

River

to

12:00

Si d e

Survey

p.m.

North

to

Park:

2:30

Lansing

4,

1975 1

noon
Quadrants

Alternatives:
G r a n d R i v e r Park:
N o r t h L a n s i n g Dam:

12:30

Day--August

4N,

IN,

3C , 2C

Q u a d r a n t s 3N, 2N, 4C, 1C
Q u a d r a n t s 2C, IN, 4C, 3C

p.m.
Dam:

Quadrants

1C,

3 C , 4N,

2C

Alternatives:
T e c u m s e h Park:
Q u a d r a n t s IN, 3N, 2N, 4N
G r a n d R i v e r Park:
Q u a d r a n t s 4N, IN, 2N,

3:00

to

5:00

Moores

p.m.

River

Park:

Quadrants

5N,

Alternatives:
T e c u m s e h Park:
Q u a d r a n t s IN,
N o r t h L a n s i n g Dam:
Quadrants

6:0 0 p.m.
North

to

3N

2 C , 1C,

4N

4 C , 3 C , 2C
4N, IN, 3C,

2C

8: 00 p.m.

Lansing

Dam:

Alternatives:
T u c u m s e h Park:
F r a n c e s Park:

Quadrants

4N,

3 C , 2C,

1C

Q u a d r a n t s 4C, 3 C , IN, 2N
Q u a d r a n t s 1C, cN, 2C, 4C

Q u a d r a n t s to left of m a i n e n t r a n c e w e r e a l w a y s
l a b e l e d #1 and #4; q u a d r a n t s to the r i g h t w e r e a l w a y s #2
a n d #3.
T h e l e t t e r . C i n d i c a t e s c l o c k w i s e d i r e c t i o n and the
letter N indicates counterclockwise direction.
If r a i n y ,
t h e i n t e r v i e w e r s k i p p e d to the n e x t t i m e frame.

148

2.

Non-park

participants
owned

are

as

or p r i v a t e w a t e r f r o n t

parks.

It w a s

approximately
user

defined

determined
15 p e r c e n t

population;

users.

any person
lands

that

therefore,

15 p e r c e n t

contacted were

of

relatively

inaccessible

use

these
days
The

occurred,

users
were

sample

researcher
river

was

the

section

extended

t he se

non-park users
and

were

Oldsmobile
of

chosen

contacted

during

the

only

traveling

randomly
da y

the

for

contacted

river.

the

this
9:00

and

The

river

a.m.

to

between
along

cit y

as p u b l i c

on-site

users .
of

Because

the p l a c e
for

where

contacting

in a canoe.
July

4,

6,

5:00 p.m.

observed

greatest

on

recreation

of the

(i.e.,

the p e o p l e

periods.

P l an t ,

river

non-park

recreation

represented

feasible method

fr o m

all

designated

locations

along

river

recreating

group

of L a n s i n g ' s

population

this

not

this

sample
the

Non-park

using

numbers

Grand

River

the N o r t h

Three
and
The

the
of
Park

Lansing

20).

APPENDIX

ON-SITE

SURVEY

B

QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX B

ON-SITE

Lansing

SURVEY

Citizen

QUESTIONNAIRE

Opinion

Part

Study

I

I am f r o m M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y d o i n g a s t u d y on
p e o p l e ' s o p i n i o n s a b o u t L a n s i n g and the b a c k g r o u n d of its
citizens.
T h e i n f o r m a t i o n I r e c e i v e w i l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l
and o n l y u s e d in c a l c u l a t i n g total s; no n a m e s or a d d r e s s e s
are n e e d e d .
It w i l l h e l p in p l a n n i n g L a n s i n g ' s f u tu re .
C a n y o u p l e a s e s p a r e 20 to 25 m i n u t e s ?
______

1.

______

2.

3.

______
______

______
______

What
City

(if any) are y o u r m a j o r
of L a n s i n g ?

gripes

about

the

If ze r o (0) r e p r e s e n t s to ta l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n
w i t h c u r r e n t r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s an d one
h u n d r e d (100) r e p r e s e n t s t o t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n ,
h o w s a t i s f i e d are yo u ?
O n the c i t y m a p p r o v i d e d , t h i r t e e n
have been marked:
N o r t h W a v e r l y Road
N o r t h Logan Street
North Grand River
East Grand River
Oakland
Saginaw
M i c h i g a n (before it wa s cl o s e d)
Kalamazoo
Shiawasee
South Logan
South Waverly Road
1-4 96
W a s h i n g t o n Street

bridges

P l e a s e i n d i c a t e the t h r e e b r i d g e s y o u u s e m o s t
d u r i n g a n o r m a l w e e k ' s t r a v e l (check a p p r o p r i a t e
spaces).

149

150

4.

On the c i t y m a p p r o v i d e d , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e
the n u m b e r w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s to y o u r p r e s e n t
residence.

a.

How

b.

Please indicate areas you formerly resided
w i t h i n a n d h o w lo n g y o u l i v e d t h e r e (only
the two m o s t r e c e n t m o v e s , if a p p l i c a b l e ) .

5.

On the m a p p r o v i d e d , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h i c h ar e a
a l o n g the G r a n d R i v e r w i t h w h i c h y o u are m o s t
familiar.

a.

W h i c h s e c t i o n s (if any) of the
the n i c e s t e n v i r o n m e n t in y o u r

b.

Which sections
environment ?

6.

Have you ever used any other
t io n?
If so, w h i c h on e s an d

lo ng

a.

have

you

lived

(if any)

there?

have

Grand River
opinion?

the

ha v e

poorest

r i v e r for r e c r e a ­
for w h a t a c t i v i t y ?

_________________________

b.
c

.

d.
7.

How many minutes
Grand River?

a.

By car?

b.

By w a l k i n g ?

c.

Other?
Is th i s
river?

8.

did

it

your usual means
If not, w h a t is?

take

of

you

to

getting

reach

to

the

the

H o w far do y o u u s u a l l y t r a v e l to r e a c h p r e ­
f e r r e d r e c r e a t i o n a l s i t e s ( b es id es the G r a n d
R i v e r in L a n s i n g ) ?
(Sta te it in m i l e s . )

151

9.

H o w o f t e n d i d y o u or y o u r f a m i l y u s e the
G r a n d R i v e r , or its b a n k s , for r e c r e a t i o n
d u r i n g t he last m o n t h ?
If so,

10.

a.

for w h a t

activities?

L i s t the w a t e r - r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s (i.e.,
a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h i n v o l v e w a t e r or a r e e n h a n c e d
by w a t e r ) w h i c h y o u h a v e p a r t i c i p a t e d in and
e n j o y the most.

W h i c h of t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s do y o u feel the
G r a n d R i v e r doe s or c o u l d p r o v i d e ?
Any others?
Do e s

11.

Where?

Could

(Why n o t

recently?)

H o w do y o u r f r i e n d s v i e w u s i n g the G r a n d R i v e r
( wi t h i n L a n s i n g ) for r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ?
1
2
3
4
5

Highly unfavorable
Unfavorable
Neutral
Favorable
Highly favorable

152

Part II
1.

How many vehicles
h o u s e h o l d own?

a.

Number

of c a r s ?

b.

Number

of m o t o r c y c l e s ?

c.

Number

of b i c y c l e s ?

d.

Number

of o t h e r

2.

W h a t is y o u r p r e s e n t o c c u p a t i o n ?
(P le as e
i n d i c a t e if u n e m p l o y e d , h o m e m a k e r , s t u d e n t . )

a.

Where

3.

F r o m the list p r o v i d e d p l e a s e
letter which corresponds with
card)
a.
b.
c.
d.

do

you

(in w o r k i n g

or de r )

does

your

vehicles?

work?

i n d i c a t e the
y o u r (f la s h

Age
Y o u r h o u s e h o l d t ot al y e a r l y i n c o m e
taxes
Y o u r la st g r a d e of s c h o o l a t t e n d e d
Your mari t a l status

4.

How many

children

are

there

5.

Do y o u r

children presently use

If yes,

what

If not,

why?

activities?

in y o u r
the

before

household?
Grand

River?

___________________________

153

Observations:

Date:

Location:

Time:
Activity:
Race:
Sex:

Other

Notes:

(e.g.,

weather

conditions,

etc.)

