DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 045 232 RC 004 846

AUTHOR Milstein, David N.TI'LF Project 180, Rural Michigan Now and in 1980;

Michigan's Outdoor recreation and Tourism.INSTITUTION Michigan State Univ., Fast Lansing. Agricultural

Experiment Station.rFPORT NO PR-4/PUP DATE Jun 65NOT': 280.

FDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

IDENTIFIERS

rDRS Price Mr-40.2 HC-$1.r0Employment Projections, Federal Programs, Land Use,*Leisure Time, *Natural Resources, *PopulationTrends, *Recreation, lecreatonal Facilities, StatePrograms, Technological Advancement, *Tourism*Michigan

APSTRACTMichigan is widely recognized as a traditional

leader in outdoor recreation and tourism. Its location and resourcesprovide many comparative advantages toward attracting visitors. Statespending fcr outdoor recreation amounted to Tor million over thedecade ending in 1960. State and Fe.leral policies and programs arelikely to emphasize outdoor recreation and tourism much more Clan inthe Past. Of the factors affecting the futue of this industr,population of the Prime market area may well be the most important.The future population mix will heavily emphasise the demand Patternsof the very ycuna and the old. Technoloaica, and cultural changeswill broaden the range of choice in leisure activities. Th.? greatestshifts in land use are to he in areas relatively accessible tometropolitan copulation centers. The public sector can most stronglyinfluence emerging patterns of develoument in 2 major ways:indirectly thrcuch public reaulation of activities, such as carefulzoning; and directly via public development of scenic roads, parks,and regional ilterpretive complexes. Imaginative oroirams appearcrucial if Michigan is to maintain or exnand its share of 'leper treatLake's tourism and outdoor recreation in the face of growingcompetition. Related documents are En 023 R34 and PC ODu RO. (IF)

I.

cv RESEARCHLmr4 REPORT

FROM THE MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITYAGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION AND COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE, EAST LANSING

U.S DEPARTMENT Of HEAT H. EDUCATIONI WELFARE

°EMCEE:4 EDUCATIONTHAS 00CUsEIXT HAS SEEN REPRODUCEDEXACTLY AS RECEIVEC EE10 FA ENE PERSON ORORG IN:AEON ORIGINATING IT POEN TS Ofvim OR OPINIONS STATED DO NOT NECES-SARILY REPRESENT OFFICIAL OFFICE OF ENCATION POPTION OR POLICY

PROJECT '80RURAL MICHIGANNow and in 1980

FOREWORDININIMCM=111a11111-

THE RURAL SC:ENE in Michigan is changing veryrapidly. Many decisions are being made that re-

quire commitments for several years ahead. Longrange planning is a must. In order to encourage longrange planning and assist the people of rural Mich-igan in this effort, the College of Agriculture ofMichigan State University launched PROJECT '80in early 1964. PROJECT '80 is a study of the pros-pects and potential for rural Michigan by 1980.

PROJECT '80 is designed to seek answers to threeimportant questions: (1) What will rural Michiganbe like in 1980, in the natural course of events? (2)What do rural people and others concerned want itto be like in 1980? (3) Mat can be done to capi-talize on the opportunities, avoid impending prob-lems, or change the natural course of events and re-direct Michigan's rural economy toward the goals?

A task of this magnitude has required the time andeffort of many individuals. Dean T. K. Cowden, theCollege of Agriculture, appointed a steering commit-tee composed of the chairman, Dr. L. L. Boger, chair-man of the department of agricultural economics; Dr.Raleigh Barlowe, chairman of the department of re-source development; Dr. John Carew, chairman ofthe department of horticulture; Dr. Charles Lassiter,chairman of the department of dairy; Dr. Alexis Pen-shin, chairman of the department of forest products;and Richard Bell, assistant director of the Coopera-tive Extension Service. Dr. John Ferris of the Depart.ment of Agricultural Economics has been the projectdirector and Mark Allen of the department of infor-mation t:rvices has been the editor.

The steering committee delegated to selected fa-culty members the responsibility of preparing some50 discussion papers covering the many facets ofthe rural economyagriculture, agribusiness, forestry,fisheries and wildlife, nursery crops, floriculture, rec-reation, service industries, and people. Many ruralleaden and representatives of businesses directly con-cerned with the rural economy participated in theproject by reviewing these papers, offering sugges-

tions, and submitting ideas for needed programs.About 200 of these individuals joined 100 campus-

based faculty members in a two-day seminar at Mich-igan State University's Kellogg Center on March 31-April 1, 1965, for such a review. Other meetings havebeen held for this purpose, including a two-day work-shop for the entire faculty of the College of Agricul-ture and the Extension Service.

It is possible to make u. e of analytical techniquesin the development of long rangea decade or moreprojections. However, there are numerous forces im-pinging upon the future that defy analysis. For thisreason, PROJECT '80 researchers have sought thewise counsel and judgment of persons within and out-side of the College of Agriculture.

This report is one of a series prepared forPROJECT '80. The emphasis of this report is onanswering the first question posed by the project,-What will rural Michigan tie like In 1980, in thenatural course of events?" These are the projections.They are based on certain assumptions, research, anda great deal of judgment. They should not be re-garded as inevitable. True, many of the developmentsprojected will occur regardless of or in spite of whatis done in Michigan. But at the same time there areforces over which we do have some control. Herepeople can do something to change the course ofevents if they act soon enough and if they reallyvant to accept the challenge. In a sense, PROJECT'80 is en early warning device designed to sparkaction to change some of the projections before it istoo late.

A study such as PROJECT '80 can focus on mak-ing projections, but the question of goals and actionsmust be answered by individuals and organizations.

Formally, PROJECT '80 is completed with thepublication of these reports. The success, howeverdepends on what happens after this datehow wellIt succeeds in bringing the best information availableto the attention of rural Michigan and in stimulatingpeople to discuss the future and to plan accordingly.

BACKGROUND ASSUMPTIONS AND PROJECTIONS

1.4 Rural Michigan will be a part of a dynamic andry interrelated economy between now and 1980. Be-L(' cause of this we must recognize what some of theNi underlying forces will he. Here are some of the high-

lights from Rural Michigan Now and in 1930,Highlights and Summary of Project '80 ResearchReport 37, Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan

LLJ State University.Between now and 1980 we assume:

(1) No major war.(2) No major depression.(3) Innatioa of about 1.5 percent per year in

consumer prices.(4) Average weather and little success in con-

trolling weather.

The population of the United States is expected toincrease from 188 million in 1962-83 to about 245million by 1950, a 30 percent increase. A similargrowth rate is projected for the East North CentralStates and for Michigan. Michigan's population is toincrease from 8.0 million in 1962-83 to 10.2 millionby 1980. Many of the counties in the Upper Peninsulaand Northwest Lower Michigan are not expectedto share in this increase; in fact, population in theseareas is projected to continue to decline.

Population will continue to shift away from farmsand cenfral cities to the suburbs and to rural non-farm residences. A higher proportion of the popula-tion will be in the younger and older age categories.The average Michigan resident over 25 will haveattained 2 more years of formal education by 1980.

The national economy will have exceeded the trilliondollar level by 1980, enough to provide the popula-tion with disposable incomes above $3,000 per capita(in 1962-83 dollars), more than $900 greater than in1962-63. The Michigan economy is projected to grow

at least as rapidly as the national economy, with in-comes and wage rates remaining above the U. S.average. (In 1965, wage rates in Michigan were thehighest in the nation.)

People will not only be more affluent, they willhave more leisure time. The average work week maywell be reduced to 4 days. Employees will likelyhave another week of paid vacation time and morewill retire at earlier ages. A larger proportion of thelabor force will be women.

With rising incomes, spending patterns will change.Larger proportions of incomes will be spent on"nonessentials;" a smaller proportion will be spent onnecessities such as food. The composition of dietswill continue to change and people will spend morefor processing and marketing services. People willexperiment more with new products and m ill be moreeasily influenced by advertising and promotion.

The urban sprawl and diversion of farm land toforests, parks and highways will reduce the land infarms by 20 percent between 1984 and 1980. Urbandemands will give rise to aggravated ground waterproblems in many communities. Irrigated farm landwill probably double from the present small acreage.Recreational demands will prompt more intensive useof Michigan's lakes and streams, demands for tighterpollution control measures and efforts to zone orpolice the uses made of public and private waters.

It is within this setting that rural Michigan willperform between now and 1980. How well it per-forms depends on the natural and economic advan-tages (and disadvantages) of rural Michigan relativeto other areas, the developments in the total Michi-gan economy, and how well rural people employ theirskills and know-how to take advantage of the oppor-tunities.

1

Michigan's Outdoor Recreation and TourismNow and in 1980

By David N. MilsteinDEPARTMENT OF RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSTIN

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Many minds have contributed to the ma-terial in this report. Particularly helpful infor-mation has been provided by various officialsin the Michigan Department of Conservation,the Michigan State Highway Department, andthe Michigan Tourist Council, as well as by theauthors of several related Project '80 reports.

Substantial aid has been derived from on-going efforts by the staff of the MichiganOutdoor Recreation Demand Study, directedby David N. Milstein and Leslie M. Reid inthe Department of Resource Development,Michigan State University, under a federalgrant administered by the Michigan Depart-ment of Conservation for the Michigan De-partment of Economic Expansion. Some of thematerial on past and current situations, andon future policies affecting outdoor recreationIn Michigan has been adapted from materialsdeveloped for the Phase 11 Project '80 paperon this subject by Dr. Reid and co-workers.

Significant portions on the tourist industryin Michigan have been supplied by Dr. UelBlank, Associate Director, institute for Com-munity Development, and Dr. Robert NV.Mcintosh, Professor and Extension Specialist,Tourist and Resort Service, both of this Uni-versity.

SUMMARYMICHIGAN IS REC:OGNIZED widely as a traditional

leader in outdoor recreation and tourism. Itsmodern rule in this dramatically growing industry isaffected by a pronounced shift in clientele fromelite vacationers and North Woods outdoorsmen topredominantly urban, middle-class families. Severalcurrent studies should begin to shed sorely neededlight on the nature and future of this industry. Giventhe enormous pressures for action, and the very poorrecord of projections to date, it is more importantthan ever to take a careful look at the specific spatial

2

patterns that might emerge under alternative assump-tions.

On the demand side, a useful way to organize theinformation needed for improved managerial deci-sions both public and private is in terms ofinflows of visitors to destination areas, enroute flowsalong the transportation arteries, and outflows fromthe areas of origin. About half to two-thirds of Michi-gan's total visitor market is composed of residents ofthe state. The remainder is almost entirely from theimmediately surrounding states and Ontario. TheEast and Midsouth provide important competition forthe regional market. With proper quality of develop-ment, additional potential may exist for luring cross-country travelers into Michigan.

On the supply side, we are just beginning to ac-cumulate systematically the minimal information onthe location and nature of Michigan's outdoor recrea-tion and tourist facilities. The gross total of publicrecreation land may amount to almost 7.5 millionacres. Employment directly attributable to outdoorrecreation and tourism in Michigan may be estimatedrouRhly as the equivalent of 30,000 to 40,000 full-time, *5,000-per-year jobs. About 5,000 of these wouldbe accounted for by the public sector. The indirectemployment generated by these fobs appears to besomewhere between 54,000 and 80,000 jobs.

State spending for outdoor recreation in Michiganhas amounted to S95 million over the decade endingin 1900, or about .75 percent of the state's totalexpenditures. This spending has been concentratedmostly in fish and game, state parks, and Huron-Clinton Metro Authority facilities. Commercial in-vestments and profits increasingly have been ac-counted for by the larger, more modern types oftourist enterprises. This trend fits the generallyemerging picture of a "quality revolution" in tastesand technology.

Of the factors affecting the future of this industryin Michigan, population of the prime market areamay well be the most important. Michigan's popula-tion is expected to grow by around 33 percent from

1960 to 1980, and that of the entire East NorthCentral Region by from 25 to 42 percent. If all otherforces affecting outdoor recreation and tourist demandjust balance each other off as is deemed fairlylikely by the authoritative Outdoor Recreation Re-sources Review Commission (ORRRC) thiq couldbe the magnitude of Michigan's visitor market growthin general. Specific lines of leisure activity, such asskiing, of course, may grow far faster than the mar-ket as a whole. In any event, the future populationmix will heavily emphasize the demand patternsof the very young and of the old.

The leading projecticns of leisure available by 1980tend to be more evolutionary than is usually as-sumed, and nobody is too sure how much of theemerging non-work time will be truly discretionary.The typical work week is expected to decline toaround 32 or 35 haurs, with much smaller gains ex-pected through extensions of holiday and vacationtime. Multiple job holding is not expected to be amajor determinant of free time, nor hopefully willunempllyment.

Whatever the uncertainties in projection, techno-logical and cultural changes alike will broaden immensely the range of choice in leisure activities:where people will go, what they will do, and howoften they will seek variety. Enterprises and agenciesmost able to survive in such markets will be thosewhose management and capital allow truly modem,diversified, and flexible operation.

Michigan's location and resources provide manycomparative advantages toward attracting visitors.There are, however, significant natural disadvantages,and repositories of older facilities and attitudes in-appropriate for modern market conditions.

State and federal policies and programs are likelyto emphasize outdoor recreation and tourism muchmore than in the past, but may do so equally asmuch or more in competing states.

If future demand for visits to Michigan is itfiner:eel positively by the expected growth in in-come, leisure, and mobility rather than just bypopulation growth and a netting out of the otherfactors the total market could grow by 1940 onthe order of 300 percent or more. On the otherhand, if Michigan just holds its share of the nationalmarket growth as alternatively projected by ORRRC,the state's market would expand by around 58 to 71percent in terms of visitor-days, and by 84 to 110percent in terms of visitor expeditures. These ratesare moderately higher than projected growth in stategross product, and about double the projectedgrowth in state real income per capita.

