HomeMy WebLinkAboutParticipant Data Development 1967
.
BRUCE T. WILKINS
PARTI CIPJlNT DATA IIVELffi''ENT.
TOO (f SOUTHOLD
VepaMmellt 06 COn6€//.va.U.an
Nw YOIlR sta,te CoUege 06 AgJt.i.cuUwte
A Statutolly CoUege 06 the
S.ta:te Un-i.v eJL6U:y , a:t COllneU
Un-i.veJL6U:y, IthlLC.ll, New YOIlR
JIJ-lE 1967
.
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
METHODOLOGY
1
Development of Participant Days - - - - -
Discussion of Techniques Used --
Discussion of Participant Interviewing -
1
7
12
LITERATURE CITED - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15
APPENDIX
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 16
.
i
.
.
METHODOLOGY
Primary concerns in a study reported elsewhere (Wilkins, 1967)
were the determination of problems arising in estimating total
participant days in various outdoor recreation activities, and the
determination of problems arising in developing data on socio-economic
and attitudinal attributes of participants in those activities.
Details of the development of the data presented in that study
(Wilkins, ibid.), discussion of problems recognized, and suggestions on
possible improvements in techniques are included in this portion of the
appendices.
Development ~ Participant ~
Instantaneous counts from land of persons or of conveyances engaged
in specified activities were made from 34 observation points. Binoculars
and mechanical counteres were used to assist in these counts. The obser-
vation points were apportioned into three segments (A, B, and C, Figure 1),
each requiring approximately two hours to drive. From observation points
55, 70 and 40 percent of the shoreline of areas A, B, and C respectively
were visible.
Selection of dates to cover a segment were stratified with one
stratum for weekdays and another for weekend days and holidays collectively
(henceforth referred to as "weekend days"). In 1964 observations were
originally scheduled on all days worked. Whether observations were to
occur on a particular day was determined by a coin toss in 1965.
The time of observation of segments was initially based upon a pre-
determined schedule providing coverage of all segments between 6 a.m. and
9 p.m. on both weekdays and weekend days during the "summer." "Summer"
is interpreted here as June 27 - September 7, 1964 and June 26 - September
6, 1965. Extreme dates in both years were chosen as inclusive of all
summer periods in which schools (local and in nearby metropolitan areas)
were on vacation.
.
To obtain a measure of participant days using instantaneous counts,
the portion of the total number of participants which an instantaneous
count represents, must be determined. To determine this proportion
observation points at three public beaches were manned from 8 a.m. _
8 p.m. for a total of six days inclusive of weekdays, weekend days,
fair and inclement weather. The total number of participants in all
activities considered, the total number of boats observed, and instan-
taneous counts of these persons or boats (at 15-minute intervals) were
recorded on these days.
1
Long liliaI'd Sound
A
Pe con Ie Bay
Figure 1. Town of Southold study area.
.
'"
Gardlnerll Bay
o
2
4
Scale in miles
-3-
Running of segments prior to 1 p.m. or after 5 p.m. resulted in
observing only minor fractions of the total number of daily participants
and this fraction varied widely. The ratio of counts made from 2 to 4 p.m.
to counts at other times also varied widely. S\!~LlIDerS observed on fair
days between 11 a.m. and 1 p.m. averaged 39 percent of the swi~ers
observed on that segment from 2 to 4 p.m. on the same day. This varied
148 percent, however, ranging from 23 percent of the 2 to 4 p.m. total
observed in the earlier time neriod in one instance, to 57 percent in
another. W~ekend days seemeC"to provide a higher pro?ortion of the 2 to
4 p.m. counts (on the average) in the ea..,..,Ucr time pej,i.ads, but weekend
days provi,led both of the ext:.: U1'es noted c:::.ove. Two i:tstanc"s of inclement
weather provided much "'.d.er c',itferences between early "'ld lat.er counts--
the 11 a.m. to 1 p.m. counts representing less than 10 percent of the 2 to
4 p.m. count in both cases.
Observations run between 1 and 3 p.m. yield~d an averace of 55 percent
of the maximum nULlber of swimmers observable at any instantaneous count.