154

Pa r t

This

As

an

the

(or

Grand

ex a m p l e ,

ing w a te r,
100 u n i t s

asks

in o t h e r w o r d s

"far

ap ar t" )

N o w we

to m e a s u r e

how distant,

concerning

the

ide as
from

Grand

each

the

oth er .

ide as

are

from

apart

they

the w a t e r
can use

to

Grand

e a c h ot he r ,
If y o u

the

think

you would

gi v e

me

the n u m b e r

you

T he
your

the

should

flash

distance
are

your

drink­

River
as

are

a ruler

other

ideas

how many units

a pa rt

card

on

the n e x t

larger

id eas

and
than

a smaller

ar e

from

the

the n u m b e r

of the

water

use

different

bigger
a ny

few p a g e s

are

two
of u n i t s

two ideas

are m o r e

G r a n d Riv er , th e n
100.

If y o u t h i n k

nu mb er .

each

other

Remember,
the

higher

say.
you have

been

given will

serve

as

guideline.
Just

or

a number

so d i f f e r e n t ,

different

Grand

the

con­

f r o m e a c h other.

in

the m o r e

your drinking

the m o r e

ide as

firs t,

apart,"

River

than

are not

are

to tell us

ideas;

this

record

different

they

you

River.

Remember,

are.

two

or " f a r

supposed

concerning

Lansing

consider

secondly,

are

Interview

III)

River within

apart .

of

(Part

let us

and

You

Example

questionnaire

how different
cerning

III:

a note:

in any w a y

determining

related,

and

some
but

studying

ideas m a y not

s e e m to be u s e f u l

a response

important

your

overall

is

opinions.

in

155

SAMPLE

F L A S H CARD*

Be e r

and

a l e ............ .......... 5

B ee r

and

whiskey

Be er

and m i l k ............ , . . .

100 u n i t s

Milk

and

whiskey

. . . .. . . .

110 u n i t s

Beer

and

bleech

.......... . . . .

225 u n i t s

. . . ........... 50

Closer
(more s i m i l a r )

10

20

30

units
units

Farther
(more d i f f e r e n t )

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

*This format was approved after extensive research
d u r i n g the p i l o t s t u d y and c o n s u l t a t i o n w i t h Dr. J o s e p h
Woelfel.

156

1.

Grand

River

and me

2.

Grand

River

and

3.

Grand

River

and m a l e s

4.

Grand

River

and

children

5.

Grand

River

and

ol d

6.

Grand

River

and

picnicking

7.

Grand

River

and

fishing

8.

Grand

River

and

swimming

9.

Grand

River

and

industry

10.

Grand

River

and

nature

11.

Grand

River

and

relaxing

12.

Grand

River

and

bicycling

13.

Grand

River

and p l a y i n g

14.

Grand

River

and

danger

15.

Grand

River

and

clean water

16.

Grand

River

and p o w e r

boating

17.

Grand

River

and

flood

danger

18.

Grand

River

and

Lansing's

19.

Grand

River

and

cultural

20.

Grand

River

and

Bicentenial

21.

Grand

River

and

canoeing

22.

Grand

River

and w a t e r s k i i n g

23.

Grand

River

and m u g g i n g s

24.

Grand

River

and

25.

Grand

R i f er

and p r o s t i t u t i o n

26.

Grand

River

and

alcohol

an d d r u g

27.

Grand

River

and

lover s'

lane

28.

Grand

River

and

edible

29.

Females

an d m a l e s

30.

Females

and

31.

Females

and p i c n i c k i n g

32.

Females

and

fishing

33.

Females

and

swimming

females

age

sp or t s

history
ar ea s
events

rape

children

fish

use

157

34.

Females

and

industry

35.

Females

and

nature

36.

Females

and

relaxing

37.

Females

and

bicycling

38.

Females

and

danger

39.

Females

and

clean water

40.

Females

and

power

41.

Males

and

children

42.

Males

and

picnicking

43.

Males

and

fishing

44.

Males

and

swimming

45.

Males

and

industry

46.

Males

and n a t u r e

47.

Males

and

relaxing

48.

Males

and

bicycling

49.

Males

and

danger

50.

Males

and

clean water

51.

Males

and p o w e r

52.

Children

and

picnicking

53.

Children

and

fishing

54.

Children

a nd

swimming

55.

Children

a nd

industry

56.

Children

a nd

nature

57.

Children

and

relaxing

58.

Children

and

bicycling

59.

Children

and

danger

60.

Children

and

clean water

61.

Children

and power

62.

Picnicking

a nd

fishing

63.

Picnicking

a nd

swimming

64.

Picnicking

and

industry

65.

Picnicking

a nd n a t u r e

66.

Picnicking

a nd

boating

boating

boating

relaxing

158

67.

Picnicking

and

68.

Picnicking

and d a n g e r

69.

Picnicking

and

70.

Picnicking

and p o w e r

71.

Fishing

and

swimming

72.

Fishing

and

industry

73.

Fishing

and nature

74.

Fishing

and

relaxing

75.

Fishing

and

bicycling

76.

Fishing

and danger

77.

Fishing

an d

78.

Fishing

and power

79.

Swimming

and

industry

80.

Swimming

and

nature

81.

Swimming

and

relaxing

82.

Swimming

and

bicycling

83.

Swimming

and

danger

84.

Swimming

and

clean water

85.

Swimming

and

power

86.

Industry

and

nature

87.

Industry

and

relaxing

88.

Industry

and

bicycling

89.

Industry

and

danger

90.

Industry

and

clean water

91.

Industry

and

power

92.

Nature

and

relaxing

93.

Nature

and

bicycling

94.

Nature

and

danger

95.

Nature

and

clean water

96.

Nature

and

power boating

97.

Relaxing

and

bicycling

98.

Relaxing

and

danger

99.

Relaxing

and

clean water

bicycling

clean water
boating

clean water
boating

boating

boating

159

100.

Relaxing

and p o w e r

101.

Bicycling

and

danger

102.

Bicycling

and

clean water

103.

Bicycling

an d p o w e r

104.

Danger

an d

105.

Danger

and power

106.

Clean water

a nd p o w e r

107.

Grand

River

a nd h i k i n g

108.

Grand

River

and walking

109.

Grand

River

and concerts

110.

Grand River

a nd

driving

111.

Grand

and

accessibility

River

boating

boating

clean water
boating
boating

for

pleasure

for

pleasure

APPENDIX

LANSING'S

GRAND

C

RIVER

SURVEY

160

Waterfront Development
Lansing, M i c h i g a n

September

RE:

Board

1975

Lansing's

Grand

River

Survey

Mr. K e i t h R e a d y , a D o c t o r a l c a n d i d a t e in the D e p a r t m e n t
of G e o g r a p h y at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , is i n t e r e s t e d
in th e G r a n d R i v e r in the C i t y of L a n s i n g and is t r y i n g to
d e t e r m i n e h o w t h a t R i v e r is u s e d a n d w h o u s e s it.
Therefore
he a n d a f e w of his c o l l e a g u e s are c o n d u c t i n g a s u r v e y of
the r e s i d e n t s of L a n s i n g to c o l l e c t the n e c e s s a r y data.
Mr. R e a d y a n t i c i p a t e s th a t the s u r v e y w i l l be c o n d u c t e d
s o m e t i m e d u r i n g the F a l l 1975.
T h e C i t y of L a n s i n g ' s W a t e r f r o n t D e v e l o p m e n t B o a r d is
v e r y m u c h i n t e r e s t e d in th i s s u r v e y a n d the r e s u l t s d e r i v e d
therefrom.
T h e r e f o r e th e B o a r d w o u l d a p p r e c i a t e y o u r full
c o o p e r a t i o n w i t h t h o s e c o n d u c t i n g th is su rve y.
If y o u h a v e
a n y q u e s t i o n s , p l e a s e c a l l Mr. J o n D. B a u e r in the L a n s i n g
P l a n n i n g D e p a r t m e n t at 4 8 7 - 1 4 0 0 .

Ram o n a Bretz
Kit Car s o n
Frank Kelly
Jacqueline Schraft
R. C. S w e e n e y
Florence Vance
Candy Womble

Larry Drolett,

JDB/me

Chairman

APPENDIX D

HOUSEHOLD

SURVEY

QUESTIONNAIRE

APPENDIX D
HOUSEHOLD

Lansing

SURVEY Q U E S T I O N N A I R E 1

Citizen

Opinion

Part

Study

I

I am f r o m M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y d o i n g a s t u d y on
p e o p l e ’s o p i n i o n s a b o u t L a n s i n g and the b a c k g r o u n d of its
citizens.
T h e i n f o r m a t i o n I r e c e i v e w i l l be c o n f i d e n t i a l
a n d o n l y u s e d in c a l c u l a t i n g to tal s; no n a m e s or a d d r e s s e s
are n e e d e d .
It w i l l h e l p p l a n n i n g
L a n s i n g ’s future. C a n
you please
s p a r e 20 to 25 m i n u t e s ?
1.