What are the supply implications of the rangesof possible growth in demand? The greatest shiftsin land use are likely to be in areas relatively ae-

cessible to the metropolitan population centers. Thetotal adjustment in public land use, though massiveabsolutely, generally need not involve critical ad-justment problems. Much larger shifts are foreseenwith regard to private recreation lands, which maygrow from the presently-estimated 1 million acresto 5 million acres by 1980. Since the key sites arelikely to be either around good scenery or water ornear expressway interchanges, they should not belooked to as sources of salvation for many marginalagricultural lands.

With regard to job adjustments, a recent compre-hensive study of the Michigan economy concludesthat, to prevent substantial unemployment or out-migration, it must generate more than 860,000 newfull-time jobs between 1960 and 1975. If outdoorrecreation and tourism in Michigan were to pacenational growth, this sector might account for some-thing over 40,000 of these jobs directly, and per-haps 80,000 indirectly; that is, about matching whatthe automotive complex might contribute to 1970.

The main opportunities for capital and manage-ment lie, as has been emphasized, with the largerand better equipped enterprises. Some opportunitiesremain for the relatively small operator with sufficientmanagement skills, notably in auxiliary enterprises.

The public sector can most strongly influence theemerging patterns of development in Michigan's out-door recreation and tourism in two major ways:indirectly through public regulation of activities, suchas careful zoning; and directly via public develop-ment of scenic roads, parks, regional interpretivecomplexes, etc. that complement nearby private de-velopments. Above all, the quality revolution thatis already upon us will tend to reward far moremassive creative endeavors than have been tradi-tional in the state.

Following the lead of places like Colonial 1Vi lliams-burg, in.pressive tourist complexes are being builtwith public and private funds in the East, Southand West, as well as overseas. Do we have enoughof Interlochen, Mackinac Island, and Fayette tomatch, say, Catlinburg, the Land Between the Lakes,Aspen, Palm Springs, or the European hostels incastles? Imaginative programs appear crucial if Mich-igan is to maintain or expand its share of UpperGreat Lakes tourism and outdoor recreations in theface of this growing competition.

THE SETTINGMichigan is recognized widely as one of the

traditional and perennial leaders in outdoor recrea-tion and tourism. The state is bount:ftilly endowedwith lakes and streams, abundant game and fish, anda variety of outdoor recreation activities spread overthe seasons of the year.

3

The years of prosperity following World War 11accelerated a number of important changes that hadbeen taking place gradually in American life sincethe turn of the last century. Drastic changes inliving patterns came about through widespread movesfrom rural life into urban and suburban neighbor-hoods. Improved highways, more dependable auto-mobiles, and a latent urge to wander contributedto a revolution in mobility and fnily travel habit;.The new-found affluence resulting from higherfamily incomes, and the rapid proliferation of avail-able consumer goods, encouraged the formation ofnew spending habits. A significant portion was as-signed to goods and services related to leisure-timepursuits and outdoor recreational activities.

In recent years, interest in outdoor recreation hasincreased by an unforseen extent, paralleling the paceof the social changes previously mentioned. Concur-rent with these basic changes in American life hasbeen a growing awareness that the provision of ade-quate opportunities for outdoor recreation ii a legiti-mate and important public responsibility.

Additional secondary effects may also be in pros-pect due to the changing philosophy among socialgroups with regard to leisure and recreation as posi-tive values, the percentage of family budgetsassigned to recreation, and even the complex ofactivities and experiences desired by future users ofrecreation facilities. These and other factors in com-bination suggest far greater demand for recreationareas and facilities in the future than is evident today.

As attendance increases and recreational conflictsbecome more critical, and dissident using groupsmore vocal, national attention is being focused in-creasingly on recreational use problems. Indicationsof the relative importance of outdoor recreation onthe national scene are he increasing frequency ofpublic announcements, the number of national andregional recreation meetings scheduled, and the grow-ing flood of recreation-associated legislation intro-duced in the United States Congress.

Today, outdoor recreation is a topic of great con-cern in a number of diverse fields. Among these areeconomics, conservation, forestry, and socioto&v, toname only a few. Studies have been and are pres-ently being conducted with differing focal objectives,such as the exploration of goals and objectives,policy investigations, visitation studies, and resource-capacity studies. Empirical studies conducted bypark and recreation agencies are adding still furtherto the fund of knowledge about outdoor recreation.

THE PASTMuch of Michigan's early outdoor recreation repu.

tation was built on the lure of northern forested

4

areas for hunting, fishing and vacationing in a scenic,near-wilderness environment. Fer many decades thestate's back-country was the destination for partiesof rugged outdoorsmen. The attractiveness of Mich-igan's streams for fishing and canoeing spreadthroughout the country, and streams like the Au Sable,Two-Hearted, Sturgeon and Manistee proved anirresistable lure for down-state and non-resident fish-ermen alike.

Outdoor recreation in Michigan has passed throughthree distinct transportation periods that shaped andpromoted special patterns of recreation (13). Thefirst era was that of the lake steamboats, fast pas-senger vessels that operated during the summermonths in the early 1900s, carrying resorters andtourists quickly and comfortably to locations acces-sible to the lakeshores. The second was developmentof an elaborate rail network that opened up premiuminland lake areas to resort and summer hotel de-velopment. Thus, the early 1900s witnessed thepopularity of summer-long northern vacations bytourists and vacationers from Chicago and Detroitmetropolitan areas.

The start of an active road building program in1920, concurrent with the beginning of federal sub-sidies for this purpose, ushered in the third era ofrecreation use. Improved roads and automobiles havecontinually made more of the North accessible to ever-increasing numbers of visitors. Good roads aided thegrowth in popularity of the two-week cottage vaca-tion, t se of private and resort rental accomodations,stag trips, and group purchase of hunt-club areas.

It could be argued that another revolution of equalsignificance has taken place since 1950. A networkof high-speed highways and expressways, comple-mented by fast, dependable automobiles, finds us inan era of extremely mobile vacations. The vaca-tioner, who formerly could be characterized as an out-door resident at a single destination for an extendedperiod, can now be more typically pictured as a self-contained traveler, an onlooker or spectator of out-door scenery and less a participant. As such, thistrawler is more independent of resource constraints

if rain annoys him, for example, he can easily movehis personal belongings and family hundreds of milesto a more desirable location. The same can be saidfor dissatisfaction over crowding, lack of fishing orhunting sites or success, etc.

A great deal of outdoor recreation in the past hasnot been translated into formal reports. Althoughperiodic investigations have been made, these largelyhave been piecemeal efforts or studies by Individualagencies in order to obtain management Information.Further, such Information has been gathered prin-cipally for those activites for which some form ofcharge or other control has been imposed as a regu

!glom Other data, where available at all, are typi-cally estimates useful as approximations.

Attendance figures for National Forest recreationwere first widely gathered in 1924. Recreation figuresfor various activities have been collected by theMichigan Department of Conservation for a longerperiod (Table I).

Table IMajor recreation activity histories in Michigan,1920-1963

Attendance Campers Fishing Big Game Small GameYear (St.Pks.) (St.Pks.) (Lic.Sales)(Lic.Sales)(Lic.Sales)1920 52,338 37,147 246,9521922 244,0001923 37,7001930 142,946 76,540 334,5891940 8,387,768 176,680 773,133 177,770 540,5841950 11,667,793 183,138 1,058,060 385,268 634,9061955 17,865,346 350,0001960 18,144,900 639,122 952,852 460,915 647,989

Source: (13).

Hunting and fishing clubs are so closely allied, byactivity and resource character, that a quick look pro-vides another dimension to the outdoor recreationsituation. Although widely distributed through theforested northern part of Michigan, club holdings areparticularly concentrated in the northeastern part vcthe Lower Peninsula. A compilation from 1931 taxrolls revealed 169,613 acres included in 220 fish andgame clubs (13).

Valid figures showing the extent of commercialrecreation activities are more difficult to obtain thanfor outdoor recreation on public lands. In 1934, thefollowing situation was reported for the NorthernLower Peninsula of Michigan (Table 2).

Table 2Commercial recreation establishments in the Nor-ther Lower Peninsula, 1934

Resort properties, with residence 3,831 ( 1931 figures)Resort properties, vacant 2,879Summer camps 37Summer hotels . ...... . . ....... ...... ......... 68Hunting and fishing clubs 220Summer resort 870

Soutce Records of the Mkhigan Hepartment of Cortsmetion.

THE PRESENTTo say anything meaningful about the future of an

industry, it is essential to know something about howit operates now. For outdoor recreation and tourism

viewed as the complex of land-extens'oe andleisure-Oriented industries serving day-users and over-night stay travellers knowledge of this type issorely lacking. Research on these industries is every-where in its infancy. Definitions are barely settled,Official statistics remain to be gathered in a usefulway. Adequate special surveys have just begun toaccumulate.

Spatial aspects compound the problem. Even ifwe thought we knew, for example, how many more

travellers to rural Michigan there might be in 1980,this in itself would not be a guide as to Owe thevisitor impacts would take place or where the cor-responding investments should be made,

The 246-page report and twenty-seven study re-ports issued by the Outdoor Recreation ResourcesReview Commission (ORRRC) in 1962 mark anambitious but still exploratory beginning toward someof the needed answers. Massive follow-up studies areunder way at various offices of the newly-createdBureau of Outdoor Recreation, and in related federalagencies.

In Michigan, several major. federally-aided studiesare under way that will shed further light on selectedaspects of outdoor recreation and tourism:

A. Michigan Outdoor Recreation Demand StudyDepartment of Resource Development, Michigan

State University: a systematic, quantified view ofpresent and possible future use patterns for activitiesof particular interest to the Michigan Departmentof Conservation in its role as an owner and managerof more than 4 million acres of land.

B. Michigan Tourist Industry StudyCenter for Economic Expansion and Technical

Assistance, Central Michigan University: survey re-search and other techniques for more accurate mea-surement of the volume and economic impact oftourism in Michigan.

C. Upper Peninsula Tourism Development ProjcctCooperative Extension Service, Michigan State

University, and Upper Peninsula Committee for AreaProgress: research and action on the demand for andsupply of recreational resources and facilities in thisregion.

D. State Agency StudiesA detailed inventory of present and potential

public sector facilities, by the Conservation Depart-ment; a study of the state transportation system byArthur D. Little 4& Co. consultants to the Highwayriepartment; and a program of demographic andeconomic studies by the Office of Economic Expansion.

Finally, certain Census materials such as the1963 Census of Transportation and the 1963 Censusof Business are just becoming available. These,while allowing some recent updating of industrytrends, cannot answer adequately many of the basicquestions requiring special further study.

DemandA significant common denominator in independent

studies made of recreational participation is thephenomenal growth in attendance. The increase hasbeen amazingly consistent and widespread over a

5

period of years, excluding the period of World WarII when attendance figures fell sharply. Futuregrowth repeatedly has been underestimated, evenby the best informed people in the recreation busi-ness. As an example, the National Park Service inJuly, 1958, launched a 10-year development programknown as "Mission 68" based on the estimated 80million visits expected in the target year of 1966 (42).In actuality, the National Park Service reported79,040,000 visits in 1961, with 5 of the 10 years yetremaining.

In like manner, the United States Forest Serviceannounced a comparable five-year program entitled"Operation Outdoors" in January, 1957 (39). Thiscomprehensive development program was intendedto meet the requirements of 68 million recreationvisits expected by 1962. The conservatism apparenthere is even greater when viewed against the record102 million visits to the national forests in 1961 andthe 120 million visits in 1962.

The attendance figures found in Table 3 comparea number of representative federal recreation pro-grams.

Table 3Estimated recreation visits to selected federalproperties, United States 1950.1960

Agency 1950 1960

National Park Service 32,780,000 72,9.88,000U.S. Forest Service 27,308,000 32,595,000Bureau of Reclamation 8,594,000 24,300,000Corps of Engineers 18,000,000 106,000,000T.V.A. . . . . 16,645,000 42,349,000

Source: (10,

Other examples of fantastic recent growth areprovided by boating, skiing, and the provision oflake access sites. Recreational boatini, eor example,has grown so rapidly that it has beco,.:e a majorindustry in its own right. In 1947 there were about2.5 million recreational boats in America. By 1960this number had increased to over 8 million boats.Michigan's 3,000 miles of Great Lakes shoreline,11,000 inland lakes, and 38,000 miles of streams areample reason for the 558,000 recreational boats re-ported in 1960. Mass growth is shown by the factthat inboard cruisers and yachts have decreased asa percentage of the total, and the average outboardhorsepower has increased each year.'

M'ith regard to skiing, a 1962-63 survey revtalsthe sport presently is growing in popularity at a raterivaling boating and camping. Nationally, the num-ber of skiers doubled three times between the 1951and 1964 ski seasons (2).

The phenomenal growth in lake access sites pro-vided by the Michigan Department of Conservationis shown in Table 4.

tikstina reai.uark" ',Maine! from ich;tan Department ofhate, iDoat Ret4tratkit Ryas.

0

Table 4State lake access sites in Michigan, 1940-1960*Year No. of Access Sites

1940 31950 4521960 747Outside state parks and forests

Source: Michigan Department of Conservation, Biannual Report, 1962.

Still, we must be extremely careful interpretingeven something as obvious as these growth rates.In the case of boating, for instance, the U.S. CoastGuard Michigan registration statistics for 1961 -84(Table 5) over a period long enough to allowfor the three-year cycle of registration show agenerally downward trend)

Table 5Michigan boat registrations, 1961.1964Year Outboard Inboard Total Registered

June, 1961 350,307 20,370 378,877June, 1982 381,549 24,214 405,763June, 1963 254,309 18,687 272,990June, 1964 318,700 23,184 341,884

Source: Michigan Department of State, float Registration Bureau.

Even where it is clear that a selected type ofoutdoor recreation or tourist activity is growing. thereally important questions for planning purposesare: By how much? For how long ahead? Where?When will the growth rate level off, slacken, or turndownward? When will the qualitative aspects ofindustry growth change significantly, and in whatways?

The basic issue in relation to Michigan's ruralpotential in recreation and in tourism by 1980 isthat, given the enormous pressures for action, it isfar easier to grasp at various "guesstimates" currentlybeing offered than to take a more careful look atwhat specific patterns might emerge under alterna-tive assumptions.