Proportions of participants in other activities showed similar discrepancies
between counts at early and later time per;.ods. The rather low perc',!nt
of the maxiwum represented, together with what I consider adequate counts
between 2 to 5 p.m., resulted in the 1 to 3 p.m. counts also being discarded.
Only obser-lations run between 2 and 5 p.m. are used in this study to
estimate the num-::>or of participants. Observations f'rom 2 to 5 p.m. included
the largest propcrtion of participants in most activities. The proportion
of' total d~ily use this represented varied less than observations at other
time periods.
Observations on inclement weather days in 1964 and 1965 indicated
major differences in participation rates for certain activities, in
comparison to "good" weather days. In 1965 random selection with non-
replacement was used to select segments for observation on "inclement
weather days" durL1g each calendar period. This latter schedule was
used if on a day scheduled for ohservation: rain occurred; maximum
temperature did not reach 70 degrees Fahrenheit; winds exceeded 19 mph,
or if the weather was "windy," and the temperature maximum fell between
69 and 75 degrees Fahrenheit. Participation on fair and inclement weather
days for both weekdays and weekend days were computed as noted in Chapter II.
Inability to observe participants from observation points was another
potential source of error and could result in erroneously low estimates
of participation. Observation on five aerial flights indicate that the
only mainland participants substantially unobservable by land observations
as used in this study were swimmers at some private beaches.
The starting point for observing a segment on a given observation
day was chosen haphazardly. At each point, participants in activities
under study and m""ber of' conveyances (cars without occupants and boats
with occupants) were recorded.
-4-
Combining the summers of ""964 and 1965, segments A, B, and C were
observed between 2 and 5 p.m. 18, 13, and 14 times respectively. Data
presented combines the data for both 1964 and 1965.
.
Swimmers. Figure 2 (based on data from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. observations
described above) indicates the proportion swimmers recorded at 15-minute
intervals were of the maximum number of swimmers observed at anyone of
those interval counts. The percentages were computed using an aggregate
percent method whereby the proportion present at each 15-minute interval
for each of the days on which continuous coverage was maintained, were
averaged to give the percent figures shown. Maximum and minimum percentage
recorded on any day are also shown in Figure 9.
Maximum numbers of swimmers were on beaches between 2:30 and 4:15 p.m.
In five of the six cases a maximum number was recorded between 3:15 and
3:45 p.m. In one instance the same (maximum) number of persons was present
at 3:15 and again at 4:15 p.m.
At the point in time when (on the average) a maximum number of swimmers
were on the beaches (3:45 in Figure 9) 42 percent (extremes of 33 percent
and 53 percent) of the total number of swimmers using the beach that day
were present.
The percent of the maximum instantaneous count that would be
observed between 2 and 4 p.m. was determined as 77 percent (average of
percentages within this period). The maximum instantaneous count
represented 42 percent of all persons swimming at the beach that day.
Therefore, numbers of swimmers observed on segments between 2 and 4 p.m.
were increased by a factor of 3.1* to approximate total usage. The
averages of the percent of the maximum instantaneous count observed between
3 and 5 p.m. represented 74 percent of the maximum count and the 3 to 5 p.m.
counts were therefore increased by a factor of 3.2.
Averaging five aerial flights, swimmers on private beaches of segments
A, B, and C were indicated to be underrepresented by 50, 53, and 53 percent
respectively. The number of private beach swimmer participants (otherwise
determined as described above) were increased accordingly.
Boaters. Estimating the number of boat trips (to compute boater days)
posed a unique problem. On two days when boat numbers were recorded from
8 a.m. to 8 p.m. peak numbers were noted at 3:30 and 3:45 p.m. (equaled
at 12:00 noon on the latter date). A third day gave a mode at 12:15 p.m.,
while on a fourth day of recording boats a sailboat race yielded peak
numbers at 8:30 a.m. An average of 11 percent of all observable boats
would have been observed in any two-hour period between 2 and 5 p.m. on
the four days when day-long counts were recorded. This figure might
then be used as a factor for all boat observations.