W h a t (if any) are y o u r
C i t y of L a n s i n g ?

major

gripes

a b o u t the

2.

If z e r o (0) r e p r e s e n t s
total d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n
w i t h c u r r e n t r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s and one
h u n d r e d (100) r e p r e s e n t s t o t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n ,
h o w s a t i s f i e d are y o u ?

3.

O n the c i t y m a p p r o v i d e d , t h i r t e e n
have been marked:
N o r t h W a v e r l y Road
North Logan Street
North Grand River
East Grand River
Oakland
Saginaw
M i c h i g a n ( b e f o r e it c l os ed )
Kalamazoo
Shiawasee
South Logan
South W a v e r l y Road
1-496
Wash i n g t o n Street

a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
1.
m.

bridges

P l e a s e i n d i c a t e the t h r e e b r i d g e s y o u u se m o s t
d u r i n g a n o r m a l w e e k ’s t r a v e l (c h e c k a p p r o p r i a t e
s p ac es ) .

Appendix

^DS
C.

Format

(Part

III)

remained

161

th e

same--see

162

4.

On the c i t y m a p p r o v i d e d , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e
the n u m b e r w h i c h c o r r e s p o n d s to y o u r p r e s e n t
r e s i d e n c e (by i n t e r v i e w e r ) .

a.

How

b.

Please indicate areas you formerly resided
w i t h i n and h o w lo n g y o u l i v e d t h e r e (only the
two m o s t r e c e n t m o v e s , if a p p l i c a b l e ) .

5.

On the m a p p r o v i d e d , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e w h i c h a r e a
a l o n g th e G r a n d R i v e r y o u are m o s t f a m i l i a r w i t h
( i n d i c a t e no i d e a ) .

a.

W h i c h s e c t i o n s (if any) of the
the n i c e s t e n v i r o n m e n t in y o u r
(I n d i c a t e no idea.)

b.

W h i c h s e c t i o n s (if any)
environment?
(Indicate

6.

Have you
(b esi de s
for w h a t

long

have

you

lived

at y o u r

present

address?

Grand River
opinion?

ha v e

h a v e the p o o r e s t
no idea.)

ever used any river
the G r a n d ) ?
If so,
activity?

for r e c r e a t i o n
w h i c h o n e s and

a . _____________________________________________

b.
c

.

d.
7.

( A s s u m i n g y o u w e r e to go)
w o u l d it ta k e y o u to r e a c h
in L a n s i n g f r o m h o m e ?

How many minutes
the G r a n d R i v e r

a.

W h i c h m o d e of
likely use?

8.

H o w far do y o u u s u a l l y t r a v e l to r e a c h p r e f e r r e d
r e c r e a t i o n a l s i t e s ( b e s i d e s th e G r a n d R i v e r in
Lansing)?
(State it in m i l e s ; e.g., L a k e L a n s i n g
or La k e M i c h i g a n . )

transportation would

you most

163

9.

H a v e y o u or yo u r f a m i l y e v e r u s e d the
R i v e r , or its b a nk s, for r e c r e a t i o n ?
If so,

for

what

Grand

activities?

Where?
a.

If not,

b.

(If a p p r o p r i a t e )
If c o n d i t i o n ( s )
w o u l d y o u u s e the r i v e r ?

10.

a.

why

not?

(If not

recently,

why?)

improved,

L i s t the w a t e r - r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s (i.e.,
a c t i v i t i e s w h i c h i n v o l v e w a t e r or are e n h a n c e d
b y w a t e r ) w h i c h y o u h a v e p a r t i c i p a t e d in and
e n j o y t h e most.

W h i c h of t h e s e a c t i v i t i e s do y o u feel the
R i v e r d o e s or c o u l d p r o v i d e ?
Any others?
Does

Could

(Why not

Grand

currently?

H o w do y o u r f r i e n d s ve iw u s i n g the G r a n d R i v e r
( w i t h i n L a n s i n g ) for r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s ?
1
2
3
4
5

Highly unfavorable
Unfavorable
Neutral
Favorable
Highly favorable

164

Part II
1.

How many vehicles
h o u s e h o l d own?

(in w o r k i n g

a.

Number

of c a r s ?

b.

Number

of m o t o r c y c l e s ?

c.

Number of bicycles

d.

Number

order)

do e s

your

of v e h i c l e s ?

2.

W h a t is y o u r p r e s e n t o c c u p a t i o n ?
(Please
i n d i c a t e if u n e m p l o y e d , h o m e m a k e r , s t u d e n t . )

a.

Where

3.

F r o m the list p r o v i d e d , p l e a s e i n d i c a t e
letter which corresponds with your
a.
b.
c.
d.

do you work?

the

Age
Your household total yearly income before
taxes
Y o u r la s t g r a d e of s c h o o l a t t e n d e d Your marital status

4.

How many

children

5.

Do y o u r

children

If yes,

what

If not,

why?

ar e

there

in y o u r

p r e s e n t l y use

activities?

the

household?
Grand

River?

___________________________

165

Observations:

Date:

Location:

T ime:
Activity:
Race:
Sex:

Other

Notes:

(e.g.,

weather

conditions,

etc.)

APPENDIX

HOUSEHOLD

E

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX E

HOUSEHOLD

Sample

Si z e
The major

adequate

sample
1.

were

si ze

and

limits

could

not

structured
2.

objectives

exploratory
of

behavior

measured

therefore,

assumptions

statistical

met

random

scales,
in th e

adequate
tests

to

were

were

of

achieve

River),

an d

The

.01

considered).

166

of

the

scale,
sampling

only non-parametric

these

techniques

are

and

these

sample

and

household

and

significance

(only

the

chi-square

for

of

hypotheses

(i.e.,

nominal

Both

The

by

normality

utilized

atti­

confidence

or o r d i n a l

Th us ,

a

limit.

obtained

a nominal
the

s u rv ey .

levels

to

confidence

requirements

conservative

significance

an

investigation

established.

data

respectively.

the

Grand

either

samples

household

and

were

The

of

as

th is
(i.e.,

appropriate.

techniques

independent
ment

on

are n o t

tau).

the

a wide

The m a j ority

distribution

in d e t e r m i n i n g

r e s i d e n t s ’ perceptions,

stringently

study were

Kendall's

area

allow

of

in n a t u r e

toward

be

to

considered

included:

the

understanding

tudes,

are

factors

Since

largely

basic

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

ordinal

measure­

requirements
si z e

(N = 300)

adopted

.001

were
was

for b o t h

levels

of

167

3.
the

size

Sample

of

the

total

groups

or

sample

(i.e.,

as

the

decreases,
must

su r v e y ,
is

th e

city.

and
City

of

variance

4.
survey

of

sample

sample

size

for

and

of

of

and

five

to

by

sub­

were

sample
for

this

ar e m a d e ,

sections

increase

size

the

decrease

of

the

obtained
are

for

the

well

household

within

for m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l

proportional

sampling

technique

was

employed

to

a random,

insure

used.

sample

be lo w ) .

the
scaling

(see A p p e n d i x A ) .

stratified,

the

homo­

Survey Design
A

made

analysis

analysis

an d th u s

the MDS)

acceptable

of

taken

design

number

generalizations

a whole

were

household

N = 314

levels

application

efforts

sampling

The

unit

for w h i c h
as

unit

increases

desirable

Lansing

the

influenced

generalizations

aggregate

variance

were

an d

for w h i c h
the

level

the

(i.e.,

tolerance

Sample

the

(see

of

The

Strenuous

geneity

population

sample

increase).

requirements

units

size

the

siz e

The

random

geographic

following

representative

steps

were

s a mp le :

1.

S i t e a n a l y s i s m a p s (i.e., h o u s i n g a n a l y s i s
map) w e r e o b t a i n e d f r o m the L a n s i n g P l a n n i n g
D e p a r t m e n t for e v e r y c e n s u s t r a c t w i t h i n the
s t u d y area.
The maps depict road patterns,
h o u s e l o c a t i o n s , and c e n s u s t r a c t b o u n d a r i e s
for the e n t i r e s t u d y area.

2.