Exceptionally poor knowledge need not imply in-action. It suggests, rather, that we explore muchmore critically the ranges of possibilities inherent insome of the specific statistics and breed trends ofwhich we are aware. Truly flexible plans, in thesense of recognizing the very large "engineering toler-ances" involved, may prevent some severe allo"ationerrors with regard to where land is acquired, addi-tional capacity installed, or area development ex-pectation built up.

Three brief examples of this issue may sufficeFirst, there are figures by Class-son, suggesting thatoutdoor recreation demand might expand about fourtimes between 1956 and 2000 for user-oriented areas,16 times for intermediate areas, and 40 times forresource-based areas such as outstanding nationalparks (5). In the excited discussions generated bysuch large estimates of expansion hi use, few peoplehave stopped to consider the many qualifications

4)

cited by Clawson himself in advancing such figures.Fewer still appear to have noticed the sharply dif-ferent acreage expansions advanced later by thesame author, i.e., about sevenfold growth for user-oriented, eightfold for intermediate, and only abouta third more for resource-based areas.

Very different goals and techniques of land useplanning are implied by these latter figures. Eventhese contrast significantly with the often-stated fixed-technology method of calculating future recreationallard needs on he basis of 43 federal and stateowned acres per thoust,nd of population. Aside Primcertain clear cases of inadequate shoreline, for ex-ample, the "crisis" may not even be predominantlyone of land (52).

Similarly, it is by now virtually "conventional wis-dom" that America is in the midst of a culture boom,paralleling that in outdoor recreation. Yet we areaware of no studies that attempt really to estimatelow much leisure time would be siphoned off from

or intertwined with outdoor recreation demandby the growth in cultural activities, Nor is it evenclear that there is quite the boom in culture thathas been touted so widely (7).

Finally, we may consider the case in whichacknowledged experts attempting to measure thevolume of tourist expenditures in the Upper Penin-sula of Michigan for 1960 derived estimates as dif-ferent as $85 million and $131 million. A later re-searcher, with insufficient time to appraise thereasons for this difference, had to resort merely toaveraging the two figures. Nor is there clear agree-ment for recent years as to whether Upper Peninsulatourist business, whatever its magnitude, has beengoing up or down,

A complete measurement framework for the de-mand aspect of outdoor recreation and tourism wouldcover daily, weekly, seasonal, and annual demandpatterns for each activity organized according to thethree possible phases of observation. That is, therewould be:

(a) Inflow information for the various types ofpublic or commercial destination areas;

(b) cnroute information on flows along transportalion links; and

(c) outilow information on characteristics ofvisitors and nonvisitors by geographic area oforigin.

If we knew this much of what was happening,we could go on to attempt to know why it washappening. Ideally, this would involve a model ofthe entire system that could be used for varioussimulation experiments on the effects of adding orremoving elements such as roads or parks, changingparameters such as fees, or varying projections suchas future populations and their attributes. A useful

definition of the system would have to include, ofcourse, origins and destinations inside and outsideof the state, All we have so far, however, are frag-mentary observations on such a system. Some ofthese bits and pieces may not even be consistent.

InflowsIt would be useful, for a start, to know at least

total visitor loads on Michigan destination areas, byactivity or by facility. For federally administeredareas, we can get acceptable attendance figures inthe special case of Isle Royale National Park, butonly vague estimates for the Wildlife Refuges andnothing reliable on National Forest use in Michigan.The richer set of attendance figures over the yearsat Michigan state parks after allowances are madefor introduction of the paid sticker system and manyother special considerations at individual parksis subject to some time-series analysis, now underway as part of the Michigan Outdoor RecreationDemand Study.

Cross-section analysis is possible en the presum-ably more reliable recent data on state park use.The first map (Fig. 1), sho'.vs total attendanceday use and camping hr each of the e3 stateparks in 19e2. It is obvious that two parks, GrandHaven and Holland, are most intensively used.Grand Haven had a reported attendance of 1,120,496,

tottwit.. hrldAntwelve lito

Fig. L. Total attendance, Michigan State Parks, 1942

7

while Holland had an attendance of 946,700, on 48and 43 acres respectively. Thus the capacity forenjoyable outdoor recreation experiences was far sur-passed.

Figure 1 also shows the intensive use of statepark and recreation areas surrounding the DetroitMetropolitan area particularly Waterloo, Rochester-Utica, Dodge No. 4, and Hayes State Park.

The high attendance at these recreation sites is tobe expected, especially if it is pointed out that therewere about 9,322,000 people living within 50 milesof Rochester-Utica. Fortunately, the larger size ofthese recreation sites (with the exception of DodgeNo. 4 at 136 acres) provides for a dispersal of visitorsand, hopefully, a more enjoyable outing. One canimagine how many dissatisfied persons there mightbe if there were only three or four parks in south-eastern Michigan, rather than the present 17 state-operated sites plus those of the Huron-Clinton Metro-politan Authority.

The high attendance at Holland and Grand Havenalso shows the role of location. Both parks are within50 driving miles of more than 680,000 people in-cluding those in the urbanized areas of Muskegonand Grand Rapids. Notice, for instance, that Lud-ington State Park, the fourth park north along theLake Michigan shore from Grand Haven, has a much

Heber ofareal Parka

and above

6,,000 to

to

20,000 to39.999

so 19.999 and Ube leerfatal 59

11

10

lance of Detail {smeary of Co mins laforsattm, 1062, Midis..Department of eonsarettiso.Parte and lacreatton Division

COD

Fig. 2. Camper days, Michigan State Parks, 1962

8

lower attendance. This park contains a potentialday use recreation population of 64,000 within 50miles. At 3,000 acres, it is a much larger park thanHolland or Grand Haven, but is evidently beyondthe effective distance and driving time for much dayuse.

Figure 2 shows the number of camper dayscampers per party times length of stay per party

at each state park and recreation area in 1962.This map indicates that camping use is spatiallyquite dispersed. Six parks Holland, Interlochen,Waterloo, Ludington, Higgins Lake and YankeeSprings all had more than 80,000 camper days.Several demand patterns are shown in Fig. 2 suchas the preference f. n. camping at parks located onthe Great Lakes and located near or within estab-lished resort areas such as Interlochen and TraverseCity, or at the Straits of Mackinac.

The intensive use of parks located along 1-75 inthe northern Lower Peninsula suggests that theseparks may be used as overnight stops along thismajor north-south artery. With the exception ofthe Waterloo State Recreation Area and Hayes StatePark in southeastern Michigan, the parks and recrea-tion areas in this part of the state are not usedintensively for camping.

There are many reasons for this, and only a few

Number

Interval of Parks

ill )50 and 2above

lt11. UrveilAlla 1

15y0i9t 5 1101111111.11 ilia22 ArMilli

N124249 AMO ft lir. 1419*

21

0 drrW. '41 and

'Total DIS

hillarlittillillUfa Data-Source of Me: OamQ

-4 Connervation, Parks and:screatf on Divle too

CVD

Con)

D.P'.111..

Fig. 3. Number of designated r mpsites, MichiganState Parks, 1962

explanations can be mentioned. These sites are con-centrated, which spreads the camping load in thisarea. They are not easily accessible from major trunklines, and a majority of the sites are in recreationareas and therefore have not been developed withmodern amenities such as flush toilets and showers.In addition, southeastern Michigan sites are usedby the metropolitan residents for day use, and whenan overnight camping trip is anticipated thesepeople may desire to travel farther north or west tocamp in different surroundings.

Figure 3 provides a very limited insight into thecamping opportunity at each park by showing thenumber of campsites available in 1962. The actualattraction of a particular camp setting depends, ofcourse, on such additional factors as availability ofspecific activities and modern conveniences, qualityof local land and water resources, and location.Quantitative analyses of these factors and others arein progress as an aspect of the travel behaviormodels in the Michigan Outdoor Recreation DemandStudy.

Camping demand in relation to supply is shownin Fig. 4, depicting use intensities fur this activityat state parks and recreation areas in Michigan. Theratio between camper days and the total numberof campsites at each site provides a measure of load

Moats oflotarval farlm

450 aodalloy&

550 to 449.9 13

ISO to 949.9 13

I)150 to 249.9 14

0 to 149.9 II

rota 36--Avstaga Ratio 2,1.6

Ratios cosputel by C. Rao DoranSource of Data: Soacoary of DutOtoo loformatioo, 1962, Mahlonbepartment of Coomarvattce,Parts awl RattaatlooDlirisioo

Fig. 4. Ratio of camper days to designated campsites,Michigan State Parks, 1962

capacity relative to use; places that are heavily usedcan be pinpointed. In southeastern Michigan, forexample, Waterloo State Recreation Area receivesthe highest use intensity relative to the availablecampsites of any park in the system.

Fig. 3 shows that some recreation areas in thisregion have more campsites than Waterloo, but donot receive the camping use that is evident at Water-loo. If other places with a high ratio of camperdays to campsites are analyzed, it is possible tomake some basic judgments as to why they are popu-lar. Brim ley, for example, has the second highestratio, possibly as a result of its location near theSoo locks. Yankee Springs is an example of a rela-tively large state recreation area, similar to Waterloo,located between the two large metropolitan centersof Grand Rapids and Kalamazoo-Battle Creek.

Higgins Lake is located on one of the finest inlandlakes in Michigan and is the heart of a thrivingresort area. This park has been expanded and thenumber of campsites almost doubled since 1962.Wilderness State Pa.1.; near the Straits of Mackinac,may have a high ratio because it is located adjacentto this north-south gateway. In addition, it may bethe northern terminus for those not wishing to paythe bridge toll.

These types of maps provide opportunities forspeculation on the dynamics of the system, as wellas insights into additional methods for analyzing thesystem. Information of this type, when combinedwith knowledge of population growth patterns, allowsus better to foresee future areas of intensive use,where additional parks may be needed.

For the private sector, however, reliable informa-tion as to the total load on the system let alone thespatial distribution of use is almost entirely lack-ing. Pending better measurements from studies suchas that being done by Central Michigan University,we must rely on extremely rough indirect indicatorssuch as the sales tax method pioneered by McIntoshor the aggregate figures estimated from AAA data bythe Michigan Tourist Council.

On the question of where the visitors to Michigancome from, the evidence is significantly better. Forthe state as a whole, and at any specific destinationsthat have been studied, all :Indies agree that thepresent tourist-recreation market derives mainly fromresidents of Michigan. In Table 6, the much lowerpercentage from Michigan reported in the highwayCenter study is undoubtedly due to the gatewaypositions of these centers, and the fact that the inter-views sampled only those unfamiliar enough to havestopped for tourist information. Other differences aredue in part to differences it coverage and samplingerrors, and to directional biases such as most inflowsof Chicago people to the Upper Peninsula occurring

9

Table 6-Or !gine of visitors to Michigan (percent)

Origin

StraitsBridge

1961

UPUP Motlis Highway Tourist

Campers Hotels Centers Survey1960 1961 1958 Summer 1963 1957

Michigan 66.6 55.4 51.1 55 23.5 32Illinois 4.2 11.0 12.9 13 17.1Wisconsin 4,9 10.8 12.1 10 9.1

OhioIndiana

5.13.4

5.04.1

4,53.9 1

12.18.2 40

Minnesota 2.2 4.2 5.91 3.0Canada 9.2 2.9(A) 2,9 8 9.8Others 4.4 G.6 t1.7 J 17.2 28

TOTAL 100.0 100.0 100.0 100 100.0 100

Sources: Highway ('enters data from Michigan State Ilie.way De-partment, Tourist Information Service, Characteristics of Tot:flats UsingTourist Information Centers, 1963. All other+ as cited in (27).

(*Ontario only.

via the western land entrances rather than the StraitsBridge.

The table also indicates that almost all of the non-Michigan visitors to the Upper Peninsula, and a majorportion of non-residents to anywhere in Michigan,originate from the remainder of the East North Cen-tral Region. The suggestion that the state's overallattraction to tourists tends to be strong mainly as aregional rather than a national market has importantimplications. It ruggests which clients we shouldproject in any analyses of future markets. It saysmuch also as to the main regions that would tend tocompete with Michigan for these inflows.

An example of the type of inflow information thathas been obtained recently by direct measurement isshown in Fig. 5, which shows leading origin areas of

%totalorigin day-use

county°, state vehicles

I WAYNE 132 OAKLAND 123 OHIO a4 MACOM8 75 KENT 46 SH!AWASSEE 47 BAY 3

8 CRAWFORD 3

9 GENESEE 310 INGHAM 3

I 1 WASHTENAW 3

12 ILLINOIS 313 CASS 214 JACKSON 215 LENAWEE 2

woo. specified orig:ns 72'.

1 1negligibleO about 21.

3% - 4%

5% - 7%

8 % -10%

111 0, mare* park

111111111111

Fig. 5. Leading origin areas of day-use visitors toHartwick Pines State Park, summer 1964

10

day-use visitors to Hartwick Pines State Park, in thecenter of the northern Lower Peninsula. It is uf in-terest from a marketing and fiscal viewpoint that 32percent of such visitors were from the GreaterDetroit area.

From a behavioral point of view, however, whenthese visits are calculated as a participation rate per10,000 of origin area resident population, this partic-ular inflow turns out to be relative under-representa-tion. Ohio users are somewhat ahead of those fromIllinois, unless the former tend to take the shorelineroute or go directly to Michigan via Wisconsin.Finally, local use by residents of Crawford County- though extremely high as a participation rate - isa relatively quite minor source of congestion.

EnrouteA large amount of data has been collected by the

Michigan Highway Department regarding travel pat-terns on roads in the state. Real analysis, however,is just beginning. Daily average highway flows showrelatively little in relation to the seasonally peakedtourist traffic flows. Some idea of these flows can beextracted soon from the huge accumulation of originand destination data obtained by the MississippiValley Multiple Screenline Survey. Complicationsarise, though, since detail on trip purpose is lost viacompilation in only two categories: social-recreationand vacation. More important, the interview stationsand times of observation were spread in a pattern notparticularly appropriate for present purposes. Simi-lar data are available from a significant number ofmetropolitan area traffic studies, ranging from com-munities the size of Cadillac or Battle Creek to majorcities such as Detroit and Chicago.

