1980 Michigan recreational boating survey

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

/~qr5~

1980 M~2qi~qnch~2qi~qm an
Rec~4qkreat~0qi~2qm nal
B at~qm~qi n

Daniel J. S~92q"es and David S~20qafronoff
GV
776
.M5
M53 0
1980 MICHIGAN SEA GRANT MICHU-SG~q-82~q-202
BOATI ~qc~q-

n
~0qrv
e~0q@

~16q0 ~0q@n~8ql~12qe~8ql ~2qJ~q.

1980 MICHIGAN RECREATIONAL BOATING SURVEY

Daniel J. Stynes and David Safronoff

Department of Park and Recreation Resources
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan

MICHU-SG-82-202

Michigan Sea Grant Publications
2200 Bonisteel Boulevard
Ann Arbor, Michigan 46109

$5.00

This publication is a result of work sponsored by the Michigan Sea Grant Program,
project number R/R2, with a grant, NA79AA-D00093, from the Office of Sea Grant,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S. Department of
Commerce, and funds from the State of Michigan.

ABSTRACT

In 1980 the Michigan Sea Grant Program undertook a survey of
registered boat owners in the state. This report documents the methods
and basic results of the survey. Based upon almost 4000 respondents it
is estimated that registered boats in Michigan logged 16.9 million boat
days in 1980. This is an increase of 23% over 1977 levels. About one
third of all boat days took place on the Great Lakes and connecting
waters, the remaining two thirds occurring on inland lakes and streams.
Boaters averaged 33 days of boating in 1980 with larger boats stored at
waterfront sites the most active. Fishing is the most popular boating
activity, accounting for over half of all boat days and almost 60% of
all Great Lakes boat days. The largest increase in boating between
1977 and 1980 was in small boat activity on the Great Lakes.

The average boat owner is 50 years of age, a high school graduate,
and has an income (median) of $23,000. Sail boaters tend to be more
educated, younger, and have higher incomes than power boaters. Older
and younger families are the two largest life cycle segments among
boat owners. Almost one in every three boat owners is an empty nester.
The average age at which current boat owners purchased their first boat
is 34. Demographic trends promise a strong boating market through the
year 2000 if it is not unduly constrained by economic conditions or
supply constraints.

Southeastern Michigan continues to generate the majority of boat
days in the state, although the largest increases in boating activity
are occurring in northern Michigan. Second home developments, retire-
ment, and northern migration are all contributing to increased pressures
on boating facilities in northern Michigan. The Saginaw Bay region has
also witnessed significant increases in Great Lakes boating activity in
response to improved water quality and fishing. Boating patterns are
best understood by examining summer storage of boats. Forty percent of
all registered boats are stored at non-waterfront homes and trailered
to access and launch sites. Eighty percent of all launchings are gen-
erated by these boats. About one in four boats is stored at a perma-
nent waterfront home. Another one in every four boats is stored at a
summer waterfront home. These boaters primarily boat from these
locations. Marinas provide storage for about six percent of the
registered fleet, primarily larger cabin and sail boats on the Great
Lakes.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

A survey of this magnitude requires the cooperation and assistance
of many people. We especially wish to thank the Michigan Sea Grant
Program for financial and technical support. We also acknowledge
Waterways Division of Michigan's DNR for their cooperation in this
effort. Jim Oakwood was most cooperative in sharing results of pre-
vious boater surveys as well as his accumulated experience in boater
surveys. Keith Wilson and Les Nichols have provided answers to many
questions and reviewed drafts of this report. The Secretary of State's
office provided lists of registered boaters.

Colleagues at Michigan State and in the Sea Grant Program have
provided helpful reviews and inputs at several stages of this research.
Don Holecek and Dan Talhelm assisted with the initial design of this
study. Chuck Pistis has provided opportunities to present and discuss
boating research with boat dealers and marina operators. These oppor-
tunities have helped us to assess the industry's research needs and to
better interpret our results. Many students in the Department of Park
and Recreation Resources helped with the major task of mailing, coding,
and data checking. David Feltus coded all of the open ended responses
and prepared Tables 29 and 30 in this report. Bill Gartner helped
prepare Tables 41-43.

Bettye Warren, Patricia Block, Betty Clifford, Marcia Tucker, and
Sue Rosenbrook all contributed to the job of typing and editing several
drafts of this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Outline of the Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Ii. SURVEY METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Questionnaire Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Survey Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Survey Response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Weighting Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Representativeness of the Sample . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Study Limitations and Survey Error . . . . . . . . . . 19

III. BOAT STORAGE, LAUNCHINGS, AND BOATING OPPORTUNITIES . . . 24
The 1980 Active Registered Boating Fleet . . . . . . . 24
Boat Storage Locations - 1980 Boating Season . . . . . 27
Transporting and Launching . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Trends in Storage, Transporting, and Launching . . . . 34
Boating Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

IV. CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN'S REGISTERED BOAT OWNERS . . . 43

The Michigan Registered Boat Owner in 1980 . . . . . . 43
Life Cycle Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
History of Boat Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Second Home Ownership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Reasons for Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Boater Opinions and Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

V. 1980 BOATING USE IN MICHIGAN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Frequency of Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Boating Origin-Destination Patterns . . . . . . . . . 71

V1. SUMMARY AND SUBSEQUENT REPORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Summary . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
Further Analysis and Subsequent Reports . . . . . . . 85

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

APPENDICES

A. The 1980 Survey Instrument
B. Michigan GL Boating Regions

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Michigan Great Lakes Boating Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

2 1980 Michigan Recreational Boating Survey Response . . . . . 15

3 Trends in Registered Boats in Michigan, 1965-1980 . . . . . 26

4 Percent Change in Population, 1970-1980 . . . . . . . . . . 28

5 Percent Change in Number of Registered Boats,
1968-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6 Trends in the Makeup of Michigan's Registered Boating
Fleet, 1965-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

7 Number of Boating Opportunities within One Hour of Home . . 41

8 Quality of Boating Opportunities wi---hin One Hour of Home. 42

9 Age at Time of First Boat Purchase: 1980 Michigan Boat
Owners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

10 Second Home Ownership by Region of Residence . . . . . . . . 55

11 Reasons for Boating by Craft Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

12 Percent of Boat Days by Region of Origin and Region of
Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Distribution of 1980 Michigan Registered Boat Population
by Region and Size Class . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2 1980 Sample Distribution by Region and Size Class . . . . . 11

3 1980 Michigan Boater Survey Response Rate . . . . . . . . . 16

4 1980 Michigan Boater Survey Response by Size Class and
Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5 Expansion Weights for Undesignated Regions and Counties 18

6 Comparison of Sample with 1980 Registered Boat Popula-
tions, Propulsion and Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

7 Sampling Errors for Selected Sub-Sample Sizes . . . . . . . 23

8 1980 Michigan Active Registered Boating Fleet by Length,
Propulsion, Horsepower, and Craft Type . . . . . . . . . . . 25

9 Trends in the Michigan Registered Boating Fleet, 1965-1980. 30

10 Boating Season Storage of Boats by Access to Water . . . . . 31

11 Craft Types by Summer Storage Location . . . . . . . . . . . 32

12 Boat Storage by Great Lakes vs Inland Lakes Use . . . . . . 33

13 Craft Type by Great Lakes vs Inland Lakes Use . . . . . . . 33

14 Transporting and Launching of Boats at Great Lakes and
Inland Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

15 Transporting and Launching of Boats by Craft Type . . . . . 35

16 Transporting and Launching of Boats by Summer Storage
Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

17 Transporting and Launching of Boats by Region of Regis-
tration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

18 Trends in Transporting, Launching, and Storage, 1974-1980 37

19 Boater Perception of Quantity and Quality of Boating
Opportunities Within an Hour's Drive of Home by Region. . . 40

LIST OF TABLES (con't)

TABLE PAGE

20 Demographics of Michigan Boat Owners, 1980 . . . . . . . . . 44

21 1980 Boat Owner Demographics by Boat Type Classifications . 46

22 Michigan Boat Owner Life Cycle Segments . . . . . . . . . 47

23 Profiles of Michigan Boat Owners Using Life Cycle Segments. 48

24 Years of Boat Ownership of 1980 Michigan Boat Owners . . . . 50

25 Years of Boat Ownership of Present Boat . . . . . . . . . . 51

26 Previous and Current Boat Characteristics of Persons Who
Previously Owned Watercraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

27 Second Home Ownership of Michigan Boat Owners by Region . . 56

28 Reasons for Boating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

29 1980 Boater Survey Respondent Opinions and Comments . . . . 62

30 1980 Boater Survey: Comments and Opinions . . . . . . . . . 63

31 1980 Michigan Recreational Boating by Size Class . . . . . . 64

32 Trends in Boat Use on Great Lakes and inland Lakes,
1974-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

33 Trends in Boating on Great Lakes and Inland Lakes,
1968-1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

34 Frequency of Boating by Use of Great Lakes vs Inland
Lakes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

35 Average Number of 1980 Boat Days by Craft Type for
Great Lakes and Inland Lakes Boaters . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

36 Average Number of 1980 Boat Days by Storage Category for
Great Lakes and Inland Lakes Boaters . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

37 Frequency of Great Lakes and Inland Lakes Boating by
Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

38 Frequency of Boating on Great Lakes and Inland Lakes . . . . 70

LIST OF TABLES (con't)

TABLE PAGE

39 Changes in Frequency of Boating Between 1979 and 1980 . . . 70

40 Changes in Distance Traveled for Boating Between 1979
and 1980 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

41 Ranking of Michigan Counties by 1980 Great Lakes Boat
Days-Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

42 Ranking of Michigan Counties by 1980 Inland Lakes Boat
Days-Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

43 Ranking of Michigan Counties by 1980 Total Boat Days-
Destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

44 Origin-Destination Matrix - Great Lakes Boating . . . . . . 80

45 Origin-Destination Matrix - Inland Lakes Boating . . . . . . 81

46 Origin-Destination Matrix - All Michigan Boating . . . . . . 82

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

In 1979 the Michigan Sea Grant Program initiated a program of recre-

ation and tourism research in the Great L@Lkes coastal zone. Great Lakes

recreational boating provided the initial focus for this program. This

publication is the second in a series of reports on Great Lakes boating.

The first report, Michigan Great Lakes Recreational Boating; A Synthesis

Of Current Information provided a comprehensive summary of previous

boating research and information collected prior to 1980. This report

updates statewide boating statistics based upon the 1980 Michigan Recre-

ational Boating Survey.

Michigan has been a national leader both in the extent of recre-

ational boating in the state as well as in research and planning studies

to support boating activity. The 1980 boater survey is the seventh in
a series of comprehensive boater surveys dating back to 1964.1 Previ-

ous surveys have been sponsored or conducted by Waterways Division

Michigan Department of Natural Resources.

Sea Grant undertook the survey in 1980 in order to maintain the

pattern of surveys every three years and more importantly to test a

number of refinements in the survey design and recreation planning

models. While the early Michigan boating studies were some of the most

advanced of their kind, since 1970 only minor changes in sampling have

lSee Stynes and Holecek (1981) for a review of these studies.

been made in the study design. Advances in recreation planning models

and changes in planning needs suggested the development and testing of

improved and more cost effective methods. In particular, models which

disaggregate boaters into distinct market segments and integrated models

capable of estimating and forecasting both use and economic impacts were

desired. It is with these needs in mind that the 1980 Michigan Recre-

ational Boating Survey was designed.

OBJECTIVES

1. Provide up-to-date information on recreational boating in

Michigan.

2. Develop boater market segments by testing and evaluating alter-

native segmentation bases including demographics, equipment,

boat use and storage, and reasons for boating.

3. Develop and test an integrated system of planning models for

estimating and forecasting boating activity and the resulting

economic impacts on state and local economies.

These objectives will be pursued in a series of three reports drawing

upon the 1980 Recreational Boating Survey. This report describes the

survey design and addresses objective one by presenting basic descriptive

statistics for the 1980 boating season. We also present some simple

segmentations of the boating market by boat types, activity types, boat

storage, and use patterns. Subsequent reports will address boater market

segments in greater detail and present results of modeling experiments.

OUTLINE OF THIS REPORT

Chapter II describes the 1980 Recreational','Boating survey design

including sampling procedures, survey resFonse, and survey limitations

and errors. The survey, in part, replicates past boater surveys in

order to provide comparable trend data. Changes in sample size,

questionnaire design, and follow-up procedures from the 1977 survey

are highlighted.

Survey results are presented in three chapters. Chapter III

focuses upon the supply side of boating, describing the boating fleet,

boating opportunities, and boat storage and launching patterns. Chapter

IV describes the boat owner. Much of this information has not been in-

cluded in recent boater surveys. The marketing orientation of the 1980

survey provides information on boat owner demographics, history of

ownership, reasons for boating, and opinions and comments. Some pre-

liminary market segmentations are examined. Chapter V summarizes aggre-

gate boating use at state, regional, and county levels. These data are

comparable to estimates for 1971, 1974, and 1977 from previous surveys.

Boating use is estimated by origin, destination, and activity. Boater

travel patterns are identified in regional origin-destination matrices.

Chapter VI concludes with a brief summary of the survey results

and a preview of future reports based upon the 1980 Recreational Boating

Survey data.

Before turning to the body of this report, a few notes are in order.

The results which follow are based upon a survey of Michigan's registered

boat owners. Descriptive statistics about the respondents describe boat

owners, not all boaters. The data only include activity of boats that

are registered in Michigan. Boating activity is divided between boat

days taking place on the Great Lakes and connecting waters and boat days

taking place on inland lakes and streams. We consistently use the

abbreviations GL and IL for Great Lakes (and connecting waters) and

Inland Lakes (and streams) respectively. A "boat day" is defined as one

or more individuals being on a boat in the water under power or sail for

any part of a day. Statistics for boat days could be converted to "boater

days" by applying estimates of the number of passengers on the boat (party

size). Party size estimates were not made in the 1980 survey and therefore

all estimates of boating activity are reported in "boat days".

CHAPTER II

SURVEY METHODS

The survey design for the 1980 Michigan Recreational Boating Study

was patterned after previous boater surveys, most notably the 1974 and
1977 boater surveys.1 The design called for a mailed survey oflgichigan's

registered boat owners conducted after the 1980 boating season. In order

to capture fall boating activity the survey was mailed out in late Nov-

ember with most returns received before the Christmas holidays. The

three study objectives dictated the kinds of questions included in the

survey. A host of variables for segmenting boaters and for develop-

ing improved planning models were added to the 1977 survey instrument.

QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGN

The success of instruments from previous boater surveys con-

vinced us to adopt a similar design, although changes were required

to address objectives two and three and to reduce the costs of the sur-

vey. Eight new areas of information were added and questions on law

enforcement, boating safety, and transporting and launching of boats

were abbreviated. The four page format of the 1977 survey instrument

was maintained although the number of questions was increased from 15

11977 Michigan Recreational Boating Survey, 1979, Waterways Division,
MDNR.
1974 Michigan R@creational Boating_Study, 1975, Recreation Resource
Consultants.

to 28. A copy of the 1980 survey instrument is included in Appendix

A. The final instrument included 13 areas of information:

* 1. BOAT CHARACTERISTICS : length, type, propulsion, and

horsepower (Ql-4)

* 2. BOAT OWNERSHIP HISTORY (Q 5, 7, 8)

3. BOAT STORAGE LOCATION (Q 6)

4. BOAT USE : Great Lakes and Inland by county (Q 9, 10,

12, 13)

* 5. BOATING ACTIVITIES : GL and IL (Q 11, 14)

6. TRANSPORTING AND LAUNCHING (Q 15)

* 7. PERCEPTIONS OF BOATING OPPORTUNITIES (Q 16, 17)

* 8. CHANGES IN FREQUENCY AND LOCATION OF BOATING (Q 18)

* 9. REASONS FOR BOATING (Q 19)

10. BOATING LAW ENFORCEMENT (Q 20)

*11. BOATER DEMOGRAPHICS : age, education, race, income,

children (Q 21-27)

*12. SECOND HOME OWNERSHIP (Q 26)

13. OPINIONS AND PROBLEMS : open ended (Q 28)

Question areas not included in the 1977 instrument are denoted with

an asterisk. These questions will provide data for segmenting boat-

ers into distinct types and will also be used in testing refinements

to planning models.