A g r i d c o m p o s e d of one i n c h s q u a r e s , d r a w n
on a c e t a t e w a s s u p e r i m p o s e d on the b a s e map.
E a c h of t h e s e s q u a r e s w a s c o n s e c u t i v e l y n u m ­
ber ed .
E a c h of the o n e - i n c h s q u a r e s w a s t h e n
s u b d i v i d e d into one h u n d r e d s m a l l e r sq u a r e s .
O n e of the s u b d i v i d e d s q u a r e s f r o m e a c h one

168

i n c h s q u a r e w a s c h o s e n as a p o s s i b l e
l o c a t i o n (i.e., the h o u s e l o c a t e d at
p o i n t ) , using numbers generated from
r a n d o m n u m b e r s t a b l e as c o o r d i n a t e s .

sample
that
a

3.

T h e n u m b e r of r e s p o n d e n t s f r o m e a c h c e n s u s
t ra ct w a s d e t e r m i n e d b y the r a t i o b e t w e e n
the n u m b e r of t r a c t r e s i d e n t s to the e n t i r e
study area population.
This procedure assured
a p r o p o r t i o n a l sample .
On s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s
it w a s n e c e s s a r y to c o m b i n e c e n s u s t r a c t s to
a c h i e v e a p p r o p r i a t e s a m p l e size.

4.

A f t e r the l o c a t i o n of the s a m p l e h o u s e s w e r e
d e t e r m i n e d for e a c h trac t, t h e s e h o u s e h o l d s
w e r e c o n t a c t e d (the b a s e m a p w a s t a k e n into
the f i e l d for r e f e r e n c e ) .
If on the fi rs t
c o n t a c t t h e r e w a s no r e s p o n s e (i.e., no one
h o m e ) , one c a l l b a c k w a s made.
If the call
back was unsuccessful, a random selection
m e t h o d w a s e m p l o y e d in the f i e l d to o b t a i n
an a l t e r n a t i v e h o u s e h o l d .

5.

B e c a u s e of the e x t e n s i v e s u r v e y w o r k i n v o l v e d
and the n e e d to s e c u r e a h i g h l y r e l i a b l e
sa m p l e , s e v e r a l s t u d e n t s ( g r a d u a t e a n d u n d e r ­
g r a d u a t e ) at M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i e r s i t y w e r e
e m p l o y e d as i n t e r v i e w e r s .
All received
e x t e n s i v e t r a i n i n g in the p r o p e r a d m i n i s ­
t r a t i o n of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e i r
r e l i a b i l i t y w a s c h e c k e d in the f i e l d w i t h
a f o l l o w - u p i n t e r v i e w c o n d u c t e d by the autho r.
B l a c k s t u d e n t s w e r e e m p l o y e d in p r e d o m i n a n t l y
b l a c k n i e g h b o r h o o d s in o r d e r to s e c u r e a m o r e
reliable response.
S e v e n t y - f i v e p e r c e n t of
all s u r v e y s ( i n c l u d i n g the e n t i r e o n - s i t e
u s e r study) w e r e c o m p l e t e d by the author.

APPENDIX F

SOCIOECONOMIC
SAMPLE

CHARACTERISTICS
POPULATIONS

APPENDIX F

SOCIOECONOMIC
SAMPLE

CHARACTERISTICS
POPULATIONS

Table
Socioeconomic
Household

Variable
1.

the

N u m b e r of
Respondents

P e r c e n t 3 of
Respondents

215
156
371

58
42
100

0
12
56
144
113
27
19
371

0
12
15
39
30
6
5
100

63
300
7
1
371

17
81
2
0
100

52
272
31
10
6
371

14
73
8
3
1
100

Race:^
Black
White
Spanish speaking
Mongoloid
Total

4.

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of
Survey Respondents

Education:
No s c h o o l
1-8 y e a r s
9-12 y e a r s
High school
C o l l e g e , 1-4
College
Post college
Total

3.

F.l

Sex:
Male
Female
Total

2.

OF

Marital

Status :

Single
Married
Divorced
Separated
Widowed
Total

169

170

Table F .1--Continued

Variable
5.

Number

15
39
40
45
58
66
95
13
371

4
11
11
12
16
18
26
4
100

11
182
141
27
5
2
371

3
49
38
7
1
1
100

100
99
18
90
39
19
6
371

27
27
5
24
11
5
2
100

70
128
77
61
13
9
13
371

19
35
21
16
4
2
3
100

of Cars:

None
One
Two
Three
Four
Fi v e
Total
7.

P e r c e n t 3 of
Respondents

Income (combined
h o u s e h o l d ) :c
Less th a n $ 3 , 0 0 0
$ 3 , 0 0 0 to $ 4 , 9 9 9
$ 5 , 0 0 0 to $ 6 , 9 9 9
$ 7 , 0 0 0 to $ 8 , 9 9 9
$ 9 , 0 0 0 to $ 1 1 , 9 9 9
$ 1 2 , 0 0 0 to $ 1 4 , 9 9 9
$ 1 5 , 0 0 0 to $ 2 4 , 9 9 9
Over $24,999
Total

6.

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Occupation:^
Bl u e c o l l a r
White collar
Student
Homemaker
Unemployed
Retired
Self-employed
Total

8. Age:
18
25
35
45
55
60
65

to 24
to 34
to 44
to 54
to 59
to 64
and o v e r
Total

171

Table F.1--Continued

Variable
9.

Number

N u m b e r of
Respondents

n
Percent
of
Respondents

151
47
76
43
29
16
9
371

41
13
20
12
8
4
2
100

141
54
93
42
26
10
4
1
371

38
15
25
11
7
3
1
0
100

of B i c y c l e s :

None
One
Two
Three
Fou r
Fiv e
Six or m o r e
Total
p
10.

Number

of C h i l d r e n :

None
One
Two
Three
Fo u r
Five
Six
Seven
Total
11.

Current City Section
of R e s i d e n c e :
177
40
72
62
20
371

S o u t h side
E a s t side
W e s t side
N o r t h side
Lansing Township
Total

47f
12
19
18
4
100

48
11
19
17
5
100

M e d i a n y e a r s of
r e s i d e n c y = 6.2
12.

Most Recent
Residence:

Section

S o u t h side
E a s t si d e
W e s t si d e
N o r t h side
Lansing Township
Total
M e d i a n y e a r s of
r e s i d e n c y = 2.4

of
83
19
52
39
8
201

41
9
26
19
4
100

172

Table F.1--Continued

Variable
13.

Earliest City
of R e s i d e n c e :

3.

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Percent
of
Respondents

Section

S o u t h si d e
E a s t si de
W e s t side
N o r t h side
Lansing Township
Total

15
7
15
4
1
42

36
17
36
10
2
100

M e d i a n y e a r s of
r e s i d e n c e - 2.3

Percentages

are

rounded

of f

for

all

tables.

■L

R a c e w a s r e c o r d e d by o b s e r v a t i o n s ; th us , f i g u r e s
for S p a n i s h s p e a k i n g m a y be low.
T h e 1970 c e n s u s p e r c e n t a g e
of b l a c k r e s i d e n t s w a s 9.3 p e r c e n t .
This percentage,
a c c o r d i n g to L a n s i n g p l a n n e r s i n c r e a s e d c o n s i d e r a b l y a f t e r
1970.
c T h e e s t i m a t e d m e d i a n i n c o m e for L a n s i n g in 1976
was $10,839.
T h e m e d i a n i n co me le vel f r o m the h o u s e h o l d
s t u d y is a p p r o x i m a t e l y $10 ,000.
^ T h e u n e m p l o y m e n t ra te of w o r k e r s
a v e r a g i n g b e t w e e n 9 and 11 p e r c e n t d u r i n g

in L a n s i n g was
the surve y.

T h e 19 7 0 c e n s u s i n d i c a t e d 58 p e r c e n t of L a n s i n g
h o u s e h o l d s h ad c h i l d r e n u n d e r 18 y e a r s of age.
The h o u s e ­
h o l d s u r v e y i n d i c a t e d 62 p e r c e n t of the h o u s e h o l d s h ad
c h i l d r e n u n d e r 18 y e a r s of age.
^Percent

of

total

population

in s e c t i o n ,

1970.

173

Table F.2
Socioeconomic

C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the O n - S i t e
Survey Respondents

Variable
1.

Marital

1
11
43
49
32
22
15
173

1
6
25
28
19
13
9
100

43
127
2
1
173

25
73
1
1
100

37
107
17
6
6
173

21
62
10
3
4
100

21
17
19
22
27
27
34
6
173

12
10
11
13
16
16
20
4
100

Status :

Single
Married
Divorced
Separated
Widowed
Total
5.