Much more direct information on tourist traffic iscontained in the Tourist Information Center studies,which have just been extended to include socio-economic and route data for a limited sample ofthose who stopped at the centers.2 Supplementarymaterials should be available reasonably soon fromthe elaborate seasonal surveys run by Central Mich-igan University. For the lbaited but growing classof tourists who travel by air, the Michigan Depart-ment of Aeronautics has accumulated an impressiveamount of information on all scheduled and privateinterstate flight patterns that begin, end, or includea stop in the state. Analysis of these data is in anearly stage.

For projection purposes, it would be useful toinclude some idea of the future route network for thestate and region. Highway Department plans andprojections to 1980 are available.

2See, for example, Travel Information Service, Tourist Travel in Michi-gan - 1964 (Lansing: Motorists Services and Reports Division, Michi-gan State Highway Department, December 1964).

OutflowsA reasonable mount of information is available

concerning visitor characteristics and preferences.Even here, however, more than usual caution mustbe observed. In the voluminous statistics gatheredin the ORRRC National Recreation Survey, for in-stance, the one in 29,600 sampling ratio meant that1,270 persons were interviewed throughout the 12-state North Central region. Detailed results for theregion, then, may well not be applicable to Michigan.Another hindrance to attempts at generalization isthat behavior and preferences apparently vary agreat deal by type of activity.

Extremely little is known about the travel destina-tions of Michigan residents headed out of the statefor business or pleasure. An example of the possiblesize of nearby effects is provided by Dorman's esti-mate, based on Dominion Bureau of Statistics figures,that Michigan nutorists accounted for at least 14million visitor days in Ontario during 1962 (9).

Inflow studies for other states also can be used forsome estimation of Michigan residents' outflow pat-terns. A 1961 report on travel to Florida, for instance,indicates that Michigan residents accounted foraround two or three percent of the total inflows; thatis, less than proportional to the state's more than fourpercent of U.S. population. Similarly, according torecent U.S. passport applications, the population ofthe North Central region as a whole fails to accountfor a proportional share of overseas travel by Ameri-cans.

The findings on visitor behavior that are most rele-sant to supply adjustments relate to facility qualitiesand prices. A strong upgrading process appears tobe at work, in the sense that cost of trips, distancestraveled, equipment purchased, etc., all tend to risenoticeably with income or related variables. InMichigan, for example, for the first time in historytotal trailer camping has surpassed total tent camp-ing. The one stable element, at least up to 1980, isthat automobiles are still likely to be the mode usedin more than 90 percent of tourist trips.

Various surveys also indicate a lessening role ofprice considerations in comparison with quality as-pects of area and facility. This reaction is by nomeans universal, as is shown by the views of UpperPeninsula visitors, unless they meant price in relationto quality. Nor is it likely to be true for the sharplyrising numbers of camper days in free or loss-costpublic recreation areas, where the price relative tocommercial accommodations may well be the domi-nant influence. In general, however, the fancierfacilities tend to be strained toward capacity. Thelure of the simpler activities tends to be fading amongthe general population (54).

SupplyThe first step in, any analysis of supply aspects of

outdoor recreation and tourism in Michigan would beto have a clear idea of what sorts of areas andfacilities exist, where they are, their age and capacity,etc.

For public sector areas other than those adminis-tered locally, the letailed inventory should becompleted reasonably soon. For the private sector,we have little more than McIntosh's 1962 estimatesof 30,000 commercial establishments serving vacationneeds (35), and unanalyzed categories of touristoriented enterprises for selected counties. The figuresto be presented in the following pages tend f.) beonly fragments of what should be known soon inorder to do a proper job of industry management orpromotion.

LandIn recent tabulations, Michigan L credited with

7,433,000 acres of public land.3 However, not all ofthese lands are used or usable to any significant ex-tent for outdoor recreation. Barlowe (1) lists ap-proximately 1,416,000 acres of this land as managedprimarily for re,reation.

Official figures indicate that 1,745,620 acres of non-agricultural forested wildland were under fence in1960, principally in northeastern lower Michigan. Asof 1963, approximately 200 acres per day were beingfenced, down from a high of 232 acres per day in1960.4

Table 7Michigan recreational acreage and estimated at-tendance-1960

Agency UnitsEstimated

Acreage AttendanceNational Park Service Parks-1 539,339 6,000U.S. Forest Service Forests-5 2,553,703 n.a.Bur. Sport Fish & Wildlife Refuges-5 104,298 96,000

Total Federal Acreage 3,197,338Mich. Conservation

Department Parks 73 182,541 18,144,900Forests-23 3,764,468 n.a.

Came Units-57 197,391 n.a.Access Sites-672 42,013 n.a.

Mich. HighwayDepartment Roadside Parks-118 2,700 n.a.

Total State Acreage 4,189,116Local, NonUrban 114 48,549 :La.

Total Local Acreage 46,549Total Public Recreation Land 7,433,000 acres

Source: Michigan Conservation Department. Attendance figures listedn.a. are not available.

JobsIf we may accept the Michigan Tourist Council

figuies on total visitors and their expenditu-es in thestate, some idea may be ventured as to the amount

3Data obtained from various Michigan sources and Parks for America,a nationwide compilation prepared by the National Park Service in 1964.

4Figures obtained front the Michigan Department of Conservation.

11

of employment generated thereby. Rough estimatesof the portion of the $800 million or so expendituresthat remains in the state, applied along lines indi-cated in the Pictured Rocks study (27), yield per-haps 30,000 to 40,000 full-time $5,000 per year jobsin Michigan directly attributable to tourism. Appros.-imately 4,000 to 6,000 of these jobs would be in theUpper Peninsula. To estimate the proportion of thetotal accounted for by the public sector, we may takethe 1,320 (80 percent of its staff) judged by theConservation Department to be involved directly inoutdoor recreation; add 1,500 Highway Departmentemployees (30 percent of its staff), and about 1,800local park system full-time equivalents; and allowsome for various federal employees. The resultwould be perhaps 5,000 of the total current employ-ment attributable to the public sector. Improvedestimates, of course, would be highly desirable, andmay be forthcoming soon from work being done bythe regional office of the Bureau of Outdoor Rec-reation. As to the indirect employment generatedby the direct employment in tourism, this has beenestimated at auout 54,000. An upper limit multiplierof two would give rise, of course, to an estimate of60,000 to 80,000.

CapitalFor the public sector, estimates provided to

ORRRC indicate that d'rect outdoor recreation out-lays by state agencies over 1951-60 amounted to $95million, or about .75 percent of Michigan's total stateexpenditures of $12.6 billion over the same period.The ratio dropped from .91 percent in 1951 to .87percent in J060. Table 8 shows the distribution ofthe outdoor recreation expenditures by agency andfunction.

Table 8Distribution of direct outlays for outdoor recrea-tion by Michigan Agencies and Functions, 1951-1960($ thousands)

FunctionAgency Lind Development Operation Total

Parks and Recreation 588.0 4,541.7 19,108.2 24,215.9Fish 708.8 2,565.8 15,599.6 18,874.2Came 4,592.8 1,587.7 13,789.1 19,969.6Forestry 36.6 522.6 559.2Highways ..... 897.0 4,262.8 5,159.6Water Resources 7.8 1,995.5 1,3i8.9 3,322.2Huron-Clinton . 4,602.3 10,818.5 7,478.0 22,898.8

Source : (52)

In the private sector, comparable totals are notknown. Considerable evidence strongly suggests,however, that the main opportunities for commercialinvestment lie with large, professionally-managedenterprises likely to require metropolitan region fi-nancing (30, 11, 18). A Minnesota report, forexample, concludes that "the usual resort is not typi-cally attractive either as an investment (at cost price)

12

or as a means of ensuring a high return for thepersonal services of the owner and his family."

Several studies show highly different survival ratesand rates of return, favoring the larger and moremodern motel and hotel enterprises. Of approxi-mately 62,000 motels in the U.S., the 3,000 or soaffiliated with chains or referral groups account forroughly twice their share of the total rooms and upto two and a half times the rate of return on capitaltypical for hotels. There is also some evidence that,aside from exceptionally strong tourist regions, manyof the remaining investment opportunities of this sortwill be in urban rather than rural areas.

EnterprisesPeric!c tourist surveys have been made by various

agencies investigating the size and character of com-mercial activities. These include summer resorts,dude ranches, winter resorts and ski areas, touristroadside attractions, farm recreation enterprises, andfamily and group membership clubs.

Government figures tend to be deficient in the areaof small service enterprises such as are typical in thetourist industries. To test the adequacy of their cov-erage, and possibilities for intercensal data at rela-tively low cost, an interesting experiment soon willbe feasible.

Census of Business data for 1963 can be comparedwith statistics which have been derived for the UpperPeninsula Tourism Development Project throughmeetings with local experts who filled out elaborateinventory questionnaires. In any event, to obtain areliable estimate of the size and composition of thetourist business in Michigan, the important issue is todistinguish local from non-local clientele; that is, toperform an economic base type of analysis.

Meanwhile, Census data for the private sector andNational Recreation Association Yearbook data forpart of the public sector allow a revealing analysisof supply adjustments that have been taking placein various counties. Changes in numbers of estab-lishments, employees, receipts, budgets, acreages, etc.can be charted both as shares of and as shifts inrelation to corresponding changes at the state, re-gional, or national level.

From 1958 to 1963, for example, Michigan lodgingestablishments hotels, motels, tourist courts ac-counted for a steady 28 percent or so of the EaF.:North Central region's lodging establishments, 18percent of the region's lodging receipts, and 13 per -cent or so of its lodging payrolls.

The State's total lodging enterprise receipts overthis period, though growing by 30 percent, exhibiteda net downward shift, in the sense that they failed togrow as rapidly as the 37 percent U.S. rate.

Lodging receipts in Ingham County, on the otherhand, dropped by 14 percent over this interval, fora total downward shift of 51 percent as comparedwith the U.S. growth in this category. This extrarelative decline accounted for a total drop of $1.8million in direct income to the County, as comparedwith what it would have earned if it had been ableto keep pace with the national growth rate inlodging receipts.

In the Tourist Industry Business Survey now beingundertaken in the Upper Peninsula, tabulations forSchoolcraft County indicate a total of 52 cottage re-sorts in this one county alone. The period of rapidconstruction of these types of facilities was between1945 and 1955. However, an increaz'e in the businessof only one of these 52 was reported for the past fiveyears. Of the remaining ones, 25 indicated approxi-mately a stable business for the last five years, and25 had a declinig business. One did not report.The cottage resorts have an average of only a littleover six rental units per business.

The motel and tourist court building boom was ap-proximately 5 to 10 years later than the cottage resortbuilding boom in Schoolcraft Country, most of it oc-f.urring between 1950 and 1959. There arc 39 suchbusinesses now operating in Schoolcraft County, withan average of approximately 12 rental units. Onlythree of nine reported increased business over the pastfive years.

Food services fared slightly better in SchoolcraftCounty with approximately one-fourth of the totalof 49 'reporting an increase in business over the pastfive years. This can hardly be considered as en-couraging, however, and food businesses like theothers are comparatively small businesses.

While resorts, cottages, motels and food services areby no means all of the tourist businesses, they indi-cate a measure of the problem of small size anddifficulty in competing, particularly in the northernpart of Michigan. The situation is probably intensi-fied in the metropolitan parts of the state. In an in-formal summary of the situation done recently byresearchers familiar with the Upper Peninsula, it wasestimated there are approximately 1,500 lodgingbusinesses. Of this number, only about two thatstarted as small single-family businesses show indica-tions of ability to continue growth.

The main future roles for the small businessmanin these industries, then, lie in auxiliary enterprisessuch as service stations and gift shops, rather thanin direct competition with the chains or other largeoperations. For such smaller operations, Michiganoperating figures are estimated to be as follows:5

5Private studies made by Robert W. McIntosk

Servicestation Restaurant Hotel Motel

Net profits on sales $555.800 $150,000 $300,000 $100,000Average investment $ 50.000 $150,000 $300,000 $100,000Net profits on sales .80% .50% 8.5% 18%Typical gross

sales/firm $140,000 $ 50,000 $ 90,000 $ 20,000

The difficulty that small firms - often part-timeoperations - have surviving is demonstrated by manystudies. One recent Missouri report indicates that30 percent of the total restaurant operations in thestate fail each year (3). The top 10.5 percent of thefirms accounted for approximately 45 percent of totalsales. The smallest 50 percent of the firms accountedfor only 13 percent of the total sales volume. Aconclusion from this study, but not written up as apart of i., was the desirability of limiting entry intothe industry through a licensing system.

FACTORS AFFECTING THE FUTURE

PopulationThe most important determinaltt of Michigan's

future potential in outdoor recreation and tourismmay well be how many people will be living in thestate's prime market arc We have already seen, inTable 8, that the bulk of this market consists of thestate's own population, and that almost all of the restis from the other states of the East North Centralregion.

Table 9-Selected alternative projections of Michigan andEast North Central Region populations (millions)

Area

1950 1960 1976-80

1960 to1976-80

Projected% GrowthNos. 81:, of US Nos. cA, of US Nos. % of US

Michigan

F.NCRegion

6.372

30.401

4.21

19.99

7.823

36.224

4.36

20.19

A 11.615B 10.377C 10.003

A 51.294B 50.023C 46.6721) 45.442F ;9.038F 47.271G 49.529If 47.741

5.054.234.23

21.2C20.6721.5220.7919.9919.9920.1920.19

48.532.727.9

41.638.128.825.435.430.536.731.8

Sources: ORRRC Study Report No. 23, pages 13.15, and estimatesby Ur. J. F. Thaden, Institute for Community lln.elopment, MichiganState University, based on Census Current Population Reports, SeriesP.25, No. 286 (July 1964), Table 2.

Methods: Michigan- A: ORRRC judgment model; B and C: Cen-sus projections B and C.

ENC Region - A-1): ORRRC projections assuming, respectively,high population growth with high and low migration and kw populationgrowth with high and low migration: E-H: 1950 and 1960 percentagesof U.S., respectively applied to Census projections B and C.