Of the questions carried over from the 1977 survey, the boat

use questions remained unchanged. Storage questions were modified

slightly to more clearly distinguish between GL and IL waterfront

locations. Boat characteristics, although available on the boat

registration files, could not be related to survey information in

previous studies. These data were therefore added to the 1980 in-

strument as a check on sample representativeness and as a possible

segmentation basis.

The similarity with previous successful boater survey instru-

ments simplified the task of reviewing and pre-testing the survey

instrument. The instrument was revised several times based upon

reviews from Waterways Division, selected survey researchers and

pretests with a small sample of boaters.

SAMPLING

The list of registered boats maintai ned by Michigan's Secretary

of State provided a suitable sampling frame. A current list dated

August 1, 1980 was used. Sampling from boat owner registration lists

is the most efficient and cost effective method of reaching boaters,

although some biases are inherent in this Sampling frame. Only

registered boat owners are eligible for inclusion. It should be noted

that the unit of analysis here is the boat, not the boater. Profiles

of boat owners will differ from the general boating populations. In
particular, owners of more than one boat will be overrepresented. 1

The sample was stratified by boat length and region of registra-

tion in order to obtain good geographic coverage and sufficient craft

IThe sampling scheme samples boats, not boat owners. However,
some descriptive statistics are developed for boat owners. This will
be biased slightly by the multiple boat ovier problem. See Chubb, 1971
for estimates of the extent of this problem.

in each region and size class to estimate regional statistics. There

were 10 regions and two boat size classes, yielding 20 distinct strata.

The ten boating regions were developed by examining Great Lakes

boating patterns from the 1977 boater survey. The regionalization is

illustrated in Figure I and described in detail in Appendix B. Dis-

proportionate sampling was used to obtain sufficient samples within

each region to estimate regional statistics within roughly a 5% samp-

ling error. This required approximately 200 craft within each region.

For more detailed analysis within highly populated regions sample

sizes considerably larger than 200 were desired, The sampling plan

compromises between a proportionate to size approach and a fixed

number within each stratum.

Within each region craft were divided into two classes: those

less than twenty feet in length and those 20 feet or greater in

length. This division is consistent with previous boater sampling

designs. Since the size cla ss distribution is fairly uniform through-

out the state (about 12% of craft are 20 feet or longer) a fixed pro-

portion of the sample allocated to each region was taken from large

and small boats. One third of the sample were large boats and two

thirds were small boats. The distribution of registered boats in the

population and sample by region and size class are given in Tables I

and 2 respectively.

The sample was drawn using a systematic sampling procedure with

a distinct sampling interval for each stratum. A work tape containing

the registration number, county of registration, and boat length of

GL REGION 8
UP L1( SUPERIOR
ION 9 GL REGION I
UP LK MICH STRAITS

GL REGION 6 GL REGION 5
Regions NW MICH NE MICH

1. Southeastern Michigan
2. Southwestern Michigan
3. West Central Michigan
4. Thumb Region
5. Northeast Michigan
6. Northwest Michigan
7. Straits
8. UP Lake Superior GL REGION 4
9. UP Lake Michigan THLM,
10. Out-of-State Origins GL RE,7,ION 3
TqC MI CCH

GL REGION 1
SE MICH

GL REGION 2
SW MI CH

GL IREGION 10
OUT OF STATE

FIGURE 1. MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES BOATING REGIONS
GL REG

TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF 1980 MICHIGAN REGISTERED BOAT POPULATION
BY REGION AND SIZE CLASS

Number of Boats LENGTH IN FEET

% of Population < 20' @@20' Totals

Region
1 174,276 32,915 207,191
29.3 5.5 34.8

2 101,193 9,697 110,890
17.0 1.6 18.6

3 65,109 7,428 72,537
10.9 1.2 12.2

4 72,056 7,011 79,067
12.1 1.2 13.3

5 19,629 2,075 21,704
3.3 .3 3.6

6 36,936 3,585 40,521
6.2 .6 6.8

7 16,240 1,523 17,763
2.7 .3 3.0

8 18,282 1,017 19,299
3.1 .2 3.2

9 6,752 413 7,165
1.1 .1 1.2

10 16,657 2,303 18,960
2.8 .4 3.2

Totals 527,130 67,967 595,097
88.6 11.4 100.0

Source: Waterways Division, MDNR

TABLE 2. 1980 SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION BY REGION AND SIZE CLASS

Number of Boats LENGTH IN FEET

% of Sample <20' ?t20' Totals

Region

1 796 440 1236
13.1 7.2 20.3

2 624 287 911
10.2 4.7 15.0

3 501 224 725
8.2 3.7 11.9

4 590 262 852
9.7 4.3 14.0

5 295 127 422
4.8 2.1 6.9

6 473 202 675
7.8 3.3 11.1

7 265 119 384
4.4 2.0 6.3

8 286 110 396
4.7 1.8 6.5

9 174 69 243
2.9 1.1 4.0

10 164 83 247
2.7 1.4 4.1

Totals 4,168 1,923 6,091
68.4 31.6 100.0%

all craft registered as of August 1, 1980, was obtained from the

Michigan Secretary of State. Sampling intervals for each stratum

were calculated to yield the desired sample size and then applied to

the work tape to select registration numbers of the sampled boats.

Names and addresses corresponding to these sample numbers were then

provided by the Secretary of State. Using these procedures, a total

sample of 6091 registered craft was selected.

It should be noted that within each region an equal number of

boats were selected from each county in the region. Thus, if there

were ten counties in the region, each county accounted for 10% of the

region's sample. Based upon an anticipated response rate of 70%,

this design would yield at least 50 boats in each county within the

four southern Michigan regions, and no fewer than 39 sampled craft

in any Michigan county. Since there is some variation in the number

of registered craft by county within each region, this procedure may

yield some bias in the regional samples. Craft from counties with

smaller numbers of registrations would have a greater likelihood of

being selected. This might tend to bias boating use estimates down-

ward since one might expect more boating and more registered boats in

counties with ample boating opportunities. One might also speculate

that boating frequency might be lower in densely populated areas with

many registered craft.

The possible bias from this sampling scheme could be corrected

by developing weights at the county level. This alternative was re-

jected since small samples at the county level would yield some very

large weights that could introduce other types of bias in the use

estimates. In future studies we would recommend sampling proportion-

ately by county within the ten regions to yield representative re-

gional samples instead of attempting to obtain a minimum quota from

each county.

SURVEY ADMINISTRIMON

The list of 6091 names and addresses were first checked for

incomplete addresses and commercial listings. Several hundred

addresses lacked zip codes, street addresses, or city names. Through

the use of telephone books and the Zip Code Directory all but 97 of

these were completed. An additional 81 addresses were found to be

commercial listings including resorts, marinas, and boat rentals.

Boaters with incomplete addresses and commercial listings were deleted

from the sample. An initial mailing to the remaining 5913 registered

boat owners was sent on November 26, 1980. It included a cover letter,

return envelope and postage, and a questionnaire. The first mailing

was sent bulk rate.

Follow-up mailings included a postcard to all persons not re-

sponding by December 7 and another complete first class mailing to

non-respondents as of December 24. On Decenber 9, 4180 postcards were

mailed. The final mailing on December 24 was sent first class and

included 2803 names and addresses. The change to first class postage

increased the receipt of non-deliverable letters. Only 47 undeliver-

able letters were returned from the initial mailing. After the final

first class mailing 311 additional letters were returned due to

incomplete addresses, no forwarding address, or deceased addressee.

Combining undeliverable letters with incDmplete addresses yields a

total of almost 8% of the sample addresses that could not be reached

due to faulty or incomplete mailing addresses. It is unknown how

many additional non-responses were the result of outdated, incomplete

or inaccurate addresses on the registration tape.

Questionnaires were numbered to keep track of who had not

responded and three sets of mailing labels were printed to handle

bookkeeping of returns. Returns were dated as they were received

and coding proceeded concurrently with the processing of returned

questionnaires.

SURVEY RESPONSE

A daily record of returns was logged. Almost 30% of the de-

liverable surveys were returned within the first week. After the

follow-up postcard, the response rate grew to 50% before the final

mailing. The third mailing yielded an additional 20% in returns

giving an overall response rate of 72% of the deliverable surveys.

Of the coded returns, 565 subjects indicated they did not use their

boat in 1980. These non-boaters constituted 14.5% of the returns.

A detailed breakdown of responses is presented in Table 3. The

timing of the mailings and returns is plotted in Figure 2.

Response rates varied somewhat by size class and region. Out-

of-state boaters had the highest return rate (84%). Return rates

for Michigan regions varied from'36% for region 7 to 53% for region

2 in the small boat class. Large boat return rates were somewhat

higher ranging from 44% in region 9 to 69% in region 1.

NUMBER OF RETURNS

1800 -

1500 -
Initial Mailing

1200 - Postcard Reminder
G Second Mailing
900 -
RESPONSE RATE = 72%
TOTAL RETURNS = 3990
600 -

300 - G

t I I i I I I
D

26 6 13 20 27 3 10 17 24 31 7 14 21+
Nov. ----December ----- -------- --- February---
DATE OF RETURN (WEEKLY SUMS)

FIGURE 2. 1980 MICHIGAN RECREATIONAL BOATING SURVEY RESPONSE

TABLE 3. 1980 MICHIGAN BOATER SURVEY RESPONSE RATE

Percent of Percent of
Initial Sample Deliverable Sample
(N=6091) (N=5555)

Sample drawn 6091 100.0

Deletions:
Commercial 81 1.3
Incomplete address 97 1.6
Total Deleted 178 2.9

Initial mailing 5913 97.1

Returned as
non-deliverable 358 5.9

1980 Boaters 3341 54.5 60.1
Didn't Boat 565 9.3 10.2
Un-useable 84 1.4 1.4
Total Returns 3990 65.5 71.8

Nonresponses 1565 25.7 28.2

Total Deliverable
Surveys 5555 91.2 100.0

WEIGHTING PROCEDURES

The variability in response rates and disproportionate sampling

required the development of weights to balance the sample by region and

size class. These were developed by comparing the actual returns to

the numbers of registered craft reported by the Secretary of State

on December 31, 1980. The numbers of registered boats was reduced

by 14.5% to reflect the percentage of inactive boats in the 1980

sample. It was assumed that this rate of inactivity was uniform

throughout the state by both region and size class. The result-

ing weights by region and size class are given in Table 4. Small

boat weights vary from 73 in region 9 to 3.54 in region 1. These

weights indicate the number of craft represented by each respon-

dent and when applied to the sample expand the boating use esti-

mates to the total 1980 Michigan active registered boating fleet.

TABLE 4. 1980 MICHIGAN BOATER SURVEY RESPONSE BY SIZE CLASS AND REGION

Boats Registered %
as of of Sample Responses % Expansion
Region Dec. 31, 1980 Total Size Coded Response Factor

Boats Under 20 Feet in Length

1 174,276 29.3 796 397 49.9 354
2 101,193 17.0 624 332 53.2 246
3 65,109 10.9 501 23.5 46.9 223
4 72,056 12.1 590 280 47.5 207
5 19,629 3.3 295 1243 42.7 126
6 36,936 6.2 473 21.1 44.6 141
7 16,240 2.7 265 9.5 35.8 138
8 18,282 3.1 286 1215 44.1 117
9 6,752 1.1 174 7.5 43.1 73
10 16,657 2.8 164 135 82.3 95

Boats Over 20 Feet in Length

1 32,915 5.5 440 30.5 69.3 87
2 9,697 1.6 287 146 50.9 54
3 7,428 1.2 224 141 62.9 42
4 7,011 1.2 262 154 58.8 37
5 2,075 .3 127 T2 56.7 23
6 3,585 .6 202 9.5 47.0 30
7 1,523 .3 119 43 45.3 22
8 1,017 .2 110 6.1 55.5 13
9 413 .1 69 31) 43.5 11
10 2,303 .4 83 71 85.5 25

Some respondents failed to report either the county of reg-

istration or boat length. These weights are reported in Table 5.

Weights for those with an indefinite length are simply weighted

averages of the small and large boat weights for that region based

upon the percent of large and small boats in the sample. Boats

with no designated county of registration were assigned the aver-

age weight (153) of all other boats in the sample. The total

number of registered craft used in calculating weights in Table

6 were reduced by 2 percent to avoid double counting respondents

with missing county or length data. The weights expand the sample

to a total of 509,017 craft. This is the estimated number of act-

ive registered boats in 1980.

TABLE 5. EXPANSION WEIGHTS FOR UNDESIGNATED REGIONS AND COUNTIES

NO. OF
REGION EXPANSION WEIGHT BOATS

INDEFINITE LENGTH

1 259. 16
2 185. 21
3 167. 24
4 155. 15
5 95. 10
6 108. 20
7 102. 9
8 88. 9
9 56. 2
10 71. 9

INDEFINITE COUNTY

ALL 153. 67

REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE SAMPLE

weighting procedures balance the sample to the distribution

of registered boats by region and size class. The weighted sam-

ple therefore mirrors the actual distribution of registered boats

in Michigan in 1980 (Table 1). The sample was also compared with

population distributions with respect to boat propulsion type and

more detailed size classes. Table 6 reveals that the sample com-

pares favorably with the population across eight different length

categories and five different boat propulsion types. The only

large discrepancy is a shifting in size category of outboards be-

tween 12-16 and 17-20 feet. The sample includes more boats in the

larger size category than the registration statistics. This and

other minor differences in Table 6 could be attributed to inconsis-

tencies in reporting, some lack of precision in the categories, or

differences in rates of inactivity among different types of boats.

The sample appears to be representative cf the boating fleet.

Lack of other secondary sources of data on the boating pop-

ulation precludes additional tests of representativeness. The follow-

ing section discusses study limitations and sources of possible bias

in the sample and responses.

STUDY LIMITATIONS AND SURVEY ERROR

In any survey as complex as this there are a number of assump-

tions that must be made and many ways that errors may enter. Sampl-

ing errors are only one source of error and tend to be small compared

with nonsampling errors. No estimates of nonsampling errors may be

TABLE 6. COMPARISON OF SAMPLE WITH 1980 REGISTERED
BOAT POPULATIONSI: PROPULSION AND LENGTH

% of Sample (weighted) BOAT LENGTH
% of Boat Registrations < 12 12-16 17-20 21-28 29-35 36-42 43-50 > 50 Totals

PROPULSION ------------------------- percent of total ----------------------------------
TYPE INBOARD 0.0 .7 7.2 3.2 .7 .2 .2 0 12.1
.2 .6 5.2 3.7 1.0 .4 .1 0 11.2

OUTBOARD 1.8 48.2 23.2 2.9 .1 0.0 0.0 0 76.3
4.1 58.9 9.8 .8 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 73.6

SAIL .1 2.9 1.5 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 4.7
.1 3.4 1.5 .2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 5.3

SAIL/AUX. 0.0 .2 .3 .8 .2 .2 0.0 0 1.7
.1 .1 .1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 .3

OTHER .3 1.7 2.1 .9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 5.1
.2 1.3 3.0 4.5 .5 .1 0.0 0 9.7

TOTALS 2.2 53.8 34.3 8.1 1.1 .4 .2 0 100.0
4.6 64.4 19.6 9.2 1.6 .5 .1 0 100.0

11980 registration figures, including all craft registered as of December 31, 1980, were provided
by Waterways Division, MDNR.

given. These can only be minimized by suitable controls and strict

adherence to survey methods. Technical errors were controlled through

editing and pretesting of the survey instrument, double checking all

coding and keypunching, and extensive data cleaning procedures to

check for out-of-range or inconsistent responses.