72
28
100

Race:^
Black
White
Spanish speaking
Mongoloid
Total

4.

125
48
-173

Education:
No sc ho o l
1-8
9-12
H i g h sc ho o l
C o l l e g e , 1-4
College
Post college
Total

3.

P e r c e n t 3 of
Respondents

Sex:
Male
Female
Total

2.

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Income

(c om b i n e d ) :

Le ss t h a n $ 3 , 0 0 0
$ 3 , 0 0 0 to $ 4 , 9 9 9
$ 5 , 0 0 0 to $ 6 , 9 9 9
$ 7 , 0 0 0 to $ 8 , 9 9 9
$ 9 , 0 0 0 to $ 1 1 , 9 9 9
$ 1 2 , 0 0 0 to $ 1 4 , 9 9 9
$ 1 5 , 0 0 0 to $ 2 4 , 9 9 9
Over $24,999
Total

174

Table F.2--Continued

Variable
6.

Number

6
49
38
5
2
1
100

82
37
17
2
23
11
173

47
22
10
1
13
6
100

50
54
25
21
4
8
11
173

29
31
14
12
2
5
6
100

63
35
34
23
10
4
1
2
1
173

36
20
20
13
6
2
1
1
1
100

Age:
18 to 24
25 to 34
35 to 44
45 to 54
55 to 59
60 to 64
65 +
Total

9.

11
83
65
9
2
1
172

Occupation:
Bl u e c o l l a r
White collar
Student
Homemaker
Unemployed
Ret ired
Total

8.

P e r c e n t 3 of
Respondents

of Cars:

No n e
One
Two
Three
Fo ur
Fi v e
Total
7.

N u m b e r of
Respondents

Number
None
One
Two
Three
Four
F ive
Six
Seven
Eight
Total

of B i c y c l e s :

175

Table F.2--Continued
N u m b e r of
Respondents

Variable
10.

Current City Section
of Residence:
S o u t h side
E a s t side
W e s t side
N o r t h si d e
Lansing Township
Total

11.

108
11
17
25
10
171

63
6
10
15
6
100

47c
12
19
18
4
100

Former City Section
of R e s i d e n c e :
S o u t h side
E a s t side
W e s t side
N o r t h si d e
Lansing Township
Total

12.

P e r c e n t 8- of
Respondents

Earliest City
of R e s i d e n c e :

Spanish

37
14
34
12
4
100

9
7
10
4
1
31

29
23
32
13
3
100

Section

S o u t h si d e
E a s t side
W e s t side
N o r t h side
Lansing Township
Total

related

35
13
33
11
4
96

P e r c e n t a g e s i n d i c a t e e n t i r e r e s p o n s e on t h r e e
q u e s t i o n s a n d th u s do n o t e q u a l 100 p e r c e n t .
•u
R a c e w a s r e c o r d e d by o b s e r v a t i o n , so e s t i m a t e s
s p e a k i n g m a y be low.
cPercent

of p o p u l a t i o n . in s e ct io n,

1970.

for

APPENDIX

MULTIDIMENSIONAL

G

SCALING MATRIX

Table G.1
Mean Distance Matrix--South Side Residents, Household Survey Respondents

Concepts

1. G r a n d Ri v e r

Gr a n d
River

Me

Females

Males

Children

Picnicking

Industry

Nature

Relaxing

Bicycling

Danger

3. F e m a l e s

74.72

23.91

4. M a l e s

55.24

23.34

47.76

S. C h i l d r e n

58.59

18.98

30.85

39.59

6.

47.03

35.04

30.71

52.09

16.01

63.69

61.83

77 . 6 8

22 . 7 5

27 . 2 3

32.39

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Swimming

119.72

56.51

43 . 6 8

31 . 1 3

22.04

27.16

43 . 1 8

9.

Industry

38.47

75.66

76 . 7 2

33 . 2 3

117.14

114.11

107.54

11 7 . 4 0

10. N a t u r e

55 . 1 5

25 . 6 7

37.20

33.52

2 4 . 3S

17.50

20 . 8 5

23 . 0 4

109.27

11. R e l a x i n g

53.00

27.51

30.14

26 . 2 0

38.29

15.37

20.45

21.81

122.46

12.

66.21

60 . 8 4

38 . 9 5

39.95

20.17

31 . 1 7

54.34

43.74

112.35

21 . 2 9

27.78

49.56

91 . 2 2

60 . 0 3

61.89

54.23

80.17

64.10

54 . 2 3

48 . 2 5

64.26

97. 2 9

60.71

127.81

33.36

29.42

33 . 9 9

42.46

29 . 3 8

24.07

23.40

94.69

21 . 9 8

33.34

64.81

81 . 0 9

54 . 4 5

73 . 0 5

59 . 1 2

29.90

56.11

49.87

58 . 3 3

68.68

94 . 5 7

49.25

49. 5 9

107.60

53.10

Bicycling

14. C l e a n w a t e r
15.

Power boating

Po w e r
Boating

0.00

8.

13. D a n g e r

Clean
Water

0.00

67.95

7. F i s h i n g

Swimming

0.00

2. M e

Picnicking

Fishing

0.00
0.00
0.00
18.38

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
53. 5 6

0.00

Table G.2
Mean Distance Matrix— Non-South Side Residents, Household Survey Respondents

Concepts

1. G r a n d R i v e r

Grand
River

Clean
Me

Females

Males

Children

Picnicking

Fishing

Swimming

Industry

Nature

Relaxing

Bic y c l i n g

Danger

0.00

85 . 4 4

3.

85.84

30 . 9 6

4. M a l e s

73.57

37 . 9 7

53 . 1 5

5. C h i l d r e n

60.43

34 . 5 3

31.47

42.41

6.

Picnicking

64 . 7 4

40.03

37 . 8 8

52.80

31.90

7.

Fishing

64.76

62.95

74 . 7 6

34.08

44.49

40 . 4 4

8.

Swimming

126.28

64.71

48.21

37 . 0 8

30 . 4 5

35 . 2 3

53.70

9.

Industry

44.39

85.29

70.63

37.34

110.39

123.72

12 2 . 4 0

135.55

10. N a t u r e

54.11

32.57

44 . 8 3

40.19

35.17

30.04

36 . 4 3

40 . 3 7

123.17

11.

Relaxing

59 . 7 6

33.32

39.72

37 . 3 7

38.73

25 . 3 3

32 . 2 9

30.45

130.76

30. 3 6

12.

Bicycling

73.45

65 . 7 8

48.70

51 . 9 8

23.61

36 . 8 3

73.52

62.37

127.22

31.05

36.34

73.45

97.27

48 . 2 4

56 . 6 5

54.19

10 2 . 4 0

71.34

61.26

64 . 2 6

87.65

115.45

78.59

126.26

42 . 6 8

39 . 7 8

40 . 6 2

46.54

33 . 8 9

59.47

30.50

127.52

50.75

53.68

81.89

98.09

68.59

79.57

61 . 1 8

37.76

64 . 5 2

51 . 5 5

69.40

80.09

103.98

61.86

55.23

111.81

69.32

13. D a n g e r
14. C l e a n w a t e r
15. P o w e r b o a t i n g

Power
Boating

0.00

2. M e
Females

Wa t e r

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
69.18

0.00

Table G.3
Mean Distance Matrix--South Side Residents, On-Site Survey Respondents

Concepts

1. G r a n d R i v e r
2. Me
3.

Females

Grand
River

Me

Females

Males

Children

Picnicking

Industry

Nature

Relaxing

Bicycling

Danger

25.31
27 . 0 8

48 . 85

5. C h i l d r e n

53.19

18.91

25.79

34.65

6.

42.00

31 . 7 3

24.62

40.19

15.44

38 . 0 7

37 . 8 9

57.61

25.61

29.29

32 . 7 9

0.00
0.00
178

0.00
0.00

8.

Swimming

100.15

59 . 3 8

33 . 9 7

28.81

22.39

28 . 2 5

48.49

9.

Industry

40.01

64.11

61.71

33.48

94.09

101.97

84.90

93.41

10. N a t u r e

34.86

23.45

33.72

27.18

23.66

17.37

20.22

26.62

91.01

11. R e l a x i n g

28.20

20.40

30 . 2 6

27.56

35.19

20.69

17.10

17.72

101.06

22.97

12.