How many people, then, are likely to be living inthe state and region by 1980? A reasonably likelyrange of answers is presented in Table 9 where esti-mate B for Michigan is the generally accepted pro-jection for use in Project '80 reports. The implicationsof these numbers for outdoor recreation and tourismin Michigan will be traced further later in this paper.

13

Another important population characteristic has todo with age structure. Almost one-quarter (23.6 per-cent) of the 1980 Michigan population, for example,will be in the 15 to 19 age group, and 56.9 percentwill be under 30 years old,''

LeisureHow much leisure will these people have for

undertaking trips in Michigan? Serious quantitativestudy of leisure as distinguished from broad con-jecture about it is quite recent. Existing data allowonly fragmentary, aggregative treatment of presentleisure patterns, and little more than rough guessesas to the future. Estimates in this area thus must beof even rougher magnitude than usual. We do, how-ever, have a reasonable sense of the leading elementsinvolved in a useful analysis.?

What: We would like to know the amount of timepeople would have available during which they mightJemand outdoor recreation services in rural Michi-gan. A less direct impact occurs to the extent thatfree-time activity elsewhere affects demand for goodsproduced in rural Michigan. For either purpose, theconceptually correct approach is to subtract fromgross total time the periods committed to work(gainful employment) and to non-discretionary lei-sure (sleep, personal care, shopping and work jour-neys, household care, etc.). The problem iscomplicated by the fact that leisure time is suppliedand used in discrete chunks of weekday, weekend,and vacation hours (57). Its allocation among thesepossibilities determines the types and amounts ofdemands on different types of facilities and regions:i.e., whether the major leisure impacts will be ondestinations local, intermediate, or distant with re-spect to the main areas of origin.

Who: Even if we restrict our attention to leisureas a generator of outdoor recreation demands onrural Michigan, it is clear that the relevant populationis all persons who may conceivably visit in or aroundthe state. This as we have seen includes residents ofMichigan, the surrounding Midwestern states, On-tario, and to a lesser degree people elsewhere.The clients may he of four broad types:

Households: individuals and families on trips,outings or vacations.

Voluntary associations: trade conventions, campand tour groups, etc.

nPerceutoges derived from "Projections of the Population of the UnitedStates and of Michigan in 1980," Phase I, PROJECT '80, by fir. 5. F.Thadcn.

7The sources of leisure projections are found in (5, SI, 54). Thesesources should be consulted for some insight into the technical bases forthe projections, and for explicit statements of the usual cautions whichmust accompany such long looks ahead. The ORRRC projections, incidentally, are all stated as for 1976. It is this writer's -'ew that adjustment of such figures to 980 basis would not he wo,rh the effort. Itwould, in fact, be spuriou ,recision. For more general background, see(8, 15).

14

Enterprises: conferences or business side - :rips.Government-sponsored groups; school classes,military personnel, youth training or conserva-tion teams. etc.

Though it cannot be treated here, attention alsoshould be directed to the supply of leisure estimatedto be available specifically to Michigan's rural popu-lation. This will, of course, be a function of theproductivity and commodity market assumptionsmade elsewhere in the Project '80 studies. Thisaspect of the total leisure situation through itseffects on participation in leadership structure, oneducation potentials, and on local recreation maywell be a crucial determinant of the quality of lifein these rural communities.

Leisure and the Life CycleThe Young: Recent trends, likely to persist, have

been for typically later labor force entry for most ofthe youthful population, save for a significant pro-portion of high school dropouts and semi-skilled.The marked amount of leisure time for these lattergroups, including involuntary leisure through unem-ployment, is well on its way to becoming a majorsocial crisis.

Of the college-age population, around 40 percentare at present enrolled for higher education. Con-tinued-trend estimates for 197f would put this ratioat about 60 percent, and some venture that it willrise at a much faster rate. The precise role of collegestudents as participants in recreation markets is notknown, except for the obvious weekend and vacationclustering of their more limited free time and the in-creased complexity of activities pursued.

The Labor Force: Labor force participation rateshave been fairly stable for some time, at about 58percent of the total population. Gainful employmentof men in their productive years has tended to hovernear 95 percent, but may not continue to do so if theemergent manpower-automation crises materialize.Female participation rates past the college years havebeen over 40 percent and rising, except for some signsof increased numbers of years off for childbearing.

The Retired: Growing retirement benefits andchanging job requirements have been producing ear-lier retirements, generally. Lengthening life span andearlier retirement have meant a doubling of theaverage retirement time for men, from almost three toalmost six years. A continued trend would result inapproximately 7.5 retirement years for men in 1980,and obviously a much higher figure if geriatric ad-vances occur as rapidly as now seems likely. Laborforce participation rates for men 65 years old andover are expected to be reduced to around 25 percent,with a corresponding figure of 10 percent for womenin that age group.

Labor Force LeisureWork Week: For the entire U. S. labor force, the

approximately 70 hour work week typical in 1850declined to about 44 hours in 1940, and is now esti-mated to be a bit over 40 hours. Throughout thisperiod agricultural work weeks, while remainingsignificantly higher, have exhibited similar declines.Conservative projections indicate for 1980 an averagework week lasting at most 32 to 35 hours.

Holidays and Vacations: For the entire economy,the present average paid holiday time appears to beabout six days. Estimates of paid vacation time rangefrom one to two weeks, with much higher figures forworkers covered by union contracts and a strong ten-dency for seniority increases. 1980 projections indi-cate an increase in paid holiday time to roughly 8.5days per year, and an extension of the r erage paidvacation time to behveer, 2.5 and 2.8 weeks per yearLarge blocks of vacation time, however, allow muchmore flexibility in what one does with leisure as com-pared with small daily increments that might amountto the same total time,

Part-Time Jobs: The evidence is unclear as to thefuture roles of part-time and dual job holders. In-creasing skill requirements outside of automated jobssuggest a stronger role for the full-time employee, buta more flexible future work pattern may feature morepart-time opportunities. Our knowledge of multiplejobholding suggests that it is restricted largely to the25- to 44 year-old, married substandard income re-ceiver, and restricted generally to about 15 percentof total employment. Whether this sort of group willstill be with us in 1980, under conditions of muchhigher dollar incomes for even the substandard, can-not be known.

Unemployment: Optimists suggest that future unem-ployment can be held to roughly 4 percent of thelabor force. There is strong, growing evidence thatpresent pressures of technical change could lead todoubledand possibly even tripledunemploymentrates in the absence of concerted social action orsocial change.

Conventional projections appear to assume thatthis problem will be dealt with reasonably well by1980, possibly through the shortened work week citedabove. Any such adjustment would vary considerablyin its impact by labor force skill levels. There arebroad indications that the major leisure class" wouldbe the unionized and the less skilled workers. Exceptas relieved by the computer, the professional andtechnical person would be busy, maybe even busierthan ever.

VariationsBy Industry: Expectations are for variations in leisure

availability by industry to lessen, but still persist yin

about the present pattern. Hours worked per week in19450 would be about 15 percent higher in agricul-ture than for all industry, and somewhat belowaverage in the construction and service trades. Lengthof paid vacations would average highest in govern-ment employment, and remain quite low in agricul-ture.

By Region: Depending on industry mix, differentregions of the U. S. are expected to exper.ence some-what different decreases in typical hours worked peryear. The labor force of greater Chicago, for instance,might gain an average of 146 leisure hours per yearby 1976, while the equivalent gain in greater Atlantawould be on the order of 109 hours per year. Giventhe ranges of error in all such projections, however,and noting the relatively small variations now be-tween Michigan work weeks and the U. S. average,one might doubt that such refinements are worthapplying to a 1980 leisure model.

By Season: Government experts foresee no impor-tant changes in the present distribution of vacationtime, of which about two-thirds occqrs during thepeak three summer months. More imaginative as-sumptions with regard to affluence, tastes, and tech-nical change would severely modify this view. By1980, significant numbers of vacationist: might welljoin the present avant-garde in flying to warmerclimates in winter, and so on. Changes now beingdiscussed in the utilization of schools could causesignificant shifts in timing of the markets for familytrips with school children.

ProjectionsTo what will all of these forces lead? A sample

of the explicit expectations of the leading authoritieson the future of leisure in the United States is givenin Table 10.

Table 10U. S. leisure projectionsClawson ORRRC

Item Unit 1956 1980 1960 1976

LEISUREAvg. work week Hrs./Employee 40 32 38.5 35.4Discretionary leisure Hrs./Week 30 38 N.A. N.A.Paid vacation Wks./Employee 1.0 2.5 2.0 2.8Paid holidays Days/ Employee N.A. N.A. 6.3 8.5

SELECTED LYETAI LS ORRRC Estimates of Changes from 1960.19'6Average Weekly Work Hours, Due toVacations and Holidays Decrease in Reduced

tr. Employee by Hours Worked Work Increased IncreasedMajor Industry Divisions per Year Week Vacations Fiolidays

TOTAL 161 127 21 11

Agriculture 146 124 8 7

Mining 156 121 22 11

Contract construction 166 140 15 9Manufacturing 146 108 24 12Transportation & public utilities 156 116 26 12Wholesale and retail trade ..... 166 135 19 11Finance, insurance, etc. 166 132 21 11Service and miscellaneous 146 116 18 10Government 156 110 27 14

(Continued on next page)

15

Table 10U. S. leisure projections (continued)ORRRC Estimates of Changes from 1960.1976

Average Weekly Work Hour., Due toVacations and Holidays Decrease In Reducedper .Employee by Hours Worked Work Increased IncreasedMajor Occupational Croups per Year Week Vacations Holidays

TOTAL 161 127 21 11

Professional and technical 136 110 29 15Managers, officials & proprietors 181 139 30 14Clerical workers 136 121 21 12Sales workers 156 128 S8 9Craftsmen 136 123 21 11

Operatives 166 134 20 11Service workers 189 167 14 7Farmers 146 125 8 7Laborers 182 157 IS 9

Sources : (5, 51).

Whatever the errors of magnitude or timing in theconventional models based on continuing trend as-sumptions plus some judgment, a broad qualitativedifference in future leisure is evident. Technologicaland cultural changes alike will tend to broaden im-mensely the range of choice in leisure activities:where people will go, when they will go, what theywill do, and he often they will seek variety. Enter-prises and agencies most able to survive in suchmarkets will be those whose management and capitalallow truly modern, diversified, and flexible opera-tion. These requirements bode poorly for the rela-tively small, inexperienced type of rural recreationenterprise.

TravelMore than 95 percent of non-urban outdoor

recreation travel is undertaken in automobiles. Some-thing like this percentage may well persist to 1980.Therefore, the relative location of the recreational re-sources in a state and of its expressway network iscritical in shaping the future of outdoor recreation.For 1959, ORRRC estimated that 50 percent of Amer-icans took vacations involving automobile travel ofmore than 500 miles. By 1976 it is expected that theaverage American will travel 2,600 miles per yearmore than the 4,170 miles of intercity travel experi-enced in 1960.

The Michigan State Highway Department reportsthat its share of the interstate expressway system willbe completed by 1975. In all likelihood, Michiganwill, by that date or shortly after, be involved inconstruction of a complementary scenic highway roadnetwork. Highway Department projections estimatethe average annual intercity travel per car in 1980will be approximately 10,000 miles. Estimates arethat by 1980 the expressway network will be carrying220 percent of the volume of traffic served in 1962,and that other primary state trunks will in 1980 carryvolumes averaging 180 percent above the 1962 level.

Expected trends nationally in recreational travelare shown in Table 11.

Several factors can be cited as advantages thatfavor Michigan's outdoor recreation position. A list-

16

ing would certainly include the popular image ofMichigan as "the North." This image is enhanced bythe character of the more than 7 million acres of pub-lic lands and waters.

The abundance of water cannot be over-empha-sized whether in the form of the surrounding GreatLakes, numerous inland lakes, or flowing streams,Other important aspects of these forests and watersare the recreation potential of the fish and game thatinhabit them. In comparison with the northern por-tions of Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin, the ruralportions of Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio could be char-acterized generally as flat to rolling countryside havinglimited inherent recreational attractiveness. Residentsof these states traditionally have sought their recrea-tional experiences in northern Michigan. Michigan'searly leadership in construction of efficient, tollfreeexpressways and the Mackinac Bridge increased thisuse.

The diversity of Michigan's scenic lesources con-stitute an important recreational magnet. The statecontains a wealth of unique natural features such assand dunes, waterfalls, and beaches. Further, themajority of these features are located in an area thatis largely pollenfree and which offers cool summertemperatures and large expanses of open space thatprovide a dramatic change and relief from urban con-ditions. Another important advantage is to be foundin the four-season character of Michigan's recreation,all within fairly easy reach of approximately 40 millionpersons by a network of excellent high-speed high-ways.

In contrast to the above, several factors could becited as comparative disadvantages. By reason of itspeninsular geography, Michigan is to a considerableextent inaccessible for out-of-state visitors. A 400-mileradius centered on St. Louis, Missouri, for example,demonstrates that residents of this general area can-not reach the scenic areas of northern Michigan orWisconsin in an equivalent amount of driving time.

Table 11U. S. recreational travel projectionsClawson

1966 1980ORRRC

1960 1976

Distance travelled Miles/Capita .... 2,000 3,500 1,290' 1,730Vacations" Miles/Capita ... N.A. N.A. 780 1,080Trips' Miles/Capita .... N.A. N.A. 190 260Outings' Miles/Capita .... N.A. N.A. 320 400

('Persons 12 years old and over.)Time away from home.... Days N.A. N.A. 14 6 18.1

Vacation Days N.A. N.A. 6.4 8.0Trips Days N.A. N.A. 2.0 2.6

Public area visitsUseroriented Visits/Capita 5.8 8.3 N.A. N.A.Intermediate Visits/Capita 1.8 5.0 N.A. N.A.Resourcebased Visits/Capita 0.7 3.1 N.A. N.A.