.
*
3.1 =
1
.77 x .42
.
100,
Percent
of
Maximum
.
5
-~~'''''''''M.... ..~.
..-. " ...
...-. ..
..._,. . --.
.':-.",. .. ',"
.-.','_.',-. .",' .......
._-,., "..
..- .......
...'".. ""'"..
...... ..-....
"....... ..-..
.,-,-, -,.._-.
"... . ...-.....
...-.. .-.....
...-.. , ....-..
.._,., . ..._,...
....-. . .....-.
... ............ ...........:,.-..........
.... .. ".
. ,..--. -,......
..'.-.....'. ," ","-".-.",'
. ...._,. ....-...
. "-". ........
. .-.... --...
>):):..~/<~? .:: ':<<'::'::-::::".
90
Maximum
80
....-......
......._-,.
.---,....-.
j
....... .
...... .
.... ,.
.... ".
70
60
.'.-..
. .....
. .....
.. .....
. ......
.. .....
.. .......
.. "".
.. ....".
. .....
.-. "'.",
.. .._,..
". .....
"' .......
... .....
.. .......
... ..7....
". ,",. .
.... ... ...
". ..-. ".
.. ... ...
... .. ....
.... .. ...
.,. ... -,.
.,... ..- ,...
.........~...............
.,,-.- ...
"...,. ,..
....... ..
...... '''.
....... ...
""... ....
- ...... ....
""... ...
.....-..-.. ......
..... '"
..... .....
'''.. "".
...... .....
.~.....
.... ......
..... ......
..... ......
.... .......
.._" .......
.... .......
.." .......
.... ."....
.... .......
.... "'''".
..... ........
". .......
)..............
"" .. .....
... '''.....
..... ........
..... ..."..
~_...................
........ ........
'''''''''. .......
.......... "."
"....... .....
.......... .".
......... '"
.......... ...
'''''"... ".
................. .......
. ...... ..
""'.... ..
.......... ...
......... ".
."...... ...
.......... ".
....."... ..
.......... ...
........ ...
.."...... ...
.......... ...
......... ...
.......... ...
.......... ...
.......... ...
........... ...
.......... ...
.......... ..
.......... ...
.......... ".
........... ...
.......... ...
.......... ..
lfA.............
...........
''''''.....
. ...........
.. ".......
. ...........
.- "'''''....
.. ""......
." ...........
... ...........
... ""-""'"
.... ''''''''".
... "......."
.............................
.. . ... ....
'''''''''....
.....'....,...-..
..-.-...,...-,..
..,-......._,....
.,-...,....,.....
..,.,-...,......
....-...,......,.
..."....."..
.....,......,...
....._,..,.,-...
..........,.....
J............
.............
..........". ".
.........".. "..
........"... ....
......"....- .....
............. '''.
.........".. '"..
............ .....
............. "".
............. .....
. ....,.,........ .......
... ....... .....
...........................
. ............ "'....
. .."....". ........
.. ........... ........
.. .....".... ........
... .......... '''.....
.. ...... .........
I>..>>
...... ...............".
...... .................
...... ...,........ ,"'"
..-........ .....................-:-:_......
..... .................
:::::::::. .:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..,
}}' .::>;:::::>;:::::)~::::::::::
. ................
::::::..,:::::::::::::::::::<::::::::::::::::
n...:.......,...:......................
.....1,
11 AM 12 M
50
:-:.:.....,... '.".::'.:':':"
..."... ,,''''''''''
....... .............
...... ............
....." ...,,-..---.
.'.,....,. ......,.....
...... ............
......... ............
........ ............
........ ...........
........ .,,--,,_....
........ ...........
......... ............
........ ............
......... ..........
......." ..---,---_.
......... ..........
..-...... ........
...."". .
......... ........
.......... ........
......... ...""
.......... .....
....... ...
.......... ....
......... ..
......".. .
.:-.
.......... ......
.......-_.. ........
........... ........
........... ...."
.......... ........
..."".... ...
........... .......
........... .......
......"... ".....