Follow-up procedures were designed to minimize possible non-

response bias. The 72% response rate front deliverable questionnaires

is deemed quite successful for this type ofmailed survey. The number

of undeliverables and incomplete addresses suggests that a portion of

non-respondents did not receive a survey instrument. Lower response

rates are anticipated for persons who have moved recently or no long-

er boat. While non-boaters were encouraged to return their question-

naire, we suspect the rate of inactivity may be greater than the 14.5%

observed in the returns. As in previous bDater surveys, large boat

owners had higher response rates than small boat owners, although this

bias is partially corrected in the weighting procedures. There is some

evidence of higher response rates among sail boaters and older boaters.

Many of the late returns were from boaters who spend their winters in

Florida. We usually expect higher response rates among the more act-

ive boaters giving use estimates an upward bias.

The high incidence of second home ownership among boaters yields

some confusion in the county of registration, some boaters registering

their boat at county of permanent residence and others at their second

home location. While the survey identifies; both permanent residence

and second home location, there is no way of knowing at which location

the boat is registered. This could bias the weights slightly since we

had to assume the boat was registered at the county of permanent re-

sidence. However, analyses with the 1977 boater survey data comparing

county of residence with county of registration yielded no significant

differences in estimates of boating use or origin-destination patterns

under either assumption.

Undoubtably some boaters will misclassify use in GL or IL cate-

gories and recall of both days of use and county will yield recall

errors. However, consistency with previous boat use estimates was

desired and designs to reduce recall errors would be very expensive

and complex. Other possible difficulties in particular questions will

be discussed later in the report.

Sampling errors can be roughly estimated assuming simple random

sampling. Stratification by size class and region, where it results

in variance reductions, will generally reduce sampling errors over

what would be obtained via simple random sampling. It may, however,

increase sampling error. Development of precise sampling errors for

different estimates under the disproportionate stratified sampling de-

sign used is quite complex. We therefore assume that error estimates

under simple random sampling assumptions provide a reasonable esti-

mate of survey error. Table 7 gives estimates of sampling errors at the

95% confidence level for different sample sizes assuming a binomial

distribution in the population. Estimates based upon the statewide

sample will therefore lie within 2 percent of the actual proportion.

With 700 subjects in Region 1, estimates for that region will be

within 2-4% of the population parameter. With just over 100 subjects

from region 9, estimates for that region will be subject to sampling

errors of from 7 to 11%. One should avoid attempting to directly est-

imate statistics at the county level. Only counties in region 1 con-

tain samples of at least 100 boaters and e-ven this sample size is sub-

ject to sampling errors of up to 11 percent.

TABLE 7. SAMPLING ERRORS FOR SELECTED SUB-SAMPLE SIZES

population percentage estimate
10/90 20,180 30/70 40/60 50/50
Subsample Size

3,000 1 2 2 2 2
2,000 2 2 2 2 3
1,000 2 :3 3 3 4
Size of sample 500 3 4 5 5 5
on which estimate 400 3 4 5 5 5
is based 300 4 6 6 6
200 5 6 7 8 8
100 7 9 10 11 11

CHAPTER III

BOAT STORAGE, LAUNCHINGS, AND BOATING OPPORTUNITIES

In this chapter we summarize the characteristics of the 1980 active

Michigan registered boating fleet. Boats are divided into classes accord-

ing to their storage location during the 1980 boating season. These in-

clude waterfront locations on the Great Lakes and Inland waters as well

as nonwaterfront locations. Boats kept at nonwaterfront locations must

be transported and launched at a public or private access site. Marinas

and boat clubs also provide waterfront storage and access for boaters.

The 1980 boater survey also measured boaters' perceptions of the quality

and quantity of boating opportunities near home.

THE 1980 ACTIVE REGISTERED BOATING FLEET

The active recreational boating fleet consisted of an estimated

509,017 registered craft in 1980. About 14.5 percent of the registered

fleet were estimated to be inactive in 1980. The majority of the active

boating fleet were small outboards classified in the open or row cate-

gories. Boats averaged just under 16 feet in length with an average

horsepower of 56. Half of the powered craft are under 25 horsepower

(Table 8). It should be noted that these figures and the survey results

do not include large numbers of unregistered craft, including unpowered

canoes, and sail boats under 12 feet in length.

TABLE 8. 1980 MICHIGAN ACTIVE REGISTERED BOATING FLEET BY LENGTH,
PROPULSION, HORSEPOWER AND CRAFT TYPE

Percent Cumulative Percent

LENGTH (feet)

I - 11 2.6 2.6
12 - 15 53.8 56.4 Mean=15.8 feet
16 - 20 33.9 90.3
21 - 28 8.0 98.3 Median=14.9 feet
28+ 1.7 100.0

PROPULSION TYPE

Inboard 12.1 12.1
Outboard 76.2 88.3
Sail 4.8 93.1
Sail w/power 1.7 94.8
Other Nonpowered 1.4 96.2
Other Powered 3.8 100.2

HORSEPOWER (powered craft only)

Less than 5 15.7 15.7
5 - 10 22.0 32.7
11 - 20 8.9 46.6
21 - 40 15.8 62.4 Mean=56.0
41 - 60 8.9 71.3
61 - 80 6.8 78.1 Median=25.3
81 -100 3.3 81.4
101 -200 13.4 94.8
201+ 5.2 100.0

CRAFT TYPE

Open 54.6 54.6
Cabin 5.3 60.0
Sail 6.9 66.9
Row 23.0 89.9
Canoe 1.5 91.4
Pontoon 7.6 99.0
Other 1.0 100.0

Michigan's registered fleet has grown steadily since boats were

first registered in 1960. Between 1965 and 1977 the fleet increased at

a nearly constant rate of 3.2% per year. Changes in the period of reg-

istration initiated in 1977 resulted in some fluctuations in this trend

(Figure 3). Since 1977 the fleet has averaged an annual growth rate of

about 1.5%. It is not yet clear to what extent this may be due to the

changes in registration procedures or economic conditions in the state.

The distribution of registered boats in Michigan parallels popu-

lation distributions, although per capita boat ownership is higher in

regions that are less densely populated and have ample boating oppor-

tunities. Southeastern Michigan accounts for 35% of all registered

craft in the state. Genesee and Kent counties contribute an additional

five percent each. Trends in the geographic distribution of boats in

the state are consistent with population trends over the past decade.

NUMBER OF REGISTERED
BOATS IN THOUSANDS

700 -

600 -

500 -

400 -

300

1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980

YEAR

FIGURE 3. TRENDS IN BOAT REGISTRATIONS IN MICHIGAN, 1965-1980

The greatest population growth between 1970 and 1980 occurred in north-

central Michigan and Livingston county (Figure 4). The numbers of reg-

istered boats doubled in seven counties between 1968 and 1980. These

were Livingston, Alcona, Arenac, Delta, Gladwin, Kalkaska, and Oscoda

counties (Figure 5). Over this same period registrations statewide

increased by 35 percent. Southcentral and southwestern Michigan regions

had the slowest growth in registered craft in the 1970's. Ingham county

increased registrations by only 7 percent between 1968 and 1980.

While the makeup of the registered flE!et has been fairly stable

over time, there has been a long range trend towards higher percentages

of inboards, sail boats, and craft over twenty feet in length (Figure 6,

Table 9). Since 1977 the rate of increase in larger craft has been

slowed.

BOAT STORAGE LOCATIONS - 1980 BOATING SEASON

During the 1980 boating season 43 percent of registered craft were

kept at nonwaterfront locations, 40 percent: at inland waterfront sites,

and 17 percent at Great Lakes waterfront sites. Inland waterfront sites

were divided evenly between permanent and summer homes. Permanent homes

on the Great Lakes provide 40 percent of the GL waterfront storage;

summer GL homes and commercial marinas each contribute an additional

22 percent (Table 10).

There are some significant differences in the types of boats stored

at each of these locations. Marinas are primary storage locations for

cabin cruisers and larger sail boats. Pontoon boats are generally kept

at inland waterfront homes. Nonwaterfront locations are restricted to

trailerable craft, primarily outboards and row boats. Outboards 16 feet

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

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

....... ...

KEY

PERCENT CHANGE ..............
46. 150.
031. 45. ........
16. 30.

. . . . . . . . . . .
7-20. 0.

. . . . . . . . . .

1-7

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

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

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

FIGURE 4. PERCENT CHANGE IN POPULATION, 1970-1980

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1980.

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

KEY
PERCENT CHANGE
96. - 150.
61. - 95.
too
36. 60.
2121. 35.
...... ..............
70. 20. ........

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

too .... ...
.... ........ .....

Gott . . . .

......... ........
.......... ....
..... 6.o . ........

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

FIGURE 5. PERCENT CHANGE IN NUMBER OF REGISTERED BOATS, 1968-1980

Source: Michigan Secretary of State Boat Registration Statistics

TABLE 9. TRENDS IN THE MICHIGAN REGISTERED BOATING FLEET, 1965-1980

20 feet and under Over 20 feet
Percent Percent
Boat Type 1965 1980 Change 1965 1980 Change

--number of boats-- --number of boats--

Inboard 12,533 35,677 184 15,103 31,125 106

Outboard 363,475 459,987 26 4,842 35,228 627

Sail 1,755 31,446 1691 1,194 1,614 35

Total 377,763 527,130 39 21,139 67,967 221

Percentage of Registered Boats

Inboards
10 Boats Over
20 Feet

6 Sail

1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980

YEAR

FIGURE 6. TRENDS IN THE MAKEUP OF MICHIGAN'S REGISTERED BOATING FLEET,
1965-1980

TABLE 10. BOATING SEASON STORAGE OF BOATS BY ACCESS TO WATER

Storage Great Lakes Inland Lakes Non-Waterfront Total
Waterfront Waterfront Site

Permanent
Residence 6.5 17.9 40.0 64.4

Summer Cottage/
Second Home 3.6 18.7 1.8 24.1

Commercial
Marina 3.5 .5 0.0 4.0

Yacht Club .9 .4 0.0 1.3

Public Marina .8 .4 0.0 1.2

Other Location 1.4 2.1 1.5 5.0

Total 16.8 39.9 43.3 100.0

in length or greater have the most flexible storage requirements, ac-

counting for between one-fifth and one-third of the boats at each type

of storage location. Pontoon boats are mostly restricted to inland

waterfront sites and cabin cruisers tend to be stored at Great Lakes

waterfront sites, including marinas (Table 11).

Boaters using both GL and IL waters are predominantly large out-

board owners who trailer their boats from a nonwaterfront permanent

home. Marinas house twenty percent of those boats using only the Great

Lakes. GL waterfront homes provide storage for 31 percent of the GL

users while inland waterfront homes provide storage for over half of

the IL users. Each of these are divided about equally between perma-

nent and summer homes (Table 12). Boats using the GL are predominantly

TABLE 11. CRAFT TYPES BY SUMMER STORAGE LOCATION

Great Lakes Inland Inland Non-Waterfront
Boat Type Waterfront Permanent Summer Site Marinaa Other Total

--------------------------------- percent -------------------------------------

Small Outboards
( e-16') 28.5 21.4 30.3 36.4 3.8 21.4 28.7

Large Outboards
( @16') 32.9 24.6 22.1 29.1 28.0 28.8 26.9

Cabin 16.8 .9 .3 1.9 37.3 8.4 5.5

Sail 9.3 7.3 8.4 3.6 25.5 7.1 7.2

Row 9.3 24.9 22.7 28.6 0.0 28.0 23.9

Pontoon 3.2 20.9 16.2 .3 5.4 6.3 7.9

Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

a Includes commercial marinas, public marinas and boat/yacht clubs

large outboards, cabin cruisers, and sail boats while inland lakes

support small outboards, row, and pontoon boats (Table 13).

TABLE 12. BOAT STORAGE BY GREAT LAKES vs INLAND USE

GL Water- IL perm. IL sum. Nonwater-
front home home home front home Marina Other

------------------- percent -----------------------
Boats using...

CL ONLY 31.6 .7 .6 38.6 20.6 7.9

BOTH GL & IL 9.7 10.0 12.3 58.0 6.2 3.8

IL ONLY 1.7 26.4 2S.7 36.9 1.8 4.5

TABLE 13. CRAFT TYPE BY GREAT LAKES vs INLAND LAKES USE

Small Large
Ouboards Outboards Cabin Sail Row Pontoon

-------------------- percent -----------------------
Boats using...

GL ONLY 24.1 39.9 19.0 9.4 6.5 1.7

BOTH GL & IL 28.4 44.1 .3.4 7.1 14.0 1.0

IL ONLY 30.7 17.1 .6 6.8 32.0 12.7

TRANSPORTING AND LAUNCHING

Over half (56%) of all registered boats were transported at least

once in 1980 to a launching site. Michig-an registered boaters reported

4,575,000 launchings in 1980. These were divided between GL sites

(41%) and IL sites (59%). There is approximately one launching for

every three GL boat days and one launching for every four IL boat days

(Table 14).

TABLE 14. TRANSPORTING AND LAUNCHING OF BOATS AT

GREAT LAKES AND INLAND SITES

Total Launchings Percent Launchings/ Launchings/
(000's) Boat Boat Day

Great Lakes 1,878 41 3.7 .35

Inland 2,697 59 5.3 .23

Total 4,575 100 9.0 .27

Boats kept at non-waterfront permanent homes accounted for 68 per-

cent of all transported boats and 80 percent of all launchings. Trans-

porting is greatest for outboards and row boats. Three-fourths of

boats used only for fishing are transported. Outboards account for

85% of all launchings at GL sites. At IL sites outboards contribute

62 percent and row boats 33 percent. Outboards over 16 feet in length

make up 52 percent of GL launchings whereas row boats and outboards

under 16 feet make up 72 percent of IL launchings (Tables 15, 16).

Incidence of transporting of boats is highest in the Upper Penin-

sula and Thumb regions where there are fewer suitable waterfront loca-

tions for permanent or summer homes (Table 17).

TRENDS IN TRANSPORTING, LAUNCHING, AND STORAGE

Patterns of storage, transporting, and launching of boats have

remained fairly stable over time. Table 18 summarizes the results of

TABLE 15. TRANSPORTING AND LAUNCHING OF BOATS BY CRAFT TYPE

Craft Type Percent Great Lakes Inland
Transporting Launchings Launchings

----percent of launchings-----

Small Outboards 4 16' 62 33 39

Large Outboards @tl6' 64 52 23

Cabin 37 5 0

Sail 44 2 3

Row 59 8 33

Pontoon 10 0 0

TOTAL 56 100 100

TABLE 16. TRANSPORTING AND LAUNCHING OF BOATS

BY SUMMER STORAGE CATEGORY

Summer Storage Percent Great Lakes Inland
Transporting Launchings Launchings

------percent of launchings -------
GL waterfront home 34 8 2

IL waterfront
permanent home 26 3 7

IL waterfront summer
home 25 3 6

Non-waterfront home 90 81 80

Marine 34 2 0

Other 54 2 4

TOTAL 56 100 100

TABLE 17. TRANSPORTING AND LAUNCHING OF BOATS

BY REGION OF REGISTRATION

% Trans- GL Launches IL Launches
Region porting TOT (000's) Avg/Boat TOT (000's) Avg/Boat

1 55 804 4.7 843 4.9

2 48 127 1.4 574 6.2

3 61 171 2.7 453 7.2

4 70 358 5.4 306 4.6

5 54 50 2.7 124 6.7

6 53 103 3.0 201 5.8

7 47 69 4.5 45 3.0

8 73 121 7.4 99 6.0

9 70 56 9.4 32 5.4

10 24 11 .7 16 1.1

TOTAL 56 1,878 3.7 2,697 5.3

the past three boater surveys. The percentage of boats trailered and

launched at least once has remained between 55 and 60 percent since

1974. The increase in 1977 and subsequent decrease in 1980 seems to

reflect a trend to larger trailerable boats between 1974 and 1977 and

to some extent a curtailment of this trend during the years of gasoline

price increases and economic difficulties between 1977 and 1980.

The large increase in number of launchings between 1977 and 1980

is probably a result of a change in the question format rather than a

true trend. This result illustrates the difficulties of identifying

trends from survey data. In 1977 boaters identified the number of

launchings by both county and provider (federal, state, local, private).

TABLE 18. TRENDS IN TRANSPORTING, LAUNCHING, AND STORAGE,

1974-1980

1974 1977 1980

Percent Transporting 54.9 59.7 55.7
Launchings (millions) 3.8 2.9 4.6a

Storage Location

Nonwaterfront permanent
residence 40.1 41.7 40.0

Summer cottage 31.0 26.6 24.1
Waterfront permanent
residence 16.5 17.0 24.4
Commercial Marina 5.5 5.9 6.5b

Other 6.9 8.8 6.0

a Increase may reflect change in question in 1980 survey. See text.
b Includes public marinas and boat clubs.

SOURCE: 1974 Michigan Recreational Boating Study, 1977 Michigan
Recreational Boating Survey, and 1980 Michigan Recreational
Boating Survey

The question was simplified in 1980. County and provider data were

deleted from the question and the boater was asked to report the total

number of launchings at GL and IL sites. This simplification yielded

a 58% increase in launchings over 1977. The question remains whether

(1) both 1977 and 1980 figures are accurate and a significant increase

did occur, or (2) one or both of these estimates are in error. One

might argue that boaters were reluctant to complete the detailed break-

down of launchings resulting in an under-@ceporting in 1977. Or, one

might argue the detailed breakdowns resulted in better recall than the

gross estimates of launchings requested in 1980. Further research is

required to sort out these issues.

Storage locations have remained stable over time. The most signi-

ficant change between 1977 and 1980 was an increase in storage at per-

manent waterfront homes. Coupled with slight decreases in second home

storage, this suggests some conversion of second homes to permanent

homes. This hypothesis would be supported by the large number of

boaters of retirement age and recent population migration patterns in

Michigan.

BOATING OPPORTUNITIES

One addition to the 1980 boater survey was a series of questions

to measure the boaters' perceptions of the quality and quantity of

boating opportunities throughout the state. Respondents indicated the

number of different places for boating within an hour's drive of their

home that they were aware of and the number they actually used in 1980.

Boat owners also evaluated the quality of these opportunities on a scale

from 1=excellent to 6=very poor. These variables will be used in forth-

coming attempts to model boater origin-destination decisions.

As a whole, boaters were aware of an average of 11 boating sites

within an hour's drive of home, but used on the average only two of

these sites. GL boaters were aware of less than six sites near home

for the types of boating they enjoy, while IL boaters could identify

13 such sites. There was little difference between GL and IL boaters

in quality ratings. Boaters rated the quality of opportunities near

home between "very good" and "good."

There were some regional differences in boaters' perception of

the quality and quantity of boating opportunities (Table 19, Figures

7 and 8). Northwest Michigan (Region 6) attained the highest overall

quality rating from local residents and also ranked among the highest

in the numbers of opportunities for both GL and IL boaters. Thumb area

(Region 4) and out-of-state boaters (Region 10) reported the fewest

boating opportunities near home. Region 4, including the Thumb and

Saginaw Bay counties also obtained the lowest quality rating. South-

western Michigan (Region 2) rated high for IL boating, but low in qual-

ity and opportunities for GL boating.

On the whole, boaters seem quite satisfied with local boating

opportunities. They are generally aware of several suitable sites near

home, but only use one or two of these. Boaters who use both the GL

and IL reported use of almost twice as many sites as boaters who res-

trict their use to one of the two bodies of water.

TABLE 19. BOATER PERCEPTION OF QUANTITY AND QUALITY OF BOATING
OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN AN HOUR'S DRIVE OF HOME BY REGION

Sites Aware of Sites Used in 1980 Quality Rating b
Region. GL Botha IL GL Botha IL GL Botha IL
Boaters Boaters Boaters Boaters Boaters Boaters

1 5.9 11.2 12.6 1.5 2.9 1.4 2.3 2.5 2.3

2 3.6 14.5 16.7 1.7 3.3 2.3 2.9 2.6 2.4

3 5.0 12.6 12.8 .9 3.5 2.6 2.3 2.6 2.4

4 4.7 7.8 7.3 1.2 3.6 2.7 2.8 3.4 3.1

5 5.4 17.6 11.6 1.3 4.8 1.7 2.4 2.6 2.1

6 8.5 14.1 15.9 2.1 4.6 1.9 1.6 1.7 2.1

7 6.7 11.7 11.8 1.2 3.5 1.5 1.8 1.8 2.1

8 7.2 15.3 16.6 1.0 4.6 2.6 2.3 1.9 2.1

9 7.2 14.9 14.2 1.6 5.9 1.8 1.9 2.4 2.1

10 5.0 7.3 8.6 2.0 1.6 .6 2.2 1.8 2.4

TOTAL 5.5 11.7 13.1 1.5 3.5 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.3

a The category labeled "Both" includes boaters using both GL and IL
waters in 1980.

b Quality scale is 1=excellent, 2=very good, 3=good, 4-fair, 5=poor,
6=very poor.

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

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

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

KEY
E21. - 30. ......
16. - 20.
11.
06. 10.

........ .....
70. 5. ......... .....

....... .......
........ ....... ...
........ .. 04 ... .....
........ . .... ..... .........
........ .........
........ ....... ..... ..........
..........
........ ......
........ ......

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

. . . . . . . . . . .
..........
........ .........
....... ..........
-11*6* .........
....... ..........
........ ..........
-11- .6 ........
........ .....

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

---------- . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . ------

FIGURE 7. NUMBER OF BOATING OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN ONE HOUR OF HOME

...........

KEY

QIfALITY RATINGS

1 = Excellent .......
2 = Very Good
3 = Good
4 = Fair
5 = Poor
6 = Very Poor

.0 . ..... ..... ... .

....... .....
2 .0
. ..... ... ...... ......
2 2,,5
....... ......
'to ......... ...
..... .... ....
02.6 - 3
Ej 3 .1 - 3.5
Vo. ... ......
6 -0

FIGURE 8. QUALITY OF BOATING OPPORTUNITIES WITHIN ONE HOUR OF HOME

CHAPTER IV

CHARACTERISTICS OF MICHIGAN'S REGISTERED BOAT OWNERS

In this chapter we provide a profile of the Michigan registered

boat owner, report some preliminary market segments based upon the

life cycle concept, and review boaters' history of involvement and

reasons for boating. An understanding of the boater is critical to

virtually all boating management, marketing, and planning decisions.

A summary of boaters'comments and opinions from the survey provides

a good picture of the concerns and issues on the minds of boaters

in 1980.

Demographic and socioeconomic data have not been collected in

Michigan's statewide boater survey since 1968. Since these variables

were not included in the RECSYS-SYMAP planning model for predicting

boating demand, they were generally not collected, and remain largely

unreported even in the 1968 survey. With the abandonment of the

RECSYS model for statewide planning, the increased diversification

of the boating population, and the emphasis in 1980 upon marketing;

these variables take on a renewed importance.

THE MICHIGAN REGISTERED BOAT OWNER IN 1980

The average registered boat owner is 50 years of age, a high

school graduate, and has a median income of $23,000 (Table 20). Only

TABLE 20. DEMOGRAPHICS OF MICHIGAN BOAT OWNERS, 1980

% of Total Cwn.%

AGE
1 20 2.0 2.0
21-30 9.5 11.5
31-40 19.5 31.0 MEDIAN = 49.7
41-50 21.6 52.6 MEAN = 48.9
51-60 23.0 75.6
61-70 17.9 93.5
71 + 6.4 100.0

EDUCATION
1-11 19.6 19.6
12 37.1 56.7 MEDIAN = 12.3
13-16 31.7 88.4 MEAN = 13.0
17 + 11.6 100.0

INCOME
:s 10, 000 13.3 13.3
10-14,999, 14.2 27.5
15-19,999 13.5 41.0
20-24,999 17.6 58.6 MEDIAN $22,556
25-29,999 11.7 70.3
30-34,999 9.1 79.4
35-39,999 6.0 85.4
40,000 + 14.6 100.0

HOUSEHOLD SIZE
1 10.1 10.1
2 36.9 47.0
3 17.4 64.4 MEDIAN 2.7
4 20.3 84.7 MEAN 3.0
5 9.8 94.5
6 3.6 98.1
7 1.4 99.5
8+ .5 100.0

NUMBER OF CHILDREN
UNDER 12
0 73.5 73.5
1 12.2 12.2
2 10.2 10.2 MEDIAN = .2
3 3.5 3.5 MEAN = .5
4 .5 .5
5 .1 .1

two percent of Michigan's registered boat owners are non-white. Thirty

percent own a second home or summer cottage, the majority with water-

front access. The average boat owning family contains three people;

one in four includes at least one child under 12 years of age. Thirty-

seven percent of Michigan's registered boats are owned by two-person

households.

Some differences were observed in the characteristics of owners

of different types of boats (Table 21). Pontoon boat owners are the

oldest, averaging 54 years of age. Sail boaters are the youngest and

most highly educated group of boaters. Owners of small outboards and

row boats have the longest history of boat ownership (over 15 years)

and have owned their present boat for the longest period of time.

LIFE CYCLE SEGMENTS

The life cycle concept provides a convenient means of summarizing

the boating population and suggests a promising approach to identifying

demographically-based boater market segments. Life cycle indexes com-

bine several demographic variables including marital status, age,

number of children, and number and ages of children living at home.

Sufficient data were collected in the 198C survey to define seven dis-

tinct life cycle segments (Table 22). These life cycle groupings are

highly correlated with disposable income, making them good indicators

of likely boat purchase and participation patterns.

Boating is very much a family activity. The four largest boater

life cycle segments are older families (19%), young families (17%),

TABLE 21. 1980 BOAT OWNER DEMOGRAPHICS BY BOAT TYPE CLASSIFICATIONS

MEAN MEAN
- MEAN NUMBER YEARS MEAN
MEAN NUMBER OF OF YEARS
AGE MEAN PERCENT OF CHILDREN OWNERSHIP OF
BOAT OF YEARS OWNING PERSONS UNDER OF TOTAL
CLASS1- BOAT OF SECOND IN 12 YEARS CURRENT BOAT
FICATION OWNER SCHOOL HOME HOUSEHOLD OF AGE BOAT OWNERSHIP

Outboard
Less than
16 feet
long 49.8 12.9 32.0 3.0 .46 7.3 15.3

Outboard
16 or
more feet
long 46.7 13.1 31.6 3.2 .50 5.2 14.1

Cabin 48.1 13.7 23.8 3.1 .44 4.5 14.1

Sail 42.4 15.8 30.6 3.1 .62 5.5 13.1

Row 51.0 12.0 26.1 3.0 .46 8.6 15.2

Pontoon 53.8 13.0 44.9 2.7 .25 4.9 14.3

Average for
all classes 48.9 13.0 30.9 3.0 .47 6.6 14.6

and two groups of "empty nesters", one aged 40-60 (13%) and another

over 60 years of age (16%). The term "empty nester" is applied to

couples whose children have grown up and 'Left the household. AlTnost

thirty percent of boat owning households fall into the empty nest

category. Singles and young childless couples each account for about

ten percent of Michigan's boating households (Table 22).

TABLE 22. MICHIGAN BOAT OWNER LIFECYCLE SEGMENTS

% of
% of Those
SEGMENT Boaters Classified Income Description

Singles 9.3 10.4 $17,000 1-person household
Young 2-adult households, no
Couples 9.1 10.2 $22,000 children
Young HOHa under 40, at least
Families 17.4 19.5 $24,000 one child under 12
Intermediate HOH age 40-60, at least
Families 6.1 6.8 $25,000 one child under 12
HOH age 40-60, at least
Older one child, none under
Families 18.7 21.0 $26,000 12, "full nesters"
Empty HOH age 40-60, no chil-
Nesters 1 12.7 14.2 $22,000 dren living at home
Empty HOH age 60+, no children
Nesters 11 16.1 18.0 $14,000 living at home
Unclassifiedb 10.7 ---- ------------------------

allOH denotes "head of household", in this case the boat owner
bUnclassified category includes boaters with missing values for the
variables that make up the index and some hard to categorize boaters

Since the life cycle is related to disposable income, family re-

sponsibilities, and age, we find it also reveals patterns of boat

ownership and use (Table 23). Especially significant is the relation-

ship between life cycle and a family's desire and ability to purchase

a permanent home, a second home, or a large boat. Empty nesters and

TABLE 23. PROFILES OF MICHIGAN BOATERS USING LIFE CYCLE SEGMENTS

% Avg. GL Avg. IL
% Owning Trans- Boat Boat
Segment a Craft Type Storage Activity 2nd Home porting Days Days
SINGLES All Types Other Pleasure 26 50 11 22
YOUNG Other/
COUPLES Cabin/Sail Marina Pleasure 20 69 15 21

YOUNG Non-water-
FAMILIES Sail front home All Types 15 73 10 24
INTERMEDIATE GL home, Pleasure/
FAMILIES Cabin Marina Ski 32 67 12 19

OLDER Larger Summer
FAMILIES Outboards 41
homes Ski 39 53 12 25 00

EMPTY
NESTERS Cabin/
Age 40-60 Pontoon All Types All Types 41 51 9 26

EMPTY
NESTERS Sm Outboard/ Waterfront Fish/
Age 60+ Row/Pontoon Home Pleasure 35 40 8 23

a. See Table 22 for definitions of segments

older families have the highest rates of second home ownership (both

near 40%). Young families tend to trailer boats from nonwaterfront

homes. Intermediate and older families keep their boats at second homes,

while singles and young couples list "other" as their boat storage lo-

cation. The latter response includes storage with friends and relatives,

who may have waterfront homes.

As one passes through the life cycle stages, boating activity

changes from pleasure boating, to multiple use, to waterskiing for fami-

lies with older children, and then to fishing later in life. Sail boats

are most popular among young families and couples. Older families have

stepped up from small outboards and row boats to larger outboards,suita-

ble for a variety of boating activities. Pontoon boats are popular with

empty nesters.

Some of these patterns also reflect historical developments in

boating. Preferences for different types of craft, locations, and

boating activities are influenced by what was available and popular in

the past. Younger boaters adopt new products and activities more readi-

ly than older boaters. Thus, we observe stronger preferences for sailing

and GL boating in the younger age groups. Many older boaters have taken

up residence at an inland lake and established patterns of boating that

will not change rapidly. Pontoon boats aad fishing are especially popu-

lar among older boaters. These historical patterns are explored more

fully in the next section. A subsequent report will examine demograph-

ically-based boater market segments in more detail.

HISTORY OF BOAT OWNERSHIP

For thirty-five percent of Michigan's registered boaters, their

present boat is their first boat. Half of these first boat owners pur-

chased their boat within the past five years (Table 24). Boat owners,

as a group, average almost 15 years of boat ownership and have owned

their present boat for an average of 4.6 years (Table 25).

TABLE 24. YEARS OF BOAT OWNERSHIP OF 1980 MICHIGAN BOAT OWNERS

Years of
Ownership First Boat Owners Previous Boat Owners All Boat Owners

% cum.% % cum.% % cum.%

1-2 23.1 23.1 1.1 1.1 8.5 8.5

3-4 19.6 42.7 5.4 6.5 10.1 18.6

5-6 11.2 54.0 9.0 15.5 9.8 28.4

7-8 8.8 62.8 6.5 21.9 7.3 35.7

9-10 12.3 75.0 12.2 34.1 12.2 47.9

11-15 11.8 86.8 17.6 51.7 15.6 63.6

16-20 6.9 93.7 16.8 68.6 13.5 77.0

21-25 3.0 96.7 10.6 79.2 8.0 85.0

26-63 3.3 100.0 20.8 100.0 15.0 100.0

Mean 14.7 years

Median 11.6 years

TABLE 25. YEARS OF OWNERSHIP OF PRESENT BOAT

Years % Cumulative %

1-2 26.7 26.7

3-4 22.2 48.9

5-6 14.3 63.2

7-8 9.6 72.8

9-10 9.5 82.8

11-15 9.3 91.6

16-20 5.2 96.8

21-25 1.9 98.7

26-63 1.3 100.0

The average age at the time of first: boat purchase is 34, with

over eighty percent of present boaters having entered the market be-

tween the ages of 20 and 50 (Figure 9). The likelihood of entry into

the boat market is particularly high between the ages of 25 and 40.