OccasionsVacations .. .. ...... Nos./Capita/Yr. N.A. N.A. 0.61 0,77Trips Nos. /Capita /Yr. N.A. N.A. 0.85 1.10Outings ........ Nos./Capita/Yr. N.A. N.A. 6.20 7.50

Expenditures 1960 8/Cap./Yr. N.A. N.A. 75 117Vacations 1960 Si Cap./Yr. N.A. N.A. 52 84Tries 1960 8/Cap,/Yr. N.A. N.A. 10 35Outings 1960 8/Cap./Yr. N.A. N.A. 13 18

Sources : (5, 51).

ij

This fact becomes more significant when a 400-mileradius is similarly centered on the Great SmokeyMountains National Park. Assuming similar transpor-tation facilities, this arc shows that the major metro-politan areas of central and southern Illinois, Indiana,and Ohio are located closer to attractive recreationareas in Tennessee, Kentucky, and West Virginia thancomparable locations in Michigan. Still further afieldInge numbers of Michigan people tour the RockyMountain States and western national parks everyyear, and it is reported that Michigan provides morevisitors to Colorado ski resorts than any other stateoutside of Colorado.

A second important factor closely related to theexistence of the surrounding Great Lakes is an ex-tremely unpredictable weather pattern that often re-sults, for example, in rainy and cold summers. Al-though poisonous snakes and insects are a lesserproblem than in some other areas, occasions arisewhen black flies, for instance, become serious enoughto cause a mass exodus from recreational areas.

Other features included in such a listing could bethe crowded facilities and turnaways at public parks,excessive fees for some services, the imposition ofrestrictive regulations such as separation of uses andassigning of space and dog control in parks, and thedissatisfactions caused by poorer-than-expected successin fishing or hunting, or the regarding of game seasonsand fish seasons as excessively short.

Some factors that have worked to Michigan's dis-advantage are amendable to correction. For example,Michigan is regarded in some quarters as just nowemerging from an era of run-down and outmodedtourist and resort accommodations. Further, somequarters of the state traditionally have expresseda suspicion of or dislike for tourist visitors.

Income, Tastes, and TechnologyDisposable income in the United States will in-

crease at an annual rate of 2.54 percent between thepresent and 1976. Annual household disposable in-come will increase from an average of $6,574 in 1959to a constant-dollar average of $10,350 by 1976.Of the various components of personal expenditureinvolved in these disposable income figures, the por-tion devoted to recreation will probably increasefrom around 5.8 percent in 1950 to perhaps as muchas 16.2 percent by 1976. By 1976, 26.7 percent ofthe population will most probably be included in the$10,000 to $14,999 income bracket (51, 54).

Changes in tastes, desires, and preferences at thecultural or societal level are involved. This area hasnot been explored much in any quantitative man-ner. Ins& ad, assumptions usually are made tha socialpatterns and human wants in the future would be ofmuch the same type as evident today, or that this is

likely to be true at least in the relatively shortperiod through 1980. However, it is well to considerthe recent explosive popularity of, say, discotheques,drag strips, and square dance clubs. Too little isknown concerning the latent popularity of family,neighborhood, or community leisure activities to pre-dict that they will have no great impact on futureoutdoor recreation.

During the primacy of "wildland" recreation, hunt-ing and fishing so called sportsman's activitieswere dominant. Lands for these uses received aminimum of managerial investment, in order to fitthe "roughing it" tastes of largely-male hunting andfishing parties. Recent years have witnessed a shiftto family-oriented outdoor recreation. This latterperiod has been characterized by greater recreationinvestments in comfort and convenience facilities forfamily groups.

Still another development is the recent emphasis onFe\ iding facilities for the large numbers of youthfulvisitors. This is an obvious recognition of the needsexpressed by a youthful population. As a group, thispopulation segment exhibits characteristics that haveimportant implications for development and adminis-tration of recreation areas. The group tends to behighly mobile and action-oriented, is fairly affluent,is often impatient and difficult to please, susceptibleto fads and temporary whims, and tends to chafeunder tight regulation.

Over the years, technological advances have hadcontinuing impact upon outdoor recreation. It mightbe said that, as a general rule, participation has beenpromoted by increases in comfort and convenience,safety and personalized attention. These might befurther categorized as improvements in transportation,equipment, facilities, and accommodations. Exam-ples of transportation improvements could include theincrease in popularity of skiing with general adoptionof ski tows; also, the rise in numbers of bush vehicles,tote-goats and sno-cats in hunting areas, and thegrowth in boating with the advent of dependable out-board motors.

Viewed from the supply side, management develop-ments have made equally great strides. Land engi-neering capability has increased tremendously throughthe use of a variety of earth-shaping constructionequipment. Man now has the ability to reshape theenvironment within broad limits to suit his recreationalpurposes. Consequently, earthmovers are used todayto fill low, poorly drained areas, bulldozers to removeknolls, draglines to excavate channels and beach areas,and pneumatic sluices to remove organic depositsfrom silted-in lakes and bogs.

Recreation land in the future will be custom-engineered for many purposes to a greater extent thanpossible with the constraints imposed by natural fea-

17

tures today. The significant poir is that this willmean much land now having only limited recreationuse will have increased development potential.

Doubtless the next 15 years will see additionalcatering to the wants and desires of outdoor recrea-tionists by alert and responsive manufacturers. Recentinnovations have provided more convenient meansof transporting persons and belongings to heretoforeinaccessible locations. This seems to be the charm ofthe tote-goat, sno-cat, or bush-buggy. Projecting thesecharacteristics, we may suspect dramatic changes inthe ability of recreationists to explore new recreationalfrontiers.

Two possibilities quickly come to mind. One is themass adoption of some form of personal air-bornetransportation. This might take the form of indi-vidual units in the form of a "rocket-pak" or unitizedhelicopter. It might combine air-ground-water capa-bility, as already seen in amphibious and wheellessautomobiles.

Another and possibly more easily envisioned de-velopment might be the extension of scuba diving tocomplete self-contained underwater movement in theform of a small personal powered craft. Small oneand two-person submarines with diving capabilities to150 feet are presently being marketed in this countryin th $3,000 retail price range as European imports.The implications for adr. inistration of recreation landscontained in the possible establishment of new usessuch as those outlined above are enormous, andcould be expected to pose managerial problems sim-ilar to the dislocations and conflicts resulting frompopular shifts to trailered, high-horsepower outboardmotorboats.

The trend in equipment continually seems to favorcomfort, safety, convenience and the growth in spe-cialty or custom items and activities. Tenters go totrailer camping plus gadgets, swimmers to scubaequipment, and hunters and fishermen to overseasjaunt.. This "quality revolution" may mean thatrural Michigan cannot capture a very great share ofthe growing total outdoor recreation market. Whatcan be captured is likely to require very special pub-lic and private efforts, involving markedly higherorders of enterpreneurship.

State Policies and ProgramsThe amount and character of outdoor recreation in

Michigan in the future will be determined by pro-grams already in existence and future programs anddevelopments that may not now be in existence. TheMichigan Department of Conservation currently isundergoing substantial reorganization. Dramaticchanges in programs and resource management arechanging the character of available outdoor experi-ences. For example, it is only since 1950 that deer

18

hunting with bow and arrow has become established,and less than 10 years since special anterless deerseasons were established. The Fish Section of theMichigan Conservation Department recently has an-nounced the intro duction of kokanee salmon in Mich-igan waters. The Forestry Section recently helpedcomplete a cross-Michigan horseback riding trail fromGrand Traverse Bay to Lake Huron.

The future of Michigan's outdoor recreation de-pends very much on the legislative climate as it re-flects the needs and desires of the people of Michigan.It is generally agreed that natural resource manage-ment and public outdoor recreation is receiving amuch more sympathetic hearing in recent years thanhad been true in the past.

The funding of state programs, or participation infederal programs such as the Land and Water Con-servation Act, depends in a very real sense on sup-port provided by the Michigan Legislature. In a simi-lar way, recreation opportunities available in the fu-ture depend on decisions made by the MichiganConservation Commission with regard to departmentalpolicies, objectives, and regulations.

Another factor of importance in Michigan's com-petitive position is the amount of publicity and pro-motional activity given a state's recreational re-sources. Many states have recently expanded appro-priations to tourist promotion agencies.

Recently the Illinois legislature enacted a uniqueprogram of matching local funds for promotion on aregional level. Table 12 summarizes recent touristpromotion expenditures by various states,

Table 12Selected state tourist-promotion expendituresState or province Year AmountOntario 1960 $2,400,000Wisconsin 1962-63 420,000Illinois 1963-64 500,000Indiana 1963-64 47,000Ohio 1963-64 1,678Kentucky 1963-84 708,928W. Virginia 1983-64 194,600Pennsylvania 1962 927,000New York 1983 -64 1,045,683Michigan 1963-64 548,360Michigan 1962-63 119,000

Source: Figures provided by Michigan Tourist Council, Dieember 14,1964.

Differential rates of expansion in various states'outdoor recreation programs might well prove to beanother competitive force having a significant impacton Michigan's outdoor recreation situation. Table 13compares the current outdoor recreation expansionprograms in a number of states with that in Michigan.The source of financing ranges from general bondissues to revenue bond issues and earmarked receipts.

Regular legislative appropriations made by selectedstates and Ontario in 1950 and 1960 for state parkprograms plus related data are shown in Table 14.

Table 13Recent state financing of public park expansionprograms

State Amount Term in YearsWisconsin $50.60 ndllion 10New York 125 million 10Pennsylvania 70 million 10Michigan 5 million 25W. Virginia 7 million 10Kentucky 10 million 3

Another recent development was the organizationin 1964 of the Michigan Association of Rural Recrea-tion Enterprises. Its initial meeting attracted 150persons principally rural landowners who ex-pressed an interest in the development and operationof commercial outdoor recreation facilities on rurallands. Although it is too early to assess the signifi-cance of farmer-financed commercial recreation busi-nesses, this activity has been promoted actively bythe U. S. Department of Agriculture. Similar groupsrecently have been organized in other states.

Still another area that will affect Michigan outdoorrecreation is the disposition of significant blocks ofrural land resources presently in industrial and cor-porate ownership. The eventual status of lands nowowned by the Consumers Power Company on theManistee and Au Sable Rivers is a case in point.Policies with respect to other major landholders inthe north such as the Celotex Corporation, Cleve-land Cliffs, M. A. Hanna, and Calumet and Heclaare other examples.

Federal Policies and ProgramsAlthough circumstances inside Michigan will have

a great deal to do with the ultimate character offuture outdoor recreation, this is by no means theentire picture. Actions taken outside Michigar alsowill have a discernible impact upon outdoor recreationwithin the state. It may well be that the next 15years will see massive federal programs started, notalways directly associated with outdoor recreation, butwhich may promote outdoor recreation in areas otherthan Michigan. The program in Appalachia is oneexample of federal interest that, at least for now,

geographically excludes Michigan. Other examples ofnon-outdoor recreation emphases might be massiveallocations of federal funds for urban redevelopment,education, or the development of Western water re-sources.

Outdoor recreation in Michigan also will continueto be influenced by federal outdoor recreation activi-ties in the state. Examples include the U.S. ForestService appraisal of a solid ownership of approxi-mately 20,000 acres in the Ufper Peninsula for ac-quisition. The Forest Service has also made policydecisions regarding the establishment of various visi-tor information services.

Another recent development is the consideration bythe Forest Service of lanes that will accommodatesno-cat vehicles to assist the visitor in further pene-trating forest wildlands. Another example is the ac-quisition interest expressed by the National ParkService in several Michigan locations, notably theSleeping Bear Dunes, the Pictured Rocks area, andpossibly the Huron Mountains.

Probably the federal program with the most far-reaching implications for Michigan outdoor recrea-tion is the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act,which provides matching funds assistance for plan-ning, acquisition, and development of state and localoutdoor recreation areas. At the present time, theU. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation is preparing aunified national outdoor recreation plan. Completionof this work will greatly simplify comparisons of stateoutdoor recreation programs.

A LOOK AT THE FUTUREDemand

In the absence of a true behavioral model of thecomplete system, what can be said about the probablefuture of tourist-recreational inflows to Michigan? Onewidely-used method of getting a rough lower-Iimitapproximation is based on the mechanical butstatistically supported assumption that per-capitause will stay constant. If so, total visitor-days in

Table 14Selected state park data

State orProvince

Acres ofState ParkLands-1960

Regular LegislativeAppropriation

1950 1960

State ParkAttendance

1950 1960

St. Approp. perAcre of State

Park Lands '60Michigan 182,541 1,455,799 2,432,891 12,463,577 19,105,440 13.30Wisconsin 22,391 374,003 678,365 3,232,069 5,363,948 30.30Illinois 80,000 1,142,632 2,232,298 10,888,230 8,378,571 27.90Indiana 52,703 161,129 318,084 2,323,174 2,864,311 5.99Ohio 84,542 388,018 1,530,883 6,293,002 18,481,937 18.11Kentucky 28,155 250,000 275,000 2,041,753 4,400,500 10.51W. Virginia 43,458 137,300 525,440 1,416,145 1,940,413 12.09Pennsylvania 204,311 1,218,278 1,778,459 8,786,722 22,751,411 8.69New York 188,060 8,917,252 11,981,348 22,875,078 34,489,699 84.28Ontario 3,481,158 1,772,743 7,820,994 0.51

Source: Parks for America, 1964; and State Park Statistics, 1951 and 1961; both published by the National Park Service, U.S. Department ofthe Interior.

19

Michigan could be assumed to grow at the same rateas the population either of the state or of the entireregion from which most of the state's trade is drawn(49). That is:

Demand = Demand Population1976-80 1958-60 x 1978-80

Population1960

Even this simple a method is subject to severalvariations, as shown in Table 9, which yield notablydifferent results. It may be seen from the table, then,that the constant per-capita visit-rate assumption couldlead to projections for Michigarn of an increase invisitor-days ranging from 25 to 42 percent.

A second mechanical type of model, equally widelyused (49), is considered likely to lead to a maximalestimate of aggregate visitor-days. Here the as-sumptions would be that population, income, leisureand mobility factors interact multiplicatively, eachwith coefficients arbitrarily assumed to be one ratherthan estimated econometrically. That is:

Per Capita Per CapitaDemand 1978-80 = Demand 1958 X Income/Capita 1976

Income/Capita 1957Leisure 1976 Mobility 1978

X Leisure 19.58 X Mobility 1958

Leisure-time will be on the increase between nowand 1980, just as it has been since the turn of thecentury. According to ORRRC projections, the aver-age U.S. work week will drop to somewhere between32 and 35 hours by 1976. Over the same period, it isexpected that paid vacations will increase from the1 to 2 weeks in 1960 to 2.5 to 2.8 weeks by 1980.Holiday time will also be rising, increasing nearly 50percent from 8 days per year in 1960 to 8.5 days peryear in 1980.

Using the Michigan Ii population projection inTable 9, ORRRC Study Report 19 projections of thechange in income per capita for Michigan (in con-stant 1959 dollars), and projections from the samesource of the change in U.S. adults per car as ameasure of mobility, we may develop at least twoquite different results according to whether we takethe leisure change to be represented, respectively, bythe projected work-week decline or by the projectedincrease in vacation time for the region. On theformer assumption the visitor-days increase by 266.7percent; on the latter by 358.9 percent.

Finally, what if we assume that Michigan justholds its own with respect to national trends in out-door recreation and tourism as projected by ORRRC?The estimates for the U.S. are that total visitor-dayiwill increase around 58 to 71 percent over the period1900-76. Visitor expenditures (in constint dollars) arcexpected to grow on the order of 84 to 110 percent.

20

These aggregate growth rates are moderately higherthan projected growth in state gross product. Thismodel implies, then, impressive but hardly astronom-ical growth in the aggregate. Within these totals, ofcourse, individual activities may be expected to varya great deal, as may be seen in the ORRRC reports.The impact of growth by region, and particularly bytype of enterprise, may vary still more, in ways re-quiring much further investigation.

SupplyLand

What might this range of expansion possibilitiesmean in terms of shifts in land use? Public officialsrecently have generated some idea of the magnitudeof changes which they foresee. Figures obtainedfrom Michigan outdoor recreation agencies, for ex-ample, generally indicate a 200 percent to 300 per-cent increase in attendance by 1980. Planning isunderway to acquire roughly two to three times theexisting acreage administered to accommodate thesedemands.

The Parks Section of the Michigan ConservationDepartment anticipates state park attendance to in-crease from about 13.5 million visits in 1964 toapproximately 40 million by 1980. The amount ofrecreation lands recommended in its current plansshows a total of about 471,000 acres, compared withapproximately 187,000 acres held in 1964.

The recently-published 1980 Lands Plan of theHuron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority recommendsincreasing the amount of its recreation lands fromabout 16,000 acres in 1964 to 30,000 acres in 1980,in order to meet the outdoor recreation needs of the20 million visits expected by that year. In line withORRRC and national projections, U.S. Forest Serviceprojections in internal reports reveal comparable in-creases in anticipated attendance and acquisition ofrecreation lands.

Population figures can be employed to computesome estimates of the public lands needed to accom-modate future visitation. A widely-accepted figurefor public outdoor recreation lands relative to basepopulation, for example, is 70 acres per 1,000 ropula-lion, of which 45 acres per 1,000 population tends tobe state and federal acreage. Using this criterion,the Michigan Department of Conservation has esti-mated that for the predicted 1980 Michigan popula-tion, approximately 472,500 acres of public recreationlands would be needed.

For planning purposes, the Conservation Depart-ment has divided Michigan into five regions theUpper Peninsula, Northeast and Northwest LowerPeninsula, and Southeast and Southwest Lower Penin-sula. To apportion the projected 472,500 acres ofrecreation lands solely on the basis of the expected

future population distribution would be unworkable,since these lands serve non-resident visitors as well asMichigan visitors from outside each planning area.The agencies' acreage distribution by planning area toallocate the land needs by 1975 is shown in Table 15.

Table 15Projected 1975 population and public land needsin Michigan

Planning Area Projected 1975 Population

1975 PublicLand Needs

(acres)UP 303,880 13,580SE 6,980,220 254,100SW .......... ....... .... 2,407,090 108,315NE 455,870 20,475NW 460,220 20,700Unallocated 55,330

TOTAL 10,607,080 472,500Source: Michigan Conscnation Department.

By projecting 1964 attendance figures at MichiganState Parks, based on a 10 percent attendance in-crease (as witnessed during the preceding decade),however, almost all of this total might be needed forstate parks alone. See Table 16 to see how theseagency figures are derived.

Table 16 Projected 1975 state park attendance and landneeds in Michigan

PlanningArea 1964 Acreage

Estimated ParkAttendance in

1975

Estimated1975 PublicLand Needs

(acres)UP 81,338 4,093,910 51,571SE 6.3,056 14,411,544 181,578SW 7,050 8,847,133 111,372IiE 12,166 4,762,225 00,001NW 19,039 6,095,515 66,697

TOTAL 182,649 38,210,327 471,219Source: Michigan Conservation Department.

It can readily be seen that this allocation is madeaccording to present patterns of use projected to1975. This method suggests the need for a total of292,950 acres of public outdoor recreation land insouthern Michigan, in contrast to the 70,106 acrespresently administered by the Conservation Depart-ment.

The vexing problem is that, although the state hasa large reservoir of state and federal lands innorthern Michigan, these lands are not accessible forday use say, a two hour drive from populationorigins by the majority of Michigan residents. Thesouthern one-third of the state has 88 percent of thepopulation, but only 38 percent of the public recrea-tion lands. Further, thesr, southern Michigan landsaccommodate 64 percent of the total 1964 state parkattendance, and 88 percent of the day-use visitation.

Taken together, these developments suggest thatpublic lands primarily used for outdoor recreation

may be in the range of 1.5 to 2 million acres by 1980,based on the following partial estimates.

Michigan Conservation Department (landsreceiving significant recreation useparks, forests, game areas) 800,000 acres

Regional parks, southeastern Michigan. 60,000 acresRegional parks, remainder of state 50,000 acresNational Park Service 360,000 acresWildlife refuges 50,000 acresU.S. Forest Service (major recreation use) Not available

Indications are that combined state and federalforest lands will likely comprise almost 7 millionacres by 1980, much of which may be used to variousdegrees for a broad range of outdoor recreationactivities. (One difficulty in arriving at definitiveacreage totals, in fact. results from the method oftabulating recreation use. Most agency tabulationsreport attendance by administrative unit forest,district, or park or by activity total camping,boating, etc. rather than by functional area classifi-cations; i.e., relating attendance directly to theacreage upon which various activities occur. Weresuch activity-area reports available. the total landsused for various outdoor recreation purposes couldmuch more readily be determined.)

An obvious implication of these figures is that thegreatest recreation impact of metropolitan Michiganresidents will be on nearby open space i.e., rurallower Michigan. It can be concluded that the bulkof the recreation land needed to serve Michigan pop-ulation centers will be obtained through acquisitionof rural lands in southern Michigan that shift intothis use from agricultural or rural non-farm uses.

For the public portions of the Michigan outdoorrecreation system, then, overall availability of landinputs does not appear to involve critical adjustmentproblems. Selected instances of conflict may arise,though, notably over higher quality water-basedareas, and appropriate methods of financing. Thetotal magnitude of the expected shifts appears to bewithin a range that often could be handled throughacquisitior of other agency lands. Future agencyplans in many cases might involve more intensiveuse of existing public lands.

Much larger shifts are foresern with regard toprivate recreation lauds. The area devoted to suchuses is expected to rise from the million or so acresestimated for 1960 to perhaps 5 million acres by1980 (1). Given the efficiency of market forces, thecommercial sector presumably will find ways to ac-complish this massive adjustment in land uses. Sincethe key sites for future tourism and outdoor recrea-tion enterprises are likely to be either around goodscenery or water or near expressway interchanges,however, they should not be looked to .s sources ofsalvation tot many marginal agricultural lands.

Significant issues do exist, however, with regard to

21

public and use policies as they affect growth patternsof the entire system. Many tourist enterprises willsurvive or develop only as nearby public lands aredeveloped well for outdoor recreation. Everywhere,rural zoning will take on new importance as a meansof preserving the quality of the environment. Withinthe public land holdings, critical and possibly differ-ent policies will have to be considered regardingcommercial concessions for eating and drinking,lodging, swimming, etc.

Altogether, the tourism-recreation industries mayprovide an alternative use for some land marginalin agriculture by 1980. Jt will by no means providean alternative for all such land, and it may indeedprovide an alternative for many types of land thatare capable of being operated economically as farmland. This will depend upon its location.

JobsIn a recently-released authoritative study, it is

estimated that between 1960 and 1975, to preventsubstantial unemployment or out-migration, the Mich-igan economy must generate more than 860,000 newfull-time jobs (12). If outdoor recreation and tourismemployment were to grow at about the national ratespostulated by ORRRC, this sector might account forsomething over 90,000 of these jobs directly, andperhaps 80,000 indirectly; that is, around the amountestimated to be contributed by the automotive com-plex to 1970.

CapitalFor 'he public and private sectors alike, opportu-

nities for capital investment generally are morelikely to be abundant in the heavily settled parts ofthe state than in the northern part of the state. Mostrecreation expenditures are made near at home.Those investments that arc made in the northern partof the state are likely to depend upon some majortourist attraction, public or private, to draw sufficientvolume to the area. In the southern part of the -tate,those businesses that are located near populationcenters are faced mainly with competition from thosein their immediate vicinity, and do not have to com-pete with other regions for attracting travelers andtourists. geedless to say, these types of businessesare of a different nature one attracting an itinerantbusiness, the other attracting and appealing primarilyto a resident business that is a day use type of opera-tion. It is expected that both will expand

EnterprisesIt is extremely unlikely that the recreation industry

would provide an alternative for marginal agricul-tural or rural entrepreneurship. Those people that aremarginal in agriculture are likely to find tYemselvescompletely unable to cope with recreation industries,

22

because they are dealing with a still more complextype of industry, particularly in its marketing aspects.Such people are likely also to have access to onlysmall amounts of capital. This combination of factorssuggests that, if these individuals are marginal asmanagers in agriculture, they are likely to be evenmore marginal as managers in recreation industries.This conclusion is supported by the data for cottageresorts, restaurants, and motels in the current UpperPeninsula study.

It is expected that the trends to larger size, nowobservable in nearly all industries, wil: be a majorfactor in the recreation and tourism industries. Mostrecreation businesses can now be compared to thecorner grocery store of the 1930s; there is still amarginal role performed by the coiner groceries, buttheir function largely has been taken over by largesupermarkets. It is expected that in a somewhat par-allel manner, vacation "supermarkets" of variods kindsmay be the order of the day one to two decadeshence.

While "growth" is not a necessary end in itself, theopposite of growth in a field as dynamic as recreationand tourism is stagnation, obsolescence, and a declin-ing image of the region for purposes of tourist visita-tion. Thus, it is important to have wide-awakeentrepreneurship and by and large these do notcome about in a high proportion of "Mom and Pop"businesses. This suggests that those kinds of busi-nesses that will be surviving in the decade or twohence are likely to be larger businesses, betterfinanced, and possibly with a degree of integrationof one sort or another.

One kind of integration that appears likely to bea major factor is the chain operation type of integra-tion by those businesses that have somehow becomelarge enough and have developed a formula forsuccess in the industry. Another kind of integrationcould be a horizontal integration by types of recrea-tion industries. In other words, it is expected thatcomplexes of recreation services will be put togethereither under one management in a given locality orunited in some kind of federation or association.

Role of the Public SectorIt is expected that public activities will have a

major influence upon recreation developments andfirms in two important ways: through regulation suches zoning, and through public ownership and deve-lopment of many spots of outstanding beauty withcertain kinds of features that may serve as major"attractions."

Public Regulation of Developments and Activities.The sudden development of sensitivity to the dull

drabness of the American countryside, or in some

cases the unsightly clutter, will have a certain impactupon recreation firms in the decade ahead. This willnot only affect location, it will affect the ways inwhich scenic views from the roadside can and mustbe managed.

Another consideration is control by zoning. One ofthe factors now relatively well understood is the needto locate most service facilities near major populationcenters. This means that eventually the "string town"type of development that is occurring along roads inmany parts of the state may be uneconomical, andlikely to lead to financial failure of the finns thus in-volved. Zoning regulations are likely to require thatLusinesses be grouped and that open space be leftfor scenic purposes as well as for the financial ad-vantages to those involved in the business enterprises.

Public Development in Relation to Private Investment.In many or most eases, public investment can and

should be complementary to private investment. Inthe recreation industry it is likely that public invest-ments will be made for the purpose of expandingthe possibilities open to private investment. Someexamples of these possibilities al.e:

The development of scenic roads, which willrequire service facilities at intervals along them.In addition, scenic roads will make more acces-sible points that have major appeal to tourists,and hence tend to increase the tourist visitationto given areas.

The development of parks complementary tocommunity services and facilities, so as to in-crease the overall economic opportunities inthe community. This is particularly true in thecase of major parks, such as those proposed atSleeping Bear and at the Pictured Rocks.

It is entirely possible that public control or spon-sorship may be involved in the purposeful develop-ment of historical resources of major scenic areas andinterpretation centers, with the idea that these willserve as the nucleus about which a tourism-recreationcomplex can develop. It is often difficult to write aprospectus for a historical restoration that %sill be aprofit-making operation suitable for the investment ofprivate funds. At the same time, once such a deve-lopment occurs there is often room for a cluster ofcomplementing private activities and services, rang-ing all the way from various kinds of water sportsand rentals to lodging and eating facilities, archeryranges, horseback riding. etc. In the northern part ofthe state, many services businesses may come evenmore to depend upon the public investment thatprovides the major attractions nucleus, since in thispart of the state it is necessary to attract vacationers

and the recreating public to the area before theycan become consumers of the services that are avail-able there. Such major investments will not be thelife blood of many types of recreation business in theheavily settled southern part of the state. Still, theymay provide appeal, and preserve some areas thatcould not be profitably owned and managed privatelyin their highest use.

The Quality RevolutionAlready the unmistakable signs of a revolution in

the demand for quality are rapidly appearing. Againwe must stress that price is a factor, but it is not themajor factor. Few complaints are voiced by peoplesimply because they paid high prices provided theyhave gotten value received for the high prices. Weare now in what might be called at least the thirdgeneration of businesses that have been developedspecifically to serve the automobile tourist. The firstwas the primitive cabin, with a bed and roof andlittle else. Next came various degrees of sophistica-tion in cabins and motels. Now we find increasingnumbers of plush facilities including dining, eating,drinking, and expensive recreation facilities.