........... .......
...... ......
........... ......
........... ......
.......".. ..."
............ ......
,---..---- .....
............ .....
........... ......
..."..-..- ..--..
............ ......
... .........."
............ .....
............ ....
........... .....
............ ....
............ ....
............ ....
........... ....
....- ----.- .
............ ....
............ ....
............ .."
............ ...
....----.. -,
........... ....
........... ...
............ ...
............ ...
..._---..... ...
............. ...
............ ...
............ ...
............ ...
~...............
............ ...
.................... ..
..... .........
............ ..
............. -,
............ ..
............ ..
............. .
............ ..
............ .
............. ..
............. .
".......... .
............. .
............. .
.............
............. .
......".....
.............
............
.........-...
..............
.............
..............
.............
.....-.......
..............
..,...........
.-...........
...........
40
;~
....-:.:e
30
Minimum
20
I
" .
,
10
Mean
5 PM
,
-6PM
o
1 PM
2 PM
3 PM
4 PM
Hour
Figure 2. Proportion of the maximum number of swimmers observed, by IS-minute intervals
(6 observations, Town of Southold, 1964 and 1965).
-6-
.
This would be satisfactory provided all boats were stationary, i.~.,
would have been observable from only one point. Of all participants and
conveyances recorded, boats violated this premise most severely. Most
boats recorded were moving, thus though duplicate counts of a given
craft during one observational route count was avoided, expansion from
a day's continuous count data would yield much higher estimates of boating
trips than actually occurred for a far greater area was "considered" by
counting at a ste.tionary point. This is an unknown area but potentially
is as great as tha.t covered by a boat in a twelve-hour period of travel.
In addition, boats leaving and then returning would be observed as two
crafts. For these reasons a factor of only 5 was applied to all boat
observational counts. This may still be excessive.
To derive boater participant days, the resulting boat trip figures
were increased by 3.56 (average number of persons per boat as revealed
by personal interviews).
Boats using town waters and all other participants are underrepresented
by the proportion using town areas from Plum Island eastward. In the
case of' boats this is substantial in number, although few, if' any, of
those not noted would have importance to the remainder of' the town,
probably largely coming f'rom the north shore of' Long Island Sound or the
vicinity of' Montauk.
Shore fishermen. Data on daily periodicity of shore fishermen partici-
pation was less uni:form than :for swimmers. On three days when any :fishing
occurred at continuous observation sites peak :fishernan numbers occurred
at 11:15 a.m. (and 11:30) in one case, 3:15 p.m. in another, and 7:30 p.m.
in the third. The maximum percentage o:f shore :fishermen observable at any
instantaneous count between 2:00 and 5:00 p.m. on those three days were
20, 44 and 0 percent respectively -- an average of' 21 percent. The average
proportion of' shore :fishermen observed in any two-hour period between
2:00 and 5:00 p.m. was 20 percent. Numbers o:f shore :fishermen observed
were increased by a :factor of 5 to yield daily participant :figures.
Picnickers. Lacking more detailed estimates, all picnicker numbers
and park users were increased by a factor o:f 4.
Clammers. The timing of stages of the tide seemed to have marked
in:fluence on numbers of clammers, there:fore observed clammer numbers were
doubled.
Hunters. Dates of observation of hunters included the first three
days o:f the--upland game season on Long Island in 1965 (November 1 - 3).
The goose and "sea duck" season was also open during this period. In
1964 observations were run November 26, 27, 28 and December 27,29, and 30.
On Long Island small game and "sea duck" seasons were open during these
periods but the general waterfowl season was open only during the December
observations.
-7-
.
Duck hunter activity (in boats or on exposed points) typically
could be noted by driving roads or from observation points, for normally
a car was visible nearby. Upland game hunters were less noticeable and
often walked to hunting areas. Cars located in areas known or believed
to be used by hunters were recorded. Combining all segments, an average
of five cars loere noted on weekend days, and an average of 11 cars noted
the first three days (weekdays) of the upland game season. Data from
other portions of this study indicate an average of two hunters per car.