52.95

46 . 5 3

37 . 6 2

36 . 2 8

19.11

34.21

69.27

51.58

92.23

20.90

36.49

42.82

73.48

60 . 0 4

51.70

55 . 6 4

70 . 0 4

60.27

46.00

47 . 4 4

61.10

91.87

52.47

106.54

29.19

35.87

32 . 2 7

41.81

33.61

38.29

27.41

93 . 1 9

23.19

37.72

72.93

80.09

50.35

59.01

51.06

28.56

49 . 2 1

47.87

40.08

55.46

85.57

45 . 6 7

50.30

87.51

56 . 3 4

13. D a n g e r
14. C l e a n w a t e r
IS.

Power boating

Po w e r
Boating

0.00

79.04

Bicycling

Clean
Water

0.00

54.09

7. F i s h i n g

Swimming

0.00
43.65

4. M a l e s

Picnicking

Fishing

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

Table G.4
Mean Distance Matrix--Non-South Side Residents, On-Site Survey Respondents

Concepts

1. G r a n d R i v e r

Grand
Ri v e r

Me

Females

Ma l e s

Children

Picnicking

Fishing

Nature

Relaxing

Bi c y c l i n g

Danger

3. F e m a l e s

63.85

19.36

4. M a l e s

40 . 3 2

17.63

48 . 8 3

5. C h i l d r e n

37.01

14.23

21.60

26.29

6.

48.80

18.83

20.70

38 . 2 3

16.67

27 . 9 8

30.10

44.23

14.83

15.92

27 . 0 9

40.29

32 . 2 3

23.23

15.29

23.61

45 . 2 7

60.87

61.49

22.60

101.21

94 . 5 0

89.80

Swimming

9.

Industry

32.27

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
108.25

0.00
0.00

10. N a t u r e

39 . 0 3

13.63

31.16

18.18

23 . 3 4

16.70

15.98

26.01

112.54

11. R e l a x i n g

33.41

11.76

35 . 0 3

18 . 1 0

40 . 4 3

17.23

17.98

24.52

11 5 . 7 0

26 . 76

12.

54 . 6 5

45 . 4 5

36.58

34.42

23 . 9 8

43.20

65.30

54 . 2 9

107.52

23.60

58 . 8 0

51 . 4 7

87.10

52.23

46.39

46.30

65.60

64.20

41 . 5 4

47.94

62 . 27

87.45

57.07

11 2 . 6 3

41.69

25 . 2 3

26.54

32 . 6 7

25 . 8 3

30.16

21.78

80.07

25.54

32. 4 9

89.90

75.63

41.36

53.45

56.05

29 . 1 2

42.69

48.20

47 . 2 5

52.00

84.36

55.00

46.45

110.63

43.74

13. D a n g e r
14. C l e a n w a t e r
IS.

Power boating

Power
Boating

179

8.

11 1 . 4 0

Bicycling

Clean
Water

0.00

38.14

7, F i s h i n g

Ind u s t r y

0.00

2. Me

Picnicking

Swimming

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
66.81

0.00

Table G.5
Arithmetic Differences Between the Mean Distance Matrices for the Non-South Side
Residents - South Side Residents, On-Site Survey Respondents

Concepts

1. G r a n d R i v e r
2. Me

Gr a n d
River

Me

Females

Males

Children

Picnicking

-12.87

-9.45

-0.02

5. C h i l d r e n

-14.10

-4.68

-4 . 1 9

-8.36

6.80

-12.90

-3.92

-1 . 9 6

1.23

-10.09

-7.79

-1 3 . 3 8

-10.78

-1 3 . 3 7

-5.70

Picnicking

Relaxing

Bicycling

Danger

0.00
0.00
0.00

Swimming

11.25

-19.09

-1.74

-5 . 5 8

-7 . 1 0

-4.64

-3.22

9.

Industry

-7.74

-3.24

-0.22

- 10.88

7.12

-7.47

4.90

14.84

10. N a t u r e

4. 1 7

-9.82

-2 . 5 6

-9.00

-0.32

-0.67

-4.24

-0.61

11.27

11. R e l a x i n g

5.21

-8.64

4.77

-9 . 4 6

5.24

-3 . 4 6

0.88

7. 3 0

6.90

2.65

0.00

12.

1.70

-1.08

-1.04

-1 . 9 6

4.87

-8 . 9 9

3.97

2.71

8. 3 5

1.73

5.58

13. D a n g e r

8.65

13.62

-7.81

-5 . 3 2

-9.34

-4.44

4.93

-4 . 4 6

0.99

-1.97

-2.41

3.85

14. C l e a n w a t e r

6.09

12 . 5 0

-10.64

-5.73

-9.14

-7.78

-8.13

-5.63

-9.95

-1.96

-3.61

10.08

-3.16

-8 . 9 9

-5 . 5 6

4.99

0.56

-6.52

-0 . 3 3

7.17

-3 . 4 6

-3.28

6.50

2.23

14.46

-8.65

15. P o w e r b o a t i n g

Power
B oat i n g

0.00

8.

Bicycling

Clean
Water

180

7. F i s h i n g

Nature

0.00

4. M a l e s

6.

Industry

0.00
-5.95

Females

Swimming

0.00
-5.54
-15.19

3.

Fishing

0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00

APPENDIX H

UNIDIMENSIONAL

RESPONSE

Table H.l
Unidimensional

Response

Entire
Household
Study
Mean

Household
Study
User
Mean

Household
Study
Non-User
Mean

On-Site
Mean

84.12

84. 23

84 .0 1

79.81

7 2. 83

72.19

73.46

9 6. 17

57.62

53. 57

61 .6 7

78.79

L a n s i n g 's
history

49 .3 1

46. 54

52 . 07

52 . 3 9

Cultural
events

69. 04

65.10

72 . 97

60. 54

Bicentennial
events

6 9. 12

69. 08

69.16

5 5 .4 2

Canoeing

58 .88

60 .4 7

57 . 28

45.13

Water

66.86

70 .3 1

63.40

52.82

8 9. 35

86.59

92 .11

29.77

Rape

105.19

105.64

104.74

50 .47

Prostitution

118 . 4 7

122.75

114.19

57.10

A l c o h o l and
drug use

78.66

78. 98

78. 24

39.40

Lovers'

70.19

6 8 .8 6

71. 51

48 .45

103.79

102.84

104.73

63. 04

Hiking

68. 55

69 .1 4

70.87

84 .37

W a l k i n g for
pleasure

56. 53

54. 31

58. 75

9 4. 31

Concerts

69 .3 2

66. 30

72 .33

56. 72

D r i v i n g for
pleasure

61. 31

57.22

65.39

44.35

Accessibility

50.65

5 5 .7 0

65.60

7 6. 50

Variable with
Grand River
Old

age

Playing
Flood

sports

danger

skiing

Muggings

Edible

lane
fish

181

APPENDIX I

UNIDIMENSIONAL
HOUSEHOLD

RESPONSE
SURVEY

BY C I T Y

SECTION-

RESPONDENTS

Table 1.1
U n i d i m e n s i o n a l R e s p o n s e by C i t y S e c t i o n - Household Survey Respondents

Variable with
Grand River
Old

S o u t h Side
Resident Mean

age

N o n - S o u t h Si d e
Resident Mean

71.00

72 .8 7

62.09

63.20

53. 98

48 . 00

39 .5 0

36.25

70.35

59 .3 7

61 .0 9

61. 61

Canoeing

45.11

51. 96

Waterskiing

55.65

62.57

Muggings

87.33

82.02

Rape

90 .8 9

94.33

Prostitution

96. 32

110.02

63. 79

66.11

57.66

56.85

11 9. 4 8

113.02

61.45

60. 01

57.28

48 .65

64.76

59 .1 4

58.31

49.40

45.31

49.15

Playing
Flood

sports

danger

Lansing's
Cultural

history
events

Bicentennial

Alcohol

and

Lo v e r s '

lane

Edible

events

drug

use

fish

Hiking
Walking

for p l e a s u r e

Concerts
Driving

for p l e a s u r e

Accessibility

182

'

REFERENCES

CITED

184

Clark,

W. A. V., a nd C a d w a l l a d e r , M.
"Residential
Preferences:
A n A l t e r n a t e V i e w of I n t r a u r b a n
E n v i r o n m e n t a n d P l a n n i n g 5 (1973): 69 3- 7 0 3 .

Space."

C l a r k e , A l f r e d C,
" T h e U s e of L e i s u r e a n d Its R e l a t i o n s h i p
to L e v e l s of O c c u p a t i o n a l P r e s t i g e . "
American
S o c i o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 21 (1957): 3 0 1 - 3 0 7 .
Ch u b b ,

Michael.
R e c r e a t i o n in the
A r e a . East Lansing, Mich.:
C o n s u l t a n t s , J u l y 1972.

David,

E. J. L.
" F l o o d p l a i n L a n d s for
A Case Study of Milwaukee.
Land
221-226.

David,

E l i z a b e t h L.
"Public Perceptions
W a t e r R e s o u r c e s R e s e a r c h 3 (1971):

Dee,

Lansing Model Cities
Recreation Resource

Parks and
Economics

of W a t e r
453-457.

Recreation,
49 (1973) :

Quality."

N o r b e r t , and L i e b m a n , J o n C.
" S t a t i s t i c a l S t u d y of
A t t e n d a n c e at U r b a n P l a y g r o u n d s . "
J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e
R e s e a r c h 2 (1970): 14 5- 15 9.

D i t t o n , R o b e r t , and G o o d a l e , T h o m a s .
Marine Recreational
U s e s of G r e e n Bay:
A S t u d y of H u m a n B e h a v i o r and
A t t i t u d e P a t t e r n s . M a d i s o n , W i s .:
U n i v e r s i t y of
W i s c o n s i n , S e a G r a n t P r o g r a m , R e p o r t No. 17, D e c e m b e r
1972.
Do wn s ,

R o g e r M.
" T h e C o g n i t i v e S t r u c t u r e of an U r b a n
Shopping Center."
E n v i r o n m e n t and B e havior 2
(1969): 13-19.
"Geographic Space Perception:
Past Approaches
and Future P r o spect."
In P r o g r e s s in G e o g r a p h y ,
Vol. 2, pp. 65-10 8 .
Edited by Christopher Board
et al.
N e w Y or k:
St. M a r t i n ' s P r e s s , 1970.

Gold,

S e y m o r e M.
" N o n u s e of N e i g h b o r h o o d P a r k s . "
Journal
of th e A m e r i c a n I n s t i t u t e of P l a n n e r s 38 ( N o v e m b e r
1972): 36 9- 3 7 8 .

__________ .
" N e i g h b o r h o o d Parks:
The Nonuse Phenomenon."
E v a l u a t i o n Q u a r t e r l y 2 (1977): 3 1 9 - 3 7 8 .
G o l l e d g e , R. G . , B ri g g s , R . , and D e m k o , D.
"Configurations
of D i s t a n c e in I n t r a - U r b a n S p a c e . "
P r o c e e d i n g s of
th e A s s o c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a n G e o g r a p h e r s 1 (1969) :
60-66.
W a s h i n g t o n , D . C . : A s s o c i a t i o n of G e o g r a p h e r s .

185

G o l l e d g e , R. G . , an d Bro wn , L a w r e n c e A.
"Search, Learning,
a n d the M a r k e t D e c i s i o n P r o c e s s . "
Geografiska
A n n a l e r 49, S e r i e s B (1967): 1 1 6 - 1 2 1 Z
G o l l e d g e , R. J . ; Bro wn , L a w r e n c e A.; and W i l l i a m s o n , Frank.
" B e h a v i o r a l A p p r o a c h e s in G e o g r a p h y :
An Overview."
T h e A u s t r a l i a n G e o g r a p h e r 12 (1972): 59-79.
G o l l e d g e , R. J., and R u s h t o n , Ge rar d.
Multi-Dimensional
Scaling:
R e v i e w an d G e o g r a p h i c a l A p p l i c a t i o n s .
C o m m i s s i o n on C o l l e g e G e o g r a p h y , T e c h n i c a l P a p e r
No. 10.
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.:
A s s o c i a t i o n of A m e r i c a n
G e o g r a p h e r s , 1972.
G o o d a l e , T. L.
" A n A n a l y s i s of L e i s u r e B e h a v i o r and
A t t i t u d e s in S e l e c t e d M i n n e a p o l i s C e n s u s T r a c t s . "
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1965.
Goul d,

Pet er.
On M e n t a l M a p s . A n n A r b o r , M i c h . :
Univer­
s i t y of M i c h i g a n , D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y , M i c h i g a n
I n t e r - U n i v e r s i t y C o m m u n i t y of M a t h e m a t i c a l G e o g r a p h ­
ers, D i s c u s s i o n P a p e r No. 9, 1966.

H e c o c k , R i c h a r d D.
" R e c r e a t i o n B e h a v i o r P a t t e r n s as R e l a t e d
to S i t e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of B e a c h e s . "
J o u r n a l of
L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 2 (1970): 237-250.
H e n d e e , J o h n C., a n d B ur d g e , R a b e l J.
"The S u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y
Concept:
I m p l i c a t i o n for R e c r e a t i o n R e s e a r c h and
Measurement."
J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 6 (1974):
1 5 7 - 16 2.
H e n d e e , J oh n; C a l t o n , W i l l i a m R . ; and B r o c k m a n , Frank.
W i l d e r n e s s U s e r s in the P a c i f i c N o r t h w e s t :
Their
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , V a l u e s , and M a n a g e m e n t P r e f e r e n c e s .
P o r t l a n d , O r e g .:
Pacific Northwest Forest Experiment
S t a t i o n , U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , R e s e a r c h P a p e r PN W-6 1.
H o r t o n , F r a n k E., an d R e y n o l d s , D a v i d R.
" E f f e c t s of U r b a n
S p a t i a l S t r u c t u r e on I n d i v i d u a l B e h a v i o r . "
Economic
G e o g r a p h y 47 ( J a n u a r y 1971): 36-48.
Huntington, Ellsworth.
Civilization
H a v e n , Conn .:
Yale University
Hurst,

and C l i m a t e .
Pr e s s , 1915.

M. E.
A G e o g r a p h y of E c o n o m i c B e h a v i o r .
S c i t u a t e , M a s s .:
D u x b u r y Pr es s , 1974.

New

North

J a c o b s , Jane.
T he L i f e an d D e a t h of A m e r i c a n C i t i e s .
N o r t h Scituate, Mass.:
D u x b u r y Pre ss , 1965.

186

J o h n s t o n , R. J.
" A c t i v i t y S p a c e s and R e s i d e n t i a l
Preferences:
S o m e T e s t s of the H y p o t h e s i s of
Sectoral Mental Maps."
E c o n o m i c G e o g r a p h y 48
(April 1972) : 1 9 9 -2 11 .
K a te s,

R. W.
H a z a r d and C h o i c e P e r c e p t i o n in F l o o d P l a i n
M a n a g e m e n t . U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , D e p a r t m e n t of
G e o g r a p h y , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 70, 1962.

Lime,

D a v i d W.
" R e s e a r c h for D e t e r m i n i n g
of the B o u n d a r y W a t e r s C a n o e A r e a . "
21 (1970): 8-13.

Use Capacities
Naturalists

L i n d s a y , J o h n A., a n d O g l e , R i c h a r d A.
"Socioeconomic
P a t t e r n s of O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n U s e N e a r U r b a n A r e a s . "
J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 4 (1972): 19-24.
L o w e n t h a l , Dav id .
"Environmental Perception and Behavior."
U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , D e p a r t m e n t of G e o r g a p h y ,
R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 109, 1967.
Luc a s ,

R o be rt.
" W i l d e r n e s s P e r c e p t i o n a n d Use:
The
E x a m p l e of t h e B o u n d a r y W a t e r s C a n o e A r e a . "
N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e J o u r n a l 3 (1964): 39 4- 4 1 1.

__________. U s e r E v a l u a t i o n of C a m p g r o u n d s o n T w o M i c h i g a n
Forests.
S t . P a u l , M i n n . : North Central Forest
E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n , U.S. F o r e s t S e r v i c e , R e s e a r c h
P a p e r N C - 4 4 , 1970.
Ly nc h ,

Kevin.
The
M . I . T. P r e s s

I m a g e of the C i t y . C a m b r i d g e , M a s s . :
a n d H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1960.

M c C r a c k e n , K. W. J.
" H o u s e h o l d A w a r e n e s s S p a c e s and
Intraurban Migration Search Behavior."
The
P r o f e s s i o n a l G e o g r a p h e r 27 (1975): 1 6 6 - 1 7 0 .
M o n c r i e f , Lew is.
" U s e r R e l a t e d S t u d y of T h r e e M i c h i g a n
Rivers."
In A n E c o l o g i c a l E v a l u a t i o n of S t r e a m
E u t r o p h i c a t i o n , pp. 1 2 . 1 - 1 2 . 5 .
East Lansing,
Mich.:
M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , I n s t i t u t e of
W a t e r R e s r o u c e s , T ec h. R e p o r t No. 36, 1973.
M o r r i l l , R i c h a r d L.
"Views and Opinions:
The Future
of G e o g r a p h y . "
T h e P r o f e s s i o n a l G e o g r a p h e r 27
( F e b r u a r y 1975) : 1.
National Recreation and Park Association.
Statement
National P o l i c y . Arlington, V a . : National
R e c r e a t i o n a n d P a r k A s s o c i a t i o n , D r a f t No. 21,

of
1977.

187

P e t e r s o n , G e o r g e L., "A M o d e l of P r e f e r e n c e :
Quantitative
A n a l y s i s of t h e V i s u a l A p p e a r a n c e of R e s i d e n t i a l
Neighborhoods."
J o u r n a l of R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e s 7
(1967): 19-31.
__________ . M o v i t a t i o n s , P e r c e p t i o n s , S a t i s f a c t i o n s and
E n v i r o n m e n t a l D i s p o s i t i o n s of B o u n d a r y W a t e r s C a n o e
A r e a U s e r s and M a n a g e r s .
St! P a u l , Minn. : N o r t h
C e n t r a l F o r e s t E x p e r i m e n t S t a t i o n , U.S. F o r e s t
S e r v i c e , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 13 - 2 5 3 , 1971.
__________ .
"A C o m p a r i s o n of the S e n t i m e n t s and P e r c e p t i o n s
of W i l d e r n e s s M a n a g e r s an d C a n o e i s t s in the B W C A . "
J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 3 (1974): 19 4-206.
P i e r c e , R ob e r t .
" B e h a v i o r a l C o r r e l a t e s of P e r c e i v e d S t r e s s
in the U r b a n E n v i r o n m e n t :
S p a t i a l R e s t r i c t i o n in
Metropolitan Detroit."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t
of G e o g r a p h y , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1974.
Pos ey ,

Milton.
" C i t y Not F a c i n g R e a l i t y . "
S t a t e J o u r n a l , 5 N o v e m b e r 1975.

The

Lansing

Ready,

Keith.
" P e r c e p t i o n s by A r e a R e s i d e n t s of the
M e r r i m a c k Rive r.
A Spatial Analysis."
Master's
t h e s i s , D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y , M i a m i U n i v e r s i t y
of O x f o r d , Ohio, 1973.

R i t c h i e , J. R. Bre nt .
" O n the D e r i v a t i o n of L e i s u r e
Activity Types--A Perceptual Mapping Approach."
J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 7 (1975): 128 -140.
R o s s m a n , B e t t y B . , a n d V l e h l a , J o s e p h Z.
"Psychological
Reward Values Associated with Wilderness Use."
E n v i r o n m e n t a n d B e h a v i o r 9 (1977): 41-66.
Ru gg,

R o b e r t D.
" T h e U se and N o n - U s e of U r b a n Parks:
A c c e s s i b i l i t y a nd S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s in R e l a t i o n
to P u b l i c O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n in S e l e c t e d N e i g h b o r h o o d s
of O t t a w a - H u l l ."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t of
G e o g r a p h y , U n i v e r s i t y of O t t a w a , 1974.

R u s h t o n , Ge ra ld .
" T h e S c a l i n g of L o c a t i o n a l P r e f e r e n c e s . "
In B e h a v i o r a l P r o b l e m s in G e o g r a p h y :
A Symposium,
pp. 19 7 - 2 2 7 .
E d i t e d by K. R. C o x a n d R. G. G o l l e d g e .
E v a n s t o n , 111.:
N o r t h w e s t e r n U n i v e r s i t y S t u d i e s in
G e o g r a p h y , No. 17, 1969.
S a a r i n e n , T. F.
P e r c e p t i o n of the D r o u g h t H a z a r d on the
G r e a t P l a i n s -!
Chicago!
U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o P r e s s ,
D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y , R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 106, 1966.

188

Sauer,

C a r l 0.
" T h e M o r p h o l o g y of L a n d s c a p e . "
In
U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P u b l i c a t i o n s in G e o g r a p h y .
V o l . 2 , p p . 2 5 3 - 2 8 2 , O c t o b e r 1925.

Smi th ,

G e o f f r e y D . ; Shaw, J.
"Children's Perception
Center."
Professional
157 - 1 6 4 .

B . , and H u c k l e , Peter.
of a D o w n t o w n S h o p p i n g
G e o g r a p h e r 31 (1979):

S t a n k e y , G eo rg e.
" T h e P e r c e p t i o n of W i l d e r n e s s R e c r e a t i o n
Carrying Capacity:
A G e o g r a p h i c S t u d y in N a t u r a l
Resource Management."
Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n , D e p a r t m e n t
of G e o g r a p h y , M i c h i g a n S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , 1970.
S t e w a r d , J u l i a n H.
" T h e C o n c e p t a n d M e t h o d of C u l t u r a l
Ecology."
In T h e o r y of C u l t u r a l C h a n g e , pp. 5-17.
U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s P r es s, 1955.
T h o m p s o n , C. S t a s s e n , and T i n s l e y , A. W.
"Income E x p e n d i ­
tu re E l a s t i c i t i e s for R e c r e a t i o n :
Their Estimation
a nd R e l a t i o n to D e m a n d for R e c r e a t i o n . "
Journal
of L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 10 (1978): 265 -270.
T o l m a n , E d w a r d C.
" C o g n i t i v e M a p s in R a t s and M e n . "
P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w 55 (1948): 18 9- 2 0 8 .
T o r e g e r s o n , Wa rr e n .
Theory
N e w York:
John Wiley

and M e t h o d s of
8 Sons, 1958.

Scaling.

U.S.

Congress.
Outdoor Recreation Resource Review
Commission.
O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n for A m e r i c a .
A r e p o r t to t h e P r e s i d e n t an d to C o n g r e s s .
W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.:
Government Printing Office,
1962.

U.S.

C o n g r e s s . Ho us e .
Pollution Control
sess., 1977 .

U.S.

Congress. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review C o m ­
mission.
N a t i o n a l R e c r e a t i o n S u r v e y , b y A b b o t t L.
Ferriss.
C o m m i s s i o n R e p o r t No. 19.
Washington,
D.C.:
G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1962.

U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.
"Careful Planning
for R e c r e a t i o n A r e a s A l o n g R e s t o r e d W a t e r w a y s . "
N e w s l e t t e r , 5 N o v e m b e r 1976.

U.S.

D e p a r t m e n t of I n t e r i o r .
National Urban
S t u d y . E x e c u t i v e Report.
Washington,
G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1978.

A Bi l l to A m e n d the F e d e r a l W a t e r
Act.
H.R. 9464, 9 5 t h C o n g . , 1st

Recreation
D.C.:

189

Vaux,

H. J.
" T h e D i s t r i b u t i o n of I n c o m e A m o n g W i l d e r n e s s
Users."
J o u r n a l of L e i s u r e R e s e a r c h 7 (1977): 29-37.

W h e e l e r , J a m e s 0.
" L o c a t i o n of M o b i l e H o m e M a n u f a c t u r i n g :
A Multidimensional Scaling Analysis."
The P r o f e s ­
s i o n a l G e o g r a p h e r 28 ( A ug us t 1976): 26 1-266.
White,

G i l b e r t F.
C h o i c e of A d j u s t m e n t s to F l o o d s .
U n i v e r s i t y of C h i c a g o , D e p a r t m e n t of G e o g r a p h y ,
R e s e a r c h P a p e r No. 93, 1964.

__________. " F o r m a t i o n an d R o l e of P u b l i c A t t i t u d e s . "
In
E n v i r o n m e n t a l Q u a l i t y in a G r o w i n g E c o n o m y , pp. 105127.
E d i t e d b y H. J a r r e t t .
B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins
Pr e s s , 1966.
W h i t m a n , Ira L.
Evaluating Urban Core
and S h o r e l i n e s .
C o l u m b u s , Ohio:
I n s t i t u t e , 1971.

U s a g e of W a t e r w a y s
Battelle Memorial

W o e l f e l , J., and S a l t i e l , J.
" C o g n i t i v e P r o c e s s e s as
M o t i o n in a M u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l Space:
A General
Linear Model."
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan
S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y , E a s t L a n s i n g , 1974.
W o l p e r t , J ul i a n .
" B e h a v i o r a l A s p e c t s of the D e c i s i o n
to M i g r a t e . "
P a p e r s of th e R e g i o n a l S c i e n c e
A s s o c i a t i o n 15 (1965) : 159 -16 9.