Along with the change in the quality of facilitiesprovided, there is a change in the taste for the kindsof activities desired. The overwhelming bulk of thosewho travel have had primarily urban experiences.They are not interested in roughing it, They areinterested only in superficial ways in the woods, theflowers, the trees. In fact, they are more likely to bebored by them quickly than to be deeply absorbedin them, unless some means of providing readilyavailable interpretive services is at hand. After theyhave had one look at the scenic overlook, a view ofthe bear at a distance, and driven through a fewmiles of tree-shaded roads, they are ready to go backto the urban centers where they can do the kindsof things that they are familiar with to mix withother people and have their fun in a gregarious way.

We can only speculate as to the nature of develop-ment beyond this point. Will the traveling publicbecome more intensely interested in learning on theirown, delving into history, and looking into local cus-tom at sonic depth in art, geology, biology, etc.?Can purposeful public aeon be undertaken as inthe case of the Mackinac island historic restorationsthat have paid their way on a bond issue basis tostimulate and encourage such tastes? To what extentshould the public sector continue to provide for thestrong minority w1-o will continue to 'refer thetraditional, simpler forms cf outdoor recreation?

These policy issues are far more than academicfor the supplier of recreation and t, grist services,who in ,eneral must eater to predominant patternsof demand. On the whole, rough ur crude facilities

23

have little chance of succeeding. Firms located at adistance from community centers are less likely to besuccessful. This is particularly true in northern Mich-igan. It is less applicable in the southern third of thestate, where people living in an urban center mightbe willing to drive a distance to get to a particularrecreation spot. There is and will continue to be aplace for the so-called "primitive" outdoor sports suchas hunting and fishing, but increasingly urban typesof experience will be demanded, such as golfing orbowling.

The strongest influence toward quality innovationscomes from developments in other states. Following

the lead of places like Colonial Williamsburg, im-pressive tourist complexes are being built with publicand private funds in the East, South, and West, aswell as overseas. Michigan's Interlochen may ap-proach SlassachuseLs' Tanglewood: Mackinac Islandmay rival Bermuda; Fayette may begin to matchCalifornia's Columbia State Park. But do we haveenough equivalents. of Gatlinburg, the Land Betweenthe Lakes, Aspen, Palm Springs, or the Europeanhostels in castles? Imaginative programs appearcrucial if Michigan is to maintain or expand its shareof Upper Great Lakes tourism and outdoor recreationin the face of this growing competition.

REFERENCES

1. Bar lowe, Raleigh (1966). Use of land and waterresources in Michigan. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Res.Rpt. 52.

2. Bosch, George (1963). Land use and other consid-erations needed for developing Michigan wintersports areas. Thesis for degree of M.S., Mich. StateUniv., East Lansing (unpublished).

3. Braschler, Curtis, D. W. Alexander, and John M.Welch (1963). Descriptive analysis of the Mis-souri restaurant industry. Univ. of Mo.

4. Chicago Tribune Advertising Department (1963).Chicagoans on the go.

.5. Clawson, Marion (1960). Land for the Future. JohnHopkins Press, Baltimore.

6. (1959). The crisis in outdoor rec-reation. American Forests. 65 No. 3:22-31, 40-41; 6.5 No. 4:28-35, 61-82.

7. Culture Fizzle (1965). Newsweek, March 8, p. 82.8. DeCrazia, Sebastian (1960). 01 Time, Work, and

Leisure. New York: Twentieth Century Fund.9. Dorman, Kenneth (1M). A study of tax dividends

from Michigan's travel industry. Hoaghton: Up-per Michigan Tourist Association.

10. Foss, Philip (1962). Federal agencies and outdoorrecreation. ORRRC, Study Report 13, NVashing-ton, D.C.

11. Freedgood, Seymour (1959). "The motel free-for-all', Fortune. June.

12. Haber, NVil liam, at al. (1965). Michigan in the1970's. Univ. of Mich. Press, Ann Arbor.

13. Hedrick, Wilbur 0. (1934). Recreational use ofnorthern Michigan cut-over lands. Mich. Agr.Expl. Sta. Spec. Bul. 247.

14. Lansing. John 13. at al. (1955-1965). National travelmarket survey, Survey Research Cerny., Univer-sity of Michigan, annual.

15. Larrabee, Eric and Rolf Meyersohn, editors, (19.53).Mass Leisure. Free Press. Glencoe, Ill.

18. Lickorish, L. J. and A. G. Kershaw (1958). TheTravel Trade. Practical Press. London.

17. Lodge, Donald E. (1961). The development of out-door recreation in the upper Midwest. North StarResearch and Development Institute, Minneapolis.

24

18. Lund, Reuel I. (1956). Minnesota resort profits.Business News Notes. University of Minnesota.

19. Michigan Department of Conservation, Parks Section(1985). Memorandum on ten-year parks and rec-reation program.

20 Parks andRecreation Division (1982). Summary of campinginformation.

21. Michigan State Highway Department (1960-1983).The (city name) metropolitan area traffic study.

22. (1963). Mich-igan field and coding instructions for MississippiValley Conference statewide multiple screenlineorigin and destination survey.

23. ;1965). North-ern Michigan winter recreation travel pattern sur-vey.

24. (1963). Ori-gin survey of campers at Michigan State Parks.

2.5. (1983-1985) .

Survey and ser,ices repot: tourist informationcenters. annual.

28. Michigan State University, Bureau of Business andEconomic Research (1962). Michigan StatisticalAbstract, Fourth Edition.

27. Michigan State University, Institute for CommunityDevelopment (1963). The proposed picturedrocks national lakeshore: an economic study.

28. Milstein, David N. (1961). An economic approach toleisure analysis. Social Problems, 9, No. 11:17-31.

29. (1961). Prospective research contributions of economics to outdoor recreation.Outdoor Recreation in the Upper Great LakesArea. Lake States Forest Expt. Sta. Paper No.89, St. Paul, Minn.

30. Morgan Howard E. (1963). The motel industry in theUnited States: small business in transition. SmallBusiness Administration Management ResearchReport. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.

31. Patterson. William D. (1964). The Big Picture.AS TA Tratt-1 Netts, March -June.

32. Tcrloff, Harvey S. et al. (1960. Regret.% Pt &lacesand Economic Growth. John Hopkins Press, Bal-timore.

33. Rockefeller Brothers Fund Panel (1985). The Per-forming Arts: Problems and Prospects. McCraw-Hill, blew York.

34. Roth, Dale E., et al. (1964), Factors influencing theeconomic growth rate of the Midwestern states.North Star Research and Development Institute,Minneapolis.

35. Sielaff, Richard 0., editor (1963). The economicsof outdoor recreation in the upper Midwest. Univ.of Minn. at Duluth.

36. Stigler, George J. ( 1958). Trends in Employment Inthe Service Industries. Princeton Univ. Press,Princeton, N.J.

37. Twardzik, Louis F. (1962). A recommended recrea-tion program for Michigan. Mich. State Univ.Dept. of Resource Development.

38. U. S. Department of Agriculture (1963). A Placeto Live - Yearbook of Agriculture 1983. U. S.Government Printing Office.

39 , Forest Service.(1957). Operation outdoors: Part I, national for-est recreation.

40. U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Cen-sus (1963). Census of Business; Census of Trans-portation.

41. (1965). StatisticalAbstract of the United States-I965.

42.. U. S. pa t of the Interior, National Park Serv-ice ( .d.). Pacts About Mission 68.

43. U. S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statis-tics (1962). Paid leave provisions in major con-tracts-1961. Bu). No. 1342. U. S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

44.Multiple Jobholders in May 1963.

Mont- hly Labor Review.45. U.S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commis-

Won (1962). Public outdoor recreation areas -

48.acreage, use, potential. Study Report No. I.

(1902). Private outdoor recreation facilities.Study Report No. 11.

47.- (1982). A look abroad: the effect of foreigntravel on domestic outdoor recreation. Study Re-port No. 18.

49

50.

51

52.

53.

54.

55.

se.

57.

se.

(1982). National recreation survey. StudyReport No. 19.

_ (1962). The future of outdoor recreation inmetropolitan regions of the United States. StudyReport No. 21, Vols. I and III.

(1962). Trends in American living andoutdoor recreation. Study Report No. 22.

(1962). Projections to the years 1978 and2000: economic growth, population, labor forceand leisure, and transportation. Study Report No.23.

(1962). Economic studies of outdoor rec-reation. Study Report No. 24.

(1982). Public expenditures for outdoor rec-reation. Study Report No. 25.

(i962). Prospective demand for outdoor rec-reation. Study Report No. 28.

U. S. Senate, Subcommittee on Employment andManpower of the Committee on Labor and PublicWelfare (1964). Exploring the dimensions of themanpower revolution. 88th Congress, 2nd session,Washington.

Western Council for Travel Research (1963). Pro-ceedings of the fifth annual conference, San Fran-cisco, August 28-30. Bureau of Economic andBusiness Research, University of Utah.

Wilensky, Harold L. (1961). The uneven distributionof leisure. Social Problems, 9, No. 1, 32-58.

Wolfe, R. 1. (1984). Perspective on outdoor recrea-tion: a bibliographical survey. Geogr*phical Re-view. 54:203-238.

YOUR COUNTY COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE OFFICE

. . . A Door to Michigan State University

COUNTY OFFICES IN MICHIGAN

ALCONACounty Bldg., Hur WM*41740

ALGERCourthouse, Munising49662

ALLEOANCounty Bldg., ATIecur4SKE0

ALPENAFederal Bldg, Alpena49707

ANTRIMCounbase, Basks49615

CourthouARENACse, Sundials48658

BARAOACourthouse, L'Aarre4990

B YARRba b. baybigooHanky 4909$

Awn

BAYamply Bldg, Bay City48700

BENUECourthouse, Beulah49617

BERRIEN901 Pai &rotSt. Joseph 49063

BRANCHCombo" Coldwater49036

CALIOUNCoast, Ilds, Umbel49061

CASSCawdscvn, Cawcvolis49051

CHARLEVOIXFederal Bldg, Boys. City0713

CHIMOYOANCourthouse, Cheboygan0721

CHIPPEWAFederal 11:9g.,East PompSeek Ben Marie 49713

CLAREComoroase, limbos

CLINTONCombas*, St. /dm488/9

CRAWFORD-OSCODACounbcenn0647

DELTA49129Comely Bldg, racaarbt

DICKINSONCombas.lies Manta% 4001

EATON126 N. Bostwick,Charlotte 48113

EMMET312 Division St.,APi2. Petoskeyerns

GENESEECanny Mg., No 2 Fist04215 W. Paulin43504

GI ADWIN

4Co6624

urthouse, Ciladwis

Cr00 ERFederal Mg., hoewoodt99311

GE. TRAVERSEP4 dent 1113g.,Varerie City 49614

ORATIOTCourthouse, Ithaca41147

HILISDALECounbom,0242

HOUOIffON-KEWEENAWCotutbouse, Houghtoa4993 I

HURONCourthouse, Bad Ate41413

INGHAMcowboys*, Woos41134

IONIAComics" loofa41146

IOSICOFederal Bldg, East Tawaswoo

IRONCourthouse, Crystal Falls49920

ISABEarse Aims

htt. Mena 48131

IACKLONColony Mg. /scirsos

KALAMAZOOCowry Mg,Italsamars 49001

KALKASKACourthouse, Renate49646

KENTF11 Pallet Ave. 13.

thud Rapids 030N-)KEWEENAW-110iJOHTON

Courthouse, Hoplicie49931

LAKECourthouse, Baldwin49304

LAPEERFederal6446

Bldg, Lapeer

LEELANAUCourthouse, Leland19654

LENAWEECourthouse, Addis0221

LIVINGSTONCourthouse Anon, HowS114043

LUCECommusity Bidg,Newberry 49068

MACNACCourIUthouse, SL Isaacs4rni

MACOMB119 Groesbeck Hwy

M Es,. Indg,Clemens 49043

MANISTEEP.O. Ike

High SchoolItOldaleva 4960

Bldg,

MAttgrovEZIS

IfdisquetteMar

MASONsat. Say. Bask bids,Scoter& 49494

M0907ECOSTACondemns, Big Rapids

MENOMCourthou

INEEse, Macesinee

496S6

MIDLANDFederal 144, Midland41640

MISSAUKEE-ROSCOMMONCasty Bldg., Lake CityOat

MONRU:Courthorm, Mame41161

MO? TCALMWest Mahe

Swim 4818$

MONTMORENCY-OTSEGOCortisone, Gaylord071S

MUSKEOONCarty Bldg, Mertegoeqty

coswywy SIdg,Fromm 0411

OAKLAND155 N. Saginaw St.,Poonac

OCEANAFederal Bldg, Hart49420

OOEMAW116 South 3rd Street,West Branch 48661

ONTONAGONBask Bldg., Ewes49925

OSCEOCourthouLAse, Reed City49671

OSCODA-CRAWFORDCourthouse, Mio43647

OTSEGOMONTMORENCYCourthouse, Gaylord49735

01TAWACourthotan Grand Hans0417

PRESQUB ISLEFedora sag., Rosen City0779

ROSCOMMON-MISSAUKEECanny Bldg., Lake City49651

SAGINAWCourthouse, Saginaw, W.S.41601

sn CLAIR!Waal Mg, Port Heron4/060

ST. JOSEPHur thouse Asset

Cestmille 49032

SAF

N ILAC'ederal Bids, Sarodusky

SCHOOLCRAffFederal Bldg, Mashdque49154

SHIAWASSEBCo. Rd. Co ors. Bldg,Comma 48117

TUSCOCombosLA's, Care41723

VAN BURENFederal Bldg, Paw Paw49079

WASHTENAWCarty Biagi Am Arbor

los

WAYNEO Newberryr D.,0. Boa 530. Ways.

41164

WEXFORDCombated, Outlet49601

6-46-10M