Thus 10 and 22 hunter days respectively are indicated. Personal interviews
indicated 29 percent of the hunters did not use a car to get a hunting
site. Expansion by thIs fac';or leads to a dai17 average of 13 and 29
hunters for these two periods. In addition, certainly some hunters in
cars would be unobserved, perhaps an equal number to that noted above.
This leads to an expansion to 26 and 58 hunters for weekend days in the
season and the opening three days respectively.
Similar calculations for weekdays but not at the small game season
opening reveal an average of only 16 hunters afield on an average day.
A 6l-day season with 19 weekend (and holiday) days, 3 "season opening"
and 39 regular weekdays would yield 2 ,584 hunter days. Assuming that
instantaneous counts account for only half of the hunters afield, approxi~
mately 2,500 (2,584) hunter days would occur in the town. Hunting seasons
on various minor species are open in this town from September 25 to January
31. A minimum of 500 more man-days are doubtless spent hunting during
those periods, giving a total of hunter days in excess of 3,000.
Discussion of Techniques ~
Figures on participation used in this study are based upon direct
enumeration plus expansion by appropriate factors. Under conditions existing
I believe these can yield satisfactory estimates of m~3t activities studied
in this town. The accuracy of such estimates needs to be, could have been,
improved had observations been more adequately stratified and sampled by
various weather patterns and if additional "peak hour" observations had
been possible. The error possible when expanding counts by factors as
great as five is apparent.
The need for sampling inclement and "good" weather separately seems
apparent when one concludes that a rainy, windy day will entice fewer
outdoor recreation participants than a sunny, calm day. This factor was
not considered in any of the studies of recreation participation reviewed
by this author. Presumably the historic tendency for recreational
research to build upon studies of fishermen, hunters, and campers is
partly responsible for this glaring omission. These activities are
probably among the least affected by a particular day's weather. Fishermen
numbers in this study were less depressed on inclement weather days than
participant numbers in other activities.
.
-8-
For activities in which those not members of the labor force
(students, housewives, and other on extended vacations) form a large
portion of the participants, weather probably causes as great a variance
in the extent of participation as weekend days vis-a-vis weekdays.
In determining total participant days it is evident that some
activities (fishing from rental rowboats, charter boats, and open boats)
typically occupy persons for extensive portions of the day. For these
activities, instantaneol1s counts at approjJriate time periods do provide
a valid measure of vi2"<;ua11y ,,11 partic:i.j::mts. For activities typically
involving only a few h.,'..,rs of the day (dl othl':' activities studied in
this project), determi.;:"tion~:J' all partidpan\:J ::-e'l'.::,"'es determining
proportions of total participants active at varied time periods. For
those activities having rather predictable distribution of participation
over time (either unifol':n peG.ks or steady levels) the total participants
can be determineJ if the proportion represented at given time periods is
known. This appears to be the case with swimmers in this study. IVhen
participation fluctue.-:"'8 widely through the dace with no predictable
pattern, total partici.pation in an activity i& More d.i.fficu1t to deter-
mine. Shore fishermen and boaters appeared to repre3ent this pattern
in the present study.
Recording boats moving into or out of observable areas would probably
yield a better estimate of total boater trips than the instantaneous
counts used in this study. This could be accoPlYJlishc1 over a broad area
through use of time 1cpse cameras. One such c,ccera U;m.-ardin and Ashe,
1965) was used on a single day at a beach. Se'" to tnice one picture every
15 minutes, the resultant pictures can include a rath"r large area
(Figures 3 and 4). Set to record at shorter time intervals this device
could replace an observer at many sites. In the on. attempt at its use
by the author the camera housing was so large as to~e noticeable. It
was apparent that swimmers avoided locating within its lateral range of
coverage. I feel this device in a minie~urized, well concealed form
has great potential for deriving information on participation in many
activities, for a limited area.
Participation in recreational activity has been estimated by
expansion from car counts (James, 1966). In three activities considered
in this study, 30 percent or more of the participants did not use cars
to arrive at a site. Estimation of participants by expansion from car
counts would have been subject to substantial errors in these activities,
if uncorrected. In other activities, participant cars made up a minor
percentage pf the total number of cars present. Equally useless estimates
would have reSUlted.