During the 1970's the population aged 25-34 exhibited the fastest

growth rate nationally, increasing by almost fifty percent (Lazer,

1980). During the 1980's this growth will shift to the 35-44 year olds

and then to the 45-54 year age group in the 1990's. These demographic

trends promise a strong boat market until. the end of the century.

Trend data on boat registration and sales in the 1960's and 70's

show increases in both length and horsepower of boats. This suggests

that boaters are moving up in both horsepower and size over time. In

the 1980 survey boaters reported the chaiacteristics of both their

present and previous boat, providing an cpportunity to directly test

this hypothesis.

NUMBER OF BOAT OWNERS
IN THOUSANDS

70-

60-

50-

4o-

30 -

20 -
IMEAN 34.3
10 1 1 1 1
10 20 30 40 50 60
AGE

FIGURE 9. AGE AT TIME OF FIRST BOAT PURCHASE: MICHIGAN BOAT OWNERS

Table 26 summarizes @.eported changes in boats from previous to

present craft for boat owners with previous boat ownership. These data

suggest both upward and downward movements in boat purchases. Individ-

uals with smaller craft and lower horsepower tend to purchase larger

and more powerful boats in subsequent purchases. Those in intermediate

categories tend to remain there, and those in the longer and more power-

ful groups show some downward movement in size and power. These pat-

terns suggest an upward movement with increasing boating experience

and a corresponding reduction in length and horsepower among older

TABLE 26. PREVIOUS AND CURRENT BOAT CHARACTERISTICS OF

PERSONS WHO PREVIOUSLY OWNED WATERCRAFT

A. PREVIOUS AND CURRENT BOAT LENGTH

Length of % Same % Longer % Owning
Previous Craft Length Craft Shorter Craft

1-11 9.7 90.3 ---
12-15 58.8 38.8 2.4
16-20 47.3 16.1 36.6
1 21+ 24.2 13.3 62.5

B. PREVIOUS AND CURRENT HORSEPOWER

Previous % Same More % Less
Horsepower Horsepower Horsepower Horsepower

1-10 32.5 65.2 2.3
11-20 12.8 56.1 31.1
21-40 22.8 56.3 30.9
41-60 17.0 43.5 39.5
61-80 13.8 42.5 43.7
81-100 10.5 50.0 39.5
100+ 46.4 14.5 39.1

C. PERCENTAGE OF CURRENT CRAFT OF THE SAME BOAT TYPE AS
PREVIOUS CRAFT
% Currently Owning
Boat Type Same Type of Craft

Open 76.8
Sail 62.6
Row 58.2
Cabin 44.3
Pontoon 35.7
Other 6.1

boaters with decreased income, smaller families, and more limited boating

use.

Changes in craft type over time were also examined. Those groups

most loyal to their present craft type were owners of open, sail, or

row boats. Over half of the owners of these boat types repurchased a

similar craft. Only 44% of former cabin boat owners repurchased a

cabin cruiser and only 35% of former pontoon boat owners purchased a

second pontoon boat (Table 26). The most common change in type over

time is from small outboards and row boats to larger outboards.

SECOND HOME OWNERSHIP

Since access to water is an important factor in second home loca-

tion decisions, there is a close tie between second home ownership and

boating. One in four registered boats is kept at a second home and all

but two percent of these are waterfront locations. As a group, thirty

percent of Michigan's registered boat owners also own a second home.

Eighty percent of the out-of-state boats registered in Michigan are

owned by individuals with a second home (Table 27). Second home owner-

ship within Michigan is highest in the four southern Michigan regions.

Regions 1-4 and out-of-state boaters (Region 10) account for 89 percent

of the second homes owned by registered boaters in Michigan. These

second homes are predominantly located in Northeast, Northwest, and

Southwest Michigan (Regions 5, 6, and 2 respectively) (Table 27).

The second home ownership patterns appear to explain much of the

interregional flows of boaters, mostly from southern Michigan population

centers to northern Michigan regions. Northwest Michigan (Region 6) is

a popular second home location, drawing substantially from each of the

four southern regions and out-of-state. Northeast Michigan (Region 5)

draws most heavily from the eastern side of the state, i.e. the Thumb

and SE-Michigan regions. At least half of the second home owners in

Region 2 and 3 remain within the region, with the majority of those going

outside of these two regions owning second homes in Region 6 (Figure 10).

REGION 1 ORIGIN REGION 2 IR!GIN
36Z OF TOTAL SECOND HOMES ZOZ OF TOTAL SECOND HOMES

REGION 6 REGION 5
24.8%

REGION 6-

@-REGION 2
55.77
REGION 7-.j
3.7 %

OTHER
REGION 2 8-SX
6.4z
REGION 1
REGION 9 26.7% REGION 3-
S.8% a%
REGION 4 REGION 5
5.3% S-S;.
OTHER
2.1%

REGION 3 ORIGIN
12% OF TOTAL SECOND HOMES REGION 4 ORIGIN
122 OF TOTAL SECOND HOMES

REGION a
27.4V REGION 4-
25X

REGION 3 REGION 5
49.9Z SO-9Z
REGION Z_\
7.4%

REGION 6
REGION S L4-Z%
6.6%
REGION a
4.1Z REGION 7-
OTHER 6.7%
4.1% OTMER---@@
3.2%

OUT OF STATE ORIGIN
9% OF TOTAL SECOND Homes

REGZON 7 REGION a

OTHER
12.2%

REGION a
10=10%
.REGION 2
33.3%

REGION 1

REGION 5
S.W.

FIGURE 10. SECOND HOME OWNERSHIP BY REGION OF RESIDENCE

TABLE 27. SECOND HOME OWNERSHIP OF MICHIGAN BOAT OWNERS BY REGION

Percent Owning Percent of Boater Percent of Boater
Region Second Homes 2nd Homes Owned by 2nd Homes Located
Residents of Region in the Region

1 32 36 11

2 32 20 18

3 30 12 9

4 28 12 6

5 13 1 18

6 17 4 21

7 17 2 8

8 29 3 5

9 25 1 3

10 80 9 1

TOTAL 30 100 100

Second home ownership among boaters is also closely tied to the

family life cycle as we have seen in Table 23. Older families and empty

nesters have the highest rates of second home ownership. Among the dif-

ferent craft types, pontoon boat owners have the highest second home

ownership rate (45%) (Table 21).

REASONS FOR BOATING

An understanding of boater motivations is of potential use in market-

ing boat products and facilities as well as in planning access sites and

marinas. As an initial step in identifying reasons for boating, 1980

survey respondents were asked to rate the importance of seven different

motivations. Each reason for boating was rated as I=very important,

2=moderately important, 3=somewhat important, 4=of little importance,

or 5=not important.

For the sample as a whole, relaxation, nature enjoyment, being with

friends and family, and fishing were rated between very and moderately

important. Excitement was somewhat important, skills development between

somewhat and little importance, and competition was of little importance

(Table 28).

Boater motivations were compared for different subgroups of boaters

including groups defined by activity, storage location, craft type, and

GL vs IL users. Relaxation, nature enjoyment, and being with friends

and family were important reasons for boat-ing across all segments. Their

almost universal importance makes these motivations of little use in dis-

criminating between boaters. The four remaining reasons provide some

possibilities for discriminating among boater types.

TABLE 28. REASONS FOR BOATING

Reason Avg. Importance Rating a

to relax 1.55

to enjoy nature 1.81
to be with friends and family 1.82
for fishing 1.91

for the excitement 3.12

to develop skills 3.53
for competition and challenge 4.13

a. Importance scale: 1=very important, 2=moderately important,
3= somewhat important, 4=of little importance, 5=not
important.

Motivations by Boat Type

The largest differences in motivations were observed among differ-

ent types of craft. Boats are used for different purposes and underly-

ing motivations appear to be expressed in the type of craft that is pur-

chased. Sail boat owners obviously assign very low importance to fishing

as a reason for boating. They also assign the highest ratings of any

segment to competition, skills development, and excitement (Figure 11).

Pontoon boaters are at the opposite extreme assigning the greatest im-

portance to being with friends and family and relatively low importance

to excitement, skills, or competition.

Owners of small outboards and row boats are similar in their moti-

vations. These two groups assign the highest rating to fishing, the

lowest to being with friends and relatives and fall just above pontoon

boaters with respect to excitement, skills, and competition. The two

remaining craft types, large outboards and cabin cruisers, can be

grouped together. These two groups of boaters show similar motivations,

lying in between sailers and the row/small outboard groups on most moti-

vations (Figure 11).

Motivations by_other groups

There were few other revealing differences in motivations when

boaters were divided according to activity, storage, or use. Marina

boaters tended to assign higher importance to all motivations with the

single exception of fishing. This probably reflects the large percent-

age of sail boats kept at marinas. Fishermen obviously assigned high

importance to fishing as a reason for boating.

Motivationally-based boater segments will be explored further in a

IMPORTANCE

Not
Important 5.0

BOAT TYPES 6
Of Little 1= Small Outboard 5 4
Importance 4.0 2,3 6
2= Large Outboard 5
3= Cabin
4= Sail
5= Row
6= Pontoon 4
1,5 t-q
Somewhat 2,3 I.D
Important 3.0 3

4
4
Moderately
important 2.0 1 3 1,5 2,3,6
4

1,2,5 4,5,6 6 1
3,4,6 5

Very
Important 1.0
Relax Enjoy Friends Competition Develop Excitement Fishing
Nature and Skills
Family

REASONS FOR BOATING

FIGURE 11. REASONS FOR BOATING BY CRAFT TYPE

subsequent report. Our preliminary conclusion is that boater differ-

ences in motivations are readily and easily explainable by demographic,

activity, and craft related variables. Segments based upon these vari-

ables will probably be more understandable and useful to survey users.

BOATER OPINIONS AND COMMENTS

An open ended question was included at the end of the survey to

provide respondents an opportunity to identify boating needs and prob-

lems. Over half of both active and inactive boaters listed at least one

comment or problem, twenty percent volunteered at least two different

opinions and ten percent identified three issues of concern. Content

analysis procedures were used to code these responses into one of 51

specific categories. These are grouped into eight general problem areas

in Table 29. A complete itemization of comments is included in Table 30.

Analyses of comments are unweighted and therefore reflect the sam--

ple, not the statewide boater population. Larger boats and northern

regions are over-represented in the sample. Active boaters were more

prone to give multiple comments as inactive boaters primarily gave a

reason for not boating in 1980.

Of those inactive boaters completing the comments section of the

questionnaire, about 10% indicated selling their boat@ Cost constraints

were cited by 15% of the inactive boaters with gasoline costs accounting

for about half of these. Health reasons were given by about five percent

of the inactive boaters as a reason for not boating in 1980.,

For the sample as a whole, the most frequently cited problem was a

need for more or better boating facilities, Over 15 percent of those

volunteering a comment requested additional boating access sites and

launching facilities. Design problems in shore facilities and need for

additional marinas/boat slippage were also important facilities problems.

The second most important general concern seems to be regulations and

boater behavior. Although 57 boaters wanted less control and regulation,

the majority of comments favored more regulation to control use con-

flicts. Time zoning of speedboating and waterskiing to reduce conflicts

with fishermen was the most frequently cited specific control measure.

This was followed in'importance by requests for horsepower and speed

restrictions.

Although the thrust of the comments section was to elicit needs and

problems from boaters, nine percent of the responses were general posi-

tive comments about boating in Michigan. Environmental concerns, law

enforcement problems, and boating information and education programs

were cited by approximately ten percent of those boaters completing the

comments section. Table 30 gives a detailed breakdown of the responses

to the comments question.

TABLE 29. 1980 BOATER SURVEY RESPONDENT OPINIONS AND COMMENTS

Opinion/Comment Inactive Boaters Active Boaters Total Sample
No. % No. % No. %

Boating Facilities 83 19 1039 32 1122 31

Personal Constraints
(Cost, Health, etc.) 144 44 428 13 618 16

Regulations 28 6 453 14 481 13

Boater Behavior/Use
Conflicts 44 10 392 12 436 12

General Positive Comment 42 10 287 9 329 9

Environmental Concerns
(Water Quality, Fish) 17 4 258 8 275 8

Enforcement 21 5 213 7 234 6

Information/Education 9 2 161 5 170 5

TOTALS 434 100 3231 100 3665 100

TABLE 30 1980 BOATER SURVEY COMHENTS AND OPINIONS

A. More or better enforcement/patrols Number Percent
General 163 4.5
Speed/ no wake 35 1.0
Noise 7 .2
Safety equip., inspection 16 .4
pollution 2 -

3. More or better regulation and control
Time zoning of speedboating & waterski 92 2.5
Horsepower restrictions 85 2.3
Other zoning 42 1.1
licensing of boat operators 52 1.4
Noise 34 .9
Minimum age to operate boat 9 .2
less control/regulation 57 1.6
General 103 2.8

C. More or better information/education
General 66 1.8
Signs for PAS sites 18 .5
Signs (other) 16 .4
Boater training/safety courses 71 2.0

D. More or better boating facilities
General 154 4.2
Slips, moorings, marinas, docks 147 4.0
launch sites, ramps, PAS sites 274 7.5
navigation aids (buoys, markers etc) 60 1.6
maintenance of shore facilities 49 1.3
design of shore facilities 200 5.5
safer harbors, hazard removal 99 2.7
parking 77 2.1
pumpout facilities 37 1.0
gas dealers

E. Boater behavior/ Use conflicts
General 90 2.5
Speed 89 2.5
Noise 21 .6
Boats too close to swim areas/other boats 58 1.6
Overcrowding 50 1.4
Drinking 7 .2
waterskiers 39 1.1
outsiders/weekend behavior 35 1.0
inappropriate use of launch sites 4 .1
boater ignorance of rules 45 1.2

F. More or better resource management
General 12 .3
Water quality 65 1.8
Weed control 37 1.0
Fisheries 105 2.9
Commercial/indian fishing 55 1.5

Number Percent

G. Constraints to boating
General 19 .5
Cost, general 56 1.5
Cost of marinas, launch facilities 56 1.5
Cost of gasoline 69 1.9
Cost of boat registration 45 1.2
Age/Health 28 .7
Sold Boat 32 .9
H. General Positive Comment 326 8.9

I. General negative unclassifieda 303 8.3

aNot included in Table 29.

CHAPTER V

1980 BOATING IN MICHIGAN

Michigan's registered boating fleet logged 16.9 million boat days

in 1980. Thirty-two percent of this activity took place on the Great

Lakes and connecting waters while 68 percent took place on inland lakes

and streams (Table 31). Boats under twenty feet in length accounted for

71 percent of GL use and 91 percent of IL use. Total boating activity

increased from 1977 levels by 23 percent. The largest increases were

observed in small boat activity, particularly on the GL. This was a

reversal of the trend toward more large boat activity prior to 1977

(Table 32).

TABLE 31. 1980 MICHIGAN RECREATIONAL BOATING BY SIZE CLASS

Boat Days (000's)
Row Percent GREAT LAKES INLAND LAKES TOTAL
Column Percent
Percent of Total

Boats Under 3,788 10,546 14,344
20 feet
in length 26.4 73.6 100.0
70.8 91.1 84.7
22.4 62.3

Boats 20 feet 1,563 1,028 2,591
and more
in length 60.3 39.7 100.0
29.2 8.9 15.3
9.2 6.1

TOTAL 5,351 11,574 16,925

31.6 68.4 100.0

TABLE 32. TRENDS IN BOAT USE ON GREAT IJ&ES AND INLAND LAKES, 1974-80

1974 1977 1-974-77 1980 1977-80
Boat Days Boat Days Change Boat Days % Change
(000's) (000's) (000's)

GREAT LAKES

Small Boats
(:@20 feet) 2,293 2,849 24 3,788 33

Large Boats
(--20 feet) 982 1,573 60 1,563 - 1

TOTAL 3,275 4,422 35 5,351 21

INLAND LAKES

Small Boats
(tS20 feet) 6,978 8,475 21 10,546 24

Large Boats
(>20 feet) 386 885 129 1,028 16

TOTAL 7,364 9,361 27 11,574 24

GRAND TOTAL 10,639 13,783 29 16,925 23

Fishing is the most popular boating activity, accounting for 52

percent of all boat days in 1980. Pleasure boating (35%) and waterski-

ing (11%) are the two principal boating activities. The primary

difference between GL and IL boating activity is a greater percentage of

waterskiing on IL and a corresponding greater emphasis upon fishing in

GL waters. Since 1968, fishing has increased from 44 percent to 57 per-

cent of all GL boating. Waterskiing has declined from about 14 percent

of boating activity in 1968 to ten percent in 1980 (Table 33).

TABLE 33. TRENDS IN BOATING ACTIVITY ON GREAT LAKES AND INLAND LAKES,
1968-1980

GREAT LAKES INLAND LAKES

ACTIVITY
1968 1980 1968 1980

----------- percent of boat days -----------------

Fishing 44 57 52 49

Cruising/Pleasure
Boating 40 35 25 35

Waterskiing 8 5 18 13

Other 8 3 5 3

FREQUENCY OF BOATING

The fact that boat days are increasing more rapidly than the number

of registered boats indicates that boaters are boating more often. Boaters

averaged 33 days of boating in 1980 (Table 34).

TABLE 34. FREQUENCY OF BOATING BY USE OF GREAT LAKES vs INLAND LAKES

GL Boat Days IL Boat Days Total Boat Days
Boats Using ...

------ average number of boat days per boat -------

GL ONLY 33 0 33

BOTH GL & IL 20 26 46

IL ONLY 0 32 32

ALL BOATS 11 23 33

Some types of boaters were more active than others. Boaters taking

advantage of both GL and IL waters averaged 46 boat days in 1980. Cabin

cruisers were the most active on the GL while pontoon boats had the

highest frequency of boating on inland waters (Table 35).

TABLE 35. AVERAGE NUMBER OF 1980 BOAT DX@S BY CRAFT TYPE FOR GREAT LAKES
AND INLAND LAKES BOATERS

GL Boaters a IL Boaters a All Boaters
Craft Type

Cabin 42 20 43

Pontoon 26 40 39

Large Outboard 28 33 38

Sail 32 31 36

Small Outboard 22 29 30

Row 17 28 28

a. Averages include only days on GL for GL boaters and days on IL for
inland boaters.

Boats stored at waterfront sites were considerably more active than

boats stored at non-waterfront locations (Table 36). In particular,

boats kept at marinas and GL waterfront storage locations were very

active on the GL, and boats stored at IL waterfront locations were the

most active on IL.

Regionally, out-of-state boaters were the most active group, re-

flecting the high rate of second home ownership and waterfront storage

among out-of-state registered boaters. Southeastern Michigan boaters

were the most active in-state group of boaters. Regional differences

in boating frequency are correlated with boater's evaluation of the

quality and quantity of boating opportunities. Thus, southwestern

Michigan boaters are the least active on the GL, while northwest Michigan

boaters are the most active (Table 37).

TABLE 36. AVERAGE NUMBER OF 1980 BOAT DAYS BY STORAGE CATEGORY FOR GREAT
LAKES AND INLAND LAKES BOATERS

GL Boaters a IL Boaters a All Boaters
Summer Storage_

Marina 46 29 47

IL permanent home 14 42 42

IL summer home 15 40 40

GL home 37 27 39

Non-waterfront home 20 19 23

a. Averages include only days on GL for GL boaters and days on IL for
inland boaters.

The average of 33 boat days per boat in 1980 is somewhat inflated by

the group of heavy users (median number of boat days is 22). Ten percent

of the active boaters report over 90 days of boating in 1980. Sixty per-

cent report 30 or fewer days (Table 38). The convenience of waterfront

access and storage clearly stimulates boating activity. The growth of

the GL fisheries has also extended the boating season from early spring

through late fall. The larger percentages of retirees with time and

access to boating also contributes to the increases in boat days.

While the number of boat days increased by 23 percent between 1977

and 1980, less than one in four 1980 boaters indicated an increase in

boating frequency over 1979. The remainder were split evenly between

those boating less often and those reporting no change (Table 39).

TABLE 37. FREQUENCY OF GREAT LAKES AND INLAND LAKES BOATING BY REGION

Region GL Boaters a Inland Boaters a All Boating

------------------------- Boat Days -----------------------

1 31 33 37

2 19 32 32

3 24 30 32

4 23 23 27

5 25 29 31

6 34 .28 34

7 29 32 35

8 26 25 32

9 28 22 31

10 35 45 46

TOTAL 27 :31 33

a. Averages include only days on GL for GI, boaters and days on IL for
IL boaters. The averages in "all boating" column are generally
larger than either GL or IL since they include total boat days for
boaters who use either GL only, IL only, or both GL & IL.

In conjunction with other findings in the 1980 survey, this suggests

a significant increase in boating between 1977 and 1979 and then a drop

in 1980 in response to economic factors including higher gasoline costs.

TABLE 38. FREQUENCY OF BOATING ON GREAT LAKES AND INLAND LAKES

Number of Boat Days GL Boating a IL Boating a All Boating

------------------- Percent --------------------

I - 10 31.8 .18.2 21.5

11 - 20 21.1 29.4 20.5

21 - 30 15.4 17.3 17.6

31 - 40 7.8 8.2 9.4

41 - 50 5.2 4.6 5.5

51 - 60 5.2 4.8 6.2

61 - 70 2.0 1.4 2.3

71 - 80 1.7 1.6 2.1

81 - 90 2.3 4.1 3.7

90+ 7.2 8.9 10.4

a. GL boating includes days on the GL for boaters who used the Great
Lakes in 1980. IL boating is defined similarly. The "All Boating"
column includes all boaters and represents the sum of GI, and IL
boat days.

TABLE 39. CHANGES IN FREQUENCY OF BOATING BETWEEN 1979 AND 1980

Response Percent

Boated less often in 1980 38.1

No change in frequency 38.4

Boated more often in 1980 23.4

BOATING ORIGIN-DESTINATION PATTERNS

Boating travel patterns in 1980 did not change significantly from

previous years. Only one in four boaters reported a change in boating

location between 1979 and 1980 (Table 40). Of those making a change, the

majority reported boating closer to home. Boaters with waterfront storage

tend to boat primarily at these storage locations. A great deal of boat-

ing activity is tied to second homes and marinas. The geographic dis-

tribution of these storage locations does not change significantly from

year to year, providing a degree of stability in boating activity.

Boaters trailering their boats tend to remain close to home. This

activity therefore mirrors population distributions or the distribu-

tion of registered craft.

Southeast Michigan generated 38 percent of all boat days in 1980

and almost half of all GL boat days. Southwest Michigan is a popular

inland lake boating region generating about a quarter of all inland lake

boat days in the state and receiving 27 pExcent of inland boat days. The

Straits region and Northwest Michigan are the largest net importers of boat

days receiving about twice as many boat days as they generate (Figure 12).

TABLE 40. CHANGES IN DISTANCE TRAVELED FOR BOATING BETWEEN 1979 and 1980

Response Percent

Boated closer to home in 1980 19.2

No change 72.5

Boated further from home in 1980 8.,3

REGION 8
2 R
GL 5 5
IL 3 4
T T

REGION 9 REGION 7
2 D 2 2
GL 2 2 GL 3 8
IL 1 2 IL 3 7
TOT 1 2 TOT 3 7

0
KEY REGION 5
GL =% of GL boat days 2 D
IL =% of IL boat days REGION 6 GL 2
TOT =' of all boat days 0 D IL 4 9
0 =originating in region GL 7 Tl TOT 3 7
D =destinating in region IL 7 14
TOT 7 13

1980 Boat Days

Great Lakes (GL) 5,351,000
Inland Lakes (IL) 11,574,000 REGION 4
Total 16,925,000 REGION 3 0 D
CL 15 16
GL 2 8 2 9 IL 9 5
IL 13 11 TOT 10 8
TOT 11 10

REGION 1
REGION 2 0
REGION 10 0 D GL 49 42
2 GL -6 -4 IL 33 21-
GL 2 IL 24 27 TOT 38 28
IL 5 TOT 18 20
TOT 4

FIGURE 12. PERCENT OF BOAT DAYS BY REGION OF ORIGIN

AND REGION OF DESTINATION

Tables 41-43 report estimates of 1980 boat days by county of desti-

nation in Michigan. Macomb, Wayne, and St. Clair Counties account for

almost 39 percent of GL boat days in the state. These are followed in

importance by counties on Saginaw Bay, western Michigan counties of

Ottawa and Muskegon, and then northern counties (Table 41). Oakland

County accounts for 9.7 percent of all inland boat days, about double that

of any other county. Livingston, Roscommon, Barry, Jackson and Cass

Counties exceeded 400,000 inland boat days in 1980 (Table 42). Only

Wayne County is included in both GL and IL top twenty. When GL and IL

boating is combined, Oakland, Wayne, and Macomb Counties each provide

over 800,000 boat days. Cheboygan County is the only northern county in

the state's top ten.

Tables 44-46 report regional origin-destination matrices for GL, IL,

and total boating in Michigan. Almost half of all GL boat days originate

in SE Michigan. Eighty-two percent of these GL boat days remain within

the region. Regions 4, 7, and 6 are the primary export markets for

southern Michigan boaters (Table 44). We suspect that a significant

portion of boat days leaving the region are associated with second home

locations. The reader may note the similarity in the boat origin-desti-

nation matrices and Figure 10, which depicts second home locations. South-

west Michigan exports 48 percent of its GL boat days, the majority going

to West central Michigan and Northwest Michigan regions. GL boaters

originating in northern Michigan tend to boat within their region of

residence.

Southeast Michigan generates about a third of IL boat days. Of the

62 percent remaining within the region, Oakland and Livingston Counties

are the primary destinations. Region 1 exports IL boating to Regions

2, 5, and 6. Southwest Michigan retains 85 percent of its IL boat days

within the region. The Thumb region has the poorest IL boating opportu-

nities and exports 61 percent of its IL boat days. The Thumb region

boater is a heavy user of Northeast Michigan IL, sending thirty percent

of its boat days to that region. Northern regions keep most of the IL

boat days they generate within the region (Table 45).

TABLE 41. RANKING OF MICHIGAN COUNTIES BY 1980 GREAT LAKES BOAT DAYS-
DESTINATION

Rank County Name Boat Days Percent of Cumulative
Total Percent

I Macomb 779,037 14.6 14.6
2 Wayne 718,199 13.4 28.0
3 St. Clair 551,762 10.3 38.3
4 Huron 369,183 6.9 45.2
5 Bay 244,517 4.6 49.8
6 Ottawa 228,518 4.3 54.0
7 Monroe 185,896 3.5 57.5
8 Muskegon 184,065 3.4 60.9
9 Mackinac 168,930 3.2 64.1
10 Arenac 157,731 2.9 67.0
11 Grand Traverse 143,861 2.7 69.7
12 Chippewa 123,004 2.3 72.0
13 Manistee 102,410 1.9 73.9
14 Charlevoix 101,621 1.9 75.8
15 Berrien 100,543 1.9 77.7
16 Delta 96,140 1.8 79.5
17 Leelanau 93,228 1.7 81.3
18 Iosco 90,827 1.7 83.0
19 Houghton 71,862 1.3 84.3
20 Sanilac 67,638 1.3 85.6
21 Marquette 66,472 1.2 86.8
22 Allegan 65,622 1.2 88.0
23 Alpena 62,859 1.2 89.2
24 Antrim 56,615 1.1 90.3
25 Oceana 55,464 1.0 91.3
26 Emmet 54,856 1.0 92.3
27 Benzie 54,708 1.0 93.3
28 Cheboygan 49,802 1.0 94.3
29 Keweenaw 47,307 .9 95.2
30 Van Buren 40,628 .8 95.9
31 Mason 38,928 .7 96.6
32 Baraga 34,363 .6 97.3
33 Alcona 30,693 .6 97.9
34 Alger 29,923 .6 98.4
35 Shiawassee 15,167 .3 98.7
36 Menominee 13,986 .3 99.0
37 Presque Isle 13,897 .3 99.2
38 Luce 13,145 .2 99.5
39 Ontonagon 12,130 .2 99.7
40 Schoolcraft 10,891 .2 99.9
41 Gogebic 5,239 .1 100.0

TOTAL 5,351,671 100.0

TABLE 42. RANKING OF MICHIGAN COUNTIES BY 1980 INLAND LAKES BOAT DAYS-
DESTINATION

Rank County Name Boat Days Percent of Cumulative
Total Percent

1 Oakland 1,121,932 9.7 9.7
2 Livingston 552,919 4.8 14.5
3 Barry 490,294 4.2 18.7
4 Jackson 466,446 4.0 22.7
5 Cass 417,630 3.6 26.3
6 Roscommon 364,675 3.2 29.5
7 Cheboygan 319,393 2.8 32.3
8 St. Joseph 316,595 2.7 35.0
9 Washtenaw 311,897 2.7 37.7
10 Van Buren 305,484 2.6 40.3
11 Kalamazoo 296,754 2.6 42.9
12 Newaygo 295,015 2.5 45.4
13 Kent 289,298 2.5 47.9
14 Branch 287,073 2.5 50.4
15 Genesee 285,064 2.5 52.9
16 Montcalm 262,398 2.3 55.1
17 Lenawee 254,397 2.2 57.3
18 Clare 184,393 1.6 58.9
19 Mecosta 184,188 1.6 60.5
20 Wayne 182,788 1.6 62.1
21 Allegan 182,086 1.6 63.7
22 Antrim 180,571 1.6 65.2
23 Grand Traverse 172,931 1.5 66.7
24 Muskegon 153,723 1.3 68.0
25 Gladwin 152,605 1.3 69.4
26 Schoolcraft 149,770 1.3 70.7
27 Ogemaw 146,835 1.3 71.9
28 Ottawa 137,502 1.2 73.1
29 Leelanau 137,497 1.2 74.3
30 Calhoun 136,421 1.2 75.5
31 Berrien 130,550 1.1 76.6
32 Mason 126,456 1.1 77.7
33 Otsego 121,218 1.0 78.8
34 Presque Isle 118,789 1.0 79.8
35 Iosco 113,589 1.0 80.8
36 Charlevoix 108,522 .9 81.7
37 Lapeer 105,509 .9 82.6
38 Benzie 102,455 .9 83.5
39 Montmorency 99,902 .9 84.4
40 Marquette 97,599 .8 85.2
41 Oceana 95,363 .8 86.0
42 Emmet 94,323 .8 86.9
43 Alcona 91,948 .8 87.6

TABLE 42 (Continued)

Rank County Name Boat Days Percent of Cumulative
Total Percent

44 Lake 90,093 .8 88.4
45 Wexford 87,328 .8 89.2
46 Mackinac 81,953 .7 89.9
47 Iron 77,832 .7 90.6
48 Manistee 77,737 .7 91.2
49 Kalkaska 74,899 .6 91.8
50 Gogebic 66,085 .6 92.4
51 Missaukee 56,306 .5 92.9
52 Ionia 54,723 .5 93.4
53 Luce 50,045 .4 93.8
54 Alpena 49,678 .4 94.3
55 Osceola 48,415 .4 94.7
56 Isabella 41,845 .4 95.1
57 Delta 37,652 .3 95.4
58 Houghton 34,031 .3 95.7
59 Tuscola 33,155 .3 96.0
60 Oscoda 32,681 .3 96.3
61 Ingham 30,746 .3 96.6
62 Midland 30,334 .3 96.9
63 Macomb 30,136 .2 97.1
64 Dickinson 28,903 .2 97.3
65 Crawford 28,418 .2 97.5
66 St. Clair 26,830 .2 97.7
67 Menominee 26,478 .2 97.9
68 Alger 25,997 .2 98.1
69 Eaton 23,819 .2 98.3
70 Chippewa 22,141 .2 98.5
71 Hillsdale 21,870 .2 98.7
72 Saginaw 18,886 .2 98.9
73 Bay 18,818 .2 99.1
74 Arenac 18,646 .2 99.3
75 Ontonagon 17,217 .1 99.4
76 Clinton 15,982 .1 99.5
77 Gratiot 15,141 .1 99.6
78 Monroe 9,639 .1 99.7
79 Huron 8,902 .1 99.8
80 Shiawassee 7,020 .1 99.9
81 Keweenaw 5,155 .0 99.9
82 Baraga 3,297 .0 99.9
83 Sanilac 679 .0 100.0

TOTAL 11,574,309 100.0

TABLE 43. RANKING OF MICHIGAN COUNTIES BY 1980 TOTAL BOAT DAYS-
DESTINATION

Rank County Name Total Percent of Cumulative
Boat Days Total Percent

1 Oakland 1,121,932 6.6 6.6
2 Wayne 900,987 5.3 11.9
3 Macomb 809,173 4.8 16.7
4 St. Clair 578,592 3.4 20.1
5 Livingston 552,397 3.3 23.4
6 Barry 490,294 2.9 26.3
7 Jackson 466,446 2.7 29.0
8 Cass 417,630 2.5 31.5
9 Huron 378,085 2.2 33.7
10 Cheboygan 369,195 2.2 35.9
11 Ottawa 366,020 2.2 38.1
12 Roscommon 364,675 2.2 40.3
13 Van Buren 346,112 2.0 42.3
14 Muskegon 337,788 2.0 44.3
15 Grand Traverse 316,792 1.9 46.2
16 St. Joseph 316,595 1.9 48.1
17 Washtenaw 311,897 1.8 49.9
18 Kalamazoo 296,754 1.8 51.6
.19 Newaygo 295,015 1.7 53.3
20 Kent 289,298 1.7 55.0
21 Branch 287,073 1.7 56.7
22 Genesee 285,064 1.7 58.4
23 Bay 263,335 1.6 60.0
24 Montcalm 262,398 1.6 61.6
25 Lenawee 254,397 1.5 63.1
26 Mackinac 250,883 1.5 64.6
27 Allegan 247,708 1.5 66.1
28 Antrim 237,186 1.4 67.5
29 Berrien 231,093 1.3 68.8
30 Leelanau 230,725 1.3 70.1
31 Charlevoix 210,143 1.2 71.3
32 Iosco 204,416 1.2 72.5
33 Monroe 195,535 1.2 73.7
34 Clare 184,393 1.1 74.8
35 Mecosta 184,188 1.1 75.9
36 Manistee 180,147 1.1 77.0
37 Arenac 176,377 1.0 78.0
38 Mason 165,384 1.0 79.0
39 Marquette 164,071 1.0 80.0
40 Schooleraft 160,661 1.0 81.0
41 Benzie 157,163 .9 81.9
42 Gladwin 152,605 .9 82.8
43 Oceana 150,827 .9 83.7

TABLE 43 (Continued)

Rank County Name Total Percent of Cumulative
Boat Days Total Percent

44 Emmet 149,179 .9 84.6
45 Ogemaw 146,835 .9 85.5
46 Chippewa 145,145 .9 86.4
47 Calhoun 136,423- .8 87.2
48 Delta 133,792 .8 88.0
49 Presque Isle 132,686) .8 88.8
50 Alcona 122,641 .7 89.5
51 Otsego 121,218 .7 90.2
52 Alpena 112,53-1 .6 90.8
53 Houghton 105,893 .6 91.4
54 Lapeer 105,509 .6 92.0
55 Montmorency 99,902 .6 92.6
56 Lake 90,09-,:@ .5 93.1
57 Wexford 87,328 .5 93.6
58 Iron 77,832 .5 94.1
59 Kalkaska 74,899 .4 94.5
60 Gogebic 71,32L .4 [email protected]
61 Sanilac 68,317' .4 95.3
62 Luce 63,190 .4 95.7
63 Missaukee 56,306 .3 96.0
64 Alger 55,920 .3 96.3
65 Ionia 54,72-- .3 96.6
66 Keweenaw 52,462 .3 96.9
67 Osceola 48,415 .3 97.2
68 Tuscola 48,322 .3 97.5
69 Isabella 41,845, .3 97.8
70 Menominee 40,464 .2 98.0
71 Baraga 37,660 .2 98.2
72 Oscoda 32,681 .2 98.4
73 Ingham 30,746, .2 98.6
74 Midland 30,334 .2 98.8
75 Ontonagon 29,347 .2 99.0
76 Dickinson 28,903 .2 99.2
77 Crawford 28,418 .2 99.4
78 Eaton 23,819 .1 99.5
79 Hillsdale 21,87C .1 99.6
80 Saginaw 18,886 .1 99.7
81 Clinton 15,982 .1 99.8
82 Gratiot 15,141 .1 99.9
83 Shiawassee 7,020 .0 100.0

TOTAL 16,925,980 100.0

TABLE 44. ORIGIN DESTINATION MATRIX - GREAT LAKES BOATING

Boat Daysa(000,S) Region of Destination
Row Pct.
Column Pct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals

2155 9 27 175 25 81 109 19 18 2620
1 82 0 1 7 1 3 4 1 1 100
96 4 6 21 14 14 26 7 15 49

11 160 60 8 8 26 20 2 1 306
2 4 52 20 3 3 12 6 1 0 100
1 77 13 1 4 6 5 1 1 6

3 17 330 19 1 56 20 2 6 454
3 1 4 73 4 0 12 4 0 1 100
0 8 71 2 1 9 5 1 5 8

45 1 7 633 59 48 16 0 0 811
4 6 0 1 78 7 6 2 0 0 100
2 1 2 74 32 8 4 0 0 15

4 1 0 9 86 3 7 3 0 113
5 4 1 0 8 76 2 6 2 0 100
-d 0 0 0 1 47 0 2 1 0 2

P4 6 0 6 6 0 340 41 1 0 401
t4-46 2 0 2 1 0 85 10 0 0 100
0 0 0 1 1 0 75 10 0 0 7
r-
0
.H
1 0 0 0 0 1 172 1 0 176
P4 7 0 0 0 0 0 1 98 1 0 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 0 3

5 0 1 3 0 1 1 237 5 253
8 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 94 2 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 85 4 5

0 0 0 0 0 1 3 7 91 102
9 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7 90 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 75 2

4 18 36 1 4 25 21 7 0 116
10 4 16 31 0 4 22 18 6 0 100
0 9 8 0 2 4 5 2 0 2

Totals 2235 207 468 854 184 591 410 279 121 5350
% of Total 42 4 9 16 3 11 8 5 2 100.0

TABLE 45. ORIGIN DESTINATION MATRIX - INLAND LAKES BOATING

Boat Daysa(000,s) Region of Destination
Row Pct.
Column Pct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals

2393 407 18 86 255 388 210 24 49 3831
1 62 11 0 2 7 10 5 1 1 100
96 13 1 16 24 23 28 6 23 33

24 2314 81 10 42 167 36 13 33 2721
2 1 85 3 0 2 6 1 0 1 100
1 75 6 2 4 10 5 3 15 24

0 62 1093 54 32 175 31 8 9 1465
3 0 4 75 4 2 12 2 1 1 100
0 2 84 10 3 10 4 2 4 13

15 53 67 374 282 106 42 9 7 956
4 2 6 7 39 30 11 4 1 1 100
1 2 5 69 26 6 6 2 3 9

3 12 1 9 410 5 14 6 0 461
5 1 3 0 2 89 1 3 1 0 100
-r4 0 0 0 2 38 0 2 1 0 4

P4 0 12 15 0 7 719 17 10 1 782
t4-46 0 2 2 0 1 92 2 1 0 100
0
1-1 0 0 1 0 1 43 2 2 0 7
0
Q) 0 7 0 0 16 0 338 3 3 367
04 7 0 2 0 0 4 0 92 1 1 100
0 0 0 0 1 0 45 1 1 3

5 0 0 0 1 6 2 258 22 293
8 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 88 7 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 10 3

0 0 0 0 0 1 2 14 80 96
9 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 15 83 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 37 1

51 237 28 9 34 108 64 61 10 603
10 8 39 5 1 6 18 11 10 2 100
2 8 10 2 3 6 9 15 5 5

Totals 2491 3106 1304 542 1080 1674 758 406 214 11575
% of Total 22 27 11 5 9 14 7 4 2 100.0

TABLE 46. ORIGIN DESTINATION MATRIX - ALL MICHIGAN BOATING

Boat Daysa(000,s) Region of Destination
Row Pct.
Column Pct. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Totals

4548 417 45 262 280 469 319 43 67 6450
1 71 6 1 4 4 7 5 1 1 100
96 13 3 19 22 21 27 6 20 38

35 2475 140 19 50 202 56 16 34 3027
2 1 82 5 1 2 7 2 1 1 100
1 75 8 1 4 9 5 2 10 18

3 79 1424 72 33 231 52 10 15 1919
3 0 4 74 4 2 12 3 1 1 100
0 2 80 5 3 10 4 1 5 11

61 54 74 1008 342 154 58 9 7 1767
4 3 3 4 57 19 9 3 1 0 100
1 2 4 72 27 7 5 1 2 10

7 13 1 18 496 8 22 9 0 573
5 1 2 0 3 86 1 4 2 0 100
"o 0 0 0 1 39 0 2 1 0 3

6 12 22 6 8 1058 59 11 1 1182
6 1 1 2 0 1 90 5 1 0 100
0
0 0 0 1 0 1 47 5 2 0 7
0
.H
1 7 0 0 16 2 510 4 3 542
7 0 1 0 0 3 0 94 1 1 100
0 0 0 0 1 0 44 1 1 3

10 0 1 3 1 7 3 495 26 547
8 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 91 5 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 8 3

0 0 0 0 0 2 5 21 171 198
9 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 11 86 100
0 0 0 0 0 0 90 3 51 1

55 256 64 9 39 133 85 68 10 720
10 8 36 9 1 5 18 12 9 1 100
1 8 4 1 3 6 7 10 3 4

Totals 4725 3313 1772 1396 1265 2265 1168 686 335 16925
% of Total 28 20 10 8 7 13 7 4 2 100.0

CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND SUBSEQUENT REPORTS

The 1980 Michigan Recreational boating survey has provided up-

to-date statistics on boating activity in Michigan and a data base to

support a variety of further research and planning analyses. This ini-

tial survey report has documented the methods and has presented a broad

overview of boaters and boating activity at state and regional levels.

Subsequent reports will focus in more detail on market segmentation,

planning and forecasting models, and boating economics. Relevant pol-

icy and planning recommendations will be advanced in these documents.

SUMMARY

Based upon almost 4000 survey respondents, it is estimated that

Michigan's registered boaters logged 16.9 million boat days in 1980.

This is an increase of 23 percent over 1977 levels. Boat registrations

grew by about ten percent over this same period. About one third of

aIL-boat days took place on the Great Lakes and connecting waters.

Two thirds of boating activity occurs on inland lakes and streams.

Boaters averaged 33 days of boating in 1980, with larger boats and

boats stored at waterfront sites the most active. Fishing is the most

popular boating activity, accounting for over half of all boat days

and almost 60 percent of Great Lakes boating.

The average registered boat owner is 50 years of age, a high

school graduate, and has an income (median) of $23,000. Sail boat-

ers tend to have higher incomes, are more educated and somewhat young-

er than power boaters. Boating is very much a family activity. Older

and younger families are the two largest life cycle segments among

boat owners. Almost one in every three registered boat owners is an

empty nester. Demographic trends promise a strong boating market in

the 1980's and 1990's with increasing numbers of young families in the

1980's and more older families and empty nesters in the 1990's.

Although southeastern Michigan generates about half of all Great

Lakes boat days and almost 40 percent of all boating, the largest in-

creases in boating activity are occurring in northern Michigan. Second

home developments, retirement, and northern migration are all contri-

buting to increased pressures on boating facilities in northern Mich-

gan. The Saginaw Bay region, while receiving low ratings in the quality

and quantity of boating opportunities, has also witnessed considerable

growth in boating activity over the past decade.

Most boaters boat quite close to home. This includes 40 percent

of the registered craft that are stored at non-waterfront permanent

homes and trailered to access sites and 24 percent that are stored at

waterfront permanent homes. Most of the travel associated with recrea-

tional boating can be attributed to boaters using Great Lakes marinas

or waterfront second homes. Four percent of registered boats are stor-

ed at commercial marinas. These are primarily cabin cruisers and large

sail boats. Ninteen percent of registered boats are stored at inland

lake second homes and four percent at Great Lakes waterfront summer

homes. Northwest, Northeast and Southwest Michigan are the most pop-

ular summer home locations. As the supply of waterfront home sites

becomes scarce, demand should increase for marinas, dry stack storage,

and dockaminiums.

FURTHER ANALYSIS AND SUBSEQUENT REPORTS

A number of further analyses and reports, based upon the 1980

boater survey, are planned for 1982. The marketing orientation of the

survey makes it useful to government agencies and boating industries,

both of whom must respond to an increasingly diverse and dynamic boat-

ing market. A marketing report is being developed to further explore

boater market segmentations and to develop marketing recommendations.

In addition, we will be testing some general forecasting and demand

estimation models that can be applied to readily available data in

order to predict future demand within designated market segments. Fi-

nally, we plan to develop estimates of the economic activity associat-

ed with boating for specific regions and market segments.

The marketing report will evaluate a number of distinct boater

market segments. Some segments that can be identified in the 1980

survey data include: (1) the marina boater, (2) public access site

users, (3) Great Lakes boaters, (4) inland lake boaters, (5) sail

boaters, (6) boaters with second homes, (7) fishermen, and (8) older

boaters. By identifying the size, attributes, needs, and problems of

each of these segments, both government and industry can better serve

and respond to the market. Since these segments are quite different

and growing at different rates, forecasts of boating demand and re-

lated economic activity can be improved if estimates are developed

within individual segments.

The 1980 survey data also provides an empirical base for test-

ing general boating demand estimation and forecasting models. We

will evaluate alternative planning models and make recommendations

for statewide planning, to include recommendations on the design and

role of statewide boater surveys. This research will evaluate trade-

offs in costs and accuracy associated with different sample sizes and

sampling designs. We believe that sufficiently accurate boating sta-

tistics for statewide and regional planning can be estimated with less

frequent and less expensive surveys if models incorporating available

boat registration and demographic data are employed. The 1980 and

previous boater surveys provide a good data base to test such models.

Based upon what data is available we estimate total direct expen-

ditures associated with recreational boating in Michigan to be about

$500 million annually. Including indirect effects, boating's contri-

bution to Michigan's economy is over one billion dollars. By combining

the 1980 survey data with a 1981 boater expenditure survey we will de-

velop improved estimates of the economic impact of boating on state,

regional, and local economies. Economic activity associated with boat-

ing will be incorporated into long range forecasting models and will

be estimated for designated boater market segments. These results will

be useful in selecting target markets and making decisions on statewide

and regional planning and development in regard to marinas, access

sites, boating facilities, and tourism in general.

REFERENCES

Chubb, Michael. 1971. 1968 Michigan Recreational Boating Study. De-
partment of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University.

Kotler, Philip. 1976. Marketing Management. Prentice Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey.

Lazer, William. 1977. "The 1980's and Beyond, A Perspective."
Michigan State University Business To_pi_cs 25(2): 21-36.

Recreation Resource Consultants. 1975. 1974 Michigan Recreational
Boating Study. Report No. 4. East Lansing, Michigan.

Waterways Division. 1979. 1977 Michigan 'Recreational Boating Study.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources. Lansing, Michigan.

Stynes, Daniel J. and Donald F. Holecek. 1981. Michigan Great Lakes
Recreational Boating: A Synthesis of Current Information. Department
of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University.

APPENDIX A

THE 1980 SURVEY INSTRUMENT

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES EAST LANSING N1 ICHIGAN 48824

NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

INITIAL COVER LETTER

Dear Boat Owner:

The Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State University
is conducting a study to measure and forecast boating activity in Michigan.
You have been selected at random from Michigan's registered boaters to repre-
sent Michigan boaters. We request your cooperation in completing the enclosed
questionnaire and returning it to us in the convenient stamped return envelope.

Completing the survey will take about five minutes of your time. The information
that you provide will be important in planning future boating facilities and
programs to better serve the needs of Michigan boaters. This study is funded
by the Michigan Sea Grant program. Results will be provided in summary form to
both public and private suppliers of boating facilities, products and services.
Your response to the questionnaire is important as you will represent the views
of thousands of other boaters. Even if you did not boat in 1980 or no longer
own a boat, please return your completed questionnaire.

Your participation-in this survey is voluntary. Be assured that the information
that you provide will not in any way be associated with your name. The University
has strict policies on guaranteeing the confidentiality of your responses. Al-
though it is important to us to receive as many completed questionnaires as possi-
ble, simply skip any questions that you do not wish to answer. If you do not wish
to participate in the study, please indicate this on the questionnaire and return
it to us. We will then delete your name from any reminders or follow-up mailings.

Thank you very much for your cooperation. With your help, we hope that our study
will contribute to better serving Michigan boaters.

Sincerely,

Daniel J. Stynes
Assistant Professor and Project Leader

A_1

1980 MICHIGAN RECREATIONAL BOATING SURVEY

Please answer for the boat identified by the registration number shown on the address label of your envelope. If this boat was NOT used
for recreational purposes in 1980 please check the box at the right and proceed directly to the final question (question # 28).

Boat not used in 1980
(go to question 28)

DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATON ABOUT YOUR BOAT (Answer for the boat with registration number shown on your address label)

1. Type of boat (check one) 2. Propulsion (check one) 3. Horsepower
0 1. Open 0 1. Inboard
0 2. Cabin 0 2. Outboard
13 3. Sail 0 3. Sail
[1 4. Row [1 4. Sail with power 4. Length of boat (ft)
0 5. Canoe 0 5. Other non-powered
0 6. Pontoon 0 6. Other powered
D 7. Other

5. How many years have you owned this boat?

6. Where did you usually keep this boat during the 1980 boating season? (check one answer)
� At permanent residence
� At summer cottage or second home
� At commercial marina
13 At yacht club or boat club
� At public marina
� Other location (please specify)

Was this location tcheck one)

13 A waterfront site with access to the Great Lakes
0 An inland lake or stream waterfront site
0 A non-waterf ront site

7. Did you own another boat prior to acquiring your present boat?
0 No 0 Yes

If yes, please indicate the type, length, and horsepower of your previous boat.

Type (see question 1 above)
Length (in feet)
'Mir Horsepower

8. How many years have you been a boat owner? years

GREAT LAKES BOATING USE

9. WAS THIS BOAT USED ON ANY OF THE MICHIGAN SECTIONS OF THE GREAT LAKES, OR, CON-
NECTING WATERS*, DURING THE.1980 BOATING SEASON?
T'Great Lakes" means Lakes Huron, Superior, Erie, Michigan, and St. Clair; "Connecting Waters" means the
St. Mary's River, the St. Clair River, and the Detroit River)

[I NO If "no," pleise proceed to Question 12.
0 YES If "yes," please proceed with the next question.

10. IN THE TABLE BELOW, NAME THE MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES OR CONNECTING WATERS COUN-
TIES WHERE THIS BOAT WAS USED DURING THE 1980 BOATING SEASON.
Estimate the number of days that the boat was actually in the water under power or sail in each of these counties.

Number of days* this boat was used on
Name of County Michigan Great Lakes or Connecting Waters
(Write in)
County 1

County 2

County 3

*Note: Count each day spent boating as a full day. If you boated in more than 3 counties, please list the 3 coun-
ties you used most often.

11. Please estimate the percent of your GREAT LAKES boating use that involved each of the following boating
activities. (Percents should add to 100%)

Pleasure boating %
Grwt Fishing from boat %
Lakw Waterskiing - %
808ting Other activities
Total Great Lakes Boating Use 100%

INLAND LAKE BOATING USE

12. WAS THIS BOAT USED ON ANY INLAND LAKES, RIVERS, OR STREAMS IN MICHIGAN DURING THE
1980 BOATING SEASON?
� NO If "no," please proceed with question 15.
� YES If "yes," please proceed with the next question.

13. IN THE TABLE BELOW, NAME THE MICHIGAN COUNTIES WHERE THIS BOAT WAS USED ON
INLAND LAKES AND STREAMS DURING THE 1980 BOATING SEASON. Estimate the number of days that
this boat was actually in the water under power or sail in each of these counties.

Name of County Number of days* this boat was used on
(Write in) Michigan Inland Waters

County 1

County 2

County 3

*Note: Count each part day spent boating as a full day. if you boated in more than 3 counties, please list the 3
counties you used most often.

14. Please estimate the proportion of your INLAND boating use that involved each of the following boating activities.
(Percents should add to 100%)

Pleasure boating %
Inland Fishing from boat %
Boating Waterskiing %
Other activities %
Total Inland Boating Use 100%

15. Was this boat transported from your home or other location to one or more launching sites during the 1980 boating season?
0 No 0 Yes
If yes, please estimate how many times this boat was launched.
a. At a site with access to the Great Lakes
b. At an inland boating site

16. How many different places are you aware of, within an hour's drive of your home (permanent residence), for the types of boating
you enjoy?

How many of these areas did you use for boating in 1980?

17. How would you rate the quality of boating opportunities within an hours drive of your home? tcheck one answer)
0 excellent 0 very good 0 good 0 fair 0 pool- 0 very poor

18. s. Compared with the 1979 boating season, in 1980 did you:
0 Boat more often 0 Boat less often 13 No change in frequency of boating

b. Compared with the 1979 boating season, in 1980 did you:
0 Boat closer to home 11 Boat further from home 0 No change in boating locations

19. Listed below are several reasons why people go boating. Please indicate how important each of these reasons is for you.

very moderately somewhat of little not
Reasons for Boating important Important Important Importance Important
a. to relax 13 0 0 0 0
b. to enjoy nature 0 0 0 0 0
c. to be with friends and family 0 0 13 0 13
d. for competition & challenge 0 0 0 0 0
e. to develop skills 0 0 0 0 0
f. for the excitement 0 0 0 El 0
g. for fishing 0 0 13 0 0

20. WAS THIS BOAT STOPPED, INSPECTED OR CHECKED BY SHERIFF: DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS ON LAND OR IN THE
WATER DURING 1900?

� No If "no," please proceed directly to Question 21.
� Yes If "yes," complete the table below. Show the number of checks or inspections and the number of tickets or warnings
given to operators of this boat during 1980.

Name of County No. of Checks No. of Tickets or Warnings
(Write in)

DESCRIPTIVE INFORMATION ABOUT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY. The following information is requested to permit us to expand
the information about your boating patterns and attitudes to the entire Michigan boating population. Your answers will not in any way be
identified with your name or used for purposes other than to estimate statewide boating activity.

21. Please give the county, state, and zip code of your permanent residence.
County State Zip Code

22. Age of boat owner

23. Education (circle the appropriate number of years of schooling)
High school 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
College 1 2 3 4 5 6 7+

24. Race: 0 White 13 Black 0 Hispanic 0 Other

25. Family income (check the appropriate income category)
0 Lessthan$10,ODO 0 $25,000- 29,999
El $10,000 - 14,999 0 $30,000 -34,999
13 $15,000 - 19,999 0 $35,000 - 39,999
0 $20,000- 24,999 0 $40,000 or more

26. Do you own a second home, condominium or summer cottage in Michigan?
0 No 0 Yes
If yes, in which county is it located?
1; county
27. How many people (including yourself) reside in your household?
How many children under 12 years of age?

28. YOUROPINIONS: Plese use the remaining space to indicate what you feel are important boating needs or problems that providers
of boating facilities and services should address. We will communicate your opinions to the appropriate individuals.

Thank you very much for your assistance. Please return your questionnaire In the convenient stamped, self-adtimsed
envelop& If you should misplace this envelope, return the questionnaire to: Department of Park and Recreation Resources,
131 Natural Resources Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 48M.

MSU is an Affimwt" ActionlEqual Opportunity Institution N 0- 08270 Michigan State un"rety FWntlng

POSTCARD REMINDER

Department of Park and Recreation Resources
Michigan State University
December 8, 1980

Dear Registered Boat Owner:
About ten days ago you should have received a copy of
the 1980 Michigan Recreational Boating Survey. Perhaps
you have already completed and returned it. If not, would
you please take a few minutes today to fill it out and
mail it back. Your response is important even if you did
not boat in 1980.

Thank you very much for your help in this study.

Daniel J. Stynes
Project Coordinator

A-6

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION RESOURCES EAST LAMING MICHIGAN 48824

NATURAL RESOURCES BUILDING

COVER LETTER FOR SECOND COMPLETE MAILING

December 24, 1980

Dear Boat Owner:

May we extend Holiday greetings to you and your family.

The Department of Park and Recreation Resources at Michigan State University
is conducting a study to measure and forecast boating activity in Michigan.
You should have received a questionnaire from us in early December. Our
records indicate that we have not yet received your completed questionnaire.
in case you did not receive our original mailing or have misplaced the question-
naire, we are enclosing another questionnaire and return envelope. If you have
already sent in your questionnaire, please disregard this letter.

Once again, we should stress that your participation in this study is strictly
voluntary. This will be the final mailing that you will receive from us.
Most of the boaters we have contacted have returned their questionnaires. In
order to provide results that accurately reflect Michigan boaters' concerns
and boating patterns, it is important that we obtain your views as well. Won't
you please take five minutes to complete the questionnaire and drop it in the
mail. Results of the study will be transmitted in summary form to both public
and private providers of boating facilities and services. We believe that this
study will contribute to better serving your future boating needs. TUe there-
fore encourage you to participate in this survey.

Thank you very much for your cooperation. We wish you pleasant boating in
the New Year.

Department of Park and Recreation Resources
Michigan State University

A-7

I
I

APPENDIX B

MICHIGAN GREAT LAKES BOATING REGIONS

An examination of regionalizations presently in use within Michigan

resulted in a decision to develop regions specifically tailored to Great Lakes

boating rather than to employ existing multiple use regionalizations. Three

criteria were used to develop the Great Lakes boating regions:

1. The regions should reflect Great Lakes boating market areas.

2. Regions should be assembled as collections of counties and should
be geographically connected.

3. Regions should to some extent reflect recognized sub-areas of the
Great Lakes shoreline in Michigan.

Data from the 1977 Recreational Boating survey were analyzed in order to develop

market-oriented Great Lakes boating regions. The regionalization employed in the

1977 Boater survey is depicted in Figure B-1. Table B-1 breaks down the GL boat

days generated by origin and destination region. Notice that inland regions

are not associated with their coastal markets in this regionalization. Even

regions with coastal counties send as much as 68% of their GL boat days out

of the region.

In developing a market-oriented regionalization we utilized county to

county origin-destination data from the 1977 survey to group counties into

regions. The regionalization was begun by examining the origin-destination

patterns of Great Lakes coastal counties. Adjacent counties were examined

for flow interactions. Counties with large intercounty flows were grouped.

Counties adjacent to these groups were then examined for participation

interactions with the preliminary groups. Those with strong flows to or

from the groups were included in the group. This process was iterated until

nine regions became distinct. It was felt that further aggregation would

B-1

B-2

obscure regional differences, and these arouDs were finalized. A tenth

region, representing out-of-state participations, was also added to the

reaionalization. Once coastal regions had been established, inland count4 es
0
were assigned to regions. Each inland county was assigned to the contiguous 7

region that received the majority of GL boat-days of participation generated

within the county. This assignment process was designed to identify flows

of participation from inland counties to the coastal region of greatest

participation, allowing for interregional flow comparisons.

Table B-1 summarizes 1977 boating activity in Michigan for the Great Lakes

boating regions. An average of 82% of all GL boat days generated in Michigan

remains within the region of origin. More importantly, over 60% of the

market area of each Great Lakes -destination region is included within the region,

with most regions containing more than 75% of their market. This is a

significant improvement over the present DNR regionalization.

Table B-3 illustrates the performance of the regionalization on coastal

and inland portions of each region. A quite consistent 90% of boat days

generated within coastal portions of the region remain within the region.

An average of 59% of boat days from inland portions of the regions remain in

region of origin. The Michigan Great Lakes boating regions graphically

illustrate the east-west split in the lower peninsula and depict a northward

and westward consumer orientation for Great Lakes boating in '211ichigan (Figure B-2).

B-3

4C;- @_

113'.
112

Damn 04WAM!
.Region Boundary I
.... Sub-Region Boundary 1_
W. j
9

1. Detroit
110
a. Wayne Co. "i
b. Oakland/Macomb Cos. i
c. Outer counties i7c
2. Jackson
3. Kalamazoo-Battle Creek APM
rL
4. Benton Harbor-St. Joseph 8b
5. Flint rc
6. Lansing .'L7a
7. Saginaw-Bay City Ww.r-@@ 7b
SIP"-
a. Centtai _.L_
I I 'AMP
b. Thumb 1.4 ST CLA.
c. North
8. Grand Rapids 8
a
a. South 1 -6-
b. North lb I
9. Alpena
10. Traverse Bay
11. Sault Ste. Marie Ila
2 11
12. Escanaba-Marquette-4ron Mtn. 4 3 1 1C
I
13. Houghton-Ironwood
14. Muskegon
30

ounda
;n BoundaryV

FIGURE B-1. MICHIGAN PLANNING REGIONS

B-4

Table B-1. Great Lakes boat-days generated by
'-MNR regions

Boat-Days
Boat-Days Remaining Percent
Generated In Region Remaining
Region (1000's) (1000's) In Region
1 2190 1881 85.89
2 21 0 0.0
3 73 0 0.0
4 151 128 84.77
5 108 0 0.0
6 71 0 0.0
7A 225 105 46.67
7B 79 71 89.87
7C 48 39 32.88
8A 156 36 53.21
8B 28 14 50.00
9 103 72 69.90
10 186 179 96.24
11 146 139 95.21
12 103 94 91.26
13 75 72 96.00
14 285 242 84.91
Out-of-State 145 0 0.0

Totals 4193 3072 73.26

Source: Analysis of 1977 Michigan Recreational Boating Study,
Raw Data I-apes

B-5

Table B-2. Great Lakes Boat-days generated by
Great Lakes Boatin@;-

Boat-Days
Boat-Days Remaining Percent
Generated In Region Remaining
Region (1000's) (1000's) In Region

1 2198 1883 85.67
2 343 211 61.52
3 413 326 78.45
4 429 295 68.76
5 85 67 78.82
6 189 180 95.24
7 210 196 93.33
8 134 122 91.04
9 48 43 89.58
Out-of-State 145 0 0.0

Totals 4194 3323 79.23

SOURCE: Analysis of 1977 Michigan Recreational Boating
Survey, Raw Data Tapes

Table B-3. Great Lakes Boat-days generated witlAn coastal and inland portions of Great Lakes Boating Regions

Coastal Portion of Region Inland Portion of Region
Participation Percent Remaining Participation Percent Remaining
Generated of In Region Percent Generated of In Region Percent
Region (1000,S) Total (1000,S) Remaining (1000,S) Total (1000,S) Remaining

1. 1837 43.8 1642 89 361 8.6 241 67

2 179 4.3 159 89 164 3.9 51 31

3 285 6.8 242 85 127 3.0 84 66

4 182 4.4 159 88 247 5.9 136 55

5 75 1.8 65 86 10 .3 3 26

6 178 4.2 173 97 11 .3 7 60

7 208 4.9 194 93 2 .1 2 81

3 89
8 131 3.1 119 91 3 .1

9 48 1.1 43 89 No Inland Counties

10 No Great Lakes Counties 145 3.5 Unknown

Totals 3123 74.4 2796 1070 25.2 52-7

Mean 90. 59

3 66-68-1-410-1 5257