State Park use was the only activity in which over 90 percent of the
participants arrived by car, and the cars of these participants comprised
virtually all of the cars at the site. The superintendent of the park
(Tabor, personal conversation) reported that errors and operational
problems had resulted in discontinuing the use of pneumatic car counters
in that park. For these reasons, uncorrected car counts do not appear
9
Figures 3 and 4. Examples of photographs taken with time-lapse camera
on a public beach, Town of Southold.
~lO-
usefUl as measures of participants in most of the activities studied,
under the conditions existing in this town.
.
Aerial observation consisted of flights along the shoreline areas
at an elevation of 500 feet in a fixed-wing aircraft. Minimum air speeds
were maintained; all persons on the shoreline or in the water, and all
manned boats were recorded by two observers. Binoculars were used to
scan shoreline areas. Cost of the pilot and plane was $25 per hour. The
entire mainland town's shoreline of 65 miles could be observed in one
hour.
Boats were readily perceived from the plane. Participants on shore
were equally obvious and where sparse, readily recorded. Fishermen in
these areas, too, were quite noticeable. Problems were encountered in
accurately enumerating persons where large numbers of participants
congregated. Use of aerial photographs of high resolution doubtless could
reduce that problem. In addition, persons in the water (swimming or
clamming) were difficult to notice. Although not attempted, aerial
observation would appear unsuited to enumerating hunters under conditions
existing in this town. An additional severe limitation -- inclement
weather -- makes flights difficult or hazardous to undertake.
.
Primary benefits of aerial observation were speed of coverage,
indication of minor areas of use, and boat enumeration. Speed of coverage
would have permitted 20 observations of the entire shoreline area at peak
activity hours on 20 days at a cost of $500. One hundred twenty days would
have been involved in developing the same observations from land. Even
then, activity on many low intensity use areas unobserved from land would
have been unrecorded.
The value of obtaining larger numbers of observations (at reduced
costs) and of stratifying observations by weather can be clarified by
exploring the confidence levels one can put on the participant day
estimates derived in this study. Table 11 gives confidence limits
(.95 level) for the point estimates previously presented. The wide
limits are a function of the wide fluctuation in use on a given type
day, the double stratification used, and the restricted number of
observations utilized.
-11-
Table 1. Confidence limits* of participant day estimates for seven outdoor
recreBticn.activities, avera~e for the summers of 1964-65. Town of Southold
.
Participant Dll3's in Thousands
Participants
Point Estimate
Confidence
Limits
Swimmers at public beaches 304
Swimmers at private beaches 190
Boaters 181
State Park users 29
Shore fishermen 18
Picnickers outside the State Park 13
Clammers 3
t 125
t 102
% 103
:!: 13
% 8
:!: 12
t 3
*
At .95 level.
The wide variation in use on a given type day reflects great variability
in daily use, as influenced to a substantial degree Qy weather within the
"good" and "inclement" weather days. Thus the value of further strati-
fication on the basis of weather is evident. This would lead to another
problem -- a problem reflected in the present study where four type days
were used. The use of these, while permitting greater accuracy, forces
an expansion of the confidence intervals, for there are fewer observations
in any cell.
As a result of experience gained in this study it is suggested that
a general procedure to follow in determining the level of recreation
participation should include the following:
1. Determine from knowledgeable persons the activities of
major prominence in the community and the location of
high intensity use areas
2. Determine, through use of time lapse camera or observation,
the patterns of activity over a 24-hour or dll3'light period
on those areas during several days
3. Establish land or boat observational routes, time lapse
camera stations or aerial observation routes, the method
chosen -- depending on the intensity and predictability
of levels of participation
4. Develop instantaneous counts, using a sampling scheme
stratified on the basis of weather, and by weekday or weekend
day
.
-12-
Discussion of Participant Interviewing
The primary problem encountered in determining socio-economic and
attitudinal attributes of participants was the selection of a representative
or random sample. For very limited areas (one beach, a marina or pier,
one picnic area) this problem would be relatively easily overcome.
Personal interviews stratified by time of day, day of week, and weather
would yield an unbiased estimate.
For participants in one activity in a larger area (a town), serious
complications evolve. Stratification of sampling by time of day, day of
week, and weather, as noted above, must be carried out and, in addition,
stratification by intensity of use should be established. Thus all
beaches receiving a predicted number of swimmer days in a year (for
example, 1 - 999, 1,000 - 2,999, 3,000 - 9,999, and 10,000 or more
swimmer days) should be stratified and sampled independently.
Interviewing of participants in other recreational activities should
be handled in a similar manner. The complexity of this would seem to
require computer techniques for drawing a sample.
Lacking these refinements, the sample drawn in this study more closely
represents a judgment than a random sample. It thus does not permit
meaningful statistical tests of the data derived. If one were to derive
a random sample, statements could be made with statistically significant
associations.
Presuming random samples were obtained, extremely large samples
would have been needed to compute chi-squares within residency groups for
the many categories used. This large size would be needed to make a
chi-square an adequate test, five cases needing to be present in each
cell in order to use that tool (Kish, 1965).
The samples derived are sufficiently large if one collapses
categories. Thus, considering the "X-2" tables, one could speak of
persons of age 40 or less vs. those 41 or over. The sampling level
used in this study (if it were a random sample) does permit rejection
(at .95 level) of a hypothesis that these age groups are equally
represented among residency groups among boaters or among swimmers at
public beaches. A hypothesis of equal representation of those age
categories between boaters and swimmers at public beaches would also be
rejected.
The number of interviews which need to be taken in order for these
statistically significant differences to be stated varied with the
distribution of the responses. Considering the primary town attractant,
for instance, where one item -- Rustic Aura, in the case of State Park
picnickers -- is identified by 65 percent of the sample as of primary
importance; a random sample of 87 persons is needed in order to have a
limit of error of 10 percent (at .95 confidence level). As many as 96
-13-
.
persons would need to respond to attain this same limit and level of
confidence if the responses were equally represented (50-50). If the
proportion in our sample giving a specified answer to our question
increases to 90 percent (such as rental rowboat fishermen -- 92 percent
of whom are visitors --) we need only derive the information (on residence)
from 35 persons to attain the same level and degree of confidence. In
the case of rental rowboat fishermen (with 143 interviews) we can say
(with .95 level of confidence) the actual proportion that are visitors
is 87 _ 97 percent of the total. Note by increasing the sample size we
are able to narrow our confidence interval (to 5 percent in the rental
rowboat fishermen example) (Parten, 1950).
With the information derived in this study, others presumably can
establish more discrete, yet restrictive, categories for analysis. It
should be emphasized that the categories used would vary between activities.
It is my feeling that the data derived are reliable, particularly where
substantial differences are indicated within or between residency groups
in an activity, or between activities.
When a group was encountered in my study only the decision-maker
was to be interviewed. The person chosen was the apparent decision-maker
(!.~., if a family group it would be the father). On occasion some
other individual in the group would attempt to preempt the respondent's
role and this was taken as indicative that she (or he) was actually the
decision-maker (thus a "revealed decision-maker"). This occurred in
fewer than 5 percent of the interviews. Perhaps appropriate techniques
to substitute the "revealed decision-maker" should be used.
This study clearly revealed that participants are generally willing
to respond to an interview. Fewer than 3 percent of participants in any
activity refused to be interviewed. Typically these were individuals
just about to leave a site and "late already." Others willingly partici-
pated in the three to ten minutes the interview required. It was the
interviewer's feeling that ten minutes was near the maximum time most
respondents would have spent answering the questions posed.
Those interviewed were typically in a group, often having nonfamily
members present. It was my feeling that when "outsiders" were present,
responses critical in nature were often softened and at times not stated.
I thus feel the true level of critical replies cannot be ascertained
from the technique used. A possible means of minimizing this error may
be through use of a card containing numbered probable responses. This
approach was used to obtain family income levels and was successfUl in
deriving income approximations from 90 percent of the adult respondents.
It was evident this high level would not have been obtained if a direct
statement of income had been required.
Interviewers were dressed in casual street wear, feeling that this
was appropriate for most activities and that this lent a business-like
atmosphere to interviews on beaches.
-14-
Personal interviews with hunters were considered unsuccessful due
to the low level of participation encountered. Mail questionnaires
(Appendix) may provide a more satisfactory approach to these participants.
Personal interviews were capable of eliciting information on users
of this town's outdoor recreational resources (except for hunters). This
type of interview was superior to household interviews in its ability to
derive information on visitors out for only a day, a substantial number
of the participants in most activities studied. Further, these interviews
lend themselves to deriving comments on a specific area from a large
proportion of users of that site, a difficult task in household interviews.
It is believed information such as that derived by this study can
be confidently used by groups planning for a community's future development.
-15-
LITERATURE CITED
Cowardin, L. M., and J. E. Ashe. 1965. An automatic camera device for
measuring waterfowl use. J. Wildl. Mgmt., 29(3):636-640.
Kish, L. 1965. Survey sampling. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.
643 p.
Parten, F. S.
New York.
1950. Surveys, polls, and samples.
624 p.
Harper and Brothers.
Wilkins, B. T. 1967. Outdoor Recreation and the Commercial Fishery
in the Town of Southold. Dept. of Conservation, Cornell Univ.,
Ithaca, N.Y. 129 p.
.
-17-
Confidental
Confidental
Recreation Impact Study
Conducted by Cornell University
In Cooperation with the Township of Southold
Dear Sir:
This questionnaire is part of a research project intended
to help the town determine the extent, and impact, of hunting
in this community.
The enclosed questionnaire, completed by the driver of your
car, can be a big help in answering this question.
.
Two minutes of your time spent filling out or checking the
appropriate answers, sealing the sheets inside the envelope and
dropping it in a mail box, may help yield more and better hunting
for us all in the future.
Thank you for your help. Be our guest, keep the pencil!
Sincerely yours,
Bruce T. Wilkins
Department of Conservation
Cornell University
BTW : sh
11/65
.
-18-
.
Confidental
Southold Recreation Study
(To be filled out by driver)
1) Did you come here mainly to hunt today?
Yes
No.
Why are you here?
if a "no" answer and return in the envelope.
(Stop here
Thank youl)
2) What were you mainly hunting today (check one)?
.
Pheasants
_Ducks
_Quail
_Squirrel
Rabbits
Other (Please describe)
3) How many of each did your group get?
_Pheasants
_Ducks
_Quail
_Squirrel
Rabbits
Other
4) What time did you begin hunting today?
5) How long did you hunt today? Hours
6) How many shots did your group fire?
7) How many days did you hunt last year?
o
1 - 3
4 - 6
7 - 14
15 or more
.
8) Do you live in the town of Southold all year long?
,
No.
Yes. (If yes go to question 14 on next page).
-19-
9) How many weeks will you or your family spend in the town of
Southold this year?
· less than 1 week
1 - 2 weeks
3 - 10 weeks
11 - 24 weeks
- Over 24 weeks
10) Please check where you spent last night.
Permanent home
Seasonal home
Relative or friend's home
- Motel, hotel, etc.
===== Other (please describe)
11)
About how far is your );ermanent home from this spot?
.
o - 9 miles
10 - 50 miles
51 - 125 miles
===== 126 or more miles
12) To determine this trip's cost, please indicate how much your
group has spent on this trip and that part spent in the town of
Southold.
,
Amount
Part spent in Southold
(all, 1/2, none, etc.)
Meals
Lodging
Shells
other (Please
Describe)
13) How many years have you been coming to the town of Southold?
14) How many years have you hunted in the town of Southold?
These next questions are simply to give us a clearer idea of who hunts in
this town.
.
15) In what year were you born?
.
16) What is your occupation?
17) How many were in your car hunting today?
18) Of those in your car how many are members of your family?
THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP!