Citation
A case study in recreation geography

Material Information

Title:
A case study in recreation geography spatial interaction and camper perception
Creator:
Crowe, Dennis Ray, 1943-
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
xvii, 363 leaves : illustrations ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Beaches ( jstor )
Camping ( jstor )
Cities ( jstor )
Geography ( jstor )
Gulfs ( jstor )
Land use ( jstor )
Outdoor recreation ( jstor )
Recreation ( jstor )
Travel ( jstor )
Tributaries ( jstor )
Camp sites, facilities, etc ( fast )
Recreation areas ( fast )
City of Panama City ( local )
Genre:
Case studies. ( fast )
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )
Case studies ( fast )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (included in "Notes" at end of each chapter).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
Dennis R. Crowe.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact the RDS coordinator (ufdissertations@uflib.ufl.edu) with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
14120172 ( OCLC )
ocm14120172
Classification:
378 FO, 1972, C953c ( ddc )

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:


Full Text


















A CASE STUDY IN RECREATION GEOGRAPHY:

SPATIAL INTERACTION AND CAMPER PERCEPTION














By
DENNIS R. CROWE













A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY










UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1972














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


I wish to express my gratitude to my advisor, Dr. James R. Anderson, and other members of my committee, Dr. Clark I. Cross and Dr. K. R. Swinford, for their guidance, thoughtful criticisms, and patience during the preparation of this dissertation.

Also, I acknowledge the assistance rendered by the

Florida Division of Recreation and Parks and the many helpful campground managers in the Panama City area. I also gratefully acknowledge assistance in curve fitting by Dr. A. E. Brandt of the University of Florida Computing Center.

To my wife and parents I will always be indebted. In addition, I wish to specifically thank my father, Dennis D. Crowe, for his professional services in preparing all of my illustrations.














PREFACE


Through the research on this dissertation the author has been made to realize the wealth of ideas and facts which the extensive and varied body of professional geographic literature holds. Preliminary examination provided the author with a healthy confidence in the uniqueness of his study; however, by the time of this writing, over two years later, the author had a much deepened appreciation for the research efforts and thought given by several generations of diligent scholars. The author recognizes that nearly every small concept in the matrix of this work has been revealed as a restatement or application of a concept or fact illustrated or found in another place and time. Surely there is order and surely geographers are succeeding in developing an effective body of geographic theory.


iii














TABLE OF CONTENTS


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ..........

PREFACE ...........

LIST OF TABLES . . ..... LIST OF FIGURES. . ..... ABSTRACT ... ...........

CHAPTER

I OUTDOOR RECREATION


page

ii

iii ix xi xiv


RESEARCH SETTING. .


Introduction .... ...............

Study Perspectives ............
Purpose and Objectives of Study. Outdoor Recreation Research-Social Setting ........... . ..

Participation Trends . . . . ..
Government Impetus for Research. .
Study Rationale--Planning Needs. .
Spatial Viewpoint of Report. ...

Research in Recreation Geography...

Movements Toward a Central Concept

Past directions . . . . . . ..
Urban focus . . . . . . . . ..
Spatial interaction focus . . .

A Case for Systems Analysis in
Recreation Geography . . . . ..

iv


� . . . . . . . . .








TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


Opinions from within the larger
outdoor recreation research
field .... .............. ..32
Recommendations of nongeographers. . ........... 35
Recommendations of geographers 38
Relevance of systems analysis
to geography .. .......... .39
Pioneer systems research in
Recreation Geography ...... 41

Synthesis and Study Orientation . . 44

II REGIONAL AND TOPICAL SETTING. . . . . . . 57

Study Region and State . . . . . . . . 57

Southeastern United States. . . . . 57 Florida .... ........... . . . . 61

Coastal Beaches--The Resource
Component ....... ............... 64

National Setting ............ .64
Florida Setting .tn.............. 67

Activity Subsystem--Family Camping . . 68

National Setting. . . . . . . . . . 69 Camping in Florida ........... .70

III STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH DESIGN. . . . . . 78

Representative Problem Area. . . . . . 78

Physical Factors ............... 78
Recognition as Regional and
Recreational Entity ......... 81 Florida's Last Beach Frontier . . . 82 National Significance of Area . . . 85

Operational Study Area . . . . . . . . 86

v








TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


Page

Linear Beach Fringe Focus. . . . . . 86 Primary Study Sites--State Parks . . 88 Operational East-West Limits . . . . 93

Sequence of Area Recreation
Development .... .............. ..98

Pre-War Period .... .......... . 100
Post-War Period ............. .103
Recent Period .......... . . . . 106

Recreation Land Use--1970 ....... ..109

Land Use Classification .... ....... 110
Interpretations ............. .115
Secondary Study Sites--Private
Campgrounds. . . . .......... 118

Grayton Beach area campgrounds.. 119 St. Andrews area campgrounds. . . 121 Recapitulation ............ .128

Study Area Seasonality ........ ..129

Florida Seasonality Regions . . . 129 Gulf Coast Camping Seasonality. . 132 Climatic Basis ............ .136

Research Design ... ......... . . . 137

Methods .... ............. ..139
Qualitative description ..... 140 Quantitative description ... ..... 141 Cas study ... ............ .141
Field survey ............. .142
Additional information sources. . 146 Data analysis ............ 146

IV TRIBUTARY AREA: DELIMITATION AND
SPATIAL INTERACTION. ............ .. .154








TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


Page

Theory Alternatives ............. ...154

Theory of the Periphery ........ 155 Central Place Theory ......... 157
A Merged Concept of Functional
Organization ... ............ .159

Application of Central Place Theory. . 161

A Recreation Place Hierarchy . ... 162 The Composite Tributary Area . ... 164 Tributary Area Zonation ...... 167 Market Area Overview ........ ..... 170
Resource Homogeneity ... ....... .177

Distance Minimizing Hypothesis. . . 179

Indifference boundaries..... 189 Uneven friction of distance. . . 191 Information bias ......... .199

Noncomparative Hypothesis ..... 203 Resource Specificity Hypothesis. . . . 207

Comparative Resource Perception . . 210

Resource nonspecific attitudes . 216 Resource specific attitudes. . . 220

Study Area Selection Factors. . .. 222 Tributary Area Interaction . . . . .. 231

Interaction Theory ............... 232

Recreation application ..... 233 The literature .......... .234

Distance Interaction Hypothesis . . 236

vii








TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)


page

Time Interaction Hypothesis. . . . .. 249 Summary ...... ................ o. 265

V CAMPGROUND PERCEPTION AND SELECTION . . . 279

Camping Attitudes. .. ........... 282
Campground Selection Factors . . . . 285

Setting Variation .. ......... 288
Setting-Specific Camper Groupings . 293 Implications .... ............ 304

Management Preferences ......... 307 Economic Considerations .......... 314

Fees and Campground Selection . . . 316 Fees and Camping Participation. . . 323

Summary. . . ................... 326

VI RECAPITULATION AND CONTINUATION ..... 330

Recapitulation ... ............ o. 330
Continuation ................ 334

APPENDICES ......... ..................... 341
APPENDIX I--OUTLINE FOR AN URBAN ORGANIZATION FOCUS BASED ON AVAILABLE
RECREATION GEOGRAPHY LITERATURE. . . . 342
APPENDIX II--SEASONALITY SUPPLEMENT . . . 349
APPENDIX III--SELECTED CAMPER INTERVIEW
SCHEDULE QUESTIONS . .......... . 354
APPENDIX IV--SURVEY SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION . 357 APPENDIX V--CAMPER RESIDENCE LOCATION . . 358
APPENDIX VI--KLAUSNER'S RECREATION
PARADIGM ..... ............. . . 359
APPENDIX VII--SUMMARY DATA: TRIP PERIOD
AND MARGINAL DRIVING TIME. . . . . . . 360

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ... . . ................ 363


viii














LIST OF TABLES


Table

1 Trends in Topical Approaches to Recreation Studies in American Geography ...

2 Occurrence of Southeastern United States
Recreation Studies in North American
Geographical and Allied Journals. .

3 Park Development-Isolation Ranking ....

4 Resource Alternates .... ............

5 Resource Specificity Camparison .......

6 Reasons for Study Area Selection .......

7 Summary Data: Frequency Distribution of
Population Weighted Counties of Camper
Origin ....... . ...............

8 Summary Data: Quintile Average Distance
of Population Weighted Camper Origins . .

9 Summary Data: Distance and Visits. ... 10 Customary Travel Reference Terms. . ... 11 Summary Data: Trip Period and Actual Driving Time ..... ............ . .

12 Reasons for Camping. . .. ... . ....

13 Reasons for Campground Selection. . ... 14 Campground Management Preference. . ... 15 Management Preference Factors . . . ...


page


60 90

209 214 224



241 244

. . 247 . . 254


. . 261

* . 284

* . 295 . . 309 . . 311








LIST OF TABLES (Continued)


Table Page

16 Fee Level and Willingness--I ........... . 318

17 Fee Level and Willingness--II ......... . 320

18 Reaction to Fee Increase to Motel Comparable Level ........ ............... 324













LIST OF FIGURES


Figure

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9


10






11


12 13 14


Page


Participation Trends in Florida State Park Camping ...... ................

Generalized Shoreline Types in Florida. . Distribution of Florida Beach Resources . Northwest Florida Beach State Parks . . . Grayton Beach State Park ..............

St. Andrews State Park ... ...........

Coastal Northwest Florida: Panama City to Destin ....... ................

Land Use: A Coastal Highway Traverse . . Florida Outdoor Recreation Comprehensive Planning Regions ...... .............

Percentage Distribution of Tourists Who Planned to Engage in Outdoor Recreation in Florida During the Summer and Winter Seasons, 1964-65--by Planning Region of Destination ...... ................

Selected Gulf Coastal Florida State Park Locations ..... ...............

Gulf Coastal Florida State Park Seasonal Camping Contrasts ..... .............

United States Camper Origins--Annual. . . United States Camper Origins--Non-summer.


72 79 83 89 92

94 95





130






131 133 135 171

172








LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)


F igure

15 16 17


18 19 20 21 22 23 24


25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32


Page


United States and Foreign Camper Origins--Summer .... ...............

United States Camper Origins--Summer Theoretical Beach Visitor Tributary Areas ........ ...................

Camper Origins ...... .............

Camper Origins: Interview Sample .... Camper Travel Flow ... .............

Recreation Area Alternates--Site Distribution ...... ...............

Recreation Area Alternates--State Distribution ...... ...............

Population Weighted Camper Origins . . . Frequency Distribution of Population Weighted Counties of Camper Origins. Quintile Average Distance of Population Weighted Camper Origins .............

Distance and Visits ... .............

Trip Period and Actual Driving Time. . . Trip Period and Marginal Driving Time. . Transient Lodging Profile ............

Visitor Support Profile .............

Visitor Indifference to Campground Fees. Intraseasonal Variation in Grayton Beach Campsite Occupancy . . . . . . . . ...

xii


* � 173

* . 174


* - 180

183

* . 187

* . 194


* . 211


* . 212

* . 238


240


� � 243

248

� � 260

264

* . 289

* . 290 . . 321 . . 350








LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)


Figure page

33 Intraseasonal Variation in St. Andrews
Campsite Occupancy...... . . . . . . . 351

34 Intraweek Traffic Volume on U. S. Route
98 Between Grayton Beach and St.
Andrews Parks . ................... 352

35 Diurnal Traffic Volume on U. S. Route
98 Between Grayton Beach and St.
Andrews Parks ..... ............ . . . . 353


xiii








Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

A CASE STUDY IN RECREATION GEOGRAPHY:
SPATIAL INTERACTION AND CAMPER PERCEPTION

By

Dennis R. Crowe

June, 1972

Chairman: James R. Anderson Major Department: Geography

The Northwest Gulf Coast is Florida's last frontier for planned optimum development for outdoor recreation. In response to this planning need rationale, a field study of peak-season (summer 1970) family campers was undertaken in St. Andrews and Grayton Beach state parks and five private campgrounds within the beach fringe between Panama City and Ft. Walton Beach. A nearly 100 per cent sample of registration receipts was drawn in six campgrounds. Multiple registrations were reduced to over 13,500 party visits. In addition, a supplementary sample of over 500 parties was interviewed.

Utilizing scale shifts from regional to local, a

descriptive carto-statistical analysis suggested a variety of closely interrelated conclusions that fit within a proposed synoptic physical-behavioral spatial systems approach for recreation geography. Resource perception and attitudes xiv








toward interchangeability of alternate recreation locations were inventoried as a logical step to understanding functional hierarchies within a regional interaction system of recreation central places.

The nation-wide maximum study tributary area was considered from the standpoint of gross interaction theory. Campground registration data showing county origins of visitor parties were population weighted. Area camping visits were shown to be an hyperbolic function of distance. However, visit rate was a negative function of distance only to a radius of 600 miles from the study area, where curve erratics suggested an application of Wolfe's "distance momentum" theory. Time interaction was introduced to verify this process. However, willingness to drive extra hours (at the margin of driving time) was shown to be more closely aligned with trip period than distance traveled.

A distance minimizing explanation (utilizing predicted nation beach-sheds) for visitor functional tributary area shape was shown to be plausible. However, an augmented hypothesis was forced to include terms for distance indifference zones, uneven friction of distance, and information bias. Perception of beach resource homogeneity was rejected by data showing distinct physical environmental (esthetic, topographic and climatic) preferences and conscious xV.








comparison of resources at alternate locations. When the cultural setting was included in the analysis a broad array of camper resource-specific to nonspecific attitudes were defined. The implication is that between-resource as well as within-resource categories of recreation alternates are perceived by individuals as falling on variably defined recreation satisfaction-potential continuums.

A scale shift to the locality allowed visitor perception and travel to be inventoried relative to specific campground selection from among alternates in the operational study area. Campground selection factors were examined against a background of basic attitudes toward camping (motivations). Setting-specific camper groupings were demonstrated at the several study sites. The implication is that there is need for a variety of campground settings (relative to internal and external development) within a single resource type. Visitor satisfaction only can be maximized by a planned mix of alternate sites. There is no satisfactory average campground development setting.

In addition, it was found that site selection involves considerable perceptual confusion by those who choose a site for reasons of private or public management preference. Last, consideration was given the role of campground fees in site selection. A considerable indifference to fees was X.vi








found, indicating that only at extreme levels are fees influential in the campground selection process. In addition, the impact of maximum fee levels on camping participation was inventoried.


xvii













CHAPTER I

OUTDOOR RECREATION RESEARCH SETTING


Introduction


Within outdoor recreation and particularly the field

of recreation geography there exist a number of problems and unanswered questions. This study addresses some of these from the geographer's perspective.


Study Perspectives

This research was approached primarily from the viewpoint of SOCIAL or BEHAVIORAL GEOGRAPHY and thus is people oriented. Basic concern is for the way individuals and groups of individuals adjust to and interact with the spatial variables of land, particularly those portions developed to produce or perceived as inherently offering outdoor recreation potential, while involved in the process of attempting to find fulfillment or actuation of felt human need or desire, or more generally, our society's pursuit of outdoor recreation.

Elements of LAND USE AND RESOURCE GEOGRAPHY have

necessarily been incorporated into this inquiry, particularly

1








as regards recreation resource distribution and physical character in association with individual selection and use of these resources. Geography's SPATIAL INTERACTION theme has been particularly emphasized within the context of people movement between points. Recreation travel routing and flow in terms of gross movement, considering timedistance factors relative to propensity to travel between origins and recreation resource areas, and within-resourcearea movement are the dominant interaction processes considered.

In association with processes of area and site selection and the individual and group views of alternative places, resource opportunity and interaction costs and benefits were approached from the vantage of the geography of ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION. Perception of resource opportunity, for example, was approached in subjective terms of quality and value, with value considered by its surrogate site-potential or recreation-satisfaction-potential, which must be viewed against a backdrop of human need factors such as motivations for outdoor recreation (camping specifically) and a naturesocial environmental contrasting paradigm of outdoor recreation. Here such considerations as preferences for level of development, seclusion, privacy, and recreation activities are considered. Attitudes toward alternate resource bases








are also examined. For example, coastal beaches are contrasted with mountains, lakes and reservoirs, forests, and cities.

Perhaps most significant are the APPLIED ASPECTS. Area and site selection processes were studied to provide relevance to the planning and need-oriented, optimum resource allocation objectives of public recreation. Specifically, perspectives are gained on public-private resource mix factors, fee willingness and elasticity of camping, and area-potential oriented generation of planning base data.


Purpose and Objectives of Study

The over-riding purpose of this study is to add to the body of knowledge concerning outdoor recreation resources and to move toward a better understanding of recreation and the use of leisure time. The particular emphasis is on the understanding of spatially interacting factors associated with recreation use of land and water resources, or the expansion of knowledge of recreation geography.

A more specific purpose is to shed light on essentially basic interaction variates and processes and their manifestations as can be observed in a limited sampling of campers visiting a beach resource area. The study is concerned with the 1970 summer, peak season camping use of Grayton Beach








and St. Andrews state parks and certain associated auxilliary

private camping developments in the greater Panama City,

Florida coastal resort area with the following objectives

being considered:

1. To describe spatial interaction between this
recreation complex and its visitor tributary area for the specific recreation function of
family camping, i.e., to ascertain the spatial
distribution of camping visitor trip origins
and to describe and seek explanations of some
regularities and irregularities associated with
this distribution and its underlying travel
process and location. (Major objective)

2. To inventory and descriptively explore visitor
concepts of resource interchangeability and resource preferences, and attitudes and perceptions of site utility, or recreation satisfaction potential, as these elements affect selection and choice of this recreation resource area or complex and a specific camping
site within the area from among alternative
regional resource areas and other camping
locations within this area. (Major objective)

3. To generate background information for public
campground planning and policy development (with an ultimate goal of stimulating discussion which could lead to an evolution of
public recreation policy, by posing questions
and a few provoking alternatives to present
policy regarding recreation land resource use
and allocation of public benefits). (Minor
objective)

4. To move toward a conceptual and theoretical
focus in recreation geography by investigating
analagous conditions between topics and
methods applicable to recreation geography in both the more intensively studied, traditional subfields, as well as in newer more
peripheral areas of geographic analysis.
(Minor objective)




5


objectives one through three will be treated by statement and analysis of general and specific hypotheses to be tested by description of collected survey data and field observation of status quo, by assumed verification by analogy, and by comparison for continuity with existing empirical evidence. The fourth objective is essentially a logical construction based on an organization and application of geographic and other literature to the recreation geography problem of need for organization concepts and a research focus.

Essential to any research is an understanding of the pertinent background or setting which gives meaning and structure to the work at hand. Little research, even that involving the purest of science, is without a social or conceptual relevancy or alignment with past and present thought. This chapter and the next two briefly demonstrate the social, methodological, and subject matter relevance of this enquiry, which, while framed within a microstudy format with regional implications, examines human perceptual responses to outdoor recreation resources as components in a site selection and spatial interaction process.








Outdoor Recreation Research--Social Setting


It is not the intent of this introduction to review,

critique, or even summarize the thousands of pages of position papers, surveys, government documents, and other reports that describe and document the needs and propensities of people to participate in the various forms of outdoor recreation. Too many have dwelled too long on this now obvious feature of our modern social landscape. The timeliness of outdoor recreation research is clear to those who will examine it against the backdrop of today's society, with its changing needs, desires and demands.


Participation Trends

The post-war United States has witnessed many changes in the way people live. Population growth coupled with internal migration and urbanization has produced an American view which is largely of the city. Changes in available leisure time and gains in disposable income have provided an ability for many, but not all, Americans to consume or participate in a varied array of essentially luxury products and activities, including the means to enjoy an almost infinite list of outdoor and other recreation pursuits. In addition, an improved transportation net and vehicles have








greatly expanded travel accessibility and feasibility. The last two decades have, as a result, produced an unforeseen trend toward recreation participation and travel, which apparently, according to some prognosticators, cycles and self perpetuates into constantly greater expansion. Only a presently unknown critical factor will limit this upward trend.

Increased use pressures and crowding of facilities on the existing limited outdoor recreation resource base has fostered government attention and resulted in expanded development of facilities and increased acquisition of lands for public outdoor recreation. This expansion has been made increasingly more difficult in the face of increased costs as more demands have been made on the static land supply and as land use competition has increased. The private outdoor recreation sector, though perhaps slower to start, has also been caught up in a similar development and growth trend.


Government Impetus for Research

Since about 1950 there has been a significant incentive for the acquisition and development of land for public outdoor recreation activities. The Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission recommended in its 1962 report to the President and the Congress that a Bureau of Outdoor







1
Recreation (BOR) be established. This would, among other things, coordinate planning of the nation's system of outdoor recreation areas. In 1964 the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund was established, under administration by the BOR, which authorized 50-50 federal-state matching of funds for state and local recreation land acquisition and
2
development programs. A condition of eligibility for participation in federal funding through requesting these grants was an acceptance by the BOR of a suitable state master recreation plan.3 The need for public recreation land acquisition and development brought a rush by states and municipalities to formulate master plans. Attempts to provide such comprehensive planning brought to light the inadequacies of planning techniques and the small established body of fact available as a basis for sound planning. Today, planning is still inadequate.


Study Rationale--Planning Needs

One underlying purpose of this study is to shed some additional light on the interwoven intricacies of outdoor recreation phenomena in hope that some new thoughts and facts might contribute to the understanding essential for a more optimum solution for the present outdoor recreation dilemma. Accordingly, there are some elemental assumptions








upon which rest the rationality of this research:

(1) There is a real need for efficient planning,
allocation, and management to meet outdoor
recreation demands within a framework of limited land, money, and other resources.

(2) Planning efficiency can only be grounded
on fundamental knowledge of people's needs,
wants and propensities.

(3) Our present level of knowledge of such
basic things is inadequate--hence, arises
the core problem which may be defined as
a need for outdoor recreation research.


Spatial Viewpoint of Report

Recreation planners and other use-demand predictors have run aground countless times in attempts to use broad predictor rules and national or regionally based crosssectional data on recreation participation. Many planning efforts have been built around predictions based on such broadly conceived population participation ratios. It is believed that time will show that some past and present state planning for outdoor recreation development has been based on invalid assumptions.

Localities have such variation in internal and surrounding transportation facilities, topography, population density and socioeconomic composition and relative locations of complementary and competitive recreation sites, that there is always a need for local empirical studies upon








which to base need inventory and planning efforts. Market areas simply cannot be judged or evaluated in the terms of market study results based outside the region of interest.

At least one other recreation geographer has recognized this concept. Robert Lucas, a recreation researcher for the U. S. Forest Service, has based his agreement on numerous studies in the nation's forest resource areas. He concludes that the results of broad general surveys can't safely be applied to the locality any more than results of regional
4
studies can be applied in other regions. Some land economists also stress the need for local and subregionalstudies.5

Geographers McCarty, Hook and Knos recognized this reality and framed their opinion as a scale problem:

Every change in scale will bring about
the statement of a new problem, and there is no basis for assuming that associations
existing at one scale will also exist at
another.6

Clearly then, the significance of a study is not couched entirely in the scale of observation. Work is needed at all scales of examination.

Partly in response to the belief that there has been inadequate use of spatial variables in outdoor recreation research, this research effort has primarily concentrated on this aspect. The particular viewpoint taken in this








research is one of a variable scale of observation and analysis. Hence, the spatial methodological approach of this study is at times regional, subregional, or intensely local through shifts in the scale of emphasis. At all scales, however, the emphasis is upon factors associated with movements of recreationists between places or upon the actual observable phenomena of spatial interaction itself. (It should be noted, however, that not all factors associated with recreation movement can be observed.)

The advantages over the isolated bits and pieces approach resulting from nonrelated studies at various scales of observation are obvious. Perhaps the paramount advantage of this approach is the ability to trace behavior, attitude, and preference within defined topical limits for a single body of recreationists through a nearly holistic recreation experience.



Research in Recreation Geography


Despite the fact that topics involving outdoor recreation resources have not been strongly pursued by geographers, the scope of recreation geography has expanded considerably since the comments written in 1954 by McMurry and Davis on the then little known subfield within geography. It is








significant to note that this historic recognition of the existence of the infant subdivision of geography, by James and Jones, placed it specifically under the heading of economic geography, though McMurry and Davis were cautious in predicting its eventual emergence as a topical field distinct from any other.7

Between the time of K. C. McMurry's8 landmark writing on Michigan recreation land use and its potentials in 1930 and his review of recreation geography with Davis in 1954, it is significant to note that only a few topics had been broached. Tourist travel habits, recreation land use, and the resort-tourist business were then the primary topics of examination. However, Mitchell reports the existence of ten more or less distinct topics or types of writing in the geographic recreation literature by 1967, which he suggests is an indication of the diversity and uncohesiveness of topical approach in the field.9 But in any case it demonstrates the relative growth of attention to the myriad of phenomena within recreation geography.

McMurry and Davis' cautious prediction that ultimately recreation geography would become separate from economic geography was well formed because today recreation geography is recognized in many professional quarters as a separate entity, though it still has overlaps with several subfields








within geography. Clyde Browning sees geography itself as a young and rapidly developing discipline with a current growth phase characterized by a proliferation of diverse
10
research topics. His 1971 review of U. S. and Canadian dissertations showed that recreation and political geography are the two newest discreet subject matter subdivisions of the field with roots beginning since 1945. Browning showed that fewer dissertations have been written in recreation topics than any other major grouping with exception of those dealing with the environmental determinism theme.

Recreation geography currently suffers from a general lack of central purpose, a unifying conceptual framework of theory and method, and a research focus. Mitchell's assumption that recreation geography's diversity of topical examination is indicative of uncohesiveness may not be correctly based, for it would seem that all topics he listed are essentials for study within the subfield. Furthermore, as will be demonstrated, there appear to be real trends toward a topical evolution and eventual cohesiveness. The present uncohesiveness lies in the lack of a suitable central concept that would formally tie the various topical investigations into a potential general theory building and growth cycling holistic structure. For this infant subfield to thrive, an internal reevaluation of past directions and








relevant growth needs must be undertaken.


Movements Toward a Central Concept Past directions

Earliest writing by American geographers on recreation allied topics was primarily incidental to land use studies or were minor parts of reports on land surveys. Among the earliest writings were two papers on recreation aspects of the Michigan Land Economic Survey (begun in 1922) by Barnes 12
in 1929, and McMurry in 1930. Prior to about 1930 apparently recreation uses of land were overlooked by geographers. Consequently, witness of the acute perception of such men as Atwood and Platt is given by their 1927 and 1928 predictions and observations of the roles of recreation then 13
beginning in their separate study areas of the United States.

Table 1 demonstrates the major topical trends in

recreation studies published in selected major journals in the United States and Canada. Though a complete inventory of geography theses and dissertations on recreation topics was made, since it was impossible to read them all to verify the focus which is often misleadingly indicated by title, only the journals were read for title-independent topical classification for trend evidence. The median publication date for articles within each topical class is shown for com-


parison.








TABLE 1

TRENDS IN TOPICAL APPROACHES TO RECREATION
STUDIES IN AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY


Median Year
Topic of Publication* Physical resource base studies

Land inventory and development potentials
(Area/site land planning orientation) 1937

Resources in association with existing
developments 1952 Problems of supply and demand 1963 Historical: sequent human occupance and land use 1945 Recreation regionalization: delineation and description of recreation areas and associated land use 1946 Economic studies: regional-local descriptions of recreation industries
Setting stress on historical and environmental origins 1948 Stress on present and potentials 1957

Conceptual and empirical economic impact
studies 1967 Urban oriented studies

Urban recreation land use 1962

Amenity associated population migration
to and beyond the urban fringe 1947 Urban recreation hinterlands 1957 Resorts 1955 Miscellaneous 1962








TABLE 1 (Continued)


Median Year
Topic of Publication* Marketing-site use factor studies 1963 Problems in management and public resource allocation 1964 Recreation planning 1965 Perception studies 1965 Travel interaction

Role of access and travel in area
development 1940 Amenity migration 1956 Urban day trip hinterland 1956 Urban seasonal migration hinterlands 1963 International travel trends 1966 Distance effect studies 1965 Theory and model building 1967 Philosophy and method of recreation geography

Status 1967 Focus 1966 Methods 1967


*Sample of all volumes of most major United States and Canadian geographical journals.








It will be seen that except for a more recent enquiry into the problems of supply relative to demand for use of outdoor recreation resources and land competition, there was an early thrust in studies aligned with recreation land inventory, landscape character associated with development of parks, resorts and other recreation areas, and historical sequent occupance and land use studies. The latter had a dual focus on the processes of an area's land use change culminating in a recreation phase, and the evolution of a recreation industry in time, not particularly in space. In addition, a few early descriptive studies delineated specific recreation areas and described general recreation associated land use.

Also of an early origin, but extending clearly to the

present, are economic studies. Within this general category of research efforts has apparently been an evolution of approach to recreation industry description. Progressive ten-year intervals mark the mid-point of three phases from historical resource-oriented studies to present-day comments on regional development theory. There is considerable variation between the various articles in the extent that the area or industry economics, use status, and associated land use are described.








Urban-oriented studies as a group are more recent in origin. With the exception of a few papers with clear amenity emphasis on population shifts to areas outside of the city and the long-standing emphasis on descriptions of resort towns, urban studies are recent.

Recent literature contains a group of recreation topics that have been more or less oriented toward recreation problems and generation of information useful in planning, locating, and managing recreation areas that meet public needs. Out of this emphasis has come a few innovative papers on site use factors, perception, and other behavioral aspects of outdoor recreation.

Clearly aligned with modern trends in geography as a whole has been the recent attention to recreation travel with an interaction theory focus. A number of early writers described the roles that new roads, rails, and increased physical access in general had on development of recreation in their study areas. In addition a few urban travelfocused articles centered on the decade of the 1950s; however, primarily during the last decade a trend toward investigation of central place theory, system-gravityregression model building and distance travel functions has been noted.








Finally, the most recent development has been a philosophical and methodological consideration of recreation geography itself as a subfield of geography. As interested geographers and newly equipped recreation geography specialists became aware of problems there has evolved a conversation on status, research focus, and methods in this recent subfield of geography.


Urban focus

From outside geography, among various academically

based recreation researchers and others involved in public recreation policy formulation, has come recently repeated emphasis upon the increasing need for attention to the recreation needs of a constantly growing urban-oriented and stressed world. Clawson, for example, points out that most people now live in or near cities and that most of their nonworking time is spent in their urban or suburban environments.14 He continues, noting that the near future should find the nation dominated by an urban, high income, "mass-leisure society" which will require that "...more thought must be given to the management of the immediate urban physical environment" including specific urban recreation environments.15 After all, "...the demand...is concentrated where people are--in metropolitan areas."16








The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation recognizes the Clawson view and believes that all recreation-providing governmental agencies must "...become more people and urban oriented in their programs." 17 For example, BOR employee, Warren J. Kelvie, speaking before the 1970 Denver meeting of the Western Resources Conference titled his address "Urban Recreation Demands--The Recreation Imperative." 18 Kelvie quoted a portion of President Nixon's Environmental Message to the Congress in which Nixon emphasized the need for focusing on urban recreation needs. The President proposed "...increased emphasis on locations that can be easily reached by the people in crowded urban areas.''19 A parallel point, inherent in such an urban recreation emphasis proposal, is the factor of transportation or movement which is implied by the phrase "... locations that can be easily reached ...." An earlier report to the President and to the Congress reinforced this essential aspect of people movement which is basic to outdoor recreation phenomena stating that "outdoor recreation of 'public' importance, that is, which has an impact upon resources available to the public, takes place away from the residence of the person.... To engage in such activities requires a 'trip' or movement, usually by automobile, to a place to engage in the activity

,,20








Nongeographers have not monopolized this urban viewpoint, however, for several geographers have recently proposed a shift from emphasis on nonurban recreation resources to those concerned primarily with urban needs. James R. Anderson, for example, has stressed the need for placing attention on the urban recreation focus in dealings with the current problem of providing public outdoor recreation opportunity that is equitably distributed with regard to
21
population need. Anderson agrees with the land economist Clawson when he notes that most recreation land is "resource based" and consequently located where the environment made possible a "naturally" developed recreation area. According to Anderson, the solution calls for more "user-oriented" sites located with regard to population distribution and particularly with regard to the needs of a few large urban areas. He further points out that such an attempt to "optimize recreation development of land and water resources" involves some of the most difficult competition with other 22
optional land uses. obviously a very real need for recreation research exists for aiding in maximum efficiency of such land acquisition and development efforts.

Lisle Mitchell, citing the arguments of Clawson and

other land economists as well as federal review commission results which point out the paucity of information being








gathered on urban recreation processes and the tremendous need now and predicted for the future for recreation in the urban scene, would have geographers restrict their attention to an almost exclusive focus on urban recreation.23

Kevin Kearns, in an article on the characteristics and origin of city parks, reinforces Mitchell's view by claiming that the urban environment creates personal needs for escape 24
to nature for a refurbishment of some inner man. Cultural and urban geographers, according to Kearns, have a rightful claim to study of the domain of urban recreation and suggests a research focus on the "... role of natural park grounds in man's adjustment to his artificial urban milieu."25 It should be noted that Kearn's "natural park grounds" may be located in both urban and nonurban areas and still be approached with an urban need focus.

Others, maintaining a long-standing recreation geography topical attention, propose that a research focus in recreation geography should be centered on specialized, unique urban recreation forms, the resort towns where recreation is dominant. Stansfield, for example, would have recreation geography shift emphasis on rural outdoor recreation to "research inquiring into the economic and social nature of, and spatial organization of, recreation within the urban milieu...," particularly as pertains to the evolution of the








morphology and economic base of resort communities.26

Another advocate of urban attention who takes a similarly restricted view of a desirable recreation research focus is Burley.27 Basing his argument on an expansion of potential leisure time (non-working time), Burley proposes that more time is spent in urban "sport" than in tourist travel or vacations. He also attaches a supposition that home recreation dollar expenditures are greater than those made on an extended trip. Therefore, he concludes that tourism and allied activities are not as important as urban "home-based leisure" and specifically "sport." Concurring with Kearns, he ascribes a considerable value to be gained by cultural geography from potential conceptual spin-off from a sport focus in recreation geography. Burley's proposed urban "sport" research scheme is five-fold, involving: "economic aspects," "social aspects," "cultural origins," "physical conditions," and "urban land use." Though of importance, Burley's proposal is hardly suited to a primary research focus. Mitchell, in his proposal, correctly recognized the secondary nature of urban outdoor games and sports, and he presented them as an activity subsystem to his more comprehensive general urban focus.28 Here also would lie the specific sport focus proposed by Shaw.29







Undeniably, much outdoor recreation is urban by fact of site selected by the individual for specific activity participation. However, as was brought out in caution to Kelvie's and Kearns' remarks,30 not only is there a more basic element of people movement inherent in most forms of outdoor recreation activity, but an urban recreation focus must also recognize the needs satisfied only by movements to an urban fringe or nonurban environment. William Colburn, a geographer-planner in charge of Michigan's continuing state outdoor recreation plan, also emphasized the need for attention to urban recreation needs in a paper presented to the 1969 National Congress for Parks and Recreation.31 But, quite perceptively Colburn's emphasis on urban planningresearch needs was direct in pointing out that "...recreation resources which are not in the cities are for the people of the city."32 His point was one perhaps often overlooked or not clearly understood by proponents of an urban rather than rural focus on research in outdoor recreation; that it is the urbanite who uses the outlying facility. Therefore, a study of rural recreation participation is often a study of urban-based recreation need.

(Note that much urban-oriented work in recreation

geography has been done. A review of this literature is outside the scope of this discussion; however, Appendix I








presents an outline of such titles as are readily available in the literature with one possible urban spatial-topical organization.)


Spatial interaction focus

Other geographers, recognizing the diversity of subjects in studies by recreation specialists and seeking a broader unity of the field, are not satisfied with a purely urban approach. For example, Mercer, in a reply to Mitchell's suggested urban research focus, does not deny the present and probable future importance of urban-oriented recreation studies, but asks Mitchell and other geographers the following pertinent question:

In order to wed the diverse aspects of
recreation into a coherent whole is not some focus required that will integrate urban and rural recreation, perception
and land-use and resort studies into an integrated subject that is recognizable
as recreational geography?33

Mercer and others, who are perhaps more aligned with a systemic view, see clearly the thread of movement in nearly all aspects of recreation study and tend to approach recreation studies from the vantage point of analysis of component linkages or the integrative factors associated with recreation activity. Zierer, speaking on recreation and tourism in the West, saw a geographical focus in recreational







34
travel. More recently, based on less intuition, the timeexperienced transportation-recreation geographer Roy Wolfe contrived the recreation geography research focus to be a matter of recreational travel. Says Wolfe:

I am prepared to defend the thesis
that in present patterns of recreational activity a central position for mobility
is obligatory. Here are the people;
there are the recreational resources; they
must be brought together; the people must
move to the resources.35

That some geographers should propose a focus on the

travel element of outdoor recreation is not surprising for there is a long-standing study of interstate tourism that is based in state governmental offices, chambers of commerce, development commissions, and federal and state bureaus and departments of roads and transportation. This recreation economics oriented travel has since the 1930s36 run parallel to recreation land use and land economics studied by geographers, and continues to thrive today, though now found in three different camps of orientation: state chamber of commerce and development type groups; university departments of marketing, business economics, and agricultural economics; and state departments of transportation. As originally, these studies are oriented toward tourist origins and flows, travel business shares









and impact, and transportation planning data.37 Geographers could hardly exist without some influence by this body of literature.

Of course, within geography, transportation and urban specialists have dealt with travel studies also, though not noticeably on the topic of interstate tourist travel. Most recent travel studies done in geography have concentrated on urban migration or daily movement in and around urban areas. A readily available example of a comprehensive urban travel study is the Chicago Area Transportation Study which has been discussed by Berry and Horton 38
in their chapter on urban movement. A vast literature of movement studies has been built in the geographic study of location theory and travel behavior (These will be reviewed later), and form a logical springboard for geographical study of recreation movement.

Longstanding travel study habits aside, the high

impact Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission also pointed to the importance of travel within outdoor recreation and made a logical basis for geographers to enter the realm of recreation travel study. Several studies directly involved transportation factors. Where not stressed in the reports, often travel was a factor clearly legible between









the lines of discussion.39 Predictions of recreationassociated distances traveled by persons at least 12 years old were made for the 40-year span between 1960 and 2000. Estimated travel increases may be as high as 270 per cent over the 1960 base figures.40

Therefore, as stated by Wolfe and repeated by

Richards, the "essential focus" of outdoor recreation is on the location of the masses, the urban complexes and the access link between these origins and recreation destina41
tions. Mercer, later discussing a geography of leisure, agreed with Richards that the geographer should deal with the "...spatial distribution of opportunity, the distance of that population from its recreation areas; and, secondly, the mobility of that population... 42 He furthermore claimed that 'Wolfe's 'New migration' of recreational travel is central to the study of recreation geography."43 Even recreation geographers in the U.S.S.R. are recognizing the dual focus of urban demand with "recreation migration" or transportation (time-cost accessibility) to the recreation site.44

After a thorough familiarization with state park systems 45
in dissertation work, Trotter discussed in 1965 the research







46
needs of recreation geography. Besides calling for more attention to locality based studies of recreation areas and resort areas, and citing the need for improved techniques of identifying and classifying existing and potential recreation areas, Trotter stressed the need for movementfocused recreation studies. The needs he saw were for information on travel patterns: routes, distances traveled, and the nature of resultant tributary areas around recreation facilities. In addition he called for study of travel pattern variation between types of trips; for example, touring, vacation, weekend, and day trips. Looking to the resource, Trotter saw need for more knowledge concerning variation of the primary tributary areas of different kinds of recreation areas, which he claimed must be approached by methods designed to measure the "attractive power" of individual parks, based on their "outstanding or special features of scenic or historical nature" and their facility base for outdoor recreation activity.47

Movement patterns and land use lie at the root of geographical theory according to Nystuen, who adds that "movement or travel behavior is the complement of location, that is, travel behavior is in part determined by arrangement of facilities and in part determines that arrangement."48 Such a central position for movement is shared by Ullman also.








Ullman's geographical goal is the "codification of relations between objects--occupance units--in earth space," and he sees flows of things and ideas as the key to understanding these relations. Therefore, he proposes a functional definition of geography as "spatial interaction" or a study of movement.49

Wolfe's movement or travel migration focus is patterned after Ullman's dynamic interaction concept of geography.50 Mercer views the relationship between cities and their rural 51
surroundings as a symbiotic interaction, while Campbell clearly agrees with Wolfe in his concept of recreation geography as one group of spatial interaction studies in the large field of geography.52

As a capstone to these thoughts it is interesting to

look at opinions of nongeographers as they view geographers' roles. In a recent symposium on southern outdoor recreation research needs, agricultural economists Schell and Stern commented that in their opinion "geographers also have an opportunity to participate in interdisciplinary studies dealing with spatial relationships between recreation areas and the centers from which the demand of facilities emanates."'53 If this example is characteristic of opinions of others in agricultural economics then they also see our area of major contribution in recreation studies to be








within the research focus characterized by movement or spatial interaction.

As Christensen, Dower and others have pointed out, the evidence does tend to bear out a parallel growth of auto use, the highway net, and visits to recreation places (tourism).54 Furthermore, it would appear that if an element or a limited number of recreation elements must be isolated and given particular research focus, recreation geography would benefit most from attention to the integrative or linking element of recreation travel and that this should be the focus at all scales of observation and analysis. In addition, equal attention must be given the points linked by movement, namely, the population centers or demand locations and the intraurban and extraurban recreation resource supply locations. More generally, such a focus would demand a theory building approach based on the study of geography as dynamic spatial interaction.


A Case for Systems Analysis in Recreation Geography

Wolfe, who is perhaps the most outspoken and most often quoted transportation-spatial interaction type of recreation geographer, has referred to the admirable research position of having a holistic view of recreation.55 Furthermore, in light of what he considers the "...chief virtue attributed








to geography, that of being an integrative discipline," Wolfe cautions that "above all else the geographer must take the synoptic view...."56 If added to that mandate is the theory-based predictive spatial model-building mandate that Ullman would emphasize in a profitable approach to recreation geography, then recreation geographers would have a firm basis for moving to systems analysis as both method and research focus.


Opinions from within the larger outdoor recreation research field

Some have argued that outdoor recreation research

suffers from a lack of direction which can only be resolved by defining a theory of recreation.57 They claim that only by an integrated approach guided by a central philosophy or theory can the study of outdoor recreation reach satisfactory levels of performance. Twiss, for example, calls attention to the multiplicity of orientations and fronts in recreation research.58 With specialists in aspects of recreation located in so many fields and disciplines and with a full range of study orientations from academic to problematic, he argues that information sharing, communication, and integration of efforts, results, and concepts is made most difficult. One need only consult the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation's cross-sectional Index of Selected








Outdoor Recreation Literature or its reference catalog Outdoor Recreation Research to see just how true are these statements.

The essential contrast between multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research has been given further thought by Twiss who concludes that the team methods with conceptual and methodological integration which characterize interdisciplinary research are superior to multidisciplinary research with its many fronts and several unique analytical approaches.60 He suggests such interdisciplinary outdoor recreation research might well function within an integrative approach that he calls a "systems theory," in which "outdoor recreation would be considered as a system containing many diverse but interdependent parts..., conceptual categories or classes of problems."61 These problematic parts would generally fall into the realm of more than one discipline. Since Twiss is convinced that suitable levels of integration cannot occur through "synthesis of results of independently conducted unidisciplinary studies...," then it follows that in order to research such a diverse variety of situations logically and comprehensively, a crossdiscipline method must be used. Such a concept would necessarily stress "problem solving through a synthesis of scientific thought and methods" and would form a sound








basis for planning.

One of the specific categories of problems within the Twiss "system" is related to "structure," dealing with the organizational pattern of the outdoor recreation system.62 Furthermore, the "content" of the system would be the resources, resource users and their interactions. This is evidently a resource management oriented "system" and has limitations built in.

More important, is the question of the existence of a single comprehensive system. A special study by the National Academy of Science states that the extent of such a system is itself "a question to be clarified by research. '63 The inclination of the 1969 Academy-directed study committee was to conceptualize recreation as falling into more than one recreation system. For example, the report refers to "urban recreation systems" with the implication that the urban environment forms one grouping among others (perhaps urban 64
and rural systems?). In any case, the Academy report stressed the necessity to recognize the "dynamics of recreational institutions," the essential interdependency of a multiplicity of recreation systems, and the need to approach outdoor recreation from a systems research methodology.65

Whether or not the existence of such a major system

encompassing all facets of outdoor recreation can be defined








presently or whether work needs to be done within individual problem systems is perhaps pointless at this stage in outdoor recreation research. In any case, work must now take place at a level lower than such an ideal grand model; therefore, if one deals with a system or a major subsystem the association is not important. What is important is that the system apparently envisioned by Twiss and others deals with people, places, and interaction, all of which are within the geographer's domain. In addition, system organizational pattern or structure would seem also to be well suited to geographical analysis, either independently or in multidiscipline groups.


Recommendations of nongeographers

A number of planners, applied researchers, and other recreation practitioners have seen the necessity of a systems approach to their problem solving process. For example, several U. S. Forest Service recreation specialists have pointed to the interconnection of spatial elements in regional outdoor recreation and have discussed associated problems involved in predicting use of individual recreation sites or parks. change in one park can affect use of other parks. West coast researchers have been particularly impressed by the use of "natural" areas by people who might








well have their recreation needs met in other places. Hendee, for example, has suggested the need for recreation planners to pay more attention to entire system needs that could help avoid crowding of natural areas which causes a dilution of the resources and experience for those specifically seeking the natural environmental experience.66 LaPage also has mentioned problems associated with recreation system dynamics. Stressing campground selection, he has mentioned "trade-offs" between travel time and on-site time, between travel distance and site resource attractiveness, and among others, possible "trade-offs" between the whole experience and components.67 In all of these cases system effects are the topic of concern in the gross effect of many individuals evaluating travel and other factors against a number of alternative sites or recreation areas, with any number of combinations of substitutions available to the individual decision maker. In a paper subtitled "A Systems-analysis Approach to Solving Outdoor Recreation Problems," Shafer, a sociologist, has proposed that research be centered around constructing models explaining and predicting relationships in three interrelated subsystems or environments, that focus on natural resources, organization, and social-psychological factors.68








Harvey Perloff, known for his perceptive view of urban

problems and planning, has also proposed a recreation systems approach, particularly for planning to meet the future urban 69
recreation demand. The land economist and recreation specialist, Clawson, has proposed the use of a systems approach to park planning in which his focus is upon travel costs as a factor proportional to distance and involves demand elasticities in relation to distance and travel cost. Stressing that the amount and kind of use of one area is related to the location and character of other parks, he proposes three interaction sets in his scheme: (1) individual users and individual areas, (2) masses of people and col70
lective park patronage and (3) between parks relations. Clawson also proposes the use of electric power systems as analogous spatial systems for definition of outdoor recreation systems.71

For some time the literature has contained references

to park systems, and administrators and planners have worked within the confines of such systems. However, it would appear that there has been until recently only a vague recognition of systemic relationships between demand, planning needs, and park use conditions. Hart has produced a pioneer monograph, titled A Systems Approach to Park Planning.72 His report to the International Union for the Conservation of








Nature and Natural Resources is concerned most with the resources set aside in national park and nature preserves and was based on his studies in a number of newly developing countries.


Recommendations of geographers

A few perceptive recreation geographers have also

seized upon the basic advantages of a systems analysis approach to their special geographic research niches. Robert Lucas, for example, has worked for several years on wilderness management and outdoor recreation problems in general for the U. S. Forest Service. On several occasions he has tried to stress the need for viewing specific recreation resource areas as system components affecting and affected by other elements in the system. For example, speaking on contributions of environmental research to policy decisions, he had the following to say about wilderness research:

To make as full a contribution as possible,
the focus of wilderness environmental research should not be limited too closely to the wilderness. The wilderness is part of
an interrelated geographical system (mphasis
added] , where one part affects another.
The availability of other wilderness, of
alternative areas for some kinds of activities which are possible but not desirable
in the wilderness, of adjacent attractions, even the livability of our large cities may be more crucial for the wilderness than what
is happening inside its boundaries.73








Mercer, another Ullman disciple, speaks of the need and current attempts to formulate "spatial models of 74
recreational activities," while he too apparently is on the verge of proposing a systems approach. In his last article he mentioned the problem of substitution between elements of a "total resource complex" with system-wide effects of change in any part of an "integrated recreational
75
land use system." Soviet recreation geographers apparently, almost as a group, have come to think of their problems from a system orientation. Recent translationsin Soviet Geography all stress this viewpoint and there is evidenced some very clear thinking on research needs within their recognized subsystems.76


Relevance of systems analysis to geography

Whether the geographer approaches his profession from a standpoint of regional analysis, areal differentiation, areal organization, distributions and location analysis, spatial analysis, areal process relationships, spatial interaction, human ecology, man-land relationships or some other omitted short hand definition it would seem to matter little regarding the degree that systems analysis could be applied.

Ackerman proposed in 1963 that geographers place their field on the forefront of research in the sciences by, among








other means, utilizing systems analysis in their research.77 Generalizing for all problematic approaches in science, Ackerman saw four themes of study among which was "the functioning of systems that include multiple numbers of variables..."78 When the earth and its human occupants are viewed as a complex interacting totality then it must be clear that geographers not only have a natural interest in many scales of spatial systems, but have been performing a type of systems analysis for some time. Borchert, speaking for a number of geographers, recognizes this fact in agreement with Ackerman.79 However, increased interdisciplinary conversation and mutual reinforcement of separate research fields, also recognized by Borchert as a potential benefit to geography, can best be gained by attention to the formal aspects of a constant terminology and systematic methods, which are also a feature of a complete concept of systems analysis apart from a partial concept of spatial sets of interrelated factors. In other words the concept is dual: a systematic way of looking at, or analyzing problems, and the analysis of a dynamic interrelation between components of an inter80
dependent set. For Ackerman, the method of geography should be a topical or problematic analysis of various time81
space subsystems within the world system. More recently a number of well written information sources have embellished








this viewpoint and have recommended systems analysis to the geographer.82 Preston James has even offered what may be an idealistic (depending on one's view) vest pocket definition of geography as "spatial systems analysis." 83 Pioneer systems research in Recreation Geography

It is interesting that apparently no geographer (to the extent of this survey's limits) working within the usual framework of university and college geography departments has produced a strictly system analysis of an outdoor recreation problem. There may be examples of system research that are hidden beneath obscure titles in the long lists of master's theses in recreation geography and there may be as yet unpublished reports on several desks; however, published system work by the professional academia is absent.

Nevertheless, recreation geographers have investigated these analytical approaches and a few reports, superficially indicative of the work being done, are available. Under the influence of demands from a modern state park master planning program, through the efforts of Jack B. Ellis, an electrical engineer, and two geography doctoral students, and with the impetus provided through the Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University has become since 1963 a pioneering center in the development of recreation systems







research. The M.S.U. recreation research unit, then under direction of Leslie M. Reid and David M. Milstein--both spatial demand oriented researchers, contracted with the state for a state recreation demand study that precipitated the development by Ellis and others of a computer systems simulation method. Utilizing known data on statewide origins, destinations, and linkages the first test of the method was the basis for Michael Chubb's 1967 geography dissertation.84 Chubb's specific simulation method, "RECSYS-SYMAP," provided a basis for predicting gross spatial variation and change in recreational boating for 1980 based on model calibration on known 1965 data. The model used the Michigan state highway system as linkages between 74 demand origin nodes (counties) and 72 boating destination counties, with origin participation (demand) values in terms of a population ratio. By varying populations and their socio-economic structure on suspected boating correlated factors a simultaneous solution for "optimum" participation distribution within the state was simulated and spatially-graphically presented by the "SYMAP" computer mapping method. Apparently the success of the "Model T" stage of this method was in mind when Chubb was selected to stay, and was given his present position in charge of the Recreation Research and Planning Unit in M.S.U.'s Department of Park and Recreation Resources.85








Another geographer involved in this program was Carlton Van Doren, currently involved with Texas A & M's prestigious outdoor recreation research program. Van Doren worked out a spatial interaction model using a similar statewide system approach and data based on camper travel from counties of origin to Michigan parks; however, his descriptive model was essentially a modified gravity model based on interaction theory.86

Other pioneering systems research is being conducted, 87
most of which seems to be Canadian in origin. Gordon Taylor, for example, a geographer who has been Director of the Research and Planning Branch of the Manitoba Department of Tourism and Recreation since 1968, has influenced provincial parks to approach recreation demand estimation and planning from a systems methodology. Since the methods and surveys to be involved in their proposed major inventory of supply and demand are not yet evaluated, or even in some phases completed, the contribution of the Manitoba effort is yet unknown.88

An interesting system approach of a different vein has been proposed and illustrated by Walter Isard and other of the Regional Science Institute and Harvard University. Based on the fact that recreation resource systems interact with social, economic and natural systems, Isard demonstrated








the need to study the interrelationships between the various environmental factors in planning recreation areas. Though the approach and the knowledge is not original, it is novel for the orientation of regional scientists who appear usually to deal with purely economic constraints and factors. The discussion points out what they call the relation between the social system and the "ecologic" system and they use as an hypothetical example the input-output relations involving man's recreational use of a somewhat contained ecosystem with focus on a particular food chain.


Synthesis and Study Orientation

From both the standpoint of present needs in outdoor recreation research and from the view of the field of geography there are certain arguments and intuitive assertions that would predispose recreation geography to a systems analysis method and conceptual focus for examination of the spatially interacting factors of recreation as a human activity and as a land resource utilizing process. In addition, pioneer systems analysis efforts have been fruitful and would seem to provide a firm basis for a continuing effort by recreation geographers in this methodology.

The pleas for a research focus and theory of urban

recreation would seem one sided when viewed from a system








orientation. Similarly, the proposed transportation focus is lacking. When the urban focus is most broadly examined it is apparent that this implies internal and external attention to the major source locations of recreation demand. Except for the narrowest of internal urban approaches, attention to the demand source location must call for attention to movements toward the periphery of the urban region.

Though ultimately having a unifying affect by leading

the research into urban or resource depths of detail in order to understand the basis of movement, such an indirect movement focus may not have a ready identification for the primarily non-movement dealings of a resource specialist or an urban ecologist. A spatial system, however, allows all factors a place within a whole no matter how far removed from direct urban or movement fact.

The realistic model of a spatial system for outdoor

recreation would require the geographer's best descriptive ability and interaction understanding. Such a system has not been devised though geographers and others have been describing piecemeal its elements for some while. A good system description would put all the past ideographic studies into perspective and would call for a number of additional studies. Not only would a system approach incorporate past work, but it could incorporate existing








theory and form a logical setting for theoretical expansion.

In summary, a physical-behavioral spatial system approach should give a now nonexistent holistic or synoptic view to the field by providing a coherent and logical integration structure that would incorporate urban and resource subsystems as well as spatial interaction linkage concepts. A systems approach should provide a suitable central concept that would formally tie the various topical investigations of recreation geographers into a potential theory building and growth cycling structure. Consequently, it is toward understanding of behavioral processes of interaction within a system that this research effort is directed.













NOTES


1. Established by Public Law 88-29 (77 Stat. 49; 16 U.S.C.
460-1), May 28, 1963.

2. For a discussion of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1964 and other allied enabling legislation and
federal recreation programs, see Troyt York, "Perspective
on Interdisciplinary Research Needs for Public Outdoor
Recreation Programs," Appendix I, Outdoor Recreation in
the South, ed. Hugh A. Johnson, Publication No. 5, Southern
Land Economics Research Committee (Blacksburg, Virginia:
Department of Agriculture Edonomics, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, 1967), p. 24; National Academy of Sciences,
Outdoor Recreation Research (Washington, D. C.: National
Academy of Sciences, 1969), Appendix B, pp. 74-87.

3. David J. Reed and Leslie M. Reid, An Analysis: Outdoor
Recreation on Government Lands in Texas, Agricultural Extension Publication B-1081 (College Station, Texas:
Texas A & M University, 1968), p. 5.

4. Robert C. Lucas, "User Evaluation of Campgrounds on
Two Michigan National Forests," U. S. Forest Service, Research Paper NC-44 (St. Paul: North Central Forest
Experiment Station, 1970), p. 12.

5. See, for example, C. C. Taylor and J. R. Russell, "Outdoor Recreation Development in the South: Problem
Areas for Economic Research," in Hugh A. Johnson, ed., Outdoor Recreation Research in the South, Publication
No. 5, Southern Land Economics Research Committee (Blacksburg, Virginia: Department of Agricultural
Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967), p. 16;
Troyt York, "Perspective on Interdisciplinary Research Needs for Public Outdoor Recreation Programs" in same
work, pp. 19-32.

6. H. H. McCarty, J. C. Hook, and D. S. Knos, The Measurement of Association in Industrial Geography, Department
of Geography Report 1 (Iowa City: University of Iowa
Press, 1956), p. 16.








7. K. C. McMurry and Charles M. Davis, "Recreational
Geography," American Geography: Inventory and Prospect,
eds. P. E. James and C. F. Jones, Association of
American Geographers (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse
University Press, 1954), p. 252.

8. K. C. McMurry,. "The Use of Land for Recreation,"
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 20
(1930), pp. 7-20.

9. Mitchell's topics were: economics (tourism, resorts),
sites and areas, resource relations, land use and
planning, problems, travel and consumption, techniques, recreation geography surveys, regions, and perception.
Lisle S. Mitchell, "Recreational Geography: Evolution
and Research Needs," Professional Geographer, Vol. 21
(1969), pp. 117-119.

10. Clyde E. Browning, "Trends in the Subject Matter and
Locale of Dissertations in Geography: 1901-1969,"
Professional Geographer, Vol. 23 (1971), pp. 54-58.

11. Mitchell, pp. 117-119.

12. Carleton P. Barnes, "Land Resource Inventory in Michigan,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 5 (1929), pp. 22-35; McMurry,
pp. 7-20.

13. W. W. Atwood, "Utilization of the Rugged San Juans,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 3 (1927), pp. 193-209; R. S.
Platt, "A Detail of Regional Geography: Ellison Bay
Community as an Industrial Organism," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, Vol. 18 (1928),
pp. 81-126.

14. Marion Clawson, "Economics and Environmental Impacts of
Increasing Leisure Activities," Future Environments
of North America, eds. F. F. Darling and J. P. Milton
(New York: Natural History Press, 1966), p. 256.

15. Ibid., pp. 259-260.

16. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing office, 1962), p. 26.








17. Warren J. Kelvie, "Urban Recreation Demands--The Recreation Imperative," 1970 Proceedings, Western Resources
conference, University of Denver, 1970, pp. 217-222,
quote p. 220.

18. Ibid.

19. Ibid., p. 218.

20. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
National Recreation Survey, Study Report 19 (Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 4.

21. James R. Anderson, "Recreational Uses of Land and Water
and Associated Bioenvironmental Problems," Engineering
Progress, Vol. 21, No. 6 (1967), pp. 60-66.

22. Ibid., p. 65.

23. Mitchell, pp. 117-119.

24. Kevin C. Kearns, "On the Nature and Origin of Parks in
Urban Areas," Professional Geographer, Vol. 20 (1968),
pp. 167-170.

25. Ibid., p. 167.

26. Charles A. Stansfield, Jr., "The Geography of Resorts:
Problems and Potentials, Professional Geographer, Vol.
23 (1971), pp. 164-166.

27. Terence M. Burley, "A Note on the Geography of Sport,"
Professional Geographer, Vol. 14 (1962), pp. 55-56.

28. Mitchell, p. 118.

29. Earl B. Shaw, "Geography and Baseball," Journal of
Geography, Vol. 62 (1963), pp. 74-76.

30. Comments by author, pp. 25 and 27.

31. William H. Colburn, "Projecting Recreational Demand--A
Practitioner's Critique," Predicting Recreation Demand, Technical Report No. 7, Department of Park and Recreation Resources (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 1969), pp. 36-49.


32. Ibid., p. 48.








33. David Mercer, Letter to editor, Professional Geographer,
Vol. 21 (1969), pp. 364-365.

34. Clifford M. Zierer, "Tourism and Recreation in the West,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 42 (1952), pp. 462-481.

35. R. I. Wolfe, "Recreation Travel: The New Migration,"
Canadian Geographer, Vol. 10 (1966), pp. 1-14, quote
pp. 7-8.

36. See, for example, as a valuable review of early travel
studies L. E. Peabody and I. M. Spasoff, "Tourist
Travel in the United States," Public Roads, Vol. 18,
No. 6 (1937), pp. 101-116; and L. E. Peabody, "Digest
of Report on Arkansas Traffic Survey," Public Roads,
Vol. 17, No. 6 (1936), pp. 113-127.

37. A typical modern state economic tourist survey is by
Lewis C. Copeland, Kentucky's Growing Tourist and
Travel Business, Division of Tourist and Travel Promotion, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, 1960.
Another market analysis concerned typically with only gross visits and state origin distribution is part of
a U. S. Department of Commerce, Area Redevelopment
Administration Study of Appalachia: Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Tourist and Recreation Potential--Eastern
Kentucky (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1963); see also R. W. Cox, J. E. Johnson, and L. K.
Cook, Survey of Resident and Nonresident Tourist Groups, Bulletin No. 482 (Fargo: North Dakota State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1969); for engineering studies see, for example, Public Roads, Vol. 33, No. 6 (1965), pp. 112-124 and Vol. 34, No. 6 (1966), pp. 4351, both of which discuss calibration of gravity urban
trip models. Perhaps the best single summary and critique of professional business academic travel
research is by Robert E. Waugh, The American Traveler:
More Darkness Than Light? (Austin: University of Texas,
Bureau of Business Research, 1962).

38. Brian J. L. Berry and F. E. Horton, eds., Geographic
Perspectives on Urban Systems (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970), Chapter 13, pp. 512555.

39. For example, see U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission, "...for America," p. 371 (on urban








travel); "National...," p. 39 (national travel trends).

40. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Prospective Demand for Outdoor Recreation, Study Report
26 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1962), p. 24.

41. J. Howard Richards, "Gross Aspects of Planning and
Outdoor Recreation with Particular Reference to
Saskatchewan," Canadian Geographer, Vol. 11 (1967),
pp.. 117-123.

42. David C. Mercer, "The Geography of Leisure--A Contemporary Growth-Point," Geography, Vol. 55 (1970),
pp. 261-273, quote p. 267.

43. Ibid.

44. I. P. Gerasimov, A. A. Mints, and V. S. Preobrazhensky,
and N. P. Shelomov, "Current Geographical Problems in Recreational Planning," Soviet Geography: Review and
Translation, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1970), pp. 189-198.

45. John E. Trotter, "State Park Systems in Illinois" (Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1962); also published as University of Chicago Department of Geography
Research Paper No. 74.

46. John E. Trotter, "Some Factors Influencing Attendance
at Illinois State Parks," Journal of Geography, Vol. 64
(1965), pp. 23-31.

47. Ibid., p. 27.

48. John D. Nystuen, "A Theory and Simulation of Intraurban
Travel," Quantitative Geography, eds. W. L. Garrison
and D. F. Marble, Studies in Geography No. 13 (Evanston:
Northwestern University Press, 1967), p. 55.

49. Edward L. Ullman, "Geographical Prediction and Theory:
The Measure of Recreation Benefits in the Meramec
Basin," Saul B. Cohen, ed., Problems and Trends in
American Geography (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1967),
p. 128.








50. Wolfe, pp. 1-14; R. I. Wolfe, "The Geography of Outdoor
Recreation: A Dynamic Approach," G. S. Tomkins, ed.,
Geographical Perspectives: Some Northwest Viewpoints,
B. C. Geographical Series, No. 8 (Vancouver: Tantalus
Research Ltd., 1967), pp. 7-12.

51. Mercer, "Leisure," p. 271.

52. Colin K. Campbell, "An Approach to Research in Recreational Geography," J. V. Minghi, ed., The Geographer and the Public Environment, B. C. Geographical Series
No. 7 (Vancouver: Tantalus Research Ltd., 1966),
pp. 85-90.

53. Kerry F. Schell and Peter M. Stern, "Recreation Research in the South: Where and Why Does It Lag?"
Outdoor Recreation Research in the South, Southern
Land Economics Research Committee, Publication No. 5
(Blacksburg, Virginia: Department of Agricultural
Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967), p. 36.

54. D. E. Christensen, "The Auto in America's Landscape
and Way of Life," Geography, Vol. 51 (1966), pp. 339348; Michael Dower, "Leisure--Its Impact on Man and
the Land," Geography, Vol. 55 (1970), pp. 253-260.

55. Wolfe, "The Geography of Outdoor Recreation...."

56. R. I. Wolfe, "Perspective on Outdoor Recreation,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 54 (1964), p. 227.

57. See, for example, Louis F. Twardzik, "Education for
the Outdoor Recreation Explosion," a paper presented
at the American Association for the Advance of Science
annual meeting, December 28, 1967, New York city, Mimeograph PR-224, Cooperative Extension Service,
Michigan State university.

58. Robert H. Twiss, Information and Outdoor Recreation
Research, U. S. Forest Service Research Note PS-3,
Berkeley, 1963.

59. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Index to Selected
Outdoor Recreation Literature, Vol. 1 (1967) to present,








and Outdoor Recreation Research, Vol. 1 (1968) to
present (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office).

60. Robert H. Twiss, "An Interdisciplinary Approach to
Outdoor Recreation Research," Journal of Forestry,
Vol. 61, No. 8 (1963), pp. 580-582.

61. Ibid., p. 581.

62. Ibid.

63. National Academy of Sciences, Outdoor Recreation Research (Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Science,
1969), p. 2.

64. Ibid., p. 14.

65. Ibid., pp. 2 and 12.

66. John C. Hendee, "Recreational Values, Use and Management of Natural Areas," Natural Areas: Needs and
Opportunities, Symposium Proceedings, Northwest
Scientific Association, 1970, pp. 35-38.

67. Wilbur F. LaPage, "Meeting the Social Needs of Tomorrow's
Campers," mimeographed paper, U. S. Forest Service, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, Pennsylvania, no date; "Campground and Camper Market
Research," Trends in Parks and Recreation, Vol. 7 (1970),
pp. 7-12.

68. Elwood L. Shafer, Jr., "The Name of the Game Is Recreation Research," Environmental Education, Vol. 2 (1970),
pp. 30-34.

69. Harvey Perloff and Lowden Wingo, "Urban Growth and the
Planning of Outdoor Recreation," O.R.R.R.C. Study Report
22, Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 81100.

70. Marion Clawson, "Systems in Park Planning," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, Vol. 55 (1965),
p. 609.

71. An excellent description of the spatial relationships
between electrical system components, written in a








non-engineering language is found in Martha Church,
The Spatial Organization of Electric Power Territories
in Massachusetts, Department of Geography Research
Paper No. 69 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1966).

72. William J. Hart, A Systems Approach to Park Planning
(Morges, Switzerland: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1966).

73. Robert C. Lucas, "The Contribution of Environmental
Research to Wilderness Policy Decisions," Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 22 (1966), pp. 116-126, quote
p. 121; "Research Needs Generated by New Directions in
Forest Policy," Proceedings, Society of American
Foresters, 1965, pp. 73-75.

74. Mercer, "Letter." pp. 364-365.

75. Mercer, "Leisure," p. 266.

76. Gerasimov et al., pp. 189-198; "Soviet Conference on
Geographical Problems of Recreation," Soviet Geography: Review and Translation, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1970), pp. 208213; Yu. A. Vedenin, and N. N. Miroshnichenko,
"Evaluation of the Natural Environment for Recreational
Purposes," Soviet Geography: Review and Translation,
Vol. 11, No. 3 (1970) pp. 198-208.

77. Edward A. Ackerman, "Where Is a Research Frontier?"
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 53
(1963), pp. 429-439, reprinted in F. E. Dohrs and L. M.
Somners, eds., Introduction to Geography: Selected
Readings (New York: T. Y. Crowell Co., 1967), pp. 369387.

78. Ibid., p. 377.

79. John R. Borchert, "Geography and Systems Theory," Saul
B. Cohen, ed., Problems and Trends in American Geography
(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967), pp. 264-271.

80. For a particularly relevant discussion of the differences
in meanings of systems analysis see Thomas J. Wilbanks
and Richard Symanski, "What Is Systems Analysis,"
Professional Geographer, Vol. 20 (1968), pp. 81-85.








81. Ackerman, p. 380; and reflecting Ackerman as chairman
of the investigating Committee on Geography for the
Academy of Sciences in The Science of Geography, p. 1.

82. For example see: Wilbanks and Symanski, pp. 81-85;
Don C. Foote and Bryn Greer-Wootten, "An Approach to Systems Analysis in Cultural Geography," Professional
Geographer, Vol. 20 (1968), pp. 86-91; parts of
Introductory Geography: Viewpoints and Themes, Commission on College Geography Publication No. 5 (Washington: Association of American Geographers, 1967);
Robert McDaniel and M. E. E. Hurst, A Systems Analytic
Approach to Economic Geography, Commission on College Geography Publication No. 8 (Washington: Association of American Geographers, 1968); and Michael Chisholm, "General Systems Theory and Geography," Transactions, Institute of British Geographers, No. 42 (1967), pp.
45-52.

83. His complete statement was: "Geographers are concerned
with the systems of interconnected parts--with different
kinds of phenomena that are located together on the
surface of the earth--hence, their concern with spatial
systems analysis." Preston E. James, "The Field of Geography," Geography as a Professional Field, eds.
P. E. James and L. Kennamer, Bulletin 1966, No. 10,
Association of American Geographers and National Council for Geographic Education (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1966), pp. 1-4.

84. Michael Chubb, "A Systems Analysis and Spatial Demand
Approach to Statewide Recreation Planning: A Case Study of Boating in Michigan," Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1967.

85. For a complete background on the Michigan systems
analysis approach to recreation planning, and particularly on "RECSYS--SYMAP" the "Research and Planning Publications" bibliography of the Department of Park and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan lists 12 separate descriptive to
technical volumes.

86. His dissertation describes the method: Carleton S.
Van Doren, "An Interaction Travel Model for Projecting
Attendance of Campers at Michigan State Parks: A








Study in Recreation Geography," Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1967; a further contrast of this gravity method and Ellis' electrical system analog
method used in Chubb's work is found in Jack B. Ellis
and Carlton S. Van Doren, "A Comparative Evaluation of Gravity and System Theory Models for Statewide Recreation Traffic Flows," Journal of Regional Science, Vol.
6, No. 2 (1966), pp. 57-70.

87. See for example K. McCleary, "A Systems Approach to
the Location of Golf Facilities: A Problem in Urban
Recreation," Master's thesis, Waterloo Lutheran
University, 1969.

88. For a discussion of the Manitoba system approach see
Gordon D. Taylor, "History and Techniques of Recreation
Demand Prediction," Predicting Recreation Demand,
papers presented at the 1969 Congress for Recreation
and Parks, Technical Report No. 7, Department of Park
and Recreation Resources (East Lansing: Michigan State
University, 1969), pp. 4-14.

89. Walter Isard et al., "On the Linkage of SocioEconomic and Ecologic Systems," Papers and Proceedings,
Regional Science Association, Vol. 21 (1967), pp. 79-99,
especially pp. 83-99.














CHAPTER II

REGIONAL AND TOPICAL SETTING


Geographic research can focus on a regional setting, a topical activity, or a resource category. This study attempts to collapse these three subject approaches into a focus that incorporates elements of each. A region was selected, but this is not intended to be a traditional regional study. A single human activity restricts the subject, but further confinement is deliberate in order to shed at least partial light on use of a specific resource.


Study Region and State


Southeastern United States

The South, and especially the Southeast region, is

particularly well blessed with outdoor recreation resources. There are many diverse opportunities for outdoor recreation in this region of mild climate, a variety of natural landscapes (from mountains to seashore) and an abundance of natural lakes and reservoirs (constructed by TVA, Corps of Engineers, and private power companies) situated among forests and rural farm lands. Limited access highways and 57








good primary and secondary roads traverse this vast recreation region and provide convenient links with the densely populated regions to the north.

Despite this setting for outdoor recreation research

and development, there appears to be a major regional lag--by comparison with other parts of the United States--in research on outdoor recreation topics. A spokesman for the National Park Service recently commented on the ever present "...need for research that will generate factual information to guide planning and management decisions." I Yet, a simple survey of available literature shows an obvious dearth of such essential information being gathered in the Southeast.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute sponsored in 1967 a

seminar on the status of outdoor recreation research in the South.2 The report on this seminar demonstrates an overwhelming need for all kinds of outdoor recreation research in the region.

Speakers Schell and Stern suggested the following reasons for this regional research lag: (1) A lagging urbanization rate combined with heretofore easy access by city residents to rural water based recreation opportunity,

(2) General absence of noticeable crowding and use conflicts at recreation areas, (3) A lower per capita income level,

(4) Lack of identification as a major tourist destination








area (except for Florida), (5) A general rural orientation of the population, (6) Failure of policy makers to realize the economic development potential and present value of outdoor recreation within the region, and (7) Unresponsive universities that still contend with more traditional development problems.3 In short, little demand has thus far been generated for recreation research information-whether applied or basic. Apparently rules of thumb, intuition, and experience have been relied upon in most southern development and planning endeavors.

Most of the research conducted in the Southeast has

been done by the U. S. Forest Service and the agricultural experiment stations of the land grant universities. In addition, some work has been done by the TVA and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Most of the information generated by these studies has concentrated on resource management techniques, use estimation techniques, customer profiles, and recreation economic impact on area development (by Economic Research Service and Economic Development Administration).

The spatial aspects of southern outdoor recreation have also been neglected in favor of studies in other regions of the United States. Table 2 demonstrates the paucity of work by geographers in this region. Among 185 titles with at













TABLE 2

OCCURRENCE OF SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES RECREATION STUDIES IN NORTH AMERICAN GEOGRAPHICAL AND ALLIED JOURNALS


Journal

Annals, A.A.G. Economic Geography Geographical Review Professional Geographer Journal of Geography Southeastern Geographer Land Economics Papers/Proceedings,
Regional Science Association Journal of Regional Science


Southeast

2 4 2 0 1 6 1


0 0


Other Regions
and Topics

48 41

26 14 9 5

35


5

2


Note: Includes articles of at least
content; titles, articles and
ca. 1930-1972.

Source: Data by author.


part recreation abstracts, dated








least a partial treatment of recreation only 16 dealt with the Southeast. None of the regional science recreation articles, and only one of 36 recreation articles in Land Economics dealt with the Southeast. Perhaps even more interesting is the fact that the voice of southern geographers, The Southeastern Geographer, only has 6 of 11 recreation titles dealing with Southeastern studies. Of all these studies, 3 were of national scale, 8 were on the mountains, hills and lakes of Tennessee, and only one each on the South Carolina coast, a city, Kentucky forests, the Florida Everglades and a general Florida study. In addition, of the 192 geography masters and doctoral theses listed in The Professional Geographer (completed and in progress) on recreation topics only 14 have concerned the Southeast (6 in coastal areas).


Florida

Since Florida development began about 1870, there has

been a continual growth in resident population and number of visitors. A major increase in visits came with the building of railroads before the beginning of this century by Flagler to St. Augustine and later Miami, and by his rival Plant who developed a route to Tampa. Both men built hotels that served as resorts for wealthy visitors from many parts of








the world.4 For a number of years Florida was primarily a winter playground for the wealthy. This was no doubt due to the difficulties and expense of traveling long distances by land from eastern and midwestern cities.

Indicative of increased popularity, by 1925 new construction on Miami Beach was valued at more than 17 million dollars, a tremendous boom over the 1920 assessed real property valuation of only 225,000 dollars. Not only was there a great land business boom and later "bust," but with expanded highway development, tourism also began to boom.6 Slowly the traditional role of Florida as a place of winter fun in the sun for the wealthy has changed to accommodate all groups. Whereas J. Russell Smith was able to quip in 1925 about the dominant winter migration that "Northern man, the sun-hunter, is following the water fowl to Florida,"7 a recent American Automobile Association guide proclaimed that now the lower east coast resort area is a "year-round vacation area available to even the most budget-conscious traveler." 8 The Miami Beach peak season is still, however, during winter.9

There are indications that Florida's growth as the nation's major southeastern recreation center is not yet completed, nor has it reached an equilibrium in regard to the share of amount and type of visitor flows into the state.








Still unknown is the effect of shifting by potential visitors to various islands of the Atlantic and the Caribbean, to Mexico, and South America as a result of non-Florida tourist promotion, inexpensive and convenient air transportation, and changed consumer attitudes toward the recreation potential of Florida and other places. However, the great winter migration is now supplemented by year-'round, and especially summer, movements of middle income groups who seek out all of the varied recreation destinations within the state. The trend in Florida vacation destinations originating in the eastern United States now may be involved in another modification in light of the tremendous visitor response to the newly opened first phase of Disney World.

Of particular interest is the newly developing Gulf

coast, long considered by many as a less desirable area for spending recreation or vacation time in comparison to Florida's more developed east coast.I0 Though touristically less important than other parts of the state, the coast from the Tampa-St. Petersburg area south to Ft. Myers (and more recently continuing south to Naples), benefitted from early railroad access incentive and city development in this tropical fringe climate and attracted considerably more recreation visitors than Gulf coastal areas to the north. Yet John Fraser Hart perceptively calls the nation's entire








Gulf Coast the "Growth Coast" because of its rapid amenity oriented industrial, recreation, and population growth.11 Based on census data and field work, Hart has demonstrated that within a band of land 50 miles wide and paralleling the Gulf Coast is the most rapidly growing part of the South. It is particularly meaningful to note that Florida's northwest, continentally oriented coast has thus far lagged behind some other areas in land development. It still offers a potential for controlled regional growth planned around carefully evaluated decisions concerning its remarkable beach resource base.


Coastal Beaches--The Resource Component

Having previously established Florida's recreation

lands for enquiry, it was decided to limit observation to a resource base critically in need of study. The resource topic, coastal beaches, was selected from among the several different coastal and interior environmental topics suitable for study chiefly on the basis of approaching critical supply levels.


National Setting

As early as 1936, despite a depression-caused low ebb of tourism,12 certain groups were aware of the limited amount of coastal land in public ownership. The National








park Service was then considering 16 potential national
13
seashore areas. These were mainly on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts where there existed greater assumed population need as well as the most pressing need to reserve some coastal land before private ownership excluded the public from the entire coast. But preservation of public seashore was slow. Authorized in 1937, the land to be called North Carolina's Cape Hatteras National Seashore was not under Park Service management until 1952.14 Notable in explanation of this slowness and the failure of the 20 or so other areas to materialize as seriously considered potential national seashores was the fact that land acquisition was either practically impossible or greatly hindered by the existence of private control over nearly all the desirable Atlantic coast lands, especially those near major cities. 15

Harold Ickes, then Secretary of the Interior, summed the problem in a 1938 speech:

When we look up and down the ocean fronts
of America, we find that everywhere they are passing behind the fences of private ownership. The people can no longer get to the
ocean.... I say that the people have a right
to a fair share of it.16

Ickes' words were little heeded, however. By 1955, when the National park Service reinventoried the lands recommended by








a 1935 survey as unspoiled seashore suited for designation as national preservation-recreation areas, it found that most of this prime coast of 437 miles had passed into private and commercial use.17

In 1962 another inventory of recreation shoreline was made by geographers at The George Washington University for the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.18 Though more detailed, this report was essentially the same as that made by Ickes in 1938. Only slightly more preservation has resulted on the national scale.

The President was told:

A most pressing problem of supply is
ocean...shoreline. This resource is one
of the most in demand, and it is one of the
most scarce in public ownership.... Less
than 2 per cent of the total shoreline
[of the nation] is in public ownership for
recreation -- only 336 miles on the Atlantic
coast.... 19

The George Washington University report to the Review Commission concluded that "there is a crisis in shoreline outdoor recreation. The shoreline is vanishing in the sense that private ownership is inhibiting public use." 20 The report cited studies that indicated an overwhelming preference among the general population for seashore as compared to inland recreation settings (particularly uplands
21
and mountains) and for beach shoreline over other types of shores.22








The most noteworthy contribution of the ORRRC study on recreation shoreline was its recognition that there existed a real "...need for coordinated planned action--based on adequate information and upon clear statements of public policy...."23 However, the study report cautioned that present knowledge of use and users of the nation's recrea24
tion seashore was virtually inadequate for planning. "One of the greatest stumbling blocks in evaluating recreational use of the American shoreline is a lack of precise information: data on both users and the resource are badly needed." 25 Thus, there was, in 1962, a clear mandate for outdoor recreation research in the coastal resource base. Since 1962 a few diverse studies have been completed within this resource framework (and will be reviewed in other parts of this dissertation) but they have only begun to scratch the surface of the research information need.


Florida Setting

The Florida beach resource situation must be seen

against a national backdrop of increasing demand for coastal outdoor recreation and an ever-decreasing supply of sea26
coast open to public use. Due partly, perhaps, to climate and a certain unexplained tourist appeal in the state's name and physical geography, there exists in Florida an outdoor








recreation industry of major proportions that serves out of state visitors as well as a rapidly growing resident populato.27
tion. 2 Practically the entire nation functions as the Florida tourist tributary area, with a major proportion of visitors and residents alike exhibiting a preference for Florida's coastal sand beaches. In fact, it is primarily the appeal of Florida's beaches that attracts many tourists.

Most of Florida's federally controlled recreation

coast lies within the area set aside in 1947 as the Ever28
glades National Park. Little accessible sand beach lies within the park (Monroe County) which functions primarily as a wildlife and nature preserve. A decision to make part of the Northwest Coast a national seashore has recently
29
been made. To be known as the Gulf Islands National Seashore, the area will extend from Pensacola eastward an unknown distance and will be composed primarily of various existing military and federal island holdings.


Activity Subsystem--Family Camping

Camping research stemming from the tremendous popularity of the activity has presented a number of thoughts that demand increased attention. Though a lot of facts have been gathered, and much supposition has been made, there remains a large number of questions that must be answered before good planning for family camping can be done.








National Setting

In 1960 about 8 per cent of the nation's population, age 12 or older, camped (10 million participants) on about 60 million occasions. By 1965, 10 per cent were camping (14 million participants), for a gain of 35 per cent over gross participation figures for 1960.30 Furthermore, 1962 ORRRC projections, since shown to be low estimates for they called for only 11 per cent of the population by 1976, predict that at least 14 per cent of the population of the 31
year 2000 (36 million participants) will be campers. Projections made in 1965 for the year 2000 call for 328 32
million camping occasions. Regardless of specifics of projection the direction is up, indicating a need for careful planning and resource allocation to meet increased camping pressures.

That camping is not what it used to be is obvious to any experienced camper. From simple tents and a "roughing it" experience the activity has moved to use of basic equipment (for many) that results in an experience that is more like apartment dwelling. With greater sophistication in equipment has come expanded interest in camping from the manufacturing and service industries.

For example, the June, 1971 issue of Changing Times listed camping as one of the recreation activities whose








manufacturing and service base has recently been elevated to the status of a growth industry.33 Thus, investment analysts expect sales and profits in the camping industry to rise faster than the rest of the economy. They expect a 10 to 20 per cent annual growth rate for several years before an industry slowdown.

In the 1960 to 1970 decade, nationwide tent sales rose from 46 to 87 million dollars while sleeping bag sales climbed from 34 to 58 million dollars. Between 1961 and 1969 production of camping vehicles increased over 400 per cent, while luxurious motor home sales are currently rising at a 25 to 30 per cent annual rate.34

The growth of camping and recent sophistication of the associated industry has been national in impact. Florida, with its associated name and allure for outdoor oriented travelers, has particularly felt the ramifications of this recreation trend.


Camping in Florida

Following the Civil War, a few campers drifted into Florida to see what lay in store in the great wilderness. At a time when Jacksonville, with a population of about 10,000, was the state's largest town, a few wealthy and adventuresome travelers contracted with guides and








camp-toured around the better known parts of the state, hunting, fishing and general adventure seeking.35

Fifty years later J. Russell Smith described early motor camping along the network of Florida highways and byways.36 While the millionnaire yachted or took a train to Palm Beach, Miami, or Jacksonville to vacation in a luxury resort hotel, the midwestern, New England or Canadian farmer camped along the roadside. Smith, in 1925 offered this description of such campers:

He ties his tent and cooking outfit on the
running-board of his Ford and camps by the
wayside -- "tin-can tourist," the hotelkeepers contemptuously call him. Many spend the winter in one tourist camp after another
...# [while they have] free access to the
pines, the sun, and the seashore. He has the
gentle excitements of a strange land and of
moving from place to place .... 37

Camping in Florida has changed a great deal since 1925 when campers stopped at undesignated places and tourist camps. By 1970 Florida ranked sixth in the nation in number of campsites. About 25,000 sites were scattered around the state in 86 public parks and recreation areas and 813 private camp grounds.38 Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1, camping has increased at a very high rate, as shown by the steepness of later parts of the curve. Of course, this curve is an incomplete indicator, for it neither considers affects of












PARTICIPATION TRENDS IN FLORIDA STATE PARK CAMPING


I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I


1 ?nf1


/
/

j


t + 4- I


/
/
/


I I I I


I I I I


t5UL
uuu / 600





400





qnn


1955


1960 YEAR


I I I I


1965


Source: State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation in Florida
(Tallahassee: Division of Recreation and Parks, 1970), p. 55, with revisions from Division of
Parks, Superintendents Reports.


Figure 1


1


1950


1970


I I I I I


1Iv~








increased park supply on participation nor the effects of rapid growth of the private campground industry in recent years. Incomplete data prevent such considerations, hence one is forced to enlarge on such trends as can be seen in Figure 1. The rate indicated by the steepest, most recent curve segment would seem unlikely to continue for many years, for park supply considerations must cause a maximum to be reached eventually. (The 1970 camper attendance figure is about 11 per cent over attendance for 1969.) 3














NOTES


i. Lon A. Garrison, "The Environment and the Evangelist,"
Departmental Information Report No. 1 (mimeograph),
Department of Recreation and Parks (College Station:
Texas A & M University, 1970).

2. Hugh A. Johnson, ed., Outdoor Recreation Research in
the South, Publication No. 5, Southern Land Economics Research Committee (Blacksburg, Virginia: Department
of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967).

3. Kerry F. Schell and P. M. Stern, "Recreation Research
in the South: Where and Why Does It Lag?" Outdoor
Recreation in the South, ed. Hugh A. Johnson, Publication No. 5, Southern Land Economics Research Committee
(Blacksburg, Virginia: Department of Agricultural
Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967),
pp. 33-40.

4. Grant McCall Roberts, "Recreation in West Central
Florida," (Master's thesis, Department of Geography,
University of Florida, 1967), pp. 16-29.

5. Daniel M. Friedenberg, "America's Land Boom: 1968,,"
Harper's Magazine, May, 1968, pp. 25-32.

6. Factors associated with the promotion and boom of the
Florida land business and its eventual "bust," are discussed in Homer B. Vanderblue, "The Florida Land Boom,"
Land Economics, Vol. 3 (1927), pp. 113-131, 252-2691
Richard 0. Cutler, "Amelia Island, Florida: A Geographic Study of Recreation Development" (Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, university of Florida,
1965), pp. 178-184.

7. J. Russell Smith, North America (New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 1925), p. 277.








8. American Automobile Association, Florida Tour Book,
Spring-Summer, 1969 (Washington, D. C.: American
Automobile Association, 1969), p. 40.

9. Ibid.

10. See, for example, the Non-Florida traffic flow map for
Florida Highways in 1934 in L. E. Peabody, "Extracts from Report on Florida Traffic Survey," Public Roads,
Vol. 16 (1935), pp. 68-72.

11. John Fraser Hart, The Southeastern United States
(Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1967), p. 72.

12. John Ise, Our National Park Policy, Resources for the
Future (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1961),
pp. 355-356.

13. Ibid., p. 425.

14. Ibid., p. 519.

15. Ibid., p. 426.

16. Ibid., pp. 426-427.

17. Ibid., pp. 519-520.

18. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States,
Study Report 4 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1962).

19. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing office, 1962), p. 70.

20. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Shoreline Recreation, p. 30.

21. Ibid., p. 3.

22. Several shoreline definitions were made in this study
but they were wholly unsatisfactory since they were
most often restatements of classification titles: for
example, "shoreline resource" was "where land and








reasonably large bodies of water meet"; "recreation shoreline" was shoreline suited for recreation use,
"beach shoreline" was "a wide expanse of sand or other
beach material lying at the waterline and of sufficient
extent to permit its development as a facility without
important encroachment on the upland," "marsh shoreline"
was "tidal or nontidal marsh," and "foreshore" was that
land below the high tide line. Ibid., pp. 31-32.

23. Ibid., p. 30.

24. Ibid., p. 29.

25. Ibid.

26. It has been estimated that it is unlikely that supply
can match the best projections of the nation's needs
for coastal beaches by 2000, which would seem to call for a consciously efficient way of managing existing
and obtainable resource areas. Ibid., p. 27.

27. Florida had the second greatest growth rate in the
nation between 1960 (4,952,000) and 1970 (6,789,000)
for a gain of 37 per cent. U. S. Bureau of the
Census, 1970 Census of Population, PC (VI)-1, United
States (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office, 1971).

28. Ise, p. 444.

29. Florida Conservation News, Newsletter of Florida Department of Natural Resources, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1971),
p. 4.

30. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation
Trends (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1967), p. 23.

31. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Prospective Demand for Outdoor Recreation (Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing office, 1962), p. 27.

32. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, p. 20.

33. "Investing in Companies that Profit from Pleasure,"
Changing Times, Vol. 25 (1971), pp. 35-40.








34. Ibid.; U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Selected
Outdoor Recreation Statistics (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 100.

35. Charles Hallock, Camp Life in Florida (New York: Forest
and Stream Publishing Company, 1876).

36. Smith, p. 279.

37. ibid.

38. David Shulman, "Great Opportunities in the Great Outdoors," Franchise Journal, Vol. 3, No. 11 (1970),
p. 14.

39. Florida Division of Recreation and Parks, mimeographed
Superintendent Report Summaries, attendance records,
1970.














CHAPTER III

STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH DESIGN


Representative Problem Area

The need for outdoor recreation research within the nation's coastal resources was established in Chapter II. Selection of the Northwest Coast of Florida as a general study area, or the coast district to which sample generalization would be extended, was determined on the basis of several points: limits of a spatially manageable field problem, ease of definition of the study area within defensible spatial boundaries, existence of a still undeveloped coastal district with considerable outdoor recreation potential, and ease of definition of a meaningful time crosssection for study.


Physical Factors

Though other factors might be brought to bear, it is

probably the physical character of the shoreline that forms
1
the most logical identification of the study area. The Florida shoreline on the most elementary physical level can be classed as beach, marsh, and mangrove types. Figure 2











GENERALIZED SHORELINE TYPES IN FLORIDA


KBE A


40


Source: State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation in Florida
(Tallahassee: Division of Recreation and Parks,
1970), p. 81.


Figure 2








shows the arrangement of these shoreline types in Florida and it will be seen that three distinct beach districts are distinguishable.

The beaches of Florida's east coast are part of a

gently sloping shelf that extends along most of the Atlantic coast of the United States. Beaches of exposed sand and shell fragments are washed by the warm waters of the Atlantic as far south as Dade County where mangrove swamps become more dominant at the water's edge.

Florida's coastal tip is covered with dense broadleaf

evergreen shrubs and low trees with aerial stilt roots varying locally between black mangrove (Avicennia nitida) and red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) which extend into the water and landward as far as salt marsh conditions prevail.2 Scattered openings on small sand or coral beaches lie in this district but usually they can be reached only by water.

The mangrove forest extends north along the Florida

Gulf coast eventually existing only in small protected bay areas. Open sand beaches prevail from Lee County (off shore from Ft. Myers) north to the Pinellas County northern line.

The map area in northwest peninsular Florida designated marsh extends from the Pinellas County line northwest to Wakulla County and is low lying saline to brackish tidal marshland with coastal swamp forests. Here the shore is








often a transition zone between open water and flooded rush, sedge and grasslands.3

West of the tidal marshes of Apalachee Bay along the Florida panhandle to Alabama lies another coastal beach district. Except in marshy lowlands along bay shores this area is fringed at land's edge by sand beaches and offshore barrier islands of dune piled sands. Thus, one reason this beach area was selected for study is its clearly discernible eastern physical boundary.


Recognition as Regional and Recreational Entity

As has been recently the custom among state development commissions and tourism promoters, Florida is divided into advertising regions. The "Miracle Strip" of Northwest Florida extends from the western Escambia County line to the eastern edge of Gulf county and coincides approximately with the physically defined Northwest Beach District of Figure 2, lending credence to its selection as a problem area. The "Miracle Strip" is named for the area's unifying coastal strip of dazzling, sugar-fine, miraculously white sand beaches. The sands are among the whitest found on Florida's coastline. Composed of very low proportions of shell and coral fragments which tend to discolor other beaches, the sand is almost pure white quartz fragments. It is said that








steepness of offshore slopes prevent most shoreward shell movement by wave action.4


Florida's Last Beach Frontier

By law, all areas seaward of an average high tide line are property of the State of Florida with disposal right held by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund. Therefore, all beaches are public since riparian property rights include only areas landward of mean high tide.5 Riparian owners can, by blocking access or not allowing automobile parking, cause public beach to be effectively private by exclusion. A 1963 study by the Florida Development Commission, still adequately shows the relative distribution of beaches backed by public riparian land along the Florida coast.6

Figure 3, which should be compared with Figure 2,

shows the distribution of Florida's beach resources. The 8,000 mile salt water shoreline, composed of 1,016 miles of sand beach, includes only 299 miles of publicly owned and potentially accessible beach; however, 52 miles of military held land is not open to recreation activities, leaving a total of 247 miles of available public sand beach.7

The beaches of map zone 6 on the east coast, extending from the Georgia state line to Palm Beach County (Nassau













DISTRIBUTION OF FLORIDA BEACH RESOURCES


T1


SAND BEACH INVENTORY


PERCENT PUBLIC

35 17
49 73 18 61


Source: Adapted from State of Florida, Florida Beach Resources
(Tallahassee: Florida Development Commission, 1963).


Figure 3


ZONE
1
2
3
4
5
6


MILES 412

1
231

35 89 248




Full Text
82
steepness of offshore slopes prevent most shoreward shell
4
movement by wave action.
Florida's Last Beach Frontier
By law, all areas seaward of an average high tide line
are property of the State of Florida with disposal right
held by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund.
Therefore, all beaches are public since riparian property
5
rights include only areas landward of mean high tide.
Riparian owners can, by blocking access or not allowing
automobile parking, cause public beach to be effectively
private by exclusion. A 1963 study by the Florida Develop
ment Commission, still adequately shows the relative distri
bution of beaches backed by public riparian land along the
Florida coast.
Figure 3, which should be compared with Figure 2,
shows the distribution of Florida's beach resources. The
8,000 mile salt water shoreline, composed of 1,016 miles of
sand beach, includes only 299 miles of publicly owned and
potentially accessible beach; however, 52 miles of military
held land is not open to recreation activities, leaving a
7
total of 247 miles of available public sand beach.
The beaches of map zone 6 on the east coast, extending
from the Georgia state line to Palm Beach County (Nassau


123
exception of a small, little-used pond which is also
located on the property. The survey period (1970) was the
fifth season this campground was open.
The remaining four area campgrounds are all in fairly
close proximity to St. Andrews State Park and all are located
near the peninsular triangle east of US 98 formed by state
route 392. Visitors to the beaches traveling from Panama
City must cross Hathaway Bridge. Just beyond the bridge
road signs direct visitors by two routing options to the
beaches. Some turn left at the large U.S. Naval Reservation
and follow route 392 toward St. Andrews State Park.
Those following this route first pass the K.O.A. Camp
ground, one of the survey locations, on the right. Con
veniently located within full view of the road, K.O.A. has
among the area's campgrounds, one unique quality of being
the only local franchised member of a nationwide chain of
family campgroundsKampgrounds of America, Incorporated.
This 50-site campground has a small swimming pool, camp
store, recreation room with game tables etc., laundromat,
and sites complete with water, electricity and sewerage
hook ups. Three modern bath houses are spaced among the
lightly pine-shaded sites. Though easily accessible by
paved road, K.O.A. has neither a view of notable scenery
nor a water body for recreation.


206
overlap of market area toward the Texas Gulf area. The
Gulf coast corridor, west of the study area, might result
from relative differences in beach quality causing a west
ward shift in visitor origins.
Some sample evidence indicates likeliness in the
preceding statement. An attempt was made to check on
possible unusual circumstances that would tend to invali
date intended observations of a "normal" tributary area,
or a "normal" visitor season. Visitors were asked the
following question:
For this trip would you have gone to
one of the Louisiana, Mississippi, or
Alabama Gulf beaches if that area had not
been partly destroyed during the last
hurricane season?
Only one of 513 answered yes to this question. Some (12)
had either toured or planned a tour through the area with
a brief stopover. The interesting response by most was
"We wouldn't have gone there anyway. The beaches are not
clean Qor not pretty, not sandy, too muddy, etc 7] ."
Clearly then, to find satisfactory beaches these visitors
came much farther than predicted by a distance minimizing
model to the Panama city area, thus partly accounting for
market area shifts and corridors. Also, overlap between
this hypothesis and the following clearly indicate, as will
be developed, a highly comparative selection process that


325
cent would continue camping at least occasionally. Spatial
and resource use implications of this table are quite ob
vious. Since only camping purists would remain participating
in the activity, a shift away from developed-site camping
would occur in some cases, while about one-fifth of the
respondents would continue to patronize developed camp
grounds and pay high prices. The other half of the camping
market would either patronize motels, visit relatives, or
increase day-use pressures on recreation facilities near
their residences. In any case, widespread repercussions
would surely result.
In summary, regarding fees, it may be stated that though
low prices may or may not attract campers, high prices will
drive a great many away. All things considered, there must
be a perspective placed on the preceding discussion. Since
fees are only a portion of the cost of a recreation outing
or vacation, it would be expected to find fee increases
affecting attendance jointly relative to total trip expendi
ture. Consequently, if only distance is considered one
16
must expect distance variable price elasticity of demand.
In actuality, it is a far more complex factor than implied
by the discussion.


TABLE 14
CAMPGROUND MANAGEMENT PREFERENCE
Campground
Private Public No Preference
(Percentages by Campground)
Grayton
2*
73
22
St. Andrews
0
70
28
Alligator Point
12
27
59
Beach
31
23
42
K.O.A.
31
41
29
Magnolia
33
8
55
Pirate cove
33
28
39
All Parks
14
49
35
*e.g., 2 per cent of Grayton sample


278
105. National Academy of Sciences, Outdoor Recreation
Research (Washington, D. C.: National Academy of
Sciences, 1969), p. 38.
106. Ibid.
107. Roy I. Wolfe, "Economic Development," Canada; A
Geographical interpretation, ed. John Warkentin
(Toronto; Methuen, 1968), pp. 226-227; also "Com
munication," journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 2
(1970), pp. 85-87.
108. David A. King, "Characteristics of Family Campers
Using the Huron-Manistee National Forests," Research
Paper LS-19 (St. Paul, Minnesota; Lake States Forest
Experiment Station, 1965) p. 10; Robert C. Lucas,
"User Evaluation of Campgrounds on Two Michigan
National Forests," Research Paper NC-44 (St. Paul,
Minnesota; North Central Forest Experiment Station,
1970), p. 8; and George W. Orning, "Private Pleasure
Boating in the National Forests of Minnesota,"
Research Note NC-15 (St. Paul, Minnesota; North
Central Forest Experiment Station, 1966), p. 4.
109. Ezekiel, pp. 357-365.
110. Curve A, Y = 2.7509 + 0.3352Xi; Curve B, Y = 3.2366
+ 0.3070 Xx;
Curve C, Y = 7.4565 + 0.0845X-L,* Curve D, Y = 3.9298
+ 0.2161 Xx.
Note also that a single true curve could have been
derived by fitting a second degree function but for
ease of discussion, explanation, and replication this
method was selected. Barnum elected the method of
fitting a series of straight curves to segments of a
curve showing relationship between number of retail
establishments and central functions. Barnum, p. 43.


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Linear Beach Fringe Focus. ..... 86
Primary Study SitesState Parks . 88
Operational East-West Limits .... 93
Sequence of Area Recreation
Development 98
Pre-War Period 100
Post-War Period 103
Recent Period 106
Recreation Land Use 1970 109
Land Use Classification 110
Interpretations 115
Secondary Study SitesPrivate
Campgrounds 118
Grayton Beach area campgrounds. 119
St. Andrews area campgrounds. . 121
Recapitulation 128
Study Area Seasonality 129
Florida Seasonality Regions . 129
Gulf Coast Camping Seasonality. 132
Climatic Basis 136
Research Design 137
Methods 139
Qualitative description 140
Quantitative description 141
Cass study 141
Field survey 142
Additional information sources. 146
Data analysis 146
IV TRIBUTARY AREA: DELIMITATION AND
SPATIAL INTERACTION 154
vi


161
recreation areas having a similar function, parallel inter
connections, and forming a topically homogeneous region or
recreation hinterland. Yet when each park or recreation area
is considered separately within its area, it becomes, by
scale shift, a nodal central place functioning as a focal
point for its surroundings, consequently, a theory of the
periphery is an urban regional-scale observation with urban
focality. A recreation theory of rural central places is
simply a product of a scale shift and involves recreation
location focality. Both theories deal with the same regional
interaction system components.
This chapter approaches recreation interaction within
a portion of the nation's eastern spatial recreation sub
system. The approach of observation and analysis is from
the scale of recreation area nodality. The operational
study area is used as a focus for recreation travel and in
teraction within its tributary or market area.
Application of Central place Theory
If the assumption is made that recreation locations can
be thought of as being analagous to other central place forms,
i.e., cities and other retailing-service locations, then an
internal differentiation must be found with which to contrast
recreation central places and form the basis of their


236
83
in South Carolina; Mitchell's dealt with city playgrounds
84 8 5
in Ohio and Columbia, South Carolina; Bingham, Pickard,
and Romsa dealt with visitors to a commercial Kentucky
8 8
campground; Guernsey and Crowe probed Lake Michigan state
8 7
park visitors; Cole and Mitchell worked with campers in
88
the Great Smoky Mountains National park; and Lentnek, Van
Doren and Trail published similar results of spatial be-
havior in Ohio recreational boating. More recently,
Wheeler and Stutz have applied this theory of distance
attenuation of interaction to the frequency of urban social
trips.90
Distance Interaction Hypothesis
To this point, this chapter has sought to conceptualize
and identify the camping market or tributary area for the
Greater Panama city area. The logic of market area shape
has been pursued as has its multifaceted processes. The data
mapped have been represented as a discontinuous distribution
of discrete camping parties. Another dimension is gained by
an analysis of the dot map data in the form of an interaction
field. In order to add to the evolving literature of spatial
recreation behavior a second and more generalized dimension
must be pursued in this research. The objective of this
section is not to ascertain whether distance has an identical


85
2 in Levy County. in fact, the marsh zone has only two
small artificial beaches totaling about one mile in combined
extent. -*-1
Zone 1 (Franklin through Escambia counties) has by far
the greatest extent of sand beach with 412 miles. Thirty-
five per cent of this is public land of which 93 miles are
open to use. Here lies 38 per cent of the state's total
public open beach and the relatively undeveloped state of
land use may provide the greatest potential for expansion
of public beach lands. It is here that Florida's last beach
frontier lies. It would seem imperative for the coastal
lands to be used more effectively, with long range regional
objectives in mind.
Therefore, the Northwest Florida Coast was selected for
study. The district is physically distinguishable from the
rest of the Florida Gulf coast by the non-beach district on
Apalachee Bay. Furthermore, its relatively undeveloped con
dition and great recreation beach resource potential imply
needs which make the area a logical study district of
Florida.
National Significance of Area
An additional reinforcing reason for selection of the
Northwest Coast is its singular outdoor recreation


197
map used by 10 or more parties are interstate or major
federal through routes. The Bloomington-St. Louis-Tupelo-
jackson artery is an interstate route. Also, the main
north-south corridor flow artery connecting Indianapolis,
Evansville, Louisville, Ohio cities, Nashville, Huntsville,
Birmingham, and Montgomery is with exceptions of incomplete
links an interstate route. From Montgomery the southerly
flow divides taking US 331 to the west and US 231 to the
east by way of Dothan. It will be seen that this main
route collects travelers from both east and west as southern
tending feeder routes coalesce into the US 331-Interstate
65 flow.48
It will be noted that the few eastern origin visitors
also traveled the interstates to a large extent (wherever
they were available). An exception is the handful of
visitors who traveled the scenic Blue Ridge Parkway from
Winchester to Roanoke, Asheville, and to the Great Smoky
Mountains National park.
Another trend should be noted. A large number of
touring visitors and those with longer vacation periods
selected their route in order to travel through the Great
Smokies. Thus the Lexington-Knoxville and Nashville-
Knoxville routes stand out, as also do the eastern routes
feeding into the Knoxville-Smokies area and the heavily


106
37
characteristics and Morgan discussed land use.
Recent Period
Present day development trends are not completely
clear. There is evidence that a new period is just beginning
and that the next period may be characterized by redevelop
ment consisting of enormous and luxurious Miami Beach style
hotels. The commercial aspects do seem to be exploding into
this type of operational setting. Early attractions, for
example, were small operations, like an existing modest
serpentarium; however, the newest attraction is a multi
story Gulfarium (Gulf World). Everything appears to be
shifting to another geara much larger and faster gear.
Shops and snack stands are being replaced with big stores,
shopping centers and big restaurants. The manager of a two
level motel had this to say of his neighbor, a large modern
Miami Beach style hotel (even in nameFountainbleau):
"It's a fine motel, but it was built 5
years before its time. It actually is a
seaside hotel and the people don't want that
kind of a place. Families don't like
elevators, and they have no ground level rooms.
They seldom rent many of their units."38
Yet the wisdom of this design may become apparent in
about five years. Almost all new motels are large multi
level hotels. The Ambassador Motel, for example, newly


292
campgrounds relative to the area's developmental structure.
The contrast in amount of nearby auxiliary commercial
development between Grayton Beach and St. Andrews parks is
obvious from these two profiles, it will be seen that
visitor services and transient lodging follow essentially
the same profile of relative density. in both cases Grayton
Beach is relatively isolated in terms of its external com
mercial setting while St. Andrews is relatively near the
development peaks on both graphs.
Grayton clearly lies within a profile trough between
the urbanized extremes of the graphs. One modest resort,
a handful or rental house trailers, and a small motel offer
Grayton's only nearby transient lodging. The visitor support
profile is somewhat deceptive since several recreation and
service businesses are indicated as surrounding Grayton.
Actually a number of these units are small roadside automo
tive service stations and businesses serving the resident
needs of nearby Santa Rosa Beach which is located on the
main through route, US 98.
Of the private campgrounds in the survey, two deserve
comment here (in addition to the descriptions of Chapter III).
Pirate Cove is the private camp nearest to Grayton Beach
State Park in isolation and solitude. Beach, on the other
hand, lies amid the area's most intense zone of recreation.


131
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOURISTS WHO PLANNED TO ENGAGE
IN OUTDOOR RECREATION IN FLORIDA DURING THE SUMMER AND WINTER
SEASONS, 1964- 65 BY PLANNING REGION OF DESTINATION
PLANNING REGIONS
Source: Adapted from State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation in Florida
(Tallahassee: Division of Recreation and Parks, 1970),
p. 157.
Figure 10


63
Still unknown is the effect of shifting by potential visitors
to various islands of the Atlantic and the Caribbean, to
Mexico, and South America as a result of non-Florida tourist
promotion, inexpensive and convenient air transportation, and
changed consumer attitudes toward the recreation potential of
Florida and other places. However, the great winter migra
tion is now supplemented by year-'round, and especially sum
mer, movements of middle income groups who seek out all of
the varied recreation destinations within the state. The
trend in Florida vacation destinations originating in the
eastern United States now may be involved in another modifi
cation in light of the tremendous visitor response to the
newly opened first phase of Disney World.
Of particular interest is the newly developing Gulf
coast, long considered by many as a less desirable area for
spending recreation or vacation time in comparison to
Florida's more developed east coast.^ Though touristically
less important than other parts of the state, the coast from
the Tampa-St. Petersburg area south to Ft. Myers (and more
recently continuing south to Naples), benefitted from early
railroad access incentive and city development in this
tropical fringe climate and attracted considerably more
recreation visitors than Gulf coastal areas to the north.
Yet John Fraser Hart perceptively calls the nation's entire


340
Association, Vol. 5 (1959), pp. 49-50; Brian J. L.
Berry, H. Gardiner Barnum and R. J. Tennant, "Retail
Location and Consumer Behavior," papers and Proceedings,
Regional Science Association, Vol. 9 (1962), pp. 65-106.
10. J. Sonnenfeld, "Personality and Behavior in Environment,"
Proceedings, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 1
(1969), pp. 136-140.
11. George F. Deasy and Phyllis R. Griess, "Impact of a
Tourist Facility on Its Hinterland," Annals, Associa
tion of American Geographers, Vol. 56 (1966), pp.
290-306, quote p. 306.


40
other means, utilizing systems analysis in their research.^
Generalizing for all problematic approaches in science,
Ackerman saw four themes of study among which was "the
functioning of systems that include multiple numbers of
78
variables... When the earth and its human occupants are
viewed as a complex interacting totality then it must be
clear that geographers not only have a natural interest in many
scales of spatial systems, but have been performing a type of
systems analysis for some time. Borchert, speaking for a
number of geographers, recognizes this fact in agreement with
79
Ackerman. However, increased interdisciplinary conversation
and mutual reinforcement of separate research fields, also
recognized by Borchert as a potential benefit to geography,
can best be gained by attention to the formal aspects of a
constant terminology and systematic methods, which are also
a feature of a complete concept of systems analysis apart
from a partial concept of spatial sets of interrelated
factors. In other words the concept is dual: a systematic
way of looking at, or analyzing problems, and the analysis
of a dynamic interrelation between components of an inter-
80
dependent set. For Ackerman, the method of geography
should be a topical or problematic analysis of various time-
81
space subsystems within the world system. More recently
a number of well written information sources have embellished


9
upon which rest the rationality of this research:
(1) There is a real need for efficient planning,
allocation, and management to meet outdoor
recreation demands within a framework of
limited land, money, and other resources.
(2) Planning efficiency can only be grounded
on fundamental knowledge of people1s needs,
wants and propensities.
(3) Our present level of knowledge of such
basic things is inadequatehence, arises
the core problem which may be defined as
a need for outdoor recreation research.
Spatial Viewpoint of Report
Recreation planners and other use-demand predictors
have run aground countless times in attempts to use broad
predictor rules and national or regionally based cross-
sectional data on recreation participation. Many planning
efforts have been built around predictions based on such
broadly conceived population participation ratios. It is
believed that time will show that some past and present
state planning for outdoor recreation development has been
based on invalid assumptions.
Localities have such variation in internal and sur
rounding transportation facilities, topography, population
density and socioeconomic composition and relative locations
of complementary and competitive recreation sites, that
there is always a need for local empirical studies upon


GRAYTON BEACH SECTOR
PANAMA CITY BEACH SECTOR
PIRATE COVE CAMPGROUND
SEAGROVE BEACH
GRAYTON BEACH STATE PARK
GRAYTON BEACH
BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH
BLUE GULF RESORT
GULF HILLS TRAILER PARK
1 WHOLESALE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICES
2 U. S. NAVY PROPERTY
3 K. 0. A. CAMPGROUND
4 MAGNOLIA BEACH CAMPGROUND
5 ALLIGATOR POINT CAMPGROUND
6 MARINA COMPLEX
7 VENTURE OUT TRAVEL TRAILER RESORT
8 ST. ANDREWS STATE PARK
9 LONG BEACH AMUSEMENT PARK
10 BEACH CAMPGROUND
11 MIRACLE STRIP AMUSEMENT PARK
12 SEAGULL TRAILER PARK AND CAMPGROUND
13 REIDS COURT AND TRAILER PARK
14 STATE WAYSIDE PARK


35
presently or whether work needs to be done within individual
problem systems is perhaps pointless at this stage in outdoor
recreation research. In any case, work must now take place
at a level lower than such an ideal grand model; therefore,
if one deals with a system or a major subsystem the associa
tion is not important. What is important is that the system
apparently envisioned by Twiss and others deals with people,
places, and interaction, all of which are within the
geographer's domain. In addition, system organizational
pattern or structure would seem also to be well suited to
geographical analysis, either independently or in multidis
cipline groups.
Recommendations of nongeographers
A number of planners, applied researchers, and other
recreation practitioners have seen the necessity of a sys
tems approach to their problem solving process. For example,
several U. S. Forest Service recreation specialists have
pointed to the interconnection of spatial elements in
regional outdoor recreation and have discussed associated
problems involved in predicting use of individual recreation
sites or parks. Change in one park can affect use of other
parks. West coast researchers have been particularly im
pressed by the use of "natural" areas by people who might


291
of recreation oriented land use. Both graphs were con
structed from data collected by one-fifth mile units. All
traversed highway routes were collapsed or contracted along
the north-south axis leaving east-west oriented relative
development profiles. Horizontal scaling is by miles with
no numerical designation since no single terminal point
exists. Now identifiable is the spatial variable of relative
location of campgrounds to their surrounding developed
recreation and service lands.
Not only do Figures 29 and 30 effectively add the
dimension of density, but they are designed to selectively
eliminate "noise" or extraneous information shown on the
12
land use traverse (Figure 8). As an overall area develop
ment indicator, Figure 29 shows the density of commercial
overnight accommodations expressed in occupance units
(rooms, cottages, and apartments). Figure 30 on the other
hand, shows the density of area development by visitor
supportive commercial establishments oriented toward recrea
tion and allied services (eg., service stations, restaurants,
amusements, etc.).
The graphs were designed to include the entire coast
fringe between Destin and Panama city (despite exclusion
of part of this area from the operational study area) in
order to more clearly demonstrate location of all study


120
The only campground west of Grayton Beach State Park
within the operational study area was a shoestring opera
tion named Gulf Hills Trailer Park. Offering meager space
for fewer than ten camping trailers and almost totally
lacking in facilities, this camp was virtually unused and
was not included in the survey.
The only other campground in the Grayton Beach Sector
lay in the sector transition zone about midway between
Grayton and St. Andrews parks and was selected for visitor
sampling. Pirate Cove Campground is a modest, family
developed and managed, roadside family camp on the shore
of 500-acre plus Powell Lake near its bar-blocked mouth
at Phillips Inlet.
Under large shading pines and interspersed with
occasional shrubs are part of the 35 sites with water,
electricity and picnic tables in a somewhat random, in
formal layout. An eight feet deep canal allows boats to
be brought to the rear of a number of unshaded sites
located at lakeside. A few sites are located in seclusion
amid a thicket of trees and shrubs. Centrally located is
a simple bath house with showers and restroom facilities.
An old two-level building houses a modest camp store sell
ing a few essentials and novelties. A rental sailboat is
available and there is free access to adjoining property


As would be expected from the state distribution map
(Figure 16), Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee stand
out as visitor origins. However, the origins are far from
evenly distributed throughout these or any other states.
Instead, as most dot maps of discrete data show, the re
sultant distribution is portrayed in the reality of its
discontinuous nature. Neither are origins distributed
randomly as is visually obvious. See, for example, the
west coast states and the plains states. Instead there is
a very strong urban origin location emphasis. With this
emphasis, and since population is not randomly distributed
but is clustered, and since these urban clusters are
unevenly distributed then the pattern of origins internal
to the visitor tributary area is likewise a clustered
pattern. The major metropolitan areas stand out on this
map as dense clusters of dots while lesser concentrations
are located at smaller cities and towns. (Urban demographic
survey results verifying this method are found in Appendix V.)
The ungeneralized discreet dot map consequently con
structs a market or tributary area that appears quite unre
lated to the symmetrical hexagonal or circular market areas
32
and service areas of central place theory. Not only is
the area discontinuous and assymetrical, but distinct corri
dors of visitor origins emerge and equally distinct regional


23
26
morphology and economic base of resort communities.
Another advocate of urban attention who takes a simi
larly restricted view of a desirable recreation research
27
focus xs Burley. Basing his argument on an expansion of
potential leisure time (non-working time), Burley proposes
that more time is spent in urban "sport" than in tourist
travel or vacations. He also attaches a supposition that
home recreation dollar expenditures are greater than those
made on an extended trip. Therefore, he concludes that
tourism and allied activities are not as important as urban
"home-based leisure" and specifically "sport." Concurring
with Kearns, he ascribes a considerable value to be gained
by cultural geography from potential conceptual spin-off
from a sport focus in recreation geography. Burley's pro
posed urban "sport" research scheme is five-fold, involving:
"economic aspects," "social aspects," "cultural origins,"
"physical conditions," and "urban land use." Though of
importance, Burley's proposal is hardly suited to a primary
research focus. Mitchell, in his proposal, correctly
recognized the secondary nature of urban outdoor games and
sports, and he presented them as an activity subsystem to
28
his more comprehensive general urban focus. Here also
29
would lie the specific sport focus proposed by Shaw.


73
to central place theory are by Berry and Pred, Berry,
74
75
and Olsson. The comments on distance functions by Chorley
76
and Haggett also apply.
Recreation application
The most basic theoretical work concerning the attenua
tion of recreation activity (travel) with distance has come
from economists. Hotelling initiated conversation in 1929
in a paper dealing with spatial competition within a recrea-
77
tion context. Later he devised a method of assessing the
78
value of national park recreation experience. He plotted
visitor origins into distance zones and calculated an average
travel cost for each distance zone. By assuming the maximum
recreation value of a park to be represented by maximum
travel cost incurred to make a visit, he demonstrated the
proportions paying less in travel than the experience was
worth, thus obtaining free recreation experience. He used
a fixed cost per mile and refined travel cost by inclusion
of visitor period data.
Hotelling's work preceded the most influential thoughts
today expressed by Marion Clawson. Clawson, noting effects
of distance on areal patterns or interaction of recreationists
between their homes and selected outdoor recreation sites,
has expanded on Hotelling's suggestion that a spatial model


169
He described a very successful competition zone (located
not at Chicago but on Atlantic and Gulf coasts), a Chicago
hinterland zone of time-variable freight rate advantage,
a noncompetitive hinterland, and a periphery with much
nonrate competition. A number of others simply have used
a mean field instead of a practically unmeasureable
24
maximum or potential field.
Consequently, this research has anticipated different
types of tributary areas. Attempts have been made to show
cartographically both absolute and competitive functional
market areas for the specific camping function of the study
area.
In the evolution of the proposal for this research a
number of specific problems were uncovered. Some of these
were formed into basic working hypotheses, based partly on
the outdoor recreation literature, and partly on postulated
analagous principles of central place and marketing theory.
The tentative nature of the background of expectations,
coupled with the diversity of unknown factors in the data
gathering process produced a less than optimum situation
for control of variables, rigid definition, and testing.
Consequently, the explorative process made necessary has not
resulted in definitive answers or solutions to problems,
but instead it has formed a more sound basis for continued


150
19. American Automobile Association, Florida Tour Book,
Spring-Summer, 1969 (Washington, D. C.: American Auto
mobile Association, 1969), p. 67.
20. Ann Houpt, "Vermints Once Roamed Where Tourists Now
Play," panama City News-Herald, June 28, 1970.
21. Baynard Kendrick, Florida Trails to Turnpikes: 1914-
1964 (Gainesville: University of Florida press, 1966).
22. Ibid., p. 208.
23. Charles Sweetland, "From Frontier Village to Thriving
Small City," Between the Air Force and the Sea (Fort
Walton Beach: Chamber of Commerce newspaper, 1969).
24. L. E. Peabody, "Extracts from Report on Florida Traffic
Survey," Public Roads, Vol. 16 (1935), pp. 68-72.
25. Personal interview with Mr. Ben Graham, then Vice Presi
dent of the Bay County Motel and Restaurant Association,
Panama City Beach, December 28, 1970.
26. "Grayton Beach Town," Subdivision Plats Walton County,
Florida (Deland, Florida: J. M. Smedley Publisher,
Inc., no date), p. 100.
27. Personal interview with Mr. Paul M. Benedict, realtor,
Santa Rosa, Florida, August 27, 1970.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Personal interview with Mr. Dick Saltsman, Santa Rosa,
Florida, August 27, 1970. .
31. personal interview with an unidentified camper at
Grayton Beach State park who traveled US 98 from Baton
Rouge, Louisiana to Gainesville, Florida, regularly
since its opening in the Grayton Beach Sector in 1935,
August 4, 1970.
32. Graham (See reference 25).
33.
Ibid.


306
beach campgrounds as well as for those with large, dense,
fully developed social-activity beach camping locations.
In other words, if serving all the people who camp is a
valid social objective for public concern, then within-
resource-type development must be group specific.
The question now is whether publicly managed lands
must serve all needs. Florida has to a certain extent
avoided competition with the private commercial segment,
insofar as extremes are considered, for the public camp
grounds cannot measure up to the luxury of overnight
facilities and campground services in the most lavish pri
vate camps. However, perhaps public subsidy could be
concentrated more effectively in maintenance of valuable
soon-to-be remnant outdoor recreation environments and in
commercially noncompetitive segments of the camping-need
spectrum. In the opinion of the author, for example, any
expansion of Grayton Beach's recreation facilities or
campground size and convenience level would tend to work
change on the ability it now has to serve specific needs.
The alternatives to specific provision of deliberately
differentiated campground product are few and perhaps in the
long range unsatisfactory. The solution to keeping up with
increasing use of campgrounds and to always provide a
supply of unknown locations with consequent low density is


256
In a review of the distance and visits scatterdiagram and
curve (Figure 26) it will be seen that although no "J" shape
is apparent, there are considerable vertical erratics, possi
bly as a result of the process described by Wolfe as a
reversal of the distance exponent from negative to positive.
The idea is not isolated, because at least three forest
recreation researchers also have witnessed and described
some aspect of distance momentum.
The assumption was made earlier that, in terms of travel
interaction processes, distance and time are approximately
interchangeable variates. Therefore, a logical extension
would be to examine study area visitor data in light of
Wolfe's theory and add a reinforcement to the distance inter
action concepts previously discussed by examining visitor
views of marginal travel time expenditures.
If Wolfe's theory of long-distance travel momentum is
valid, then it should follow that travelers would exhibit
a greater propensity to accept long periods of riding and
driving in order to reach a destination. In addition, ele
mentary considerations of recreation time budgets cannot be
forgotten, for these factors of time also influence dis
tance or time-travel propensity. Not only is time an im
mensely variable factor, with different occupation groups
exhibiting different amounts and seasonal distributions of


284
TABLE 12
REASONS FOR CAMPING
Expressed Reason Sample Percentage
(In order to:) Responding*
Economize 59
Enjoy outdoors and nature 43
Experience a change of pace from
daily routine 32
Reinforce family unity by sharing
experiences in a neutral setting 21
Relax 14
Participate in various activities
(eg. fish, swim, boat, hunt, tour, hike) 14
Socialize with other campers 10
Enjoy informality of setting 9
Have greater travel flexibility 9
Enjoy greater comfort and convenience
(usually a response of trailer campers) 8
Have greater freedom of movement
(especially for children) 6
Pursue camping as a hobby or retire
ment activity 5
Avoid unliked motels 5
Provide educational experience for children 4
Sample of 514, with multiple responses.


160
concepts and are not mutually exclusive as implied by
13
Christaller. Instead, seeing them both as part of the
same regionalization process, von Boventer demonstrates
that the process of centralizing or dispersal is one of
balance between agglomeration economics and the tendency
in all spheres to maximize distance from competition.
Probably von Boventer is essentially correct, for the
application to a specific location of a central place or a
peripheral theory, in most general terms, for an explanation
of its relationship to other places is a problem that de
pends on scale of classification. In 1957 Philbrick con
ceptualized areal spatial organization as a problem essen-
. 14
tially of scale. At one scale of observation a given
location could be seen as a focus of surrounding homogeneous
and parallel-linked occupance units and hence would have
nodal connections with each of these units. By changing
the scale of observation, the focal location is perceived
as one of a series of parallel linked locations and can be
seen within its collectivity as part of a homogeneous region
having common focal ties along with other units at this
level to a new focal location. Therefore, a theory of
peripheral movement or diffusion from an urban central
place (a focal location) involves recreation travel to a
number of urban fringe (or more distantly) located


300
cluster contrast is between Grayton and Beach campground. A
ranking of perceptions and inferred visitor attitudes toward
the individual campgrounds was made from Table 13 which
forms the subjective basis of the following comments.
Grayton and St. Andrews essentially were shown to be,
as predicted, respectively centrifugal and centripetal in
social direction. Both were selected for cleanliness and
well maintained facilities and both were favored (St.
Andrews much more, however) for having a high perceived
potential for Gulf and other water activity. St. Andrews'
shade was an obvious advantage unshared by Grayton. The
key perception of Grayton was that of an uncrowded, quiet,
highly private, natural, and noncommercial (internally and
externally) setting. St. Andrews, on the other hand, con
trasted with features stressed oriented toward perceived
internal and external advantages for urban-convenient, high
amusement-excitement potential recreation in and around a
well supervised and secure campground with modern facilities.
The array of the private campgrounds fell into an ill defined
range between the extremely urban-oriented, convenience
stressing, crowd and activity excitement seeking visitors
at Beach and the quiet fishing and shade relaxing visitors
in secluded pirate Cove.
The observant reader will by now have noted that in


117
land use in this sector is a small community (Santa Rosa
Beach) with a grocery, gas station, laundry, post office,
and a small real estate branch office. Interviews with
business proprietors indicated that though their business
did fluctuate with the seasonal movement of beach visitors,
43
they existed mainly on local and highway patronage. The
garages were at any time more likely to have a logging
truck than a private passenger vehicle parked by them.
State route 30A in the Panama City Beach Sector was
built primarily as a fast by-pass to the zone of congested
traffic along the beach fringe federal highway. Any mid
summer week night traveler along this strip would find
driving a 10 to 15 mile per hour experience. Weekend
traffic in the vicinity of the amusement parks is marked
by car length advances with waiting periods between. In
the worst traffic areas pedestrians strolling at roadside
44
average far greater speeds than automobiles.
Roadside development, where present, along this sector
of the back-beach road is primarily residential and typical
of suburban fringe expansion around most cities. In addi
tion, looking more toward panama city than to the beaches
are the scattered wholesale offices, warehouses, garages
and construction offices that have recently been built near
the Hathaway Bridge exit from the beaches.


TABLE 3
PARK DEVELOPMENT-ISOLATION RANKING
Park
Park
Area
(acres)
Camp
Sites
Park
Facili
ties61
Recrea
tion
Water*3
Miles
From
Town
Town
Viewc
Camp Vi
sitors^
(1,000)
Day
Visitors
(1,000)
d
Rank
St. Andrews
1022
184
Many
B/G
5
Yes
99
512
High
Ft. Pickens
1659
203
Many
b/g
17
Yes
151
330
High
St. Joseph
2516
120
Fewer
b/g
10
Yes
27
48
Lower
Grayton Beach
356
36
Fewest
l/g
20
No
12
83
Lowest
a Recreation and visitor service facilities,
k B = bay shore; G = Gulf beach; L = lake.
c Based on view from any park perimeter.
d July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970.
Source: park records and field data.
\D
O


126
During its grand opening in June, 1970, lots were made
available at prices beginning at 4,500 dollars with a 10 per
cent downpayment and 60 months to pay the balance. By late
summer the price had risen to 5,000 dollars, and choice in
dividual lots, purchased a few months before the opening for
about 4,000 dollars, were then offered at resale prices of
6,000 dollars. Some of those buying for speculation were
not being disappointed.
The luxury three-million-dollar project is not an or
dinary family campground. Not only does it exclude tents and
some other camping equipment types, limiting use to travel
trailers and occasional tent trailers, but it is designed with
most of the expected features of a country club resort and
then some extras. The initially planned 505 lots, partly con
structed by summer, 1970, have already been expanded to in
clude a planned development total of 737 travel trailer lots.
All of the compact lots vary between 1800 and 2200
square feet in area and are completely sodded with exceptions
of the paved trailer parking spur and the concrete patio (10
by 16 feet) which comes equipped with molded concrete table
and benches. Each site has sunken trash cans and hook ups
for electricity, water, and sewer (two connections for each
of the latter).
Ornamental soft-glow street lights line the paved drives


338
q
hierarchy level on distance-sensitivity, and perhaps even
perception as influenced by a person's environmental per-
sonality"'"0 need to be pursued, among a greater number of
more common factors, before much progress can be realized.
Deasy and Griess clearly perceived the overall
significance of their cross-sectional case study and yet
were able to express a trust in the future for such
studies as theirs. The author considers their words a
most fitting conclusion to this research:
A few raindrops do not make a shower,
and a few business establishments do not
constitute an industry. It is perhaps
rash to attempt the formulation of generali
zations based on two out of a multitude
of tourist establishments, and one out of
an eternity of years. Yet, the authors
cannot but feel that the lessons learned
from this study may have more than local
and temporal significance. Perhaps it is
best to state our conclusions and hope
that other individuals, at other times
and places, will confirm or refute the
validity of the judgements involved.u


Figure 13
171


116
study area, which was described as located within an un
developed transition zone of forest between Grayton Beach
and Destin, can more easily be conceptualized by examining
the double transition joined by an expanse of undeveloped
land near the route junction at the west end of the Grayton
Beach Sector.
While the preceding comments concerned east-west
arrangements of developed land, a second observation relates
to the landward extent of the developed area and its fringe
nature.
It will be seen that, except for the Destin sector,
there is a beach route and what is locally called the "back-
beach" route which vary between state and federal maintenance.
In both instances the back-beach route has an obvious com
parative or relative absence of developed land while its
parallel beach road has been developed. This contract is
further enhanced when it is realized that the back-beach
routes are by comparison fast traffic movement, through
routes, which have development only incidentally in rela
tion to the recreation service areas along the beach route.
For example, in the Grayton Beach Sector all four of
the service-classed land parcels are very small independent
gasoline-garage service stations or gasoline sales with
small groceries. The largest concentration of nonforest


303
indicated that perceptual response to relative isolation or
accessibility is nonuniform aligned along a continuum. In
other words, what is to some near, is to others far. For
example, to some K.O.A. or Magnolia visitors, nearby Alli
gator Point was nearly a wilderness setting. To some St.
Andrews campers their location was deep within a natural
setting and "away from it all," despite commercial develop
ment at the park gate. To some Grayton campers, all of the
Panama city campgrounds were almost "in town." Another
point is called for in future interpretation of the results
of this study. What is located away or in isolation is a
function of resource use, urbanization, and cultural per
ception factors and is likely to change with passage of time.
Nevertheless, the results, among those who exercised
an evaluation and selection process, were as predicted.
Visitors have been shown to cluster or gather in somewhat
like-minded groups in order to utilize particular perceived
location advantages within different campground settings.
But this should not be taken to imply that all users of a
campground, should be expected to vary similarly in attitude
from those of other campgrounds, for erratics are also very
much a part of the process.


335
questions approached were answered tentatively. For all
considerations within this research are only now barely
scratched at their surface by the available literature.
Without readdressing inherent study variables that
might have influenced results it is worthwhile to address
the interrogative phrase "What next?." There are a number
of interwoven threads that have been partly unwound in
this study and that still need individual attention in
continued research.
The results of this study point to the necessity of
additional careful evaluation of camper perception of
alternate locations. Stouffer's interactance model of
intervening opportunities may have particular value in
future studies.-1- However, this study makes clear the
necessity of knowing far more than presently is known
about the way people perceive hierarchies of recreation
resources, activities, facilities, etc. It cannot safely
be assumed that gross numbers (of variably mixed hierarchy
level) of intervening recreation opportunities (alter
nates) are valuable indicators of the filtering of effective
demand as it flows between two points.
This study further points to the imperfections of con
cepts of economic man, competitive market places, and
perhaps even rational man within the recreation decision-


238
POPULATION WEIGHTED CAMPER ORIGINS
Source: Campground registrations at Grayton Beach
St. Andrews, Alligator Point, Beach, KOA,
and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
VISITS PER THOUSAND POPULATION (1970)
QUINTILE PARTIES
.222 3.837
1181181 .098 .221
.045 .097
.021 .044
.001 .020
300
MILES
Figure 23


118
Thus, clearly the developed beach fringe exists. Only
one functional motel exists along the entire length of the
back-beach route and development is functionally oriented
locally or away from the beaches. The wide expanses of
undeveloped land and water areas are perhaps the most
characteristic lands behind the beach fringe.
Secondary Study SitesPrivate Campgrounds
With a previously identified visitor study focus on
campers, particularly those selecting Grayton Beach and St.
Andrews State Parks, it was apparent that a second set of
campground interview locations was necessary. In order
to have a representative sample of study area campers who
stayed outside of the primary study focus parks the selection
was made to include as many individual campgrounds as possi
ble and, therefore, also to sample visitors from a broad
array of camp types.
One sampling objective was to include all possible
types of camping visitors to the operational study area.
It was ascertained that on occasional weekends Grayton
Beach State Park found it necessary to turn away would-be
campers when its campground became fully registered with
earlier arriving visitors. St. Andrews, long a popular
park, also had almost daily camper overflow from its gates.


226
TABLE 6 (Continued)
Reason
Specific attributes favored Number of Respondents
No blacks or hippies 1
Less expensive 1
Better camping facilities 2
To re-experience
Habitual response 71
based on satisfaction and
ignorance 38
Memory recapturing
past satisfactory experience 59
youth memory recapturing 9
Resource specific compulsion
revisiting past ocean environment 10
like ocean 45
like Gulf area (beaches, ocean,
scenery) 151
like panama city 4
like Florida 29
like St. Andrews State Park 5
To visit friends and relatives in area 28
To allow children their choice 32


348
48. Roy I. Wolfe, "Wasage Beach: The Divorce from the
Geographic Environment," Canadian Geographer, Vol. 2
(1952), pp. 57-65.
49. Roy I. Wolfe, "Recreational Travel in Ontario," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, Vol. 55 (1965),
p. 658.
50. D. C. Mercer, "Outdoor Recreation and the Mountains
of Mainland Southeastern Australia," Geography,
Vol. 55 (1970), pp. 78-80.
51. Lester E. Klimm, "The Empty Areas of the Northeastern
United States," Geographical Review, Vol. 44 (1954),
pp. 325-345.
52. D. E. Buerle, "Social Hinterlands of New York City
and Boston in Southern New England," Annals, Associa
tion of American Geographers, Vol. 57 (1967),
pp. 167-168.
53. Gardiner H. Barnum, Market Centers and Hinterlands in
Baden-Wurtemberg, Department of Geography Research
Paper No. 103 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1966).
54. L. S. Mitchell, "Toward a Theory of Public Urban
Recreation," Proceedings of the Association of American
Geographers, Vol. 1 (1969), pp. 103-108.


221
scenic-recreation potential than locations on any other
type of water body.
Seasonal resource specificity. Different resources,
to some recreationists, are best enjoyed or are more suitable
for visits in specific times during the year or in certain
seasons. Often these are more experienced travelers and
distinct travel habits have emerged in their leisure life.
These particularly expressed a summer beach preference, or
resource specificity, while they preferred the mountains in
the spring or fall. Other combinations were found, such as
fishing in the Gulf in the summer and other seasons in big
lakes, or a summer beach preference matched with winter
skiing in the mountains.
Negative resource specificity. Some resources are not
even considered as trip alternatives because the recrea
tionist considers them negatively. This may be balanced by
a nonspecific or very specific attitude toward remaining
resources. Cities and mountains evoked this reaction most
often.
A variety of other attitudes also appeared in the
grouping but they were assumed to be unimportant to a dis
cussion of major themes. The presence or absence of rela
tives in an area, or nearness to work, for example, were


30
Ullman's geographical goal is the "codification of relations
between objectsoccupance unitsin earth space," and he
sees flows of things and ideas as the key to understanding
these relations. Therefore, he proposes a functional
definition of geography as "spatial interaction" or a study
49
of movement.
Wolfe's movement or travel migration focus is patterned
after Ullman's dynamic interaction concept of geography.^0
Mercer views the relationship between cities and their rural
51
surroundings as a symbiotic interaction, while Campbell
clearly agrees with Wolfe in his concept of recreation
geography as one group of spatial interaction studies in
52
the large field of geography.
As a capstone to these thoughts it is interesting to
look at opinions of nongeographers as they view geographers'
roles. in a recent symposium on southern outdoor recreation
research needs, agricultural economists Schell and Stern
commented that in their opinion "geographers also have an
opportunity to participate in interdisciplinary studies
dealing with spatial relationships between recreation areas
and the centers from which the demand of facilities
c-a ,
emanates." if this example is characteristic of opinions
of others in agricultural economics then they also see our
area of major contribution in recreation studies to be


32
to geography, that of being an integrative discipline,"
Wolfe cautions that "above all else the geographer must take
56
the synoptic view...." if added to that mandate is the
theory-based predictive spatial model-building mandate that
Ullman would emphasize in a profitable approach to recreation
geography, then recreation geographers would have a firm
basis for moving to systems analysis as both method and
research focus.
Opinions from within the larger outdoor
recreation research field
Some have argued that outdoor recreation research
suffers from a lack of direction which can only be resolved
57
by defining a theory of recreation. They claim that only
by an integrated approach guided by a central philosophy or
theory can the study of outdoor recreation reach satis
factory levels of performance. Twiss, for example, calls
attention to the multiplicity of orientations and fronts in
58
recreation research. With specialists in aspects of
recreation located in so many fields and disciplines and
with a full range of study orientations from academic to
problematic, he argues that information sharing, communica
tion, and integration of efforts, results, and concepts is
made most difficult. One need only consult the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation's cross-sectional Index of Selected


4
and St. Andrews state parks and certain associated auxilliary
private camping developments in the greater Panama City,
Florida coastal resort area with the following objectives
being considered:
1. To describe spatial interaction between this
recreation complex and its visitor tributary
area for the specific recreation function of
family camping, i.e., to ascertain the spatial
distribution of camping visitor trip origins
and to describe and seek explanations of some
regularities and irregularities associated with
this distribution and its underlying travel
process and location. (Major objective)
2. To inventory and descriptively explore visitor
concepts of resource interchangeability and
resource preferences, and attitudes and per
ceptions of site utility, or recreation satis
faction potential, as these elements affect
selection and choice of this recreation re
source area or complex and a specific camping
site within the area from among alternative
regional resource areas and other camping
locations within this area. (Major objective)
3. To generate background information for public
campground planning and policy development
(with an ultimate goal of stimulating dis
cussion which could lead to an evolution of
public recreation policy, by posing questions
and a few provoking alternatives to present
policy regarding recreation land resource use
and allocation of public benefits). (Minor
objective)
4. To move toward a conceptual and theoretical
focus in recreation geography by investigating
analagous conditions between topics and
methods applicable to recreation geography
in both the more intensively studied, tra
ditional subfields, as well as in newer more
peripheral areas of geographic analysis.
(Minor objective)


319
response suggests the visitors either were asked acceptable
prices in most cases or they responded to the question with
out carefully thinking. Interviewer observation suggests
the first explanation in most cases.
Table 17 is a summary of Table 16 in which is shown the
number of camping parties that would have shopped for a lower
priced campground at each of several fee increment levels.
The ogive cumulative curve derived by plotting the last
column in this table is shown in Figure 31. This indif
ference curve shows total sample expressed response to
various fee levels. For example, at the three-dollar daily
fee level on the graph nearly all of the campers interviewed
considered it a fair price and even would have been willing
to pay at least another dollar in daily fees. Thus 99 per
cent (See Table 17) were indifferent to a three-dollar fee.
One per cent of the sample was found to be at the margin
at three dollars, for if they had been asked to pay that
much they would have looked elsewhere.
Nearly all campers interviewed paid at least three
dollars per night as indicated in Table 16; therefore,
though some would have preferred lower fees, they clearly
indicated their acceptance or indifference by paying that
minimum fee. Figure 31 shows, however, that the incremental
fee increases between four and six dollars include the


254
TABLE 10
CUSTOMARY TRAVEL REFERENCE TERMS
Number
Percentage
Term
Answering
Answering
Time
372
75.0
Miles
163
32.8
Expense
58
11.6
Inconvenience
19
3.8
Aware of None
27

in
Total
639*
128.6**
* Multiple responses are included (N = 496).
Multiple responses account for excess over 100 per cent.


found, indicating that only at extreme levels are fees in
fluential in the campground selection process. in addition,
the impact of maximum fee levels on camping participation
was inventoried.
xvii


310
(percentage public of total) of 80 and the private camps
ranged from 42 (Beach) to 67 (Alligator, K.O.A., and
Magnolia). The total sample had medians of eight and three
for respective number of public and private campgrounds
previously visited.
Among the two-thirds of the sample respondents who
expressed a management preference, the following additional
question was askedj
What are the most important reasons for
your preference of public (private)
campgrounds?
The answers are summarized in Table 15. Note that responses
are grouped by degree of exclusiveness. Some characteristics
associated with type-preference were not listed for the
opposite type. A second group of answers were listed by
respondents favoring both management types. To a large
extent this is evidence of incongruous reasoning or a
vagary of perception. It is significant, however, that
people emphasizing preference for the same attribute in a
campground stress both management types. In addition, since
the data were so subjective in coding and interpretation,
statistical manipulation yielding confidence levels was not
done. Therefore, confidence in significance of differences
stated is questionable in many cases. Nevertheless, it may
be stressed that real preferences do exist, however


231
Children's influence. Since family camping was the
study focus it was not surprising to find that a number of
trips were made to the area as an attempt to please children
in vacation setting choice. Phrases like "children's trip"
cropped up and often indicated a totally youth-planned trip.
Of course other reasons were given, but those dis
cussed were the most dominant and often repeated. Some
came for business or personal family reasons and some came
only because a friend said to go there.
Tributary Area Interaction
To Ackerman, any problem in which distance is an ex-
66
plicit consideration is essentially a geographical problem.
Common to the geographical body of central place theory, as
well as to the more generally applicable interaction theory,
is the basic notion of distance interaction between points.
As was earlier mentioned, when dealing with marketing systems
it is customary to conceptualize interaction between a center
and the potentially infinite number of points within its peri
phery or its interaction field. Such a field is theoreti
cally considered as a continuous distribution or surface, in
opposition to the actual discontinuous distribution of inter-
6 7
acting points within the field. Berry has demonstrated
elements of such fields in which human spatial behavior


242
part of these data. The logic stands that with increased
distance there will be associated increased area and hence
larger numbers of counties having lower visit rates. However,
this is yet to be demonstrated except as it is visually
possible upon examination of Figure 23.
In order to expand on the value of Figure 23,
averages were calculated for distance and visits for each of
the quintile groups of counties. All 1,131 counties were
ranked by population weighted visits, divided into fifths and
quintile average visits were calculated. Within these same
93
intervals average distances were calculated. This was done
in order to reduce "noise" in the distribution from any num
ber of sources. Note that though generally the pattern
density in Figure 23 shades with distance from the study area
from dark to light, there is considerable merging and inter-
digitation of the roughly concentric density bands. For
example, quintile one, obviously the near zone of heavy
study area visitation, has a distance range for counties
having this visit rate that extends from 15 to 1,120 miles.
The range of quintile two is 29 to 1,600 miles.
With interdigitation "noise" now removed, the bands
can be generalized. Figure 25 is a curve of the quintile
average coordinates discussed above (listed in Table 8) and
thus complements the quintile map. An indication of the


180


259
that X-^ and X2 were too highly correlated. That is to say,
their effect on the regression was multiplicative and hence
didn't meet the additive requirement of the technique. In
other words, the "independent" variables could not be dis
cussed in terms of individual relation to the dependent
variable (Y).
Figure 27 summarizes sample data (See Table 11) on the
relationship between these two time variables. The scatter-
diagram is a plot of period of visit against coded actual
driving time. Note that an overnight camping trip has a
minimum time expenditure of parts of two days. in order to
simplify the data, incremental averages were calculated for
driving time in excess of the minimum two-day trip, for
which visitors averaged about two and one-half hours of
driving (one way). A standard correlation was run showing
the expected minimal (r = 0.627) deviation of the data from
a straightline relationship. Calculation of the regression
line was not felt necessary for the provisional slope of the
positive functional relationship is unmistakable. The cases
for trips of longer duration than 16 days were too few to
include on the graph; however, a summation average is indi
cated on Table 11. Note also the low number of parties for
trip periods of 11, 12, 13, and 15 days and the associated
low incremental increases in driving time in opposition to


219
to them, simply because it is local. Whether the local re
source base is adequate to support their needs is unimportant
and unconsidered. A certain "snob appeal" associated with
increased travel distance appears to urge these people to
consider only recreation area alternatives if they are
located at a long distance from home. The requisite dis
tance is a highly personal thing measured on an individually
variable measuring stick.
The distance minimizers tend to be people with rela
tively shorter recreation time-periods at their disposal.
They speak of "reasonable distances" as limiting considera
tion of alternate resources. Some even consciously are
aware of economic distance factors as imposing limits on
travel.
Activity specific. The last group of resource non
specific recreationists selects a recreation area on the
basis of comparative estimated activity potentials at
different locations. Therefore, many visitors selected
the study area because they perceived the location to offer
a superior activity selection. Comments generally con
sidered ocean beaches to have a high activity potential
making it the resource best suited for an outing or a va
cation.


247
TABLE 9
SUMMARY DATA: DISTANCE AND VISITS
Zone
Origin
Counties
Average
Distance*
Total
Visits
Total 1970
Population*
(1,000)
Visits per
1,000
Population
1
21
65
1044
787
1.3267
2
75
160
1830
2323
.7879
3
141
255
3790
8678
.4367
4
136
353
1444
6774
.2132
5
128
455
1228
9342
.1315
6
93
558
480
6789
.0707
7
110
658
698
2116
.3299
8
130
754
459
5825
.0788
9
99
848
443
5695
.0778
10
62
950
168
5622
.0299
11
44
1046
98
7950
.0123
12
33
1147
60
8683
.0069
13
14
1255
36
3056
.0118
14
7
1339
12
354
.0339
15
3
1437
4
190
.0211
16
7
1560
18
1481
.0122
17
3
1640
9
695
.0129
18
1
1740
1
29
.0342
19
6
1868
55
4021
.013 7
20
5
1954
43
7984
.0054
21
7
2075
11
1406
.0078
22
13
2155
30
5074
.0059
23
9
2269
19
3084
.0062
24
1
2320
2
102
.0197
* For
counties
of origin only
in each
zone, entered
once in
totals.


342
APPENDIX I
OUTLINE FOR AN URBAN ORGANIZATION FOCUS
BASED ON AVAILABLE RECREATION GEOGRAPHY LITERATURE
Urban setting: city classes
Functional classification (Harris^)
2
Service classification (Nelson )
The resort and retirement city, characterized primarily
by recreation movement toward the city
3
As a recreation geography focus (Stansfield )
4 5 a.
Examples of general studies (Kohn, Thoman, Hoffmeister,
Spencer and Thomas, Withington)
Morphology (Stansfield and Rickerty)
Population growth
Permanent (Baxevanis ^ Rugg,"^ Sharer4^)
Seasonal (Erickson, ^ 14 Taafe,-^ Taylor1^)
Amenity basis (Ullman,^ Bailey,^ Simkins^)
The nonresort city and region, characterized primarily by
recreation movement away from the city
The city
Land use
20 21 22
Parks and commons (Brodeur, Kearns, Prince )
23 24
Other open space (Forward, Williams )


77
34. Ibid.; U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Selected
Outdoor Recreation Statistics (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 100.
35. Charles Hallock, Camp Life in Florida (New York: Forest
and Stream Publishing Company, 1876).
36. Smith, p. 279.
37. Ibid.
38. David Shulman, "Great Opportunities in the Great Out
doors," Franchise Journal, vol. 3, No. 11 (1970),
p. 14.
39. Florida Division of Recreation and parks, mimeographed
Superintendent Report Summaries, attendance records,
1970.


LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
15 United States and Foreign Camper
OriginsSummer 173
16 United States Camper OriginsSummer .... 174
17 Theoretical Beach Visitor Tributary
Areas 180
18 Camper Origins 183
19 Camper Origins: Interview Sample 187
20 Camper Travel Flow 194
21 Recreation Area AlternatesSite
Distribution 211
22 Recreation Area AlternatesState
Distribution 212
23 Population Weighted Camper Origins 238
24 Frequency Distribution of Population
Weighted Counties of camper Origins 240
25 Quintile Average Distance of Population
Weighted Camper Origins 243
26 Distance and Visits 248
27 Trip Period and Actual Driving Time 260
28 Trip Period and Marginal Driving Time. . 264
29 Transient Lodging Profile 289
30 Visitor Support Profile 290
31 visitor Indifference to campground Fees. . 321
32 intraseasonal variation in Grayton Beach
Campsite Occupancy 350
xii


TRIP PERIOD AND MARGINAL DRIVING TIME
Source: Stratified random sample of parties camping at Grayton Beach, St. Andrews,
Alligator Point, Beach, KOA, Magnolia Beach, and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
Figure 28
264


143
parks and the operational study area was made. Visits to
the area during the winter of 1970 involved examination of
all parks and campgrounds in the area. Additional inter
views were secured with key park employees and campground
managers among others in the local service industry.
During April final arrangements were made and
authorization was given to interview visitors at the pri
vate campgrounds in the area. The Division of State Parks
at Tallahassee was consulted and permission to survey park
visitors was granted.
After deciding that the best approach to gathering
data was a personal camper interview, a semi-structured
interview schedule was devised that asked in addition to
specifics, some standard questions that were left open-
ended (to avoid interviewer and question bias) thus allow
ing some flexibility in data gathering.
Finally, during the week of May 10, 1970, a pretest of
the camper interview schedule was made. The test was made
in Grayton Beach and St. Andrews State parks and in two
private campgrounds. The revised interview schedule is
included in Appendix III.
Survey period.Since preliminary work had indicated
that the area campgrounds were primarily used during the
summer, the period of formal interviewing of family


16
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Median Year
Topic of Publication*
Marketing-site use factor studies 1963
Problems in management and public resource
allocation 1964
Recreation planning 1965
Perception studies 1965
Travel interaction
Role of access and travel in area
development 1940
Amenity migration 1956
Urban day trip hinterland 1956
Urban seasonal migration hinterlands 1963
International travel trends 1966
Distance effect studies 1965
Theory and model building 1967
Philosophy and method of recreation geography
Status 1967
Focus 1966
Methods 1967
Sample of all volumes of most major United States and Canadian
geographical journals.


269
18. Raymond E. Murphy, The American City (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966) p. 52; and Emrys Jones, Human
Geography (New York; Praeger, 1964), p. 211.
19. Murphy reproduced an excellent cartographic repre
sentation by Ullman of the variation in area and shape
of some of the separate service areas of Mobile,
Alabama. See Edward L. Ullman, "Mobile; Industrial
Seaport and Trade Center" Ph.D. dissertation, Univer
sity of Chicago, 1943, Figure 7 reproduced in Murphy,
p. 56.
20. Though some work has verified the existence of such
nested service areas for a park, probably more atten
tion has been given the city recreation hinterland
with its day-use zone and overnight and weekend zones
beyond. In an attempt to summarize some of these con
cepts an O.R.R.R.C. report stated that the median dis
tance traveled to outdoor recreation sites for over
night or a weekend stay was between 90 and 125 miles.
U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States,
Study Report 4 (Washington, D. C.: Government Print
ing Office, 1962), p. 5. A good discussion of these
concepts is found in George W. Cornwell, "Conducting
a Feasibility Study for a Proposed Outdoor Recreation
Enterprise," Guidelines to Planning, Developing and
Managing Rural Recreation Enterprises, Bulletin 301,
Cooperative Extension Service (Blacksburg: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, 1966), pp. 97-121.
21. Haggett, p. 40; Berry, ...Market Centers, p. 15.
22. Berry, ...Market Centers, p. 127.
23. Edwin H. Draine, Import Traffic of Chicago and Its
Hinterland, Department of Geography Research Paper
No. 81 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p. 5.
24. Haggett, p. 41.
This represents a 100 per cent visitor sample of a
variably defined (January to December, October to
September, etc.) year at Alligator Point, Beach, and
Pirate Cove campgrounds. Extending from April 4 to
September 22, the K.O.A. sample, for practical pur
poses, encompassed a year's business. Data was
25.


189
indifference boundaries
A secondary explanation might be offered to help under
stand more deviation from the market area model predicted on
assumptions of perceived resource homogeneity, interchange-
ability and distance minimizing individual behavior. The
33
spatial competition boundaries of such competing locations
probably are not composed of points that can be connected
by a line on a map forming a discrete boundary. Thus the
analogy between such a boundary line as a visitor-shed and
a linear mountain crest as a watershed probably breaks down.
Overlapping tributary areas have been demonstrated for
port hinterlands34 and forelands,rural trade fairs,36
3 7
livestock markets, and cities as retail and service
O O
centers. There would appear to be a firm basis from
which to look for overlapping rather than discrete market
areas. Another way of looking at this concept would involve
interstitial areas between nonjoining market boundaries
where the recreation trip decision could be based on con
sideration of more than one recreation resource area to which
trips could be made without consideration of relative mar
ginal satisfactions. Hence, these overlap areas might be
simply multiple alternate travel opportunity zones at per
ceived equal cost.
Taking the case at hand, the north-south visitor-shed


52
50. Wolfe, pp. 1-14; R. I. Wolfe, "The Geography of Outdoor
Recreation: A Dynamic Approach," G. S. Tomkins, ed.,
Geographical Perspectives; Some Northwest Viewpoints,
B. C. Geographical Series, No. 8 (Vancouver: Tantalus
Research Ltd., 1967), pp. 7-12.
51. Mercer, "Leisure," p. 271.
52. Colin K. Campbell, "An Approach to Research in Recrea
tional Geography," J. v. Minghi, ed., The Geographer
and the Public Environment, B. C. Geographical Series
No. 7 (Vancouver: Tantalus Research Ltd., 1966),
pp. 85-90.
53. Kerry F. Schell and Peter M. Stern, "Recreation Re
search in the South: Where and Why Does It Lag?"
Outdoor Recreation Research in the South, Southern
Land Economics Research Committee, Publication No. 5
(Blacksburg, Virginia: Department of Agricultural
Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967), p. 36.
54. D. E. Christensen, "The Auto in America's Landscape
and Way of Life," Geography, Vol. 51 (1966), pp. 339-
348; Michael Dower, "LeisureIts Impact on Man and
the Land," Geography, Vol. 55 (1970), pp. 253-260.
55. Wolfe, "The Geography of Outdoor Recreation...."
56. R. I. Wolfe, "Perspective on Outdoor Recreation,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 54 (1964), p. 227.
57. See, for example, Louis F. Twardzik, "Education for
the Outdoor Recreation Explosion," a paper presented
at the American Association for the Advance of Science
annual meeting, December 28, 1967, New York City,
Mimeograph PR-224, cooperative Extension Service,
Michigan State University.
58. Robert H. Twiss, information and Outdoor Recreation
Research, U. S. Forest Service Research Note PSW-3,
Berkeley, 1963.
59. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Index to Selected
Outdoor Recreation Literature, Vol. 1 (1967) to present,


65
park Service was then considering 16 potential national
seashore areas. These were mainly on the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts where there existed greater assumed population
need as well as the most pressing need to reserve some
coastal land before private ownership excluded the public
from the entire coast. But preservation of public sea
shore was slow. Authorized in 1937, the land to be called
North Carolina's Cape Hatteras National Seashore was not
14
under Park Service management until 1952. Notable in
explanation of this slowness and the failure of the 20 or
so other areas to materialize as seriously considered po
tential national seashores was the fact that land acquisi
tion was either practically impossible or greatly hindered
by the existence of private control over nearly all the
desirable Atlantic coast lands, especially those near major
15
cities.
Harold Iekes, then Secretary of the Interior, summed the
problem in a 1938 speech:
When we look up and down the ocean fronts
of America, we find that everywhere they are
passing behind the fences of private owner
ship. The people can no longer get to the
ocean.... I say that the people have a right
to a fair share of it.^6
Ickes' words were little heeded, however. By 1955, when the
National park Service reinventoried the lands recommended by


NOTES
1. Lon A. Garrison, "The Environment and the Evangelist,"
Departmental Information Report No. 1 (mimeograph),
Department of Recreation and Parks (College Station:
Texas A & M University, 1970).
2. Hugh A. Johnson, ed., Outdoor Recreation Research in
the South, Publication No. 5, Southern Land Economics
Research Committee (Blacksburg, Virginia: Department
of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic In
stitute, 1967) .
3. Kerry F. Schell and P. M. Stern, "Recreation Research
in the South: Where and Why Does It Lag?" Outdoor
Recreation in the South, ed. Hugh A. Johnson, Publica
tion No. 5, Southern Land Economics Research Committee
(Blacksburg, Virginia: Department of Agricultural
Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967),
pp. 33-40.
4. Grant McCall Roberts, "Recreation in West Central
Florida," (Master's thesis, Department of Geography,
University of Florida, 1967), pp. 16-29.
5. Daniel M. Friedenberg, "America's Land Boom: 1968,"
Harper's Magazine, May, 1968, pp. 25-32.
6. Factors associated with the promotion and boom of the
Florida land business and its eventual "bust," are dis
cussed in Homer B. Vanderblue, "The Florida Land Boom,"
Land Economics, Vol. 3 (1927), pp. 113-131, 252-269?
Richard 0. Cutler, "Amelia Island, Florida: A Geogra
phic Study of Recreation Development" (Ph.D. disserta
tion, Department of Geography, University of Florida,
1965), pp. 178-184.
7. J. Russell Smith, North America (New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 1925), p. 277.
74


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Theory Alternatives 154
Theory of the Periphery 155
Central Place Theory 157
A Merged Concept of Functional
Organization 159
Application of Central place Theory. 161
A Recreation Place Hierarchy. . 162
The Composite Tributary Area. . 164
Tributary Area Zonation 167
Market Area Overview 170
Resource Homogeneity 177
Distance Minimizing Hypothesis. . 179
Indifference boundaries 189
Uneven friction of distance. . 191
Information bias 199
Noncomparative Hypothesis 203
Resource Specificity Hypothesis. . 207
Comparative Resource Perception . 210
Resource nonspecific attitudes 216
Resource specific attitudes. . 220
Study Area Selection Factors. . 222
Tributary Area Interaction 231
Interaction Theory 232
Recreation application 233
The literature 234
Distance interaction Hypothesis . 236
vii


128
complete docking facilities and even dry-dock storage and
boat maintenance. Shops sell or rent a complete line of
fishing needs and party boats for bottom fishing, scenic
excursion boats, and deep-sea charter boats available at a
discount to owners of Venture Out lots.
Since this trailer resort was not in operation during
the planning stages of this research, it was not selected
for inclusion in the survey study. Permission was not
secured to interview visitors after the survey period began
due to management reluctance.
Recapitulation
In summary, in addition to the bipolar research focus
on St. Andrews and Grayton Beach State parks, five privately
owned commercial campgrounds were included for survey pur
poses. The only significant campground near Grayton Beach,
Pirate Cove, was selected. In the St. Andrews area four
campgrounds were selected for interviewing visitors: Beach,
K.O.A., Magnolia Beach, and Alligator Point. In actuality,
these survey locations represent all but two of the then
existing campgrounds in the area. It was assumed that since
these two campgrounds are primarily mobile home or cottage
operations that their camping may be less significant to
the survey. However, generalizations on camping in the


81
often a transition zone between open water and flooded rush,
3
sedge and grasslands.
West of the tidal marshes of Apalachee Bay along the
Florida panhandle to Alabama lies another coastal beach
district. Except in marshy lowlands along bay shores this
area is fringed at land's edge by sand beaches and offshore
barrier islands of dune piled sands. Thus, one reason this
beach area was selected for study is its clearly discernible
eastern physical boundary.
Recognition as Regional and Recreational Entity
As has been recently the custom among state development
commissions and tourism promoters, Florida is divided into
advertising regions. The "Miracle Strip" of Northwest
Florida extends from the western Escambia county line to the
eastern edge of Gulf county and coincides approximately with
the physically defined Northwest Beach District of Figure 2,
lending credence to its selection as a problem area. The
"Miracle Strip" is named for the area's unifying coastal
strip of dazzling, sugar-fine, miraculously white sand
beaches. The sands are among the whitest found on Florida's
coastline, composed of very low proportions of shell and
coral fragments which tend to discolor other beaches, the
sand is almost pure white quartz fragments. It is said that


186
Missouri, Iowa, and into southern Minnesota, with inclusion
of the extreme eastern parts of South Dakota, Nebraska and
Kansas fits the prediction almost perfectly. Deviations
from the expected distribution are evident in several sec
tors 7 the scattered western visitors, the central Oklahoma-
eastern Texas arc (located within a 700 mile radius of the
study area), and particularly the Georgia-Ohio aligned
apparent shift of the market area into the predicted
Atlantic tributary zone. It should be stressed that this
map is simply a location refinement of the data shown in
Figure 16, and consequently has the same interpretive
limitations.
Figure 19, on the other hand, offers a refinement on
the preceding dot map. Both figures should be used to
gether, for Figure 19 is primarily an interpretive aid to
the nearly 100 per cent camping visitor sample shown in
Figure 18. This supplementary dot map is based on a 514
party interview sample of visitors represented on the major
dot map. Note the dual classification of parties interviewed
and represented on Figure 19. Of the 514 visitor sample,
376 were area terminal. The nonterminal visitors were en
route to another terminal location (6.2%), on a tour (10.3%),
or were terminal visitors to a cluster of locations including
the study area in part (9.1%).


50
33. David Mercer, Letter to editor, Professional Geoqrapher,
Vol. 21 (1969), pp. 364-365.
34. Clifford M. Zierer, "Tourism and Recreation in the West,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 42 (1952), pp. 462-481.
35. R. I. Wolfe, "Recreation Travel: The New Migration,"
Canadian Geoqrapher, Vol. 10 (1966), pp. 1-14, quote
pp. 7-8.
36. See, for example, as a valuable review of early travel
studies L. E. Peabody and I. M. Spasoff, "Tourist
Travel in the United States," Public Roads, Vol. 18,
No. 6 (1937), pp. 101-116; and L. E. Peabody, "Digest
of Report on Arkansas Traffic Survey," Public Roads,
Vol. 17, No. 6 (1936), pp. 113-127.
37. A typical modern state economic tourist survey is by
Lewis C. Copeland, Kentucky's Growing Tourist and
Travel Business, Division of Tourist and Travel Pro
motion, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, 1960.
Another market analysis concerned typically with only
gross visits and state origin distribution is part of
a U. S. Department of Commerce, Area Redevelopment
Administration Study of Appalachia: Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, Tourist and Recreation PotentialEastern
Kentucky (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1963); see also R. W. Cox, J. E. Johnson, and L. K.
Cook, Survey of Resident and Nonresident Tourist Groups,
Bulletin No. 482 (Fargo: North Dakota State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1969); for engineering
studies see, for example, Public Roads, Vol. 33, No. 6
(1965), pp. 112-124 and Vol. 34, No. 6 (1966), pp. 43-
51, both of which discuss calibration of gravity urban
trip models. Perhaps the best single summary and
critique of professional business academic travel
research is by Robert E. Waugh, The American Traveler:
More Darkness Than Light? (Austin: University of Texas,
Bureau of Business Research, 1962) .
38. Brian J. L. Berry and F. E. Horton, eds., Geographic
Perspectives on Urban Systems (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970), Chapter 13, pp. 512-
555.
39. For example, see U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission, "...for America," p. 371 (on urban


TABLE 5
RESOURCE SPECIFICITY COMPARISON
Attitude Group Resource
Mountains Lakes Forests Cities
N1
%2
N
%
N
%
N
%
Resource Nonspecific
Variety oriented with familiarity-
dissatisfaction
46
9
90
18
27
5
4
*
Variety search, without
familiarity-dissatisfaction
167
33
105
21
64
11
22
4
Tourist orientation
38
7
23
4
34
7
14
2
Distance specific, maximizing
tendency
9
2
21
4
7
*
5
*
Distance specific, minimizing
tendency
32
6
5
*
7
*
1
*
Activity specific
63
12
85
11
42
8
17
3
Resource Specific
Water preference
74
14
96
19
74
11
55
11
Seasonal resource specific^
50
10
5
*
15
3
2
*
Negative resource specific
17
3
3
*
3
*
38
7
1 Number of respondents.
2 per cent N of sample 514, omitting values of one or less.


toward interchangeability of alternate recreation locations
were inventoried as a logical step to understanding func
tional hierarchies within a regional interaction system of
recreation central places.
The nation-wide maximum study tributary area was con
sidered from the standpoint of gross interaction theory.
Campground registration data showing county origins of
visitor parties were population weighted. Area camping
visits were shown to be an hyperbolic function of distance.
However, visit rate was a negative function of distance only
to a radius of 600 miles from the study area, where curve
erratics suggested an application of Wolfe's "distance
momentum" theory. Time interaction was introduced to verify
this process. However, willingness to drive extra hours
(at the margin of driving time) was shown to be more closely
aligned with trip period than distance traveled.
A distance minimizing explanation (utilizing predicted
nation beach-sheds) for visitor functional tributary area
shape was shown to be plausible. However, an augmented
hypothesis was forced to include terms for distance indif
ference zones, uneven friction of distance, and information
bias. perception of beach resource homogeneity was rejected
by data showing distinct physical environmental (esthetic,
topographic and climatic) preferences and conscious
xv


217
indicated that prior experience and familiarity with local
recreation resources made them seem unappealing or not
special enough for a vacation destination. This resulted
in a search for a special or less common-place experience
within a resource context that was unavailable near home.
The second group of variety or setting-change seekers
based their decision simply on a desire to find the new,
different, or more unique resource experience, with no
indication of dissatisfaction with the familiar and often
frequented. Though not separated by the study, this
second group includes two types of recreationists, the place
collector and the vacation-site repeater.
Place collectors are those seized by a wanderlust who
keep score as they figuratively "collect" bumper stickers
and places they can say they have visited. They do not
habitually make repeated visits to the same places but skip
around at whim, i.e., having seen, they move on to see
something new. This group may go to a different place each
vacation. There is only a time-scale difference between
these and touring groups. Distance is not critical, but
newness is.
The other type of recreationist repeatedly visits the
same distant recreation area while on vacation. He prefers
it annually (or at intervals) when time allows instead of


196
formulated. If uneven friction of distance does indeed
exist, then it might be assumed that the increased travel
ease and greater possible speeds of interstate highways
would be one possible factor of market area expansion.
It was observed that an unpredicted group of visitors
originated in Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and parts of eastern
Kentucky and Tennessee. If these could be shown to have
used interstate routes then the hypothesis of expansion
of the market area by decreased friction of distance (in
creased highway access) might be reasonably indicated as
an explanation.
All sampled visitors from Michigan, Ontario (Canada),
and northern Ohio moved south over interstate highways.
Though local access links to interstates were used, all but
one party originating in Ohio traveled through that state
and through Kentucky by interstate routes. The one deviant
route had only a partial link that was noninterstate.
Almost as a rule, all northern visitors and all western
originating visitors utilized interstates almost the com
plete length of their trip to the study area. Exceptions
were situations where approximately direct routes by
interstate were unavailable, whereupon arterial federal
routes were usually selected. Except within about a 150
mile radius of the study area most of the routes on the flow


347
37. Floyd A. Stilgenbauer, "Detroit's Expansion into the
Umland, and Related Recreational Planning of the
Huron Clinton Metropolitan Authority," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, Vol. 37 (1947),
p. 34.
38. R. G. Young, "Some Problems in Planning for Outdoor
Recreation in Saskatchewan," Canadian Geographer,
Vol. 3, No. 14 (1959), pp. 43-44.
39. Richard F. Logan, "Suburbia in the Sun the Desert
Boom in the Southwest," Annals, Association of Ameri
can Geographers, Vol. 46 (1956), p. 259.
40. Jean Gottmann, "Megalopolis or the Urbanization of
the Northeastern Seaboard," Economic Geography,
Vol. 33 (1957), pp. 189-200.
41. Howard L. Green, "Hinterland Boundaries of New York
City and Boston in Southern New England," Economic
Geography, Vol. 31 (1955), pp. 283-300.
42. D. C. Mercer, "Urban Recreational Hinterlands: A
Review and Example," Professional Geographer, vol.
22 (1970), pp. 74-78.
43. Howard J. Richards, "Gross Aspects of Planning and
Outdoor Recreation with Particular Reference to
Saskatchewan," Canadian Geographer, Vol. 11, No. 2
(1967), pp. 117-123.
44. D. W. Rigby, "Recreation Travel Patterns of Edmon
tonians: A Sample Study," Masters thesis, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, 1966.
45. Hugh D. Clout, "Second Homes in the Auvergne,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 61 (1971), pp. 530-553.
46. Richard L. Ragatz, "Vacation Homes in the North
eastern United States: Seasonality in Population
Distribution," Annals, Association of American Geogra
phers, Vol. 60 (1970), pp. 447-455.
47. Roy I. Wolfe, "Summer Cottagers in Ontario," Economic
Geography, Vol. 27 (1951), pp. 10-32.


307
simply yearly allocation and development of new parks with
campgrounds. But this is not perpetually feasible. The
other solution is to disregard low density camping needs
(assume they will be met by private timber land and wildlife
management swamps) and increase the carrying capacity of
existing facilities. Of course, such intensive use and
sophisticated (or worn) settings would perhaps result in a
decreased quality of experience for a new group on the
urban-nature attitude continuum. A possible compromise
solution, for a while, is multiple-density-zoned and
managed recreation areas.
Management Preferences
A greatly neglected area of research in campground use
has been camper attitudes toward management types. At least
one study has been done relating variation in camper socio
economic and attitudinal characteristics to type of public
14
land management agency facility. This study specifically
dealt with expressed reasons for specific agency facility
use and allied visitor attitudes toward different agency
facilities. Attitudes toward equal hierarchy-level private
and public campgrounds have remained largely unstudied. Do
some campers prefer only public campgrounds and others the
opposite? Do some treat them with equal preference? If


318
TABLE 16
FEE LEVEL AND WILLINGNESSI
Fee Paid*
(Dollars)
Additional
0** 1 2
Fees
3
Willing
4 5
to Pay
6 7
1
2
5
11
6
1
3
123
194
68
5
3
4
29
26
4
5
18
9
3
1
* Each fee level is an interval centered on the dollar value
shown.
** An additional fee dollar would have resulted in those
listed below to search for another campground.


132
ending in Region 10 which is the Everglades-Miami-Ft.
Lauderdale tip. Though summer tourism is also present,
note that winter tourism predominates from Region 7 (the
Tampa Bay area) southward and agrees in part with Campbell.
The difference between these data and Campbell's is based
on growth of summer tourism in southern Florida since 1949
now causing the southern part to have a winter-summer
classification. The heavy emphasis on summer use of the
Northwest Coast (Region 1) quite dominates this graph.
Gulf Coast Camping Seasonality
Since seasonality of camping visits may not coincide
with regional differences between general recreation
seeking tourists, a comparison was made between selected
coastal parks (located on Figure 11) in the summer vacation
area (parks 1 and 2) and in the winter-summer vacation area
(parks 3, 4, and 5). Since previously the two northern
parks had been tentatively selected for research focus this
comparison served three purposes: (1) It provided a final
logical basis for distinguishing the operational study area
from the rest of the Gulf coast on the basis of seasonality,
(2) It provided a basis for determining the period of field
observation and focus and, (3) Additional pertinent back
ground descriptive material for the study area analysis was
provided.


70
manufacturing and service base has recently been elevated
3 3
to the status of a growth industry. Thus, investment
analysts expect sales and profits in the camping industry
to rise faster than the rest of the economy. They expect a
10 to 20 per cent annual growth rate for several years
before an industry slowdown.
in the 1960 to 1970 decade, nationwide tent sales rose
from 46 to 87 million dollars while sleeping bag sales
climbed from 34 to 58 million dollars. Between 1961 and
1969 production of camping vehicles increased over 400 per
cent, while luxurious motor home sales are currently rising
34
at a 25 to 30 per cent annual rate.
The growth of camping and recent sophistication of the
associated industry has been national in impact. Florida,
with its associated name and allure for outdoor oriented
travelers, has particularly felt the ramifications of this
recreation trend.
Camping in Florida
Following the Civil War, a few campers drifted into
Florida to see what lay in store in the great wilderness.
At a time when Jacksonville, with a population of about
10,000, was the state's largest town, a few wealthy and
adventuresome travelers contracted with guides and


356
(Note: Hour increments were repeated until a negative
response resulted.)
In general do you prefer to camp at private or public camp
grounds?
What are the most important reasons for your preference of
public (private) campgrounds?
What are your most important reasons for going camping?
Is your residence
1. within a city limits
2. in a subdivision just outside the city limits
3. in a small town near the city
4. in a rural area within a few minutes drive of a city
5. in a rural area at some distance from a city
What kind of work do you do now? (occupation)
What is the name of the last school you attended?
What was the last grade you completed in school?
Can you tell me your approximate total family income?
Head of the household?
*Unused and secondary evaluation questions have been omitted,
in addition to write-in space and coding symbols.


67
The most noteworthy contribution of the ORRRC study on
recreation shoreline was its recognition that there existed
a real "...need for coordinated planned actionbased on
adequate information and upon clear statements of public
23
policy...." However, the study report cautioned that
present knowledge of use and users of the nation's recrea-
24
tion seashore was virtually inadequate for planning. "One
of the greatest stumbling blocks in evaluating recreational
use of the American shoreline is a lack of precise informa
tion: data on both users and the resource are badly
25
needed." Thus, there was, in 1962, a clear mandate for
outdoor recreation research in the coastal resource base.
Since 1962 a few diverse studies have been completed within
this resource framework (and will be reviewed in other
parts of this dissertation) but they have only begun to
scratch the surface of the research information need.
Florida Setting
The Florida beach resource situation must be seen
against a national backdrop of increasing demand for coastal
outdoor recreation and an ever-decreasing supply of sea-
2 6
coast open to public use. Due partly, perhaps, to climate
and a certain unexplained tourist appeal in the state's name
and physical geography, there exists in Florida an outdoor


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to my advisor, Dr. James
R. Anderson, and other members of my committee, Dr. Clark I.
Cross and Dr. K. R. Swinford, for their guidance, thoughtful
criticisms, and patience during the preparation of this
dissertation.
Also, I acknowledge the assistance rendered by the
Florida Division of Recreation and Parks and the many help
ful campground managers in the Panama City area. I also
gratefully acknowledge assistance in curve fitting by Dr.
A. E. Brandt of the University of Florida Computing Center.
To my wife and parents I will always be indebted. In
addition, I wish to specifically thank my father, Dennis D.
Crowe, for his professional services in preparing all of my
illustrations.
ii


166
who visit the park to swim or fish or boat, etc. Composites
could be identified on the basis of multi-purpose trips
when participation in more than one activity forms the trip
basis. Obviously, such studies as this could be quite com
plex and might well involve differentiation beyond the value
of information returned.
Another basis for differentiating individual functions
of a park and hence its separate service areas is by
analysis of period of visit. For example, a park may
serve a tributary area that may be defined as the maximum
outermost limits of time or distance that people will travel
to visit the park for a few hours of on-site recreation only
to return home again that day, i.e., a day-trip or a day use
visit. A much larger visitor tributary area would logically
be associated with those having the time to visit the park
for longer periods than part of a day. These visitors would
take lodging in or near the park and would come from a
maximum distance of much greater range than the day visitor
group. Hence park service areas might be defined for day
visitors, weekend visitors and vacation period visitors
20
or some other similar visit period classification. For
the activity-defined and visit period-defined, there may be
some or none of the service areas surrounding a park that
spatially coincide.


313
imperfect the perception, comparison, and opinion.
Some implications of these data must be discussed. It
is proposed that public agencies, particularly state parks,
need not feel obligated to try to keep up with all of the
increasing demand for family camping. Clearly, some people
have distinct preferences for the commercial-convenience
setting of private campgrounds. Another group has no pre
ferences either way. For these campers public and private
campgrounds are essentially interchangeable. In this case,
if Florida should try to give the people exactly what they
want, they would have to conclude that only part of in
creased demand must be met by park camps. If policy makers
decide that the type who have no preference should not be
subsidized by public camping, then an even larger proportion
of future camping demand increase needs no public considera
tion.
The point made earlier that campers perceive both public
and private facilitates to offer identical advantages is also
significant. This would seem to indicate a need for better
dissemination of information. If all potential park campers
could be informed at the gate or another conspicuous place
of alternatives in private area camps, possibly many would
be diverted to a private camp.
The following question is old, but valid. If private


37
Harvey Perloff, known for his perceptive view of urban
problems and planning, has also proposed a recreation systems
approach, particularly for planning to meet the future urban
69
recreation demand. The land economist and recreation
specialist, Clawson, has proposed the use of a systems ap
proach to park planning in which his focus is upon travel
costs as a factor proportional to distance and involves
demand elasticities in relation to distance and travel cost.
Stressing that the amount and kind of use of one area is
related to the location and character of other parks, he
proposes three interaction sets in his scheme: (1) individual
users and individual areas, (2) masses of people and col-
70
lective park patronage and (3) between parks relations.
Clawson also proposes the use of electric power systems as
analogous spatial systems for definition of outdoor recreation
71
systems.
For some time the literature has contained references
to park systems, and administrators and planners have worked
within the confines of such systems. However, it would
appear that there has been until recently only a vague
recognition of systemic relationships between demand, planning
needs, and park use conditions. Hart has produced a pioneer
72
monograph, titled A Systems Approach to Park Planning.
His report to the International Union for the Conservation of


46
theory and form a logical setting for theoretical expansion.
In summary, a physical-behavioral spatial system ap
proach should give a now nonexistent holistic or synoptic
view to the field by providing a coherent and logical
integration structure that would incorporate urban and
resource subsystems as well as spatial interaction linkage
concepts. A systems approach should provide a suitable
central concept that would formally tie the various topical
investigations of recreation geographers into a potential
theory building and growth cycling structure. Consequently,
it is toward understanding of behavioral processes of inter
action within a system that this research effort is directed.


CHAPTER I
OUTDOOR RECREATION RESEARCH SETTING
Introduction
Within outdoor recreation and particularly the field
of recreation geography there exist a number of problems and
unanswered questions. This study addresses some of these
from the geographer's perspective.
Study Perspectives
This research was approached primarily from the view
point of SOCIAL or BEHAVIORAL GEOGRAPHY and thus is people
oriented. Basic concern is for the way individuals and
groups of individuals adjust to and interact with the
spatial variables of land, particularly those portions
developed to produce or perceived as inherently offering
outdoor recreation potential, while involved in the process
of attempting to find fulfillment or actuation of felt
human need or desire, or more generally, our society's
pursuit of outdoor recreation.
Elements of LAND USE AND RESOURCE GEOGRAPHY have
necessarily been incorporated into this inquiry, particularly
1


28
3 9
the lines of discussion. Predictions of recreation-
associated distances traveled by persons at least 12 years
old were made for the 40-year span between 1960 and 2000.
Estimated travel increases may be as high as 270 per cent
40
over the 1960 base figures.
Therefore, as stated by Wolfe and repeated by
Richards, the "essential focus" of outdoor recreation is
on the location of the masses, the urban complexes and the
access link between these origins and recreation destina-
41
tions. Mercer, later discussing a geography of leisure,
agreed with Richards that the geographer should deal with
the "...spatial distribution of opportunity, the distance
of that population from its recreation areas; and, secondly,
42
the mobility of that population..." He furthermore
claimed that "Wolfe's 'New migration' of recreational tra-
43
vel is central to the study of recreation geography."
Even recreation geographers in the U.S.S.R. are recognizing
the dual focus of urban demand with "recreation migration"
or transportation (time-cost accessibility) to the recrea-
44
tion site.
After a thorough familiarization with state park systems
45
in dissertation work, Trotter discussed in 1965 the research


16i7
Therefore a word of caution is needed for interpreta
tion of the following visitor distribution maps and in con
templating their analysis and discussion. This research is
concerned with the study area's total resort-recreation
complex only as it relates to enhancement of the recreation
facility and service base that partially attracts family
camping visitors to the area for overnight or longer visits
in area private and public campgrounds. Consequently, the
following maps depict facets of the camping market or
tributary area focused on the Greater Panama City recrea
tion complex. Therefore, though the area's total zone of
visitor influence or recreation attraction may be, and
probably is, quite comparable to its tributary area for the
camping function there is no evidence of such comparability.
Should the gross camping service area analysis results be
assumed spatially comparable to other service sectors of
the study area or to specific components within the camping
sector the possibility of tributary area dissimilarity
must be held in mind.
Tributary Area Zonation
A tributary area oriented around a central place can
be conceptualized from more than one spatial reference.
For example, the maximum observed limit that people will


308
such specific preferences can be demonstrated, upon what
basis do they exist? All of these questions are essentially
unprobed in the literature. Consequently, within the scope
of this exploratory sampling a few of these questions were
approached.
Visitors were asked if, in general, they preferred to
camp at private or public campgrounds. A summary of their
responses is found in Table 14. Of the total sample of 514
camping parties, distributed about equally between public
and private campgrounds, over one-third responded that they
had no preference in campground management type, while nearly
half of those interviewed preferred a public campground. The
between-camp contrast in public preference is revealing of
clientele mix at various study area campgrounds. Among the
group some apparently function more than others as public
i
park campground overflow facilities (see K.O.A.). Parti
cularly revealing is the proportion of state park campers
who had no real preference.
It was felt that since private campgrounds are relatively
new on the camping scene perhaps availability and experience
were biasing preferences. Whether a restated preference or
measurement of experience was gained is uncertain, but the
percentage of public experience of total camping experience
was estimated. Both Grayton and St. Andrews had medians


223
questions were grouped to provide this information:
1. What were the most important factors that
influenced your decision to come to this
part of the Gulf coast?
2. What were the main reasons you decided to
come here instead of to any other areas or
places you may have considered?
The results of this enquiry were broader than antici
pated. They provide an expansion on the notion of resource
specificity but they place this idea within a total picture
of factors accounting for visitor selection of a study area.
The breadth gained in this examination of visitor decision
making surely is worthwhile from the standpoint of a
deterrent to theoretical myopia and tunnel vision.
Area selection was found to rest on a number of factors
expressed by respondents as reasons for coming to the
Panama City area. In some cases single dominant reasons
were given, but usually there were a number of overlapping
or nonexclusive factors associated with study area visits.
Table 6 lists these reasons and their underlying basis of
preferred attributes.
The author suspects that frequency of response, or
listing, of specific reasons is not very accurate, and
would mislead if considered as an indication of actual
total reasoning frequency. Though recording of respondent
word choice and tabulations were accurate, it is suspected


135
GULF COASTAL FLORIDA STATE PARK SEASONAL CAMPING CONTRASTS
1969 1970 1971
MONTHS
Source: State of Florida, Division of Recreation and Parks, park attendance
records, April, 1969, through February, 1971.
Figure 12


234
can produce a value that can be placed on outdoor recreation
experience. His method of building spatial demand curves is
best discussed in one of today's most widely used books in
79
the field, Economics of Outdoor Recreation.
A fairly small number of recreation specialists have
dealt with the purely spatial aspects of recreation which
Clawson refers to as the geography of demand. Those few
specifically dealing with friction of intervening distance
and time are worth mentioning here.
The literature
predating Clawson's work are largely nonacademic tourist
travel surveys that date back to the 1920s. By 1937 some
notions were formed about distance-relative activity, but
understanding has changed little in travel studies since
Deasy and Griess, in a test of the Clawson theory,
stressed the inapplicability of such idealized circular
market area notions in which interaction or park visits are
81
a function of the friction of distance. They plotted
county visit rates on a choropleth map and discussed em
pirical pattern variation (with variables of accessibility,
competition, regional orientations, familiarity and ad
vertising) from the form predicted by the Hotelling-Clawson


91
Andrews, Ft. Pickens, St. Joseph and Grayton Beach. Since
either of the highest ranking parks would have been satis
factory, St. Andrews was selected to pair with Grayton Beach
as the basis for a conveniently defined 40-mile long func
tional study area approximately central within the Northwest
15
Coast.
Grayton Beach (Figure 5) is the smallest park with only
356 acres while the other parks all are larger than 1,000
acres. With the smallest campground capacity (36 sites)
and the least total number of campers (operating at less
than capacity), Grayton is by use-comparison the least
popular of these four camping parks. In addition, with the
exception of a small lake, Grayton has shoreline frontage
on only the Gulf, while the other three parks all have bay
shore in addition to the Gulf surf. partly because of
greater opportunity for water-based recreation activity and
larger size, the other parks all have a considerably more
elaborate selection of recreation and service facilities.
Both St. Joseph and Grayton are remote by comparison to
either of the other parks; however, the industrial community
of Port St. Joe can be seen from across the bay at St.
Joseph park. One must drive several miles from Grayton to
find a view of urban development.


262
the trend line. Either a real deviation in functional rela
tionship is present or data limitations are here observed.
In any case, the relationship of trip period and driving
time is clearly that the longer a party's trip-period (per
haps to a point), the more likely they are to drive farther
to a terminal recreation destination. Therefore, also,
X-^ and X2 are not independent, but are highly correlated.
A second analysis was attempted. This time the data
were grouped by trip period (X^). At each value up to four
days, the maximum number of hours each party was willing to
drive above what they had already traveled (Y) was regressed
on hours actually driven (X2) This process was rejected
since the partial regression coefficients were almost the
same (0.1663 to 0.1690) resulting in negligible slope dif
ference on the regression line. A third approach was used
in order to search for the more general and perhaps more
significant) trends.
Values of X^ (shown in Appendix VII) were grouped into
three groups: group A equalled two to seven days (one week),
group B was composed of eight to 14 days, and C equalled 15
to 21. Trip periods from 22 to 32 days were omitted from
analysis for seven cases were too few. Using techniques
verified by Ezekiel, each group of X^ (A,B,C, and total D)
was regressed individually on Y with X2 held constant or


344
1. Chauncy D. Harris, "A Functional Classification of
Cities in the United States," Geographical Review,
Vol. 33 (1943), pp. 86-99.
2. Howard J. Nelson, "A Service Classification of Ameri
can Cities," Economic Geography, Vol. 31 (1955),
pp. 189-210.
3. Charles A. Stansfield, Jr., "The Geography of Resorts:
Problems and Potentials," Professional Geographer,
Vol. 23 (1971), pp. 164-166.
4. Clyde F. Kohn, "Resort Settlements along the New
England Coast," Annals, Association of American
Geographers, vol. 45 (1955), p. 196.
5. Richard S. Thoman, "Portland, Maine: An Economic-
Urban Appraisal," Economic Geography, Vol. 27 (1951),
pp. 348-367.
6. H. A. Hoffmeister, "Central City Mining Area,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 16 (1940), pp. 96-104.
7. J. E. Spencer and W. L. Thomas, "The Hill Stations
and Summer Resorts of the Orient," Geographical Review,
Vol. 38 (1948), pp. 637-651.
8. William A. Withington, "Upland Resorts and Tourism in
Indonesia: Some Recent Trends," Geographical Review,
Vol. 51 (1961), pp. 418-423.
9. Charles Stansfield and John Rickert, "Recreational
Business Districts," Annals, Association of American
Geographers, Vol. 54 (1964), p. 437.
10. John Bazevanis, "The Growth of Greater Athens Since
1940," Annals, Association of American Geographers,
Vol. 54 (1964), p. 413.
11. Dean S. Rugg, "Comparative Aspects of the Urban
Geography of Alexandria, Virginia, and Bad Godesberg,
West Germany," Economic Geography, Vol. 41 (1965),
pp. 157-181.
Cyrus J. Sharer, "The Growth of Nassau," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, Vol. 46 (1956),
p. 272.
12.


Figure 22
212


246
no more than a species, and a risky one, of curve-fitting; it
merely summarizes data."
Ullman's geographical analog method, based on demand-
predicting regression models lies at the root of this
analysis.^ Among a few others, Guthrie's stands as a good
example of another which used this technique in estimating
98
international tourist flows.
The data shown in the quintile choroplethed visitor
origin map (Figure 23) and in its explanatory graph (Figure
25) were plotted on a county map of the United States. Equal
interval, 100-mile radial distance zones were drawn around
the study area. Table 9 lists these 24 intervals or concen
tric visitor-origin zones. The average distance to all of
the visitor origin counties in each zone was calculated, as
were zone total visits, and the total population in the
counties of origin within each zone. The last column lists
calculated zone average ratios of study area visitors per
1,000 base population.
The shape of the curve on Figure 25 indicated either an
exponential-decay or an hyperbolic function to the decline
of visits with distance. Semilog plots were rejected for
poor fit leaving a hyperbolic estimate of form. A log-log
data transformation should rectify such a curve, as is demon
strated in the following logarithmic scatter diagram (Figure 26).


177
It should be stressed that Figure 16 is an approximation
of the maximum or absolute study period market area for the
study area's camping visitors. This includes assumed mar
ket spatial overlap of the study area's visitor impact
zone with those of surrounding competitive areas. The
extent of overlap cannot be determined from such a map.
Resource Homogeneity
Within the outdoor recreation resource use literature
it is common to find the problem of visitor perception of
physical resource base characteristics or resource quality
greatly neglected. Either assumptions of perceived physical
differences are made or this factor is simply disregarded.
Few studies have been made of physical environmental per-
2 6
ception within a recreation resource context, though the
broader total field of environmental perception studies has
approached several avenues leading to understanding of
perceptual processes in general and as they pertain to a
27
few specific environments.
This research is partly in response to the paucity of
research on physical resource perception that has been done
within a spatial system context, and partly in order to
attempt a limited verification of Christaller's theory of
the periphery regarding the absolute periphery or seacoast.


71
camp-toured around the better known parts of the state,
hunting, fishing and general adventure seeking.35
Fifty years later j. Russell Smith described early
motor camping along the network of Florida highways and
3 6
byways. While the millionnaire yachted or took a train
to Palm Beach, Miami, or Jacksonville to vacation in a
luxury resort hotel, the midwestern, New England or Canadian
farmer camped along the roadside. Smith, in 1925 offered
this description of such campers:
He ties his tent and cooking outfit on the
running-board of his Ford and camps by the
wayside "tin-can tourist," the hotel-
keepers contemptuously call him. Many spend
the winter in one tourist camp after another
. . [[while they have] free access to the
pines, the sun, and the seashore. He has the
gentle excitements of a strange land and of
moving from place to place....^
Camping in Florida has changed a great deal since 1925
when campers stopped at undesignated places and tourist
camps. By 1970 Florida ranked sixth in the nation in number
of campsites. About 25,000 sites were scattered around the
state in 86 public parks and recreation areas and 813 private
38
camp grounds. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1, camping
has increased at a very high rate, as shown by the steepness
of later parts of the curve. Of course, this curve is an
incomplete indicator, for it neither considers affects of


UNITED STATES CAMPER ORIGINS SUMMER
Figure 16
174


115
duneland, leveled dunes, interdunal scrub, marshland, swamp,
lakes, natural pine forest, pine and oak scrub on cleared
forest land, cleared and platted residential subdivision or
cottage areas and a few sites with developments under
various stages of construction.
Interpretations
Several land use features are evident just by looking
at the land use traverse and some may be less obvious. A
few generalizations will help to visualize the spatial and
functional structure of the area.
The most easily observed land use phenomenon is the
polarized development along this traverse. By looking at
all developed land categories it will be seen that there are
in the west and east high density sectors of land use.
Undeveloped lands are least common on the ends of the tra
verse and tend to be more common with movement toward the
middle of the traverse where again a certain low intensity
development is found. partly on the basis of this observa
tion the traverse has been rather loosely divided into
development sectors. As was earlier indicated the Destin
Sector is in some regards not functionally related to the
eastern sectors focused on Grayton Beach and Panama City
Beach. Furthermore, the western limit of the operational


TABLE 13
REASONS FOR CAMPGROUND SELECTION
Preferred Quality
Campground*
G S A B K M P
(Percentage of Total Response by Campground)
Services
1
Reservations
.4
15.4
2
Better (more personal)
.8
1.6
5.8
1.7
7.4
3
Good (friendly) management
1.7
1.8
1.6
5.8
2.6
13.7
4
Pets allowed
3.6
1.9
2.6
1.1
Facilities
5
Better
2.4
4.2
3.6
2.5
5.8
3.4
6
For trailers
.4
.8
.9
1.1
7
Uniform quality
10.0
8
Laundromat
1.9
.9
9
Pool
7.4
19.2
10
Recreation room
3.8
11
Store
3.8
.9
Supervision
12 Better control, security and
strict regulations .8 5.0 6.9
13 Fewer restrictions and more
freedom of movement 1.8 1.1
295


103
area's early logging and naval stores period, and then all
but died out. (These communities continue to survive,
but are not thriving. During the summer they are too far
30
from town.) Just west of the operational study area
lies Destin, which during the pre-war period was only a
commercial fishing community. in 1941, from Miramar to
Destin there were no buildings, except for one country
store-service station (near the World War II radar dome
31
site), leaving only open beach for the traveler's eye.
Post-War Period
During the war, with military activity and installations
in the area a demand for housing was created by an influx
of personnel. panama City also had increased employment in
the shipyards. Consequently, cottage complexes and indi
vidual houses were newly constructed in the Panama City
Beach area. After the war these found their way into resort
complexes. Post-war increases in levels of living and
elevated economies in general, with associated gains in
leisure time, in the visitor tributary area for the beaches,
combined with population growth, greater mobility, and in
creased highway accessibility led to an increased use of the
area for vacation and shorter outing destinations.
The lure of the Gulf with its waves, comfortable


15
TABLE 1
TRENDS IN TOPICAL APPROACHES TO RECREATION
STUDIES IN AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY
Median Year
Topic of Publication*
Physical resource base studies
Land inventory and development potentials
(Area/site land planning orientation) 1937
Resources in association with existing
developments 1952
Problems of supply and demand 1963
Historical: sequent human occupance and land use 1945
Recreation regionalization; delineation and
description of recreation areas and associated
land use 1946
Economic studies: regional-local descriptions of
recreation industries
Setting stress on historical and environ
mental origins 1948
Stress on present and potentials 1957
Conceptual and empirical economic impact
studies 1967
Urban oriented studies
Urban recreation land use 1962
Amenity associated population migration
to and beyond the urban fringe 1947
Urban recreation hinterlands 1957
Resorts 1955
Miscellaneous
1962


345
13. Richard B. Erickson, "Measuring Resort Population
Increases," Professional Geographer, vol. 8 (1961),
pp. 16-19.
14. Richard B. Erickson, "Seasonal population Charac
teristics of Three Coastal Resorts," Annals, Associa
tion of American Geographers, Vol. 53 (1963), p. 589.
15. Edward J. Taafe, "Trends in Airline Passenger Traffic:
A Geographic Case Study," Annals, Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 49 (1959), pp. 393-408.
16. Iain Taylor, "Seasonal Movement of Population: A
Note on an Index," Canadian Geographer, Vol. 12,
No. 2 (1968), pp. 113-116.
17. Edward L. Ullman, "Amenities as a Factor in Regional
Growth," Geographical Review, Vol. 44 (1954), pp. 119-
132.
18. Wilfrid C. Bailey, "A Typology of Arizona Communities,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 26 (1950), pp. 94-104.
19. Paul D. Simkins, "Regional Differences in the Recent
Migration to Arizona," Annals, Association of American
Geographers, Vol. 52 (1962), pp. 360-361.
20. David D. Brodeur, "Evolution of the New England Town
Common: 1630-1966," Professional Geographer, Vol. 19
(1967), pp. 113-118.
21. Kevin C. Kearns, "On the Nature and Origin of Parks
in Urban Areas," Professional Geographer, Vol. 20
(1968), pp. 167-170.
22. Hugh C. Prince, "Parkland in the Chilterns," Geogra
phical Review, Vol. 49 (1959), pp. 18-31.
23. Charles N. Forward, "Waterfront land use in the six
Australian State capitals," Annals, Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 60 (1970), pp. 517-532.
24. Michael Williams, "The parkland Towns of Australia and
New Zealand," Geographical Review, Vol. 56 (1966),
pp. 67-89.


190
line dividing visitors between Atlantic and Gulf coast
beaches may in fact be a rough center line for a zone of
overlap. in order to develop this concept, see Figure 17
again. Point A is located within the Atlantic beach shed
and a camping party seeking to minimize travel distance
would turn to a southern New jersey beach for a camping
vacation. To travel from point A to the study area would
involve an approximately 11 per cent longer trip. From
point B, on the Atlantic side, the nearest beach is Savannah
Beach in Georgia. A visit to the study area would involve
an almost 45 per cent longer trip. Thus, the probability
of the recreation decision maker perceiving relative trip
difference and reacting in a distance minimizing fashion
might be hypothesized to decrease with decreased relative
difference between alternate trip lengths. Or restated,
the lesser the relative difference between travel distance
options the greater the probability of travel indifference
or perceived equi-distance. Stated thusly, the probability
of a distance minimizing trip decision would be greater
for point B than for point A. Also, with increased dis
tance from all alternate recreation locations there might
be anticipated a greater area of overlap or a greater
lateral spread of a zone of distance indifference on either
side of a predicted market indifference line. At least one


205
recreation satisfaction potential nor are they perceived as
a homogeneous resource.
This would lend more credence to the differential in
formation and travel-ease explanations for the existing
north-south market area corridor. The possible extension
of the functional market area eastward to somewhere in the
Appalachians may still be assumed logical under beach
quality considerations. If assumptions of resource
degradation, etc., are made for the northeastern coast of
the nation, then the mountains might still effectively form
a break-point for mid-western tendency to travel to the
Gulf instead of to the assumed poorer quality beaches of
the crowded Northeast.
The author suspects that the distance minimizing
hypothesis as modified by the proposed probability of in
difference wedge might still have some validity. The
validity may be a function of distance (physical or other)
from the coast, and may be aligned with distance-related
increased absence of information with which to compare
. 61
physically beach alternatives.
If, in fact, perception of resource quality lies be
neath beach selection from alternate locations, then not
only might the north-south visitor origin corridor with its
Appalachian shift-area be explained, but also the apparent


329
8. William R. Burch, Jr., "The Social Circles of Leisure:
Competing Explanations," Journal of Leisure Research,
Vol. 1 (1969), pp. 125-147.
9. Gordan L. Bultena and Lowell L. Klessig, "Satisfaction
in Camping: A Conceptualization and Guide to Social
Research," Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1 (1969),
pp. 348-354.
10. John C. Hendee, et al., Wilderness Users in the pacific
NorthwestTheir Characteristics, Values and Manage
ment Preferences, Forest Service Research Paper PNW-61
(Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Experiment
Station, 1968) .
11. John C. Hendee, "Recreational values, Use and Manage
ment of Natural Areas," Proceedings, Northwest Scientific
Association, 1970, pp. 35-38.
12. Use of such graphs is taken up in Jeremy Anderson,
"Putting the Graph Back in Geography: The Role of
Graphs in Geographic Analysis," Professional Geographer,
Vol. 21 (1969), pp. 23-27.
13. Shafer, p. 16.
14. John C. Hendee, "Recreation ClienteleThe Attributes
of Recreationists Preferring Different Management
Agencies, Car Campgrounds or Wilderness in the Pacific
Northwest," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washing
ton, 1967.
15. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting
Demand Among American Adults, Study Report No. 20
(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1962),
p. 65.
Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of Out
door Recreation (Baltimore: The John's Hopkins Press,
1966), pp. 33-36.
16.


357
APPENDIX IV
SURVEY SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION
Campqround
Estimated Total
Party Visits*
Interview
Sample
Sample
Percentage
of Total
Pirate Cove
202
46
23
St. Andrews
4,465
138
3
Grayton Beach
1,117
131
12
Beach
1,628
48
3
Alligator Point
2,313
49
2
K. 0. A.
2,067
42
2
Magnolia
1,900
60
3
Totals
13,692
514
3**
* June 8 through September 7, 1970
** Average


119
The overflow visitor either left the area or, as most often
appeared the case, he selected a nearby commercial private
campground. Add to the number of overflow campers those
who for some reason habitually prefer private camps, those
unmarried campers under age 21, those with pets that are not
allowed in state park campgrounds, and those deciding upon
arrival at a park that it was not suited to their needs, and
there is an obvious group of campers, potentially quite
diverse, who would not be included in a sample drawn only
from state parks.
The area's array of private campgrounds is quite
diverse in many regards and ranges in development from
shoestring operations to a million-dollar travel trailer
resort complex. The approximate locations and settings of
the 12 area private campgrounds are shown in Figure 8.
Grayton Beach area campgrounds
Excluded from consideration were the two large family
campgrounds and one small trailer court in the Destin
Sector; Holiday inn's Trav-L-Park, Destin K.O.A. Campground,
and Crystal Beach Trailer park. By interview information
these were determined to be outside overflow influence by
camping visitors to Grayton Beach. Furthermore, by name,
activity orientation, and location these were determined to
be within the Destin service area.


253
attitude terminology; consequently the following structured
question was used:
When you select a recreation area for a
vacation or an outing do you measure the
required travel in terms of miles, time,
travel expense, or inconvenience?
Of 496 party heads answering this question, 95 per cent
were able to evaluate their attitudes and state one or more
specific travel reference terms. The remaining group simply
claimed to have either no customary concept of travel or
were unaware if such existed. One respondent was unable to
generalize because he claimed his attitude varied with
characteristics of the highway route. It will be noted in
Table 10 that time and miles were the two most frequently
stated reference terms, with time far overshadowing miles as
units for conceptualizing a trip. The concept of travel
time actually refers to different factors depending upon the
party and the trip. Time was considered in terms of days
drive, hours of driving, hours of riding, and the absolute
limits of the vacation period. Miles were considered ex
clusively in 59 cases and in combination with the other
options listed. A few were aware that they used miles as a
basis for estimating travel time.
A number of people also said they considered the expense
of a trip. About half of these parties claimed to consider


51
travel); "National. ... 11 p. 39 (national travel trends).
40. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Prospective Demand for Outdoor Recreation, Study Report
26 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1962), p. 24.
41. J. Howard Richards, "Gross Aspects of Planning and
Outdoor Recreation with Particular Reference to
Saskatchewan," Canadian Geographer, Vol. 11 (1967),
pp. 117-123.
42. David C. Mercer, "The Geography of LeisureA Con
temporary Growth-Point," Geography, Vol. 55 (1970),
pp. 261-273, quote p. 267.
43. Ibid.
44. I. P. Gerasimov, A. A. Mints, and V. S. Preobrazhensky,
and N. P. Shelomov, "current Geographical Problems in
Recreational Planning," Soviet Geography; Review and
Translation, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1970), pp. 189-198.
45. John E. Trotter, "State Park Systems in Illinois" (Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1962); also pub
lished as University of Chicago Department of Geography
Research paper No. 74.
46. John E. Trotter, "Some Factors Influencing Attendance
at Illinois State Parks," Journal of Geography, Vol. 64
(1965), pp. 23-31.
47. Ibid., p. 27.
48. John D. Nystuen, "A Theory and Simulation of Intraurban
Travel," Quantitative Geography, eds. W. L. Garrison
and D. F. Marble, Studies in Geography No. 13 (Evanston;
Northwestern University Press, 1967), p. 55.
49. Edward L. Ullman, "Geographical Prediction and Theory;
The Measure of Recreation Benefits in the Meramec
Basin," Saul B. Cohen, ed., Problems and Trends in
American Geography (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1967),
p. 128.


136
apparent and contrasts with the slower rise to a month-
later peak season among the southern group. Both sets then
have a distinct summer season until September when public
schools recall pupils. (See Appendix 11 for additional
data.)
Climatic Basis
Apparently the difference between the seasonal camping
patterns of the Northwest Coast and the Southwest Coast of
Florida is climatic. Carson has described and contrasted
the continental northern Florida from the Florida tropics
and uses the normal frost line passing from near Tampa Bay
northeasterly across the peninsula to the Atlantic Coast as
47
his division between the two Floridas.
A recreation climatic survey for coastal Florida was
done by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
48
in 1962. The north and south Florida Gulf coastal con
trasts in temperatures of the surf partly lie at the root of
use differences between these coastal recreation regions.
The Northwest Coast has average water temperatures that vary
almost ten degrees from the warmer south coast until the last
of May when the water temperatures equalize. Between June
and August the peak average of about 86 degrees occurs.
Southern waters stay warm through September while northern


134
Utilizing standard techniques for conversion of dis-
46
similar values to comparable standard scores or values,
the campground attendance records for the five parks were
converted to standardized numbers of campers, and northern
and southern group averages were derived for the months
shown between 1969 and 1971 on the graph in Figure 12.
(Note that this graph also includes the period of the sur
veysummer 1970--and compares it to the previous year.)
Though seasonal proportionality of distribution varies, a
look at seasonal change trends is revealing. For the
northern or summer parks and for the southern group there
is a slump in visits that both experience during September
and October. After this period the difference in visitor
patterns of seasonality between parks of these two regions
is apparent. While the northern pair of parks stays low
from November to February in total visitors, camping in
creases in the southern parks so that they experience a
winter recovery and a distinct winter visit season. Both
groups respond to an influx of spring vacationers during
March, and again both groups drop back in attendance during
April and May while awaiting the summer surge of visitors
when public schools permit camping families to again take
longer vacations. Though both groups experience a June rise
in camping visits, the abruptness of the northern set is


NOTES
1. Diettrich, a noted Florida geographer, once described
a peninsular Florida which is separated from a con
tinental Florida along an imagined line drawn from Cedar
Key to the St. Marys river. He claimed coastal areas
north of this line to resemble "...in every respect... the
contiguous parts of Georgia and Alabama...," in contrast
to the peninsula. Diettrich also spoke of Florida
divisions based on cultural differences, and he claimed
northern Florida to be a "Florida of the Old South,"
as contrasted with his "Urban peninsula" and "Cracker
Central" divisions. Sigismond deR. Diettrich, "Florida's
Human Resources," Geographical Review, vol. 38 (1948),
pp. 278-288.
2. A. W. Kuchler, Potential Natural Vegetation of the
Conterminous United States, American Geographical
Society Special Publication No. 36, map and manual
(New York: American Geographical Society, 1964).
3. John H. Davis, General Map of Natural Vegetation of
Florida, Circular S-178, Agricultural Experiment Sta
tion, University of Florida (Gainesville: University
of Florida, 1967); J. R. Beckenbaugh and J. W. Hammett,
General Soil Map of Florida, Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of Florida and Soil Conservation
Service (Gainesville: University of Florida, 1962),
p. 28.
4. Mimeographed guide map to John C. Beasley State park,
Ft. Walton Beach, Florida, 1970.
5. Florida Development commission, Florida Beach Resources
(Tallahassee: Florida Development Commission, 1963),
p. i.
6. Public beaches were defined as those backed by public
land thus assuring access to water's edge. Ibid.
7. Ibid., pp. 1-3.
148


215
visitor-views of different resources as alternatives to
ocean beach resources. it must be stressed that these
represent resource attitudes of people who proved them
selves to be more or less resource specific at least for
the trip on which they were interviewed at their selected
resource location.
parties often were found to agree in cluster assign
ment for different resources; however, considerable between-
resource variation was found to exist in cluster tendency
for individual parties. As an overview, the tendency was
toward greater uniformity in total sample attitude toward
certain resources. For example, there was an apparent
neutral attitude toward forests as recreation resources.
As a group, the opinion of forests was primarily as something
to see or drive through on the way somewhere else. Also,
forests tended to be lumped with mountain scenery. Respon
dents expressed neither preference for them nor dislike.
Only two respondents specifically mentioned forest environ
ments as acceptable recreation settings, while the majority
simply tended to disregard them. As an added dimension,
the attitude toward cities as recreation resources was also
observed. Most respondents reacted to cities as they
reacted to forests, with neutrality. Some, however, reacted
more strongly so that as Table 5 indicates, cities evoked


276
83. Richard Russell, "Recreation and the South Carolina
Coast," Southeastern Geographer, Vol. 5 (1965),
pp. 48-56.
84. Mitchell, "An Empirical ...."
85. Mitchell, "An Evaluation...," pp. 46-53.
86. Bingham et al., pp. 9-11.
87. Lee Guernsey, and Dennis R. Crowe, "Some Attitudes
and Characteristics of Visitors to State Parks Along
Lake Michigan," Proceedings of the Indiana Academy
of the Social Sciences, Vol. 2 (1967), pp. 1-24.
88. Robert L. S. Cole, Jr. and Lisle S. Mitchell,
"Attendance as a Negative Function of Distance,
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Campgrounds,"
Southeastern Geographer, Vol. 9 (1969), pp. 13-24.
89. Barry Lentnek, Carlton S. Van Doren and James R.
Trail, "Spatial Behavior in Recreation Boating,"
Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1 (1969), pp. 103-
124.
90. James 0. Wheeler and F. P. Stutz, "Spatial Dimensions
of Urban Social Travel," Annals, Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 61 (1971), pp. 371-386.
91. Marion Clawson, Land and water for Recreation (New
York: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1963), p. 58.
92. Note that where cities were given separately from the
county population in which they are located the two
were summed to conform to the majority of city-county
population figures. For example, San Francisco,
Baltimore, Norfolk, St. Louis, etc., were merged with
their respective counties.
93. A small uncorrected inaccuracy in distance results
from use of an Albers conic projection for straight
line measurement.
94. Frank J. Cesario, Jr., "Operations Research in Outdoor
Recreation," Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1
(1969), pp. 33-51.


39
Mercer, another Ullman disciple, speaks of the need
and current attempts to formulate "spatial models of
. 74
recreational activities," while he too apparently is on
the verge of proposing a systems approach. In his last
article he mentioned the problem of substitution between
elements of a "total resource complex" with system-wide
effects of change in any part of an "integrated recreational
75
land use system." Soviet recreation geographers apparently,
almost as a group, have come to think of their problems from
a system orientation. Recent translations in Soviet Geography
all stress this viewpoint and there is evidenced some very
clear thinking on research needs within their recognized
7 A
subsystems./D
Relevance of systems analysis to geography
Whether the geographer approaches his profession from
a standpoint of regional analysis, areal differentiation,
areal organization, distributions and location analysis,
spatial analysis, areal process relationships, spatial inter
action, human ecology, man-land relationships or some other
omitted short hand definition it would seem to matter little
regarding the degree that systems analysis could be applied.
Ackerman proposed in 1963 that geographers place their
field on the forefront of research in the sciences by, among


21
Nongeographers have not monopolized this urban view
point, however, for several geographers have recently pro
posed a shift from emphasis on nonurban recreation resources
to those concerned primarily with urban needs. James R.
Anderson, for example, has stressed the need for placing
attention on the urban recreation focus in dealings with
the current problem of providing public outdoor recreation
opportunity that is equitably distributed with regard to
21
population need. Anderson agrees with the land economist
Clawson when he notes that most recreation land is "resource
based" and consequently located where the environment made
possible a "naturally" developed recreation area. According
to Anderson, the solution calls for more "user-oriented"
sites located with regard to population distribution and
particularly with regard to the needs of a few large urban
areas. He further points out that such an attempt to "opti
mize recreation development of land and water resources"
involves some of the most difficult competition with other
22
optional land uses. Obviously a very real need for
recreation research exists for aiding in maximum efficiency
of such land acquisition and development efforts.
Lisle Mitchell, citing the arguments of Clawson and
other land economists as well as federal review commission
results which point out the paucity of information being


88
with local development pressures. For example, the present
strip varies from less than a mile to approximately three
miles in width (the latter in the Panama City area).
Primary Study SitesState parks
Figure 4 outlines the general study district of
Florida's Northwest Coast, i.e., the "Miracle Strip" of
white sand beaches. Only Gulf beach state parks are located,
because by definition of the focus on the beach zone of land
use, bay front and other interior parks were excluded. In
the interest of manageable research, only two state parks
and their satellite private campgrounds were selected to
represent the general area.
Preliminary field studies in 1969 provided a basis for
discriminating between the parks. Park diversity was deter
mined to be critical for the selective examination; there
fore, the two most unlike parks were selected for examination.
John C. Beasley State Park was not considered. It is a
small (23 acre) day-use picnic and beach use facility located
at roadside one mile east of Fort Walton Beach on US 98, the
14
main coastal artery, and has no camping provision. The
remaining four state parks were ranked as though by a sub
jectively devised development-isolation index (Table 3) in
the following order, from most to least developed: St.


200
Piperoglou, for example, has suggested that individuals
develop different kinds of specific biases for, or bonds
with, places which tend to produce preferences for locations
and even tend to influence what types of places the in-
52
dividual considers as a recreation resource. The notion
of such individual-to-place bonds can be expanded to pre
dict the existence of bias within an area for a particular
recreation place. Such a situation might result from
location-differential receptivity to information flows. In
other words, information about different places may flow
through a selectively permeable intervening social-physical
distance, so that information may be more easily received
from some directions or places than others.
Deasy and Griess showed that regional orientation is
a real factor in shaping the market or influence area of
53
a recreation facility. They associated population migra
tion and regional communication factors with the direc
tional bias of market areas of two small commercial tourist
attractions in Pennsylvania. Bingham, Pickard and Romsa
54
also have suggested such regional factors.
Guthrie also has seized upon this idea and has pro
posed that emigration from an area often may be associated
55
with high incidence of visits to that area for vacations.
The potentially superior information level concerning


20
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation recognizes the Clawson
view and believes that all recreation-providing governmental
agencies must "...become more people and urban oriented in
17
their programs." For example, BOR employee, Warren J.
Kelvie, speaking before the 1970 Denver meeting of the
Western Resources Conference titled his address "Urban
18
Recreation DemandsThe Recreation Imperative." Kelvie
quoted a portion of President Nixon's Environmental Message
to the Congress in which Nixon emphasized the need for
focusing on urban recreation needs. The President proposed
"...increased emphasis on locations that can be easily
reached by the people in crowded urban areas."1 A parallel
point, inherent in such an urban recreation emphasis pro
posal, is the factor of transportation or movement which is
implied by the phrase "...locations that can be easily
reached...." An earlier report to the President and to the
Congress reinforced this essential aspect of people move
ment which is basic to outdoor recreation phenomena stating
that "outdoor recreation of 'public' importance, that is,
which has an impact upon resources available to the public,
takes place away from the residence of the person.... To
engage in such activities requires a 'trip' or movement,
usually by automobile, to a place to engage in the activity


159
Barnum's work on German cities includes some work on this
central place recreation concept.'*''*'
Finally, of most importance to the study at hand, it
can be shown that nonurban, resource-based recreation
areas and parks function, individually and in groupings
as recreation complexes, as seasonal central points. This
fact was noted even by Christaller in his peripheral move-
12
ment discussion. As central places, one would expect
them to exhibit a spatial functional hierarchy with some
hierarchy-level relative differences in threshold popula
tion (minimum number of users to economically justify
facility existence) within market or tributary areas, and
some numerical relationship between numbers of recreation
areas of various sizes or functional rank in the hierarchy.
Furthermore, there should be a relationship between com
parative level of use and factors of spatial concentration
of recreation services or opportunity (forms of agglomera
tion econonomy, etc.), transportation factors (with a focus
on cost), and competitive location.
A Merged Concept of Functional Organization
The economist, Edwin von Boventer, has proposed that
Christaller's originally urban focused central place
theory and his theory of the periphery are both viable


APPENDICES


7
greatly expanded travel accessibility and feasibility. The
last two decades have, as a result, produced an unforeseen
trend toward recreation participation and travel, which
apparently, according to some prognosticators, cycles and
self perpetuates into constantly greater expansion. Only a
presently unknown critical factor will limit this upward
trend.
Increased use pressures and crowding of facilities on
the existing limited outdoor recreation resource base has
fostered government attention and resulted in expanded
development of facilities and increased acquisition of lands
for public outdoor recreation. This expansion has been made
increasingly more difficult in the face of increased costs
as more demands have been made on the static land supply and
as land use competition has increased. The private outdoor
recreation sector, though perhaps slower to start, has also
been caught up in a similar development and growth trend.
Government Impetus for Research
Since about 1950 there has been a significant incentive
for the acquisition and development of land for public out
door recreation activities. The Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission recommended in its 1962 report to the
President and the Congress that a Bureau of Outdoor


146
Additional information sources
The extensive literature survey for the study was based
on a large variety of geographical and other sources, in
cluding government publications. Libraries consulted were
the following: University of Florida (Gainesville),
Indiana State University (Terre Haute), Indiana University
(Bloomington), and Bradford Woods, Library of the National
Camping Association (Bloomington, Indiana).
Visits and other communications yielded valuable
unpublished materials from Florida offices. Particularly
useful were records, maps, study reports and other informa
tion provided by the Florida Department of Transportation,
Division of Recreation and parks, and the Florida Develop
ment Commission.
A variety of published and unpublished information was
supplementarily used. For example, study area air photo
graphs for 1949 and 1963, various tourist guides and maps,
U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey sheets, and U. S. Geological
Survey, Topographic Survey sheets were used.
Data analysis
Analysis techniques must be selected for each particular
problem and must reflect the data base. The best technique
varies, therefore, with the situation. Coding, tabulating


A CASE STUDY IN RECREATION GEOGRAPHY:
SPATIAL INTERACTION AND CAMPER PERCEPTION
By
DENNIS R. CROWE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1972


165
The tributary or service area of a city or urban complex
is therefore composed of the surrounding area that is served
in some way or in a multiplicity of ways by that city or com
plex. The tributary area of a park or recreation complex
might similarly be defined. The tributary area of a city
is actually a composite of many variously overlapping in
dividual service areas or market areas of several different
functional activities centered on the city. It has been
shown in many studies by geographers, sociologists, land
economists, planners and others that there is generally a
lack of coincidence of the boundaries or limits of these
19
service areas/7
The tributary area of a city is made up of variably
overlapping areas where specific functional components
of the city apply. The tributary area of a park, a complex
of parks, or an entire recreation service complex (such as
is found in the study area) also is made up of service
areas which may vary considerably in areal extent (and
shape).
For example, the simplest of recreation locations, a
single isolated park with no surrounding allied service
developments, might be the basis for a number of tributary
areas. Thus specific service areas might exist that are
composed individually of bounded origin locations of persons


141
Therefore, description has been seasoned with problem
oriented causative seasoning as recommended by Guyot.
Quantitative description
This is not to imply that this study is intended to be
purely descriptive or that quantities are not dealt with.
Where applicable, quantitative description is employed;
however, due to the nature of the data and the exploratory
characteristics of the study, only essential descriptive
statistics are employed, at times with carto-statistical
techniques. Throughout, when numerical data are discussed,
quantitative description is aimed simply at forming brief
summaries or generalizations of several observations.
Case study
Elements of the case study method or that dealing with
a detailed examination of a small sample are present,
though no attempt is made to delve so intensively that
everything that bears on the micro study focus is evaluated.
Instead, detailed study is aimed at suggesting lines of
future thought or hypotheses for testing in the same locality
or in other situations. It should be noted, however, that
the selection of only two state parks and related private
facilities for observation and visitor sampling does con
stitute a major reliance on the case method.


263
stabilized for each curve by substituting its group average
109
value for each curve. Multiple regression was not possi
ble and simple regression was inappropriate because the X
variables had been shown to be part of a known whole. The
result is to show the effect of at the group average
value of X2 on Y. Figure 28 shows the results of this
analysis. The overall curve, for groups A, B, and C, had an
R of 0.605 and R2 of 0.367 (significant at .001%). A pre
cise definition of the relationship between the variables
110
in each curve was also made.
As indicated by curve D, the overall trend is a posi
tive relationship between trip period and willingness to
travel increased hours to the study area. An increase in the
former is associated with a specific increase in the latter.
An examination of the segments of the curve indicate that
from a two to a 14 day trip there is almost a continuous
relationship between these travel variates. However, the
plateau approached in curve C shows a much greater variation
in slope than either of the nearly parallel curves A or B.
This almost absence of slope is graphically indicative of
no significant effect of X-^, with X2 stabilized, on Y.
The overall results of these tests would tend to verify
the time opportunity association with travel propensity
hypothesis. An interesting and unsuspected feature of these


153
53. Ibid., p. 390.
54. Arnold Henry Guyot, quoted by William Warntz, Geography
Now and Then, American Geographical Society, Research
Series No. 25 (New York: American Geographical Society,
1964), p. 144.
55. National Academy of Sciences, Outdoor Recreation Re
search (Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences,
1969), p. 32.
56. Labor Day was selected as the end of the interview
period on the basis of comments by several local pro
prietors that it was traditionally the last day of the
visitor season in the area. One local grocer emphasized
his agreement on this fact by proclaiming that a person
could shoot a cannon in the middle of the busiest beach
street and not hit a single person after 5:00 P. M. on
Labor Day.


220
Comments by many respondents favored highly the beach
camping and seaside recreation components described in
Klausner's paradigm of social recreation. (See Appendix
VI). Klausner proposed a seaside drama of "gaiety and
sexuality" in opposition to "solemnity and labor" of the
64
forest recreation experience. Respondents favored ocean
beach activity for its variety, excitement, movement, and
contacts with many people.
Resource specific attitudes
Among the resource specific recreation attitudes there
were basically three groups. These groups were found to
be nonexclusive, for association with one might also be
found to be in common with another or others.
Water preference. Some seeking recreation, select
destinations on the basis of distinct environmental or
recreation resource preferences, often regardless to proxi
mity to their homes. The most common preference encountered
in the survey was for water environments. These people
preferred any kind of water-based recreation area to a non
water area. The second largest similar preference grouping
was for salt water settings. Seacoast and particularly
ocean beach settings apparently have more attraction or


102
panama City around the extensive swamps and bayous at the
eastern end of Choctawhatchee Bay and extended west along
the north shore of the Bay. Prior to that date about nine
miles of Gulf beach was accessible along or from US 98 at
Panama City, and this marks what is today the most dense,
24
area of tourist facility development. Laguna Beach,
located just west of the point where US 98 veered north
from the beaches to avoid the bay swamps, was actually the
first part of the Panama City Beach Sector to develop for
visitors.^^
Within the isolated Grayton Beach Sector only two
resorts existed. Grayton Beach, platted and filed in 1890,
2 6
is the older of the sector's pre-war developments. Only
a few fishing families settled there and by 1941 there were
a few summer vacation cottages. About two miles away
Seagrove Beach was developed with a hotel and a few cot
tages. Seagrove originally was used most by people from
the northern parts of Walton County, particularly DeFuniak
27
Springs. West of Grayton Beach the small unincorporated,
dispersed, private summer cottage concentration called
28
Dune Allen was started in the late 1930s. inland, between
the trail that was to become US 98 and a Choctawhatchee
bayou, the small communities of Point Washington and Santa
Rosa had a boom period after the Civil War, during the


145
during the survey period. For example, park and campground
operators were queried about things that would make the
survey year unusual in any way from past years. Inter
views were also taken from time to time with local business
men and other knowledgeable people.
In addition, the researcher elected to live with his
family during the survey at Grayton Beach State Park
as a relatively obscure camper among the subjects of study.
This allowed a degree of camper interaction that would have
been otherwise obtainable, and to a limited extent, parti
cipant-observer techniques were used.
Post survey period.After the survey period was
terminated, additional background interviews and data were
collected. Most important at this time was the camper-
registration data made available for the preceding year
at the two state parks and at all except Magnolia Beach
Campground. The laborious process of manually processing
and coding the approximately 100 per cent sample (16,731
party visits, after an unknown reduction in total registra
tions resulting from sorting and summing repeat registra
tions, a process not done before this study) took four
months to complete. In addition, land use mapping was
completed during this period.


138
been established earlier for the reader. The research de
sign is essentially a statement of methods, the data base
or sources, and techniquesfor the gathering and analysis
of information about recreation. This is not essentially
a research into methodology or technique, but instead
relies on standard geographic and social science ap
proaches for which there exists a large body of critical
literature, both in methodology and its application.
Among various researchers is geography and the social
sciences, there is an apparent confusion and overlap be
tween the terms method and technique. For clarity in
the following discussion it should be noted that the view
of research procedures used here is based on those outlined
by Salter.
The general approach of this research is toward an
applied format. As stated earlier in listing study ob
jectives, this research is intended in part to provide
background information to stimulate thinking in public
recreation planning circles. Furthermore, aspects of this
research will be useful to understanding the processes
involved in future park or campground location and develop
ment or redevelopment. That is not to say that larger
application to a body of theory is not hoped for, for indeed
it is the long range goal of the investigator to help


193
and toward the Gulf along perceived "better" highway
43
linkages. implied in this statement is a notion of
friction of distance orientation of proposed lines of
movement as these traverse varied topographic domains.
Also, considering highway networks in reality it is found
that they vary in arrangement with the same topographic
factors and hence are not uniform in linkage, i.e., all
points are not equally accessible from all other points.
Consequently, routes may exert an effect on visitor move
ments and distribution of origins (hence shape of market
area) as an independent factor. Losch adds credence to
this notion in his discussion of market area shape as a
44
function of the transportation system.
Noting that "shape or pattern is related to process,"
and that process is the essence of this discussion (i.e.,
site selection and route selection from among alternatives),
it was decided to construct a travel flow map in order to
evaluate partially some of these ideas. The resultant map
shows routing and other spatial aspects of movement to the
46
study area by survey period camping visitors. it will
be noted that the 514 interview sample of Figure 19 is also
the basis of the data portrayed in Figure 20, and that both
direct and tour routing is included.
The general value of this flow map is for description
45


331
process was probed further. (Discussion of this aspect was
made to fit against the conceptual framework of marketing
and central place theory.)
The maximum tributary area was reduced by distance
minimizing and perceived resource homogeneity assumptions
to a predicted irregularly shaped functional tributary area.
Map comparisons permitted a tenuous verification of the
hypothesis that campers visit nearest beaches. it was
stressed, however, that a large array of perceptual and in
formation factors as well as variation in friction of dis
tance might also have contributed to the actual shape of
the tributary area. The descriptive goal of the primary
objective was realized but explanation of market area shape
irregularity was less satisfactory by comparison.
Another part of the analysis dealt with more
generalized aspects of spatial interaction within the
tributary area. Interaction theory formed the basis for a
selective examination of field aspects for the area camp
ing complex. As expected (based on literature perusal),
a selection rule based on perceived travel costs was found
operating within the study tributary area.
Visitor origin data were considered as a continuous
surface and its slope outward from the focal node was
shown to be a negative function of distance (i.e.,
cost in


110
Figure 8 provides a graphic description of locations
of selected classes of land use between Destin's East Pass
bridge, over the mouth of Choctawhatchee Bay, and Hathaway
bridge, the main access point to the panama City beaches
from across St. Andrew Bay. As previously noted, the zone
of recreation oriented land use occupies only a narrow
coast fringe. With few exceptions the developed land lies
adjacent to the area's principal coastal highway artery
US 98 (state route 30) or state route 30A (See Figure 7).
Rather than comprehensive areal land use mapping, a coastal
highway traverse was made along the two earlier mentioned
41
routes. For convenience of map analysis and scale,
parallel tertiaries and spurs were consolidated into arterial
representation.
Land Use Classification
The legend in Figure 8 utilizes a specialized classi
fication scheme that is in part a modification of applicable
42
parts m the federal Standard Land Use Coding Manual.
Residential lands are for simplicity classed as either
transient lodging or residential. The first group is com
posed of motels, apartments, cabins, cottages, houses, and
duplexes that by visible evidence are used commercially in
provision of temporary lodging for visitors to the area. The


312
TABLE 15 (Continued)
Favored Characteristic (* = emphasis) Public Private
* Larger sites X
* Less crowded X
Facility-people ratio X
* Privacy X
Convenient locations of facilities X
Management (better and friendlier) X
* Security X
* Supervision and restrictions X
Less restrictive X
Friendly campers X
* Family-type campers X
No drinking X
Near activities X
* Economical X
Equal
Pets not permitted in public
Better traffic control
Don't know any


75
8. American Automobile Association, Florida Tour Book,
Spring-Summer, 1969 (Washington, D. C.: American
Automobile Association, 1969), p. 40.
9. Ibid.
10. See, for example, the Non-Florida traffic flow map for
Florida Highways in 1934 in L. E. Peabody, "Extracts
from Report on Florida Traffic Survey," Public Roads,
Vol. 16 (1935), pp. 68-72.
11. John Fraser Hart, The Southeastern United States
(Princeton, New Jersey: van Nostrand, 1967), p. 72.
12. John Ise, Our National Park Policy, Resources for the
Future (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1961),
pp. 355-356.
13.
Ibid.,
p. 425.
14.
Ibid.,
p. 519.
15.
Ibid.,
p. 426.
16.
Ibid.,
pp. 426-427.
17.
Ibid.,
pp. 519-520.
18. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States,
Study Report 4 (Washington, D. C.: Government Print
ing Office, 1962).
19. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 70.
20. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Shoreline Recreation, p. 30.
21. Ibid., p. 3.
Several shoreline definitions were made in this study
but they were wholly unsatisfactory since they were
most often restatements of classification titles: for
example, "shoreline resource" was "where land and
22.


258
leaving home that it would take longer to drive to the
panama city area.
The data selected for analysis were exclusive of area
nonterminal visitors. Furthermore, visitors with purposes
for area selection other than for recreation were excluded.
For example, short-distance travelers who camped with their
families but went to work daily, families searching for
homes in the area, etc., were excluded.
A visually verified high correlation between the periods
of time away from work and away from home on the trip (trip
period) to the study area allowed a choice in analysis. The
latter was selected because it allowed a more meaningful
time refinement for the retirees, public school teachers and
others who had theoretically perpetual or very long free periods.
Survey results indicated that 55 per cent of the respondents
spent all available free time on their outing. Only 19 per
cent spent more than two days of their vacation or free time
at home. It was expected that most campers would need or
prefer a variable fraction of their vacation or nonworking
time in trip preparation, post-trip recuperation, and other
non-trip uses of time.
Initially, a simple multiple regression was used to test
the hypothesis. Trip period (X^) and driving time were
regressed on maximum willing driving time (Y). It was found


315
investments in luxury camping equipment and sporting goods
claimed economy of vacation to be their reason for camping.
There also was the group of respondents who used the
economy of camping as a means of extending their vacation
budget in order "to see more" or travel farther.
The ORRRC reports found considerable cross-income
bracket camping participation and concluded that the economy
15
motive was "not of major importance." This author pro
poses that the economy motive is a real factor associated
with participation, but that the personally subjective con
cept of economy is extremely variable resulting in tenuous
cause and effect conclusions. Consequently, the following
discussion relates survey results to a subjective enquiry
into a few economic considerations involved in camping and
campground selection.
As has been demonstrated under ideal conditions each
camping party would have full knowledge of the location and
characteristics of each campground within an area or at a
destination. Knowledge would be of such things as campground
relative location (i.e., to facilities for recreation
activities, to stores and supplies, to built up areas, to
crowds of people, to transportation routes, etc.), internal
camp features or site characteristics (such as amount of
shade, size and spacing of sites, privacy factors, activity


137
waters begin to drop more rapidly during September so that
by January surf temperatures are again their lowest in
both coastal areas, and drop to their low average of
between 65 to 67 degrees in the south and 55 to 60 de
grees in the north. Air temperatures on the coasts
average only a few degrees cooler and follow the same
49
trends.
Research Design
Despite considerable fragmented research in several
of the areas that this effort was designed to investigate,
it was deemed essential for realization of theoretical or
substantive gains potential in this work to approach the
problem with a minimal level of preconception. Though cer
tain hypothetical expectations existed, and though some
substantive goals were also anticipated, the major premise
was to make the study with the least possible researcher-
philosophical bias to color and preshape results. As will
be pointed out later, there is reason to suspect certain
basic philosophical underpinnings that manifest themselves
in recreation research.
Awareness of the problem and rationale for selection
of a suitable geographic and topical research setting have


LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
16 Fee Level and WillingnessI 318
17 Fee Level and WillingnessII 320
18 Reaction to Fee Increase to Motel
Comparable Level 324
x


TRIP PERIOD IN DAYS
260
TRIP PERIOD AND ACTUAL DRIVING TIME
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
/
/
/
/
1 i 1 i 1 i 1 r
2 4 6 8 10
1
12
ADDITIONAL
DRIVING TIME IN HOURS
Source: Stratified random sample of parties camping at
Grayton Beach, St. Andrews, Alligator Point,
Beach, KOA Magnolia Beach, and Pirate Cove,
summer, 19/0.
Figure 27


45
orientation. Similarly, the proposed transportation focus
is lacking. When the urban focus is most broadly examined
it is apparent that this implies internal and external
attention to the major source locations of recreation demand.
Except for the narrowest of internal urban approaches, at
tention to the demand source location must call for attention
to movements toward the periphery of the urban region.
Though ultimately having a unifying affect by leading
the research into urban or resource depths of detail in order
to understand the basis of movement, such an indirect move
ment focus may not have a ready identification for the
primarily non-movement dealings of a resource specialist or
an urban ecologist. A spatial system, however, allows all
factors a place within a whole no matter how far removed
from direct urban or movement fact.
The realistic model of a spatial system for outdoor
recreation would require the geographer's best descriptive
ability and interaction understanding. Such a system has
not been devised though geographers and others have been
describing piecemeal its elements for some while. A good
system description would put all the past ideographic
studies into perspective and would call for a number of
additional studies. Not only would a system approach in
corporate past work, but it could incorporate existing


NOTES
1. See, for example, Elwood L. Shafer, Jr., The Average
Camper Who Doesn't Exist, Forest Service Research
Paper NE-142 (Upper Darby, Pennsylvania; North
eastern Forest Experiment Station, 1969).
2. For example, William R. Burch, Jr., and Wiley D.
Wenger, Jr., The Social Characteristics of Partici
pants in Three Styles of Family Camping, Forest Service
Research Paper PNW-48 (Portland, Oregon: Pacific
Northwest Experiment Station, 1967).
3. Richard D. Hecock, "Public Beach Recreation Oppor
tunities and Patterns of Consumption of Cape Cod,"
Ph.D. dissertation, Clark University, 1966; "Recrea
tion Behavior Patterns as Related to Site Characteris
tics of Beaches," Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 2
(1970), pp. 237-250.
4. Elwood L. Shafer, Jr., and R. C. Thompson, "Models
that Describe Use of Adirondack Campgrounds," Forest
Science, Vol. 14 (1968), pp. 383-391.
5. For example, see George A. James and H. K. Cordell,
"Importance of Shading to Visitors Selecting a Campsite
at Indian Boundary Campground in Tennessee," Forest
Service Research Note SE-130 (Asheville, North Carolina
Southeastern Experiment Station, 1970); Wilbur F.
Lapage, Camper Characteristics Differ at Public and
Commercial Campgrounds in New England, Forest Service
Research Paper NE-38 (Upper Darby, Pennsylvania;
Northeastern Experiment Station, 1967).
6. Hecock, "Recreation ...," pp. 240-243.
7. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Prospective Demand for Outdoor Recreation, Study Report
No. 26 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1962), p. 62.
328


Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
A CASE STUDY IN RECREATION GEOGRAPHY:
SPATIAL INTERACTION AND CAMPER PERCEPTION
By
Dennis R. Crowe
June, 1972
Chairman: James R. Anderson
Major Department: Geography
The Northwest Gulf Coast is Florida's last frontier for
planned optimum development for outdoor recreation. In re
sponse to this planning need rationale, a field study of
peak-season (summer 1970) family campers was undertaken in
St. Andrews and Grayton Beach state parks and five private
campgrounds within the beach fringe between Panama city and
Ft. Walton Beach. A nearly 100 per cent sample of registra
tion receipts was drawn in six campgrounds. Multiple regis
trations were reduced to over 13,500 party visits. In
addition, a supplementary sample of over 500 parties was
interviewed.
Utilizing scale shifts from regional to local, a
descriptive carto-statistical analysis suggested a variety
of closely interrelated conclusions that fit within a pro
posed synoptic physical-behavioral spatial systems approach
for recreation geography. Resource perception and attitudes
xiv


CHAPTER II
REGIONAL AND TOPICAL SETTING
Geographic research can focus on a regional setting,
a topical activity, or a resource category. This study
attempts to collapse these three subject approaches into
a focus that incorporates elements of each. A region was
selected, but this is not intended to be a traditional
regional study. A single human activity restricts the sub
ject, but further confinement is deliberate in order to
shed at least partial light on use of a specific resource.
Study Region and State
Southeastern United States
The South, and especially the Southeast region, is
particularly well blessed with outdoor recreation resources.
There are many diverse opportunities for outdoor recreation
in this region of mild climate, a variety of natural land
scapes (from mountains to seashore) and an abundance of
natural lakes and reservoirs (constructed by TVA, Corps of
Engineers, and private power companies) situated among
forests and rural farm lands. Limited access highways and
57


299
of freedom in movement. A few specifically considered
cleanliness of facilities, condition of grounds, and price
of fees in selecting a camp. In addition, variety, safety
and crowding of on site recreation facilities were partly
decisive for many. As was expected, considerable comment
was made on perceived solitude, privacy, naturalness of
the setting and proximity to off-site developed activity
areas.
By simply comparing entries in the first two columns
the anticipated different perceptions and clustering be
tween Grayton and St. Andrews are suggested. Services and
facilities are more emphasized at St. Andrews and nearly
unmentioned by those selecting Grayton. Though some visitors
to both parks selected partly on an activity potential basis,
note that it is the uncrowded beach at Grayton that attracted
campers. The locational advantages stressed by St. Andrews
campers are those associated with proximity to activity and
crowds. The privacy associated contrast between small and
large camp preferences also should be noted.
A more intensive examination of Table 13 shows more
pronounced differences between visitor preceptions of and
attitudes toward Grayton and St. Andrews. Nevertheless, the
contrast between these two park campgrounds is not as great
as was anticipated. The real polarity or setting-specific


333
resource attitudes and area selection. Chapter V dealt
with variables associated with campground selection. Most
important was the demonstration of camper clustering by
setting-specific attitudes at different campgrounds.
The third objective was to generate selective back
ground information for public campground planning and
policy development. The secondary goal was to stimulate
discussion of some alternatives to existing policy regard
ing use of land for family camping. The effectiveness of
this approach will only be seen later, but pertinent back
ground information was satisfactorily isolated. Though
emphasis was still on factors of campground selection from
among alternates, specific attention was given to possible
effects of pricing and to management preferences. it was
shown that a major segment of the camping market would
cease to participate at certain maximum fee levels. In
addition, it was demonstrated that fees are considered very
little in actual campground selection processes and that
only at their margins do they exert significant influences
on site selection.
Campground management preferences were also probed.
Selection was often partly based on preference for private
or public management. A large group demonstrated either
no specific preference or a confused and ill-perceived


301
outdoor recreation, and especially family camping, it seems
impossible to separate meaningfully the elements of camp
ground selection. Social direction, resource and activity
preferences, and preferred campground internalities and
externalities, among other factors, seem to be, for the
individual decision maker, an interwoven fabric that in
extricably relates with perception and ultimate choice.
Even if assumptions are made that information is uni
formly and comprehensively disseminated, that people are
aware of their needs, and that satisfaction optimizing
behavior is the norm, then site selection probably still
would involve a compromise between one or more of the major
preferences in a realistic attempt to approach a perceived
optimum mix of satisfactions.
In addition, it must be noted that the extremely relative
concept of quality has been skirted. In a sense, maximizing
quality of experience is the logical goal of a deliberately
selective process (unless economic rationale is dominant).
The value of the estimated experience or the perceived recrea
tion satisfaction potential determines quality (i.e., site
utility) of a campground's internal and external setting.
In reality, respondent comments indicated that the
process of campground selection is quite divergent from that
which would be expected from a strict application of minimax


265
data is the plateau reached in the willingness-to-drive-more-
hours curve discussed above. One would expect a different
shape to this curve if Wolfe's theory were true. With in
creased driving time his theory would imply whetted appetites
and greater propensity for more travel. More needs to be
explored on this idea.
Summary
In summary, this chapter has examined a variety of
factors related to market area shape. The specific shape
of the study tributary area has been shown to be a result
of competitive and noncompetitive recreation movement pro
cesses relative to perceived recreation alternatives.
Hypotheses concerning perception of recreation-alternatives
have shed light on the diversity of factors that recrea
tionists bring to bear in travel-decision processes and on
the variety of resource specific attitudes that recreationists
harbor. Distance has been shown, in the study case, to have
a negative influence on recreation travel and visit rate from
specific locations. Time opportunity has been rudimentarily
shown to exert an influence on hours of travel propensity.
The latter might be a partial influence on long distance
travel that has been shown to be associated with a reversal
of distance-time friction. The diversity of questions dealt


249
A descriptive regression curve was fitted, but, was imprecise
due to machine truncation and significant figure retention
99
only to a decimal.
A functional relationship of interaction decline with
an increase in distance is variably indicated by this
scatterplot of visit ratios against distance. The visit
potential clearly decreases with increased distance when the
nation-wide data (zero to 2,400 miles) are seen as a whole.
In this logarithmically transformed state, visits are an al
most perfectly-linear negative function of distance to a
radius of about 600 miles from the study area. Beyond zone 6,
although the trend is still present, there is a mixed func
tion of distance-relative visit increases, equilibria, and
decreases. Zones 9 through 12 appear to have a separately
sloped linear function. From 12 to 25 the actual curve is
an up an down zig-zag with no apparent logic.
Time Interaction Hypothesis
In 1958, many were surprised when they read the obvious
implications of the post-war trends that Galbraith pulled
together from seeming disassociated information.^00 He
stressed the consequences of increased production efficiency
(now a questionable point), decreased need to work for status
maintenance, the reduced work week, and fewer workers resulting


107
constructed in the summer of 1970, was built from income
of old cottages across the road. As the cottage phase draws
to a close, the motel phase replaces it, but it would appear
that a second motel phase or a hotel phase now may be in
the financing and development stage.
The Grayton Beach Sector has had a much slower develop
ment history, and, as indicated earlier in this part of the
report, has lagged considerably behind the Panama City Sector,
post-war access to the beach fringe in the Grayton Beach
area was limited to spurs leading from the interior located
US 98 to Seagrove Beach, Blue Mountain Beach and Dune Allen
Beach. In the immediate vicinity of each of these cottage
areas sand trails led, in places, a short piece along the
approximate routes of State Road 30A. It was not until 1960
that 30A was built along the beach from Phillips Inlet to
Eastern Lake, connecting with the Seagrove spur off 395.
This opened up over five miles of beach for private develop
ment where today scattered cottages exist. Long accessible
from the Grayton Beach road (283) only by jeep and foot
trail, the property that today is Grayton Beach State park
was linked by a paved road from 283 in 1967. Before being
made into a park, the land was used only by local people for
hunting, fishing for red fish (Sciaenops ocellata), and
crabbing.^ The last link in the beach road (30A) was


124
Beyond the K.O.A., location signs direct the visitor
to turn onto a spur road (392-B) leading to Magnolia Beach
Campground (about one and one-half miles off 392) or
Alligator Point Campground (approximately three miles off
392). Figure 7 also locates these sites. Both of these
campgrounds were included in the visitor survey.
Magnolia, with 18 cottage rental units, offers 75
densely pine and magnolia shaded camp sites, with water and
electricity hook ups, picnic tables, grills, a large bath
house, laundromat, and a very complete camp store. Its
location on sheltered St. Andrew Bay, which has a gently
sloping bottom allows safe family swimming on the camp
ground's sand beach. A combination fishing pier and boat
dock by the boat ramp are complemented by rental boats and
bait and fishing supplies which are sold at the camp store.
Alligator Point Campground is named for the sand spit
jutting from the land on which the camp is located. The
facilities are among the newest and most modern of all the
area's campgrounds. Three large convenience buildings each
with showers, restrooms, laundromat and refreshment vendors
serve 165 sites, each with water, electricity, table and
grill, a boat house with rental boats and motors supple
ment a modern, well-stocked camp store with gifts and bait
and tackle. The 150 pine-wooded acres have a playground and


337
4
recently advocated by marketing specialists.
The key for future research would appear to lie in
perception studies. Resource evaluation, satisfaction
potential, and site valuation are all terms that relate
to a deeply personal response to a visual or other perceived
stimulus. Huff has classified a number of the variables
5
of marketing allied perception. Golledge has added to
this base, but the myriad of factors causing variation
in individual and group receptivity to the information
system and in the perceptual filtering process still are
C.
little understood. It would appear that spatial inter
action is what follows perception and decision-making and
these latter processes need clarification before truly
predictive models of interaction can be formed.
Some would say that gravity and similar models are
indeed predictive and need no involvement in processes of
the mind. Yet the author suggests that such empirical
models simply describe status quo and are not truly pre
dictive. It is the distal end of the interaction curves,
the marginal fees, and market area overlaps that demon
strate (in this research and in others) the inadequacies
of the methods of social physics. Such things as under-
7
standing effort-sensitivity, the social and cultural
O
factors of distance-sensitivity, the effect of site-facility


Objectives one through three will be treated by state
ment and analysis of general and specific hypotheses to be
tested by description of collected survey data and field
observation of status quo, by assumed verification by
analogy, and by comparison for continuity with existing
empirical evidence. The fourth objective is essentially a
logical construction based on an organization and applica
tion of geographic and other literature to the recreation
geography problem of need for organization concepts and a
research focus.
Essential to any research is an understanding of the
pertinent background or setting which gives meaning and
structure to the work at hand. Little research, even that
involving the purest of science, is without a social or
conceptual relevancy or alignment with past and present
thought. This chapter and the next two briefly demonstrate
the social, methodological, and subject matter relevance of
this enquiry, which, while framed within a microstudy format
with regional implications, examines human perceptual
responses to outdoor recreation resources as components in
a site selection and spatial interaction process.


352
INTRAWEEK TRAFFIC VOLUME ON U.S. ROUTE 98
BETWEEN GRAYTON BEACH AND ST. ANDREWS PARKS
Source: State of Florida, Department of Transportation,
traffic counter records, 1970.
Figure 34


55
81. Ackerman, p. 380; and reflecting Ackerman as chairman
of the investigating Committee on Geography for the
Academy of Sciences in The Science of Geography, p. 1.
82. For example see: Wilbanks and Symanski, pp. 81-85;
Don C. Foote and Bryn Greer-Wootten, "An Approach to
Systems Analysis in Cultural Geography," Professional
Geographer, Vol. 20 (1968), pp. 86-91; parts of
Introductory Geography; Viewpoints and Themes, Com
mission on College Geography Publication No. 5 (Wash
ington: Association of American Geographers, 1967);
Robert McDaniel and M. E. E. Hurst, A Systems Analytic
Approach to Economic Geography, Commission on College
Geography Publication No. 8 (Washington: Association
of American Geographers, 1968); and Michael Chisholm,
"General Systems Theory and Geography," Transactions,
Institute of British Geographers, No. 42 (1967), pp.
45-52.
83. His complete statement was: "Geographers are concerned
with the systems of interconnected partswith different
kinds of phenomena that are located together on the
surface of the earthhence, their concern with spatial
systems analysis." Preston E. James, "The Field of
Geography," Geography as a Professional Field, eds.
P. E. James and L. Kennamer, Bulletin 1966, No. 10,
Association of American Geographers and National Coun
cil for Geographic Education (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1966), pp. 1-4.
84. Michael Chubb, "A Systems Analysis and Spatial Demand
Approach to Statewide Recreation Planning: A Case
Study of Boating in Michigan," Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1967.
85. For a complete background on the Michigan systems
analysis approach to recreation planning, and parti
cularly on "RECSYSSYMAP" the "Research and Planning
Publications" bibliography of the Department of Park
and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan lists 12 separate descriptive to
technical volumes.
86. His dissertation describes the method: Carletn S.
Van Doren, "An Interaction Travel Model for Projecting
Attendance of Campers at Michigan State Parks: A


140
Qualitative description
This study, as in social science in general, must
often verbally describe the phenomena under observation.
Such necessity becomes apparent when the observer faces
such a multiplicity of variation in social and spatial
factors that would often make quantitative description
imprecise to the point of questionable value. Furthermore,
the general absence of data and the unknown variation
factors for known data predispose this research to an ex
ploratory, data generating study that often seeks what is
or aims at describing facts and relations that can be un
covered. Kerlinger asserts that such a method "...is
indispensable to scientific advance in the social sciences."
He points out, however, that such a heuristic, or after the
fact, approach will produce causal statements that are
weaker than those produced under other methods, particularly
53
experimental research.
Arnold Henry Guyot, the nation's first full time pro
fessor of geography (Princeton, 1854), cautioned geogra
phers against pure description, saying:
To describe, without rising to the
causes or descending to the consequences,
is no more science, than merely and simply
to relate a fact of which one has been a
54
witness.


360
APPENDIX VII
SUMMARY DATA: TRIP PERIOD AND MARGINAL DRIVING TIME
X-j^ = Trip Period in days X2 = Driving Time in hours
Y = Maximum extra hours f = Frequency, one unless
willing to drive specified otherwise


280
It has been common within the outdoor recreation litera
ture, particularly that concerning family camping, to con
ceptualize recreation resources in roughly defined separate
management and use categories. Thus, studies have been made
of camping and recreation in particular national forests,
large reservoirs, national parks, state parks and other land
management areas. Generally it is assumed that some factor
(or factors) accounts for visitor selection of a particular
level in a hierarchy of recreation area alternates. The
author knows of no attempt to ascertain the identity of this
hierarchy-level selection factor or complex of factors.
Furthermore, when studies have been made of the selection
process behind choice of campgrounds within a single area
it often has tended to focus on real differences in the
natural resource base and on real differences in ease of
accessibility. Thus, campground use within an area has
been correlated with proximity to recreation water and
other factors.'*' Other studies have contrasted use of auto
accessible campgrounds with those enjoyed only by
2
shouldering a pack and hiking into an area.
On the other hand, only a few studies have dealt with
more subtle perceived differences associated with selection
of a campground from among area alternates with a high de
gree of resource and physical access similarity. Hecock's


38
Nature and Natural Resources is concerned most with the
resources set aside in national park and nature preserves and
was based on his studies in a number of newly developing
countries.
Recommendations of geographers
A few perceptive recreation geographers have also
seized upon the basic advantages of a systems analysis ap
proach to their special geographic research niches. Robert
Lucas, for example, has worked for several years on wilder
ness management and outdoor recreation problems in general
for the U. S. Forest Service. On several occasions he has
tried to stress the need for viewing specific recreation
resource areas as system components affecting and affected
by other elements in the system. For example, speaking on
contributions of environmental research to policy decisions,
he had the following to say about wilderness research:
To make as full a contribution as possible,
the focus of wilderness environmental re
search should not be limited too closely to
the wilderness. The wilderness is part of
an interrelated geographical system [emphasis
added]] where one part affects another.
The availability of other wilderness, of
alternative areas for some kinds of activi
ties which are possible but not desirable
in the wilderness, of adjacent attractions,
even the livability of our large cities may
be more crucial for the wilderness than what
is happening inside its boundaries.'


350
INTRASEASONAL VARIATION IN GRAYTON BEACH CAMPSITE OCCUPANCY
Source: State of Florida, Division of Recreation and Parks, Superintendents
Reports, December, 1969, through December, 1970.
Figure 32


224
TABLE 6
REASONS FOR STUDY AREA SELECTION
Reason
Specific attributes favored Number of Respondents
To see a previously unexperienced
setting
Ocean 52
Gulf of Mexico 21
Florida 59
a part 1
this part 33
beaches 14
New area 31
Different scenery 8
panama city 12
Amusement strip 6
Grayton Beach State Park 2
Area military bases 1
To participate in activities
Large variety 84
Amusements 84
Dog races 1
Crowd mingling 30
Good fishing 90
Good swimming 55
Boat watching 1
Water watching 1
Seafood dining 2
Campground conversation 2
Shell gathering 2
To utilize locational advantages
Closest
ocean or beach 87
good beach 2
part of Florida 32
major vacation place 8
Easy drive to area 16
Within reasonable drive 11
Convenient tour terminus 2


202
diffusion concepts. Hagerstrand describes a distribution
such as has been observed in this study as a "nebula
distribution" which he attempts to explain on the basis of
diffusion of ideas. Such distributions are understandable
when viewed relative to the "starting-point and the func-
59
tion of the growth process...."
Application of diffusion concepts suggests that
truncation of the study tributary area by the Gulf of
Mexico may function as a reflective barrier that tends to
intensify or concentrate formal advertising, word of mouth
advertising, etc., and spread it farther than normally
expected in the direction opposite the barrier.^0 This
concept of physical barriers influencing communication and
spread of ideas might also tend to emphasize the Appalachian-
crest, apparent market-divide between Gulf and Atlantic
beaches.
The allure of Florida as a vacation spot was anticipated
but the effect is unknown. Also, the locations, amounts,
and types of formal advertising placed in the tributary area
is unknown. However, survey response indicated that at
least 4 per cent of the visitors sampled selected the area
as a direct result of reading formal advertising literature
of several types. Deasy showed this factor to be quite im
portant in determining tributary area shape. Another factor


an often-used and satisfactory experience-yielding local
resource. Note that this type may be quite specific in
-218
resource preference or he may simply be site habituated.
Tourist. The tourist may be distinctly resource non
specific in preference, as he takes in all interesting
sites in his path. On the other hand, an individual tour
may be quite resource specific, for example, a Gulf coast
beach tour or a mountain route. In any case, often the
recreationist doesn't make a clear distinction between
resource alternatives to the point of a specific selection.
Instead he selects a tour or nonterminal route in which a
combination of resources may be enjoyed. This type often
selects among trip alternates in order simply to vary the
array of his recreation resource "smorgasbord." Basically,
there may be only a time-scale difference between these
people and the place collecting variety seekers who each
year choose a different terminal vacation location.
Distance specific. Some resource specificity occurs,
but the thrust of this attitude group appears to be toward
placing foremost importance on distance factors. These
range between distance maximizers and distance minimizers.
The distance maximizers are drawn away from the local
recreation resource offering, whether or not it is familiar


92
Figure 5
Jill- V.


25
presents an outline of such titles as are readily available
in the literature with one possible urban spatial-topical
organization.)
Spatial interaction focus
Other geographers, recognizing the diversity of sub
jects in studies by recreation specialists and seeking a
broader unity of the field, are not satisfied with a purely
urban approach. For example, Mercer, in a reply to
Mitchell's suggested urban research focus, does not deny
the present and probable future importance of urban-oriented
recreation studies, but asks Mitchell and other geographers
the following pertinent question:
In order to wed the diverse aspects of
recreation into a coherent whole is not
some focus required that will integrate
urban and rural recreation, perception
and land-use and resort studies into an
integrated subject that is recognizable
as recreational geography?-^
Mercer and others, who are perhaps more aligned with a
systemic view, see clearly the thread of movement in nearly
all aspects of recreation study and tend to approach recrea
tion studies from the vantage point of analysis of com
ponent linkages or the integrative factors associated with
recreation activity. Zierer, speaking on recreation and
tourism in the West, saw a geographical focus in recreational


320
TABLE 17
FEE LEVEL AND WILLINGNESSII
Fee
Paid
(Dollars)
Sample Num
ber Willing
to Pay More
Percentage
of
Sample
Sample Num
ber Unwilling
to Pay More
Percentage
of
Sample
1
506
100
0
0
2
506
100
0
0
3
501
99
5
1
4
367
72.5
139
27.5
5
138
27.3
368
72.7
6
25
4.9
481
95.1
7
7
1.4
499
98.6
8
4
0.8
502
99.2
9
1
0.2
505
99.8
10
0
0.0
506
100
* N = 506 Parties


59
area (except for Florida), (5) A general rural orientation
of the population, (6) Failure of policy makers to realize
the economic development potential and present value of out
door recreation within the region, and (7) Unresponsive
universities that still contend with more traditional
3
development problems. in short, little demand has thus
far been generated for recreation research information
whether applied or basic. Apparently rules of thumb, in
tuition, and experience have been relied upon in most
southern development and planning endeavors.
Most of the research conducted in the Southeast has
been done by the U. S. Forest Service and the agricultural
experiment stations of the land grant universities. In
addition, some work has been done by the TVA and the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Most of the information generated
by these studies has concentrated on resource management
techniques, use estimation techniques, customer profiles,
and recreation economic impact on area development (by
Economic Research Service and Economic Development Adminis
tration) .
The spatial aspects of southern outdoor recreation have
also been neglected in favor of studies in other regions of
the United States. Table 2 demonstrates the paucity of work
by geographers in this region. Among 185 titles with at


287
proposed that some people obey a gregarious tendency and
gather together for social contact as a recreation experience
enhancement (i.e., centripetal social movement). Others
shun crowds and human contact in varying degrees and seek
isolation (i.e., centrifugal social movement). It is easy
to equate centrifugal social movement, at one extreme, with
the wilderness experience and communion with nature on a
primitive survival level.
A number of studies have been made of such orientations
in association with wilderness recreation. Hendee and others
have described a scale of "wilderness-purist" orientations
among outdoor recreationists that extends from a "wildernism"
pole to an opposite "urbanism" attitude toward nature and
the outdoors.'1'0 A later comment by Hendee indicated that
he saw application of this continuum concept all the way
from wilderness back-packers to auto campers in developed
park areas (the group dealt with in this discussion).^
Application of Hendee's "wildernism-urbanism" continuum
would also suggest a range, opposite the centrifugal pole,
within the needs and propensities of study area campers.
This would result in some clustering of campers having cen
tripetal gregarious tendencies and orientations toward the
urban-similar camping experience (with its conveniences and
sophisticated excitement).


346
25. james O. Wheeler, and Frederick P. Stutz, "Spatial
dimensions of urban social travel," Annals, Association
of American Geographers, Vol. 61 (1971), pp. 371-386.
26. Terence M. Burley, "A Note on the Geography of Sport,"
Professional Geographer, Vol. 14 (1962), pp. 55-56.
27. Earl B. Shaw, "Geography and Baseball," Journal of
Geography, Vol. 62 (1963), pp. 74-76.
28. George S. Wehrwein, "The Rural-Urban Fringe, Economic
Geography, Vol. 18 (1942), pp. 217-228.
29. Fred E. Dohrs, "Beaver Lake, Wisconsin: A Suburban
Residential Development on Recreational Land," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, Vol. 38 (1948),
p. 99.
30. Alexander Melamid, "Settlements on Fire Island, N. Y."
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 50
(1960), p. 338.
31. Helen L. Smith, "White Bluff: A Community of Com
muters, Economic Geography, Vol. 19 (1943), pp. 143-147.
32. Robert M. Irving, Amenity Agriculture, B. C. Geogra
phical Series, No. 11 (Vancouver: Tantalus Research
Ltd., 1966) .
33. H. A. Hosse, "Ottawa's Greenbelt and Its Anticipated
Effects," Canadian Geographer, Vol. 4, No. 17 (1960),
pp. 35-40.
34. D. C. Mercer, "Urban Recreational Hinterlands: A
Review and Example," Professional Geographer, vol. 22
(1970), pp. 74-78.
35. D. W. Rigby, "Recreation Travel Patterns of Edmon
tonians: A Sample Study," Masters thesis, University
of Alberta, Edmonton, 1966.
R. L. Stevens, "Mexico City Picnic Area: A Study in
Recreational Geography," Annals, Association of Ameri
can Geographers, Vol. 46, No. 2 (1956), p. 274.
36.


125
nature trails. Boating access to the Grand Lagoon is by a
boat ramp located near the fishing pier. In addition to
fishing and boating in the lagoon, bay or nearby Gulf,
there is swimming in the lagoon on the campground's sand
spit. A number of sites are at water-side.
The newest, largest and most elaborate campground in
the area is adjacent to St. Andrews State Park. (See Figure
6). This roughly 150-acre development lies astride the
sand and shell peninsula and includes frontage on both the
Gulf and Grand Lagoon. A new type of family campground,
Venture Out at panama City Beach is the newest luxury travel
trailer resort built by the Knoxville, Tennessee-based Ven
ture Out in America, Incorporated (which has 48 per cent
of its stock held by Gulf Oil Company).
Appealing mostly to the retired or semiretired and the
affluent young, the resort functions on the condominium
principle. With the exception of a few lots held by the
parent company, the campsites, or actually small trailer
lots, are owned by individuals who can share in management
of their resort facilities. Thus, individuals are always
guaranteed available trailer space which is permanently
maintained and constantly security patrolled. The manage
ment will rent unused lots with half of the rental fee
credited to the lot owner.


31
within the research focus characterized by movement or
spatial interaction.
As Christensen, Dower and others have pointed out, the
evidence does tend to bear out a parallel growth of auto
use, the highway net, and visits to recreation places
54
(tourism). Furthermore, it would appear that if an element
or a limited number of recreation elements must be isolated
and given particular research focus, recreation geography
would benefit most from attention to the integrative or
linking element of recreation travel and that this should
be the focus at all scales of observation and analysis. In
addition, equal attention must be given the points linked
by movement, namely, the population centers or demand loca
tions and the intraurban and extraurban recreation resource
supply locations. More generally, such a focus would demand
a theory building approach based on the study of geography
as dynamic spatial interaction.
A case for Systems Analysis in Recreation Geography
Wolfe, who is perhaps the most outspoken and most often
quoted transportation-spatial interaction type of recreation
geographer, has referred to the admirable research position
of having a holistic view of recreation. Furthermore, in
light of what he considers the "...chief virtue attributed


34
basis for planning.
One of the specific categories of problems within the
Twiss "system is related to "structure," dealing with the
62
organizational pattern of the outdoor recreation system.
Furthermore, the "content" of the system would be the re
sources, resource users and their interactions. This is
evidently a resource management oriented "system" and has
limitations built in.
More important, is the question of the existence of a
single comprehensive system. A special study by the
National Academy of Science states that the extent of such
6
a system is itself "a question to be clarified by research."
The inclination of the 1969 Academy-directed study committee
was to conceptualize recreation as falling into more than one
recreation system. For example, the report refers to "urban
recreation systems" with the implication that the urban
environment forms one grouping among others (perhaps urban
64
and rural systems?). In any case, the Academy report
stressed the necessity to recognize the "dynamics of recrea
tional institutions," the essential interdependency of a
multiplicity of recreation systems, and the need to approach
65
outdoor recreation from a systems research methodology.
Whether or not the existence of such a major system
encompassing all facets of outdoor recreation can be defined


93
St. Andrews park (Figure 6) is on the opposite end
of a development continuum from Grayton Beach. The area's
second largest campground capacity, it is the most heavily
used park in the strip when non-camping visitors are con
sidered. Though comparably developed internally, with
similarly elaborate recreation and service facilities in
comparison with Ft. Pickens, St. Andrews is only five miles
from the nearest city (compared to 17 miles for Ft. Pickens),
and has privately owned recreation and service development
literally at its entrance gate. Ft. Pickens has several
miles of buffering space between its primary use area and
the nearest recreation development at Pensacola Beach, with
its shopping centers and commercial entertainments. Thus,
St. Andrews was selected as the opposite to Grayton Beach
for a polarized park pair.
Operational East-West Limits
The central part of the Northwest Coast between Destin
and Panama city (a detailed enlargement of the inter-bay
land holding parks 3 and 4 on Figure 4) is shown in Figure 7.
This map shows the location of Grayton Beach and St. Andrews
state parks relative to one another and to the transportation
and physical-cultural landscape between the bays. It will
be seen that this location map also notes the operational


Figure 14
172


24
Undeniably, much outdoor recreation is urban by fact
of site selected by the individual for specific activity
participation. However, as was brought out in caution to
Kelvie's and Kearns' remarks,30 not only is there a more
basic element of people movement inherent in most forms of
outdoor recreation activity, but an urban recreation focus
must also recognize the needs satisfied only by movements to
an urban fringe or nonurban environment. William Colburn,
a geographer-planner in charge of Michigan's continuing
state outdoor recreation plan, also emphasized the need for
attention to urban recreation needs in a paper presented to
O I
the 1969 National Congress for Parks and Recreation. But,
quite perceptively Colburn's emphasis on urban planning-
research needs was direct in pointing out that "...recreation
resources which are not in the cities are for the people of
32
the city." His point was one perhaps often overlooked or
not clearly understood by proponents of an urban rather than
rural focus on research in outdoor recreation; that it is
the urbanite who uses the outlying facility. Therefore, a
study of rural recreation participation is often a study of
urban-based recreation need.
(Note that much urban-oriented work in recreation
geography has been done. A review of this literature is
outside the scope of this discussion; however, Appendix I


147
and summarizing data either verbally, cartographically, or
with descriptive statistics is the most dominant process.
Specific hypotheses have been tested by comparison of pre
dicted with observed results. Some relationships are
examined with regression techniques, but again with func
tional description as the objective. Comparison with
analagous study evidence from the literature is also used
in substantiation. The results are a descriptive statement
of selected relations between factors in the problem area,
some "building block" verification of existing theory, and
some hypotheses for testing in further research. The
results are essentially suggestive rather than definitive
and await further modification or verification from other
researchers.


LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1 Participation Trends in Florida State
Park Camping 72
2 Generalized Shoreline Types in Florida. . 79
3 Distribution of Florida Beach Resources . 83
4 Northwest Florida Beach State Parks .... 89
5 Grayton Beach State Park 92
6 St. Andrews State Park 94
7 Coastal Northwest Florida: Panama City 95
to Destin
8 Land Use: A Coastal Highway Traverse . m
9 Florida Outdoor Recreation Comprehensive
Planning Regions 130
10 Percentage Distribution of Tourists Who
Planned to Engage in Outdoor Recreation
in Florida During the Summer and Winter
Seasons, 1964-65by Planning Region of
Destination 131
11 Selected Gulf Coastal Florida State
Park Locations 133
12 Gulf Coastal Florida State Park Seasonal
Camping Contrasts 135
13 United States Camper OriginsAnnual. . 171
14 United States camper OriginsNon-summer. 172
xi


248
DISTANCE AND VISITS
Source: Campground registrations at Grayton Beach,
St. Andrews, Alligator Point, Beach, KOA,
and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
Figure 26


chapter V
CAMPGROUND PERCEPTION AND SELECTION
To this point the discussion has stressed tributary
area interaction processes. Considerable attention was
given to visitor perception of resource interchangeability
and preferences as these affected selection and choice of
the study area from among alternate locations of similar
and dissimilar recreation resources. The objective of this
chapter is to continue this exploration into camper atti
tudes and perceptions but to focus on factors associated
with specific campground selection within the general re
source setting of the study area, in addition, a few al
ternatives to present public recreation policy also will
be proposed. Again, it must be stressed that the study
objective is not an exhaustive and definitive discourse
on all variables that might be brought to bear on the
problem, but instead the goal is a selectively exploratory
insight into perceptual process and resource use within
the confines of the study area and the sample. Any real
significance to such a study lies in the understandings
gained of the reasons for the distribution of campers in
space.
279


GENERALIZED SHORELINE TYPES IN FLORIDA
Source: State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation m Florida
(Tallahassee: Division of Recreation and Parks,
1970), p. 81.
Figure 2


87
services were found to be located along the shores of the
district's bays and inland lakes and in other interior
locations, it was decided to concentrate on those places
specifically ocean-beach oriented.
It became apparent while the author traveled the high
ways, roads and dirt tracks of the area that there was an
easily observable narrow zone of land use and development
directly adjacent to the shores of the Gulf and this strip
was separated from developed areas landward by a variable
expanse of functionally unassociated land.
It should be quite apparent to even the modestly per
ceptive casual traveler-observer that those who build in this
sector of land's end prefer sites within view of the water,
or at least within hearing distance of the surf. Thus,
despite the presence of well constructed coastal highways,
people settle, build vacation homes, or invest in construc
tion of visitor lodgings and recreation facilities along
poorly surfaced local dune fringe by-ways or at the end of
clay reinforced tracks that lead to water's edge.
In light of this apparent locational tendency of coastal
land development, it was decided to limit the interior ex
tent of this study to include only the coast fringe or
strip that is known locally as "the beaches." It should
also be noted that the beach land use strip varies in extent


293
service, and lodging, as is clearly indicated by both pro
files .
Setting-Specific Camper Groupings
Because polarity and a variable array does exist within
area campground settings, then the hypothesized preference
clustering at different campgrounds appears to be a valid
test hypothesis. it was decided to focus on the two po
larized settings of Grayton Beach and St. Andrews for clus
ter testing. However, visitor attitudes were examined at
the private campgrounds, also. Subjective observations
could not suggest as acceptable a ranking of all of the
private campgrounds. Also, though any different attitudes
clustering would suggest acceptance of the hypothesis, it
was decided to probe specifically for attitude differences
that could be predicted by settings on an urban-nature
continuum.
It was, therefore, predicted that St. Andrews would be
characterized by visitors seeking a highly active, gre
garious, centripetal social direction camping experience.
Grayton Beach was predicted to be characterized by centri
fugal social direction, and a search for seclusion, solitude,
privacy and relaxation amid a more natural setting. Among
the private campgrounds, Beach was expected to be the most
urban-convenience oriented as well as sharing the predicted


361
APPENDIX VII (Continued)


155
economic spatial activity. Because private outdoor
recreation clearly falls within the tertiary or service
and distributive sector of the economy, and since public
outdoor recreation is its essentially nonmarket priced
counterpart there is postulated an analagous application
potential of central place theory to outdoor recreation
processes.^
Theory of the Periphery
Walter Christaller never claimed his urban, commercial-
service oriented concept of central place interaction to be
applicable to all things and a location theory to end all
theories. In fact, his interest in tourism and outdoor
recreation activity in general led him to propose in 1963
what might be called a theory of the periphery. in
Christaller's own words:
There is also a branch of the economy
that avoids central places and the agglomera
tions of industry. This is tourism. Tourism
is drawn to the periphery of settlement dis
tricts as it searches for a position on the
highest mountains, in the most lonely woods,
along the remotest beaches.^
Thus, with the city or urban core region as a visitor source
Christaller proposed an outward diffusion of urban based
searching for a temporary substitute environment.
Though not expressed as a verification of such a


351
INTRASEASONAL VARIATION IN ST. ANDREWS CAMPSITE OCCUPANCY
o
>
o
o
z:
<
CO
Q_
<
O
O
LU
Q_
3
O
O
o
CO
Q
UJ
CT
Q
z:
Z)
X
MONTHS
Source: State of Florida, Division of Recreation and Parks, Superintendents
Reports, December, 1969, through December, 1970.
Figure 33


210
shown in Figure 21 as specific recreation resource-area
alternates as they were distributed mainly in the South.
Each alternate selection is located by a single dot on the
map. The total represented does not agree with Table 4
because cities and nonspecific locations are omitted.
Dominance of the South, and particularly Florida as alter
nate regions is shown in Figure 22, which includes all
listed alternates expressed as a percentage of the total
sample. Note the complete absence of alternates in the
lower midwestern states. An interesting addendum to this
map is that it coincides quite well with Campbell's map
6 9
of "people and vacation regions" drawn in 1949. However,
more recent recreational developments have changed the
southern recreation region, adding a number of reservoir,
state park, and tourist attractions to the vast interior
South.
Comparative Resource Perception
In order to assess further the resource specificity
hypothesis and in general to expand on the process and
factors of study area selection, a group of perception and
attitude data were interview-gathered. Two open-ended
questions were asked:


274
of recreation seekers. Also, the data only deal with
a set of campers. No idea is available concerning the
attitudes of other activity groups, which may or may
not be similar. However, it is assumed that a camping
selection is some what cross-sectional of the major
outdoor recreation body of participants.
62. Robert D. Campbell, "The Geography of Recreation in
the United States," Ph.D. dissertation, Clark Univer
sity, 1949, p. 91.
63. The classification, though arbitrary and subjective,
is made more credible through inclusion of all common
responses. There is no arbitrary division based on
numerical rank (age, income, participation rate, etc.).
As in rounding numbers to significant digits, it is
always necessary to bear in mind that subjective sur
vey responses based on individual differences in
ability to express subjective evaluations (of unique
perceptions) have a significance level beyond which
refinement in reporting may be nonsense. Furthermore,
regardless of methods or degree of objective sophisti
cation, it becomes apparent that grouping or classifying
becomes basically a subjective process according to
R. J. Johnston, "Choice in Classification: The Sub
jectivity of Objective Methods," Annals, Association
of American Geographers, Vol. 58 (1968), pp. 575-589.
64. Samuel Z. Klausner, "A Paradigm of Social Research,"
Appendix A, Outdoor Recreation Research (Washington,
D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1969), pp. 61-69,
quote p. 65.
65. Richard 0. Cutler, "Amelia island, Florida; A
Geographic Study of Recreation Development," Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Geography, University of
Florida, 1965, pp. 64-67.
66. Edward A. Ackerman, Geography as a Fundamental Research
Discipline, Department of Geography Research Paper No.
53 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958).
67. Haggett, pp. 40-41.
68. Brian J. L. Berry, "Interdependency of Spatial
Structure and Spatial Behavior: A General Field


TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
PREFACE iii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
ABSTRACT xiv
CHAPTER
I OUTDOOR RECREATION RESEARCH SETTING. ... 1
Introduction 1
Study Perspectives 1
Purpose and Objectives of Study. . 3
Outdoor Recreation Research
Social Setting 6
Participation Trends 6
Government Impetus for Research. . 7
Study RationalePlanning Needs. . 8
Spatial viewpoint of Report 9
Research in Recreation Geography. ... 11
Movements Toward a central Concept 14
past directions 14
Urban focus 19
Spatial interaction focus .... 25
A Case for Systems Analysis in
Recreation Geography 31
iv


198
used federal routes linking the mountains with Chattanooga,
Atlanta, and points south.
It would appear logical that the study tributary area's
eastward extension beyond that predicted by minimum dis
tance concepts is influenced by unequal accessibility
factors. The north-south friction-reducing interstates
appear to favor expansion of the market area, especially
when viewed against the minimal supply of good east-west
mountain routes, thereby increasing the tendency to travel
south to the Gulf. Though a few visitors chose to use the
scenic or local-character by-ways, it appeared that most
of the visitors chose a faster more convenient interstate
route, at least until they neared the study area. it is
also significant that Bingham and others found this same
49
Florida-Midwest corridor in a Kentucky study, and several
have commented on the interstate impact on recreation
. 50
travel.
The Texas-Florida Gulf corridor also might have
partially an access reason for its existence. Florida resi
dents tended to gravitate to the west coast as they jour
neyed northwest out of Florida. Touring visitors passing
out of or into the state also tended to take the same Gulf
route, though it may be the appeal of the Gulf coast that
influenced their route selection. Many western and plains


.311
TABLE 15
MANAGEMENT PREFERENCE FACTORS
Favored Characteristic (* = emphasis) Public Private
Exclusive
* Camp stores
Laundromat
Trailer access
Conveniences
Daily trash pickup X
Vegetation between sites X
Personal service
Less fawning management X
Nicer campers X
No Blacks
Less restrictive security (gates, etc)
Fewer motorcycles X
Highway locations
Located on road maps X
Scenic locations X
* Located in choice recreation spots X
* More natural X
More solitude X
Nature interpretation, museums, etc. X
* Less commercialized X
Away from towns X
No false advertising X
Used to them X
Older, more established X
Always site availability
Reservations
Prefer to support government X
Prefer to support private enterprise
Dominant
Camping facilities X
* Recreation facilities X
* Swimming pools
Trailer sewage, etc.
* Cleanliness, general maintenance X
* Campground design X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


281
study of day-use and vacationing visitors to different cape
Cod beaches is perhaps the most noteworthy from a resource
3
standpoint. He concluded that beach crowding, facility
development, and relative external development were decisive
in visitor selection of particular beaches. Shafer and
Thompson have associated campground use with distance from
4
nearby tourist attractions. A few have examined such
variables as size of the campground (number of campsites),
density of overstory or shade, and factors associated with
camp selection by preference in management type (i.e.,
5
private-commercial or public).
Therefore, the major question or problem dealt with in
this chapter is the following: On what basis do campers
select one campground over another within the resource
setting of the study area? Note that the study area is
dealt with as a whole, or as a sectored and variably
developed complex within a basically constant resource
setting.
It was considered that visitors had arrived at their
area destination when they turned onto US 98 from US 331
near Grayton Beach or when they arrived at Panama City via
US 231 or another route (See Figure 20). Distance from
the visitor's home to his terminal campground, therefore,
was not considered as a factor of intra-area campground


149
8. Ibid., p. 5.
9. Ibid., p. 7.
10. Ibid., p. 5.
11. Ibid., p. 2.
12. Clare A. Gunn, Texas Marine Resources; The Leisure Way,
Report of workshop on Texas marine tourism-recreation
development (College Station: Texas A & M University,
1970), p. 1.
13. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Islands of America
(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1970),
p. 25.
14. Dune crest Beasley State Park has been in existence
since 1959 and yet only has been developed with rest
rooms, showers, picnic tables, shelters, grills and
playground equipment.
15. Highway distance from St. Andrews to St. Joseph park
is 58 miles, only 10 less than the distance from
Grayton Beach to Ft. Pickens.
16. Based on personal interviews during August, 1969, and
May, 1970, with resident managers of service stations,
motels, shops, etc.
17. The sequence of development of this coastal area is
perhaps part of a study of equal importance in another
scale of examination. Urban geographers have studied
historical evolution of city function and morphology
for a number of years. Only relatively recently has
attention been paid to resort communities. It may be
noted that in New Zealand is an almost identical
evolutionary sequence (in a physical geography of
remarkable coincidence) presented in Blair Badcock,
"Problems Associated with the Tourist and Recreational
Development of Ohope," Auckland Student Geographer,
Vol. 2 (1967), pp. 41-46.
J. Russell Smith, North America (New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Co., 1925), p. 274.
18.


36
well have their recreation needs met in other places. Hendee,
for example, has suggested the need for recreation planners
to pay more attention to entire system needs that could help
avoid crowding of natural areas which causes a dilution of
the resources and experience for those specifically seeking
the natural environmental experience. Lapage also has
mentioned problems associated with recreation system dynamics.
Stressing campground selection, he has mentioned "trade-offs"
between travel time and on-site time, between travel distance
and site resource attractiveness, and among others, possible
6 7
"trade-offs" between the whole experience and components.
In all of these cases system effects are the topic of concern
in the gross effect of many individuals evaluating travel
and other factors against a number of alternative sites or
recreation areas, with any number of combinations of sub
stitutions available to the individual decision maker. In
a paper subtitled "A Systems-analysis Approach to Solving
Outdoor Recreation Problems," Shafer, a sociologist, has
proposed that research be centered around constructing
models explaining and predicting relationships in three
interrelated subsystems or environments, that focus on
natural resources, organization, and social-psychological
68
factors.


27
3 7
and impact, and transportation planning data. Geogra
phers could hardly exist without some influence by this
body of literature.
Of course, within geography, transportation and urban
specialists have dealt with travel studies also, though
not noticeably on the topic of interstate tourist travel.
Most recent travel studies done in geography have concen
trated on urban migration or daily movement in and around
urban areas. A readily available example of a compre
hensive urban travel study is the Chicago Area Transpor
tation Study which has been discussed by Berry and Horton
38
in their chapter on urban movement. A vast literature
of movement studies has been built in the geographic study
of location theory and travel behavior (These will be re
viewed later), and form a logical springboard for geogra
phical study of recreation movement.
Longstanding travel study habits aside, the high
impact Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission also
pointed to the importance of travel within outdoor recrea
tion and made a logical basis for geographers to enter the
realm of recreation travel study. Several studies directly
involved transportation factors. Where not stressed in the
reports, often travel was a factor clearly legible between


129
study area must be tempered with these omissions.
Study Area Seasonality
That Florida can be a delightful place to be during
the cold winter of the North is more or less common
knowledge. That climate varies with place in Florida may
be less recognized, but tourist regionalization seems to
be at least partly based on this natural phenomenon.
Florida Seasonality Regions
Robert D. Campbell in his dissertation on the geography
of recreation in the United States written in 1949 drew up
an interesting map of "vacation regions" in which he divided
Florida by drawing a line from south of Cedar Key on the
Gulf through the Leesburg area to the Daytona Beach area
45
on the Atlantic. He designated the entire peninsula
south of this line as a winter vacation region and the
coastal fringe north and west of this line as summer vaca
tion regions.
Figure 9 shows the locations of selected Gulf Coast
Florida park planning regions that are compared graphi
cally in Figure 10. It will be seen that Region 1 is the
Northwest Coast and that the graphed regions follow the
geographical order from north to south along the Gulf coast,


NOTES
1. Established by Public Law 88-29 (77 Stat. 49; 16 U.S.C.
460-1), May 28, 1963.
2. For a discussion of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1964 and other allied enabling legislation and
federal recreation programs, see Troyt York, "Perspective
on Interdisciplinary Research Needs for Public Outdoor
Recreation Programs," Appendix I, Outdoor Recreation in
the South, ed. Hugh A. Johnson, Publication No. 5, Southern
Land Economics Research Committee (Blacksburg, Virginia:
Department of Agriculture Edonomics, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, 1967), p. 24; National Academy of Sciences,
Outdoor Recreation Research (Washington, D. C.: National
Academy of Sciences, 1969) Appendix B, pp. 74-87.
3. David J. Reed and Leslie M. Reid, An Analysis: Outdoor
Recreation on Government Lands in Texas, Agricultural
Extension Publication B-1081 (College Station, Texas:
Texas A & M University, 1968), p. 5.
4. Robert C. Lucas, "User Evaluation of Campgrounds on
Two Michigan National Forests," U. S. Forest Service,
Research Paper NC-44 (St. Paul: North Central Forest
Experiment Station, 1970), p. 12.
5. See, for example, C. C. Taylor and J. R. Russell, "Out
door Recreation Development in the South: problem
Areas for Economic Research," in Hugh A. Johnson, ed.,
Outdoor Recreation Research in the South, Publication
No. 5, Southern Land Economics Research Committee
(Blacksburg, Virginia; Department of Agricultural
Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967), p. 16;
Troyt York, "Perspective on Interdisciplinary Research
Needs for Public Outdoor Recreation Programs" in same
work, pp. 19-32.
6. H. H. McCarty, J. C. Hook, and D. S. Knos, The Measure
ment of Association in industrial Geography, Department
of Geography Report 1 (Iowa city: University of Iowa
Press, 1956), p. 16.
47


105
34
Graham family, for example, operates 18 motels.
More visitors and more spending resulted in growth in
lodging facilities and an increase in services. An early
development during this period was a casino and its amuse
ments, a dance hall, and a large variety of other recreation
and service facilities.
It is interesting that this newcomer to the state's
tourist areas has not received much attention by geographers.
For example, among the few early references made, Alsberg's
popular travel guide for 1949 has only a parenthetical
reference to the recreation setting along the Panama City
beaches. The author informed simply that "a series of fine
beaches line [the] Gulf coast between here [panama City] and
Pensacola (cottages, casinos, picnic facilities). in [the]
background are dunes covered with shrub magnolia and rosemary
O C
and interlaced by salt marshes." As recently as the late
1960s, standard regional geography texts have failed to
recognize the resort development existing along the Northwest
Coast of Florida. For example, Paterson, in 1965, mentions
the resort industry of the Gulf Coast as being a winter
business and in the Northwest only mentions Pensacola as an,
emerging resort along with its twin Biloxi. Apparently
only two geographers have recognized this particular resort
region. Fraser Hart conjectured on its market area


142
The procedural details of this investigation are, as
before stated, standard and therefore demand only a few
comments. Data collection procedures were necessarily
adapted to the kind of data available and analysis pro
cedures were tailored to the limitations of those data
which were gathered.
Field survey
Due to the limitations of available data on park
users and the absence of most needed data, it became
necessary to undertake field generation of primary in
formation. In addition, it was necessary to look to the
field situation for gathering and generating secondary
information as well. Consequently, the research took on
. 55
the complexion of an "on-site" recreation visitor study.
Preliminary field work.During August, 1969, the
entire Northwest Coast was examined. A preliminary field
inventory was made along every coastal highway or road
between Gulf Beach (west of Pensacola Bay) and St. Andrews
State Park at Panama City Beach. In addition, US 98 and
selected side routes were driven and observed. A highway
log, spot vehicle counts, and informal personal interviews
were gathered.
On the basis of this preliminary inventory of coastal
recreation and land use, a tentative selection of study


SOURCE: Mapped by author, 1970.
TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS
O N3 Co Co -v O)
O O O > O Oi O
o o o o o o o
I I 1 1 I I I 1
w
H-J
o
a
s
o
ST. ANDREWS STATE PARK
289


108
completed in 1969 and involved connecting Grayton Beach with
Seagrove Beach via a bridge over Western Lake (at the park).
Expansion of cottage development continues outward from
the old pre-war cottage areas once located at the end of
beach spurs. Today newly platted areas are being opened for
cottage building and it does not involve a great deal of
predictive optimism to conclude that this entire strip of 30A
is destined for cottage development. West of Blue Mountain
Beach is located the newest and most elaborate visitor com
plex in the Grayton Sector. Blue Gulf Resort, presently with
50 three bedroom houses, a motel with large pool, restaurant,
tennis courts and playground, is still being developed and
has plans that eventually will involve a huge complex in
cluding even a marina and shopping center. The indication
is that this coastal fringe may have in store for itself a
development somewhat similar to that of the Panama City
Sector.
The area west of the operational study area called
locally Silver Beach (located west of where US 98 is aligned
close to the beach at Miramar) began its build-up around
1955. Yet before 1960 there only existed two or three motels
near Destin (Friendship Inn was one of the earliest). All
of the locally large motels are of the recent period (for
40
example, The Sands and Holiday Inn).


13
within geography. Clyde Browning sees geography itself as
a young and rapidly developing discipline with a current
growth phase characterized by a proliferation of diverse
research topics.'*'0 His 1971 review of U. S. and Canadian
dissertations showed that recreation and political geography
are the two newest discreet subject matter subdivisions of
the field with roots beginning since 1945. Browning showed
that fewer dissertations have been written in recreation
topics than any other major grouping with exception of those
dealing with the environmental determinism theme.
Recreation geography currently suffers from a general
lack of central purpose, a unifying conceptual framework of
theory and method, and a research focus. Mitchell's assump
tion that recreation geography's diversity of topical
examination is indicative of uncohesiveness may not be cor
rectly based, for it would seem that all topics he listed
are essentials for study within the subfield.'1'1 Furthermore,
as will be demonstrated, there appear to be real trends
toward a topical evolution and eventual cohesiveness. The
present uncohesiveness lies in the lack of a suitable cen
tral concept that would formally tie the various topical
investigations into a potential general theory building and
growth cycling holistic structure. For this infant subfield
to thrive, an internal reevaluation of past directions and


12
significant to note that this historic recognition of the
existence of the infant subdivision of geography, by James
and Jones, placed it specifically under the heading of
economic geography, though McMurry and Davis were cautious
in predicting its eventual emergence as a topical field
7
distinct from any other.
O
Between the time of K. C. McMurry1s landmark writing
on Michigan recreation land use and its potentials in 1930
and his review of recreation geography with Davis in 1954,
it is significant to note that only a few topics had been
broached. Tourist travel habits, recreation land use, and
the resort-tourist business were then the primary topics
of examination. However, Mitchell reports the existence
of ten more or less distinct topics or types of writing in
the geographic recreation literature by 1967, which he
suggests is an indication of the diversity and uncohesive-
ness of topical approach in the field.9 But in any case it
demonstrates the relative growth of attention to the myriad
of phenomena within recreation geography.
McMurry and Davis' cautious prediction that ultimately
recreation geography would become separate from economic
geography was well formed because today recreation geography
is recognized in many professional quarters as a separate
entity, though it still has overlaps with several subfields


133
SELECTED GULF COASTAL FLORIDA STATE PARK LOCATIONS
Figure 11


127
and the entire property is landscaped with ornamental plant
ings and exotic steretypic palms (which are practically
functionless and give minimum shade in the otherwise open
and sun-drenched project). Upon completion there will be
four architect-designed, modern, ceramic and terra cotta
bathhouses, each costing about 40,000 dollars. Equally
modern and expensive structures house offices, maintenance
facilities, a laundry, grocery, and lounge.
On leveled sand dunes overlooking the blue Gulf waters
is a 150,000-dollar two-story clubhouse which is but part
of a 300,000-dollar beach recreation complex which includes
a modern-design heated swimming pool that may be the largest
in the panama City area, with extensive patio and a children's
pool. Facilities are available for parties, games, bingo,
dances and beach cookouts with a snack bar, dance floor,
game rooms with billiard, card and ping pong tables, and
locker rooms. Organized activities are suitably based here
and include exercise classes and instruction in surfing,
golf and arts and crafts. A playground, putting greens,
courts for badminton and volleyball and night-lighted
shuffleboard courts round out the recreation facilities.
The sportsman preferences are also catered to by a
huge facility on Grand LagoonTreasure Island Marina. Here
full services are available with launching lifts and ramps,


as regards recreation resource distribution and physical
character in association with individual selection and use
of these resources. Geography's SPATIAL INTERACTION theme
has been particularly emphasized within the context of
people movement between points. Recreation travel routing
and flow in terms of gross movement, considering time-
distance factors relative to propensity to travel between
origins and recreation resource areas, and within-resource-
area movement are the dominant interaction processes con
sidered.
In association with processes of area and site selection
and the individual and group views of alternative places,
resource opportunity and interaction costs and benefits were
approached from the vantage of the geography of ENVIRONMENTAL
PERCEPTION. Perception of resource opportunity, for example,
was approached in subjective terms of quality and value,
with value considered by its surrogate site-potential or
recreation-satisfaction-potential, which must be viewed
against a backdrop of human need factors such as motivations
for outdoor recreation (camping specifically) and a nature-
social environmental contrasting paradigm of outdoor recrea
tion. Here such considerations as preferences for level of
development, seclusion, privacy, and recreation activities
are considered. Attitudes toward alternate resource bases


76
reasonably large bodies of water meet"; "recreation
shoreline" was shoreline suited for recreation use,
"beach shoreline" was "a wide expanse of sand or other
beach material lying at the waterline and of sufficient
extent to permit its development as a facility without
important encroachment on the upland," "marsh shoreline"
was "tidal or nontidal marsh," and "foreshore" was that
land below the high tide line. ibid., pp. 31-32.
23. Ibid., p. 30.
24. Ibid., p. 29.
25. Ibid.
26. It has been estimated that it is unlikely that supply
can match the best projections of the nation's needs
for coastal beaches by 2000, which would seem to call
for a consciously efficient way of managing existing
and obtainable resource areas. Ibid., p. 27.
27. Florida had the second greatest growth rate in the
nation between 1960 (4,952,000) and 1970 (6,789,000)
for a gain of 37 per cent. U. S. Bureau of the
Census, 1970 Census of Population, PC (VI)-1, United
States (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office, 1971).
28. ise, p. 444.
29. Florida Conservation News, Newsletter of Florida De
partment of Natural Resources, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1971),
p. 4.
30. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation
Trends (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1967), p. 23.
31. u. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Prospective Demand for Outdoor Recreation (Washington,
D. C.: Government printing Office, 1962), p. 27.
32. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, p. 20.
33. "Investing in Companies that Profit from Pleasure,"
Changing Times, Vol. 25 (1971), pp. 35-40.


113
remainder category termed residential is composed of land
having noncommercial, permanent and seasonal or other leisure
time, single family dwellings. it may be presumed that some
of these structures will be rented occasionally to friends
or others, but they are primarily for single family or other
exclusive use.
Entertainment and recreational is a wide ranging land
use grouping, and includes both commercial and public and
private nonprofit facilities. The following is representa
tive of the types of establishments, facilities, and land
use in general within this category: amusements, arcades,
dance halls, recreation halls, amusement parks, mechanical
carnival rides, skill games, gambling games, miniature golf,
driving ranges, golf courses, speed boat rides, helicopter
rides, dune buggy or motorcycle rentals, outdoor theatrical
presentations, marine life shows and aquaria, serpentaria,
private group camps, family campgrounds, public roadside day-
use parks, and fishing piers.
Retail trade and services is equally broad and compre
hensive and includes commercial establishments that clearly
serve principally the beach visitors and those that serve
the scattered local permanent population as well. Included
are lands developed with the following typical establish
ments: gift shops, shell shops, souvenir stands, camera


243
QUINTILE AVERAGE DISTANCE OF POPULATION WEIGHTED CAMPER ORIGINS
Source: Campground registrations at Grayton Beach,
St. Andrews, Alligator Point, Beach, KOA,
and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
Figure 25


LAND USE:
A COASTAL HIGHWAY TRAVERSE
0 12 3 4
MILES
LEGEND
TRANSIENT LODGING
RESIDENTIAL
ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATIONAL
RETAIL TRADE AND SERVICES
TRADE AND SERVICES
ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATIONAL
WITH RETAIL TRADE AND SERVICES
O UNDEVELOPED LAND AND WATER AREAS
DESTIN SECTOR
1 HOLIDAY INN TRAV-L-PARK
2 SILVER BEACH (STATE) WAYSIDE PARK
3 DESTIN K. 0. A. CAMPGROUND
4 CRYSTAL BEACH TRAILER PARK
5 DESTIN FISHING PIERS
SOURCE: Mapped by author, 1970


42
research. The M.S.U. recreation research unit, then under
direction of Leslie M. Reid and David M. Milsteinboth
spatial demand oriented researchers, contracted with the
state for a state recreation demand study that precipitated
the development by Ellis and others of a computer systems
simulation method. Utilizing known data on statewide origins,
destinations, and linkages the first test of the method was
OA
the basis for Michael Chubb's 1967 geography dissertation.
Chubb's specific simulation method, "RECSYS-SYMAP," provided
a basis for predicting gross spatial variation and change
in recreational boating for 1980 based on model calibration
on known 1965 data. The model used the Michigan state high
way system as linkages between 74 demand origin nodes
(counties) and 72 boating destination counties, with origin
participation (demand) values in terms of a population ratio.
By varying populations and their socio-economic structure
on suspected boating correlated factors a simultaneous solu
tion for "optimum" participation distribution within the
state was simulated and spatially-graphically presented by
the "SYMAP" computer mapping method. Apparently the success
of the "Model T" stage of this method was in mind when Chubb
was selected to stay, and was given his present position in
charge of the Recreation Research and Planning Unit in M.S.U.'s
8 5
Department of park and Recreation Resources.


96
east-west limits of the study area. They extend from a
point approximately mid-way between the village of Destin
and Grayton Beach State Park, east to the accessible end
of the barrier beach across the mouth of St. Andrews
Bay, at St. Andrews State Parka distance of approximately
35 highway miles.
It would be meaningless to specify a particular loca
tion in the zone between Grayton Beach and Destin as a
terminous for the study area since the area around the mid
point is completely forested and lacks recreation or any
other non-forest land use. There is even an absence of jeep
tracks leading through the forest to the beach.
It could be asked why the entire interbay area from
Destin to panama City was not considered as part of the
operational study area. Surely an area extending from the
mouth of one great bay to another with the water of the bays
and the connecting barrier swamps forming an interior border
would be by its physical geography a meaningful spatial study
unit. This would be true if it were not for the fact that
most of the landward swamp and forest area thus enclosed has
nothing to do with beach recreation, and from the village
of Destin out to its associated highway thresholds the land
is functionally unrelated recreationally to the area of
beach development to the east.


109
In recapitulation, 1970 found a typically dynamic
situation in this part of the "Growth Coast." The beach
fringe of Panama City, long accessible to travelers, appears
at first glance to be a highway strip development that is a
result of a collectively haphazard development. Its
cluttered, disorganized, internally contrasting scene first
bombards the senses as would an artist's collage depicting
a commercial highway slum; however, reflection and study
yields an appreciation for this example of a resort area
built around a local natural resource advantage. The
apparent disorder, disarray, and contrast is real and is a
product of its current dynamic state. As the region grows,
as Panama City continues to diversify and grow into a pro
gressive industrial port (presently with paper, oil, fishing,
and chemical industries), and as the resort complex con
tinues to grow, there will be increasing problems and changes
in this human-natural resource interface.
Recreation Land Use1970
Detailed land use mapping was undertaken in order to
expand descriptively on the extent and fringe character of
the study area and to demonstrate the spatial discontinuity
of land development by showing zones of nonrecreation
oriented development and land used for tourism and recrea
tion service.


334
logical basis for their preference. It was proposed that
(at least) public (state particularly) agencies should not
attempt to serve these nonspecific needs, but should rely
on private management for their satisfaction.
The success of the fourth objective of moving toward
a conceptual and theoretical focus in recreation geography
also remains to be seen. In Chapter I the stage for the
general tone of this entire research report was set.
Additional specific and general remarks in summary are
incorporated into the following section of this chapter.
Specific conclusions from this research are limited
from the standpoint of comparability and from possible data
limitations. in general, however, descriptive objectives
were met and theoretical considerations were satisfactorily
pursued. Exploratory considerations of perceived resource
and site alternates were extremely high yielding. Though
many questions were dealt with, it is in partial justice
to the extreme complexity of the subject that such a multi
farious and multiscalar approach was taken.
Continuation
It is not surprising that a large number of new
questions have resulted from this study. Furthermore, it
is not grounds for disillusionment to realize that those


191
attempt has been made to construct such a probability of
spatial indifference model, though it was for Iowa hog
3 9
marketing interaction. The wedge-shaped area within the
broken (dashed) lines on Figure 17 demonstrates the expected
shape of such a probability of indifference zone constructed
around the predicted boundary or visitor tributary shed be
tween Atlantic and Gulf beaches. Note that the apex should
be at a point of minimal separation between resource areas.
To Hoover, such recreation market area overlaps would re
sult from absorption of excess travel costs by the visitor
40
(who is both transfer agent and buyer).
A number of other factors can be cited as possibly
having an effect in causing the deviations from the pre
dicted market distribution. To some extent these factors
may be considered as enhancements to the hypothesized pro
bability indifference wedge, or functional eastern exten
ders of this wedge in reality into Indiana, Ohio, eastern
Kentucky, and Tennessee. See the dotted line on Figure 17.
Uneven friction of distance
Haggett, in a commentary on distortion of interaction
field shape, suggests in addition to the asymmetrical
elongation of a market area in response to location of
competition (shown to exist in this study), that also there


353
DIURNAL TRAFFIC VOLUME ON U.S. ROUTE 98
BETWEEN GRAYTON BEACH AND ST. ANDREWS PARKS
Source: State of Florida, Department of Transportation,
traffic counter records, summer, 1970.
Figure 35


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Dennis R. Crowe was born July 6, 1943, at Paoli, Indiana.
In June, 1961, he was graduated from F. J. Reitz High School.
In June, 1964, he received the degree of Bachelor of Science
with a major in Earth Science from Indiana State University.
In 1965 he became a graduate assistant in the Department of
Geography at Indiana State University. He received the Master
of Arts degree from that University in 1966. He joined the
teaching staff of Indiana State University in 1966. From
September, 1968, until the present time, Mr. Crowe has pur
sued his work toward the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in
the Department of Geography of the University of Florida.
Dennis R. Crowe is married to the former Lynne v.
Gilmore and is the father of Kathleen and Dennis. He is a
member of the Association of American Geographers and Gamma
Theta Upsilon among other professional organizations.
363


44
the need to study the interrelationships between the various
environmental factors in planning recreation areas. Though
the approach and the knowledge is not original, it is novel
for the orientation of regional scientists who appear usually
to deal with purely economic constraints and factors. The
discussion points out what they call the relation between
the social system and the "ecologic" system and they use as
an hypothetical example the input-output relations involving
man's recreational use of a somewhat contained ecosystem
with focus on a particular food chain.
Synthesis and Study Orientation
From both the standpoint of present needs in outdoor
recreation research and from the view of the field of
geography there are certain arguments and intuitive asser
tions that would predispose recreation geography to a
systems analysis method and conceptual focus for examination
of the spatially interacting factors of recreation as a
human activity and as a land resource utilizing process. In
addition, pioneer systems analysis efforts have been fruitful
and would seem to provide a firm basis for a continuing
effort by recreation geographers in this methodology.
The pleas for a research focus and theory of urban
recreation would seem one sided when viewed from a system


least a partial treatment of recreation only 16 dealt with
the Southeast. None of the regional science recreation
articles, and only one of 36 recreation articles in Land
Economics dealt with the Southeast. Perhaps even more in
teresting is the fact that the voice of southern geographers,
The Southeastern Geographer, only has 6 of 11 recreation
titles dealing with Southeastern studies. Of all these
studies, 3 were of national scale, 8 were on the mountains,
hills and lakes of Tennessee, and only one each on the South
Carolina coast, a city, Kentucky forests, the Florida Ever
glades and a general Florida study. In addition, of the 192
geography masters and doctoral theses listed in The Pro
fessional Geographer (completed and in progress) on recrea
tion topics only 14 have concerned the Southeast (6 in
coastal areas).
Florida
Since Florida development began about 1870, there has
been a continual growth in resident population and number of
visitors. A major increase in visits came with the building
of railroads before the beginning of this century by Flagler
to St. Augustine and later Miami, and by his rival Plant
who developed a route to Tampa. Both men built hotels that
served as resorts for wealthy visitors from many parts of


188
It is assumed that this secondary sampling is adequately
correlated visually with the total visitor distribution of
Figure 18 and thus warrants direct interpretation of the
dual visitor party classification distribution. This classi
fication is an attempt to estimate the functional-competitive
market area for the study visitors. The nonterminal class
is composed of visitors claiming a location other than one
in the study area as a principal trip destination. These
were therefore mainly touring visitors with multi-stop
itineraries or were en route, overnight stop-over visitors.
If the major distribution of terminal visitors is used to
define a functional tributary area which excludes overlap
area, then the market area can be seen to conform more
closely to the boundaries predicted, with greater propor
tions of terminal visitors coming from within the predicted
area and greater proportions of nonterminal visitors
originating outside of the predicted market area. There
still exists, however, a hint of a Texas-Oklahoma arc of
deviation from the predicted distribution that tends to
confirm the existence of a Gulf coast deviation corridor.
Also, and more obvious, is the deviation from the predicted
market area that exists in the shape of a well-defined
corridor extending from the study area into Indiana and
Ohio.


245
distribution of population weighted visitor origins can be
seen. The curve anticipated by Figure 24 is discernible in
Figure 25. It would appear that the hypothesis of visits
being a negative function of distance holds true in the study
area. However, a more precise examination is needed.
In order to examine the data more rigorously, in light
of the negative distance function, it is necessary to con
struct some type of descriptor model. Existing types fall
chiefly within the group of gravity-potential models, pro
bability models (eg. simulation models), simple curve fitting,
and various systems flow models. An excellent review of
different models in use today in recreation demand description
94
and estimation has been made by Cesario.
For simplicity, it was decided to fit a simple descriptive
regression model to the data. It was regarded that a one-
year cross-section model of any type suffers from unknown
parameter stability and should not be regarded as a predic-
95
tive instrument under circumstances of these data. Since
the purpose of this study is not predictive model building,
and since the period of study logically would preclude a
definitive, carefully calibrated, and field-tested predictive
model any way, it seemed reasonable to use easily duplicated
and interpreted techniques. Despite implications otherwise,
Schneider correctly points out that "regression analysis...is


235
theory. Clout also has stressed the regional factors
associated with deviation from a distance decay predicted
market area shape, though he did graphically demonstrate
82
such generalized attenuation of travel with distance.
It must be noted that to a large extent Clawson's pur
pose may be different from that of the purely spatial
thinker. Clawson's concern is for spatial regularities
that can be reduced to demand schedules or curves for
description of recreation use of a park and for prediction
of use under changes in pricing (price elasticity of demand).
He is ultimately concerned with deriving economic benefit or
recreation site value, as evidenced by his process (unessen
tial to the geographer) of using distance as a proxy for
price. The geographer, on the other hand, is perhaps more
concerned with the irregularities as well as regularities of
interaction, including demand-generating processes and their
spatial ramifications. Therefore, there is need for under
standing of unique regional processes as well as hidden
regularities for expansion of spatial theory.
Attempts to search out these hidden regularities of
recreation interaction have shown in several recreation
hierarchy levels that visitation rates tend to decrease
with increased distance from a focal park. A few of these
locations follow: Fussell studied coastal resort visitors


26
34
travel. More recently, based on less intuition, the time-
experienced transportation-recreation geographer Roy Wolfe
contrived the recreation geography research focus to be a
matter of recreational travel. Says Wolfe:
I am prepared to defend the thesis
that in present patterns of recreational
activity a central position for mobility
is obligatory. Here are the people;
there are the recreational resources; they
must be brought together; the people must
move to the resources.^
That some geographers should propose a focus on the
travel element of outdoor recreation is not surprising for
there is a long-standing study of interstate tourism that
is based in state governmental offices, chambers of com
merce, development commissions, and federal and state
bureaus and departments of roads and transportation. This
recreation economics oriented travel has since the 1930s
run parallel to recreation land use and land economics
studied by geographers, and continues to thrive today,
though now found in three different camps of orientation:
state chamber of commerce and development type groups;
university departments of marketing, business economics,
and agricultural economics; and state departments of trans
portation. As originally, these studies are oriented
toward tourist origins and flows, travel business shares


194
~->-
1 WASHINGTON, D.C.
2 WINCHESTER, VA
3 NORFOLK, VA
4 RICHMOND, VA
5 ROANOKE, NC
6 RALEIGH, NC
7 GREENSBORO, NC
8 CHARLOTTE, NC
9 CHARLESTON, SC
10 COLUMBIA, SC
11 GREENVILLE, SC
12 ASHEVILLE, NC
13 SAVANNAH, GA
14 AUGUSTA, GA
15 GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS
NATIONAL PARK
16 KNOXVILLE, TN
17 MIAMI, FL
18 TAMPA, FL
19 OCALA, FL
CITIES
20 JACKSONVILLE, FL
21 TALLAHASSEE, FL
22 ALBANY, GA
23 DOTHAN, GA
24 MACON, GA
25 COLUMBUS, GA
26 MONTGOMERY, AL
27 ATLANTA, GA
28 BIRMINGHAM, AL
29 CHATTANOOGA, TN
30 HUNTSVILLE, AL
31 NASHVILLE, TN
32 LEXINGTON, KY
33 COLUMBUS, OH
34 CINCINNATI, OH
35 LOUISVILLE, KY
36 INDIANAPOLIS, IN
37 BLOOMINGTON, IL
38 EVANSVILLE, IN
39 ST. LOUIS, MO
40 PADUCAH, KY
41 JACKSON, TN
-
Source:
Stratified random sample of parties camping at
Grayton Beach, St. Andrews, Alligator Point,
Beach, KOA, Magnolia Beach, and Pirate Cove,
summer, 1970.
42 MEMPHIS, TN
43 TUPELO, MS
44 COLUMBUS, MS
45 MERIDIAN, MS
46 PENSACOLA, FL
47 MOBILE, AL
48 HATTIESBURG, MS
49 NEW ORLEANS, LA
50 BATON ROUGE, LA
51 JACKSON, MS
52 HOUSTON, TX
53 SHREVEPORT, LA
54 LITTLE ROCK, AR
55 TEXARKANA, TX
56 DALLAS, TX
57 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
58 WICHITA, KS
59 KANSAS CITY, MO
60 LAREDO, TX
61 SAN ANTONIO, TX
62 AMARILLO, TX
63 DENVER, CO
Figure 20


314
enterprise can provide an equal facility and service (dis
regarding the often superior provision), at a comparable
direct consumer cost, then why should public agencies feel
a responsibility to compete?
The preceding table indicates a variety of preferred
features associated with public campgrounds. It is proposed
that public management should emphasize, through maintenance
and land management, these desired characteristics, while
deemphasizing other unessential characteristics that overlap
with private business. Again, the proposal is to emphasize
the environmental and low-density camping aspects that are
probably noncompetitive with private enterprise and that may
(with validity) justify the use of public funding.
Economic Considerations
In the first part of this chapter it was noted that
59 per cent of the visitor sample camped at least partly
in order to economize (See Table 12). The interpretation
of this statement is made complicated when it is realized
that this category includes a considerable range in impor
tance to individual participation. Some campers added
comments that the economy of camping was the major reason
their group could even consider an overnight outing or
vacation trip. At the other extreme, families with heavy


317
no shopping comparisons before selecting their campground.
Thus, the camp fee, as a factor of spatial variation, becomes
significant primarily when considered at the level of mar
ginal cost to the camper. in other words, the fee level
that causes a prospective camper to consider the cost high
enough to make it worthwhile to look at another possibly
less expensive campground is that which illicits a response
capable of influencing the distribution of campers within
an area. Lower fee levels are greatly disregarded.
Campers were asked,.in essence, for their estimation of
marginal camping costs or the fee at which diminishing mar
ginal value would cause them to seek another campground, or
to shop more before selecting a site. The total response
was so complex, based as it was on several different fee
levels, etc., that it was decided to represent the totality
of visitor response to increases of fees for the nonexistent
assumed average of the combined study campground product.
The results of this question are given in Table 16.
In order to compile Table 16 an assumption was made that no
reduced camping would result from reduced fees; thus, any
fee paid represents an equal willingness to pay a lower fee.
Note that at each fee level parties generally were found
willing to pay another dollar or two before they would have
shopped for a lower price at another campground. Such a


272
than steep, gradient causing location preferences for
passes, rivers, valleys, etc. Jones, p. 214.
44. Losch, pp. 414-420.
45. Bryan H. Massam, "A Note on Shape," Professional
Geographer, Vol. 22 (1970), pp. 197-199; quote p. 197.
46. This type of flow, or cumulative frequency, map was
used extensively by Gould to show transportation and
commodity flow. See Peter R. Gould, The Development
of the Transportation Pattern in Ghana, Northwestern
University Studies in Geography No. 5 (Evanston,
Illinois: Northwestern University, 1960); see also
F. J. Monkhouse and H. R. Wilkinson, Maps and Diagrams
(London: Methuen and Co., 1963), pp. xix, 254-257,
370-372 and 432.
47. Fred Lukermann, "Empirical Expressions of Nodality and
Hierarchy in a Circulation Manifold," East Lakes
Geographer, vol. 2 (1966), pp. 17-44, reprinted in
B. J. L. Berry and F. E. Horton, eds., Geographic
Perspectives on Urban Systems (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970), p. 170.
48. For example, see James R. Kittle et al., Outdoor
Recreation in North Dakota, Bulletin No. 459, Agri
cultural Experiment Station (Fargo, North Dakota;
North Dakota State University, 1965), p. 24.
49. James M. Bingham, C. E. Pickard and G. H. Romsa,
"Population Numbers, Population Density, Per Capita
Income and Distance as Functions of Commercial Camp
ing at Bowling Green, Kentucky," Virginia Geographer,
Vol. 5, No. 2 (1970), pp. 9-11.
50. See, for example, L. Harrington, "Newfoundland Re
discovered, Canadian Geographical Journal, vol. 68
(1964), pp. 132-143; and William L. Garrison,
"Connectivity of the Interstate Highway System,"
Papers and Proceedings, Regional Science Association,
Vol. 6 (1960), pp. 121-137.
51
Haggett, pp. 181-182.


277
95. E. Philip Howrey, "On the Choice of Forecasting Models
for Air Travel," Journal of Regional Science, vol. 9
(1969), pp. 215-224.
96. Morton Schneider, "Gravity Models and Trip Distribution
Theory," Papers and Proceedings, Regional Science
Association, Vol. 5 (1959), pp. 51-56, quote p. 52.
97. Edward L. Ullman, "Geographical Prediction and Theory:
The Measure of Recreation Benefits in the Meramic
Basin," in Saul Cohen, ed., Problems and Trends in
American Geography (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1967), pp. 124-145.
98. Guthrie, pp. 159-175.
99. A log-log rectification of the hyperbolic data was
subjected to linear regression analysis with suitable
interval weights yielding a descriptive regression
model of the shape Log Y = log 4.4175 2.0052 log X
(standard error of the estimated regression coefficient
= 0.002309, with "t" significant at the .001 per cent
level). For the techniques used see Mordecai Ezekiel,
Methods of Correlation Analysis (New York: Wiley,
1930), Appendix I, pp. 357-365; and M. Ezekiel and
K. A. Fox, Methods of Correlation and Regression
Analysis (New York: Wiley, 1959).
100. John K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society (New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 1958), especially Chapter 24.
101. Joffre Dumazedier, Toward a Society of Leisure,
translated by Stewart E. McLure (New York: The Free
Press, 1967).
102. Wilbur F. LaPage, "The Mythology of Outdoor Recreation
Planning," Southern Lumberman, Vol. 221 (1970), pp.
118-121, quote p. 119.
103. Marion Clawson, "Economics and Environmental impacts
of Increasing Leisure Activities," Future Environments
of North America, eds. F. F. Darling and J. P. Milton
(New York: The Natural History press, 1966), p. 258.
104.
Ibid., pp. 258-259.


56
Study in Recreation Geography," Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1967; a further contrast of
this gravity method and Ellis' electrical system analog
method used in Chubb's work is found in jack B. Ellis
and Carlton S. Van Doren, "A Comparative Evaluation of
Gravity and System Theory Models for Statewide Recrea
tion Traffic Flows," Journal of Regional Science, Vol.
6, No. 2 (1966), pp. 57-70.
87. See for example K. McCleary, "A Systems Approach to
the Location of Golf Facilities: A Problem in Urban
Recreation," Master's thesis, Waterloo Lutheran
University, 1969.
88. For a discussion of the Manitoba system approach see
Gordon D. Taylor, "History and Techniques of Recreation
Demand Prediction, Predicting Recreation Demand,
papers presented at the 1969 Congress for Recreation
and Parks, Technical Report No. 7, Department of Park
and Recreation Resources (East Lansing: Michigan State
University, 1969), pp. 4-14.
89. Walter Isard et al., "On the Linkage of Socio-
Economic and Ecologic Systems," Papers and Proceedings,
Regional Science Association, Vol. 21 (1967), pp. 79-99,
especially pp. 83-99.


176
show a non-summer drop in proportion of total area visits.
Exceptions are the proportions from Florida, Georgia, and
Alabama where increases occur. This may reflect the relative
location advantage of nearby residents in these three states
who can take advantage of a brief period of warm weather
or a nice weekend rather spontaneously to travel to the
study area for a camping trip. Another possible explana
tion is en route stop-overs by Florida based spring and fall
migrants from or toward the western states.
Other marked non-summer increases in proportion of
total visits are accounted for by winter visitors from the
Midwest and the Northeast. North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New York, and the New England states all
show increased proportions of visitors during the non
summer seasons. A notable exception for which there is no
explanation is Indiana which showed a perceptably dispro
portionate drop. Whether this is owing to survey period
local conditions in the state's industrial economy or to a
regular feature of a seasonal visit cycle is unknown. The
overall increase in northern regional share of the market
during this period was expected and is no doubt aligned
with the long-standing Florida migration of northerners
during the cold, snowy winters.


139
design and verify such a body of theory.
Methods
Salter had some valuable comments regarding study
methods. Selection of a research method for a particular
study must be couched not only in the specifics of an
investigation, but also in an assessment of underlying
general objectives. Salter in his summary to a rather
critical chapter on the scientific method in the social
sciences concludes:
If research is seen as a process of
inquiry, with problems emanating from,
and tested in, experience, with generaliza
tions serving instrumentally to suggest
possible causative connections in experience,
and with tests dependent upon such relations
in the evidence of experience, then many
confusions in the traditional views of re
search methods tend to clear up. The con
flicting claims for each procedure find a
place in the outline of a full inquiry; the
methods themselves fade away. What results
is a full concept of modern science; and the
techniques or devices previously held as
constituting a scientific method turn out
each to have a function to perform in the
one task of processing evidence in order
to arrive at a proposed method of resolving
an existing problem in experience.
In this view, an ideal of absolute per
fection and absolute certainty gives way to
that of intelligent judgment progressively
using the results of experience to suggest
actions by which intentions and results are
as closely united as man can make them in
an ever changing world.^


CHAPTER IV
TRIBUTARY AREA: DELIMITATION AND
SPATIAL INTERACTION
For an individual participant in outdoor recreation
there is much more to the experience than simple involve
ment in some activity at a recreation location. Clawson,
for example, proposes examination of the entire recreation
experience including the phases of planning and anticipa
tion, travel to the site, experience on site, return
travel, and evaluation and recollection of the total ex
perience. This chapter deals primarily with the trans
portation link between visitor origin and destination and
focuses on travel routing and flow in terms of gross move
ments within the camping visitor tributary area centering
on the Florida Northwest Coast recreation resource study
area.
Theory Alternatives
A logical position for analysis of market or tributary
area interaction is from the standpoint of central place
theory as a general approach to understanding tertiary
154


98
of varied menu, and cocktail lounges. instead of bait and
tackle shops there are numerous small beach supply stores
that offer for sale or rent any imagineable need for basking
in the sun or playing in the sand and surf. Interesting
enough, even ice vendors are different: instead of boat
ice in which to pack fish, bags of tinkling ice cubes are
available for glasses or beach picnic coolers.
Sequence of Area Recreation Development
The story of tourist development on the Northwest Coast
of Florida fits within the sequence of state development in
a similar fashion. Whereas the first major ripples of
tourist development centered around St. Augustine, Miami-
palm Beach and Tampa, with service investment and visitor
growth irregularly decreasing along unknown directionally
variable gradients from these epicenters, only recently
has the Northwest Coast been awash by these development-
visitor waves. Similarly the Northwest Coast is in
volved in an internal wave-like diffusion in recreation-
service land development out from particular propagation
centers. The waves, restricted by physical geography, have
spread linearly outward along the coast from centers at
Panama city and Pensacola, with later development moving
outward from Destin and Ft. Walton Beach. By development


241
TABLE 7
SUMMARY DATA: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF
POPULATION WEIGHTED COUNTIES OF CAMPER ORIGIN
Interval Midpoint Number of Counties
0.1278
937
0.3835
103
0.6392
40
0.8949
19
1.1506
13
1.4063
7
1.6620
3
1.9177
3
2.1734
2
2.4291
0
2.6848
1
2.9405
1
3.1962
0
3.4512
0
3.7096
2


LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure page
33 Intraseasonal variation in St. Andrews
Campsite Occupancy 351
34 Intraweek Traffic Volume on U. S. Route
98 Between Grayton Beach and St.
Andrews parks 352
35 Diurnal Traffic Volume on U. S. Route
98 Between Grayton Beach and St.
Andrews parks 353
xiii


228
and in the amusement sectors. A certain regional popularity
was associated with use. Central Alabama young people knew
the area was the "in" place with their age group and it was
consequently selected as a vacation or outing destination
in order to assure a satisfactory crowding level. Even
fishing tended toward the more active forms, with deep sea
and surf fishing predominating.
Location advantages. As hypothesized in the first of
this chapter a number of distance-minimizing visits were
made. Those who chose the closest ocean or beach tended to
react as one man who said simply "Ocean is ocean." Note the
combined effect of the pull of Florida as a visitor attrac
tion and the fact that the study area is for many the closest
part of Florida and has an ocean setting. If the area were
part of Alabama it would be interesting to conjecture on
visitor attraction. The last locational advantage is a
somewhat reversed interpretation of the area's location.
To some few visitors the area was attractive due to its
sufficiently distant location.
Resource quality. Visitors in large numbers selected
the study area on a physical resource quality comparative
basis. Though remarks were often vague it was obvious that


TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Opinions from within the larger
outdoor recreation research
field 32
Recommendations of non
geographers 35
Recommendations of geographers 38
Relevance of systems analysis
to geography 39
Pioneer systems research in
Recreation Geography 41
Synthesis and Study Orientation . 44
II REGIONAL AND TOPICAL SETTING 57
Study Region and State 57
Southeastern United States 57
Florida 61
Coastal BeachesThe Resource
Component 64
National Setting 64
Florida Setting 67
Activity SubsystemFamily Camping . 68
National Setting 69
Camping in Florida 70
III STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH DESIGN 78
Representative Problem Area 78
Physical Factors 78
Recognition as Regional and
Recreational Entity 81
Florida's Last Beach Frontier ... 82
National Significance of Area ... 85
Operational Study Area 86
v


270
unavailable at Magnolia. Spring and Summer (April 1
through September 19) use of St. Andrews, and only
summer visitors to Grayton Beach (June 6 through
September 22, 1970) were included.
26. Among the best known are those by Lucas, for example,
Robert C. Lucas, "Wilderness Perception and Use: The
Example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area," Natural
Resources Journal, vol. 3 (1963), pp. 394-411. Less
known, but significant, are several research reports
and notes prepared by the various experiment stations
of the U. S. Forest Service.
27. Good reviews are found in David Lowenthal, ed.,
Environmental Perception and Behavior, Department of
Geography Research paper No. 109 (Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1967); L. J. Wood, "Perception Studies in
Geography," Transactions, Institute of British
Geographers, No. 50 (1970), pp. 129-142; and Thomas F.
Saarinen, Perception of Environment, Resource Paper
No. 5 (Washington, D. C.: Association of American
Geographers, 1969).
28. It will be noted that this is similar to the economist's
least cost (site and transfer) location. Most signifi
cant similar work being done in economics builds on
simple intervening distance concepts with a constant
distance multiplier used to transform miles to travel
cost. Therefore, these studies essentially deal with
the same distance interaction concept. However, since
the purpose of this study is oriented to numbers of
people, not revenue, the unnecessary dollar constants
have been removed. See Clawson and Knetsch.
29. U. S. National park Service, Parks for America (Washing
ton, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1964); and
Woodall's Trailering parks and campgrounds (Highland
Park, Illinois: Woodall Publishing Co., 1970).
30. Beach camping in Alabama is located only at Gulf Shores.
The Gulfport-Biloxi area has the only beach camping in
Mississippi. Ibid.
31. Since many dots would have required overplot, location
error resulted from the combination of map scale and
dot spreading.


80
shows the arrangement of these shoreline types in Florida
and it will be seen that three distinct beach districts are
distinguishable.
The beaches of Florida's east coast are part of a
gently sloping shelf that extends along most of the Atlantic
coast of the United States. Beaches of exposed sand and
shell fragments are washed by the warm waters of the Atlantic
as far south as Dade County where mangrove swamps become
more dominant at the water's edge.
Florida's coastal tip is covered with dense broadleaf
evergreen shrubs and low trees with aerial stilt roots vary
ing locally between black mangrove (Avicennia nitida) and
red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) which extend into the water
2
and landward as far as salt marsh conditions prevail.
Scattered openings on small sand or coral beaches lie in this
district but usually they can be reached only by water.
The mangrove forest extends north along the Florida
Gulf coast eventually existing only in small protected bay
areas. Open sand beaches prevail from Lee County (off shore
from Ft. Myers) north to the Pinellas County northern line.
The map area in northwest peninsular Florida designated
marsh extends from the Pinellas County line northwest to
Wakulla County and is low lying saline to brackish tidal
marshland with coastal swamp forests. Here the shore is


179
greatly simplified surrogate for a path of least resistance
is least distance or least travel time.
Distance Minimizing Hypothesis
The final test hypothesis, including the above assump
tions and surrogates and furthermore assuming the indivi
dual's perception to be accurate and comprehensive, may be
stated as follows:
The individual decision maker will select
the seacoast beach location nearest in
miles to his home or trip origin loca
tion. 28
Figure 17 cartographically demonstrates some spatial
implications of this test hypothesis. Assuming for the
moment a homogeneous transport surface with direct highway
connections between all pertinent locations in the nation,
the nation-scale seacoast beach visitor tributary sheds or
"market areas" can be defined in an interlocking pattern of
regional markets. Since such a minimal-competition, limited
supply of high order "resource based" ocean beach recrea
tion opportunity exists, large market areas approximating
nation-sheds would be expected. Four predicted tributary
areas for the major competing coastal beaches are shown in
Figure 17. A greatly generalized Pacific coast visitor-
shed is thus located west of a line extending from north
western Minnesota southwest to extreme western Texas as shown


69
National Setting
in 1960 about 8 per cent of the nation's population,
age 12 or older, camped (10 million participants) on about
60 million occasions. By 1965, 10 per cent were camping
(14 million participants), for a gain of 35 per cent over
30
gross participation figures for 1960. Furthermore, 1962
ORRRC projections, since shown to be low estimates for
they called for only 11 per cent of the population by 1976,
predict that at least 14 per cent of the population of the
31
year 2000 (36 million participants) will be campers.
Projections made in 1965 for the year 2000 call for 328
32
million camping occasions. Regardless of specifics of
projection the direction is up, indicating a need for care
ful planning and resource allocation to meet increased
camping pressures.
That camping is not what it used to be is obvious to
any experienced camper. From simple tents and a "roughing
it" experience the activity has moved to use of basic equip
ment (for many) that results in an experience that is more
like apartment dwelling. With greater sophistication in
equipment has come expanded interest in camping from the
manufacturing and service industries.
For example, the June, 1971 issue of Changing Times
listed camping as one of the recreation activities whose


216
the largest negative resource specificity reaction. Because
of the variation in attitude groupings for each resource,
general resource specificity and evaluations of alternate
resources become most difficult topics on which to speculate.
The resource attitude and preference groupings listed
in Table 5 are much more complex than indicated by name.
Consequently, a summary of each follows in this section.
It will be noted that though resource specific or nonspecific
attitudes tend to dominate the two major groupings, homo
geneity on these counts is far from perfect.
Resource nonspecific attitudes
Variety search. The most common attitude expressed
was in most cases fairly neutral in relation to specific
resource preferences. A key thought apparently was to find
a recreation place that was perceived to offer variety or
a change from the familiar recreation resource and hence
experience. It was often difficult to separate visitors
by their expressed attitudes into the two dominant sub
categories of this major grouping. However, a large number
expressed preferences strong enough to warrant suggesting
the subdivision.
The first group expressed dissatisfaction with the
resources of their greatest familiarity. They clearly


230
attitudes evolved from prior experience (including previous
visits to the area).
Many visitors had no apparent reason for not going
elsewhere. They just always came and usually had been
coming as a habit for several years. Most of these were so
completely satisfied with the study area recreation offerings
that they were unwilling to even try a change. The comments
usually stressed area familiarity and implied the risk of
an unsatisfactory experience at an unknown location. Others
simply were totally ignorant of other similar recreation
alternative locations. They expressed dismay when asked
where else they might go if they were unable to visit the
study area. Most of these simply were resigned to staying
home if they couldn't visit the Panama City area.
A few mentioned pleasant trips to the area as youngsters
or perhaps they once lived near the sea or in the study area.
Often a trip was arranged to recapture a fond memory or to
share a favored setting with a new mate or a growing family.
To visit. Friends and relatives were often the prime
target for a visit to the area. Either as guests to the
Panama city area or as distant visitors to a place within
the study market area, short secondary visits to the beaches
often were made.


181
on the map. Arrows indicate the closest beaches available
as alternatives to recreation decision makers originating
along this indifference line or competitive market area
dividing line. Similar boundary lines divide visitor
tributary areas focusing on Atlantic coast beaches from
those focusing on study area Gulf beaches, and the Gulf
study area tributary zone from that of the developed Texas
Gulf beaches. It should be noted that Louisiana has no
significant sand beaches on the Gulf. In addition, the
northern half of the Texas Gulf coast is void of recreation
29
and camping facility developed beaches. Furthermore, on
the eastern side of the Louisiana beach void, Gulf beaches
that are accessible and developed with nearby camping are
extremely limited, with only a few locations in coastal
30
Mississippi and Alabama. Therefore, the predicted loca
tion of the functional or competitive tributary area boundary
between the two nonpeninsular Gulf beach areas defines a
generalized linear indifference location between the southern
Texas beaches and the approximate mid-point of the study
area. The result is a roughly triangular-shaped predicted
tributary area that inclines from its Gulf study area base
toward the northwest with its apex in southeastern North
Dakota. The shape irregularity is a product of space rela
tions with alternate locations, and the large size is a


158
place theory. Lisle Mitchell's contributions have focused
empirically on urban playgrounds as central places and have
attempted to confirm existence of and describe hierarchies,
g
and hinterlands. in 1969 he proposed a framework for a
two-part functionally modified classical von Thunen loca
tion theory for testing relationships between recreation
9
areas within a city.
At least one other geographer has dealt with internal
urban recreation movement to recreation places. Barnum
considered as a minor element of a market center analysis
10
the movement of persons to urban film theaters.
The attention to cities as the focus of recreational
travel can take two slightly different perspectives. The
resort city is the most studied of urban recreation loca
tions and as a topic has been in the geographic literature
for many years. However, only a few researchers have
described the resort as a central place and focus for
travel within a market region. The ordinary nonresort city
also functions as a recreation attraction that draws
visitors from surrounding areas in a reversal to the
peripheral process theorized by Christaller. The dis
tinction is that this movement often is for entertainment
services offered within the city and is not strictly
within the outdoor recreation scope of this study.


86
development potential and value. Certain agencies have
recognized the Northwest Florida Coast specifically as
being of more than state or regional significance. A recent
coastal study described the Gulf coast as one of the
greatest assets of the nation... especially for tourism and
1 2
recreation." A 1970 recreation potential report on islands
of the United States lists the offshore barrier islands and
adjacent mainland areas stretching from along the Northwest
Florida Coast toward Mississippi as having particularly great
potential for recreation and conservationof national
significance.^
Operational Study Area
Since the resource focus selected was coastal beaches
and the general or representative area of enquiry was the
Florida Northwest Beach District, there remained only
identification of the inland extent of enquiry and the
selection of specific study sites to represent the Northwest
Coast problem area.
Linear Beach Fringe Focus
Field study of the area during 1968 and 1969 suggested
that a subjective definition of the beach zone would be
adequate to define the inland limits of the operational
study area. Though some recreation activity and visitor


41
this viewpoint and have recommended systems analysis to the
82
geographer. Preston James has even offered what may be
an idealistic (depending on one's view) vest pocket
definition of geography as "spatial systems analysis."83
Pioneer systems research in Recreation Geography
It is interesting that apparently no geographer (to the
extent of this survey's limits) working within the usual
framework of university and college geography departments has
produced a strictly system analysis of an outdoor recreation
problem. There may be examples of system research that are
hidden beneath obscure titles in the long lists of master's
theses in recreation geography and there may be as yet un
published reports on several desks; however, published system
work by the professional academia is absent.
Nevertheless, recreation geographers have investigated
these analytical approaches and a few reports, superficially
indicative of the work being done, are available. Under the
influence of demands from a modern state park master planning
program, through the efforts of jack B. Ellis, an electrical
engineer, and two geography doctoral students, and with the
impetus provided through the Department of Park and Recreation
Resources, Michigan State University has become since 1963 a
pioneering center in the development of recreation systems


187
Figure 19


NOTES
1. Samuel A. Stouffer, "Intervening Opportunities and
Competing Migrants," Journal of Regional Science,
Vol. 2 (1960), pp. 1-26.
2. David L. Huff, "Ecological Characteristics of Con
sumer Behavior," Papers and Proceedings, Regional
Science Association, Vol. 7 (1961), pp. 19-28. See
also Julian Wolpert, "Behavioral Aspects of the
Decision to Migrate," papers and Proceedings, Regional
Science Association, Vol. 15 (1965), pp. 159-169.
3. Walter Isard and Michael Dacey, "On the Projection of
Individual Behavior in Regional Analysis: I,"
Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 4 (1962), pp. 1-34.
4. Nina j. Gruen and Claude Gruen, "A Behavioral Approach
to Determining Optimum Location for the Retail Firm,"
Land Economics, Vol. 43 (1967), pp. 320-327.
5. David L. Huff, "A Topographical Model of Consumer
Space Preferences," papers and Proceedings, Regional
Science Association, Vol. 6 (1960), pp. 159-173.
6. R. G. Golledge, "Conceptualizing the Market Decision
Process," Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 7 (1967),
pp. 239-258.
7. Richard E. Lonsdale, "Two North Carolina Commuting
Patterns," Economic Geography, Vol. 42 (1966),
pp. 114-138.
8. Frank E. Horton and Robert I. Wittick, "A Spatial Model
for Examining the Journal-to-Work in a Planning Con
text," Professional Geographer, Vol. 21 (1969), pp.
223-226.
9. Edward J. Taaffe, "Discussion: Regional Employment
and Population Forecasts via Relative Income Potential
Models," papers and Proceedings, Regional Science
339


359
APPENDIX VI
KLAUSNER'S RECREATION PARADIGM
Topographic
Direction of
Psychological
Relation
Social Movement
Orientation
Illustration
Active
(1)
Beach surfers
Centripetal
passive
(2)
Beachfront hotel
Sedentary
guests
outer land
Centrifugal
Active
(3)
Family camping
on the beach
passive
(4)
Stereotyped South
Sea island para
dise
Active
(5)
Teenage western
Centripetal
Passive
(6)
summer tour
Cruise ship
Nomadic
Active
(7)
Hiking
Centrifugal
Passive
(8)
Sightseeing
Active
(9)
Camping on public
campgrounds
Centripetal
Passive
(10)
Country hotel
guests
Sedentary
inner land
Centrifugal
Active
(ID
Lone cabin in
woods
Passive(12)
Private serviced
lodge in moun
tains
Source: Samuel Z. Klausner, "A Paradigm of Social Recreation,
Appendix A, Outdoor Recreation Research (Washington,
D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1969), pp.
61-69.
II


THOUSANDS OF CAMPERS
PARTICIPATION TRENDS IN FLORIDA STATE PARK CAMPING
YEAR
Source: State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation in Florida
(Tallahassee: Division of Recreation and Parks,
1970), p. 55, with revisions from Division of
Parks, Superintendents Reports.
Figure 1


162
spatial separation, market area differences, and hierarchy
of places.
A Recreation place Hierarchy
Cities are contrasted on the basis of their functional
complexity or the number of kinds of retail and service
15
establishments they offer. Shopping centers are similarly
ranked. The service complexity of a park might analagously
be based on the number of kinds of recreation activities
existing as participation potentials at that location. Park
hierarchy should therefore be related to the number of
participation opportunities at different parks.
Cities and retail centers, on the other hand, can be
classed by the order of the economic activities available
within them. The higher the order of business, the greater
its threshold or condition of profitable establishment. The
notion is simply that goods or services of frequent purchase
require a smaller base population for support of a profitable
establishment offering that good or service. Less frequently
purchased, higher-order goods, must have a larger market
area population to support an establishment offering that
good. Thus, the small town, a higher hierarchy-ranked cen
tral place, will be characterized by higher-order services
and goods, as well as a larger number of kinds of establishments


114
supply shops, sportswear shops, variety stores, groceries
or supermarkets, beach supply general stores, bait and tackle
shops, ice houses, beach supply rental shops, automotive
service stations (seldom with mechanics, only gasoline pum
pers) drug stores, visitor information centers, eating
places (restaurants, coffee shops, cafeterias, short order
and snack stands), drink places (taverns, lounges), and
liquor stores.
Since the mapping unit selected was one-tenth mile
along the arterial traverse and because parts of the traverse
included relatively more densely spaced, intensively developed
areas, two multiple use groupings were necessary. In many
places a land-use type was set back from the highway with
differing uses made of the immediate frontage zone. In
some places a number of small enterprises of different classi
fication were found to occupy a single one-tenth mile road
side unit. Therefore, the map shows places of retail trade
and services combined with transient lodging or entertain
ment and recreational uses.
In a number of places open space existed which was void
of buildings or structures other than occasional signs. Thus
the land class undeveloped land and water areas was needed.
Many sub-types of land exist within this grouping and the
following serves to exemplify: unmodified beach and


TABLE 13 (Continued)
Preferred Quality
Maintenance
14 Cleaner or better maintained
Economy
15 Cheaper
Activities
16 Larger variety of recreation
facilities (activities)
17 Good skin diving
18 Safe children's swimming
19 Uncrowded beach
Location
20 Near beach
21 Near shopping
22 Near town
23 Near amusements
24 Near restaurants
25 Central location
Campground*
G S A B K M P
(percentage of Total Response by campground)
4.4
.4
2.0
2.0
3.8
3.6
.8
2.6
3.2
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.6
2.1
1.7
.4
1.3
5.4
1.9
1.7
1.7
11.3
5.4
23.8
3.8
.9
3.2
.4
2.5
.9
6.3
.8
3.8
1.7
1.1
9.2
5.4
35.2
5.8
1.7
2.1
1.3
1.6
3.3
11.5
2.6
296


48
7. K. C. McMurry and Charles M. Davis, "Recreational
Geography," American Geography; Inventory and Prospect,
eds. P. E. James and C. F. Jones, Association of
American Geographers (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse
University Press, 1954), p. 252.
8. K. C. McMurry, "The Use of Land for Recreation,"
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 20
(1930), pp. 7-20.
9. Mitchell's topics were: economics (tourism, resorts),
sites and areas, resource relations, land use and
planning, problems, travel and consumption, techniques,
recreation geography surveys, regions, and perception.
Lisle S. Mitchell, "Recreational Geography: Evolution
and Research Needs," Professional Geographer, Vol. 21
(1969), pp. 117-119.
10. Clyde E. Browning, "Trends in the Subject Matter and
Locale of Dissertations in Geography: 1901-1969,"
Professional Geographer, Vol. 23 (1971), pp. 54-58.
11. Mitchell, pp. 117-119.
12. Carleton P. Barnes, "Land Resource Inventory in Michigan,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 5 (1929), pp. 22-35; McMurry,
pp. 7-20.
13. W. W. Atwood, "Utilization of the Rugged San Juans,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 3 (1927), pp. 193-209; R. S.
Platt, "A Detail of Regional Geography: Ellison Bay
Community as an Industrial Organism," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, Vol. 18 (1928),
pp. 81-126.
14. Marion Clawson, "Economics and Environmental impacts of
Increasing Leisure Activities," Future Environments
of North America, eds. F. F. Darling and J. P. Milton
(New York: Natural History Press, 1966), p. 256.
15. Ibid., pp. 259-260.
16. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 26.


Destn is primarily a salt water sport fishing center
and differs considerably from its nearest western neighbor
Ft. Walton Beach and from the Panama City beaches which are
highly oriented toward beach use and nonfishing outdoor
recreation activities. (Though it should be pointed out
that the Panama City area does have a noted salt water fish
ing reputation stemming from use of its several marinas.)
Field interviews taken in a number of different locations
within or at the fringe of Destn tended to verify this
difference.
More concrete evidence for this difference is the ob
servable contrast between the facilities and services offered
the visitor to Destn or the Panama City beaches. For exam
ple, motels at Destn are likely to be named lodges and offer
boat docks and small retail fishing tackle shops. Many fish
ing supply stores and outfitting shops are mingled with sea
food restaurants and a plant making bulk boat ice. The
Panama city beaches, though offering each of these services
somewhere, in at least one location, has an overall develop
ment that contrasts with Destn. For example, motels are
called motels or inns and they are often dressed with some
type of fancy sounding seaside name that reminds the visitor
of the sun, the sand and the surf. In addition, most motels
offer swimming pools and many have gift shops, restaurants


14
relevant growth needs must be undertaken.
Movements Toward a Central Concept
past directions
Earliest writing by American geographers on recreation
allied topics was primarily incidental to land use studies
or were minor parts of reports on land surveys. Among the
earliest writings were two papers on recreation aspects of
the Michigan Land Economic Survey (begun in 1922) by Barnes
12
in 1929, and McMurry in 1930. Prior to about 1930
apparently recreation uses of land were overlooked by
geographers. Consequently, witness of the acute perception
of such men as Atwood and Platt is given by their 1927 and 1928
predictions and observations of the roles of recreation then
13
beginning in their separate study areas of the United States.
Table 1 demonstrates the major topical trends in
recreation studies published in selected major journals in
the United States and Canada. Though a complete inventory
of geography theses and dissertations on recreation topics
was made, since it was impossible to read them all to verify
the focus which is often misleadingly indicated by title,
only the journals were read for title-independent topical
classification for trend evidence. The median publication
date for articles within each topical class is shown for com
parison.


266
with in this chapter is in response to their inseparable
interrelatedness which demanded a multifaceted approach in
order to even approach justice in treatment of one question.
The next chapter is oriented toward intra-study area visitor
perception of resources and factors associated with camp
ground selection and use. If the chapter now concluded will
be considered as situational in scope, then next is a
chapter concerned with site factors.


229
respondents expressed a subjective appreciation for the area
as a superior resource base. Cleanliness and beauty were
the key words. The author notes that his comparisons be
tween study area and Atlantic coast beaches makes him agree
with a number of these visitors that cleaner and clearer
water and beaches and whiter sand does prevail in the Panama
City area. Cutler described the Atlantic coast pollution
65
problem in a recreation context.
Environmental amenities. The precise number of visitors
is unknown who had such considerations as climate, weather,
and water temperature in mind when deciding on a trip to
the study area. Since so many appeared to be drawn by the
stereotyped image of "fun in the sand and the sun," perhaps
this is a prime example of an assumed selection factor
that respondents failed to mention.
Prior experience. Seven out of ten surveyed visitors
(71%) had previously visited the study area. Some visitors
had been coming for as many as 50 years, though the average
was 13 years (median = 10) since the first visit, with an
average of 17 previous visits (median = 6). Furthermore,
an estimated 90 per cent of the visitors planned to return
to the area, most on another camping trip. Selection of
the study area was heavily based on preferences and


TABLE 13 (Continued)
Preferred Quality
G S
(Percentage
Campground*
A B K M P
of Total Response by campground)
41
Good spacing and layout
2.8
.8
1.8
42
Good vegetative buffering
between sites
1.2
.4
Solitude
43
Quieter
11.6
.8
1.9 3.4 7.4
44
Fewer teens
.4
45
Fewer motorcycles
.4
46
More relaxing place
.8
.9 2.1
47
More suited for families
(less boisterous or
coarse language)
3.2
2.1
.9
48
No drinking
.8
1.3
Campground names and total response for each are as follows: G/ Grayton Beach State
Park (251); S, St. Andrews State park (239); A, Alligator point (56); B, Beach (122);
K, K.O.A. (52); M, Magnolia (116); P, Pirate Cove (95).
298


199
states visitors tended to take the most direct route to the
nearest part of the Gulf coast and then they also traveled
along the coast routes.
information bias
At least one complex factor exists that can be con
sidered a possible reinforcement, lending enhancement to
the process and shape-logic of both the predicted and ob
served study tributary areas, caution should be exercised,
however, for this reinforcement process may stand as a
chief explanation for the observed market area shape,
exclusive of the logic by which the prediction of shape
was made.
There is doubtless a broad array of recreation move-
51
ments that might be classed as sub-optimal behavior. Much
of what might be grouped this way can be related to the
information basis upon which decisions are made. It is
difficult to conceive of an individual having perfect in
formation about all pertinent variables that should be
involved in an optimum decision. There is reason to believe
that individuals have, in addition to basic cultural and
economic information filters, a number of social and other
factors that limit or restrict the number of perceived
recreation alternatives from which selection and participa
tion ensues.


209
TABLE 4
RESOURCE ALTERNATES
Resource Type
Number of
Respondents
Percentage
of Total
Coastal beaches
226
45
Inland
Water bodies (lakes,
reservoirs, and streams)
73
15
Mountains and hills
143
29
Miscellaneous
45
9
Cities
14
3
275
55
Totals
501*
100
* The total number of respondents selecting different re
source types exceeds the sample number (364) because
second choice alternates are included.


TABLE 13 (Continued)
Preferred Quality
26 Not isolated
27 Near crowds
28 Away from commercial areas
29 Near deep sea fishing
30 Easy boat access to Gulf
31 On (near) fresh water or bay
Environment
32 More natural (less developed
or commercial)
33 Scenic
34 Shady
35 Breezes
Privacy
36 Larger, more popular
37 Smaller campground
38 Less (not) crowded
39 More privacy
40 Larger sites
Campground*
G S A B K M P
(Percentage of Total Response by Campground)
.4
10.4
1.3
3.6
1.3
.8
00

00
15.1
32.1
5.6
2.5
3.6
.8
1.7
13.4
19.6
.8
2.4
1.3
3.6
18.3
.8
3.6
9.6
.8
2.4
.8
3.3
5.7
.8
1.7 4.2
.9
13.8 18.9
.9 1.1
1.9 1.7
1.9 38.8 22.1
.9
3.2
3.8 5.3
297


64
Gulf Coast the "Growth Coast" because of its rapid amenity
oriented industrial, recreation, and population growth.11
Based on census data and field work, Hart has demonstrated
that within a band of land 50 miles wide and paralleling
the Gulf Coast is the most rapidly growing part of the South.
It is particularly meaningful to note that Florida's north
west, continentally oriented coast has thus far lagged be
hind some other areas in land development. it still offers
a potential for controlled regional growth planned around
carefully evaluated decisions concerning its remarkable
beach resource base.
Coastal BeachesThe Resource Component
Having previously established Florida's recreation
lands for enquiry, it was decided to limit observation to a
resource base critically in need of study. The resource
topic, coastal beaches, was selected from among the several
different coastal and interior environmental topics suitable
for study chiefly on the basis of approaching critical
supply levels.
National Setting
As early as 1936, despite a depression-caused low ebb
of tourism,1^ certain groups were aware of the limited
amount of coastal land in public ownership. The National


170
research on these problems and has proposed a refined set of
partially verified and augmented hypotheses.
The topics of working hypotheses evaluated in this
chapter pertain to intra-regional recreation migration or
market area interaction and are as follows: beach resource
homogeneity (distance minimizing hypothesis and physical
resource noncomparative hypothesis), a resource specificity
hypothesis, and interaction hypotheses (for distance and
time dimensions). Before discussing these hypotheses,
however, a discussion of maximum market area characteristics
yields worthwhile base information.
Market Area Overview
To a large extent the entire nation and part of Canada
is the maximum market or tributary area for the study area.
Over the period of the sample year, representatives of all
states found their way to the area's campgrounds. Figure 13
shows graphically the variation in state proportion of
visitor origins and demonstrates the complete coverage of
the conterminous United States by the area's camping hinter-
25
land over the period of a year. All states had at least
three parties to visit the area.
Since the study period extended only through the heart
of the area's camping visitor season, the data in Figure 13


286
precisely what are their needs and also have similar per
ception of the array of alternatives. It is at this point
that the logic begins to crumble.
However, for analysis, such a perfect information sys
tem and perceptual response may be assumed. Consequently,
to demonstrate differences between the settings of several
campgrounds would be to predict setting-specific gatherings
of campers in each. Setting-specific users have been
tacitly assumed in most studies of recreation environmental
perception and preference, or the notion simply has been
neglected.
Therefore, it was hypothesized that campgrounds within
the study area attract visitors who have perceived in com
mon certain advantages or potentials within and surrounding
each campground. The following anticipated reasons for
camping (refer to Table 12) were used as a spring-board for
a search for campground clustering based on setting-specific
attitudes and perceptions: to enjoy the outdoors and nature,
to relax, to socialize, and to participate in various
activities.
Klausner's paradigm also offered a reinforcing logic
to the search (See Appendix VI). An elemental component of
this paradigm is his contrast in direction of social move
ment within outdoor recreation participation. Klausner


257
the element, but there is little known of basic time-distance
relative decision considerations involved in a single trip.
It is proposed that distance-time momentum is partly a time
budgetary product.
It is further proposed that the majority of those whose
travel fits the distance-time-minimizing gravitational con
cepts of negative friction of distance are also those who
are restricted by either available or allocated trip time to
more penurious use of time. On the other hand, the "momentum"
travel example may well be the person who simply has a
greater allocation of time for his trip.
Therefore, the following time hypothesis can be stated:
Increased allocation of trip or
recreation time is associated with in
creased propensity to expend time driving
to a recreation destination.
In other words, driving time is a positive function of a
vacation or recreation time period.
In order to examine this hypothesis, interview data
were gathered from each of 514 respondents concerning the
number of days each party had free from work, the number of
days they had set aside for their trip to the study area,
the number of hours they had driven to get to the interview
location, and the maximum number of additional hours they
would have been willing to travel if they had known before


COUNTIES
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION WEIGHTED
COUNTIES OF CAMPER ORIGINS
CAMPING PARTIES PER THOUSAND POPULATION
Source: Campground registrations at Grayton Beach, St. Andrews,
Alligator Point, Beach, KOA, and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
Figure 24
240


157
interstitial fluid spaces surrounding and separating human
cells. A cell's vitality is preserved by the process of
transportation of nutrients from interstitial fluids
through cell membranes and by purifying reverse osmosis of
metabolic wastes out of the cell into the interstitium for
transport away. There may be an analagous process in urban
regions. Mercer may have had this in mind when he mentioned
the city and its rural surroundings as existing in a sym-
g
biotic relationship. The transport of urban conflict and
pressure-laden recreationists out of the city and into the
interstitial recreational periphery may be associated with
a filtering of human psychological waste into the inter
stitium in the process of re-creation and re-vitalization
before return to the urban arena.
Central Place Theory
On the other hand, recreation movement takes on dis
tinctly focal properties and recreation places assume the
7
role of central places. Three types of functional
recreation centrality are worth noting: intra-urban
recreation central places, cities themselves as central
places, and nonurban recreation resource area centrality.
Only one American recreation geographer has made a
significant contribution to intra-urban recreation central


18
Urban-oriented studies as a group are more recent in
origin. With the exception of a few papers with clear
amenity emphasis on population shifts to areas outside of
the city and the long-standing emphasis on descriptions of
resort towns, urban studies are recent.
Recent literature contains a group of recreation topics
that have been more or less oriented toward recreation
problems and generation of information useful in planning,
locating, and managing recreation areas that meet public
needs. Out of this emphasis has come a few innovative papers
on site use factors, perception, and other behavioral
aspects of outdoor recreation.
Clearly aligned with modern trends in geography as a
whole has been the recent attention to recreation travel
with an interaction theory focus. A number of early writers
described the roles that new roads, rails, and increased
physical access in general had on development of recreation
in their study areas. In addition a few urban travel-
focused articles centered on the decade of the 1950s;
however, primarily during the last decade a trend toward
investigation of central place theory, system-gravity-
regression model building and distance travel functions
has been noted.


NOTES
1. Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of
Outdoor Recreation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press, 1966), pp. 33-36.
2. The purpose of this section is not a review but an
application of central place theory. A good overview
of the theory is found in Brian J. L. Berry, Geography
of Market Centers and Retail Distribution (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967); and
Brian J. L. Berry and W. L. Garrison, "Recent Develop
ments of Central Place Theory," Papers and Proceedings,
Regional Science Association, Vol. 4 (1958), pp. 107-
120.
3. Walter Christaller, "Some considerations of Tourism
Location in Europe: The Peripheral RegionsUnder-
Developed CountriesRecreation Areas," Papers and
Proceedings, Regional Science Association, Vol. 12
(1963), pp. 95-105, quote p. 95.
4. D. R. Stoddart, "Darwin's Impact on Geography,"
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 56
(1966), pp. 683-698.
5. Brian J. L. Berry and Elaine Neils, "Location, Size,
and Shape of Cities as Influenced by Environmental
Factors: The Urban Environment Writ Large," The
Quality of the Urban Environment, Harvey S. Perloff,
ed. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1969), pp.
257-304, especially p. 284 and pp. 292-295.
6. David C. Mercer, "The Geography of LeisureA Con
temporary Growth-Point," Geography, Vol. 55 (1970),
pp. 261-273.
7. Brush and Bracey have proposed that "distinctive
functional types of centers should exist in every
major economic or cultural realm on the earth." John
267


362
APPENDIX VII (Continued)
Xx X2 Y (f) X-l X2 Y(f) XL X2 Y(f)


326
Summary
This chapter has dealt primarily with site and local
considerations. Primary emphasis was on the process of
campground selection, with a spatial implication in the
result of selection: a movement internal to the study
area resulting in gathering or agglomeration (clustering)
of camping parties at specific places (campgrounds).
Though emphasis was on factors of selection, the objective
was to gain an understanding of the reason for the distri
bution pattern of campers in space. In addition, a few
questions and alternatives were offered for consideration
by public campground management and policy makers.
Campground selection factors were examined against a
background of basic attitudes toward camping (motivations).
Setting-specific camper groupings were demonstrated at the
several study sites. The implication is that there is need
for a variety of campground settings (relative to internal
and external development) within a single resource type.
Visitor satisfaction only can be maximized by a planned
mix of alternate sites. There is no satisfactory average
campground development setting.
In addition, it was found that site selection involves
considerable perceptual confusion by those who choose a site


250
partly from later entry and early departure from the labor
force. The capstone in his comments on The Affluent Society
was a description of an emerging "New class" based on educa
tional attainment and occupational prestige. He stressed
that the leisure orientation of this group would reflect
their values and the nation's recreation trends would be
shifting. More recently, reinforcing the obvious truth in
Galbraith's earlier prediction, has come a French view of
a leisure society of growing world-wide impact.'1'0'1'
Early optimism and conjecture based on limited knowledge
and short-term trend data suggested that Western man was
destined ultimately for a life of constantly increasing
amounts of leisure time. Lapage recently suggested that
there is a need to explode this notion which he calls the
"myth of increasing per capita recreation participation and
leisure time."'1'02
Clawson, with reservation, still sees a real trend
toward net increases in leisure time which he predicts will
result in a shift from a production to a consumption orienta
tion (which can be seen today). He continues, saying "when
it comes to consumption, the availability of time and the
use of free time may come to be as important as the avail-
103
ability of income." He actually predicts a substitution
of money for time (especially travel time) and bases this on


302
assumptions or for that matter a satisficer model. Clearly
the selection process is often couched in gross imperfections
in the information system and in a camper attitude that often
is not greatly concerned with optimizing. To a large ex
tent campground selection is a chance process, or at best
it is characterized by much camper indifference.
For example, several indicated that they considered no
campgrounds other than the one in which they camped. Friends
and relatives suggested particular camps. Others chose a
location simply because it was a convenient place to stop
while en route to another area or while touring. Nearly all
of this group stopped at Grayton (25 of 514 parties). Some
selected a campground vicariously by road signs and guide
books and a few were diverted from destinations by appealing
road signs. State park overflow, en route needs, late night
exhaustion, tired and screaming children, beach anxiety,
need to be near work or a relative's residence, ignorant
novices, etc., all tended to confuse the total array of
campground selection reasons. Of questionable value is the
often used "random variation" factor that dismisses these
factors -.
A last modifying caution must be made. The concept of
isolation or campground location relative to urban and other
developed areas is extremely variable in nature. Results


PERCENTAGE OF VISITOR SAMPLE COMPARING ALTERNATE CAMPGROUNDS
321
VISITOR INDIFFERENCE TO CAMPGROUND FEES
DAILY PARTY CAMPING FEE IN DOLLARS
Source: Stratified random sample of parties camping at
Grayton Beach, St. Andrews, Alligator Point,
Beach, KOA, Magnolia Beach, and Pirate Cove,
summer, 19/0.
Figure 31


164
participate in a park's activities and hence the smallest
market area. State parks, which are generally in the
"intermediate" ranked group, have intermediate-sized market
areas compared to the small local areas of city parks and
the nation-wide market areas of major "resource based"
recreation locations such as Grand Canyon National Park.
The Composite Tributary Area
The study area is a diverse complex of recreation
facilities, with a wide array of recreation oriented
business and service establishments, and an equally wide
array of potential activities in which visitors can parti
cipate. Though a single market area for this linear com
plex could be demonstrated by a process of cartographic
generalization, the value or purpose of such a composite
representation would be questionable.
Again, an urban analogy is the basis for this assertion.
An urban central place or city is a focal point for a
theoretical continuous distribution of second points from
which or toward which interaction with the city focus
ensues/' Such a theoretical urban interaction field, or
simply urban field, has been empirically demonstrated many
times and labeled a city's umland, tributary area, service
18
area, market area, hinterland, and sphere of influence.


195
as an end itself. What Lukermann has said about urban cir
culation has direct application within a recreation context:
The physical link between the popula
tion and the service must be specified.
Merely counting functions, establishments,
or populations is not sufficient; the flow
line must eventually be plotted.47
In other words, a complete concept of interaction between
points must include some verification of the linkage process
in actuality, i.e., flow between points within the real or
idealized interaction net or web.
Figure 20 uses a deliberately uninflated sample since
either way the nature of the graphic representation would
be identical (except for possible difference based on
introduced error caused by inflation of the sample). For
simplicity, locations of cities and one national park are
represented by keyed symbol. Furthermore, since, as became
apparent in the sample survey, visitors tended to view
travel and route selection as a process of choosing be
tween multinode (city) linkage options or multi-segmented
paths between origin and destination, cities are used as
primary references for interpretation of the generalized
travel route connections.
Returning to the notion of topographic barriers and
uneven friction of distance, a specific explanation of the
apparent eastward shift of the market area can now be


244
TABLE 8
SUMMARY DATA: QUINTILE AVERAGE DISTANCE
OF POPULATION WEIGHTED CAMPER ORIGINS
Quintile
Average Population
Weighted Visits
Average Distance
(miles)
1
.6107
269
2
.1363
456
3
.0927
631
4
.0308
773
5
.0102
1092


237
effect to other places studied in the past, but to add one
more block to the continuing process of checking the role of
the function of distance for consistency.
Clawson's theory is as follows:
The volume of recreation visits to a
park (or complex) is inversely proportional
to distance and directly proportional to
population at place of origin.
In other words, frequency of visitation, or the number of
visits from an area will vary positively with the area's
population size and negatively with intervening distance.
The working hypothesis for this analysis is that visitation
is a negative function of distance.
A review of Figures 18 and 19 suggests a general de
crease in dot density with increased distance outward from
the study area. As earlier indicated, the dots tend to
cluster and coalesce in the major urban areas where popu
lation concentrations are high. Figure 23 depicts the same
100 per cent sample of coterminous United States visitors to
the study area, but in a manner selected to weight or neu
tralize population factors. Total visits (parties) from
each county of origin were divided by population to yield
Q9
a ratio of visits per thousand people living in each county.5
Though the ratio is not precisely a weighted value, it
nevertheless is hereafter referred to as population weighted


294
characteristics of St. Andrews.
Sample visitors in all survey campgrounds were asked
the following question:
Do you have any particular reasons for
visiting this campground instead of
another in the Panama City area?
It was essential to concentrate only on those respondents
who indicated a type of comparative campground selection
process (regardless of how incomplete a comparison). There
fore, only answers indicative of a comparative selection
basis are included in Table 13. Note that for each selec
tion reason the frequency of response is given, represented
by a percentage of the total of comparative responses at
each campground. Other responses will be discussed later.
As can be seen, visitor responses varied widely, but
there appear to be several dominant themes or answer groups.
Many selected a campground on the basis of services. Though
not an exclusive domain, private campgrounds tended to
attract visitors because they were perceived to offer
superior services (especially those personally rendered)
and friendly management. A wide range of facilities, both
for camping and for allied activities attracted many.
Though supervision, regulations, and a sense of security
attracted many, an opposite group selected their campground
in order to avoid restrictions, and to have a greater sense


183
Figure 18


101
ruts. The study area was virtually isolated during the
1920s when the first all-weather road from US 90 at Marianna
led to Port St. Joe (approximately the Florida 71 route).
By 1927 a real access gain was made when the main northern
route out of Panama City (US 231) was paved with ten miles
of concrete.^
Midway between Panama City and Pensacola in isolated
coastal Walton and Okaloosa counties, residents hacked out
an existence in the forest and swamps of bayous feeding
Choctawhatchee Bay, where a small lumbering and navel stores
industry existed. Materials were boated out to Pensacola
providing also a water communication link that helped
develop a small Pensacola-based hunting and fishing resort
business at Ft. Walton. Gambling soon developed and the
isolated "sportsman's resort" grew in a kind of popularity.
By the 1920s only a barely passable sand trail connected
Ft. Walton to towns to the north. "That made it very con
venient for certain gentlemen from Montgomery and Birmingham,
who liked to take their vacations and bring their secretaries
with them. They were certainly never worried about their
22
wives coming down to see what was going on."
By 1935, a significant gain in access was realized
2
when US 98 was finished, linking Panama City with Pensacola.
Until that time the only coastal route went north from


17
It will be seen that except for a more recent enquiry
into the problems of supply relative to demand for use of
outdoor recreation resources and land competition, there
was an early thrust in studies aligned with recreation land
inventory, landscape character associated with development
of parks, resorts and other recreation areas, and historical
sequent occupance and land use studies. The latter had a
dual focus on the processes of an area's land use change
culminating in a recreation phase, and the evolution of a
recreation industry in time, not particularly in space. In
addition, a few early descriptive studies delineated specific
recreation areas and described general recreation associated
land use.
Also of an early origin, but extending clearly to the
present, are economic studies. Within this general category
of research efforts has apparently been an evolution of
approach to recreation industry description. Progressive
ten-year intervals mark the mid-point of three phases from
historical resource-oriented studies to present-day comments
on regional development theory. There is considerable varia
tion between the various articles in the extent that the
area or industry economics, use status, and associated land
use are described.


95
U1
o
30 30'
COASTAL NORTHWEST FLORIDA:
PANAMA CITY TO DESTIN
MILES
0 1 2 3 A 5 6
Figure 7


10
which to base need inventory and planning efforts. Market
areas simply cannot be judged or evaluated in the terms of
market study results based outside the region of interest.
At least one other recreation geographer has recognized
this concept. Robert Lucas, a recreation researcher for
the U. S. Forest Service, has based his agreement on numerous
studies in the nation's forest resource areas. He concludes
that the results of broad general surveys can't safely be
applied to the locality any more than results of regional
4
studies can be applied in other regions. Some land
economists also stress the need for local and subregional-
studies.
Geographers McCarty, Hook and Knos recognized this
reality and framed their opinion as a scale problem:
Every change in scale will bring about
the statement of a new problem, and there
is no basis for assuming that associations
existing at one scale will also exist at
another.^
Clearly then, the significance of a study is not couched
entirely in the scale of observation. Work is needed at all
scales of examination.
Partly in response to the belief that there has been
inadequate use of spatial variables in outdoor recreation
research, this research effort has primarily concentrated on
this aspect. The particular viewpoint taken in this


73
increased park supply on participation nor the effects of
rapid growth of the private campground industry in recent
years. Incomplete data prevent such considerations, hence
one is forced to enlarge on such trends as can be seen in
Figure 1. The rate indicated by the steepest, most recent
curve segment would seem unlikely to continue for many years,
for park supply considerations must cause a maximum to be
reached eventually. (The 1970 camper attendance figure is
39
about 11 per cent over attendance for 1969.)


178
in order to pursue this problem systematically, the follow
ing basic working hypothesis was formulated: seacoast sand
beaches are perceived as a homogeneous recreation resource.
Therefore, if all of such beaches are equal in perceived
physical suitability for outdoor recreation (i.e., func
tionally homogeneous in that real physical resource dif
ferences are unimportant so that all coastal beach locations
offer equivalent recreation satisfaction-potential) then,
all other factors held constant, all such beaches are per
ceptually interchangeable. Consequently, if any ocean
beach is perceived as having the capability of satisfying
an individual's recreation need, providing certain basic
assumptions are true, then that individual decision-maker
will select that coastal beach perceived by him to be his
most accessible location alternative. Since accessibility
is such a complex multifarious concept that involves both
physical-nonphysical, and site-nonsite restrictions on loca
tion availability as well as elements of travel connectivity,
for practicality a surrogate term must be used. By consider
ing travel connectivity as the root of accessibility, a re
duced test hypothesis can be formed. This states that the
decision maker will select the route or path of perceived
least resistance to a beach location (provided a mini-max
assumption is made for individual decision rationale). A


323
or the demise of campgrounds as potential campers switch to
other lodging types in order to enjoy the area's recreation
resources. It might be added that the shape of the shift
away from camping in the area would presumably take the form
of Figure 31.
Fees and camping participation
The preceding comments concerned the price elasticity
of demand for the 1970 campground product in the study area
or the presumed effects of alternate pricing practices on
rate of consumption (use of camping facilities). In addi
tion, without hypothesis formulation, another concept of
camping elasticity was probed for. It was simply desired
to see what possible ramifications would result from a
hypothetical pushing of camping fees to an absolute ceiling.
By so doing, price elasticity for participation in camping
as an activity would theoretically result.
The question asked visitors was:
What would be your reaction to a situa
tion in which all campgrounds (here and
elsewhere in the nation) charged an over
night fee equal to local prices for your
group at a good motel (eg. Holiday inn)?
Table 18 presents the array of responses and the sample
proportion responding each way. it is interesting to note
that though a large number would stop camping, over 56 per


100
Pre-War Period
In 1925, J. Russell Smith had very little to say about
the Northwest Coast, except that it was a land of waterfowl
18
and mosquito, sandy forests and only a little cultivation.
Despite English settlement as early as 1765 at St. Andrew
(now panama City) the area population grew very slowly and
19
scarcely made a dent in the wilderness. As recently as
the 1920s, Bay County residents were still experiencing
frightful encounters with "varmits" in the forests, swamps
and bayous near Panama City. Cottonmouth moccasins, rattle
snakes, big alligators, black bear, and the screams of night
prowling panthers punctuate the tales of residents who re-
20
member the times of only a generation ago.
Before World War II most of the study area had a
scarcely modified shoreline, with beach access mainly
limited to jeep trails. A few roads existed, but fewer
highways and essential bridges were in existence, with an
associated minimal development mostly consisting of a few
scattered cottages and "pioneering" residential homes. In
the 1920s the 373-mile road trip between Jacksonville and
Pensacola was a weather-dependent two or three-day trip.
The main highway (US 90) from Pensacola to Tallahassee was
then a dirt road with river ferries and commonplace dual


CHAPTER III
STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH DESIGN
Representative Problem Area
The need for outdoor recreation research within the
nation's coastal resources was established in Chapter II.
Selection of the Northwest Coast of Florida as a general
study area, or the coast district to which sample generali
zation would be extended, was determined on the basis of
several points: limits of a spatially manageable field
problem, ease of definition of the study area within de
fensible spatial boundaries, existence of a still undeveloped
coastal district with considerable outdoor recreation po
tential, and ease of definition of a meaningful time cross-
section for study.
Physical Factors
Though other factors might be brought to bear, it is
probably the physical character of the shoreline that forms
the most logical identification of the study area.'*' The
Florida shoreline on the most elementary physical level can
be classed as beach, marsh, and mangrove types. Figure 2
78


354
APPENDIX III
SELECTED* CAMPER INTERVIEW SCHEDULE QUESTIONS
Where is your residence (state, county, city)?
When you left home was this campground your principal destina
tion for this trip?
IF NO: What was (is) your principal destination?
How much time off do you have this nonworking period?
How many days will you be away from your residence on this
trip?
How many days will you stay at this campground?
In this area?
How many days will you stay at other places?
What route did you take coming here?
Through what towns?
Which route numbers?
What were the most important factors that influenced your
decision to come to this part of the Gulf coast?
Do you have any particular reasons for visiting this camp
ground instead of another in the panama city area?
What effect did advertising have on your selection of this
campground?
Part of the Gulf coast?
Have you previously visited this part of the Gulf coast?
IF YES: About when did you first come (what year)?
How many times since?
Have you stayed in this campground before?
How many times?


Figure 15
173


22
gathered on urban recreation processes and the tremendous
need now and predicted for the future for recreation in the
urban scene, would have geographers restrict their attention
to an almost exclusive focus on urban recreation.
Kevin Kearns, in an article on the characteristics and
origin of city parks, reinforces Mitchell's view by claiming
that the urban environment creates personal needs for escape
24
to nature for a refurbishment of some inner man. Cultural
and urban geographers, according to Kearns, have a rightful
claim to study of the domain of urban recreation and sug
gests a research focus on the "...role of natural park
2'
grounds in man's adjustment to his artificial urban milieu."
It should be noted that Kearn's "natural park grounds" may be
located in both urban and nonurban areas and still be ap
proached with an urban need focus.
Others, maintaining a long-standing recreation geography
topical attention, propose that a research focus in recrea
tion geography should be centered on specialized, unique
urban recreation forms, the resort towns where recreation is
dominant. Stansfield, for example, would have recreation
geography shift emphasis on rural outdoor recreation to
"research inquiring into the economic and social nature of,
and spatial organization of, recreation within the urban
milieu.
/
particularly as pertains to the evolution of the


49
17. Warren J. Kelvie, "Urban Recreation DemandsThe Recrea
tion Imperative," 1970 Proceedings, Western Resources
Conference, University of Denver, 1970, pp. 217-222,
quote p. 220.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., p. 218.
20. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
National Recreation Survey, Study Report 19 (Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 4.
21. James R. Anderson, "Recreational Uses of Land and Water
and Associated Bioenvironmental Problems," Engineering
Progress, Vol. 21, No. 6 (1967), pp. 60-66.
22. Ibid., p. 65.
23. Mitchell, pp. 117-119.
24. Kevin C. Kearns, "On the Nature and Origin of parks in
Urban Areas," Professional Geographer, Vol. 20 (1968),
pp. 167-170.
25. Ibid., p. 167.
26. Charles A. Stansfield, Jr., "The Geography of Resorts:
Problems and Potentials, Professional Geographer, Vol.
23 (1971), pp. 164-166.
27. Terence M. Burley, "A Note on the Geography of Sport,"
Professional Geographer, Vol. 14 (1962), pp. 55-56.
28. Mitchell, p. 118.
29. Earl B. Shaw, "Geography and Baseball," Journal of
Geography, Vol. 62 (1963), pp. 74-76.
30. Comments by author, pp. 25 and 27.
31. William H. Colburn, "Projecting Recreational DemandA
Practitioner's Critique," Predicting Recreation Demand,
Technical Report No. 7, Department of Park and Recrea
tion Resources (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 1969), pp. 36-49.
32.Ibid., p. 48.


275
Theory Formulation, Papers and Proceedings, Regional
Science Association, Vol. 21 (1968), pp. 205-227.
69. Gerald Hodge, "The Prediction of Trade Center Via
bility in the Great Plains," Papers and Proceedings,
Regional Science Association, Vol. 15 (1965), pp. 87-
115.
70. Haggett, pp. 40-41.
71. Losch, p. 106.
72. Brush and Gauthier.
73. Brian J. L. Berry and Allen Pred, Central Place
Studies; A Bibliography of Theory and Applications,
Bibliography Series No. 1, with supplement
(Philadelphia; Regional Science Research Institute,
1965).
74. Berry, ...Market Centers.
75. Gunnar Olsson, Distance and Human interaction,
Bibliography Series No. 2 (Philadelphia; Regional
Science Research Institute, 1965).
76. R. J. Chorley and Peter Haggett, Models in Geography
(London; Methuen, 1967), especially pp. 559-561.
77. H. Hotelling, "Stability in Competition," Economic
Journal, vol. 41 (1929), pp. 52-53.
78. The method is discussed in Andrew H. Trice and S. E.
Wood, "Measurement of Recreation Benefits," Land
Economics, Vol. 34 (1958), pp. 195-207. See also in
the same volume pp. 365-370.
79. Clawson and Knetsch.
80. L. E. Peabody and I. M. Spasoff, "Tourist Travel in
the United States," Public Roads, Vol. 18, No. 6
(1937), pp. 101-116.
81. Deasy and Griess, pp. 290-306.
82. Hugh D. Clout, "Second Homes in the Auvergne," Geogra
phical Review, Vol. 61 (1971), pp. 530-553.


251
the following thoughts:
Additional amounts of income might be
less highly prized than at times in the
past....If the past is a good criterion,
the demands for time may well rise faster
than additional amounts of it are made
available....Time is likely to be more
frequently a greater limiting factor than
income in the future, compared with the
past.104
If time is likely to be, for many groups, the ultimate
limiting factor to recreation participation, a point also
agreed upon by the National Academy of Science study com-
105
mittee on research needs, then it behooves recreation
specialists to learn more of recreation-time relations. This
is especially true in light of unsuccessful attempts to use
travel time in empirical modelsthe time-specific focus of
. 106
this discussion.
As an expansion of distance interaction theory, it can
be assumed safely that time is an interchangeable term with
distance. This is particularly true in terms of the visit-
distance ratios discussed earlier. Logically this assumption
holds, and in model building a time surface actually is often
superior to a distance surface. Consequently, in interaction
and marketing studies travel time is often a substitute for
distance concepts.
It has been customary for planners to use either time
or mileage values as standards or reference terms for


285
gregarious-isolation, active-passive, primitive-convenience,
9
and nature-social. Appendix VI, Klausner's recreation
paradigm, contains the literature's most complete view of
these various attitudes and motivations. Furthermore, these
views by Klausner form the root of the contrasting dis
cussion in the next part of this chapter.
Campground Selection Factors
The preceding chapter demonstrated an area selection
process that involved comparison of variables of perceived
resource nonhomogeneity. It is, therefore, by extension,
reasonable to assume the following working hypothesis, camp
ground selection is a dual function of (1) visitor per
ception of nonhomogeneity of the physical and cultural
setting (internal and external) of a campground (i.e., site
perception), and (2) recreation preferences and their under
lying attitudes, goals, etc. (reasons for camping). An
extension of this logic allows the formulation of a secondary
hypothesis that such a relationship between preference and
perception should result in a gathering of visitors sharing
specific attitudes and conclusions within specific camp
grounds. That is to say, that people searching for a cer
tain camping experience (within an area) should gather at
the same campground. This assumes that all concerned know


211
Figure 21


PREFACE
Through the research on this dissertation the author
has been made to realize the wealth of ideas and facts
which the extensive and varied body of professional geo
graphic literature holds. Preliminary examination pro
vided the author with a healthy confidence in the unique
ness of his study; however, by the time of this writing,
over two years later, the author had a much deepened ap
preciation for the research efforts and thought given by
several generations of diligent scholars. The author
recognizes that nearly every small concept in the matrix of
this work has been revealed as a restatement or application
of a concept or fact illustrated or found in another place
and time. Surely there is order and surely geographers are
succeeding in developing an effective body of geographic
theory.
iii


255
expense in exclusion of time or miles. In all but one of 19
cases listing inconvenience as a travel reference term it was
considered as a joint affect with combinations of miles, time,
or expense. With the exception of one man who considered the
inconvenience of travel while towing a large travel trailer,
all respondents mentioned the inconvenience of traveling with
a large family. Many seemed to think that young children
have a limited period during which they will sit in a car and
still remain comfortable. After a time they begin to annoy
the adult occupants of the vehicle with their irritable be
havior caused by the restriction and relative inactivity of
travel. No respondent mentioned inconvenience in regard to
travel on different qualities of roads and with differing
degrees of traffic congestion. In summary, these data indi
cate that from the recreationist's view, as well as from the
planner's and theoretician's view, travel time is a suitable
term in substitution for distance.
Wolfe is convinced by several of his studies in Ontario
that under certain circumstances long-distance recreation
travelers gather "momentum" that lessens or even nullifies
the usually anticipated negative impact or friction of dis-
107
tance. Such a process, if a reality, would tend to turn
the standard distance decay curves into a "J" shape as the
extremely distant-origin visitors increase in visit rate.


11
research is one of a variable scale of observation and
analysis. Hence, the spatial methodological approach of
this study is at times regional, subregional, or intensely
local through shifts in the scale of emphasis. At all
scales, however, the emphasis is upon factors associated
with movements of recreationists between places or upon the
actual observable phenomena of spatial interaction itself.
(It should be noted, however, that not all factors associated
with recreation movement can be observed.)
The advantages over the isolated bits and pieces ap
proach resulting from nonrelated studies at various scales
of observation are obvious. Perhaps the paramount advan
tage of this approach is the ability to trace behavior,
attitude, and preference within defined topical limits for
a single body of recreationists through a nearly holistic
recreation experience.
Research in Recreation Geography
Despite the fact that topics involving outdoor recrea
tion resources have not been strongly pursued by geographers,
the scope of recreation geography has expanded considerably
since the comments written in 1954 by McMurry and Davis on
the then little known subfield within geography. It is


94
Figure 6


355
Do you expect to return to this part of the Gulf coast?
IF YES: Will you camp?
Please imagine that some catastrophe in this area had pre
vented you and the public from visiting this part of the
Gulf coast. Where might you have gone instead of to this
area?
What were the main reasons you decided to come here in
stead of to any other areas or places you may have con
sidered?
Why didn't you select an inland recreation area located on
a lake or reservoir, perhaps with sand beaches?
Why didn't you select an inland place that offered some
other scenic and recreation activity opportunities, like the
mountains, a forest, or a large city?
For this trip would you have gone to one of the Louisiana,
Mississippi, or Alabama Gulf beaches if that area had not
been partly destroyed during the last hurricane season?
What are your daily fees?
Would your willingness to visit this campground change if
daily fees were increased by:
$ 3
$ 4
$ 5
$ 6
$ 1
$ 2
What would be your reaction to a situation in which all
campgrounds (here and elsewhere in the nation) charged an
overnight fee equal to local prices for your group at a
good motel (e.g., Holiday Inn)?
When you select a recreation area for a vacation or an outing,
do you measure the required travel in terms of miles, time,
travel expense, or inconvenience?
How many hours of driving time did you travel from your
residence to here?
Had you known before you left home that this part of the Gulf
Coast was located an additional one hour of highway driving
time from your home would you have come anyway?


19
Finally, the most recent development has been a philo
sophical and methodological consideration of recreation
geography itself as a subfield of geography. As interested
geographers and newly equipped recreation geography spe
cialists became aware of problems there has evolved a
conversation on status, research focus, and methods in this
recent subfield of geography.
Urban focus
From outside geography, among various academically
based recreation researchers and others involved in public
recreation policy formulation, has come recently repeated
emphasis upon the increasing need for attention to the
recreation needs of a constantly growing urban-oriented
and stressed world. Clawson, for example, points out that
most people now live in or near cities and that most of
their nonworking time is spent in their urban or suburban
14
environments. He continues, noting that the near future
should find the nation dominated by an urban, high income,
"mass-leisure society" which will require that "...more
thought must be given to the management of the immediate
urban physical environment" including specific urban
1 R
recreation environments. After all, "...the demand...is
16
concentrated where people arein metropolitan areas.


122
electricity and picnic tables are available at some sites,
in addition, there is the added enhancement of a swimming
pool.
Seagull also has a camping area located in the rear
of a large modern mobile home park. Forty-five sites are
arranged in a neat rectangular pattern on a double loop
access road. A bath house and playground are located near
a swimming pool.
Beach Campground is the third campground on US 98
across from the Gulf beach. Permission was secured to
interview here. Located in the heart of the amusement and
entertainment section of the strip, this 100-site camp
ground is off the highway behind a shopping center and
recreation businesses. One side of the camp is bounded by
an adjacent amusement park's roller coaster and its clatter
and screams are heard until midnight nightly.
Some sites are equipped with concrete patios, water,
electricity and sewerage hook ups for travel trailers
(compact mobile homes) and other elaborate camping vehicles.
Various combinations of water and electricity hook ups are
available in different parts of the campground. A number of
sites have shade but the greatest part are in open areas.
Two inadequate bathhouses, a pool, small store, and a
children's playground complete the facility list, with the


8
Recreation (BOR) be established.^ This would, among other
things, coordinate planning of the nation's system of out
door recreation areas. in 1964 the federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund was established, under administration by
the BOR, which authorized 50-50 federal-state matching of
funds for state and local recreation land acquisition and
2
development programs. A condition of eligibility for
participation in federal funding through requesting these
grants was an acceptance by the BOR of a suitable state
3
master recreation plan. The need for public recreation land
acquisition and development brought a rush by states and
municipalities to formulate master plans. Attempts to pro
vide such comprehensive planning brought to light the
inadequacies of planning techniques and the small established
body of fact available as a basis for sound planning. Today,
planning is still inadequate.
Study RationalePlanning Needs
One underlying purpose of this study is to shed some
additional light on the interwoven intricacies of outdoor
recreation phenomena in hope that some new thoughts and
facts might contribute to the understanding essential for
a more optimum solution for the present outdoor recreation
dilemma. Accordingly, there are some elemental assumptions


I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Dames R.
Professor of Geography
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Anderson, Chairman
Clark I. Cross, Associate Professor
of Geography and Physical Sciences
I certify that I have read this study and that in my
opinion it conforms to acceptable standards of scholarly
presentation and is fully adequate, in scope and quality,
as a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
This dissertation was submitted to the Department of
Geography in the College of Arts and Sciences and to the
Graduate Council, and was accepted as partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.
Dean, Graduate School
June, 1972


121
where bait and boating equipment are available at a fishing
camp. Sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosis), striped bass (Roccus
sakafilis), mullet (Magil cephalus), and other fish are
caught in the lake.
St. Andrews area campgrounds
All other private campgrounds in the study area may
approximately be considered to lie within the camping over
flow area around St. Andrews State Park, or, in Figure 8,
within the Panama City Beach Sector.
None of these camps is located directly on Gulf beach
front property, though three camps are located on US 98
and are across the street from the beach. Two of these
locations have only secondary interest in campers as
evidenced by their names: Reid's Court and Trailer Park,
and Seagull Trailer Park and Campground. In both cases
interviewing permission was unobtainable from the manage
ment, for fear of violation of guest privacy.
The owner of Reid's offers seasonal lodging to visitors
in a number of air conditioned, kitched equipped apartments
and cottages. A number of well established return visitors
rent the mobile home spaces seasonally or yearly. In the
back of the property in a large unshaded, grassed field
space is offered for camping. A shower house, water,


144
campers was selected to conform with the major summer
visitor season, i.e., the period of public school vacations
in the anticipated tributary area. it was ascertained
that student vacations began between May 25 and June 12;
therefore, the survey period was defined as June 8 to
56
September 7, 1970 (Labor Day).
Two state park campgrounds and five area private camp
grounds were selected as interview locations with their camp
ing visitors becoming the population basis of a sample of
514 camping groups or parties. The interview locations
were rotated to enable all campgrounds to be sampled on all
days of the week. Since the schedule required at least
one half hour to complete, and because interviewing had to
be done in the late afternoon and early evening to avoid
camper arrival time (hence origin) bias the daily interview
quota was about six parties. Though probability sampling
techniques were used to determine quotas and define the
sample (for example, a stratified random sample was pre
scribed) the purpose was for objectivity in observations,
and not for drawing a tight statistical sample. Since levels
of visitation before the survey were unknown, a proportionate
sample could not be drawn. Further details on the sample
are found in Appendix IV.
Unstructured personal interviews were also gathered


1.
213
Why didn't you select an inland recreation
area located on a lake or reservoir, perhaps
with sand beaches?
2. Why didn't you select an inland place that
offered some other scenic and recreation
activity opportunities, like the mountains,
a forest, or a large city?
Since the answers were made in a conversational or dis
cussion-type reply it was impossible to record every state
ment made by respondents, nor would this have been necessary.
It is possible that some interviewer bias was absorbed into
the subjectively evaluated, selected, and recorded respon
dent's comments; however, exact statements were taken where
possible. Since the purpose was exploratory, such nondis
crete answers to open-ended questions were considered most
appropriate in order to limit question bias.
Expressed attitudes toward each of the alternate re
source types mentioned in the above questions were grouped
by a nonnumerical, subjective form of cluster analysis.
Though a different kind of data coding and statistical
manipulation could have yielded concise clusters of visitor
attitudes characterized by minimum intragroup difference

and maximum intergroup difference, the meaning and inter
pretation of such a scheme might prove to be less useful
63
than this simple approach.
Table 5 shows relative differences between study area


A CASE STUDY IN RECREATION GEOGRAPHY:
SPATIAL INTERACTION AND CAMPER PERCEPTION
By
DENNIS R. CROWE
A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL
FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
1972

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to my advisor, Dr. James
R. Anderson, and other members of my committee, Dr. Clark I.
Cross and Dr. K. R. Swinford, for their guidance, thoughtful
criticisms, and patience during the preparation of this
dissertation.
Also, I acknowledge the assistance rendered by the
Florida Division of Recreation and Parks and the many help
ful campground managers in the Panama City area. I also
gratefully acknowledge assistance in curve fitting by Dr.
A. E. Brandt of the University of Florida Computing Center.
To my wife and parents I will always be indebted. In
addition, I wish to specifically thank my father, Dennis D.
Crowe, for his professional services in preparing all of my
illustrations.
ii

PREFACE
Through the research on this dissertation the author
has been made to realize the wealth of ideas and facts
which the extensive and varied body of professional geo
graphic literature holds. Preliminary examination pro
vided the author with a healthy confidence in the unique
ness of his study; however, by the time of this writing,
over two years later, the author had a much deepened ap
preciation for the research efforts and thought given by
several generations of diligent scholars. The author
recognizes that nearly every small concept in the matrix of
this work has been revealed as a restatement or application
of a concept or fact illustrated or found in another place
and time. Surely there is order and surely geographers are
succeeding in developing an effective body of geographic
theory.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii
PREFACE iii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES xi
ABSTRACT xiv
CHAPTER
I OUTDOOR RECREATION RESEARCH SETTING. ... 1
Introduction 1
Study Perspectives 1
Purpose and Objectives of Study. . 3
Outdoor Recreation Research
Social Setting 6
Participation Trends 6
Government Impetus for Research. . 7
Study RationalePlanning Needs. . 8
Spatial viewpoint of Report 9
Research in Recreation Geography. ... 11
Movements Toward a central Concept 14
past directions 14
Urban focus 19
Spatial interaction focus .... 25
A Case for Systems Analysis in
Recreation Geography 31
iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Opinions from within the larger
outdoor recreation research
field 32
Recommendations of non
geographers 35
Recommendations of geographers 38
Relevance of systems analysis
to geography 39
Pioneer systems research in
Recreation Geography 41
Synthesis and Study Orientation . 44
II REGIONAL AND TOPICAL SETTING 57
Study Region and State 57
Southeastern United States 57
Florida 61
Coastal BeachesThe Resource
Component 64
National Setting 64
Florida Setting 67
Activity SubsystemFamily Camping . 68
National Setting 69
Camping in Florida 70
III STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH DESIGN 78
Representative Problem Area 78
Physical Factors 78
Recognition as Regional and
Recreational Entity 81
Florida's Last Beach Frontier ... 82
National Significance of Area ... 85
Operational Study Area 86
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Linear Beach Fringe Focus. ..... 86
Primary Study SitesState Parks . 88
Operational East-West Limits .... 93
Sequence of Area Recreation
Development 98
Pre-War Period 100
Post-War Period 103
Recent Period 106
Recreation Land Use 1970 109
Land Use Classification 110
Interpretations 115
Secondary Study SitesPrivate
Campgrounds 118
Grayton Beach area campgrounds. 119
St. Andrews area campgrounds. . 121
Recapitulation 128
Study Area Seasonality 129
Florida Seasonality Regions . 129
Gulf Coast Camping Seasonality. 132
Climatic Basis 136
Research Design 137
Methods 139
Qualitative description 140
Quantitative description 141
Cass study 141
Field survey 142
Additional information sources. 146
Data analysis 146
IV TRIBUTARY AREA: DELIMITATION AND
SPATIAL INTERACTION 154
vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Theory Alternatives 154
Theory of the Periphery 155
Central Place Theory 157
A Merged Concept of Functional
Organization 159
Application of Central place Theory. 161
A Recreation Place Hierarchy. . 162
The Composite Tributary Area. . 164
Tributary Area Zonation 167
Market Area Overview 170
Resource Homogeneity 177
Distance Minimizing Hypothesis. . 179
Indifference boundaries 189
Uneven friction of distance. . 191
Information bias 199
Noncomparative Hypothesis 203
Resource Specificity Hypothesis. . 207
Comparative Resource Perception . 210
Resource nonspecific attitudes 216
Resource specific attitudes. . 220
Study Area Selection Factors. . 222
Tributary Area Interaction 231
Interaction Theory 232
Recreation application 233
The literature 234
Distance interaction Hypothesis . 236
vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Time Interaction Hypothesis 249
Summary 265
V CAMPGROUND PERCEPTION AND SELECTION ... 279
Camping Attitudes 282
Campground Selection Factors 285
Setting Variation 288
Setting-Specific Camper Groupings 293
Implications 304
Management Preferences 307
Economic Considerations 314
Fees and Campground Selection . 316
Fees and Camping participation. . 323
Summary 326
VI RECAPITULATION AND CONTINUATION 330
Recapitulation 330
Continuation 334
APPENDICES 341
APPENDIX IOUTLINE FOR AN URBAN OR
GANIZATION FOCUS BASED ON AVAILABLE
RECREATION GEOGRAPHY LITERATURE. . 342
APPENDIX IISEASONALITY SUPPLEMENT ... 349
APPENDIX IIISELECTED CAMPER INTERVIEW
SCHEDULE QUESTIONS 354
APPENDIX IVSURVEY SAMPLE DISTRIBUTION 357
APPENDIX VCAMPER RESIDENCE LOCATION . 358
APPENDIX VIKLAUSNER'S RECREATION
PARADIGM 359
APPENDIX VIISUMMARY DATA: TRIP PERIOD
AND MARGINAL DRIVING TIME 360
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 363
viii

LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Trends in Topical Approaches to Recrea
tion Studies in American Geography 15
2 Occurrence of Southeastern United States
Recreation Studies in North American
Geographical and Allied Journals. 60
3 Park Development-isolation Ranking 90
4 Resource Alternates 209
5 Resource Specificity Camparison 214
6 Reasons for Study Area Selection 224
7 Summary Data: Frequency Distribution of
Population Weighted Counties of Camper
Origin 241
8 Summary Data: Quintile Average Distance
of population Weighted Camper Origins .... 244
9 Summary Data: Distance and Visits 247
10 Customary Travel Reference Terms 254
11 Summary Data: Trip Period and Actual
Driving Time 261
12 Reasons for Camping 284
13 Reasons for campground Selection 295
14 Campground Management preference 309
15 Management Preference Factors . 311
ix

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
16 Fee Level and WillingnessI 318
17 Fee Level and WillingnessII 320
18 Reaction to Fee Increase to Motel
Comparable Level 324
x

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1 Participation Trends in Florida State
Park Camping 72
2 Generalized Shoreline Types in Florida. . 79
3 Distribution of Florida Beach Resources . 83
4 Northwest Florida Beach State Parks .... 89
5 Grayton Beach State Park 92
6 St. Andrews State Park 94
7 Coastal Northwest Florida: Panama City 95
to Destin
8 Land Use: A Coastal Highway Traverse . m
9 Florida Outdoor Recreation Comprehensive
Planning Regions 130
10 Percentage Distribution of Tourists Who
Planned to Engage in Outdoor Recreation
in Florida During the Summer and Winter
Seasons, 1964-65by Planning Region of
Destination 131
11 Selected Gulf Coastal Florida State
Park Locations 133
12 Gulf Coastal Florida State Park Seasonal
Camping Contrasts 135
13 United States Camper OriginsAnnual. . 171
14 United States camper OriginsNon-summer. 172
xi

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure Page
15 United States and Foreign Camper
OriginsSummer 173
16 United States Camper OriginsSummer .... 174
17 Theoretical Beach Visitor Tributary
Areas 180
18 Camper Origins 183
19 Camper Origins: Interview Sample 187
20 Camper Travel Flow 194
21 Recreation Area AlternatesSite
Distribution 211
22 Recreation Area AlternatesState
Distribution 212
23 Population Weighted Camper Origins 238
24 Frequency Distribution of Population
Weighted Counties of camper Origins 240
25 Quintile Average Distance of Population
Weighted Camper Origins 243
26 Distance and Visits 248
27 Trip Period and Actual Driving Time 260
28 Trip Period and Marginal Driving Time. . 264
29 Transient Lodging Profile 289
30 Visitor Support Profile 290
31 visitor Indifference to campground Fees. . 321
32 intraseasonal variation in Grayton Beach
Campsite Occupancy 350
xii

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
Figure page
33 Intraseasonal variation in St. Andrews
Campsite Occupancy 351
34 Intraweek Traffic Volume on U. S. Route
98 Between Grayton Beach and St.
Andrews parks 352
35 Diurnal Traffic Volume on U. S. Route
98 Between Grayton Beach and St.
Andrews parks 353
xiii

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Council
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
A CASE STUDY IN RECREATION GEOGRAPHY:
SPATIAL INTERACTION AND CAMPER PERCEPTION
By
Dennis R. Crowe
June, 1972
Chairman: James R. Anderson
Major Department: Geography
The Northwest Gulf Coast is Florida's last frontier for
planned optimum development for outdoor recreation. In re
sponse to this planning need rationale, a field study of
peak-season (summer 1970) family campers was undertaken in
St. Andrews and Grayton Beach state parks and five private
campgrounds within the beach fringe between Panama city and
Ft. Walton Beach. A nearly 100 per cent sample of registra
tion receipts was drawn in six campgrounds. Multiple regis
trations were reduced to over 13,500 party visits. In
addition, a supplementary sample of over 500 parties was
interviewed.
Utilizing scale shifts from regional to local, a
descriptive carto-statistical analysis suggested a variety
of closely interrelated conclusions that fit within a pro
posed synoptic physical-behavioral spatial systems approach
for recreation geography. Resource perception and attitudes
xiv

toward interchangeability of alternate recreation locations
were inventoried as a logical step to understanding func
tional hierarchies within a regional interaction system of
recreation central places.
The nation-wide maximum study tributary area was con
sidered from the standpoint of gross interaction theory.
Campground registration data showing county origins of
visitor parties were population weighted. Area camping
visits were shown to be an hyperbolic function of distance.
However, visit rate was a negative function of distance only
to a radius of 600 miles from the study area, where curve
erratics suggested an application of Wolfe's "distance
momentum" theory. Time interaction was introduced to verify
this process. However, willingness to drive extra hours
(at the margin of driving time) was shown to be more closely
aligned with trip period than distance traveled.
A distance minimizing explanation (utilizing predicted
nation beach-sheds) for visitor functional tributary area
shape was shown to be plausible. However, an augmented
hypothesis was forced to include terms for distance indif
ference zones, uneven friction of distance, and information
bias. perception of beach resource homogeneity was rejected
by data showing distinct physical environmental (esthetic,
topographic and climatic) preferences and conscious
xv

comparison of resources at alternate locations. When the
cultural setting was included in the analysis a broad array
of camper resource-specific to nonspecific attitudes were
defined. The implication is that between-resource as well
as within-resource categories of recreation alternates are
perceived by individuals as falling on variably defined
recreation satisfaction-potential continuums.
A scale shift to the locality allowed visitor perception
and travel to be inventoried relative to specific campground
selection from among alternates in the operational study
area. Campground selection factors were examined against
a background of basic attitudes toward camping (motivations).
Setting-specific camper groupings were demonstrated at the
several study sites. The implication is that there is need
for a variety of campground settings (relative to internal
and external development) within a single resource type.
Visitor satisfaction only can be maximized by a planned mix
of alternate sites. There is no satisfactory average camp
ground development setting.
In addition, it was found that site selection involves
considerable perceptual confusion by those who choose a site
for reasons of private or public management preference.
Last, consideration was given the role of campground fees in
site selection. A considerable indifference to fees was

found, indicating that only at extreme levels are fees in
fluential in the campground selection process. in addition,
the impact of maximum fee levels on camping participation
was inventoried.
xvii

CHAPTER I
OUTDOOR RECREATION RESEARCH SETTING
Introduction
Within outdoor recreation and particularly the field
of recreation geography there exist a number of problems and
unanswered questions. This study addresses some of these
from the geographer's perspective.
Study Perspectives
This research was approached primarily from the view
point of SOCIAL or BEHAVIORAL GEOGRAPHY and thus is people
oriented. Basic concern is for the way individuals and
groups of individuals adjust to and interact with the
spatial variables of land, particularly those portions
developed to produce or perceived as inherently offering
outdoor recreation potential, while involved in the process
of attempting to find fulfillment or actuation of felt
human need or desire, or more generally, our society's
pursuit of outdoor recreation.
Elements of LAND USE AND RESOURCE GEOGRAPHY have
necessarily been incorporated into this inquiry, particularly
1

as regards recreation resource distribution and physical
character in association with individual selection and use
of these resources. Geography's SPATIAL INTERACTION theme
has been particularly emphasized within the context of
people movement between points. Recreation travel routing
and flow in terms of gross movement, considering time-
distance factors relative to propensity to travel between
origins and recreation resource areas, and within-resource-
area movement are the dominant interaction processes con
sidered.
In association with processes of area and site selection
and the individual and group views of alternative places,
resource opportunity and interaction costs and benefits were
approached from the vantage of the geography of ENVIRONMENTAL
PERCEPTION. Perception of resource opportunity, for example,
was approached in subjective terms of quality and value,
with value considered by its surrogate site-potential or
recreation-satisfaction-potential, which must be viewed
against a backdrop of human need factors such as motivations
for outdoor recreation (camping specifically) and a nature-
social environmental contrasting paradigm of outdoor recrea
tion. Here such considerations as preferences for level of
development, seclusion, privacy, and recreation activities
are considered. Attitudes toward alternate resource bases

3
are also examined. For example, coastal beaches are con
trasted with mountains, lakes and reservoirs, forests, and
cities.
Perhaps most significant are the APPLIED ASPECTS. Area
and site selection processes were studied to provide
relevance to the planning and need-oriented, optimum re
source allocation objectives of public recreation. Specifi
cally, perspectives are gained on public-private resource
mix factors, fee willingness and elasticity of camping, and
area-potential oriented generation of planning base data.
Purpose and Objectives of Study
The over-riding purpose of this study is to add to the
body of knowledge concerning outdoor recreation resources
and to move toward a better understanding of recreation and
the use of leisure time. The particular emphasis is on the
understanding of spatially interacting factors associated
with recreation use of land and water resources, or the
expansion of knowledge of recreation geography.
A more specific purpose is to shed light on essentially
basic interaction variates and processes and their manifesta
tions as can be observed in a limited sampling of campers
visiting a beach resource area. The study is concerned with
the 1970 summer, peak season camping use of Grayton Beach

4
and St. Andrews state parks and certain associated auxilliary
private camping developments in the greater Panama City,
Florida coastal resort area with the following objectives
being considered:
1. To describe spatial interaction between this
recreation complex and its visitor tributary
area for the specific recreation function of
family camping, i.e., to ascertain the spatial
distribution of camping visitor trip origins
and to describe and seek explanations of some
regularities and irregularities associated with
this distribution and its underlying travel
process and location. (Major objective)
2. To inventory and descriptively explore visitor
concepts of resource interchangeability and
resource preferences, and attitudes and per
ceptions of site utility, or recreation satis
faction potential, as these elements affect
selection and choice of this recreation re
source area or complex and a specific camping
site within the area from among alternative
regional resource areas and other camping
locations within this area. (Major objective)
3. To generate background information for public
campground planning and policy development
(with an ultimate goal of stimulating dis
cussion which could lead to an evolution of
public recreation policy, by posing questions
and a few provoking alternatives to present
policy regarding recreation land resource use
and allocation of public benefits). (Minor
objective)
4. To move toward a conceptual and theoretical
focus in recreation geography by investigating
analagous conditions between topics and
methods applicable to recreation geography
in both the more intensively studied, tra
ditional subfields, as well as in newer more
peripheral areas of geographic analysis.
(Minor objective)

Objectives one through three will be treated by state
ment and analysis of general and specific hypotheses to be
tested by description of collected survey data and field
observation of status quo, by assumed verification by
analogy, and by comparison for continuity with existing
empirical evidence. The fourth objective is essentially a
logical construction based on an organization and applica
tion of geographic and other literature to the recreation
geography problem of need for organization concepts and a
research focus.
Essential to any research is an understanding of the
pertinent background or setting which gives meaning and
structure to the work at hand. Little research, even that
involving the purest of science, is without a social or
conceptual relevancy or alignment with past and present
thought. This chapter and the next two briefly demonstrate
the social, methodological, and subject matter relevance of
this enquiry, which, while framed within a microstudy format
with regional implications, examines human perceptual
responses to outdoor recreation resources as components in
a site selection and spatial interaction process.

6
Outdoor Recreation ResearchSocial Setting
It is not the intent of this introduction to review,
critique, or even summarize the thousands of pages of posi
tion papers, surveys, government documents, and other
reports that describe and document the needs and propensities
of people to participate in the various forms of outdoor
recreation. Too many have dwelled too long on this now ob
vious feature of our modern social landscape. The time
liness of outdoor recreation research is clear to those who
will examine it against the backdrop of today's society,
with its changing needs, desires, and demands.
Participation Trends
The post-war United States has witnessed many changes
in the way people live. Population growth coupled with
internal migration and urbanization has produced an American
view which is largely of the city. Changes in available
leisure time and gains in disposable income have provided
an ability for many, but not all, Americans to consume or
participate in a varied array of essentially luxury products
and activities, including the means to enjoy an almost
infinite list of outdoor and other recreation pursuits. In
addition, an improved transportation net and vehicles have

7
greatly expanded travel accessibility and feasibility. The
last two decades have, as a result, produced an unforeseen
trend toward recreation participation and travel, which
apparently, according to some prognosticators, cycles and
self perpetuates into constantly greater expansion. Only a
presently unknown critical factor will limit this upward
trend.
Increased use pressures and crowding of facilities on
the existing limited outdoor recreation resource base has
fostered government attention and resulted in expanded
development of facilities and increased acquisition of lands
for public outdoor recreation. This expansion has been made
increasingly more difficult in the face of increased costs
as more demands have been made on the static land supply and
as land use competition has increased. The private outdoor
recreation sector, though perhaps slower to start, has also
been caught up in a similar development and growth trend.
Government Impetus for Research
Since about 1950 there has been a significant incentive
for the acquisition and development of land for public out
door recreation activities. The Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission recommended in its 1962 report to the
President and the Congress that a Bureau of Outdoor

8
Recreation (BOR) be established.^ This would, among other
things, coordinate planning of the nation's system of out
door recreation areas. in 1964 the federal Land and Water
Conservation Fund was established, under administration by
the BOR, which authorized 50-50 federal-state matching of
funds for state and local recreation land acquisition and
2
development programs. A condition of eligibility for
participation in federal funding through requesting these
grants was an acceptance by the BOR of a suitable state
3
master recreation plan. The need for public recreation land
acquisition and development brought a rush by states and
municipalities to formulate master plans. Attempts to pro
vide such comprehensive planning brought to light the
inadequacies of planning techniques and the small established
body of fact available as a basis for sound planning. Today,
planning is still inadequate.
Study RationalePlanning Needs
One underlying purpose of this study is to shed some
additional light on the interwoven intricacies of outdoor
recreation phenomena in hope that some new thoughts and
facts might contribute to the understanding essential for
a more optimum solution for the present outdoor recreation
dilemma. Accordingly, there are some elemental assumptions

9
upon which rest the rationality of this research:
(1) There is a real need for efficient planning,
allocation, and management to meet outdoor
recreation demands within a framework of
limited land, money, and other resources.
(2) Planning efficiency can only be grounded
on fundamental knowledge of people1s needs,
wants and propensities.
(3) Our present level of knowledge of such
basic things is inadequatehence, arises
the core problem which may be defined as
a need for outdoor recreation research.
Spatial Viewpoint of Report
Recreation planners and other use-demand predictors
have run aground countless times in attempts to use broad
predictor rules and national or regionally based cross-
sectional data on recreation participation. Many planning
efforts have been built around predictions based on such
broadly conceived population participation ratios. It is
believed that time will show that some past and present
state planning for outdoor recreation development has been
based on invalid assumptions.
Localities have such variation in internal and sur
rounding transportation facilities, topography, population
density and socioeconomic composition and relative locations
of complementary and competitive recreation sites, that
there is always a need for local empirical studies upon

10
which to base need inventory and planning efforts. Market
areas simply cannot be judged or evaluated in the terms of
market study results based outside the region of interest.
At least one other recreation geographer has recognized
this concept. Robert Lucas, a recreation researcher for
the U. S. Forest Service, has based his agreement on numerous
studies in the nation's forest resource areas. He concludes
that the results of broad general surveys can't safely be
applied to the locality any more than results of regional
4
studies can be applied in other regions. Some land
economists also stress the need for local and subregional-
studies.
Geographers McCarty, Hook and Knos recognized this
reality and framed their opinion as a scale problem:
Every change in scale will bring about
the statement of a new problem, and there
is no basis for assuming that associations
existing at one scale will also exist at
another.^
Clearly then, the significance of a study is not couched
entirely in the scale of observation. Work is needed at all
scales of examination.
Partly in response to the belief that there has been
inadequate use of spatial variables in outdoor recreation
research, this research effort has primarily concentrated on
this aspect. The particular viewpoint taken in this

11
research is one of a variable scale of observation and
analysis. Hence, the spatial methodological approach of
this study is at times regional, subregional, or intensely
local through shifts in the scale of emphasis. At all
scales, however, the emphasis is upon factors associated
with movements of recreationists between places or upon the
actual observable phenomena of spatial interaction itself.
(It should be noted, however, that not all factors associated
with recreation movement can be observed.)
The advantages over the isolated bits and pieces ap
proach resulting from nonrelated studies at various scales
of observation are obvious. Perhaps the paramount advan
tage of this approach is the ability to trace behavior,
attitude, and preference within defined topical limits for
a single body of recreationists through a nearly holistic
recreation experience.
Research in Recreation Geography
Despite the fact that topics involving outdoor recrea
tion resources have not been strongly pursued by geographers,
the scope of recreation geography has expanded considerably
since the comments written in 1954 by McMurry and Davis on
the then little known subfield within geography. It is

12
significant to note that this historic recognition of the
existence of the infant subdivision of geography, by James
and Jones, placed it specifically under the heading of
economic geography, though McMurry and Davis were cautious
in predicting its eventual emergence as a topical field
7
distinct from any other.
O
Between the time of K. C. McMurry1s landmark writing
on Michigan recreation land use and its potentials in 1930
and his review of recreation geography with Davis in 1954,
it is significant to note that only a few topics had been
broached. Tourist travel habits, recreation land use, and
the resort-tourist business were then the primary topics
of examination. However, Mitchell reports the existence
of ten more or less distinct topics or types of writing in
the geographic recreation literature by 1967, which he
suggests is an indication of the diversity and uncohesive-
ness of topical approach in the field.9 But in any case it
demonstrates the relative growth of attention to the myriad
of phenomena within recreation geography.
McMurry and Davis' cautious prediction that ultimately
recreation geography would become separate from economic
geography was well formed because today recreation geography
is recognized in many professional quarters as a separate
entity, though it still has overlaps with several subfields

13
within geography. Clyde Browning sees geography itself as
a young and rapidly developing discipline with a current
growth phase characterized by a proliferation of diverse
research topics.'*'0 His 1971 review of U. S. and Canadian
dissertations showed that recreation and political geography
are the two newest discreet subject matter subdivisions of
the field with roots beginning since 1945. Browning showed
that fewer dissertations have been written in recreation
topics than any other major grouping with exception of those
dealing with the environmental determinism theme.
Recreation geography currently suffers from a general
lack of central purpose, a unifying conceptual framework of
theory and method, and a research focus. Mitchell's assump
tion that recreation geography's diversity of topical
examination is indicative of uncohesiveness may not be cor
rectly based, for it would seem that all topics he listed
are essentials for study within the subfield.'1'1 Furthermore,
as will be demonstrated, there appear to be real trends
toward a topical evolution and eventual cohesiveness. The
present uncohesiveness lies in the lack of a suitable cen
tral concept that would formally tie the various topical
investigations into a potential general theory building and
growth cycling holistic structure. For this infant subfield
to thrive, an internal reevaluation of past directions and

14
relevant growth needs must be undertaken.
Movements Toward a Central Concept
past directions
Earliest writing by American geographers on recreation
allied topics was primarily incidental to land use studies
or were minor parts of reports on land surveys. Among the
earliest writings were two papers on recreation aspects of
the Michigan Land Economic Survey (begun in 1922) by Barnes
12
in 1929, and McMurry in 1930. Prior to about 1930
apparently recreation uses of land were overlooked by
geographers. Consequently, witness of the acute perception
of such men as Atwood and Platt is given by their 1927 and 1928
predictions and observations of the roles of recreation then
13
beginning in their separate study areas of the United States.
Table 1 demonstrates the major topical trends in
recreation studies published in selected major journals in
the United States and Canada. Though a complete inventory
of geography theses and dissertations on recreation topics
was made, since it was impossible to read them all to verify
the focus which is often misleadingly indicated by title,
only the journals were read for title-independent topical
classification for trend evidence. The median publication
date for articles within each topical class is shown for com
parison.

15
TABLE 1
TRENDS IN TOPICAL APPROACHES TO RECREATION
STUDIES IN AMERICAN GEOGRAPHY
Median Year
Topic of Publication*
Physical resource base studies
Land inventory and development potentials
(Area/site land planning orientation) 1937
Resources in association with existing
developments 1952
Problems of supply and demand 1963
Historical: sequent human occupance and land use 1945
Recreation regionalization; delineation and
description of recreation areas and associated
land use 1946
Economic studies: regional-local descriptions of
recreation industries
Setting stress on historical and environ
mental origins 1948
Stress on present and potentials 1957
Conceptual and empirical economic impact
studies 1967
Urban oriented studies
Urban recreation land use 1962
Amenity associated population migration
to and beyond the urban fringe 1947
Urban recreation hinterlands 1957
Resorts 1955
Miscellaneous
1962

16
TABLE 1 (Continued)
Median Year
Topic of Publication*
Marketing-site use factor studies 1963
Problems in management and public resource
allocation 1964
Recreation planning 1965
Perception studies 1965
Travel interaction
Role of access and travel in area
development 1940
Amenity migration 1956
Urban day trip hinterland 1956
Urban seasonal migration hinterlands 1963
International travel trends 1966
Distance effect studies 1965
Theory and model building 1967
Philosophy and method of recreation geography
Status 1967
Focus 1966
Methods 1967
Sample of all volumes of most major United States and Canadian
geographical journals.

17
It will be seen that except for a more recent enquiry
into the problems of supply relative to demand for use of
outdoor recreation resources and land competition, there
was an early thrust in studies aligned with recreation land
inventory, landscape character associated with development
of parks, resorts and other recreation areas, and historical
sequent occupance and land use studies. The latter had a
dual focus on the processes of an area's land use change
culminating in a recreation phase, and the evolution of a
recreation industry in time, not particularly in space. In
addition, a few early descriptive studies delineated specific
recreation areas and described general recreation associated
land use.
Also of an early origin, but extending clearly to the
present, are economic studies. Within this general category
of research efforts has apparently been an evolution of
approach to recreation industry description. Progressive
ten-year intervals mark the mid-point of three phases from
historical resource-oriented studies to present-day comments
on regional development theory. There is considerable varia
tion between the various articles in the extent that the
area or industry economics, use status, and associated land
use are described.

18
Urban-oriented studies as a group are more recent in
origin. With the exception of a few papers with clear
amenity emphasis on population shifts to areas outside of
the city and the long-standing emphasis on descriptions of
resort towns, urban studies are recent.
Recent literature contains a group of recreation topics
that have been more or less oriented toward recreation
problems and generation of information useful in planning,
locating, and managing recreation areas that meet public
needs. Out of this emphasis has come a few innovative papers
on site use factors, perception, and other behavioral
aspects of outdoor recreation.
Clearly aligned with modern trends in geography as a
whole has been the recent attention to recreation travel
with an interaction theory focus. A number of early writers
described the roles that new roads, rails, and increased
physical access in general had on development of recreation
in their study areas. In addition a few urban travel-
focused articles centered on the decade of the 1950s;
however, primarily during the last decade a trend toward
investigation of central place theory, system-gravity-
regression model building and distance travel functions
has been noted.

19
Finally, the most recent development has been a philo
sophical and methodological consideration of recreation
geography itself as a subfield of geography. As interested
geographers and newly equipped recreation geography spe
cialists became aware of problems there has evolved a
conversation on status, research focus, and methods in this
recent subfield of geography.
Urban focus
From outside geography, among various academically
based recreation researchers and others involved in public
recreation policy formulation, has come recently repeated
emphasis upon the increasing need for attention to the
recreation needs of a constantly growing urban-oriented
and stressed world. Clawson, for example, points out that
most people now live in or near cities and that most of
their nonworking time is spent in their urban or suburban
14
environments. He continues, noting that the near future
should find the nation dominated by an urban, high income,
"mass-leisure society" which will require that "...more
thought must be given to the management of the immediate
urban physical environment" including specific urban
1 R
recreation environments. After all, "...the demand...is
16
concentrated where people arein metropolitan areas.

20
The Bureau of Outdoor Recreation recognizes the Clawson
view and believes that all recreation-providing governmental
agencies must "...become more people and urban oriented in
17
their programs." For example, BOR employee, Warren J.
Kelvie, speaking before the 1970 Denver meeting of the
Western Resources Conference titled his address "Urban
18
Recreation DemandsThe Recreation Imperative." Kelvie
quoted a portion of President Nixon's Environmental Message
to the Congress in which Nixon emphasized the need for
focusing on urban recreation needs. The President proposed
"...increased emphasis on locations that can be easily
reached by the people in crowded urban areas."1 A parallel
point, inherent in such an urban recreation emphasis pro
posal, is the factor of transportation or movement which is
implied by the phrase "...locations that can be easily
reached...." An earlier report to the President and to the
Congress reinforced this essential aspect of people move
ment which is basic to outdoor recreation phenomena stating
that "outdoor recreation of 'public' importance, that is,
which has an impact upon resources available to the public,
takes place away from the residence of the person.... To
engage in such activities requires a 'trip' or movement,
usually by automobile, to a place to engage in the activity

21
Nongeographers have not monopolized this urban view
point, however, for several geographers have recently pro
posed a shift from emphasis on nonurban recreation resources
to those concerned primarily with urban needs. James R.
Anderson, for example, has stressed the need for placing
attention on the urban recreation focus in dealings with
the current problem of providing public outdoor recreation
opportunity that is equitably distributed with regard to
21
population need. Anderson agrees with the land economist
Clawson when he notes that most recreation land is "resource
based" and consequently located where the environment made
possible a "naturally" developed recreation area. According
to Anderson, the solution calls for more "user-oriented"
sites located with regard to population distribution and
particularly with regard to the needs of a few large urban
areas. He further points out that such an attempt to "opti
mize recreation development of land and water resources"
involves some of the most difficult competition with other
22
optional land uses. Obviously a very real need for
recreation research exists for aiding in maximum efficiency
of such land acquisition and development efforts.
Lisle Mitchell, citing the arguments of Clawson and
other land economists as well as federal review commission
results which point out the paucity of information being

22
gathered on urban recreation processes and the tremendous
need now and predicted for the future for recreation in the
urban scene, would have geographers restrict their attention
to an almost exclusive focus on urban recreation.
Kevin Kearns, in an article on the characteristics and
origin of city parks, reinforces Mitchell's view by claiming
that the urban environment creates personal needs for escape
24
to nature for a refurbishment of some inner man. Cultural
and urban geographers, according to Kearns, have a rightful
claim to study of the domain of urban recreation and sug
gests a research focus on the "...role of natural park
2'
grounds in man's adjustment to his artificial urban milieu."
It should be noted that Kearn's "natural park grounds" may be
located in both urban and nonurban areas and still be ap
proached with an urban need focus.
Others, maintaining a long-standing recreation geography
topical attention, propose that a research focus in recrea
tion geography should be centered on specialized, unique
urban recreation forms, the resort towns where recreation is
dominant. Stansfield, for example, would have recreation
geography shift emphasis on rural outdoor recreation to
"research inquiring into the economic and social nature of,
and spatial organization of, recreation within the urban
milieu.
/
particularly as pertains to the evolution of the

23
26
morphology and economic base of resort communities.
Another advocate of urban attention who takes a simi
larly restricted view of a desirable recreation research
27
focus xs Burley. Basing his argument on an expansion of
potential leisure time (non-working time), Burley proposes
that more time is spent in urban "sport" than in tourist
travel or vacations. He also attaches a supposition that
home recreation dollar expenditures are greater than those
made on an extended trip. Therefore, he concludes that
tourism and allied activities are not as important as urban
"home-based leisure" and specifically "sport." Concurring
with Kearns, he ascribes a considerable value to be gained
by cultural geography from potential conceptual spin-off
from a sport focus in recreation geography. Burley's pro
posed urban "sport" research scheme is five-fold, involving:
"economic aspects," "social aspects," "cultural origins,"
"physical conditions," and "urban land use." Though of
importance, Burley's proposal is hardly suited to a primary
research focus. Mitchell, in his proposal, correctly
recognized the secondary nature of urban outdoor games and
sports, and he presented them as an activity subsystem to
28
his more comprehensive general urban focus. Here also
29
would lie the specific sport focus proposed by Shaw.

24
Undeniably, much outdoor recreation is urban by fact
of site selected by the individual for specific activity
participation. However, as was brought out in caution to
Kelvie's and Kearns' remarks,30 not only is there a more
basic element of people movement inherent in most forms of
outdoor recreation activity, but an urban recreation focus
must also recognize the needs satisfied only by movements to
an urban fringe or nonurban environment. William Colburn,
a geographer-planner in charge of Michigan's continuing
state outdoor recreation plan, also emphasized the need for
attention to urban recreation needs in a paper presented to
O I
the 1969 National Congress for Parks and Recreation. But,
quite perceptively Colburn's emphasis on urban planning-
research needs was direct in pointing out that "...recreation
resources which are not in the cities are for the people of
32
the city." His point was one perhaps often overlooked or
not clearly understood by proponents of an urban rather than
rural focus on research in outdoor recreation; that it is
the urbanite who uses the outlying facility. Therefore, a
study of rural recreation participation is often a study of
urban-based recreation need.
(Note that much urban-oriented work in recreation
geography has been done. A review of this literature is
outside the scope of this discussion; however, Appendix I

25
presents an outline of such titles as are readily available
in the literature with one possible urban spatial-topical
organization.)
Spatial interaction focus
Other geographers, recognizing the diversity of sub
jects in studies by recreation specialists and seeking a
broader unity of the field, are not satisfied with a purely
urban approach. For example, Mercer, in a reply to
Mitchell's suggested urban research focus, does not deny
the present and probable future importance of urban-oriented
recreation studies, but asks Mitchell and other geographers
the following pertinent question:
In order to wed the diverse aspects of
recreation into a coherent whole is not
some focus required that will integrate
urban and rural recreation, perception
and land-use and resort studies into an
integrated subject that is recognizable
as recreational geography?-^
Mercer and others, who are perhaps more aligned with a
systemic view, see clearly the thread of movement in nearly
all aspects of recreation study and tend to approach recrea
tion studies from the vantage point of analysis of com
ponent linkages or the integrative factors associated with
recreation activity. Zierer, speaking on recreation and
tourism in the West, saw a geographical focus in recreational

26
34
travel. More recently, based on less intuition, the time-
experienced transportation-recreation geographer Roy Wolfe
contrived the recreation geography research focus to be a
matter of recreational travel. Says Wolfe:
I am prepared to defend the thesis
that in present patterns of recreational
activity a central position for mobility
is obligatory. Here are the people;
there are the recreational resources; they
must be brought together; the people must
move to the resources.^
That some geographers should propose a focus on the
travel element of outdoor recreation is not surprising for
there is a long-standing study of interstate tourism that
is based in state governmental offices, chambers of com
merce, development commissions, and federal and state
bureaus and departments of roads and transportation. This
recreation economics oriented travel has since the 1930s
run parallel to recreation land use and land economics
studied by geographers, and continues to thrive today,
though now found in three different camps of orientation:
state chamber of commerce and development type groups;
university departments of marketing, business economics,
and agricultural economics; and state departments of trans
portation. As originally, these studies are oriented
toward tourist origins and flows, travel business shares

27
3 7
and impact, and transportation planning data. Geogra
phers could hardly exist without some influence by this
body of literature.
Of course, within geography, transportation and urban
specialists have dealt with travel studies also, though
not noticeably on the topic of interstate tourist travel.
Most recent travel studies done in geography have concen
trated on urban migration or daily movement in and around
urban areas. A readily available example of a compre
hensive urban travel study is the Chicago Area Transpor
tation Study which has been discussed by Berry and Horton
38
in their chapter on urban movement. A vast literature
of movement studies has been built in the geographic study
of location theory and travel behavior (These will be re
viewed later), and form a logical springboard for geogra
phical study of recreation movement.
Longstanding travel study habits aside, the high
impact Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission also
pointed to the importance of travel within outdoor recrea
tion and made a logical basis for geographers to enter the
realm of recreation travel study. Several studies directly
involved transportation factors. Where not stressed in the
reports, often travel was a factor clearly legible between

28
3 9
the lines of discussion. Predictions of recreation-
associated distances traveled by persons at least 12 years
old were made for the 40-year span between 1960 and 2000.
Estimated travel increases may be as high as 270 per cent
40
over the 1960 base figures.
Therefore, as stated by Wolfe and repeated by
Richards, the "essential focus" of outdoor recreation is
on the location of the masses, the urban complexes and the
access link between these origins and recreation destina-
41
tions. Mercer, later discussing a geography of leisure,
agreed with Richards that the geographer should deal with
the "...spatial distribution of opportunity, the distance
of that population from its recreation areas; and, secondly,
42
the mobility of that population..." He furthermore
claimed that "Wolfe's 'New migration' of recreational tra-
43
vel is central to the study of recreation geography."
Even recreation geographers in the U.S.S.R. are recognizing
the dual focus of urban demand with "recreation migration"
or transportation (time-cost accessibility) to the recrea-
44
tion site.
After a thorough familiarization with state park systems
45
in dissertation work, Trotter discussed in 1965 the research

29
46
needs of recreation geography. Besides calling for more
attention to locality based studies of recreation areas and
resort areas, and citing the need for improved techniques
of identifying and classifying existing and potential
recreation areas, Trotter stressed the need for movement-
focused recreation studies. The needs he saw were for
information on travel patterns: routes, distances traveled,
and the nature of resultant tributary areas around recreation
facilities. in addition he called for study of travel
pattern variation between types of trips; for example,
touring, vacation, weekend, and day trips. Looking to the
resource, Trotter saw need for more knowledge concerning
variation of the primary tributary areas of different kinds
of recreation areas, which he claimed must be approached by
methods designed to measure the "attractive power" of
individual parks, based on their "outstanding or special
features of scenic or historical nature" and their facility
47
base for outdoor recreation activity.
Movement patterns and land use lie at the root of
geographical theory according to Nystuen, who adds that
"movement or travel behavior is the complement of location,
that is, travel behavior is in part determined by arrange-
48
ment of facilities and in part determines that arrangement."
Such a central position for movement is shared by Ullman also.

30
Ullman's geographical goal is the "codification of relations
between objectsoccupance unitsin earth space," and he
sees flows of things and ideas as the key to understanding
these relations. Therefore, he proposes a functional
definition of geography as "spatial interaction" or a study
49
of movement.
Wolfe's movement or travel migration focus is patterned
after Ullman's dynamic interaction concept of geography.^0
Mercer views the relationship between cities and their rural
51
surroundings as a symbiotic interaction, while Campbell
clearly agrees with Wolfe in his concept of recreation
geography as one group of spatial interaction studies in
52
the large field of geography.
As a capstone to these thoughts it is interesting to
look at opinions of nongeographers as they view geographers'
roles. in a recent symposium on southern outdoor recreation
research needs, agricultural economists Schell and Stern
commented that in their opinion "geographers also have an
opportunity to participate in interdisciplinary studies
dealing with spatial relationships between recreation areas
and the centers from which the demand of facilities
c-a ,
emanates." if this example is characteristic of opinions
of others in agricultural economics then they also see our
area of major contribution in recreation studies to be

31
within the research focus characterized by movement or
spatial interaction.
As Christensen, Dower and others have pointed out, the
evidence does tend to bear out a parallel growth of auto
use, the highway net, and visits to recreation places
54
(tourism). Furthermore, it would appear that if an element
or a limited number of recreation elements must be isolated
and given particular research focus, recreation geography
would benefit most from attention to the integrative or
linking element of recreation travel and that this should
be the focus at all scales of observation and analysis. In
addition, equal attention must be given the points linked
by movement, namely, the population centers or demand loca
tions and the intraurban and extraurban recreation resource
supply locations. More generally, such a focus would demand
a theory building approach based on the study of geography
as dynamic spatial interaction.
A case for Systems Analysis in Recreation Geography
Wolfe, who is perhaps the most outspoken and most often
quoted transportation-spatial interaction type of recreation
geographer, has referred to the admirable research position
of having a holistic view of recreation. Furthermore, in
light of what he considers the "...chief virtue attributed

32
to geography, that of being an integrative discipline,"
Wolfe cautions that "above all else the geographer must take
56
the synoptic view...." if added to that mandate is the
theory-based predictive spatial model-building mandate that
Ullman would emphasize in a profitable approach to recreation
geography, then recreation geographers would have a firm
basis for moving to systems analysis as both method and
research focus.
Opinions from within the larger outdoor
recreation research field
Some have argued that outdoor recreation research
suffers from a lack of direction which can only be resolved
57
by defining a theory of recreation. They claim that only
by an integrated approach guided by a central philosophy or
theory can the study of outdoor recreation reach satis
factory levels of performance. Twiss, for example, calls
attention to the multiplicity of orientations and fronts in
58
recreation research. With specialists in aspects of
recreation located in so many fields and disciplines and
with a full range of study orientations from academic to
problematic, he argues that information sharing, communica
tion, and integration of efforts, results, and concepts is
made most difficult. One need only consult the Bureau of
Outdoor Recreation's cross-sectional Index of Selected

33
Outdoor Recreation Literature or its reference catalog
Outdoor Recreation Research to see just how true are these
statements.^
The essential contrast between multidisciplinary and
interdisciplinary research has been given further thought
by Twiss who concludes that the team methods with conceptual
and methodological integration which characterize inter
disciplinary research are superior to multidisciplinary
research with its many fronts and several unique analytical
approaches. u He suggests such interdisciplinary outdoor
recreation research might well function within an integrative
approach that he calls a "systems theory," in which "out
door recreation would be considered as a system containing
many diverse but interdependent parts..., conceptual cate
gories or classes of problems.These problematic parts
would generally fall into the realm of more than one dis
cipline. Since Twiss is convinced that suitable levels of
integration cannot occur through "synthesis of results of
independently conducted unidisciplinary studies...," then
it follows that in order to research such a diverse variety
of situations logically and comprehensively, a cross
discipline method must be used. Such a concept would
necessarily stress "problem solving through a synthesis of
scientific thought and methods" and would form a sound

34
basis for planning.
One of the specific categories of problems within the
Twiss "system is related to "structure," dealing with the
62
organizational pattern of the outdoor recreation system.
Furthermore, the "content" of the system would be the re
sources, resource users and their interactions. This is
evidently a resource management oriented "system" and has
limitations built in.
More important, is the question of the existence of a
single comprehensive system. A special study by the
National Academy of Science states that the extent of such
6
a system is itself "a question to be clarified by research."
The inclination of the 1969 Academy-directed study committee
was to conceptualize recreation as falling into more than one
recreation system. For example, the report refers to "urban
recreation systems" with the implication that the urban
environment forms one grouping among others (perhaps urban
64
and rural systems?). In any case, the Academy report
stressed the necessity to recognize the "dynamics of recrea
tional institutions," the essential interdependency of a
multiplicity of recreation systems, and the need to approach
65
outdoor recreation from a systems research methodology.
Whether or not the existence of such a major system
encompassing all facets of outdoor recreation can be defined

35
presently or whether work needs to be done within individual
problem systems is perhaps pointless at this stage in outdoor
recreation research. In any case, work must now take place
at a level lower than such an ideal grand model; therefore,
if one deals with a system or a major subsystem the associa
tion is not important. What is important is that the system
apparently envisioned by Twiss and others deals with people,
places, and interaction, all of which are within the
geographer's domain. In addition, system organizational
pattern or structure would seem also to be well suited to
geographical analysis, either independently or in multidis
cipline groups.
Recommendations of nongeographers
A number of planners, applied researchers, and other
recreation practitioners have seen the necessity of a sys
tems approach to their problem solving process. For example,
several U. S. Forest Service recreation specialists have
pointed to the interconnection of spatial elements in
regional outdoor recreation and have discussed associated
problems involved in predicting use of individual recreation
sites or parks. Change in one park can affect use of other
parks. West coast researchers have been particularly im
pressed by the use of "natural" areas by people who might

36
well have their recreation needs met in other places. Hendee,
for example, has suggested the need for recreation planners
to pay more attention to entire system needs that could help
avoid crowding of natural areas which causes a dilution of
the resources and experience for those specifically seeking
the natural environmental experience. Lapage also has
mentioned problems associated with recreation system dynamics.
Stressing campground selection, he has mentioned "trade-offs"
between travel time and on-site time, between travel distance
and site resource attractiveness, and among others, possible
6 7
"trade-offs" between the whole experience and components.
In all of these cases system effects are the topic of concern
in the gross effect of many individuals evaluating travel
and other factors against a number of alternative sites or
recreation areas, with any number of combinations of sub
stitutions available to the individual decision maker. In
a paper subtitled "A Systems-analysis Approach to Solving
Outdoor Recreation Problems," Shafer, a sociologist, has
proposed that research be centered around constructing
models explaining and predicting relationships in three
interrelated subsystems or environments, that focus on
natural resources, organization, and social-psychological
68
factors.

37
Harvey Perloff, known for his perceptive view of urban
problems and planning, has also proposed a recreation systems
approach, particularly for planning to meet the future urban
69
recreation demand. The land economist and recreation
specialist, Clawson, has proposed the use of a systems ap
proach to park planning in which his focus is upon travel
costs as a factor proportional to distance and involves
demand elasticities in relation to distance and travel cost.
Stressing that the amount and kind of use of one area is
related to the location and character of other parks, he
proposes three interaction sets in his scheme: (1) individual
users and individual areas, (2) masses of people and col-
70
lective park patronage and (3) between parks relations.
Clawson also proposes the use of electric power systems as
analogous spatial systems for definition of outdoor recreation
71
systems.
For some time the literature has contained references
to park systems, and administrators and planners have worked
within the confines of such systems. However, it would
appear that there has been until recently only a vague
recognition of systemic relationships between demand, planning
needs, and park use conditions. Hart has produced a pioneer
72
monograph, titled A Systems Approach to Park Planning.
His report to the International Union for the Conservation of

38
Nature and Natural Resources is concerned most with the
resources set aside in national park and nature preserves and
was based on his studies in a number of newly developing
countries.
Recommendations of geographers
A few perceptive recreation geographers have also
seized upon the basic advantages of a systems analysis ap
proach to their special geographic research niches. Robert
Lucas, for example, has worked for several years on wilder
ness management and outdoor recreation problems in general
for the U. S. Forest Service. On several occasions he has
tried to stress the need for viewing specific recreation
resource areas as system components affecting and affected
by other elements in the system. For example, speaking on
contributions of environmental research to policy decisions,
he had the following to say about wilderness research:
To make as full a contribution as possible,
the focus of wilderness environmental re
search should not be limited too closely to
the wilderness. The wilderness is part of
an interrelated geographical system [emphasis
added]] where one part affects another.
The availability of other wilderness, of
alternative areas for some kinds of activi
ties which are possible but not desirable
in the wilderness, of adjacent attractions,
even the livability of our large cities may
be more crucial for the wilderness than what
is happening inside its boundaries.'

39
Mercer, another Ullman disciple, speaks of the need
and current attempts to formulate "spatial models of
. 74
recreational activities," while he too apparently is on
the verge of proposing a systems approach. In his last
article he mentioned the problem of substitution between
elements of a "total resource complex" with system-wide
effects of change in any part of an "integrated recreational
75
land use system." Soviet recreation geographers apparently,
almost as a group, have come to think of their problems from
a system orientation. Recent translations in Soviet Geography
all stress this viewpoint and there is evidenced some very
clear thinking on research needs within their recognized
7 A
subsystems./D
Relevance of systems analysis to geography
Whether the geographer approaches his profession from
a standpoint of regional analysis, areal differentiation,
areal organization, distributions and location analysis,
spatial analysis, areal process relationships, spatial inter
action, human ecology, man-land relationships or some other
omitted short hand definition it would seem to matter little
regarding the degree that systems analysis could be applied.
Ackerman proposed in 1963 that geographers place their
field on the forefront of research in the sciences by, among

40
other means, utilizing systems analysis in their research.^
Generalizing for all problematic approaches in science,
Ackerman saw four themes of study among which was "the
functioning of systems that include multiple numbers of
78
variables... When the earth and its human occupants are
viewed as a complex interacting totality then it must be
clear that geographers not only have a natural interest in many
scales of spatial systems, but have been performing a type of
systems analysis for some time. Borchert, speaking for a
number of geographers, recognizes this fact in agreement with
79
Ackerman. However, increased interdisciplinary conversation
and mutual reinforcement of separate research fields, also
recognized by Borchert as a potential benefit to geography,
can best be gained by attention to the formal aspects of a
constant terminology and systematic methods, which are also
a feature of a complete concept of systems analysis apart
from a partial concept of spatial sets of interrelated
factors. In other words the concept is dual: a systematic
way of looking at, or analyzing problems, and the analysis
of a dynamic interrelation between components of an inter-
80
dependent set. For Ackerman, the method of geography
should be a topical or problematic analysis of various time-
81
space subsystems within the world system. More recently
a number of well written information sources have embellished

41
this viewpoint and have recommended systems analysis to the
82
geographer. Preston James has even offered what may be
an idealistic (depending on one's view) vest pocket
definition of geography as "spatial systems analysis."83
Pioneer systems research in Recreation Geography
It is interesting that apparently no geographer (to the
extent of this survey's limits) working within the usual
framework of university and college geography departments has
produced a strictly system analysis of an outdoor recreation
problem. There may be examples of system research that are
hidden beneath obscure titles in the long lists of master's
theses in recreation geography and there may be as yet un
published reports on several desks; however, published system
work by the professional academia is absent.
Nevertheless, recreation geographers have investigated
these analytical approaches and a few reports, superficially
indicative of the work being done, are available. Under the
influence of demands from a modern state park master planning
program, through the efforts of jack B. Ellis, an electrical
engineer, and two geography doctoral students, and with the
impetus provided through the Department of Park and Recreation
Resources, Michigan State University has become since 1963 a
pioneering center in the development of recreation systems

42
research. The M.S.U. recreation research unit, then under
direction of Leslie M. Reid and David M. Milsteinboth
spatial demand oriented researchers, contracted with the
state for a state recreation demand study that precipitated
the development by Ellis and others of a computer systems
simulation method. Utilizing known data on statewide origins,
destinations, and linkages the first test of the method was
OA
the basis for Michael Chubb's 1967 geography dissertation.
Chubb's specific simulation method, "RECSYS-SYMAP," provided
a basis for predicting gross spatial variation and change
in recreational boating for 1980 based on model calibration
on known 1965 data. The model used the Michigan state high
way system as linkages between 74 demand origin nodes
(counties) and 72 boating destination counties, with origin
participation (demand) values in terms of a population ratio.
By varying populations and their socio-economic structure
on suspected boating correlated factors a simultaneous solu
tion for "optimum" participation distribution within the
state was simulated and spatially-graphically presented by
the "SYMAP" computer mapping method. Apparently the success
of the "Model T" stage of this method was in mind when Chubb
was selected to stay, and was given his present position in
charge of the Recreation Research and Planning Unit in M.S.U.'s
8 5
Department of park and Recreation Resources.

43
Another geographer involved in this program was Carlton
Van Doren, currently involved with Texas A & M's prestigious
outdoor recreation research program. Van Doren worked out a
spatial interaction model using a similar statewide system
approach and data based on camper travel from counties of
origin to Michigan parks; however, his descriptive model
was essentially a modified gravity model based on interaction
.. 86
theory.
Other pioneering systems research is being conducted,
87
most of which seems to be Canadian in origin. Gordon
Taylor, for example, a geographer who has been Director of
the Research and Planning Branch of the Manitoba Department
of Tourism and Recreation since 1968, has influenced pro
vincial parks to approach recreation demand estimation and
planning from a systems methodology. Since the methods and
surveys to be involved in their proposed major inventory of
supply and demand are not yet evaluated, or even in some
phases completed, the contribution of the Manitoba effort
88
is yet unknown.
An interesting system approach of a different vein has
been proposed and illustrated by Walter Isard and other of
89
the Regional Science Institute and Harvard University.
Based on the fact that recreation resource systems interact
with social, economic and natural systems, Isard demonstrated

44
the need to study the interrelationships between the various
environmental factors in planning recreation areas. Though
the approach and the knowledge is not original, it is novel
for the orientation of regional scientists who appear usually
to deal with purely economic constraints and factors. The
discussion points out what they call the relation between
the social system and the "ecologic" system and they use as
an hypothetical example the input-output relations involving
man's recreational use of a somewhat contained ecosystem
with focus on a particular food chain.
Synthesis and Study Orientation
From both the standpoint of present needs in outdoor
recreation research and from the view of the field of
geography there are certain arguments and intuitive asser
tions that would predispose recreation geography to a
systems analysis method and conceptual focus for examination
of the spatially interacting factors of recreation as a
human activity and as a land resource utilizing process. In
addition, pioneer systems analysis efforts have been fruitful
and would seem to provide a firm basis for a continuing
effort by recreation geographers in this methodology.
The pleas for a research focus and theory of urban
recreation would seem one sided when viewed from a system

45
orientation. Similarly, the proposed transportation focus
is lacking. When the urban focus is most broadly examined
it is apparent that this implies internal and external
attention to the major source locations of recreation demand.
Except for the narrowest of internal urban approaches, at
tention to the demand source location must call for attention
to movements toward the periphery of the urban region.
Though ultimately having a unifying affect by leading
the research into urban or resource depths of detail in order
to understand the basis of movement, such an indirect move
ment focus may not have a ready identification for the
primarily non-movement dealings of a resource specialist or
an urban ecologist. A spatial system, however, allows all
factors a place within a whole no matter how far removed
from direct urban or movement fact.
The realistic model of a spatial system for outdoor
recreation would require the geographer's best descriptive
ability and interaction understanding. Such a system has
not been devised though geographers and others have been
describing piecemeal its elements for some while. A good
system description would put all the past ideographic
studies into perspective and would call for a number of
additional studies. Not only would a system approach in
corporate past work, but it could incorporate existing

46
theory and form a logical setting for theoretical expansion.
In summary, a physical-behavioral spatial system ap
proach should give a now nonexistent holistic or synoptic
view to the field by providing a coherent and logical
integration structure that would incorporate urban and
resource subsystems as well as spatial interaction linkage
concepts. A systems approach should provide a suitable
central concept that would formally tie the various topical
investigations of recreation geographers into a potential
theory building and growth cycling structure. Consequently,
it is toward understanding of behavioral processes of inter
action within a system that this research effort is directed.

NOTES
1. Established by Public Law 88-29 (77 Stat. 49; 16 U.S.C.
460-1), May 28, 1963.
2. For a discussion of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1964 and other allied enabling legislation and
federal recreation programs, see Troyt York, "Perspective
on Interdisciplinary Research Needs for Public Outdoor
Recreation Programs," Appendix I, Outdoor Recreation in
the South, ed. Hugh A. Johnson, Publication No. 5, Southern
Land Economics Research Committee (Blacksburg, Virginia:
Department of Agriculture Edonomics, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute, 1967), p. 24; National Academy of Sciences,
Outdoor Recreation Research (Washington, D. C.: National
Academy of Sciences, 1969) Appendix B, pp. 74-87.
3. David J. Reed and Leslie M. Reid, An Analysis: Outdoor
Recreation on Government Lands in Texas, Agricultural
Extension Publication B-1081 (College Station, Texas:
Texas A & M University, 1968), p. 5.
4. Robert C. Lucas, "User Evaluation of Campgrounds on
Two Michigan National Forests," U. S. Forest Service,
Research Paper NC-44 (St. Paul: North Central Forest
Experiment Station, 1970), p. 12.
5. See, for example, C. C. Taylor and J. R. Russell, "Out
door Recreation Development in the South: problem
Areas for Economic Research," in Hugh A. Johnson, ed.,
Outdoor Recreation Research in the South, Publication
No. 5, Southern Land Economics Research Committee
(Blacksburg, Virginia; Department of Agricultural
Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967), p. 16;
Troyt York, "Perspective on Interdisciplinary Research
Needs for Public Outdoor Recreation Programs" in same
work, pp. 19-32.
6. H. H. McCarty, J. C. Hook, and D. S. Knos, The Measure
ment of Association in industrial Geography, Department
of Geography Report 1 (Iowa city: University of Iowa
Press, 1956), p. 16.
47

48
7. K. C. McMurry and Charles M. Davis, "Recreational
Geography," American Geography; Inventory and Prospect,
eds. P. E. James and C. F. Jones, Association of
American Geographers (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse
University Press, 1954), p. 252.
8. K. C. McMurry, "The Use of Land for Recreation,"
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 20
(1930), pp. 7-20.
9. Mitchell's topics were: economics (tourism, resorts),
sites and areas, resource relations, land use and
planning, problems, travel and consumption, techniques,
recreation geography surveys, regions, and perception.
Lisle S. Mitchell, "Recreational Geography: Evolution
and Research Needs," Professional Geographer, Vol. 21
(1969), pp. 117-119.
10. Clyde E. Browning, "Trends in the Subject Matter and
Locale of Dissertations in Geography: 1901-1969,"
Professional Geographer, Vol. 23 (1971), pp. 54-58.
11. Mitchell, pp. 117-119.
12. Carleton P. Barnes, "Land Resource Inventory in Michigan,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 5 (1929), pp. 22-35; McMurry,
pp. 7-20.
13. W. W. Atwood, "Utilization of the Rugged San Juans,"
Economic Geography, Vol. 3 (1927), pp. 193-209; R. S.
Platt, "A Detail of Regional Geography: Ellison Bay
Community as an Industrial Organism," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, Vol. 18 (1928),
pp. 81-126.
14. Marion Clawson, "Economics and Environmental impacts of
Increasing Leisure Activities," Future Environments
of North America, eds. F. F. Darling and J. P. Milton
(New York: Natural History Press, 1966), p. 256.
15. Ibid., pp. 259-260.
16. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 26.

49
17. Warren J. Kelvie, "Urban Recreation DemandsThe Recrea
tion Imperative," 1970 Proceedings, Western Resources
Conference, University of Denver, 1970, pp. 217-222,
quote p. 220.
18. Ibid.
19. Ibid., p. 218.
20. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
National Recreation Survey, Study Report 19 (Washington,
D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 4.
21. James R. Anderson, "Recreational Uses of Land and Water
and Associated Bioenvironmental Problems," Engineering
Progress, Vol. 21, No. 6 (1967), pp. 60-66.
22. Ibid., p. 65.
23. Mitchell, pp. 117-119.
24. Kevin C. Kearns, "On the Nature and Origin of parks in
Urban Areas," Professional Geographer, Vol. 20 (1968),
pp. 167-170.
25. Ibid., p. 167.
26. Charles A. Stansfield, Jr., "The Geography of Resorts:
Problems and Potentials, Professional Geographer, Vol.
23 (1971), pp. 164-166.
27. Terence M. Burley, "A Note on the Geography of Sport,"
Professional Geographer, Vol. 14 (1962), pp. 55-56.
28. Mitchell, p. 118.
29. Earl B. Shaw, "Geography and Baseball," Journal of
Geography, Vol. 62 (1963), pp. 74-76.
30. Comments by author, pp. 25 and 27.
31. William H. Colburn, "Projecting Recreational DemandA
Practitioner's Critique," Predicting Recreation Demand,
Technical Report No. 7, Department of Park and Recrea
tion Resources (East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State
University, 1969), pp. 36-49.
32.Ibid., p. 48.

50
33. David Mercer, Letter to editor, Professional Geoqrapher,
Vol. 21 (1969), pp. 364-365.
34. Clifford M. Zierer, "Tourism and Recreation in the West,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 42 (1952), pp. 462-481.
35. R. I. Wolfe, "Recreation Travel: The New Migration,"
Canadian Geoqrapher, Vol. 10 (1966), pp. 1-14, quote
pp. 7-8.
36. See, for example, as a valuable review of early travel
studies L. E. Peabody and I. M. Spasoff, "Tourist
Travel in the United States," Public Roads, Vol. 18,
No. 6 (1937), pp. 101-116; and L. E. Peabody, "Digest
of Report on Arkansas Traffic Survey," Public Roads,
Vol. 17, No. 6 (1936), pp. 113-127.
37. A typical modern state economic tourist survey is by
Lewis C. Copeland, Kentucky's Growing Tourist and
Travel Business, Division of Tourist and Travel Pro
motion, Commonwealth of Kentucky, Frankfort, 1960.
Another market analysis concerned typically with only
gross visits and state origin distribution is part of
a U. S. Department of Commerce, Area Redevelopment
Administration Study of Appalachia: Bureau of Outdoor
Recreation, Tourist and Recreation PotentialEastern
Kentucky (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1963); see also R. W. Cox, J. E. Johnson, and L. K.
Cook, Survey of Resident and Nonresident Tourist Groups,
Bulletin No. 482 (Fargo: North Dakota State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1969); for engineering
studies see, for example, Public Roads, Vol. 33, No. 6
(1965), pp. 112-124 and Vol. 34, No. 6 (1966), pp. 43-
51, both of which discuss calibration of gravity urban
trip models. Perhaps the best single summary and
critique of professional business academic travel
research is by Robert E. Waugh, The American Traveler:
More Darkness Than Light? (Austin: University of Texas,
Bureau of Business Research, 1962) .
38. Brian J. L. Berry and F. E. Horton, eds., Geographic
Perspectives on Urban Systems (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970), Chapter 13, pp. 512-
555.
39. For example, see U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources
Review Commission, "...for America," p. 371 (on urban

51
travel); "National. ... 11 p. 39 (national travel trends).
40. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Prospective Demand for Outdoor Recreation, Study Report
26 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1962), p. 24.
41. J. Howard Richards, "Gross Aspects of Planning and
Outdoor Recreation with Particular Reference to
Saskatchewan," Canadian Geographer, Vol. 11 (1967),
pp. 117-123.
42. David C. Mercer, "The Geography of LeisureA Con
temporary Growth-Point," Geography, Vol. 55 (1970),
pp. 261-273, quote p. 267.
43. Ibid.
44. I. P. Gerasimov, A. A. Mints, and V. S. Preobrazhensky,
and N. P. Shelomov, "current Geographical Problems in
Recreational Planning," Soviet Geography; Review and
Translation, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1970), pp. 189-198.
45. John E. Trotter, "State Park Systems in Illinois" (Ph.D.
dissertation, University of Chicago, 1962); also pub
lished as University of Chicago Department of Geography
Research paper No. 74.
46. John E. Trotter, "Some Factors Influencing Attendance
at Illinois State Parks," Journal of Geography, Vol. 64
(1965), pp. 23-31.
47. Ibid., p. 27.
48. John D. Nystuen, "A Theory and Simulation of Intraurban
Travel," Quantitative Geography, eds. W. L. Garrison
and D. F. Marble, Studies in Geography No. 13 (Evanston;
Northwestern University Press, 1967), p. 55.
49. Edward L. Ullman, "Geographical Prediction and Theory;
The Measure of Recreation Benefits in the Meramec
Basin," Saul B. Cohen, ed., Problems and Trends in
American Geography (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1967),
p. 128.

52
50. Wolfe, pp. 1-14; R. I. Wolfe, "The Geography of Outdoor
Recreation: A Dynamic Approach," G. S. Tomkins, ed.,
Geographical Perspectives; Some Northwest Viewpoints,
B. C. Geographical Series, No. 8 (Vancouver: Tantalus
Research Ltd., 1967), pp. 7-12.
51. Mercer, "Leisure," p. 271.
52. Colin K. Campbell, "An Approach to Research in Recrea
tional Geography," J. v. Minghi, ed., The Geographer
and the Public Environment, B. C. Geographical Series
No. 7 (Vancouver: Tantalus Research Ltd., 1966),
pp. 85-90.
53. Kerry F. Schell and Peter M. Stern, "Recreation Re
search in the South: Where and Why Does It Lag?"
Outdoor Recreation Research in the South, Southern
Land Economics Research Committee, Publication No. 5
(Blacksburg, Virginia: Department of Agricultural
Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967), p. 36.
54. D. E. Christensen, "The Auto in America's Landscape
and Way of Life," Geography, Vol. 51 (1966), pp. 339-
348; Michael Dower, "LeisureIts Impact on Man and
the Land," Geography, Vol. 55 (1970), pp. 253-260.
55. Wolfe, "The Geography of Outdoor Recreation...."
56. R. I. Wolfe, "Perspective on Outdoor Recreation,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 54 (1964), p. 227.
57. See, for example, Louis F. Twardzik, "Education for
the Outdoor Recreation Explosion," a paper presented
at the American Association for the Advance of Science
annual meeting, December 28, 1967, New York City,
Mimeograph PR-224, cooperative Extension Service,
Michigan State University.
58. Robert H. Twiss, information and Outdoor Recreation
Research, U. S. Forest Service Research Note PSW-3,
Berkeley, 1963.
59. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Index to Selected
Outdoor Recreation Literature, Vol. 1 (1967) to present,

53
and Outdoor Recreation Research. Vol. 1 (1968) to
present (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office).
60. Robert H. Twiss, "An Interdisciplinary Approach to
Outdoor Recreation Research," journal of Forestry,
Vol. 61, No. 8 (1963), pp. 580-582.
61. Ibid., p. 581.
62. Ibid.
63. National Academy of Sciences, Outdoor Recreation Re
search (Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Science,
1969), p. 2.
64. Ibid., p. 14.
65. Ibid., pp. 2 and 12.
66. John C. Hendee, "Recreational values, Use and Manage
ment of Natural Areas," Natural Areas; Needs and
Opportunities, Symposium Proceedings, Northwest
Scientific Association, 1970, pp. 35-38.
67. Wilbur F. Lapage, "Meeting the Social Needs of Tomorrow's
Campers," mimeographed paper, U. S. Forest Service,
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby,
Pennsylvania, no date; "Campground and Camper Market
Research," Trends in Parks and Recreation, Vol. 7 (1970),
pp. 7-12.
68. Elwood L. Shafer, Jr., "The Name of the Game Is Recrea
tion Research," Environmental Education, Vol. 2 (1970),
pp. 30-34.
69. Harvey Perloff and Lowden Wingo, "Urban Growth and the
Planning of Outdoor Recreation," O.R.R.R.C. Study Report
22, Trends in American Living and Outdoor Recreation
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1962), pp. 81-
100.
70. Marion Clawson, "Systems in Park Planning," Annals,
Association of American Geographers, vol. 55 (1965),
p. 609.
71. An excellent description of the spatial relationships
between electrical system components, written in a

54
non-engineering language is found in Martha Church,
The Spatial Organization of Electric Power Territories
in Massachusetts, Department of Geography Research
Paper No. 69 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1966).
72. William J. Hart, A Systems Approach to Park Planning
(Morges, Switzerland: International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, 1966).
73. Robert C. Lucas, "The Contribution of Environmental
Research to Wilderness Policy Decisions," Journal of
Social Issues, Vol. 22 (1966), pp. 116-126, quote
p. 121; "Research Needs Generated by New Directions in
Forest Policy," Proceedings, Society of American
Foresters, 1965, pp. 73-75.
74.
Mercer,
"Letter."
pp.
364-365.
75.
Mercer,
"Leisure,
" p.
266.
76. Gerasimov et al., pp. 189-198; "Soviet Conference on
Geographical Problems of Recreation," Soviet Geography:
Review and Translation, Vol. 11, No. 3 (1970), pp. 208-
213; Yu. A. Vedenin, and N. N. Miroshnichenko,
"Evaluation of the Natural Environment for Recreational
Purposes," Soviet Geography; Review and Translation,
Vol. 11, No. 3 (1970) pp. 198-208.
77. Edward A. Ackerman, "Where Is a Research Frontier?"
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 53
(1963), pp. 429-439, reprinted in F. E. Dohrs and L. M.
Somners, eds., Introduction to Geography; Selected
Readings (New York: T. Y. Crowell Co., 1967), pp. 369-
387.
78. Ibid., p. 377.
79. John R. Borchert, "Geography and Systems Theory," Saul
B. Cohen, ed., Problems and Trends in American Geography
(New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967), pp. 264-271.
80. For a particularly relevant discussion of the differences
in meanings of systems analysis see Thomas J. Wilbanks
and Richard Symanski, "What Is Systems Analysis,"
Professional Geographer, Vol. 20 (1968), pp. 81-85.

55
81. Ackerman, p. 380; and reflecting Ackerman as chairman
of the investigating Committee on Geography for the
Academy of Sciences in The Science of Geography, p. 1.
82. For example see: Wilbanks and Symanski, pp. 81-85;
Don C. Foote and Bryn Greer-Wootten, "An Approach to
Systems Analysis in Cultural Geography," Professional
Geographer, Vol. 20 (1968), pp. 86-91; parts of
Introductory Geography; Viewpoints and Themes, Com
mission on College Geography Publication No. 5 (Wash
ington: Association of American Geographers, 1967);
Robert McDaniel and M. E. E. Hurst, A Systems Analytic
Approach to Economic Geography, Commission on College
Geography Publication No. 8 (Washington: Association
of American Geographers, 1968); and Michael Chisholm,
"General Systems Theory and Geography," Transactions,
Institute of British Geographers, No. 42 (1967), pp.
45-52.
83. His complete statement was: "Geographers are concerned
with the systems of interconnected partswith different
kinds of phenomena that are located together on the
surface of the earthhence, their concern with spatial
systems analysis." Preston E. James, "The Field of
Geography," Geography as a Professional Field, eds.
P. E. James and L. Kennamer, Bulletin 1966, No. 10,
Association of American Geographers and National Coun
cil for Geographic Education (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1966), pp. 1-4.
84. Michael Chubb, "A Systems Analysis and Spatial Demand
Approach to Statewide Recreation Planning: A Case
Study of Boating in Michigan," Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1967.
85. For a complete background on the Michigan systems
analysis approach to recreation planning, and parti
cularly on "RECSYSSYMAP" the "Research and Planning
Publications" bibliography of the Department of Park
and Recreation Resources, Michigan State University,
East Lansing, Michigan lists 12 separate descriptive to
technical volumes.
86. His dissertation describes the method: Carletn S.
Van Doren, "An Interaction Travel Model for Projecting
Attendance of Campers at Michigan State Parks: A

56
Study in Recreation Geography," Ph.D. dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1967; a further contrast of
this gravity method and Ellis' electrical system analog
method used in Chubb's work is found in jack B. Ellis
and Carlton S. Van Doren, "A Comparative Evaluation of
Gravity and System Theory Models for Statewide Recrea
tion Traffic Flows," Journal of Regional Science, Vol.
6, No. 2 (1966), pp. 57-70.
87. See for example K. McCleary, "A Systems Approach to
the Location of Golf Facilities: A Problem in Urban
Recreation," Master's thesis, Waterloo Lutheran
University, 1969.
88. For a discussion of the Manitoba system approach see
Gordon D. Taylor, "History and Techniques of Recreation
Demand Prediction, Predicting Recreation Demand,
papers presented at the 1969 Congress for Recreation
and Parks, Technical Report No. 7, Department of Park
and Recreation Resources (East Lansing: Michigan State
University, 1969), pp. 4-14.
89. Walter Isard et al., "On the Linkage of Socio-
Economic and Ecologic Systems," Papers and Proceedings,
Regional Science Association, Vol. 21 (1967), pp. 79-99,
especially pp. 83-99.

CHAPTER II
REGIONAL AND TOPICAL SETTING
Geographic research can focus on a regional setting,
a topical activity, or a resource category. This study
attempts to collapse these three subject approaches into
a focus that incorporates elements of each. A region was
selected, but this is not intended to be a traditional
regional study. A single human activity restricts the sub
ject, but further confinement is deliberate in order to
shed at least partial light on use of a specific resource.
Study Region and State
Southeastern United States
The South, and especially the Southeast region, is
particularly well blessed with outdoor recreation resources.
There are many diverse opportunities for outdoor recreation
in this region of mild climate, a variety of natural land
scapes (from mountains to seashore) and an abundance of
natural lakes and reservoirs (constructed by TVA, Corps of
Engineers, and private power companies) situated among
forests and rural farm lands. Limited access highways and
57

58
good primary and secondary roads traverse this vast recrea
tion region and provide convenient links with the densely
populated regions to the north.
Despite this setting for outdoor recreation research
and development, there appears to be a major regional lagby
comparison with other parts of the United Statesin research
on outdoor recreation topics. A spokesman for the National
Park Service recently commented on the ever present "...need
for research that will generate factual information to guide
planning and management decisions."1 Yet, a simple survey of
available literature shows an obvious dearth of such essential
information being gathered in the Southeast.
Virginia polytechnic Institute sponsored in 1967 a
seminar on the status of outdoor recreation research in the
O
South. The report on this seminar demonstrates an over
whelming need for all kinds of outdoor recreation research
in the region.
Speakers Schell and Stern suggested the following
reasons for this regional research lag: (1) A lagging
urbanization rate combined with heretofore easy access by
city residents to rural water based recreation opportunity,
(2) General absence of noticeable crowding and use conflicts
at recreation areas, (3) A lower per capita income level,
(4) Lack of identification as a major tourist destination

59
area (except for Florida), (5) A general rural orientation
of the population, (6) Failure of policy makers to realize
the economic development potential and present value of out
door recreation within the region, and (7) Unresponsive
universities that still contend with more traditional
3
development problems. in short, little demand has thus
far been generated for recreation research information
whether applied or basic. Apparently rules of thumb, in
tuition, and experience have been relied upon in most
southern development and planning endeavors.
Most of the research conducted in the Southeast has
been done by the U. S. Forest Service and the agricultural
experiment stations of the land grant universities. In
addition, some work has been done by the TVA and the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers. Most of the information generated
by these studies has concentrated on resource management
techniques, use estimation techniques, customer profiles,
and recreation economic impact on area development (by
Economic Research Service and Economic Development Adminis
tration) .
The spatial aspects of southern outdoor recreation have
also been neglected in favor of studies in other regions of
the United States. Table 2 demonstrates the paucity of work
by geographers in this region. Among 185 titles with at

60
TABLE 2
OCCURRENCE OF SOUTHEASTERN UNITED STATES
RECREATION STUDIES IN NORTH AMERICAN
GEOGRAPHICAL AND ALLIED JOURNALS
Journal Southeast
Annals, A.A.G. 2
Economic Geography 4
Geographical Review 2
Professional Geographer 0
Journal of Geography 1
Southeastern Geographer 6
Land Economics 1
Papers/Proceedings,
Regional Science Association 0
Journal of Regional Science 0
Other Regions
and Topics
48
41
26
14
9
5
35
5
2
Note: Includes articles of at least part recreation
content; titles, articles and abstracts, dated
ca. 1930-1972.
Source: Data by author.

least a partial treatment of recreation only 16 dealt with
the Southeast. None of the regional science recreation
articles, and only one of 36 recreation articles in Land
Economics dealt with the Southeast. Perhaps even more in
teresting is the fact that the voice of southern geographers,
The Southeastern Geographer, only has 6 of 11 recreation
titles dealing with Southeastern studies. Of all these
studies, 3 were of national scale, 8 were on the mountains,
hills and lakes of Tennessee, and only one each on the South
Carolina coast, a city, Kentucky forests, the Florida Ever
glades and a general Florida study. In addition, of the 192
geography masters and doctoral theses listed in The Pro
fessional Geographer (completed and in progress) on recrea
tion topics only 14 have concerned the Southeast (6 in
coastal areas).
Florida
Since Florida development began about 1870, there has
been a continual growth in resident population and number of
visitors. A major increase in visits came with the building
of railroads before the beginning of this century by Flagler
to St. Augustine and later Miami, and by his rival Plant
who developed a route to Tampa. Both men built hotels that
served as resorts for wealthy visitors from many parts of

62
4
the world. For a number of years Florida was primarily a
winter playground for the wealthy. This was no doubt due to
the difficulties and expense of traveling long distances by
land from eastern and midwestern cities.
Indicative of increased popularity, by 1925 new con
struction on Miami Beach was valued at more than 17 million
dollars, a tremendous boom over the 1920 assessed real
5
property valuation of only 225,000 dollars. Not only was
there a great land business boom and later "bust," but with
expanded highway development, tourism also began to boom.
Slowly the traditional role of Florida as a place of winter
fun in the sun for the wealthy has changed to accommodate
all groups. Whereas J. Russell Smith was able to quip in
1925 about the dominant winter migration that "Northern man,
7
the sun-hunter, is following the water fowl to Florida,"
a recent American Automobile Association guide proclaimed
that now the lower east coast resort area is a "year-round
vacation area available to even the most budget-conscious
O
traveler." The Miami Beach peak season is still, however,
Q
during winter.
There are indications that Florida's growth as the
nation's major southeastern recreation center is not yet
completed, nor has it reached an equilibrium in regard to the
share of amount and type of visitor flows into the state.

63
Still unknown is the effect of shifting by potential visitors
to various islands of the Atlantic and the Caribbean, to
Mexico, and South America as a result of non-Florida tourist
promotion, inexpensive and convenient air transportation, and
changed consumer attitudes toward the recreation potential of
Florida and other places. However, the great winter migra
tion is now supplemented by year-'round, and especially sum
mer, movements of middle income groups who seek out all of
the varied recreation destinations within the state. The
trend in Florida vacation destinations originating in the
eastern United States now may be involved in another modifi
cation in light of the tremendous visitor response to the
newly opened first phase of Disney World.
Of particular interest is the newly developing Gulf
coast, long considered by many as a less desirable area for
spending recreation or vacation time in comparison to
Florida's more developed east coast.^ Though touristically
less important than other parts of the state, the coast from
the Tampa-St. Petersburg area south to Ft. Myers (and more
recently continuing south to Naples), benefitted from early
railroad access incentive and city development in this
tropical fringe climate and attracted considerably more
recreation visitors than Gulf coastal areas to the north.
Yet John Fraser Hart perceptively calls the nation's entire

64
Gulf Coast the "Growth Coast" because of its rapid amenity
oriented industrial, recreation, and population growth.11
Based on census data and field work, Hart has demonstrated
that within a band of land 50 miles wide and paralleling
the Gulf Coast is the most rapidly growing part of the South.
It is particularly meaningful to note that Florida's north
west, continentally oriented coast has thus far lagged be
hind some other areas in land development. it still offers
a potential for controlled regional growth planned around
carefully evaluated decisions concerning its remarkable
beach resource base.
Coastal BeachesThe Resource Component
Having previously established Florida's recreation
lands for enquiry, it was decided to limit observation to a
resource base critically in need of study. The resource
topic, coastal beaches, was selected from among the several
different coastal and interior environmental topics suitable
for study chiefly on the basis of approaching critical
supply levels.
National Setting
As early as 1936, despite a depression-caused low ebb
of tourism,1^ certain groups were aware of the limited
amount of coastal land in public ownership. The National

65
park Service was then considering 16 potential national
seashore areas. These were mainly on the Atlantic and
Gulf coasts where there existed greater assumed population
need as well as the most pressing need to reserve some
coastal land before private ownership excluded the public
from the entire coast. But preservation of public sea
shore was slow. Authorized in 1937, the land to be called
North Carolina's Cape Hatteras National Seashore was not
14
under Park Service management until 1952. Notable in
explanation of this slowness and the failure of the 20 or
so other areas to materialize as seriously considered po
tential national seashores was the fact that land acquisi
tion was either practically impossible or greatly hindered
by the existence of private control over nearly all the
desirable Atlantic coast lands, especially those near major
15
cities.
Harold Iekes, then Secretary of the Interior, summed the
problem in a 1938 speech:
When we look up and down the ocean fronts
of America, we find that everywhere they are
passing behind the fences of private owner
ship. The people can no longer get to the
ocean.... I say that the people have a right
to a fair share of it.^6
Ickes' words were little heeded, however. By 1955, when the
National park Service reinventoried the lands recommended by

66
a 1935 survey as unspoiled seashore suited for designation
as national preservation-recreation areas, it found that
most of this prime coast of 437 miles had passed into private
1 7
and commercial use.
In 1962 another inventory of recreation shoreline was
made by geographers at The George Washington University for
the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission.18 Though
more detailed, this report was essentially the same as that
made by Ickes in 1938. Only slightly more preservation has
resulted on the national scale.
The President was told:
A most pressing problem of supply is
ocean...shoreline. This resource is one
of the most in demand, and it is one of the
most scarce in public ownership.... Less
than 2 per cent of the total shoreline
[pf the nation] is in public ownership for
recreation only 336 miles on the Atlantic
coast....
The George Washington University report to the Review
Commission concluded that "there is a crisis in shoreline
outdoor recreation. The shoreline is vanishing in the sense
20
that private ownership is inhibiting public use." The
report cited studies that indicated an overwhelming pre
ference among the general population for seashore as com
pared to inland recreation settings (particularly uplands
21
and mountains) and for beach shoreline over other types
22
of shores.

67
The most noteworthy contribution of the ORRRC study on
recreation shoreline was its recognition that there existed
a real "...need for coordinated planned actionbased on
adequate information and upon clear statements of public
23
policy...." However, the study report cautioned that
present knowledge of use and users of the nation's recrea-
24
tion seashore was virtually inadequate for planning. "One
of the greatest stumbling blocks in evaluating recreational
use of the American shoreline is a lack of precise informa
tion: data on both users and the resource are badly
25
needed." Thus, there was, in 1962, a clear mandate for
outdoor recreation research in the coastal resource base.
Since 1962 a few diverse studies have been completed within
this resource framework (and will be reviewed in other
parts of this dissertation) but they have only begun to
scratch the surface of the research information need.
Florida Setting
The Florida beach resource situation must be seen
against a national backdrop of increasing demand for coastal
outdoor recreation and an ever-decreasing supply of sea-
2 6
coast open to public use. Due partly, perhaps, to climate
and a certain unexplained tourist appeal in the state's name
and physical geography, there exists in Florida an outdoor

68
recreation industry of major proportions that serves out of
state visitors as well as a rapidly growing resident popula-
27
tion. Practically the entire nation functions as the
Florida tourist tributary area, with a major proportion of
visitors and residents alike exhibiting a preference for
Florida's coastal sand beaches. in fact, it is primarily
the appeal of Florida's beaches that attracts many tourists.
Most of Florida's federally controlled recreation
coast lies within the area set aside in 1947 as the Ever-
28
glades National park. Little accessible sand beach lies
within the park (Monroe County) which functions primarily
as a wildlife and nature preserve. A decision to make part
of the Northwest Coast a national seashore has recently
29
been made. To be known as the Gulf Islands National Sea
shore, the area will extend from Pensacola eastward an
unknown distance and will be composed primarily of various
existing military and federal island holdings.
Activity SubsystemFamily Camping
Camping research stemming from the tremendous popularity
of the activity has presented a number of thoughts that de
mand increased attention. Though a lot of facts have been
gathered, and much supposition has been made, there remains
a large number of questions that must be answered before
good planning for family camping can be done.

69
National Setting
in 1960 about 8 per cent of the nation's population,
age 12 or older, camped (10 million participants) on about
60 million occasions. By 1965, 10 per cent were camping
(14 million participants), for a gain of 35 per cent over
30
gross participation figures for 1960. Furthermore, 1962
ORRRC projections, since shown to be low estimates for
they called for only 11 per cent of the population by 1976,
predict that at least 14 per cent of the population of the
31
year 2000 (36 million participants) will be campers.
Projections made in 1965 for the year 2000 call for 328
32
million camping occasions. Regardless of specifics of
projection the direction is up, indicating a need for care
ful planning and resource allocation to meet increased
camping pressures.
That camping is not what it used to be is obvious to
any experienced camper. From simple tents and a "roughing
it" experience the activity has moved to use of basic equip
ment (for many) that results in an experience that is more
like apartment dwelling. With greater sophistication in
equipment has come expanded interest in camping from the
manufacturing and service industries.
For example, the June, 1971 issue of Changing Times
listed camping as one of the recreation activities whose

70
manufacturing and service base has recently been elevated
3 3
to the status of a growth industry. Thus, investment
analysts expect sales and profits in the camping industry
to rise faster than the rest of the economy. They expect a
10 to 20 per cent annual growth rate for several years
before an industry slowdown.
in the 1960 to 1970 decade, nationwide tent sales rose
from 46 to 87 million dollars while sleeping bag sales
climbed from 34 to 58 million dollars. Between 1961 and
1969 production of camping vehicles increased over 400 per
cent, while luxurious motor home sales are currently rising
34
at a 25 to 30 per cent annual rate.
The growth of camping and recent sophistication of the
associated industry has been national in impact. Florida,
with its associated name and allure for outdoor oriented
travelers, has particularly felt the ramifications of this
recreation trend.
Camping in Florida
Following the Civil War, a few campers drifted into
Florida to see what lay in store in the great wilderness.
At a time when Jacksonville, with a population of about
10,000, was the state's largest town, a few wealthy and
adventuresome travelers contracted with guides and

71
camp-toured around the better known parts of the state,
hunting, fishing and general adventure seeking.35
Fifty years later j. Russell Smith described early
motor camping along the network of Florida highways and
3 6
byways. While the millionnaire yachted or took a train
to Palm Beach, Miami, or Jacksonville to vacation in a
luxury resort hotel, the midwestern, New England or Canadian
farmer camped along the roadside. Smith, in 1925 offered
this description of such campers:
He ties his tent and cooking outfit on the
running-board of his Ford and camps by the
wayside "tin-can tourist," the hotel-
keepers contemptuously call him. Many spend
the winter in one tourist camp after another
. . [[while they have] free access to the
pines, the sun, and the seashore. He has the
gentle excitements of a strange land and of
moving from place to place....^
Camping in Florida has changed a great deal since 1925
when campers stopped at undesignated places and tourist
camps. By 1970 Florida ranked sixth in the nation in number
of campsites. About 25,000 sites were scattered around the
state in 86 public parks and recreation areas and 813 private
38
camp grounds. Furthermore, as shown in Figure 1, camping
has increased at a very high rate, as shown by the steepness
of later parts of the curve. Of course, this curve is an
incomplete indicator, for it neither considers affects of

THOUSANDS OF CAMPERS
PARTICIPATION TRENDS IN FLORIDA STATE PARK CAMPING
YEAR
Source: State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation in Florida
(Tallahassee: Division of Recreation and Parks,
1970), p. 55, with revisions from Division of
Parks, Superintendents Reports.
Figure 1

73
increased park supply on participation nor the effects of
rapid growth of the private campground industry in recent
years. Incomplete data prevent such considerations, hence
one is forced to enlarge on such trends as can be seen in
Figure 1. The rate indicated by the steepest, most recent
curve segment would seem unlikely to continue for many years,
for park supply considerations must cause a maximum to be
reached eventually. (The 1970 camper attendance figure is
39
about 11 per cent over attendance for 1969.)

NOTES
1. Lon A. Garrison, "The Environment and the Evangelist,"
Departmental Information Report No. 1 (mimeograph),
Department of Recreation and Parks (College Station:
Texas A & M University, 1970).
2. Hugh A. Johnson, ed., Outdoor Recreation Research in
the South, Publication No. 5, Southern Land Economics
Research Committee (Blacksburg, Virginia: Department
of Agricultural Economics, Virginia Polytechnic In
stitute, 1967) .
3. Kerry F. Schell and P. M. Stern, "Recreation Research
in the South: Where and Why Does It Lag?" Outdoor
Recreation in the South, ed. Hugh A. Johnson, Publica
tion No. 5, Southern Land Economics Research Committee
(Blacksburg, Virginia: Department of Agricultural
Economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1967),
pp. 33-40.
4. Grant McCall Roberts, "Recreation in West Central
Florida," (Master's thesis, Department of Geography,
University of Florida, 1967), pp. 16-29.
5. Daniel M. Friedenberg, "America's Land Boom: 1968,"
Harper's Magazine, May, 1968, pp. 25-32.
6. Factors associated with the promotion and boom of the
Florida land business and its eventual "bust," are dis
cussed in Homer B. Vanderblue, "The Florida Land Boom,"
Land Economics, Vol. 3 (1927), pp. 113-131, 252-269?
Richard 0. Cutler, "Amelia Island, Florida: A Geogra
phic Study of Recreation Development" (Ph.D. disserta
tion, Department of Geography, University of Florida,
1965), pp. 178-184.
7. J. Russell Smith, North America (New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Company, 1925), p. 277.
74

75
8. American Automobile Association, Florida Tour Book,
Spring-Summer, 1969 (Washington, D. C.: American
Automobile Association, 1969), p. 40.
9. Ibid.
10. See, for example, the Non-Florida traffic flow map for
Florida Highways in 1934 in L. E. Peabody, "Extracts
from Report on Florida Traffic Survey," Public Roads,
Vol. 16 (1935), pp. 68-72.
11. John Fraser Hart, The Southeastern United States
(Princeton, New Jersey: van Nostrand, 1967), p. 72.
12. John Ise, Our National Park Policy, Resources for the
Future (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1961),
pp. 355-356.
13.
Ibid.,
p. 425.
14.
Ibid.,
p. 519.
15.
Ibid.,
p. 426.
16.
Ibid.,
pp. 426-427.
17.
Ibid.,
pp. 519-520.
18. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States,
Study Report 4 (Washington, D. C.: Government Print
ing Office, 1962).
19. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Outdoor Recreation for America (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1962), p. 70.
20. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Shoreline Recreation, p. 30.
21. Ibid., p. 3.
Several shoreline definitions were made in this study
but they were wholly unsatisfactory since they were
most often restatements of classification titles: for
example, "shoreline resource" was "where land and
22.

76
reasonably large bodies of water meet"; "recreation
shoreline" was shoreline suited for recreation use,
"beach shoreline" was "a wide expanse of sand or other
beach material lying at the waterline and of sufficient
extent to permit its development as a facility without
important encroachment on the upland," "marsh shoreline"
was "tidal or nontidal marsh," and "foreshore" was that
land below the high tide line. ibid., pp. 31-32.
23. Ibid., p. 30.
24. Ibid., p. 29.
25. Ibid.
26. It has been estimated that it is unlikely that supply
can match the best projections of the nation's needs
for coastal beaches by 2000, which would seem to call
for a consciously efficient way of managing existing
and obtainable resource areas. Ibid., p. 27.
27. Florida had the second greatest growth rate in the
nation between 1960 (4,952,000) and 1970 (6,789,000)
for a gain of 37 per cent. U. S. Bureau of the
Census, 1970 Census of Population, PC (VI)-1, United
States (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing
Office, 1971).
28. ise, p. 444.
29. Florida Conservation News, Newsletter of Florida De
partment of Natural Resources, Vol. 7, No. 2 (1971),
p. 4.
30. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Outdoor Recreation
Trends (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1967), p. 23.
31. u. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Prospective Demand for Outdoor Recreation (Washington,
D. C.: Government printing Office, 1962), p. 27.
32. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, p. 20.
33. "Investing in Companies that Profit from Pleasure,"
Changing Times, Vol. 25 (1971), pp. 35-40.

77
34. Ibid.; U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Selected
Outdoor Recreation Statistics (Washington, D. C.:
Government Printing Office, 1971), p. 100.
35. Charles Hallock, Camp Life in Florida (New York: Forest
and Stream Publishing Company, 1876).
36. Smith, p. 279.
37. Ibid.
38. David Shulman, "Great Opportunities in the Great Out
doors," Franchise Journal, vol. 3, No. 11 (1970),
p. 14.
39. Florida Division of Recreation and parks, mimeographed
Superintendent Report Summaries, attendance records,
1970.

CHAPTER III
STUDY AREA AND RESEARCH DESIGN
Representative Problem Area
The need for outdoor recreation research within the
nation's coastal resources was established in Chapter II.
Selection of the Northwest Coast of Florida as a general
study area, or the coast district to which sample generali
zation would be extended, was determined on the basis of
several points: limits of a spatially manageable field
problem, ease of definition of the study area within de
fensible spatial boundaries, existence of a still undeveloped
coastal district with considerable outdoor recreation po
tential, and ease of definition of a meaningful time cross-
section for study.
Physical Factors
Though other factors might be brought to bear, it is
probably the physical character of the shoreline that forms
the most logical identification of the study area.'*' The
Florida shoreline on the most elementary physical level can
be classed as beach, marsh, and mangrove types. Figure 2
78

GENERALIZED SHORELINE TYPES IN FLORIDA
Source: State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation m Florida
(Tallahassee: Division of Recreation and Parks,
1970), p. 81.
Figure 2

80
shows the arrangement of these shoreline types in Florida
and it will be seen that three distinct beach districts are
distinguishable.
The beaches of Florida's east coast are part of a
gently sloping shelf that extends along most of the Atlantic
coast of the United States. Beaches of exposed sand and
shell fragments are washed by the warm waters of the Atlantic
as far south as Dade County where mangrove swamps become
more dominant at the water's edge.
Florida's coastal tip is covered with dense broadleaf
evergreen shrubs and low trees with aerial stilt roots vary
ing locally between black mangrove (Avicennia nitida) and
red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle) which extend into the water
2
and landward as far as salt marsh conditions prevail.
Scattered openings on small sand or coral beaches lie in this
district but usually they can be reached only by water.
The mangrove forest extends north along the Florida
Gulf coast eventually existing only in small protected bay
areas. Open sand beaches prevail from Lee County (off shore
from Ft. Myers) north to the Pinellas County northern line.
The map area in northwest peninsular Florida designated
marsh extends from the Pinellas County line northwest to
Wakulla County and is low lying saline to brackish tidal
marshland with coastal swamp forests. Here the shore is

81
often a transition zone between open water and flooded rush,
3
sedge and grasslands.
West of the tidal marshes of Apalachee Bay along the
Florida panhandle to Alabama lies another coastal beach
district. Except in marshy lowlands along bay shores this
area is fringed at land's edge by sand beaches and offshore
barrier islands of dune piled sands. Thus, one reason this
beach area was selected for study is its clearly discernible
eastern physical boundary.
Recognition as Regional and Recreational Entity
As has been recently the custom among state development
commissions and tourism promoters, Florida is divided into
advertising regions. The "Miracle Strip" of Northwest
Florida extends from the western Escambia county line to the
eastern edge of Gulf county and coincides approximately with
the physically defined Northwest Beach District of Figure 2,
lending credence to its selection as a problem area. The
"Miracle Strip" is named for the area's unifying coastal
strip of dazzling, sugar-fine, miraculously white sand
beaches. The sands are among the whitest found on Florida's
coastline, composed of very low proportions of shell and
coral fragments which tend to discolor other beaches, the
sand is almost pure white quartz fragments. It is said that

82
steepness of offshore slopes prevent most shoreward shell
4
movement by wave action.
Florida's Last Beach Frontier
By law, all areas seaward of an average high tide line
are property of the State of Florida with disposal right
held by the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund.
Therefore, all beaches are public since riparian property
5
rights include only areas landward of mean high tide.
Riparian owners can, by blocking access or not allowing
automobile parking, cause public beach to be effectively
private by exclusion. A 1963 study by the Florida Develop
ment Commission, still adequately shows the relative distri
bution of beaches backed by public riparian land along the
Florida coast.
Figure 3, which should be compared with Figure 2,
shows the distribution of Florida's beach resources. The
8,000 mile salt water shoreline, composed of 1,016 miles of
sand beach, includes only 299 miles of publicly owned and
potentially accessible beach; however, 52 miles of military
held land is not open to recreation activities, leaving a
7
total of 247 miles of available public sand beach.
The beaches of map zone 6 on the east coast, extending
from the Georgia state line to Palm Beach County (Nassau

83
DISTRIBUTION OF FLORIDA BEACH RESOURCES
Source: Adapted from State of Florida, Florida Beach Resources
(Tallahassee: Florida Development Commission, 1963).
Figure 3

84
through Martin Counties), have been largely developed and
under restrictive private ownership for many years. Though
undeveloped areas still exist, for practical description any
future planned development along this coast will be rede
velopment. The zone total of 248 miles of beach is 25 per
cent (61 miles) in public ownership, of which 9 miles are
not open to use. Of this mileage, 30 miles are in Brevard
O
County, and 13 are in Duval County.
The densely populated and intensively developed "Gold
Coast" (zone 5) has only 18 miles of public beach, 20 per
cent public, and little potential for new acquisition. Mon
roe County is represented by zone 4 and has 22 miles of
public beach, most inaccessible except by boat in the Ever-
9
glades National Park.
The west coast peninsular beaches of zone 3 (Pinellas
through Collier Counties) have several stretches of unde
veloped or lightly used beach, however, the zone has been a
traditional tourist destination with an early history of
development in the Tampa Bay area. Remaining undeveloped
coastline is rapidly catching up with the east coast level
of development. Forty-one miles of open public beach lie
in this zone. (Four miles of federal land are closed to
Less than one mile of public beach is available in zone

85
2 in Levy County. in fact, the marsh zone has only two
small artificial beaches totaling about one mile in combined
extent. -*-1
Zone 1 (Franklin through Escambia counties) has by far
the greatest extent of sand beach with 412 miles. Thirty-
five per cent of this is public land of which 93 miles are
open to use. Here lies 38 per cent of the state's total
public open beach and the relatively undeveloped state of
land use may provide the greatest potential for expansion
of public beach lands. It is here that Florida's last beach
frontier lies. It would seem imperative for the coastal
lands to be used more effectively, with long range regional
objectives in mind.
Therefore, the Northwest Florida Coast was selected for
study. The district is physically distinguishable from the
rest of the Florida Gulf coast by the non-beach district on
Apalachee Bay. Furthermore, its relatively undeveloped con
dition and great recreation beach resource potential imply
needs which make the area a logical study district of
Florida.
National Significance of Area
An additional reinforcing reason for selection of the
Northwest Coast is its singular outdoor recreation

86
development potential and value. Certain agencies have
recognized the Northwest Florida Coast specifically as
being of more than state or regional significance. A recent
coastal study described the Gulf coast as one of the
greatest assets of the nation... especially for tourism and
1 2
recreation." A 1970 recreation potential report on islands
of the United States lists the offshore barrier islands and
adjacent mainland areas stretching from along the Northwest
Florida Coast toward Mississippi as having particularly great
potential for recreation and conservationof national
significance.^
Operational Study Area
Since the resource focus selected was coastal beaches
and the general or representative area of enquiry was the
Florida Northwest Beach District, there remained only
identification of the inland extent of enquiry and the
selection of specific study sites to represent the Northwest
Coast problem area.
Linear Beach Fringe Focus
Field study of the area during 1968 and 1969 suggested
that a subjective definition of the beach zone would be
adequate to define the inland limits of the operational
study area. Though some recreation activity and visitor

87
services were found to be located along the shores of the
district's bays and inland lakes and in other interior
locations, it was decided to concentrate on those places
specifically ocean-beach oriented.
It became apparent while the author traveled the high
ways, roads and dirt tracks of the area that there was an
easily observable narrow zone of land use and development
directly adjacent to the shores of the Gulf and this strip
was separated from developed areas landward by a variable
expanse of functionally unassociated land.
It should be quite apparent to even the modestly per
ceptive casual traveler-observer that those who build in this
sector of land's end prefer sites within view of the water,
or at least within hearing distance of the surf. Thus,
despite the presence of well constructed coastal highways,
people settle, build vacation homes, or invest in construc
tion of visitor lodgings and recreation facilities along
poorly surfaced local dune fringe by-ways or at the end of
clay reinforced tracks that lead to water's edge.
In light of this apparent locational tendency of coastal
land development, it was decided to limit the interior ex
tent of this study to include only the coast fringe or
strip that is known locally as "the beaches." It should
also be noted that the beach land use strip varies in extent

88
with local development pressures. For example, the present
strip varies from less than a mile to approximately three
miles in width (the latter in the Panama City area).
Primary Study SitesState parks
Figure 4 outlines the general study district of
Florida's Northwest Coast, i.e., the "Miracle Strip" of
white sand beaches. Only Gulf beach state parks are located,
because by definition of the focus on the beach zone of land
use, bay front and other interior parks were excluded. In
the interest of manageable research, only two state parks
and their satellite private campgrounds were selected to
represent the general area.
Preliminary field studies in 1969 provided a basis for
discriminating between the parks. Park diversity was deter
mined to be critical for the selective examination; there
fore, the two most unlike parks were selected for examination.
John C. Beasley State Park was not considered. It is a
small (23 acre) day-use picnic and beach use facility located
at roadside one mile east of Fort Walton Beach on US 98, the
14
main coastal artery, and has no camping provision. The
remaining four state parks were ranked as though by a sub
jectively devised development-isolation index (Table 3) in
the following order, from most to least developed: St.

NORTHWEST FLORIDA BEACH STATE PARKS
PARK LEGEND
1. FT. PICKENS
2. JOHN C. BEASLEY
3. GRAYTON BEACH
4. ST. ANDREWS
5. ST. JOSEPH
Figure 4

TABLE 3
PARK DEVELOPMENT-ISOLATION RANKING
Park
Park
Area
(acres)
Camp
Sites
Park
Facili
ties61
Recrea
tion
Water*3
Miles
From
Town
Town
Viewc
Camp Vi
sitors^
(1,000)
Day
Visitors
(1,000)
d
Rank
St. Andrews
1022
184
Many
B/G
5
Yes
99
512
High
Ft. Pickens
1659
203
Many
b/g
17
Yes
151
330
High
St. Joseph
2516
120
Fewer
b/g
10
Yes
27
48
Lower
Grayton Beach
356
36
Fewest
l/g
20
No
12
83
Lowest
a Recreation and visitor service facilities,
k B = bay shore; G = Gulf beach; L = lake.
c Based on view from any park perimeter.
d July 1, 1969 to June 30, 1970.
Source: park records and field data.
\D
O

91
Andrews, Ft. Pickens, St. Joseph and Grayton Beach. Since
either of the highest ranking parks would have been satis
factory, St. Andrews was selected to pair with Grayton Beach
as the basis for a conveniently defined 40-mile long func
tional study area approximately central within the Northwest
15
Coast.
Grayton Beach (Figure 5) is the smallest park with only
356 acres while the other parks all are larger than 1,000
acres. With the smallest campground capacity (36 sites)
and the least total number of campers (operating at less
than capacity), Grayton is by use-comparison the least
popular of these four camping parks. In addition, with the
exception of a small lake, Grayton has shoreline frontage
on only the Gulf, while the other three parks all have bay
shore in addition to the Gulf surf. partly because of
greater opportunity for water-based recreation activity and
larger size, the other parks all have a considerably more
elaborate selection of recreation and service facilities.
Both St. Joseph and Grayton are remote by comparison to
either of the other parks; however, the industrial community
of Port St. Joe can be seen from across the bay at St.
Joseph park. One must drive several miles from Grayton to
find a view of urban development.

92
Figure 5
Jill- V.

93
St. Andrews park (Figure 6) is on the opposite end
of a development continuum from Grayton Beach. The area's
second largest campground capacity, it is the most heavily
used park in the strip when non-camping visitors are con
sidered. Though comparably developed internally, with
similarly elaborate recreation and service facilities in
comparison with Ft. Pickens, St. Andrews is only five miles
from the nearest city (compared to 17 miles for Ft. Pickens),
and has privately owned recreation and service development
literally at its entrance gate. Ft. Pickens has several
miles of buffering space between its primary use area and
the nearest recreation development at Pensacola Beach, with
its shopping centers and commercial entertainments. Thus,
St. Andrews was selected as the opposite to Grayton Beach
for a polarized park pair.
Operational East-West Limits
The central part of the Northwest Coast between Destin
and Panama city (a detailed enlargement of the inter-bay
land holding parks 3 and 4 on Figure 4) is shown in Figure 7.
This map shows the location of Grayton Beach and St. Andrews
state parks relative to one another and to the transportation
and physical-cultural landscape between the bays. It will
be seen that this location map also notes the operational

94
Figure 6

95
U1
o
30 30'
COASTAL NORTHWEST FLORIDA:
PANAMA CITY TO DESTIN
MILES
0 1 2 3 A 5 6
Figure 7

96
east-west limits of the study area. They extend from a
point approximately mid-way between the village of Destin
and Grayton Beach State Park, east to the accessible end
of the barrier beach across the mouth of St. Andrews
Bay, at St. Andrews State Parka distance of approximately
35 highway miles.
It would be meaningless to specify a particular loca
tion in the zone between Grayton Beach and Destin as a
terminous for the study area since the area around the mid
point is completely forested and lacks recreation or any
other non-forest land use. There is even an absence of jeep
tracks leading through the forest to the beach.
It could be asked why the entire interbay area from
Destin to panama City was not considered as part of the
operational study area. Surely an area extending from the
mouth of one great bay to another with the water of the bays
and the connecting barrier swamps forming an interior border
would be by its physical geography a meaningful spatial study
unit. This would be true if it were not for the fact that
most of the landward swamp and forest area thus enclosed has
nothing to do with beach recreation, and from the village
of Destin out to its associated highway thresholds the land
is functionally unrelated recreationally to the area of
beach development to the east.

Destn is primarily a salt water sport fishing center
and differs considerably from its nearest western neighbor
Ft. Walton Beach and from the Panama City beaches which are
highly oriented toward beach use and nonfishing outdoor
recreation activities. (Though it should be pointed out
that the Panama City area does have a noted salt water fish
ing reputation stemming from use of its several marinas.)
Field interviews taken in a number of different locations
within or at the fringe of Destn tended to verify this
difference.
More concrete evidence for this difference is the ob
servable contrast between the facilities and services offered
the visitor to Destn or the Panama City beaches. For exam
ple, motels at Destn are likely to be named lodges and offer
boat docks and small retail fishing tackle shops. Many fish
ing supply stores and outfitting shops are mingled with sea
food restaurants and a plant making bulk boat ice. The
Panama city beaches, though offering each of these services
somewhere, in at least one location, has an overall develop
ment that contrasts with Destn. For example, motels are
called motels or inns and they are often dressed with some
type of fancy sounding seaside name that reminds the visitor
of the sun, the sand and the surf. In addition, most motels
offer swimming pools and many have gift shops, restaurants

98
of varied menu, and cocktail lounges. instead of bait and
tackle shops there are numerous small beach supply stores
that offer for sale or rent any imagineable need for basking
in the sun or playing in the sand and surf. Interesting
enough, even ice vendors are different: instead of boat
ice in which to pack fish, bags of tinkling ice cubes are
available for glasses or beach picnic coolers.
Sequence of Area Recreation Development
The story of tourist development on the Northwest Coast
of Florida fits within the sequence of state development in
a similar fashion. Whereas the first major ripples of
tourist development centered around St. Augustine, Miami-
palm Beach and Tampa, with service investment and visitor
growth irregularly decreasing along unknown directionally
variable gradients from these epicenters, only recently
has the Northwest Coast been awash by these development-
visitor waves. Similarly the Northwest Coast is in
volved in an internal wave-like diffusion in recreation-
service land development out from particular propagation
centers. The waves, restricted by physical geography, have
spread linearly outward along the coast from centers at
Panama city and Pensacola, with later development moving
outward from Destin and Ft. Walton Beach. By development

99
is meant a sequential change in landscape modification and
a general increase in functional complexity. The time
function is stressed here, for the present sequence or
development stage varies from place to place along the
coast, with a general decrease in intensity of recreation
land use along irregular gradients outward from the tourist-
resort towns described above as propagation centers. Thus,
areas midway between towns are still undeveloped and remain
largely forested.
The development of recreation oriented land use within
the operational study area is fairly representative of the
entire Florida Northwest Coast. Development may be dis
cussed in terms of three periods: the period before World
War II, the post-war period, and the recent period. Parti
cularly significant is the fact that the area's developmental
history is largely a study of the development of local and
regional transportation accessibility and the relative access
factor of increased affluence in visitor tributary areas.
Particularly impressive is the post-war impact of increased
leisure time, mobility, and affluence on study area develop
ment of recreation service facilities concurrently with the
17
growth of visitor patronage.

100
Pre-War Period
In 1925, J. Russell Smith had very little to say about
the Northwest Coast, except that it was a land of waterfowl
18
and mosquito, sandy forests and only a little cultivation.
Despite English settlement as early as 1765 at St. Andrew
(now panama City) the area population grew very slowly and
19
scarcely made a dent in the wilderness. As recently as
the 1920s, Bay County residents were still experiencing
frightful encounters with "varmits" in the forests, swamps
and bayous near Panama City. Cottonmouth moccasins, rattle
snakes, big alligators, black bear, and the screams of night
prowling panthers punctuate the tales of residents who re-
20
member the times of only a generation ago.
Before World War II most of the study area had a
scarcely modified shoreline, with beach access mainly
limited to jeep trails. A few roads existed, but fewer
highways and essential bridges were in existence, with an
associated minimal development mostly consisting of a few
scattered cottages and "pioneering" residential homes. In
the 1920s the 373-mile road trip between Jacksonville and
Pensacola was a weather-dependent two or three-day trip.
The main highway (US 90) from Pensacola to Tallahassee was
then a dirt road with river ferries and commonplace dual

101
ruts. The study area was virtually isolated during the
1920s when the first all-weather road from US 90 at Marianna
led to Port St. Joe (approximately the Florida 71 route).
By 1927 a real access gain was made when the main northern
route out of Panama City (US 231) was paved with ten miles
of concrete.^
Midway between Panama City and Pensacola in isolated
coastal Walton and Okaloosa counties, residents hacked out
an existence in the forest and swamps of bayous feeding
Choctawhatchee Bay, where a small lumbering and navel stores
industry existed. Materials were boated out to Pensacola
providing also a water communication link that helped
develop a small Pensacola-based hunting and fishing resort
business at Ft. Walton. Gambling soon developed and the
isolated "sportsman's resort" grew in a kind of popularity.
By the 1920s only a barely passable sand trail connected
Ft. Walton to towns to the north. "That made it very con
venient for certain gentlemen from Montgomery and Birmingham,
who liked to take their vacations and bring their secretaries
with them. They were certainly never worried about their
22
wives coming down to see what was going on."
By 1935, a significant gain in access was realized
2
when US 98 was finished, linking Panama City with Pensacola.
Until that time the only coastal route went north from

102
panama City around the extensive swamps and bayous at the
eastern end of Choctawhatchee Bay and extended west along
the north shore of the Bay. Prior to that date about nine
miles of Gulf beach was accessible along or from US 98 at
Panama City, and this marks what is today the most dense,
24
area of tourist facility development. Laguna Beach,
located just west of the point where US 98 veered north
from the beaches to avoid the bay swamps, was actually the
first part of the Panama City Beach Sector to develop for
visitors.^^
Within the isolated Grayton Beach Sector only two
resorts existed. Grayton Beach, platted and filed in 1890,
2 6
is the older of the sector's pre-war developments. Only
a few fishing families settled there and by 1941 there were
a few summer vacation cottages. About two miles away
Seagrove Beach was developed with a hotel and a few cot
tages. Seagrove originally was used most by people from
the northern parts of Walton County, particularly DeFuniak
27
Springs. West of Grayton Beach the small unincorporated,
dispersed, private summer cottage concentration called
28
Dune Allen was started in the late 1930s. inland, between
the trail that was to become US 98 and a Choctawhatchee
bayou, the small communities of Point Washington and Santa
Rosa had a boom period after the Civil War, during the

103
area's early logging and naval stores period, and then all
but died out. (These communities continue to survive,
but are not thriving. During the summer they are too far
30
from town.) Just west of the operational study area
lies Destin, which during the pre-war period was only a
commercial fishing community. in 1941, from Miramar to
Destin there were no buildings, except for one country
store-service station (near the World War II radar dome
31
site), leaving only open beach for the traveler's eye.
Post-War Period
During the war, with military activity and installations
in the area a demand for housing was created by an influx
of personnel. panama City also had increased employment in
the shipyards. Consequently, cottage complexes and indi
vidual houses were newly constructed in the Panama City
Beach area. After the war these found their way into resort
complexes. Post-war increases in levels of living and
elevated economies in general, with associated gains in
leisure time, in the visitor tributary area for the beaches,
combined with population growth, greater mobility, and in
creased highway accessibility led to an increased use of the
area for vacation and shorter outing destinations.
The lure of the Gulf with its waves, comfortable

104
temperatures, remarkably clean and clear (near-shore blue
and off-shore green) water, glistening sugar white sand
beaches and sea oats covered dunes attracted many visitors
and established a reputation for the area that increased with
use. cottages were built, and others were replaced by
apartments and motels, in turn to be replaced by still
larger motels. Though the Laguna Beach area was first de
veloped for visitors to the Panama City beaches, it stagnated
during the post-war period when younger, less conservative,
and more venturesome men developed the areas nearer to
Panama City. These young men were able and willing to rein
vest, expand and when necessary redevelop their properties
and as a result their area is today the most intensively used
. 32
part of the strip.
For example, one young man, at age 22 a war veteran,
invested 2,000 dollars in a two-story frame beach house.
Today, one modest frame house on three lots, similar to his
purchase, which could have been bought for from 2,000 to
5,000 dollars is now worth over 150,000 dollars. This man
now owns two of the area's modern multi-level resort hotel-
33
motels.
Most of the motel owners came from Bessemer and the
area south of Birmingham (Alabama). Furthermore, the
Panama City motel business is dominated by families. The

105
34
Graham family, for example, operates 18 motels.
More visitors and more spending resulted in growth in
lodging facilities and an increase in services. An early
development during this period was a casino and its amuse
ments, a dance hall, and a large variety of other recreation
and service facilities.
It is interesting that this newcomer to the state's
tourist areas has not received much attention by geographers.
For example, among the few early references made, Alsberg's
popular travel guide for 1949 has only a parenthetical
reference to the recreation setting along the Panama City
beaches. The author informed simply that "a series of fine
beaches line [the] Gulf coast between here [panama City] and
Pensacola (cottages, casinos, picnic facilities). in [the]
background are dunes covered with shrub magnolia and rosemary
O C
and interlaced by salt marshes." As recently as the late
1960s, standard regional geography texts have failed to
recognize the resort development existing along the Northwest
Coast of Florida. For example, Paterson, in 1965, mentions
the resort industry of the Gulf Coast as being a winter
business and in the Northwest only mentions Pensacola as an,
emerging resort along with its twin Biloxi. Apparently
only two geographers have recognized this particular resort
region. Fraser Hart conjectured on its market area

106
37
characteristics and Morgan discussed land use.
Recent Period
Present day development trends are not completely
clear. There is evidence that a new period is just beginning
and that the next period may be characterized by redevelop
ment consisting of enormous and luxurious Miami Beach style
hotels. The commercial aspects do seem to be exploding into
this type of operational setting. Early attractions, for
example, were small operations, like an existing modest
serpentarium; however, the newest attraction is a multi
story Gulfarium (Gulf World). Everything appears to be
shifting to another geara much larger and faster gear.
Shops and snack stands are being replaced with big stores,
shopping centers and big restaurants. The manager of a two
level motel had this to say of his neighbor, a large modern
Miami Beach style hotel (even in nameFountainbleau):
"It's a fine motel, but it was built 5
years before its time. It actually is a
seaside hotel and the people don't want that
kind of a place. Families don't like
elevators, and they have no ground level rooms.
They seldom rent many of their units."38
Yet the wisdom of this design may become apparent in
about five years. Almost all new motels are large multi
level hotels. The Ambassador Motel, for example, newly

107
constructed in the summer of 1970, was built from income
of old cottages across the road. As the cottage phase draws
to a close, the motel phase replaces it, but it would appear
that a second motel phase or a hotel phase now may be in
the financing and development stage.
The Grayton Beach Sector has had a much slower develop
ment history, and, as indicated earlier in this part of the
report, has lagged considerably behind the Panama City Sector,
post-war access to the beach fringe in the Grayton Beach
area was limited to spurs leading from the interior located
US 98 to Seagrove Beach, Blue Mountain Beach and Dune Allen
Beach. In the immediate vicinity of each of these cottage
areas sand trails led, in places, a short piece along the
approximate routes of State Road 30A. It was not until 1960
that 30A was built along the beach from Phillips Inlet to
Eastern Lake, connecting with the Seagrove spur off 395.
This opened up over five miles of beach for private develop
ment where today scattered cottages exist. Long accessible
from the Grayton Beach road (283) only by jeep and foot
trail, the property that today is Grayton Beach State park
was linked by a paved road from 283 in 1967. Before being
made into a park, the land was used only by local people for
hunting, fishing for red fish (Sciaenops ocellata), and
crabbing.^ The last link in the beach road (30A) was

108
completed in 1969 and involved connecting Grayton Beach with
Seagrove Beach via a bridge over Western Lake (at the park).
Expansion of cottage development continues outward from
the old pre-war cottage areas once located at the end of
beach spurs. Today newly platted areas are being opened for
cottage building and it does not involve a great deal of
predictive optimism to conclude that this entire strip of 30A
is destined for cottage development. West of Blue Mountain
Beach is located the newest and most elaborate visitor com
plex in the Grayton Sector. Blue Gulf Resort, presently with
50 three bedroom houses, a motel with large pool, restaurant,
tennis courts and playground, is still being developed and
has plans that eventually will involve a huge complex in
cluding even a marina and shopping center. The indication
is that this coastal fringe may have in store for itself a
development somewhat similar to that of the Panama City
Sector.
The area west of the operational study area called
locally Silver Beach (located west of where US 98 is aligned
close to the beach at Miramar) began its build-up around
1955. Yet before 1960 there only existed two or three motels
near Destin (Friendship Inn was one of the earliest). All
of the locally large motels are of the recent period (for
40
example, The Sands and Holiday Inn).

109
In recapitulation, 1970 found a typically dynamic
situation in this part of the "Growth Coast." The beach
fringe of Panama City, long accessible to travelers, appears
at first glance to be a highway strip development that is a
result of a collectively haphazard development. Its
cluttered, disorganized, internally contrasting scene first
bombards the senses as would an artist's collage depicting
a commercial highway slum; however, reflection and study
yields an appreciation for this example of a resort area
built around a local natural resource advantage. The
apparent disorder, disarray, and contrast is real and is a
product of its current dynamic state. As the region grows,
as Panama City continues to diversify and grow into a pro
gressive industrial port (presently with paper, oil, fishing,
and chemical industries), and as the resort complex con
tinues to grow, there will be increasing problems and changes
in this human-natural resource interface.
Recreation Land Use1970
Detailed land use mapping was undertaken in order to
expand descriptively on the extent and fringe character of
the study area and to demonstrate the spatial discontinuity
of land development by showing zones of nonrecreation
oriented development and land used for tourism and recrea
tion service.

110
Figure 8 provides a graphic description of locations
of selected classes of land use between Destin's East Pass
bridge, over the mouth of Choctawhatchee Bay, and Hathaway
bridge, the main access point to the panama City beaches
from across St. Andrew Bay. As previously noted, the zone
of recreation oriented land use occupies only a narrow
coast fringe. With few exceptions the developed land lies
adjacent to the area's principal coastal highway artery
US 98 (state route 30) or state route 30A (See Figure 7).
Rather than comprehensive areal land use mapping, a coastal
highway traverse was made along the two earlier mentioned
41
routes. For convenience of map analysis and scale,
parallel tertiaries and spurs were consolidated into arterial
representation.
Land Use Classification
The legend in Figure 8 utilizes a specialized classi
fication scheme that is in part a modification of applicable
42
parts m the federal Standard Land Use Coding Manual.
Residential lands are for simplicity classed as either
transient lodging or residential. The first group is com
posed of motels, apartments, cabins, cottages, houses, and
duplexes that by visible evidence are used commercially in
provision of temporary lodging for visitors to the area. The

LAND USE:
A COASTAL HIGHWAY TRAVERSE
0 12 3 4
MILES
LEGEND
TRANSIENT LODGING
RESIDENTIAL
ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATIONAL
RETAIL TRADE AND SERVICES
TRADE AND SERVICES
ENTERTAINMENT AND RECREATIONAL
WITH RETAIL TRADE AND SERVICES
O UNDEVELOPED LAND AND WATER AREAS
DESTIN SECTOR
1 HOLIDAY INN TRAV-L-PARK
2 SILVER BEACH (STATE) WAYSIDE PARK
3 DESTIN K. 0. A. CAMPGROUND
4 CRYSTAL BEACH TRAILER PARK
5 DESTIN FISHING PIERS
SOURCE: Mapped by author, 1970

GRAYTON BEACH SECTOR
PANAMA CITY BEACH SECTOR
PIRATE COVE CAMPGROUND
SEAGROVE BEACH
GRAYTON BEACH STATE PARK
GRAYTON BEACH
BLUE MOUNTAIN BEACH
BLUE GULF RESORT
GULF HILLS TRAILER PARK
1 WHOLESALE AND CONSTRUCTION OFFICES
2 U. S. NAVY PROPERTY
3 K. 0. A. CAMPGROUND
4 MAGNOLIA BEACH CAMPGROUND
5 ALLIGATOR POINT CAMPGROUND
6 MARINA COMPLEX
7 VENTURE OUT TRAVEL TRAILER RESORT
8 ST. ANDREWS STATE PARK
9 LONG BEACH AMUSEMENT PARK
10 BEACH CAMPGROUND
11 MIRACLE STRIP AMUSEMENT PARK
12 SEAGULL TRAILER PARK AND CAMPGROUND
13 REIDS COURT AND TRAILER PARK
14 STATE WAYSIDE PARK

113
remainder category termed residential is composed of land
having noncommercial, permanent and seasonal or other leisure
time, single family dwellings. it may be presumed that some
of these structures will be rented occasionally to friends
or others, but they are primarily for single family or other
exclusive use.
Entertainment and recreational is a wide ranging land
use grouping, and includes both commercial and public and
private nonprofit facilities. The following is representa
tive of the types of establishments, facilities, and land
use in general within this category: amusements, arcades,
dance halls, recreation halls, amusement parks, mechanical
carnival rides, skill games, gambling games, miniature golf,
driving ranges, golf courses, speed boat rides, helicopter
rides, dune buggy or motorcycle rentals, outdoor theatrical
presentations, marine life shows and aquaria, serpentaria,
private group camps, family campgrounds, public roadside day-
use parks, and fishing piers.
Retail trade and services is equally broad and compre
hensive and includes commercial establishments that clearly
serve principally the beach visitors and those that serve
the scattered local permanent population as well. Included
are lands developed with the following typical establish
ments: gift shops, shell shops, souvenir stands, camera

114
supply shops, sportswear shops, variety stores, groceries
or supermarkets, beach supply general stores, bait and tackle
shops, ice houses, beach supply rental shops, automotive
service stations (seldom with mechanics, only gasoline pum
pers) drug stores, visitor information centers, eating
places (restaurants, coffee shops, cafeterias, short order
and snack stands), drink places (taverns, lounges), and
liquor stores.
Since the mapping unit selected was one-tenth mile
along the arterial traverse and because parts of the traverse
included relatively more densely spaced, intensively developed
areas, two multiple use groupings were necessary. In many
places a land-use type was set back from the highway with
differing uses made of the immediate frontage zone. In
some places a number of small enterprises of different classi
fication were found to occupy a single one-tenth mile road
side unit. Therefore, the map shows places of retail trade
and services combined with transient lodging or entertain
ment and recreational uses.
In a number of places open space existed which was void
of buildings or structures other than occasional signs. Thus
the land class undeveloped land and water areas was needed.
Many sub-types of land exist within this grouping and the
following serves to exemplify: unmodified beach and

115
duneland, leveled dunes, interdunal scrub, marshland, swamp,
lakes, natural pine forest, pine and oak scrub on cleared
forest land, cleared and platted residential subdivision or
cottage areas and a few sites with developments under
various stages of construction.
Interpretations
Several land use features are evident just by looking
at the land use traverse and some may be less obvious. A
few generalizations will help to visualize the spatial and
functional structure of the area.
The most easily observed land use phenomenon is the
polarized development along this traverse. By looking at
all developed land categories it will be seen that there are
in the west and east high density sectors of land use.
Undeveloped lands are least common on the ends of the tra
verse and tend to be more common with movement toward the
middle of the traverse where again a certain low intensity
development is found. partly on the basis of this observa
tion the traverse has been rather loosely divided into
development sectors. As was earlier indicated the Destin
Sector is in some regards not functionally related to the
eastern sectors focused on Grayton Beach and Panama City
Beach. Furthermore, the western limit of the operational

116
study area, which was described as located within an un
developed transition zone of forest between Grayton Beach
and Destin, can more easily be conceptualized by examining
the double transition joined by an expanse of undeveloped
land near the route junction at the west end of the Grayton
Beach Sector.
While the preceding comments concerned east-west
arrangements of developed land, a second observation relates
to the landward extent of the developed area and its fringe
nature.
It will be seen that, except for the Destin sector,
there is a beach route and what is locally called the "back-
beach" route which vary between state and federal maintenance.
In both instances the back-beach route has an obvious com
parative or relative absence of developed land while its
parallel beach road has been developed. This contract is
further enhanced when it is realized that the back-beach
routes are by comparison fast traffic movement, through
routes, which have development only incidentally in rela
tion to the recreation service areas along the beach route.
For example, in the Grayton Beach Sector all four of
the service-classed land parcels are very small independent
gasoline-garage service stations or gasoline sales with
small groceries. The largest concentration of nonforest

117
land use in this sector is a small community (Santa Rosa
Beach) with a grocery, gas station, laundry, post office,
and a small real estate branch office. Interviews with
business proprietors indicated that though their business
did fluctuate with the seasonal movement of beach visitors,
43
they existed mainly on local and highway patronage. The
garages were at any time more likely to have a logging
truck than a private passenger vehicle parked by them.
State route 30A in the Panama City Beach Sector was
built primarily as a fast by-pass to the zone of congested
traffic along the beach fringe federal highway. Any mid
summer week night traveler along this strip would find
driving a 10 to 15 mile per hour experience. Weekend
traffic in the vicinity of the amusement parks is marked
by car length advances with waiting periods between. In
the worst traffic areas pedestrians strolling at roadside
44
average far greater speeds than automobiles.
Roadside development, where present, along this sector
of the back-beach road is primarily residential and typical
of suburban fringe expansion around most cities. In addi
tion, looking more toward panama city than to the beaches
are the scattered wholesale offices, warehouses, garages
and construction offices that have recently been built near
the Hathaway Bridge exit from the beaches.

118
Thus, clearly the developed beach fringe exists. Only
one functional motel exists along the entire length of the
back-beach route and development is functionally oriented
locally or away from the beaches. The wide expanses of
undeveloped land and water areas are perhaps the most
characteristic lands behind the beach fringe.
Secondary Study SitesPrivate Campgrounds
With a previously identified visitor study focus on
campers, particularly those selecting Grayton Beach and St.
Andrews State Parks, it was apparent that a second set of
campground interview locations was necessary. In order
to have a representative sample of study area campers who
stayed outside of the primary study focus parks the selection
was made to include as many individual campgrounds as possi
ble and, therefore, also to sample visitors from a broad
array of camp types.
One sampling objective was to include all possible
types of camping visitors to the operational study area.
It was ascertained that on occasional weekends Grayton
Beach State Park found it necessary to turn away would-be
campers when its campground became fully registered with
earlier arriving visitors. St. Andrews, long a popular
park, also had almost daily camper overflow from its gates.

119
The overflow visitor either left the area or, as most often
appeared the case, he selected a nearby commercial private
campground. Add to the number of overflow campers those
who for some reason habitually prefer private camps, those
unmarried campers under age 21, those with pets that are not
allowed in state park campgrounds, and those deciding upon
arrival at a park that it was not suited to their needs, and
there is an obvious group of campers, potentially quite
diverse, who would not be included in a sample drawn only
from state parks.
The area's array of private campgrounds is quite
diverse in many regards and ranges in development from
shoestring operations to a million-dollar travel trailer
resort complex. The approximate locations and settings of
the 12 area private campgrounds are shown in Figure 8.
Grayton Beach area campgrounds
Excluded from consideration were the two large family
campgrounds and one small trailer court in the Destin
Sector; Holiday inn's Trav-L-Park, Destin K.O.A. Campground,
and Crystal Beach Trailer park. By interview information
these were determined to be outside overflow influence by
camping visitors to Grayton Beach. Furthermore, by name,
activity orientation, and location these were determined to
be within the Destin service area.

120
The only campground west of Grayton Beach State Park
within the operational study area was a shoestring opera
tion named Gulf Hills Trailer Park. Offering meager space
for fewer than ten camping trailers and almost totally
lacking in facilities, this camp was virtually unused and
was not included in the survey.
The only other campground in the Grayton Beach Sector
lay in the sector transition zone about midway between
Grayton and St. Andrews parks and was selected for visitor
sampling. Pirate Cove Campground is a modest, family
developed and managed, roadside family camp on the shore
of 500-acre plus Powell Lake near its bar-blocked mouth
at Phillips Inlet.
Under large shading pines and interspersed with
occasional shrubs are part of the 35 sites with water,
electricity and picnic tables in a somewhat random, in
formal layout. An eight feet deep canal allows boats to
be brought to the rear of a number of unshaded sites
located at lakeside. A few sites are located in seclusion
amid a thicket of trees and shrubs. Centrally located is
a simple bath house with showers and restroom facilities.
An old two-level building houses a modest camp store sell
ing a few essentials and novelties. A rental sailboat is
available and there is free access to adjoining property

121
where bait and boating equipment are available at a fishing
camp. Sea trout (Cynoscion nebulosis), striped bass (Roccus
sakafilis), mullet (Magil cephalus), and other fish are
caught in the lake.
St. Andrews area campgrounds
All other private campgrounds in the study area may
approximately be considered to lie within the camping over
flow area around St. Andrews State Park, or, in Figure 8,
within the Panama City Beach Sector.
None of these camps is located directly on Gulf beach
front property, though three camps are located on US 98
and are across the street from the beach. Two of these
locations have only secondary interest in campers as
evidenced by their names: Reid's Court and Trailer Park,
and Seagull Trailer Park and Campground. In both cases
interviewing permission was unobtainable from the manage
ment, for fear of violation of guest privacy.
The owner of Reid's offers seasonal lodging to visitors
in a number of air conditioned, kitched equipped apartments
and cottages. A number of well established return visitors
rent the mobile home spaces seasonally or yearly. In the
back of the property in a large unshaded, grassed field
space is offered for camping. A shower house, water,

122
electricity and picnic tables are available at some sites,
in addition, there is the added enhancement of a swimming
pool.
Seagull also has a camping area located in the rear
of a large modern mobile home park. Forty-five sites are
arranged in a neat rectangular pattern on a double loop
access road. A bath house and playground are located near
a swimming pool.
Beach Campground is the third campground on US 98
across from the Gulf beach. Permission was secured to
interview here. Located in the heart of the amusement and
entertainment section of the strip, this 100-site camp
ground is off the highway behind a shopping center and
recreation businesses. One side of the camp is bounded by
an adjacent amusement park's roller coaster and its clatter
and screams are heard until midnight nightly.
Some sites are equipped with concrete patios, water,
electricity and sewerage hook ups for travel trailers
(compact mobile homes) and other elaborate camping vehicles.
Various combinations of water and electricity hook ups are
available in different parts of the campground. A number of
sites have shade but the greatest part are in open areas.
Two inadequate bathhouses, a pool, small store, and a
children's playground complete the facility list, with the

123
exception of a small, little-used pond which is also
located on the property. The survey period (1970) was the
fifth season this campground was open.
The remaining four area campgrounds are all in fairly
close proximity to St. Andrews State Park and all are located
near the peninsular triangle east of US 98 formed by state
route 392. Visitors to the beaches traveling from Panama
City must cross Hathaway Bridge. Just beyond the bridge
road signs direct visitors by two routing options to the
beaches. Some turn left at the large U.S. Naval Reservation
and follow route 392 toward St. Andrews State Park.
Those following this route first pass the K.O.A. Camp
ground, one of the survey locations, on the right. Con
veniently located within full view of the road, K.O.A. has
among the area's campgrounds, one unique quality of being
the only local franchised member of a nationwide chain of
family campgroundsKampgrounds of America, Incorporated.
This 50-site campground has a small swimming pool, camp
store, recreation room with game tables etc., laundromat,
and sites complete with water, electricity and sewerage
hook ups. Three modern bath houses are spaced among the
lightly pine-shaded sites. Though easily accessible by
paved road, K.O.A. has neither a view of notable scenery
nor a water body for recreation.

124
Beyond the K.O.A., location signs direct the visitor
to turn onto a spur road (392-B) leading to Magnolia Beach
Campground (about one and one-half miles off 392) or
Alligator Point Campground (approximately three miles off
392). Figure 7 also locates these sites. Both of these
campgrounds were included in the visitor survey.
Magnolia, with 18 cottage rental units, offers 75
densely pine and magnolia shaded camp sites, with water and
electricity hook ups, picnic tables, grills, a large bath
house, laundromat, and a very complete camp store. Its
location on sheltered St. Andrew Bay, which has a gently
sloping bottom allows safe family swimming on the camp
ground's sand beach. A combination fishing pier and boat
dock by the boat ramp are complemented by rental boats and
bait and fishing supplies which are sold at the camp store.
Alligator Point Campground is named for the sand spit
jutting from the land on which the camp is located. The
facilities are among the newest and most modern of all the
area's campgrounds. Three large convenience buildings each
with showers, restrooms, laundromat and refreshment vendors
serve 165 sites, each with water, electricity, table and
grill, a boat house with rental boats and motors supple
ment a modern, well-stocked camp store with gifts and bait
and tackle. The 150 pine-wooded acres have a playground and

125
nature trails. Boating access to the Grand Lagoon is by a
boat ramp located near the fishing pier. In addition to
fishing and boating in the lagoon, bay or nearby Gulf,
there is swimming in the lagoon on the campground's sand
spit. A number of sites are at water-side.
The newest, largest and most elaborate campground in
the area is adjacent to St. Andrews State Park. (See Figure
6). This roughly 150-acre development lies astride the
sand and shell peninsula and includes frontage on both the
Gulf and Grand Lagoon. A new type of family campground,
Venture Out at panama City Beach is the newest luxury travel
trailer resort built by the Knoxville, Tennessee-based Ven
ture Out in America, Incorporated (which has 48 per cent
of its stock held by Gulf Oil Company).
Appealing mostly to the retired or semiretired and the
affluent young, the resort functions on the condominium
principle. With the exception of a few lots held by the
parent company, the campsites, or actually small trailer
lots, are owned by individuals who can share in management
of their resort facilities. Thus, individuals are always
guaranteed available trailer space which is permanently
maintained and constantly security patrolled. The manage
ment will rent unused lots with half of the rental fee
credited to the lot owner.

126
During its grand opening in June, 1970, lots were made
available at prices beginning at 4,500 dollars with a 10 per
cent downpayment and 60 months to pay the balance. By late
summer the price had risen to 5,000 dollars, and choice in
dividual lots, purchased a few months before the opening for
about 4,000 dollars, were then offered at resale prices of
6,000 dollars. Some of those buying for speculation were
not being disappointed.
The luxury three-million-dollar project is not an or
dinary family campground. Not only does it exclude tents and
some other camping equipment types, limiting use to travel
trailers and occasional tent trailers, but it is designed with
most of the expected features of a country club resort and
then some extras. The initially planned 505 lots, partly con
structed by summer, 1970, have already been expanded to in
clude a planned development total of 737 travel trailer lots.
All of the compact lots vary between 1800 and 2200
square feet in area and are completely sodded with exceptions
of the paved trailer parking spur and the concrete patio (10
by 16 feet) which comes equipped with molded concrete table
and benches. Each site has sunken trash cans and hook ups
for electricity, water, and sewer (two connections for each
of the latter).
Ornamental soft-glow street lights line the paved drives

127
and the entire property is landscaped with ornamental plant
ings and exotic steretypic palms (which are practically
functionless and give minimum shade in the otherwise open
and sun-drenched project). Upon completion there will be
four architect-designed, modern, ceramic and terra cotta
bathhouses, each costing about 40,000 dollars. Equally
modern and expensive structures house offices, maintenance
facilities, a laundry, grocery, and lounge.
On leveled sand dunes overlooking the blue Gulf waters
is a 150,000-dollar two-story clubhouse which is but part
of a 300,000-dollar beach recreation complex which includes
a modern-design heated swimming pool that may be the largest
in the panama City area, with extensive patio and a children's
pool. Facilities are available for parties, games, bingo,
dances and beach cookouts with a snack bar, dance floor,
game rooms with billiard, card and ping pong tables, and
locker rooms. Organized activities are suitably based here
and include exercise classes and instruction in surfing,
golf and arts and crafts. A playground, putting greens,
courts for badminton and volleyball and night-lighted
shuffleboard courts round out the recreation facilities.
The sportsman preferences are also catered to by a
huge facility on Grand LagoonTreasure Island Marina. Here
full services are available with launching lifts and ramps,

128
complete docking facilities and even dry-dock storage and
boat maintenance. Shops sell or rent a complete line of
fishing needs and party boats for bottom fishing, scenic
excursion boats, and deep-sea charter boats available at a
discount to owners of Venture Out lots.
Since this trailer resort was not in operation during
the planning stages of this research, it was not selected
for inclusion in the survey study. Permission was not
secured to interview visitors after the survey period began
due to management reluctance.
Recapitulation
In summary, in addition to the bipolar research focus
on St. Andrews and Grayton Beach State parks, five privately
owned commercial campgrounds were included for survey pur
poses. The only significant campground near Grayton Beach,
Pirate Cove, was selected. In the St. Andrews area four
campgrounds were selected for interviewing visitors: Beach,
K.O.A., Magnolia Beach, and Alligator Point. In actuality,
these survey locations represent all but two of the then
existing campgrounds in the area. It was assumed that since
these two campgrounds are primarily mobile home or cottage
operations that their camping may be less significant to
the survey. However, generalizations on camping in the

129
study area must be tempered with these omissions.
Study Area Seasonality
That Florida can be a delightful place to be during
the cold winter of the North is more or less common
knowledge. That climate varies with place in Florida may
be less recognized, but tourist regionalization seems to
be at least partly based on this natural phenomenon.
Florida Seasonality Regions
Robert D. Campbell in his dissertation on the geography
of recreation in the United States written in 1949 drew up
an interesting map of "vacation regions" in which he divided
Florida by drawing a line from south of Cedar Key on the
Gulf through the Leesburg area to the Daytona Beach area
45
on the Atlantic. He designated the entire peninsula
south of this line as a winter vacation region and the
coastal fringe north and west of this line as summer vaca
tion regions.
Figure 9 shows the locations of selected Gulf Coast
Florida park planning regions that are compared graphi
cally in Figure 10. It will be seen that Region 1 is the
Northwest Coast and that the graphed regions follow the
geographical order from north to south along the Gulf coast,

130
FLORIDA OUTDOOR RECREATION
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING REGIONS
PLANNING REGIONS
1. NORTHWEST GULF
2. APALACHICOLA-OCHLOCKNEE-GULF
3. SUWANNEE-GULF
4. NORTH ATLANTIC
5. LAKES-GULF
6. MIDDLE ATLANTIC
7. MIDDLE GULF
8. INDIAN RIVER-ATLANTIC
9. SOUTHWEST GULF
10. SOUTH ATLANTIC
Source: State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation in Florida
(Tallahassee: Division of Recreation and Parks,
1970), p. 133.
Figure 9

131
PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF TOURISTS WHO PLANNED TO ENGAGE
IN OUTDOOR RECREATION IN FLORIDA DURING THE SUMMER AND WINTER
SEASONS, 1964- 65 BY PLANNING REGION OF DESTINATION
PLANNING REGIONS
Source: Adapted from State of Florida, Outdoor Recreation in Florida
(Tallahassee: Division of Recreation and Parks, 1970),
p. 157.
Figure 10

132
ending in Region 10 which is the Everglades-Miami-Ft.
Lauderdale tip. Though summer tourism is also present,
note that winter tourism predominates from Region 7 (the
Tampa Bay area) southward and agrees in part with Campbell.
The difference between these data and Campbell's is based
on growth of summer tourism in southern Florida since 1949
now causing the southern part to have a winter-summer
classification. The heavy emphasis on summer use of the
Northwest Coast (Region 1) quite dominates this graph.
Gulf Coast Camping Seasonality
Since seasonality of camping visits may not coincide
with regional differences between general recreation
seeking tourists, a comparison was made between selected
coastal parks (located on Figure 11) in the summer vacation
area (parks 1 and 2) and in the winter-summer vacation area
(parks 3, 4, and 5). Since previously the two northern
parks had been tentatively selected for research focus this
comparison served three purposes: (1) It provided a final
logical basis for distinguishing the operational study area
from the rest of the Gulf coast on the basis of seasonality,
(2) It provided a basis for determining the period of field
observation and focus and, (3) Additional pertinent back
ground descriptive material for the study area analysis was
provided.

133
SELECTED GULF COASTAL FLORIDA STATE PARK LOCATIONS
Figure 11

134
Utilizing standard techniques for conversion of dis-
46
similar values to comparable standard scores or values,
the campground attendance records for the five parks were
converted to standardized numbers of campers, and northern
and southern group averages were derived for the months
shown between 1969 and 1971 on the graph in Figure 12.
(Note that this graph also includes the period of the sur
veysummer 1970--and compares it to the previous year.)
Though seasonal proportionality of distribution varies, a
look at seasonal change trends is revealing. For the
northern or summer parks and for the southern group there
is a slump in visits that both experience during September
and October. After this period the difference in visitor
patterns of seasonality between parks of these two regions
is apparent. While the northern pair of parks stays low
from November to February in total visitors, camping in
creases in the southern parks so that they experience a
winter recovery and a distinct winter visit season. Both
groups respond to an influx of spring vacationers during
March, and again both groups drop back in attendance during
April and May while awaiting the summer surge of visitors
when public schools permit camping families to again take
longer vacations. Though both groups experience a June rise
in camping visits, the abruptness of the northern set is

135
GULF COASTAL FLORIDA STATE PARK SEASONAL CAMPING CONTRASTS
1969 1970 1971
MONTHS
Source: State of Florida, Division of Recreation and Parks, park attendance
records, April, 1969, through February, 1971.
Figure 12

136
apparent and contrasts with the slower rise to a month-
later peak season among the southern group. Both sets then
have a distinct summer season until September when public
schools recall pupils. (See Appendix 11 for additional
data.)
Climatic Basis
Apparently the difference between the seasonal camping
patterns of the Northwest Coast and the Southwest Coast of
Florida is climatic. Carson has described and contrasted
the continental northern Florida from the Florida tropics
and uses the normal frost line passing from near Tampa Bay
northeasterly across the peninsula to the Atlantic Coast as
47
his division between the two Floridas.
A recreation climatic survey for coastal Florida was
done by the Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission
48
in 1962. The north and south Florida Gulf coastal con
trasts in temperatures of the surf partly lie at the root of
use differences between these coastal recreation regions.
The Northwest Coast has average water temperatures that vary
almost ten degrees from the warmer south coast until the last
of May when the water temperatures equalize. Between June
and August the peak average of about 86 degrees occurs.
Southern waters stay warm through September while northern

137
waters begin to drop more rapidly during September so that
by January surf temperatures are again their lowest in
both coastal areas, and drop to their low average of
between 65 to 67 degrees in the south and 55 to 60 de
grees in the north. Air temperatures on the coasts
average only a few degrees cooler and follow the same
49
trends.
Research Design
Despite considerable fragmented research in several
of the areas that this effort was designed to investigate,
it was deemed essential for realization of theoretical or
substantive gains potential in this work to approach the
problem with a minimal level of preconception. Though cer
tain hypothetical expectations existed, and though some
substantive goals were also anticipated, the major premise
was to make the study with the least possible researcher-
philosophical bias to color and preshape results. As will
be pointed out later, there is reason to suspect certain
basic philosophical underpinnings that manifest themselves
in recreation research.
Awareness of the problem and rationale for selection
of a suitable geographic and topical research setting have

138
been established earlier for the reader. The research de
sign is essentially a statement of methods, the data base
or sources, and techniquesfor the gathering and analysis
of information about recreation. This is not essentially
a research into methodology or technique, but instead
relies on standard geographic and social science ap
proaches for which there exists a large body of critical
literature, both in methodology and its application.
Among various researchers is geography and the social
sciences, there is an apparent confusion and overlap be
tween the terms method and technique. For clarity in
the following discussion it should be noted that the view
of research procedures used here is based on those outlined
by Salter.
The general approach of this research is toward an
applied format. As stated earlier in listing study ob
jectives, this research is intended in part to provide
background information to stimulate thinking in public
recreation planning circles. Furthermore, aspects of this
research will be useful to understanding the processes
involved in future park or campground location and develop
ment or redevelopment. That is not to say that larger
application to a body of theory is not hoped for, for indeed
it is the long range goal of the investigator to help

139
design and verify such a body of theory.
Methods
Salter had some valuable comments regarding study
methods. Selection of a research method for a particular
study must be couched not only in the specifics of an
investigation, but also in an assessment of underlying
general objectives. Salter in his summary to a rather
critical chapter on the scientific method in the social
sciences concludes:
If research is seen as a process of
inquiry, with problems emanating from,
and tested in, experience, with generaliza
tions serving instrumentally to suggest
possible causative connections in experience,
and with tests dependent upon such relations
in the evidence of experience, then many
confusions in the traditional views of re
search methods tend to clear up. The con
flicting claims for each procedure find a
place in the outline of a full inquiry; the
methods themselves fade away. What results
is a full concept of modern science; and the
techniques or devices previously held as
constituting a scientific method turn out
each to have a function to perform in the
one task of processing evidence in order
to arrive at a proposed method of resolving
an existing problem in experience.
In this view, an ideal of absolute per
fection and absolute certainty gives way to
that of intelligent judgment progressively
using the results of experience to suggest
actions by which intentions and results are
as closely united as man can make them in
an ever changing world.^

140
Qualitative description
This study, as in social science in general, must
often verbally describe the phenomena under observation.
Such necessity becomes apparent when the observer faces
such a multiplicity of variation in social and spatial
factors that would often make quantitative description
imprecise to the point of questionable value. Furthermore,
the general absence of data and the unknown variation
factors for known data predispose this research to an ex
ploratory, data generating study that often seeks what is
or aims at describing facts and relations that can be un
covered. Kerlinger asserts that such a method "...is
indispensable to scientific advance in the social sciences."
He points out, however, that such a heuristic, or after the
fact, approach will produce causal statements that are
weaker than those produced under other methods, particularly
53
experimental research.
Arnold Henry Guyot, the nation's first full time pro
fessor of geography (Princeton, 1854), cautioned geogra
phers against pure description, saying:
To describe, without rising to the
causes or descending to the consequences,
is no more science, than merely and simply
to relate a fact of which one has been a
54
witness.

141
Therefore, description has been seasoned with problem
oriented causative seasoning as recommended by Guyot.
Quantitative description
This is not to imply that this study is intended to be
purely descriptive or that quantities are not dealt with.
Where applicable, quantitative description is employed;
however, due to the nature of the data and the exploratory
characteristics of the study, only essential descriptive
statistics are employed, at times with carto-statistical
techniques. Throughout, when numerical data are discussed,
quantitative description is aimed simply at forming brief
summaries or generalizations of several observations.
Case study
Elements of the case study method or that dealing with
a detailed examination of a small sample are present,
though no attempt is made to delve so intensively that
everything that bears on the micro study focus is evaluated.
Instead, detailed study is aimed at suggesting lines of
future thought or hypotheses for testing in the same locality
or in other situations. It should be noted, however, that
the selection of only two state parks and related private
facilities for observation and visitor sampling does con
stitute a major reliance on the case method.

142
The procedural details of this investigation are, as
before stated, standard and therefore demand only a few
comments. Data collection procedures were necessarily
adapted to the kind of data available and analysis pro
cedures were tailored to the limitations of those data
which were gathered.
Field survey
Due to the limitations of available data on park
users and the absence of most needed data, it became
necessary to undertake field generation of primary in
formation. In addition, it was necessary to look to the
field situation for gathering and generating secondary
information as well. Consequently, the research took on
. 55
the complexion of an "on-site" recreation visitor study.
Preliminary field work.During August, 1969, the
entire Northwest Coast was examined. A preliminary field
inventory was made along every coastal highway or road
between Gulf Beach (west of Pensacola Bay) and St. Andrews
State Park at Panama City Beach. In addition, US 98 and
selected side routes were driven and observed. A highway
log, spot vehicle counts, and informal personal interviews
were gathered.
On the basis of this preliminary inventory of coastal
recreation and land use, a tentative selection of study

143
parks and the operational study area was made. Visits to
the area during the winter of 1970 involved examination of
all parks and campgrounds in the area. Additional inter
views were secured with key park employees and campground
managers among others in the local service industry.
During April final arrangements were made and
authorization was given to interview visitors at the pri
vate campgrounds in the area. The Division of State Parks
at Tallahassee was consulted and permission to survey park
visitors was granted.
After deciding that the best approach to gathering
data was a personal camper interview, a semi-structured
interview schedule was devised that asked in addition to
specifics, some standard questions that were left open-
ended (to avoid interviewer and question bias) thus allow
ing some flexibility in data gathering.
Finally, during the week of May 10, 1970, a pretest of
the camper interview schedule was made. The test was made
in Grayton Beach and St. Andrews State parks and in two
private campgrounds. The revised interview schedule is
included in Appendix III.
Survey period.Since preliminary work had indicated
that the area campgrounds were primarily used during the
summer, the period of formal interviewing of family

144
campers was selected to conform with the major summer
visitor season, i.e., the period of public school vacations
in the anticipated tributary area. it was ascertained
that student vacations began between May 25 and June 12;
therefore, the survey period was defined as June 8 to
56
September 7, 1970 (Labor Day).
Two state park campgrounds and five area private camp
grounds were selected as interview locations with their camp
ing visitors becoming the population basis of a sample of
514 camping groups or parties. The interview locations
were rotated to enable all campgrounds to be sampled on all
days of the week. Since the schedule required at least
one half hour to complete, and because interviewing had to
be done in the late afternoon and early evening to avoid
camper arrival time (hence origin) bias the daily interview
quota was about six parties. Though probability sampling
techniques were used to determine quotas and define the
sample (for example, a stratified random sample was pre
scribed) the purpose was for objectivity in observations,
and not for drawing a tight statistical sample. Since levels
of visitation before the survey were unknown, a proportionate
sample could not be drawn. Further details on the sample
are found in Appendix IV.
Unstructured personal interviews were also gathered

145
during the survey period. For example, park and campground
operators were queried about things that would make the
survey year unusual in any way from past years. Inter
views were also taken from time to time with local business
men and other knowledgeable people.
In addition, the researcher elected to live with his
family during the survey at Grayton Beach State Park
as a relatively obscure camper among the subjects of study.
This allowed a degree of camper interaction that would have
been otherwise obtainable, and to a limited extent, parti
cipant-observer techniques were used.
Post survey period.After the survey period was
terminated, additional background interviews and data were
collected. Most important at this time was the camper-
registration data made available for the preceding year
at the two state parks and at all except Magnolia Beach
Campground. The laborious process of manually processing
and coding the approximately 100 per cent sample (16,731
party visits, after an unknown reduction in total registra
tions resulting from sorting and summing repeat registra
tions, a process not done before this study) took four
months to complete. In addition, land use mapping was
completed during this period.

146
Additional information sources
The extensive literature survey for the study was based
on a large variety of geographical and other sources, in
cluding government publications. Libraries consulted were
the following: University of Florida (Gainesville),
Indiana State University (Terre Haute), Indiana University
(Bloomington), and Bradford Woods, Library of the National
Camping Association (Bloomington, Indiana).
Visits and other communications yielded valuable
unpublished materials from Florida offices. Particularly
useful were records, maps, study reports and other informa
tion provided by the Florida Department of Transportation,
Division of Recreation and parks, and the Florida Develop
ment Commission.
A variety of published and unpublished information was
supplementarily used. For example, study area air photo
graphs for 1949 and 1963, various tourist guides and maps,
U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey sheets, and U. S. Geological
Survey, Topographic Survey sheets were used.
Data analysis
Analysis techniques must be selected for each particular
problem and must reflect the data base. The best technique
varies, therefore, with the situation. Coding, tabulating

147
and summarizing data either verbally, cartographically, or
with descriptive statistics is the most dominant process.
Specific hypotheses have been tested by comparison of pre
dicted with observed results. Some relationships are
examined with regression techniques, but again with func
tional description as the objective. Comparison with
analagous study evidence from the literature is also used
in substantiation. The results are a descriptive statement
of selected relations between factors in the problem area,
some "building block" verification of existing theory, and
some hypotheses for testing in further research. The
results are essentially suggestive rather than definitive
and await further modification or verification from other
researchers.

NOTES
1. Diettrich, a noted Florida geographer, once described
a peninsular Florida which is separated from a con
tinental Florida along an imagined line drawn from Cedar
Key to the St. Marys river. He claimed coastal areas
north of this line to resemble "...in every respect... the
contiguous parts of Georgia and Alabama...," in contrast
to the peninsula. Diettrich also spoke of Florida
divisions based on cultural differences, and he claimed
northern Florida to be a "Florida of the Old South,"
as contrasted with his "Urban peninsula" and "Cracker
Central" divisions. Sigismond deR. Diettrich, "Florida's
Human Resources," Geographical Review, vol. 38 (1948),
pp. 278-288.
2. A. W. Kuchler, Potential Natural Vegetation of the
Conterminous United States, American Geographical
Society Special Publication No. 36, map and manual
(New York: American Geographical Society, 1964).
3. John H. Davis, General Map of Natural Vegetation of
Florida, Circular S-178, Agricultural Experiment Sta
tion, University of Florida (Gainesville: University
of Florida, 1967); J. R. Beckenbaugh and J. W. Hammett,
General Soil Map of Florida, Agricultural Experiment
Station, University of Florida and Soil Conservation
Service (Gainesville: University of Florida, 1962),
p. 28.
4. Mimeographed guide map to John C. Beasley State park,
Ft. Walton Beach, Florida, 1970.
5. Florida Development commission, Florida Beach Resources
(Tallahassee: Florida Development Commission, 1963),
p. i.
6. Public beaches were defined as those backed by public
land thus assuring access to water's edge. Ibid.
7. Ibid., pp. 1-3.
148

149
8. Ibid., p. 5.
9. Ibid., p. 7.
10. Ibid., p. 5.
11. Ibid., p. 2.
12. Clare A. Gunn, Texas Marine Resources; The Leisure Way,
Report of workshop on Texas marine tourism-recreation
development (College Station: Texas A & M University,
1970), p. 1.
13. U. S. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, Islands of America
(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1970),
p. 25.
14. Dune crest Beasley State Park has been in existence
since 1959 and yet only has been developed with rest
rooms, showers, picnic tables, shelters, grills and
playground equipment.
15. Highway distance from St. Andrews to St. Joseph park
is 58 miles, only 10 less than the distance from
Grayton Beach to Ft. Pickens.
16. Based on personal interviews during August, 1969, and
May, 1970, with resident managers of service stations,
motels, shops, etc.
17. The sequence of development of this coastal area is
perhaps part of a study of equal importance in another
scale of examination. Urban geographers have studied
historical evolution of city function and morphology
for a number of years. Only relatively recently has
attention been paid to resort communities. It may be
noted that in New Zealand is an almost identical
evolutionary sequence (in a physical geography of
remarkable coincidence) presented in Blair Badcock,
"Problems Associated with the Tourist and Recreational
Development of Ohope," Auckland Student Geographer,
Vol. 2 (1967), pp. 41-46.
J. Russell Smith, North America (New York: Harcourt,
Brace and Co., 1925), p. 274.
18.

150
19. American Automobile Association, Florida Tour Book,
Spring-Summer, 1969 (Washington, D. C.: American Auto
mobile Association, 1969), p. 67.
20. Ann Houpt, "Vermints Once Roamed Where Tourists Now
Play," panama City News-Herald, June 28, 1970.
21. Baynard Kendrick, Florida Trails to Turnpikes: 1914-
1964 (Gainesville: University of Florida press, 1966).
22. Ibid., p. 208.
23. Charles Sweetland, "From Frontier Village to Thriving
Small City," Between the Air Force and the Sea (Fort
Walton Beach: Chamber of Commerce newspaper, 1969).
24. L. E. Peabody, "Extracts from Report on Florida Traffic
Survey," Public Roads, Vol. 16 (1935), pp. 68-72.
25. Personal interview with Mr. Ben Graham, then Vice Presi
dent of the Bay County Motel and Restaurant Association,
Panama City Beach, December 28, 1970.
26. "Grayton Beach Town," Subdivision Plats Walton County,
Florida (Deland, Florida: J. M. Smedley Publisher,
Inc., no date), p. 100.
27. Personal interview with Mr. Paul M. Benedict, realtor,
Santa Rosa, Florida, August 27, 1970.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Personal interview with Mr. Dick Saltsman, Santa Rosa,
Florida, August 27, 1970. .
31. personal interview with an unidentified camper at
Grayton Beach State park who traveled US 98 from Baton
Rouge, Louisiana to Gainesville, Florida, regularly
since its opening in the Grayton Beach Sector in 1935,
August 4, 1970.
32. Graham (See reference 25).
33.
Ibid.

151
34. Ibid.
35. Henry G. Alsberg, The American Guide; The South, The
Southwest" (New York: Hastings House, 1949), p. 843.
36. J. H. Paterson, North America, third edition (London:
Oxford University press, 1965), p. 329; P. F. Griffin,
R. L. Chatham and R. N. Young, Anglo America; A
Systematic and Regional Geography, second edition
(Palo Alto, California: Fearon Publishers, 1968).
37. John Fraser Hart, The Southeastern United States
(Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1967), p. 85;
William H. Morgan, "The Seacoast of North West Florida;
A Geographic Appraisal," ph.D. dissertation, Department
of Geography, University of Florida, 1962.
38. Personal interview with Mr. Larry Bradford, Panama city
Beach, December 29, 1970.
39. Personal interview with Grayton park Ranger Strickland,
then of retirement age and life resident of the area,
September 1, 1970.
40. Unidentified camper (See reference 31).
41. A similar early land use traverse was made by C. C.
Colby, "The Railway Traverse as an Aid in Reconnaissance,"
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 23
(1933), pp. 157-164. A traverse involves repeated
measurement of distance and bearing, i.e., mapping, while
transects are primarily journey records. Since unidimen
sional mapping is the product the term traverse was se
lected. See P. Alun Jones, Field Work in Geography
(London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1968), p. 60;
J. E. Archer and T. H. Dalton, Fieldwork in Geography
(London: Batsford Ltd., 1968).
42. u. S. Urban Renewal Administration, Standard Land Use
Coding Manual, Urban Renewal Administration, Housing
and Home Finance Agency and Bureau of Public Roads,
Department of Commerce (Washington, D. C.: Government
Printing Office, 1965).
43. For additional information on the rural highway service
industry see John M. Roberts, R. M. Kozelka, M. L. Kiehl
and T. M. Newman, "The Small Highway Business on U. S.
30 in Nebraska," Economic Geography, Vol. 32 (1956), pp.
139-152.

152
44. An interesting safety hazard may be associated with
these slow speeds. The author noticed during the two
year field investigation that highway accidents fre
quently occurred on state route 30A (the "back-beach"
road) in the panama City Beach Sector. After slowly
driving along the beach route through the congested
amusement area it is possible that drivers experience
a speed perception lag when they turn onto the fast
traffic bypass. The author experienced this sensation
of normal road speed after a period of driving slowly
when in fact he was traveling well below that of the
traffic flow and was inviting a rear collision or
encouraging a head-on collision between an on-coming
automobile, and a rapidly moving overtaking and passing
automobile. Several times he observed slow moving cars
pull out in front of him.
45. Robert D. Campbell, "The Geography of Recreation in the
United States" (Ph.D. dissertation, Clark University,
1949), p. 91.
46. N. M. Downie and R. W. Heath, Basic Statistical Methods
(New York: Harper & Row, 1959), p. 60; George W.
Snedecor and W. G. Cochran, Statistical Methods, sixth
edition (Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press,
1967), p. 36.
47. Robe B. Carson, "The Florida Tropics," Economic Geo
graphy, Vol. 27 (1951), p. 321.
48. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States,
Study Report 4 (Washington, D. C.: Government Print
ing Office, 1962), pp. 56-57.
49. Ibid.
50. For a critique of the basis for the scientific method
and its evolution through application in social science
see especially chapter three in Leonard A. Salter, Jr.,
A Critical Review of Research in Land Economics
(Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1948).
51. Ibid., p. 77.
F. N. Kerlinger, Foundations of Behavioral Research
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964), p. 388.
52.

153
53. Ibid., p. 390.
54. Arnold Henry Guyot, quoted by William Warntz, Geography
Now and Then, American Geographical Society, Research
Series No. 25 (New York: American Geographical Society,
1964), p. 144.
55. National Academy of Sciences, Outdoor Recreation Re
search (Washington, D. C.: National Academy of Sciences,
1969), p. 32.
56. Labor Day was selected as the end of the interview
period on the basis of comments by several local pro
prietors that it was traditionally the last day of the
visitor season in the area. One local grocer emphasized
his agreement on this fact by proclaiming that a person
could shoot a cannon in the middle of the busiest beach
street and not hit a single person after 5:00 P. M. on
Labor Day.

CHAPTER IV
TRIBUTARY AREA: DELIMITATION AND
SPATIAL INTERACTION
For an individual participant in outdoor recreation
there is much more to the experience than simple involve
ment in some activity at a recreation location. Clawson,
for example, proposes examination of the entire recreation
experience including the phases of planning and anticipa
tion, travel to the site, experience on site, return
travel, and evaluation and recollection of the total ex
perience. This chapter deals primarily with the trans
portation link between visitor origin and destination and
focuses on travel routing and flow in terms of gross move
ments within the camping visitor tributary area centering
on the Florida Northwest Coast recreation resource study
area.
Theory Alternatives
A logical position for analysis of market or tributary
area interaction is from the standpoint of central place
theory as a general approach to understanding tertiary
154

155
economic spatial activity. Because private outdoor
recreation clearly falls within the tertiary or service
and distributive sector of the economy, and since public
outdoor recreation is its essentially nonmarket priced
counterpart there is postulated an analagous application
potential of central place theory to outdoor recreation
processes.^
Theory of the Periphery
Walter Christaller never claimed his urban, commercial-
service oriented concept of central place interaction to be
applicable to all things and a location theory to end all
theories. In fact, his interest in tourism and outdoor
recreation activity in general led him to propose in 1963
what might be called a theory of the periphery. in
Christaller's own words:
There is also a branch of the economy
that avoids central places and the agglomera
tions of industry. This is tourism. Tourism
is drawn to the periphery of settlement dis
tricts as it searches for a position on the
highest mountains, in the most lonely woods,
along the remotest beaches.^
Thus, with the city or urban core region as a visitor source
Christaller proposed an outward diffusion of urban based
searching for a temporary substitute environment.
Though not expressed as a verification of such a

156
theory of the periphery, several researchers have focused
on the relations between the urban core and its regional
recreation hinterland (See Appendix I). The evidence is
clearly indicative of regularity in peripheral tendency.
An interesting observation is that apparently no one has
followed the major concept of peripheral migration tendency
that Christaller visualized the vacation movement of a
population to the periphery of its land-mass, i.e., to the
coast. Though only implied by Christaller, the real
thrust of a peripheral movement tendency is toward that
perceived as functional periphery, and will have a
relative settlement-land use basis for definition.
The social significance of such a theory can be seen
if the philosophical concept of outdoor recreation as a
physical and psychological health renewing process is
combined within the analagous logic of post-Darwinian
organismic regional interaction.4 On this basis the United
States could be conceived as a network or huge system of
interacting urban regions, defined by their metropolitan
"fields" or surrounding zones of commercial and other
influence.^ Open space, defined as either regional in
fluence overlap or depopulated neutral influence areas,
may be considered as interstitial, and may have a similarly
important function analagous to the intercellular or

157
interstitial fluid spaces surrounding and separating human
cells. A cell's vitality is preserved by the process of
transportation of nutrients from interstitial fluids
through cell membranes and by purifying reverse osmosis of
metabolic wastes out of the cell into the interstitium for
transport away. There may be an analagous process in urban
regions. Mercer may have had this in mind when he mentioned
the city and its rural surroundings as existing in a sym-
g
biotic relationship. The transport of urban conflict and
pressure-laden recreationists out of the city and into the
interstitial recreational periphery may be associated with
a filtering of human psychological waste into the inter
stitium in the process of re-creation and re-vitalization
before return to the urban arena.
Central Place Theory
On the other hand, recreation movement takes on dis
tinctly focal properties and recreation places assume the
7
role of central places. Three types of functional
recreation centrality are worth noting: intra-urban
recreation central places, cities themselves as central
places, and nonurban recreation resource area centrality.
Only one American recreation geographer has made a
significant contribution to intra-urban recreation central

158
place theory. Lisle Mitchell's contributions have focused
empirically on urban playgrounds as central places and have
attempted to confirm existence of and describe hierarchies,
g
and hinterlands. in 1969 he proposed a framework for a
two-part functionally modified classical von Thunen loca
tion theory for testing relationships between recreation
9
areas within a city.
At least one other geographer has dealt with internal
urban recreation movement to recreation places. Barnum
considered as a minor element of a market center analysis
10
the movement of persons to urban film theaters.
The attention to cities as the focus of recreational
travel can take two slightly different perspectives. The
resort city is the most studied of urban recreation loca
tions and as a topic has been in the geographic literature
for many years. However, only a few researchers have
described the resort as a central place and focus for
travel within a market region. The ordinary nonresort city
also functions as a recreation attraction that draws
visitors from surrounding areas in a reversal to the
peripheral process theorized by Christaller. The dis
tinction is that this movement often is for entertainment
services offered within the city and is not strictly
within the outdoor recreation scope of this study.

159
Barnum's work on German cities includes some work on this
central place recreation concept.'*''*'
Finally, of most importance to the study at hand, it
can be shown that nonurban, resource-based recreation
areas and parks function, individually and in groupings
as recreation complexes, as seasonal central points. This
fact was noted even by Christaller in his peripheral move-
12
ment discussion. As central places, one would expect
them to exhibit a spatial functional hierarchy with some
hierarchy-level relative differences in threshold popula
tion (minimum number of users to economically justify
facility existence) within market or tributary areas, and
some numerical relationship between numbers of recreation
areas of various sizes or functional rank in the hierarchy.
Furthermore, there should be a relationship between com
parative level of use and factors of spatial concentration
of recreation services or opportunity (forms of agglomera
tion econonomy, etc.), transportation factors (with a focus
on cost), and competitive location.
A Merged Concept of Functional Organization
The economist, Edwin von Boventer, has proposed that
Christaller's originally urban focused central place
theory and his theory of the periphery are both viable

160
concepts and are not mutually exclusive as implied by
13
Christaller. Instead, seeing them both as part of the
same regionalization process, von Boventer demonstrates
that the process of centralizing or dispersal is one of
balance between agglomeration economics and the tendency
in all spheres to maximize distance from competition.
Probably von Boventer is essentially correct, for the
application to a specific location of a central place or a
peripheral theory, in most general terms, for an explanation
of its relationship to other places is a problem that de
pends on scale of classification. In 1957 Philbrick con
ceptualized areal spatial organization as a problem essen-
. 14
tially of scale. At one scale of observation a given
location could be seen as a focus of surrounding homogeneous
and parallel-linked occupance units and hence would have
nodal connections with each of these units. By changing
the scale of observation, the focal location is perceived
as one of a series of parallel linked locations and can be
seen within its collectivity as part of a homogeneous region
having common focal ties along with other units at this
level to a new focal location. Therefore, a theory of
peripheral movement or diffusion from an urban central
place (a focal location) involves recreation travel to a
number of urban fringe (or more distantly) located

161
recreation areas having a similar function, parallel inter
connections, and forming a topically homogeneous region or
recreation hinterland. Yet when each park or recreation area
is considered separately within its area, it becomes, by
scale shift, a nodal central place functioning as a focal
point for its surroundings, consequently, a theory of the
periphery is an urban regional-scale observation with urban
focality. A recreation theory of rural central places is
simply a product of a scale shift and involves recreation
location focality. Both theories deal with the same regional
interaction system components.
This chapter approaches recreation interaction within
a portion of the nation's eastern spatial recreation sub
system. The approach of observation and analysis is from
the scale of recreation area nodality. The operational
study area is used as a focus for recreation travel and in
teraction within its tributary or market area.
Application of Central place Theory
If the assumption is made that recreation locations can
be thought of as being analagous to other central place forms,
i.e., cities and other retailing-service locations, then an
internal differentiation must be found with which to contrast
recreation central places and form the basis of their

162
spatial separation, market area differences, and hierarchy
of places.
A Recreation place Hierarchy
Cities are contrasted on the basis of their functional
complexity or the number of kinds of retail and service
15
establishments they offer. Shopping centers are similarly
ranked. The service complexity of a park might analagously
be based on the number of kinds of recreation activities
existing as participation potentials at that location. Park
hierarchy should therefore be related to the number of
participation opportunities at different parks.
Cities and retail centers, on the other hand, can be
classed by the order of the economic activities available
within them. The higher the order of business, the greater
its threshold or condition of profitable establishment. The
notion is simply that goods or services of frequent purchase
require a smaller base population for support of a profitable
establishment offering that good or service. Less frequently
purchased, higher-order goods, must have a larger market
area population to support an establishment offering that
good. Thus, the small town, a higher hierarchy-ranked cen
tral place, will be characterized by higher-order services
and goods, as well as a larger number of kinds of establishments

163
than one of the villages within the town's market area.
Parks and other recreation focal locations fall within
a hierarchy that is based on types or orders of services.
Each rank has a different average functional complexity
based on number of different activity potentials and the
magnitude of the site potentials. The simplest hierarchy
of recreation locations has been proposed by Clawson who
classes recreation areas as "user oriented" (urban and near
urban, short travel distance, high density land use),
"intermediate" (larger, urban fringe and beyond, longer
travel distances, less intensive use) and "resource based"
H
(usually rural, may require a major trip, low use density).
The market area of a central place, which varies with
the range of its highest order establishment, is essentially
the area marked by the maximum distance that consumers will
travel from places surrounding the central place to purchase
in that center. Given a homogeneous population density
throughout a region the result would be larger market areas
surrounding each higher ranking group of central places in
the functional complexity hierarchy. Parks also have
variously sized market areas based on distances that people
are willing to travel to participate in activities at
different ranks of parks. City parks have the shortest
maximum distance that people are willing to travel to

164
participate in a park's activities and hence the smallest
market area. State parks, which are generally in the
"intermediate" ranked group, have intermediate-sized market
areas compared to the small local areas of city parks and
the nation-wide market areas of major "resource based"
recreation locations such as Grand Canyon National Park.
The Composite Tributary Area
The study area is a diverse complex of recreation
facilities, with a wide array of recreation oriented
business and service establishments, and an equally wide
array of potential activities in which visitors can parti
cipate. Though a single market area for this linear com
plex could be demonstrated by a process of cartographic
generalization, the value or purpose of such a composite
representation would be questionable.
Again, an urban analogy is the basis for this assertion.
An urban central place or city is a focal point for a
theoretical continuous distribution of second points from
which or toward which interaction with the city focus
ensues/' Such a theoretical urban interaction field, or
simply urban field, has been empirically demonstrated many
times and labeled a city's umland, tributary area, service
18
area, market area, hinterland, and sphere of influence.

165
The tributary or service area of a city or urban complex
is therefore composed of the surrounding area that is served
in some way or in a multiplicity of ways by that city or com
plex. The tributary area of a park or recreation complex
might similarly be defined. The tributary area of a city
is actually a composite of many variously overlapping in
dividual service areas or market areas of several different
functional activities centered on the city. It has been
shown in many studies by geographers, sociologists, land
economists, planners and others that there is generally a
lack of coincidence of the boundaries or limits of these
19
service areas/7
The tributary area of a city is made up of variably
overlapping areas where specific functional components
of the city apply. The tributary area of a park, a complex
of parks, or an entire recreation service complex (such as
is found in the study area) also is made up of service
areas which may vary considerably in areal extent (and
shape).
For example, the simplest of recreation locations, a
single isolated park with no surrounding allied service
developments, might be the basis for a number of tributary
areas. Thus specific service areas might exist that are
composed individually of bounded origin locations of persons

166
who visit the park to swim or fish or boat, etc. Composites
could be identified on the basis of multi-purpose trips
when participation in more than one activity forms the trip
basis. Obviously, such studies as this could be quite com
plex and might well involve differentiation beyond the value
of information returned.
Another basis for differentiating individual functions
of a park and hence its separate service areas is by
analysis of period of visit. For example, a park may
serve a tributary area that may be defined as the maximum
outermost limits of time or distance that people will travel
to visit the park for a few hours of on-site recreation only
to return home again that day, i.e., a day-trip or a day use
visit. A much larger visitor tributary area would logically
be associated with those having the time to visit the park
for longer periods than part of a day. These visitors would
take lodging in or near the park and would come from a
maximum distance of much greater range than the day visitor
group. Hence park service areas might be defined for day
visitors, weekend visitors and vacation period visitors
20
or some other similar visit period classification. For
the activity-defined and visit period-defined, there may be
some or none of the service areas surrounding a park that
spatially coincide.

16i7
Therefore a word of caution is needed for interpreta
tion of the following visitor distribution maps and in con
templating their analysis and discussion. This research is
concerned with the study area's total resort-recreation
complex only as it relates to enhancement of the recreation
facility and service base that partially attracts family
camping visitors to the area for overnight or longer visits
in area private and public campgrounds. Consequently, the
following maps depict facets of the camping market or
tributary area focused on the Greater Panama City recrea
tion complex. Therefore, though the area's total zone of
visitor influence or recreation attraction may be, and
probably is, quite comparable to its tributary area for the
camping function there is no evidence of such comparability.
Should the gross camping service area analysis results be
assumed spatially comparable to other service sectors of
the study area or to specific components within the camping
sector the possibility of tributary area dissimilarity
must be held in mind.
Tributary Area Zonation
A tributary area oriented around a central place can
be conceptualized from more than one spatial reference.
For example, the maximum observed limit that people will

168
travel to visit a park or recreation complex forms a maximum
or temporal approximation of the absolute market or tributary
21
area. Such a service range or maximum radius based con
cept of a recreation tributary area can be balanced by
optimal concepts of a market area. Optimal refers to a best
fit population support area that from the free enterprise
standpoint would afford establishment of a commercial
recreation location and be associated with a predicted
profit margin of desirable size. Optimal market area for
a public recreation location might involve determinents
based on any number of public management-service goals. A
third market area reference is functional and based on
spatially competitive relationships.
Berry has described internal zonation of functional
trading areas of retail stores as primary, secondary, and
22
fringe zonated. He says that the primary market area or
zone is that area that provides 60 to 70 per cent of the
trade at the store and is the store's area of greatest
market penetration or where its share of total business
generated is greater than its competitors. The secondary
area accounts normally for 20 to 30 per cent of the store's
trade and the balance is taken up in the highly competitive
fringe area. Draine has used similar terms to describe
23
competitive zones around Chicago for rail freight shipping.

169
He described a very successful competition zone (located
not at Chicago but on Atlantic and Gulf coasts), a Chicago
hinterland zone of time-variable freight rate advantage,
a noncompetitive hinterland, and a periphery with much
nonrate competition. A number of others simply have used
a mean field instead of a practically unmeasureable
24
maximum or potential field.
Consequently, this research has anticipated different
types of tributary areas. Attempts have been made to show
cartographically both absolute and competitive functional
market areas for the specific camping function of the study
area.
In the evolution of the proposal for this research a
number of specific problems were uncovered. Some of these
were formed into basic working hypotheses, based partly on
the outdoor recreation literature, and partly on postulated
analagous principles of central place and marketing theory.
The tentative nature of the background of expectations,
coupled with the diversity of unknown factors in the data
gathering process produced a less than optimum situation
for control of variables, rigid definition, and testing.
Consequently, the explorative process made necessary has not
resulted in definitive answers or solutions to problems,
but instead it has formed a more sound basis for continued

170
research on these problems and has proposed a refined set of
partially verified and augmented hypotheses.
The topics of working hypotheses evaluated in this
chapter pertain to intra-regional recreation migration or
market area interaction and are as follows: beach resource
homogeneity (distance minimizing hypothesis and physical
resource noncomparative hypothesis), a resource specificity
hypothesis, and interaction hypotheses (for distance and
time dimensions). Before discussing these hypotheses,
however, a discussion of maximum market area characteristics
yields worthwhile base information.
Market Area Overview
To a large extent the entire nation and part of Canada
is the maximum market or tributary area for the study area.
Over the period of the sample year, representatives of all
states found their way to the area's campgrounds. Figure 13
shows graphically the variation in state proportion of
visitor origins and demonstrates the complete coverage of
the conterminous United States by the area's camping hinter-
25
land over the period of a year. All states had at least
three parties to visit the area.
Since the study period extended only through the heart
of the area's camping visitor season, the data in Figure 13

Figure 13
171

Figure 14
172

Figure 15
173

UNITED STATES CAMPER ORIGINS SUMMER
Figure 16
174

175
is shown broken down into non-summer visits (Figure 14)
and visits during the summer survey period (Figures 15 and
16). Figure 15 is based on visits from the conterminous
United States and all other visitor origins. Due to
foreseen problems of analysis using population and other
variates the main thrust is toward visitors originating
within the conterminous states, hence the two maps. A
distinct seasonality in visitor use of the study area was
shown in Chapter III. Seasonality, furthermore, partly
formed the basis for assignment of the study period to this
research. The question of whether summer and non-summer
market areas vary needed to be answered, for it could not
be assumed logically that all states of visitor origin
dropped proportionately in their share of visitors between
summer and non-summer periods.
A comparison was made between Figures 14 and 16 for
differences between non-summer and summer state shares of
visitors. Clearly, all states do not vary proportionately,
for some states exhibit what may be a randomly dispropor
tionate drop during the off-season (see the western states).
Though the number of total visits drop in all states
(except in New England where they gain in absolute numbers),
there are different regional rate patterns.
As do most of the plains states, most southern states

176
show a non-summer drop in proportion of total area visits.
Exceptions are the proportions from Florida, Georgia, and
Alabama where increases occur. This may reflect the relative
location advantage of nearby residents in these three states
who can take advantage of a brief period of warm weather
or a nice weekend rather spontaneously to travel to the
study area for a camping trip. Another possible explana
tion is en route stop-overs by Florida based spring and fall
migrants from or toward the western states.
Other marked non-summer increases in proportion of
total visits are accounted for by winter visitors from the
Midwest and the Northeast. North Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia,
Pennsylvania, New York, and the New England states all
show increased proportions of visitors during the non
summer seasons. A notable exception for which there is no
explanation is Indiana which showed a perceptably dispro
portionate drop. Whether this is owing to survey period
local conditions in the state's industrial economy or to a
regular feature of a seasonal visit cycle is unknown. The
overall increase in northern regional share of the market
during this period was expected and is no doubt aligned
with the long-standing Florida migration of northerners
during the cold, snowy winters.

177
It should be stressed that Figure 16 is an approximation
of the maximum or absolute study period market area for the
study area's camping visitors. This includes assumed mar
ket spatial overlap of the study area's visitor impact
zone with those of surrounding competitive areas. The
extent of overlap cannot be determined from such a map.
Resource Homogeneity
Within the outdoor recreation resource use literature
it is common to find the problem of visitor perception of
physical resource base characteristics or resource quality
greatly neglected. Either assumptions of perceived physical
differences are made or this factor is simply disregarded.
Few studies have been made of physical environmental per-
2 6
ception within a recreation resource context, though the
broader total field of environmental perception studies has
approached several avenues leading to understanding of
perceptual processes in general and as they pertain to a
27
few specific environments.
This research is partly in response to the paucity of
research on physical resource perception that has been done
within a spatial system context, and partly in order to
attempt a limited verification of Christaller's theory of
the periphery regarding the absolute periphery or seacoast.

178
in order to pursue this problem systematically, the follow
ing basic working hypothesis was formulated: seacoast sand
beaches are perceived as a homogeneous recreation resource.
Therefore, if all of such beaches are equal in perceived
physical suitability for outdoor recreation (i.e., func
tionally homogeneous in that real physical resource dif
ferences are unimportant so that all coastal beach locations
offer equivalent recreation satisfaction-potential) then,
all other factors held constant, all such beaches are per
ceptually interchangeable. Consequently, if any ocean
beach is perceived as having the capability of satisfying
an individual's recreation need, providing certain basic
assumptions are true, then that individual decision-maker
will select that coastal beach perceived by him to be his
most accessible location alternative. Since accessibility
is such a complex multifarious concept that involves both
physical-nonphysical, and site-nonsite restrictions on loca
tion availability as well as elements of travel connectivity,
for practicality a surrogate term must be used. By consider
ing travel connectivity as the root of accessibility, a re
duced test hypothesis can be formed. This states that the
decision maker will select the route or path of perceived
least resistance to a beach location (provided a mini-max
assumption is made for individual decision rationale). A

179
greatly simplified surrogate for a path of least resistance
is least distance or least travel time.
Distance Minimizing Hypothesis
The final test hypothesis, including the above assump
tions and surrogates and furthermore assuming the indivi
dual's perception to be accurate and comprehensive, may be
stated as follows:
The individual decision maker will select
the seacoast beach location nearest in
miles to his home or trip origin loca
tion. 28
Figure 17 cartographically demonstrates some spatial
implications of this test hypothesis. Assuming for the
moment a homogeneous transport surface with direct highway
connections between all pertinent locations in the nation,
the nation-scale seacoast beach visitor tributary sheds or
"market areas" can be defined in an interlocking pattern of
regional markets. Since such a minimal-competition, limited
supply of high order "resource based" ocean beach recrea
tion opportunity exists, large market areas approximating
nation-sheds would be expected. Four predicted tributary
areas for the major competing coastal beaches are shown in
Figure 17. A greatly generalized Pacific coast visitor-
shed is thus located west of a line extending from north
western Minnesota southwest to extreme western Texas as shown

180

181
on the map. Arrows indicate the closest beaches available
as alternatives to recreation decision makers originating
along this indifference line or competitive market area
dividing line. Similar boundary lines divide visitor
tributary areas focusing on Atlantic coast beaches from
those focusing on study area Gulf beaches, and the Gulf
study area tributary zone from that of the developed Texas
Gulf beaches. It should be noted that Louisiana has no
significant sand beaches on the Gulf. In addition, the
northern half of the Texas Gulf coast is void of recreation
29
and camping facility developed beaches. Furthermore, on
the eastern side of the Louisiana beach void, Gulf beaches
that are accessible and developed with nearby camping are
extremely limited, with only a few locations in coastal
30
Mississippi and Alabama. Therefore, the predicted loca
tion of the functional or competitive tributary area boundary
between the two nonpeninsular Gulf beach areas defines a
generalized linear indifference location between the southern
Texas beaches and the approximate mid-point of the study
area. The result is a roughly triangular-shaped predicted
tributary area that inclines from its Gulf study area base
toward the northwest with its apex in southeastern North
Dakota. The shape irregularity is a product of space rela
tions with alternate locations, and the large size is a

182
result of limited competition.
In order to test the validity of the distance
minimizing hypothesis (as a partial test of the major re
source homogeneity hypothesis), data were gathered by which
an estimate could be made of the actual shape of the Florida
Northwest Coast's camping visitor tributary area. Maps of
observed camping visitor origin distributions were con
structed to compare with Figure 17.
In order to refine the state distribution concept of
the tributary area, a precise dot map was drawn (Figure 18).
This shows origins of all camping parties that visited each
of the survey campgrounds except Magnolia Beach. Each party
is represented by a single dot plotted as near as possible
to its origin. Precise rural-urban home location of each
campground registrant relative to the post office city of
address was impossible to discern; therefore, cities were
used as plotting locations for visitor origins. Though dots
tend to merge, or are theoretically on top of one another
in totally merged locations, and since density and spatial
distribution were map objectives, high origin-number
occurrence-areas were cartographically sacrificed for
31
greater accuracy in lesser density areas. A dot repre
senting multiples of party visits would have produced an
entirely different map.

183
Figure 18

As would be expected from the state distribution map
(Figure 16), Georgia, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee stand
out as visitor origins. However, the origins are far from
evenly distributed throughout these or any other states.
Instead, as most dot maps of discrete data show, the re
sultant distribution is portrayed in the reality of its
discontinuous nature. Neither are origins distributed
randomly as is visually obvious. See, for example, the
west coast states and the plains states. Instead there is
a very strong urban origin location emphasis. With this
emphasis, and since population is not randomly distributed
but is clustered, and since these urban clusters are
unevenly distributed then the pattern of origins internal
to the visitor tributary area is likewise a clustered
pattern. The major metropolitan areas stand out on this
map as dense clusters of dots while lesser concentrations
are located at smaller cities and towns. (Urban demographic
survey results verifying this method are found in Appendix V.)
The ungeneralized discreet dot map consequently con
structs a market or tributary area that appears quite unre
lated to the symmetrical hexagonal or circular market areas
32
and service areas of central place theory. Not only is
the area discontinuous and assymetrical, but distinct corri
dors of visitor origins emerge and equally distinct regional

185
vacuums, or areas nearly void of origins, can be seen. For
example, the most obvious feature of this map is the north-
south visitor origin corridor that extends from the study
area through Alabama and Georgia, across Tennessee and Ken
tucky, and spreads through the Midwest into Illinois,
Indiana, and Ohio, touching southern Michigan and Wisconsin.
Another corridor, more narrowly defined, extends along the
Gulf from southern Florida through the study area and wraps
along the coast into Texas. Another irregularity is the
presence of numbers of visitor origins in lower plains and
midwestern cities, but cities located east of a line pro
jected from south-central Georgia and passing through cen
tral Ohio are proportionately under-represented. Finally,
much of the east coast is an origin vacuum.
Comparison of this dot map with the hypothetically
predicted study area visitor-shed shown in Figure 17
suggests at least a partial verification of the distance
minimizing hypothesis from which the predicted market area
map was drawn. The east coast visitor origin vacuum fits
the predicted map, as does the general alignment of the
north-south corridor of visitor origins. The major distri
bution of Georgia visitors shows a nearly perfect concordance
with the predicted visitor origin distribution. The north
west extension of observed visitor origins through Arkansas,

186
Missouri, Iowa, and into southern Minnesota, with inclusion
of the extreme eastern parts of South Dakota, Nebraska and
Kansas fits the prediction almost perfectly. Deviations
from the expected distribution are evident in several sec
tors 7 the scattered western visitors, the central Oklahoma-
eastern Texas arc (located within a 700 mile radius of the
study area), and particularly the Georgia-Ohio aligned
apparent shift of the market area into the predicted
Atlantic tributary zone. It should be stressed that this
map is simply a location refinement of the data shown in
Figure 16, and consequently has the same interpretive
limitations.
Figure 19, on the other hand, offers a refinement on
the preceding dot map. Both figures should be used to
gether, for Figure 19 is primarily an interpretive aid to
the nearly 100 per cent camping visitor sample shown in
Figure 18. This supplementary dot map is based on a 514
party interview sample of visitors represented on the major
dot map. Note the dual classification of parties interviewed
and represented on Figure 19. Of the 514 visitor sample,
376 were area terminal. The nonterminal visitors were en
route to another terminal location (6.2%), on a tour (10.3%),
or were terminal visitors to a cluster of locations including
the study area in part (9.1%).

187
Figure 19

188
It is assumed that this secondary sampling is adequately
correlated visually with the total visitor distribution of
Figure 18 and thus warrants direct interpretation of the
dual visitor party classification distribution. This classi
fication is an attempt to estimate the functional-competitive
market area for the study visitors. The nonterminal class
is composed of visitors claiming a location other than one
in the study area as a principal trip destination. These
were therefore mainly touring visitors with multi-stop
itineraries or were en route, overnight stop-over visitors.
If the major distribution of terminal visitors is used to
define a functional tributary area which excludes overlap
area, then the market area can be seen to conform more
closely to the boundaries predicted, with greater propor
tions of terminal visitors coming from within the predicted
area and greater proportions of nonterminal visitors
originating outside of the predicted market area. There
still exists, however, a hint of a Texas-Oklahoma arc of
deviation from the predicted distribution that tends to
confirm the existence of a Gulf coast deviation corridor.
Also, and more obvious, is the deviation from the predicted
market area that exists in the shape of a well-defined
corridor extending from the study area into Indiana and
Ohio.

189
indifference boundaries
A secondary explanation might be offered to help under
stand more deviation from the market area model predicted on
assumptions of perceived resource homogeneity, interchange-
ability and distance minimizing individual behavior. The
33
spatial competition boundaries of such competing locations
probably are not composed of points that can be connected
by a line on a map forming a discrete boundary. Thus the
analogy between such a boundary line as a visitor-shed and
a linear mountain crest as a watershed probably breaks down.
Overlapping tributary areas have been demonstrated for
port hinterlands34 and forelands,rural trade fairs,36
3 7
livestock markets, and cities as retail and service
O O
centers. There would appear to be a firm basis from
which to look for overlapping rather than discrete market
areas. Another way of looking at this concept would involve
interstitial areas between nonjoining market boundaries
where the recreation trip decision could be based on con
sideration of more than one recreation resource area to which
trips could be made without consideration of relative mar
ginal satisfactions. Hence, these overlap areas might be
simply multiple alternate travel opportunity zones at per
ceived equal cost.
Taking the case at hand, the north-south visitor-shed

190
line dividing visitors between Atlantic and Gulf coast
beaches may in fact be a rough center line for a zone of
overlap. in order to develop this concept, see Figure 17
again. Point A is located within the Atlantic beach shed
and a camping party seeking to minimize travel distance
would turn to a southern New jersey beach for a camping
vacation. To travel from point A to the study area would
involve an approximately 11 per cent longer trip. From
point B, on the Atlantic side, the nearest beach is Savannah
Beach in Georgia. A visit to the study area would involve
an almost 45 per cent longer trip. Thus, the probability
of the recreation decision maker perceiving relative trip
difference and reacting in a distance minimizing fashion
might be hypothesized to decrease with decreased relative
difference between alternate trip lengths. Or restated,
the lesser the relative difference between travel distance
options the greater the probability of travel indifference
or perceived equi-distance. Stated thusly, the probability
of a distance minimizing trip decision would be greater
for point B than for point A. Also, with increased dis
tance from all alternate recreation locations there might
be anticipated a greater area of overlap or a greater
lateral spread of a zone of distance indifference on either
side of a predicted market indifference line. At least one

191
attempt has been made to construct such a probability of
spatial indifference model, though it was for Iowa hog
3 9
marketing interaction. The wedge-shaped area within the
broken (dashed) lines on Figure 17 demonstrates the expected
shape of such a probability of indifference zone constructed
around the predicted boundary or visitor tributary shed be
tween Atlantic and Gulf beaches. Note that the apex should
be at a point of minimal separation between resource areas.
To Hoover, such recreation market area overlaps would re
sult from absorption of excess travel costs by the visitor
40
(who is both transfer agent and buyer).
A number of other factors can be cited as possibly
having an effect in causing the deviations from the pre
dicted market distribution. To some extent these factors
may be considered as enhancements to the hypothesized pro
bability indifference wedge, or functional eastern exten
ders of this wedge in reality into Indiana, Ohio, eastern
Kentucky, and Tennessee. See the dotted line on Figure 17.
Uneven friction of distance
Haggett, in a commentary on distortion of interaction
field shape, suggests in addition to the asymmetrical
elongation of a market area in response to location of
competition (shown to exist in this study), that also there

192
is often found a modification of theoretical shape by the
barrier effect of mountains as they decrease travel accessi-
41
bility. Losch also referred to competition and topography
42
as shape deformers. If such a topography factor is intro
duced as a relaxation of the assumed uniform transporta
tion plain, then some possible transport relative advantages
might be hypothesized. The Appalachian cordillera extends
northward from northcentral Georgia, through northwest
South Carolina, western North Carolina and Virginia, and
through West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and into New York.
Comparing the alignment of this major watershed with the
origins of terminal visitors might indicate a correlation
between west-crest locations and tendency to visit the study
area rather than drive eastward through the mountains.
Without eastern seaboard beach visitor origin data for com
parison, such a mountain partial barrier to transportation
remains unverified conjecture.
Historically highway route systems have been aligned
with topography and ease of construction factors; therefore,
to propose an Appalachian barrier that effectively dis
places the predicted market area eastward toward the moun
tains is to propose for mountain fringe residents that their
path of least resistance (or least cost, all travel factors
considered) to an alternate beach is aligned to the southwest

193
and toward the Gulf along perceived "better" highway
43
linkages. implied in this statement is a notion of
friction of distance orientation of proposed lines of
movement as these traverse varied topographic domains.
Also, considering highway networks in reality it is found
that they vary in arrangement with the same topographic
factors and hence are not uniform in linkage, i.e., all
points are not equally accessible from all other points.
Consequently, routes may exert an effect on visitor move
ments and distribution of origins (hence shape of market
area) as an independent factor. Losch adds credence to
this notion in his discussion of market area shape as a
44
function of the transportation system.
Noting that "shape or pattern is related to process,"
and that process is the essence of this discussion (i.e.,
site selection and route selection from among alternatives),
it was decided to construct a travel flow map in order to
evaluate partially some of these ideas. The resultant map
shows routing and other spatial aspects of movement to the
46
study area by survey period camping visitors. it will
be noted that the 514 interview sample of Figure 19 is also
the basis of the data portrayed in Figure 20, and that both
direct and tour routing is included.
The general value of this flow map is for description
45

194
~->-
1 WASHINGTON, D.C.
2 WINCHESTER, VA
3 NORFOLK, VA
4 RICHMOND, VA
5 ROANOKE, NC
6 RALEIGH, NC
7 GREENSBORO, NC
8 CHARLOTTE, NC
9 CHARLESTON, SC
10 COLUMBIA, SC
11 GREENVILLE, SC
12 ASHEVILLE, NC
13 SAVANNAH, GA
14 AUGUSTA, GA
15 GREAT SMOKY MOUNTAINS
NATIONAL PARK
16 KNOXVILLE, TN
17 MIAMI, FL
18 TAMPA, FL
19 OCALA, FL
CITIES
20 JACKSONVILLE, FL
21 TALLAHASSEE, FL
22 ALBANY, GA
23 DOTHAN, GA
24 MACON, GA
25 COLUMBUS, GA
26 MONTGOMERY, AL
27 ATLANTA, GA
28 BIRMINGHAM, AL
29 CHATTANOOGA, TN
30 HUNTSVILLE, AL
31 NASHVILLE, TN
32 LEXINGTON, KY
33 COLUMBUS, OH
34 CINCINNATI, OH
35 LOUISVILLE, KY
36 INDIANAPOLIS, IN
37 BLOOMINGTON, IL
38 EVANSVILLE, IN
39 ST. LOUIS, MO
40 PADUCAH, KY
41 JACKSON, TN
-
Source:
Stratified random sample of parties camping at
Grayton Beach, St. Andrews, Alligator Point,
Beach, KOA, Magnolia Beach, and Pirate Cove,
summer, 1970.
42 MEMPHIS, TN
43 TUPELO, MS
44 COLUMBUS, MS
45 MERIDIAN, MS
46 PENSACOLA, FL
47 MOBILE, AL
48 HATTIESBURG, MS
49 NEW ORLEANS, LA
50 BATON ROUGE, LA
51 JACKSON, MS
52 HOUSTON, TX
53 SHREVEPORT, LA
54 LITTLE ROCK, AR
55 TEXARKANA, TX
56 DALLAS, TX
57 OKLAHOMA CITY, OK
58 WICHITA, KS
59 KANSAS CITY, MO
60 LAREDO, TX
61 SAN ANTONIO, TX
62 AMARILLO, TX
63 DENVER, CO
Figure 20

195
as an end itself. What Lukermann has said about urban cir
culation has direct application within a recreation context:
The physical link between the popula
tion and the service must be specified.
Merely counting functions, establishments,
or populations is not sufficient; the flow
line must eventually be plotted.47
In other words, a complete concept of interaction between
points must include some verification of the linkage process
in actuality, i.e., flow between points within the real or
idealized interaction net or web.
Figure 20 uses a deliberately uninflated sample since
either way the nature of the graphic representation would
be identical (except for possible difference based on
introduced error caused by inflation of the sample). For
simplicity, locations of cities and one national park are
represented by keyed symbol. Furthermore, since, as became
apparent in the sample survey, visitors tended to view
travel and route selection as a process of choosing be
tween multinode (city) linkage options or multi-segmented
paths between origin and destination, cities are used as
primary references for interpretation of the generalized
travel route connections.
Returning to the notion of topographic barriers and
uneven friction of distance, a specific explanation of the
apparent eastward shift of the market area can now be

196
formulated. If uneven friction of distance does indeed
exist, then it might be assumed that the increased travel
ease and greater possible speeds of interstate highways
would be one possible factor of market area expansion.
It was observed that an unpredicted group of visitors
originated in Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, and parts of eastern
Kentucky and Tennessee. If these could be shown to have
used interstate routes then the hypothesis of expansion
of the market area by decreased friction of distance (in
creased highway access) might be reasonably indicated as
an explanation.
All sampled visitors from Michigan, Ontario (Canada),
and northern Ohio moved south over interstate highways.
Though local access links to interstates were used, all but
one party originating in Ohio traveled through that state
and through Kentucky by interstate routes. The one deviant
route had only a partial link that was noninterstate.
Almost as a rule, all northern visitors and all western
originating visitors utilized interstates almost the com
plete length of their trip to the study area. Exceptions
were situations where approximately direct routes by
interstate were unavailable, whereupon arterial federal
routes were usually selected. Except within about a 150
mile radius of the study area most of the routes on the flow

197
map used by 10 or more parties are interstate or major
federal through routes. The Bloomington-St. Louis-Tupelo-
jackson artery is an interstate route. Also, the main
north-south corridor flow artery connecting Indianapolis,
Evansville, Louisville, Ohio cities, Nashville, Huntsville,
Birmingham, and Montgomery is with exceptions of incomplete
links an interstate route. From Montgomery the southerly
flow divides taking US 331 to the west and US 231 to the
east by way of Dothan. It will be seen that this main
route collects travelers from both east and west as southern
tending feeder routes coalesce into the US 331-Interstate
65 flow.48
It will be noted that the few eastern origin visitors
also traveled the interstates to a large extent (wherever
they were available). An exception is the handful of
visitors who traveled the scenic Blue Ridge Parkway from
Winchester to Roanoke, Asheville, and to the Great Smoky
Mountains National park.
Another trend should be noted. A large number of
touring visitors and those with longer vacation periods
selected their route in order to travel through the Great
Smokies. Thus the Lexington-Knoxville and Nashville-
Knoxville routes stand out, as also do the eastern routes
feeding into the Knoxville-Smokies area and the heavily

198
used federal routes linking the mountains with Chattanooga,
Atlanta, and points south.
It would appear logical that the study tributary area's
eastward extension beyond that predicted by minimum dis
tance concepts is influenced by unequal accessibility
factors. The north-south friction-reducing interstates
appear to favor expansion of the market area, especially
when viewed against the minimal supply of good east-west
mountain routes, thereby increasing the tendency to travel
south to the Gulf. Though a few visitors chose to use the
scenic or local-character by-ways, it appeared that most
of the visitors chose a faster more convenient interstate
route, at least until they neared the study area. it is
also significant that Bingham and others found this same
49
Florida-Midwest corridor in a Kentucky study, and several
have commented on the interstate impact on recreation
. 50
travel.
The Texas-Florida Gulf corridor also might have
partially an access reason for its existence. Florida resi
dents tended to gravitate to the west coast as they jour
neyed northwest out of Florida. Touring visitors passing
out of or into the state also tended to take the same Gulf
route, though it may be the appeal of the Gulf coast that
influenced their route selection. Many western and plains

199
states visitors tended to take the most direct route to the
nearest part of the Gulf coast and then they also traveled
along the coast routes.
information bias
At least one complex factor exists that can be con
sidered a possible reinforcement, lending enhancement to
the process and shape-logic of both the predicted and ob
served study tributary areas, caution should be exercised,
however, for this reinforcement process may stand as a
chief explanation for the observed market area shape,
exclusive of the logic by which the prediction of shape
was made.
There is doubtless a broad array of recreation move-
51
ments that might be classed as sub-optimal behavior. Much
of what might be grouped this way can be related to the
information basis upon which decisions are made. It is
difficult to conceive of an individual having perfect in
formation about all pertinent variables that should be
involved in an optimum decision. There is reason to believe
that individuals have, in addition to basic cultural and
economic information filters, a number of social and other
factors that limit or restrict the number of perceived
recreation alternatives from which selection and participa
tion ensues.

200
Piperoglou, for example, has suggested that individuals
develop different kinds of specific biases for, or bonds
with, places which tend to produce preferences for locations
and even tend to influence what types of places the in-
52
dividual considers as a recreation resource. The notion
of such individual-to-place bonds can be expanded to pre
dict the existence of bias within an area for a particular
recreation place. Such a situation might result from
location-differential receptivity to information flows. In
other words, information about different places may flow
through a selectively permeable intervening social-physical
distance, so that information may be more easily received
from some directions or places than others.
Deasy and Griess showed that regional orientation is
a real factor in shaping the market or influence area of
53
a recreation facility. They associated population migra
tion and regional communication factors with the direc
tional bias of market areas of two small commercial tourist
attractions in Pennsylvania. Bingham, Pickard and Romsa
54
also have suggested such regional factors.
Guthrie also has seized upon this idea and has pro
posed that emigration from an area often may be associated
55
with high incidence of visits to that area for vacations.
The potentially superior information level concerning

201
recreation places, conditions, and alternates in the old
residence area could easily result from communication biases
toward that area as friends and relatives maintain contacts.
Since word-of-mouth advertising has been shown to be the
most effective information system for campground informa
tion dissemination there are obvious applications of this
line of reasoning to the study area problem. The signifi
cance of the preceding comments is that economic migration
corridors may become reverse-flow recreation migration
56
corridors.
In order to test this notion, comparisons were made of
the shape of the study visitor tributary area and existing
maps outlining emigration from the areas immediately sur
rounding the study area. Rose cartographically illus
trated the black migration flow from Mississippi, Alabama,
Tennessee, and Kentucky northward into the major cities
57
of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, and Michigan. Adams also has
pointed out the existence of a similar northern Indiana-
Illinois economic migration corridor extending southward
58
into southern Alabama and Mississippi. Both authors found
an Atlantic seaboard migration corridor that agrees with the
partial east coast visitor origin void.
Another interesting information-based explanation for
the tributary area shape is based on application of reverse

202
diffusion concepts. Hagerstrand describes a distribution
such as has been observed in this study as a "nebula
distribution" which he attempts to explain on the basis of
diffusion of ideas. Such distributions are understandable
when viewed relative to the "starting-point and the func-
59
tion of the growth process...."
Application of diffusion concepts suggests that
truncation of the study tributary area by the Gulf of
Mexico may function as a reflective barrier that tends to
intensify or concentrate formal advertising, word of mouth
advertising, etc., and spread it farther than normally
expected in the direction opposite the barrier.^0 This
concept of physical barriers influencing communication and
spread of ideas might also tend to emphasize the Appalachian-
crest, apparent market-divide between Gulf and Atlantic
beaches.
The allure of Florida as a vacation spot was anticipated
but the effect is unknown. Also, the locations, amounts,
and types of formal advertising placed in the tributary area
is unknown. However, survey response indicated that at
least 4 per cent of the visitors sampled selected the area
as a direct result of reading formal advertising literature
of several types. Deasy showed this factor to be quite im
portant in determining tributary area shape. Another factor

203
anticipated, but unknown in effect, is that of a possible
directional bias that for some unknown reason may make
southward rather than northward vacation-recreation move
ment more appealing.
Noncomparative Hypothesis
The original hypothesis was that beaches are perceived
as homogeneous resources. it was assumed that if this was
a true statement then a distance minimizing travel process
should result. The validity of this assumption has been
shown to be probable. However, validity is within the
limitations of uncontrolled variables which were also dis
cussed and shown to have conceivably caused part of the
observed results. Consequently, the verification of the
hypothesis is somewhat tenuous.
Another test of the resource homogeneity hypothesis
was proposed. If the physical properties of any beach can
meet an individual's recreation needs then logically it
must follow that the individual's recreation area or site
selection-decision making process will be noncomparative
or nonevaluative in regard to beach physical characteristics
at alternative locations. That is to say, the decision
maker will not choose a beach entirely or partly on the
basis of perceived "better" physical recreation-satisfaction
potentials.

204
In order to test this hypothesis, beach camping
visitors were interviewed to ascertain their stated reasons
for selection of the study area as a recreation destination.
It was decided to reject the hypothesis if visitors chose
the area because of some perceived outstanding physical
resource qualities present in the area, or if the visitors
described a physical factor comparative-process of selec
tion of the study area beach resource. (A full listing of
study area selection factors follows in the discussion of
the next working hypothesis.)
Since the decision-selection process was found to
involve conscious consideration of physical factors and was
indeed a comparative selection process, at least for some
visitors, the resource homogeneity hypothesis was tenta
tively rejected. However, since the distance minimizing
hypothesis also was accepted tenuously, the rejection of
the major hypothesis was made more certain. Therefore, it
would appear that beaches are at least partly selected in
a resource-comparative physical quality consideration
process. if this is the case, then one must suspect that
people select recreation locations (within unknown limits)
at least partly in order to utilize unique combinations of
natural resource physical beach characteristics. Hence
beaches are not physically interchangeable in perceived

205
recreation satisfaction potential nor are they perceived as
a homogeneous resource.
This would lend more credence to the differential in
formation and travel-ease explanations for the existing
north-south market area corridor. The possible extension
of the functional market area eastward to somewhere in the
Appalachians may still be assumed logical under beach
quality considerations. If assumptions of resource
degradation, etc., are made for the northeastern coast of
the nation, then the mountains might still effectively form
a break-point for mid-western tendency to travel to the
Gulf instead of to the assumed poorer quality beaches of
the crowded Northeast.
The author suspects that the distance minimizing
hypothesis as modified by the proposed probability of in
difference wedge might still have some validity. The
validity may be a function of distance (physical or other)
from the coast, and may be aligned with distance-related
increased absence of information with which to compare
. 61
physically beach alternatives.
If, in fact, perception of resource quality lies be
neath beach selection from alternate locations, then not
only might the north-south visitor origin corridor with its
Appalachian shift-area be explained, but also the apparent

206
overlap of market area toward the Texas Gulf area. The
Gulf coast corridor, west of the study area, might result
from relative differences in beach quality causing a west
ward shift in visitor origins.
Some sample evidence indicates likeliness in the
preceding statement. An attempt was made to check on
possible unusual circumstances that would tend to invali
date intended observations of a "normal" tributary area,
or a "normal" visitor season. Visitors were asked the
following question:
For this trip would you have gone to
one of the Louisiana, Mississippi, or
Alabama Gulf beaches if that area had not
been partly destroyed during the last
hurricane season?
Only one of 513 answered yes to this question. Some (12)
had either toured or planned a tour through the area with
a brief stopover. The interesting response by most was
"We wouldn't have gone there anyway. The beaches are not
clean Qor not pretty, not sandy, too muddy, etc 7] ."
Clearly then, to find satisfactory beaches these visitors
came much farther than predicted by a distance minimizing
model to the Panama city area, thus partly accounting for
market area shifts and corridors. Also, overlap between
this hypothesis and the following clearly indicate, as will
be developed, a highly comparative selection process that

207
deals with physical and nonphysical landscape components.
Resource Specificity Hypothesis
Seashore is a unique recreation resource which is in
limited supply and is beyond practicability in artificial
provision for supply expansion. For United States residents
the seacoast is a scarce resource relative to interior
recreation resource supplies. Furthermore, since the ab
sence of rocky shores, marsh, or swamp and presence of sand
grain particle sizes covering the interface between land
and sea is not universal, there is a further restriction of
the supply for coastal sand beach.
It might be proposed, therefore, that uniqueness alone
may be a basis for recreation resource specificity or pre
ferences among recreationists. Thus the following hypothesis
was formulated:
Sea coast beaches are perceived by
campers as unique recreation resources
and are noninterchangeable with interior
recreation resources.
That is to say, that if a party decides on seaside recreation,
other resources are substitutively or competitively lower
in satisfaction potential. Therefore, forests, mountains,
lakes, streams, and reservoirs are not interchangeable with
coastal beaches

208
A second choice or alternate location for a trip might
be expected to be coastal beach if the first choice was a
beach. A forced-choice type of question was given to
interview respondents to ascertain where they might have
gone if for some reason the study area had not been open
to visitors.
As expected, a large number of area visitors selected
another ocean beach as either a first or second choice
forced alternate. Though not conclusive, having 62 per cent
(226 of 364 respondents) list a beach as an alternate would
seem to indicate that seacoast beaches are perceived as
unique resources and are somewhat noninterchangeable with
interior resources.
Table 4 gives a breakdown of first and second choice
alternate resource types considered by those responding to
this question. It will be noted that of 494 respondents
only 364 are included in this table. The others answered
that they would simply stay home (43, being extremely site
specific in preference), come anyway for business (6),
tour-through without stopping (39), or go elsewhere to
visit friends and relatives (12). The sample represented
includes terminal as well as nonterminal visitors to the
study area.
The alternates listed by resource type in Table 4 are

209
TABLE 4
RESOURCE ALTERNATES
Resource Type
Number of
Respondents
Percentage
of Total
Coastal beaches
226
45
Inland
Water bodies (lakes,
reservoirs, and streams)
73
15
Mountains and hills
143
29
Miscellaneous
45
9
Cities
14
3
275
55
Totals
501*
100
* The total number of respondents selecting different re
source types exceeds the sample number (364) because
second choice alternates are included.

210
shown in Figure 21 as specific recreation resource-area
alternates as they were distributed mainly in the South.
Each alternate selection is located by a single dot on the
map. The total represented does not agree with Table 4
because cities and nonspecific locations are omitted.
Dominance of the South, and particularly Florida as alter
nate regions is shown in Figure 22, which includes all
listed alternates expressed as a percentage of the total
sample. Note the complete absence of alternates in the
lower midwestern states. An interesting addendum to this
map is that it coincides quite well with Campbell's map
6 9
of "people and vacation regions" drawn in 1949. However,
more recent recreational developments have changed the
southern recreation region, adding a number of reservoir,
state park, and tourist attractions to the vast interior
South.
Comparative Resource Perception
In order to assess further the resource specificity
hypothesis and in general to expand on the process and
factors of study area selection, a group of perception and
attitude data were interview-gathered. Two open-ended
questions were asked:

211
Figure 21

Figure 22
212

1.
213
Why didn't you select an inland recreation
area located on a lake or reservoir, perhaps
with sand beaches?
2. Why didn't you select an inland place that
offered some other scenic and recreation
activity opportunities, like the mountains,
a forest, or a large city?
Since the answers were made in a conversational or dis
cussion-type reply it was impossible to record every state
ment made by respondents, nor would this have been necessary.
It is possible that some interviewer bias was absorbed into
the subjectively evaluated, selected, and recorded respon
dent's comments; however, exact statements were taken where
possible. Since the purpose was exploratory, such nondis
crete answers to open-ended questions were considered most
appropriate in order to limit question bias.
Expressed attitudes toward each of the alternate re
source types mentioned in the above questions were grouped
by a nonnumerical, subjective form of cluster analysis.
Though a different kind of data coding and statistical
manipulation could have yielded concise clusters of visitor
attitudes characterized by minimum intragroup difference

and maximum intergroup difference, the meaning and inter
pretation of such a scheme might prove to be less useful
63
than this simple approach.
Table 5 shows relative differences between study area

TABLE 5
RESOURCE SPECIFICITY COMPARISON
Attitude Group Resource
Mountains Lakes Forests Cities
N1
%2
N
%
N
%
N
%
Resource Nonspecific
Variety oriented with familiarity-
dissatisfaction
46
9
90
18
27
5
4
*
Variety search, without
familiarity-dissatisfaction
167
33
105
21
64
11
22
4
Tourist orientation
38
7
23
4
34
7
14
2
Distance specific, maximizing
tendency
9
2
21
4
7
*
5
*
Distance specific, minimizing
tendency
32
6
5
*
7
*
1
*
Activity specific
63
12
85
11
42
8
17
3
Resource Specific
Water preference
74
14
96
19
74
11
55
11
Seasonal resource specific^
50
10
5
*
15
3
2
*
Negative resource specific
17
3
3
*
3
*
38
7
1 Number of respondents.
2 per cent N of sample 514, omitting values of one or less.

215
visitor-views of different resources as alternatives to
ocean beach resources. it must be stressed that these
represent resource attitudes of people who proved them
selves to be more or less resource specific at least for
the trip on which they were interviewed at their selected
resource location.
parties often were found to agree in cluster assign
ment for different resources; however, considerable between-
resource variation was found to exist in cluster tendency
for individual parties. As an overview, the tendency was
toward greater uniformity in total sample attitude toward
certain resources. For example, there was an apparent
neutral attitude toward forests as recreation resources.
As a group, the opinion of forests was primarily as something
to see or drive through on the way somewhere else. Also,
forests tended to be lumped with mountain scenery. Respon
dents expressed neither preference for them nor dislike.
Only two respondents specifically mentioned forest environ
ments as acceptable recreation settings, while the majority
simply tended to disregard them. As an added dimension,
the attitude toward cities as recreation resources was also
observed. Most respondents reacted to cities as they
reacted to forests, with neutrality. Some, however, reacted
more strongly so that as Table 5 indicates, cities evoked

216
the largest negative resource specificity reaction. Because
of the variation in attitude groupings for each resource,
general resource specificity and evaluations of alternate
resources become most difficult topics on which to speculate.
The resource attitude and preference groupings listed
in Table 5 are much more complex than indicated by name.
Consequently, a summary of each follows in this section.
It will be noted that though resource specific or nonspecific
attitudes tend to dominate the two major groupings, homo
geneity on these counts is far from perfect.
Resource nonspecific attitudes
Variety search. The most common attitude expressed
was in most cases fairly neutral in relation to specific
resource preferences. A key thought apparently was to find
a recreation place that was perceived to offer variety or
a change from the familiar recreation resource and hence
experience. It was often difficult to separate visitors
by their expressed attitudes into the two dominant sub
categories of this major grouping. However, a large number
expressed preferences strong enough to warrant suggesting
the subdivision.
The first group expressed dissatisfaction with the
resources of their greatest familiarity. They clearly

217
indicated that prior experience and familiarity with local
recreation resources made them seem unappealing or not
special enough for a vacation destination. This resulted
in a search for a special or less common-place experience
within a resource context that was unavailable near home.
The second group of variety or setting-change seekers
based their decision simply on a desire to find the new,
different, or more unique resource experience, with no
indication of dissatisfaction with the familiar and often
frequented. Though not separated by the study, this
second group includes two types of recreationists, the place
collector and the vacation-site repeater.
Place collectors are those seized by a wanderlust who
keep score as they figuratively "collect" bumper stickers
and places they can say they have visited. They do not
habitually make repeated visits to the same places but skip
around at whim, i.e., having seen, they move on to see
something new. This group may go to a different place each
vacation. There is only a time-scale difference between
these and touring groups. Distance is not critical, but
newness is.
The other type of recreationist repeatedly visits the
same distant recreation area while on vacation. He prefers
it annually (or at intervals) when time allows instead of

an often-used and satisfactory experience-yielding local
resource. Note that this type may be quite specific in
-218
resource preference or he may simply be site habituated.
Tourist. The tourist may be distinctly resource non
specific in preference, as he takes in all interesting
sites in his path. On the other hand, an individual tour
may be quite resource specific, for example, a Gulf coast
beach tour or a mountain route. In any case, often the
recreationist doesn't make a clear distinction between
resource alternatives to the point of a specific selection.
Instead he selects a tour or nonterminal route in which a
combination of resources may be enjoyed. This type often
selects among trip alternates in order simply to vary the
array of his recreation resource "smorgasbord." Basically,
there may be only a time-scale difference between these
people and the place collecting variety seekers who each
year choose a different terminal vacation location.
Distance specific. Some resource specificity occurs,
but the thrust of this attitude group appears to be toward
placing foremost importance on distance factors. These
range between distance maximizers and distance minimizers.
The distance maximizers are drawn away from the local
recreation resource offering, whether or not it is familiar

219
to them, simply because it is local. Whether the local re
source base is adequate to support their needs is unimportant
and unconsidered. A certain "snob appeal" associated with
increased travel distance appears to urge these people to
consider only recreation area alternatives if they are
located at a long distance from home. The requisite dis
tance is a highly personal thing measured on an individually
variable measuring stick.
The distance minimizers tend to be people with rela
tively shorter recreation time-periods at their disposal.
They speak of "reasonable distances" as limiting considera
tion of alternate resources. Some even consciously are
aware of economic distance factors as imposing limits on
travel.
Activity specific. The last group of resource non
specific recreationists selects a recreation area on the
basis of comparative estimated activity potentials at
different locations. Therefore, many visitors selected
the study area because they perceived the location to offer
a superior activity selection. Comments generally con
sidered ocean beaches to have a high activity potential
making it the resource best suited for an outing or a va
cation.

220
Comments by many respondents favored highly the beach
camping and seaside recreation components described in
Klausner's paradigm of social recreation. (See Appendix
VI). Klausner proposed a seaside drama of "gaiety and
sexuality" in opposition to "solemnity and labor" of the
64
forest recreation experience. Respondents favored ocean
beach activity for its variety, excitement, movement, and
contacts with many people.
Resource specific attitudes
Among the resource specific recreation attitudes there
were basically three groups. These groups were found to
be nonexclusive, for association with one might also be
found to be in common with another or others.
Water preference. Some seeking recreation, select
destinations on the basis of distinct environmental or
recreation resource preferences, often regardless to proxi
mity to their homes. The most common preference encountered
in the survey was for water environments. These people
preferred any kind of water-based recreation area to a non
water area. The second largest similar preference grouping
was for salt water settings. Seacoast and particularly
ocean beach settings apparently have more attraction or

221
scenic-recreation potential than locations on any other
type of water body.
Seasonal resource specificity. Different resources,
to some recreationists, are best enjoyed or are more suitable
for visits in specific times during the year or in certain
seasons. Often these are more experienced travelers and
distinct travel habits have emerged in their leisure life.
These particularly expressed a summer beach preference, or
resource specificity, while they preferred the mountains in
the spring or fall. Other combinations were found, such as
fishing in the Gulf in the summer and other seasons in big
lakes, or a summer beach preference matched with winter
skiing in the mountains.
Negative resource specificity. Some resources are not
even considered as trip alternatives because the recrea
tionist considers them negatively. This may be balanced by
a nonspecific or very specific attitude toward remaining
resources. Cities and mountains evoked this reaction most
often.
A variety of other attitudes also appeared in the
grouping but they were assumed to be unimportant to a dis
cussion of major themes. The presence or absence of rela
tives in an area, or nearness to work, for example, were

222
omitted. One respondent's comment maybe best caps this
discussion. He said that after 25 years of camping "I've
traveled them all (^different resources! so much that now
it's just a whim to go anywhere." The author wonders how
much recreation decision-making among novices and ex
perienced participants is simply a matter of whim.
Study Area Selection Factors
It must be recognized that the previous discussion
indicated a considerable variation in user resource speci
ficity based on whatever the individual's esthetic, per
ceptual or other measuring stick. Some are clearly resource
specific recreationists considering only a location within
a single resource type as being capable of meeting their
recreation needs. This specificity can be total, seasonal
or trip oriented. Others view outdoor recreation in a
nonspecific resource-preference framework. To them a good
regional location, a suitable activity potential, or a
change from the familiar is all that is needed. For non
terminal, or touring, recreationists the contrast is again
double.
Field data provide another indication of perceived
interchangeability of coast beaches with interior recrea
tion resources. Responses to the following more direct

223
questions were grouped to provide this information:
1. What were the most important factors that
influenced your decision to come to this
part of the Gulf coast?
2. What were the main reasons you decided to
come here instead of to any other areas or
places you may have considered?
The results of this enquiry were broader than antici
pated. They provide an expansion on the notion of resource
specificity but they place this idea within a total picture
of factors accounting for visitor selection of a study area.
The breadth gained in this examination of visitor decision
making surely is worthwhile from the standpoint of a
deterrent to theoretical myopia and tunnel vision.
Area selection was found to rest on a number of factors
expressed by respondents as reasons for coming to the
Panama City area. In some cases single dominant reasons
were given, but usually there were a number of overlapping
or nonexclusive factors associated with study area visits.
Table 6 lists these reasons and their underlying basis of
preferred attributes.
The author suspects that frequency of response, or
listing, of specific reasons is not very accurate, and
would mislead if considered as an indication of actual
total reasoning frequency. Though recording of respondent
word choice and tabulations were accurate, it is suspected

224
TABLE 6
REASONS FOR STUDY AREA SELECTION
Reason
Specific attributes favored Number of Respondents
To see a previously unexperienced
setting
Ocean 52
Gulf of Mexico 21
Florida 59
a part 1
this part 33
beaches 14
New area 31
Different scenery 8
panama city 12
Amusement strip 6
Grayton Beach State Park 2
Area military bases 1
To participate in activities
Large variety 84
Amusements 84
Dog races 1
Crowd mingling 30
Good fishing 90
Good swimming 55
Boat watching 1
Water watching 1
Seafood dining 2
Campground conversation 2
Shell gathering 2
To utilize locational advantages
Closest
ocean or beach 87
good beach 2
part of Florida 32
major vacation place 8
Easy drive to area 16
Within reasonable drive 11
Convenient tour terminus 2

225
TABLE 6 (Continued)
Reason
Specific attributes favored
Number of Respondents
En route
to Florida peninsula 7
to other locations 13
Distant 7
To utilize superior quality resources
Clean(er)
area 1
sand 7
beach 31
water 73
Clear(er) water 19
Good (beautiful, nice, pretty, fine,
great, etc.) 23
area 175
white sand 73
water 28
green (blue, blue-green) water 7
surf 15
To utilize environmental and other amenities
Weather
reliable 4
clear 4
sunny 21
good 1
warm(er), hot 13
cool nights 1
sea breezes 3
Fresh or sea air 7
Different climate 1
Water
warm 2
convenient mix of fresh and salt 4
Insects not as prevalent 2
Less developed/commercial 2
Less crowded 2

226
TABLE 6 (Continued)
Reason
Specific attributes favored Number of Respondents
No blacks or hippies 1
Less expensive 1
Better camping facilities 2
To re-experience
Habitual response 71
based on satisfaction and
ignorance 38
Memory recapturing
past satisfactory experience 59
youth memory recapturing 9
Resource specific compulsion
revisiting past ocean environment 10
like ocean 45
like Gulf area (beaches, ocean,
scenery) 151
like panama city 4
like Florida 29
like St. Andrews State Park 5
To visit friends and relatives in area 28
To allow children their choice 32

227
that many simply overlooked basic decision-influencing
factors and mentioned the immediate and secondary reasons.
For example, many were satisfied return visitors, but to
them it was not necessary to say the obvious reason for
returningprevious satisfaction. It is suggested that
tabulations are meaningful only to the extent that major
selection factors can be thus isolated. The total array
is probably closer to why people came to the study area.
A discussion of Table 6 follows.
To see. Parties came to the study area to see (to go
to, or to visit) an area that all or some members had never
seen before. The most dominant attractions that drew
visitors were Florida and the ocean. It is certain that
the name Florida has an advertising impact that borders on
a status concern. Once only for the wealthy, now "everyone"
can go to Florida and it would appear that they do just
that. There is an undescribably magical allure associated
with the state.
To participate. Recreation usually involves some
type of activity participation. The variety of nonpassive
activities available in the area is a decisive feature
associated with area selection. Visitors stressed the crowd
mingling aspects and excitement of plenty to do at the beach

228
and in the amusement sectors. A certain regional popularity
was associated with use. Central Alabama young people knew
the area was the "in" place with their age group and it was
consequently selected as a vacation or outing destination
in order to assure a satisfactory crowding level. Even
fishing tended toward the more active forms, with deep sea
and surf fishing predominating.
Location advantages. As hypothesized in the first of
this chapter a number of distance-minimizing visits were
made. Those who chose the closest ocean or beach tended to
react as one man who said simply "Ocean is ocean." Note the
combined effect of the pull of Florida as a visitor attrac
tion and the fact that the study area is for many the closest
part of Florida and has an ocean setting. If the area were
part of Alabama it would be interesting to conjecture on
visitor attraction. The last locational advantage is a
somewhat reversed interpretation of the area's location.
To some few visitors the area was attractive due to its
sufficiently distant location.
Resource quality. Visitors in large numbers selected
the study area on a physical resource quality comparative
basis. Though remarks were often vague it was obvious that

229
respondents expressed a subjective appreciation for the area
as a superior resource base. Cleanliness and beauty were
the key words. The author notes that his comparisons be
tween study area and Atlantic coast beaches makes him agree
with a number of these visitors that cleaner and clearer
water and beaches and whiter sand does prevail in the Panama
City area. Cutler described the Atlantic coast pollution
65
problem in a recreation context.
Environmental amenities. The precise number of visitors
is unknown who had such considerations as climate, weather,
and water temperature in mind when deciding on a trip to
the study area. Since so many appeared to be drawn by the
stereotyped image of "fun in the sand and the sun," perhaps
this is a prime example of an assumed selection factor
that respondents failed to mention.
Prior experience. Seven out of ten surveyed visitors
(71%) had previously visited the study area. Some visitors
had been coming for as many as 50 years, though the average
was 13 years (median = 10) since the first visit, with an
average of 17 previous visits (median = 6). Furthermore,
an estimated 90 per cent of the visitors planned to return
to the area, most on another camping trip. Selection of
the study area was heavily based on preferences and

230
attitudes evolved from prior experience (including previous
visits to the area).
Many visitors had no apparent reason for not going
elsewhere. They just always came and usually had been
coming as a habit for several years. Most of these were so
completely satisfied with the study area recreation offerings
that they were unwilling to even try a change. The comments
usually stressed area familiarity and implied the risk of
an unsatisfactory experience at an unknown location. Others
simply were totally ignorant of other similar recreation
alternative locations. They expressed dismay when asked
where else they might go if they were unable to visit the
study area. Most of these simply were resigned to staying
home if they couldn't visit the Panama City area.
A few mentioned pleasant trips to the area as youngsters
or perhaps they once lived near the sea or in the study area.
Often a trip was arranged to recapture a fond memory or to
share a favored setting with a new mate or a growing family.
To visit. Friends and relatives were often the prime
target for a visit to the area. Either as guests to the
Panama city area or as distant visitors to a place within
the study market area, short secondary visits to the beaches
often were made.

231
Children's influence. Since family camping was the
study focus it was not surprising to find that a number of
trips were made to the area as an attempt to please children
in vacation setting choice. Phrases like "children's trip"
cropped up and often indicated a totally youth-planned trip.
Of course other reasons were given, but those dis
cussed were the most dominant and often repeated. Some
came for business or personal family reasons and some came
only because a friend said to go there.
Tributary Area Interaction
To Ackerman, any problem in which distance is an ex-
66
plicit consideration is essentially a geographical problem.
Common to the geographical body of central place theory, as
well as to the more generally applicable interaction theory,
is the basic notion of distance interaction between points.
As was earlier mentioned, when dealing with marketing systems
it is customary to conceptualize interaction between a center
and the potentially infinite number of points within its peri
phery or its interaction field. Such a field is theoreti
cally considered as a continuous distribution or surface, in
opposition to the actual discontinuous distribution of inter-
6 7
acting points within the field. Berry has demonstrated
elements of such fields in which human spatial behavior

232
occurs and in which points are linked in an interaction po-
68
tential system.
Interaction Theory
Inherent to interaction theory and lying as an under
current within central place theory is the empirically
observable variation of field strength with distance away
69
from activity centers. A graph of interaction on dis
tance outward from such centers invariable produces a curve
with a rapid fall-off near the activity center or zero
point and with a very slow rate of reduction (fall-off of
interaction) per unit of distance at the outer parts of the
70
curve. Losch's demand cone is a three dimensional surface
for which such an interaction curve is a single two-dimen
sional radius.^ An excellent discussion and graphical
illustration of interaction gradients in a market area con-
72
text is given by Brush and Gauthier. Simplified, the
interactance hypothesis states that interaction between two
points is a negative function of intervening distance and
some measure of interaction potential at the points, conse
quently, the terms interactance decay and distance decay are
synonyms based on a term used to describe a generally similar
rate of decay of radioactive isotopes. Among the best source
of concise discussion of interaction theory and its relation

73
to central place theory are by Berry and Pred, Berry,
74
75
and Olsson. The comments on distance functions by Chorley
76
and Haggett also apply.
Recreation application
The most basic theoretical work concerning the attenua
tion of recreation activity (travel) with distance has come
from economists. Hotelling initiated conversation in 1929
in a paper dealing with spatial competition within a recrea-
77
tion context. Later he devised a method of assessing the
78
value of national park recreation experience. He plotted
visitor origins into distance zones and calculated an average
travel cost for each distance zone. By assuming the maximum
recreation value of a park to be represented by maximum
travel cost incurred to make a visit, he demonstrated the
proportions paying less in travel than the experience was
worth, thus obtaining free recreation experience. He used
a fixed cost per mile and refined travel cost by inclusion
of visitor period data.
Hotelling's work preceded the most influential thoughts
today expressed by Marion Clawson. Clawson, noting effects
of distance on areal patterns or interaction of recreationists
between their homes and selected outdoor recreation sites,
has expanded on Hotelling's suggestion that a spatial model

234
can produce a value that can be placed on outdoor recreation
experience. His method of building spatial demand curves is
best discussed in one of today's most widely used books in
79
the field, Economics of Outdoor Recreation.
A fairly small number of recreation specialists have
dealt with the purely spatial aspects of recreation which
Clawson refers to as the geography of demand. Those few
specifically dealing with friction of intervening distance
and time are worth mentioning here.
The literature
predating Clawson's work are largely nonacademic tourist
travel surveys that date back to the 1920s. By 1937 some
notions were formed about distance-relative activity, but
understanding has changed little in travel studies since
Deasy and Griess, in a test of the Clawson theory,
stressed the inapplicability of such idealized circular
market area notions in which interaction or park visits are
81
a function of the friction of distance. They plotted
county visit rates on a choropleth map and discussed em
pirical pattern variation (with variables of accessibility,
competition, regional orientations, familiarity and ad
vertising) from the form predicted by the Hotelling-Clawson

235
theory. Clout also has stressed the regional factors
associated with deviation from a distance decay predicted
market area shape, though he did graphically demonstrate
82
such generalized attenuation of travel with distance.
It must be noted that to a large extent Clawson's pur
pose may be different from that of the purely spatial
thinker. Clawson's concern is for spatial regularities
that can be reduced to demand schedules or curves for
description of recreation use of a park and for prediction
of use under changes in pricing (price elasticity of demand).
He is ultimately concerned with deriving economic benefit or
recreation site value, as evidenced by his process (unessen
tial to the geographer) of using distance as a proxy for
price. The geographer, on the other hand, is perhaps more
concerned with the irregularities as well as regularities of
interaction, including demand-generating processes and their
spatial ramifications. Therefore, there is need for under
standing of unique regional processes as well as hidden
regularities for expansion of spatial theory.
Attempts to search out these hidden regularities of
recreation interaction have shown in several recreation
hierarchy levels that visitation rates tend to decrease
with increased distance from a focal park. A few of these
locations follow: Fussell studied coastal resort visitors

236
83
in South Carolina; Mitchell's dealt with city playgrounds
84 8 5
in Ohio and Columbia, South Carolina; Bingham, Pickard,
and Romsa dealt with visitors to a commercial Kentucky
8 8
campground; Guernsey and Crowe probed Lake Michigan state
8 7
park visitors; Cole and Mitchell worked with campers in
88
the Great Smoky Mountains National park; and Lentnek, Van
Doren and Trail published similar results of spatial be-
havior in Ohio recreational boating. More recently,
Wheeler and Stutz have applied this theory of distance
attenuation of interaction to the frequency of urban social
trips.90
Distance Interaction Hypothesis
To this point, this chapter has sought to conceptualize
and identify the camping market or tributary area for the
Greater Panama city area. The logic of market area shape
has been pursued as has its multifaceted processes. The data
mapped have been represented as a discontinuous distribution
of discrete camping parties. Another dimension is gained by
an analysis of the dot map data in the form of an interaction
field. In order to add to the evolving literature of spatial
recreation behavior a second and more generalized dimension
must be pursued in this research. The objective of this
section is not to ascertain whether distance has an identical

237
effect to other places studied in the past, but to add one
more block to the continuing process of checking the role of
the function of distance for consistency.
Clawson's theory is as follows:
The volume of recreation visits to a
park (or complex) is inversely proportional
to distance and directly proportional to
population at place of origin.
In other words, frequency of visitation, or the number of
visits from an area will vary positively with the area's
population size and negatively with intervening distance.
The working hypothesis for this analysis is that visitation
is a negative function of distance.
A review of Figures 18 and 19 suggests a general de
crease in dot density with increased distance outward from
the study area. As earlier indicated, the dots tend to
cluster and coalesce in the major urban areas where popu
lation concentrations are high. Figure 23 depicts the same
100 per cent sample of coterminous United States visitors to
the study area, but in a manner selected to weight or neu
tralize population factors. Total visits (parties) from
each county of origin were divided by population to yield
Q9
a ratio of visits per thousand people living in each county.5
Though the ratio is not precisely a weighted value, it
nevertheless is hereafter referred to as population weighted

238
POPULATION WEIGHTED CAMPER ORIGINS
Source: Campground registrations at Grayton Beach
St. Andrews, Alligator Point, Beach, KOA,
and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
VISITS PER THOUSAND POPULATION (1970)
QUINTILE PARTIES
.222 3.837
1181181 .098 .221
.045 .097
.021 .044
.001 .020
300
MILES
Figure 23

239
visits. Summer campground registrations, corrected for
multiple registrations, totalled 12,052 party visits which
were grouped into 1,144 counties located from coast to coast.
Note that there was no way of separating terminal and non
terminal area visitors.
The data of Figure 23 are expanded by Figure 24 which
shows graphically the frequency distribution of mapped
counties of origin with groupings based on population weighted
visits. Table 7 shows the data which are summarized in
Figure 24. It will be seen (note median and mean) that the
distribution is extremely positively skewed. If the inter
rupted column representing 937 counties were represented
proportionately it would be about 16 inches high on the
graph. This single interval (the standard one-fifteenth of
the range) includes most of the parties broken down by
quintile intervals in Figure 23. Note the number of counties
falling under each sector of the "normal" curve as indicated
in the deviation distribution inset.
There is nothing unanticipated in these data. The
skewness is to be expected if visits are a negative function
of distance. The frequency polygon derived by connecting
the midpoints of the histogram column tops describes a curve
that fits the usual very rapid fall-off of curves plotting
interaction rate on distance. Note that distance is not a

COUNTIES
FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION WEIGHTED
COUNTIES OF CAMPER ORIGINS
CAMPING PARTIES PER THOUSAND POPULATION
Source: Campground registrations at Grayton Beach, St. Andrews,
Alligator Point, Beach, KOA, and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
Figure 24
240

241
TABLE 7
SUMMARY DATA: FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF
POPULATION WEIGHTED COUNTIES OF CAMPER ORIGIN
Interval Midpoint Number of Counties
0.1278
937
0.3835
103
0.6392
40
0.8949
19
1.1506
13
1.4063
7
1.6620
3
1.9177
3
2.1734
2
2.4291
0
2.6848
1
2.9405
1
3.1962
0
3.4512
0
3.7096
2

242
part of these data. The logic stands that with increased
distance there will be associated increased area and hence
larger numbers of counties having lower visit rates. However,
this is yet to be demonstrated except as it is visually
possible upon examination of Figure 23.
In order to expand on the value of Figure 23,
averages were calculated for distance and visits for each of
the quintile groups of counties. All 1,131 counties were
ranked by population weighted visits, divided into fifths and
quintile average visits were calculated. Within these same
93
intervals average distances were calculated. This was done
in order to reduce "noise" in the distribution from any num
ber of sources. Note that though generally the pattern
density in Figure 23 shades with distance from the study area
from dark to light, there is considerable merging and inter-
digitation of the roughly concentric density bands. For
example, quintile one, obviously the near zone of heavy
study area visitation, has a distance range for counties
having this visit rate that extends from 15 to 1,120 miles.
The range of quintile two is 29 to 1,600 miles.
With interdigitation "noise" now removed, the bands
can be generalized. Figure 25 is a curve of the quintile
average coordinates discussed above (listed in Table 8) and
thus complements the quintile map. An indication of the

243
QUINTILE AVERAGE DISTANCE OF POPULATION WEIGHTED CAMPER ORIGINS
Source: Campground registrations at Grayton Beach,
St. Andrews, Alligator Point, Beach, KOA,
and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
Figure 25

244
TABLE 8
SUMMARY DATA: QUINTILE AVERAGE DISTANCE
OF POPULATION WEIGHTED CAMPER ORIGINS
Quintile
Average Population
Weighted Visits
Average Distance
(miles)
1
.6107
269
2
.1363
456
3
.0927
631
4
.0308
773
5
.0102
1092

245
distribution of population weighted visitor origins can be
seen. The curve anticipated by Figure 24 is discernible in
Figure 25. It would appear that the hypothesis of visits
being a negative function of distance holds true in the study
area. However, a more precise examination is needed.
In order to examine the data more rigorously, in light
of the negative distance function, it is necessary to con
struct some type of descriptor model. Existing types fall
chiefly within the group of gravity-potential models, pro
bability models (eg. simulation models), simple curve fitting,
and various systems flow models. An excellent review of
different models in use today in recreation demand description
94
and estimation has been made by Cesario.
For simplicity, it was decided to fit a simple descriptive
regression model to the data. It was regarded that a one-
year cross-section model of any type suffers from unknown
parameter stability and should not be regarded as a predic-
95
tive instrument under circumstances of these data. Since
the purpose of this study is not predictive model building,
and since the period of study logically would preclude a
definitive, carefully calibrated, and field-tested predictive
model any way, it seemed reasonable to use easily duplicated
and interpreted techniques. Despite implications otherwise,
Schneider correctly points out that "regression analysis...is

246
no more than a species, and a risky one, of curve-fitting; it
merely summarizes data."
Ullman's geographical analog method, based on demand-
predicting regression models lies at the root of this
analysis.^ Among a few others, Guthrie's stands as a good
example of another which used this technique in estimating
98
international tourist flows.
The data shown in the quintile choroplethed visitor
origin map (Figure 23) and in its explanatory graph (Figure
25) were plotted on a county map of the United States. Equal
interval, 100-mile radial distance zones were drawn around
the study area. Table 9 lists these 24 intervals or concen
tric visitor-origin zones. The average distance to all of
the visitor origin counties in each zone was calculated, as
were zone total visits, and the total population in the
counties of origin within each zone. The last column lists
calculated zone average ratios of study area visitors per
1,000 base population.
The shape of the curve on Figure 25 indicated either an
exponential-decay or an hyperbolic function to the decline
of visits with distance. Semilog plots were rejected for
poor fit leaving a hyperbolic estimate of form. A log-log
data transformation should rectify such a curve, as is demon
strated in the following logarithmic scatter diagram (Figure 26).

247
TABLE 9
SUMMARY DATA: DISTANCE AND VISITS
Zone
Origin
Counties
Average
Distance*
Total
Visits
Total 1970
Population*
(1,000)
Visits per
1,000
Population
1
21
65
1044
787
1.3267
2
75
160
1830
2323
.7879
3
141
255
3790
8678
.4367
4
136
353
1444
6774
.2132
5
128
455
1228
9342
.1315
6
93
558
480
6789
.0707
7
110
658
698
2116
.3299
8
130
754
459
5825
.0788
9
99
848
443
5695
.0778
10
62
950
168
5622
.0299
11
44
1046
98
7950
.0123
12
33
1147
60
8683
.0069
13
14
1255
36
3056
.0118
14
7
1339
12
354
.0339
15
3
1437
4
190
.0211
16
7
1560
18
1481
.0122
17
3
1640
9
695
.0129
18
1
1740
1
29
.0342
19
6
1868
55
4021
.013 7
20
5
1954
43
7984
.0054
21
7
2075
11
1406
.0078
22
13
2155
30
5074
.0059
23
9
2269
19
3084
.0062
24
1
2320
2
102
.0197
* For
counties
of origin only
in each
zone, entered
once in
totals.

248
DISTANCE AND VISITS
Source: Campground registrations at Grayton Beach,
St. Andrews, Alligator Point, Beach, KOA,
and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
Figure 26

249
A descriptive regression curve was fitted, but, was imprecise
due to machine truncation and significant figure retention
99
only to a decimal.
A functional relationship of interaction decline with
an increase in distance is variably indicated by this
scatterplot of visit ratios against distance. The visit
potential clearly decreases with increased distance when the
nation-wide data (zero to 2,400 miles) are seen as a whole.
In this logarithmically transformed state, visits are an al
most perfectly-linear negative function of distance to a
radius of about 600 miles from the study area. Beyond zone 6,
although the trend is still present, there is a mixed func
tion of distance-relative visit increases, equilibria, and
decreases. Zones 9 through 12 appear to have a separately
sloped linear function. From 12 to 25 the actual curve is
an up an down zig-zag with no apparent logic.
Time Interaction Hypothesis
In 1958, many were surprised when they read the obvious
implications of the post-war trends that Galbraith pulled
together from seeming disassociated information.^00 He
stressed the consequences of increased production efficiency
(now a questionable point), decreased need to work for status
maintenance, the reduced work week, and fewer workers resulting

250
partly from later entry and early departure from the labor
force. The capstone in his comments on The Affluent Society
was a description of an emerging "New class" based on educa
tional attainment and occupational prestige. He stressed
that the leisure orientation of this group would reflect
their values and the nation's recreation trends would be
shifting. More recently, reinforcing the obvious truth in
Galbraith's earlier prediction, has come a French view of
a leisure society of growing world-wide impact.'1'0'1'
Early optimism and conjecture based on limited knowledge
and short-term trend data suggested that Western man was
destined ultimately for a life of constantly increasing
amounts of leisure time. Lapage recently suggested that
there is a need to explode this notion which he calls the
"myth of increasing per capita recreation participation and
leisure time."'1'02
Clawson, with reservation, still sees a real trend
toward net increases in leisure time which he predicts will
result in a shift from a production to a consumption orienta
tion (which can be seen today). He continues, saying "when
it comes to consumption, the availability of time and the
use of free time may come to be as important as the avail-
103
ability of income." He actually predicts a substitution
of money for time (especially travel time) and bases this on

251
the following thoughts:
Additional amounts of income might be
less highly prized than at times in the
past....If the past is a good criterion,
the demands for time may well rise faster
than additional amounts of it are made
available....Time is likely to be more
frequently a greater limiting factor than
income in the future, compared with the
past.104
If time is likely to be, for many groups, the ultimate
limiting factor to recreation participation, a point also
agreed upon by the National Academy of Science study com-
105
mittee on research needs, then it behooves recreation
specialists to learn more of recreation-time relations. This
is especially true in light of unsuccessful attempts to use
travel time in empirical modelsthe time-specific focus of
. 106
this discussion.
As an expansion of distance interaction theory, it can
be assumed safely that time is an interchangeable term with
distance. This is particularly true in terms of the visit-
distance ratios discussed earlier. Logically this assumption
holds, and in model building a time surface actually is often
superior to a distance surface. Consequently, in interaction
and marketing studies travel time is often a substitute for
distance concepts.
It has been customary for planners to use either time
or mileage values as standards or reference terms for

252
estimating the extent of zones of influence surrounding a
park or other recreation development. Miles or city blocks
were traditionally used and in recent years time factors
have been given more attention. Time is logically a more
uniform measure because it eliminates the problems that arise
when equal distances are given equal weights despite unequal
frictional drag exerted upon actual travel. Any urbanite
knows there is a relative time difference between ten miles
across town and ten miles on the open road.
It may be suggested that several factors, including
time and distance, actually influence the motorist's view of
recreation-associated travel. Since this study deals with
some spatial aspects of the use of a recreation complex it
was necessary to inventory the spatial travel-reference
attitude of the study sample of visitors to serve as a back
drop for some of the questions later to be dealt with in
detail.
The survey results are not entirely satisfactory due to
the problem of forcing an abstract response instead of simply
eliciting a factual reply. Nevertheless, if treated tenta
tively, and without undue weight being placed on the propor
tion of response, interesting results were obtained. In a
pretest several open-ended questions were found to be
unsatisfactory stimuli for getting to the heart of travel

253
attitude terminology; consequently the following structured
question was used:
When you select a recreation area for a
vacation or an outing do you measure the
required travel in terms of miles, time,
travel expense, or inconvenience?
Of 496 party heads answering this question, 95 per cent
were able to evaluate their attitudes and state one or more
specific travel reference terms. The remaining group simply
claimed to have either no customary concept of travel or
were unaware if such existed. One respondent was unable to
generalize because he claimed his attitude varied with
characteristics of the highway route. It will be noted in
Table 10 that time and miles were the two most frequently
stated reference terms, with time far overshadowing miles as
units for conceptualizing a trip. The concept of travel
time actually refers to different factors depending upon the
party and the trip. Time was considered in terms of days
drive, hours of driving, hours of riding, and the absolute
limits of the vacation period. Miles were considered ex
clusively in 59 cases and in combination with the other
options listed. A few were aware that they used miles as a
basis for estimating travel time.
A number of people also said they considered the expense
of a trip. About half of these parties claimed to consider

254
TABLE 10
CUSTOMARY TRAVEL REFERENCE TERMS
Number
Percentage
Term
Answering
Answering
Time
372
75.0
Miles
163
32.8
Expense
58
11.6
Inconvenience
19
3.8
Aware of None
27

in
Total
639*
128.6**
* Multiple responses are included (N = 496).
Multiple responses account for excess over 100 per cent.

255
expense in exclusion of time or miles. In all but one of 19
cases listing inconvenience as a travel reference term it was
considered as a joint affect with combinations of miles, time,
or expense. With the exception of one man who considered the
inconvenience of travel while towing a large travel trailer,
all respondents mentioned the inconvenience of traveling with
a large family. Many seemed to think that young children
have a limited period during which they will sit in a car and
still remain comfortable. After a time they begin to annoy
the adult occupants of the vehicle with their irritable be
havior caused by the restriction and relative inactivity of
travel. No respondent mentioned inconvenience in regard to
travel on different qualities of roads and with differing
degrees of traffic congestion. In summary, these data indi
cate that from the recreationist's view, as well as from the
planner's and theoretician's view, travel time is a suitable
term in substitution for distance.
Wolfe is convinced by several of his studies in Ontario
that under certain circumstances long-distance recreation
travelers gather "momentum" that lessens or even nullifies
the usually anticipated negative impact or friction of dis-
107
tance. Such a process, if a reality, would tend to turn
the standard distance decay curves into a "J" shape as the
extremely distant-origin visitors increase in visit rate.

256
In a review of the distance and visits scatterdiagram and
curve (Figure 26) it will be seen that although no "J" shape
is apparent, there are considerable vertical erratics, possi
bly as a result of the process described by Wolfe as a
reversal of the distance exponent from negative to positive.
The idea is not isolated, because at least three forest
recreation researchers also have witnessed and described
some aspect of distance momentum.
The assumption was made earlier that, in terms of travel
interaction processes, distance and time are approximately
interchangeable variates. Therefore, a logical extension
would be to examine study area visitor data in light of
Wolfe's theory and add a reinforcement to the distance inter
action concepts previously discussed by examining visitor
views of marginal travel time expenditures.
If Wolfe's theory of long-distance travel momentum is
valid, then it should follow that travelers would exhibit
a greater propensity to accept long periods of riding and
driving in order to reach a destination. In addition, ele
mentary considerations of recreation time budgets cannot be
forgotten, for these factors of time also influence dis
tance or time-travel propensity. Not only is time an im
mensely variable factor, with different occupation groups
exhibiting different amounts and seasonal distributions of

257
the element, but there is little known of basic time-distance
relative decision considerations involved in a single trip.
It is proposed that distance-time momentum is partly a time
budgetary product.
It is further proposed that the majority of those whose
travel fits the distance-time-minimizing gravitational con
cepts of negative friction of distance are also those who
are restricted by either available or allocated trip time to
more penurious use of time. On the other hand, the "momentum"
travel example may well be the person who simply has a
greater allocation of time for his trip.
Therefore, the following time hypothesis can be stated:
Increased allocation of trip or
recreation time is associated with in
creased propensity to expend time driving
to a recreation destination.
In other words, driving time is a positive function of a
vacation or recreation time period.
In order to examine this hypothesis, interview data
were gathered from each of 514 respondents concerning the
number of days each party had free from work, the number of
days they had set aside for their trip to the study area,
the number of hours they had driven to get to the interview
location, and the maximum number of additional hours they
would have been willing to travel if they had known before

258
leaving home that it would take longer to drive to the
panama city area.
The data selected for analysis were exclusive of area
nonterminal visitors. Furthermore, visitors with purposes
for area selection other than for recreation were excluded.
For example, short-distance travelers who camped with their
families but went to work daily, families searching for
homes in the area, etc., were excluded.
A visually verified high correlation between the periods
of time away from work and away from home on the trip (trip
period) to the study area allowed a choice in analysis. The
latter was selected because it allowed a more meaningful
time refinement for the retirees, public school teachers and
others who had theoretically perpetual or very long free periods.
Survey results indicated that 55 per cent of the respondents
spent all available free time on their outing. Only 19 per
cent spent more than two days of their vacation or free time
at home. It was expected that most campers would need or
prefer a variable fraction of their vacation or nonworking
time in trip preparation, post-trip recuperation, and other
non-trip uses of time.
Initially, a simple multiple regression was used to test
the hypothesis. Trip period (X^) and driving time were
regressed on maximum willing driving time (Y). It was found

259
that X-^ and X2 were too highly correlated. That is to say,
their effect on the regression was multiplicative and hence
didn't meet the additive requirement of the technique. In
other words, the "independent" variables could not be dis
cussed in terms of individual relation to the dependent
variable (Y).
Figure 27 summarizes sample data (See Table 11) on the
relationship between these two time variables. The scatter-
diagram is a plot of period of visit against coded actual
driving time. Note that an overnight camping trip has a
minimum time expenditure of parts of two days. in order to
simplify the data, incremental averages were calculated for
driving time in excess of the minimum two-day trip, for
which visitors averaged about two and one-half hours of
driving (one way). A standard correlation was run showing
the expected minimal (r = 0.627) deviation of the data from
a straightline relationship. Calculation of the regression
line was not felt necessary for the provisional slope of the
positive functional relationship is unmistakable. The cases
for trips of longer duration than 16 days were too few to
include on the graph; however, a summation average is indi
cated on Table 11. Note also the low number of parties for
trip periods of 11, 12, 13, and 15 days and the associated
low incremental increases in driving time in opposition to

TRIP PERIOD IN DAYS
260
TRIP PERIOD AND ACTUAL DRIVING TIME
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
/
/
/
/
1 i 1 i 1 i 1 r
2 4 6 8 10
1
12
ADDITIONAL
DRIVING TIME IN HOURS
Source: Stratified random sample of parties camping at
Grayton Beach, St. Andrews, Alligator Point,
Beach, KOA Magnolia Beach, and Pirate Cove,
summer, 19/0.
Figure 27

261
TABLE 11
SUMMARY DATA: TRIP PERIOD
AND ACTUAL DRIVING TIME
Trip Period
(days)
Hours Driving*
Number of
Parties
3
1.83
23
4
2.63
16
5
3.36
22
6
5.13
32
7
6.98
65
8
6.09
32
9
7.47
62
10
7.25
24
11
-2.00
5
12
2.30
7
13
8.78
9
14
11.00
32
15
4.13
8
16
9.17
23
16+
14.00
25
Average number of hours actually driven to study area in
excess of that for a two day (i.e., minimum camping) trip

262
the trend line. Either a real deviation in functional rela
tionship is present or data limitations are here observed.
In any case, the relationship of trip period and driving
time is clearly that the longer a party's trip-period (per
haps to a point), the more likely they are to drive farther
to a terminal recreation destination. Therefore, also,
X-^ and X2 are not independent, but are highly correlated.
A second analysis was attempted. This time the data
were grouped by trip period (X^). At each value up to four
days, the maximum number of hours each party was willing to
drive above what they had already traveled (Y) was regressed
on hours actually driven (X2) This process was rejected
since the partial regression coefficients were almost the
same (0.1663 to 0.1690) resulting in negligible slope dif
ference on the regression line. A third approach was used
in order to search for the more general and perhaps more
significant) trends.
Values of X^ (shown in Appendix VII) were grouped into
three groups: group A equalled two to seven days (one week),
group B was composed of eight to 14 days, and C equalled 15
to 21. Trip periods from 22 to 32 days were omitted from
analysis for seven cases were too few. Using techniques
verified by Ezekiel, each group of X^ (A,B,C, and total D)
was regressed individually on Y with X2 held constant or

263
stabilized for each curve by substituting its group average
109
value for each curve. Multiple regression was not possi
ble and simple regression was inappropriate because the X
variables had been shown to be part of a known whole. The
result is to show the effect of at the group average
value of X2 on Y. Figure 28 shows the results of this
analysis. The overall curve, for groups A, B, and C, had an
R of 0.605 and R2 of 0.367 (significant at .001%). A pre
cise definition of the relationship between the variables
110
in each curve was also made.
As indicated by curve D, the overall trend is a posi
tive relationship between trip period and willingness to
travel increased hours to the study area. An increase in the
former is associated with a specific increase in the latter.
An examination of the segments of the curve indicate that
from a two to a 14 day trip there is almost a continuous
relationship between these travel variates. However, the
plateau approached in curve C shows a much greater variation
in slope than either of the nearly parallel curves A or B.
This almost absence of slope is graphically indicative of
no significant effect of X-^, with X2 stabilized, on Y.
The overall results of these tests would tend to verify
the time opportunity association with travel propensity
hypothesis. An interesting and unsuspected feature of these

TRIP PERIOD AND MARGINAL DRIVING TIME
Source: Stratified random sample of parties camping at Grayton Beach, St. Andrews,
Alligator Point, Beach, KOA, Magnolia Beach, and Pirate Cove, summer, 1970.
Figure 28
264

265
data is the plateau reached in the willingness-to-drive-more-
hours curve discussed above. One would expect a different
shape to this curve if Wolfe's theory were true. With in
creased driving time his theory would imply whetted appetites
and greater propensity for more travel. More needs to be
explored on this idea.
Summary
In summary, this chapter has examined a variety of
factors related to market area shape. The specific shape
of the study tributary area has been shown to be a result
of competitive and noncompetitive recreation movement pro
cesses relative to perceived recreation alternatives.
Hypotheses concerning perception of recreation-alternatives
have shed light on the diversity of factors that recrea
tionists bring to bear in travel-decision processes and on
the variety of resource specific attitudes that recreationists
harbor. Distance has been shown, in the study case, to have
a negative influence on recreation travel and visit rate from
specific locations. Time opportunity has been rudimentarily
shown to exert an influence on hours of travel propensity.
The latter might be a partial influence on long distance
travel that has been shown to be associated with a reversal
of distance-time friction. The diversity of questions dealt

266
with in this chapter is in response to their inseparable
interrelatedness which demanded a multifaceted approach in
order to even approach justice in treatment of one question.
The next chapter is oriented toward intra-study area visitor
perception of resources and factors associated with camp
ground selection and use. If the chapter now concluded will
be considered as situational in scope, then next is a
chapter concerned with site factors.

NOTES
1. Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of
Outdoor Recreation (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins
Press, 1966), pp. 33-36.
2. The purpose of this section is not a review but an
application of central place theory. A good overview
of the theory is found in Brian J. L. Berry, Geography
of Market Centers and Retail Distribution (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967); and
Brian J. L. Berry and W. L. Garrison, "Recent Develop
ments of Central Place Theory," Papers and Proceedings,
Regional Science Association, Vol. 4 (1958), pp. 107-
120.
3. Walter Christaller, "Some considerations of Tourism
Location in Europe: The Peripheral RegionsUnder-
Developed CountriesRecreation Areas," Papers and
Proceedings, Regional Science Association, Vol. 12
(1963), pp. 95-105, quote p. 95.
4. D. R. Stoddart, "Darwin's Impact on Geography,"
Annals, Association of American Geographers, Vol. 56
(1966), pp. 683-698.
5. Brian J. L. Berry and Elaine Neils, "Location, Size,
and Shape of Cities as Influenced by Environmental
Factors: The Urban Environment Writ Large," The
Quality of the Urban Environment, Harvey S. Perloff,
ed. (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1969), pp.
257-304, especially p. 284 and pp. 292-295.
6. David C. Mercer, "The Geography of LeisureA Con
temporary Growth-Point," Geography, Vol. 55 (1970),
pp. 261-273.
7. Brush and Bracey have proposed that "distinctive
functional types of centers should exist in every
major economic or cultural realm on the earth." John
267

268
E. Brush and Howard E. Bracey, "Rural Service Centers
in Southwestern Wisconsin and Southern England,"
Geographical Review, Vol. 45 (1955), pp. 559-569,
quote p. 559.
8. Lisle S. Mitchell, "An Empirical Study of Urban
Recreation Units: Playgrounds as Central Places,"
Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Geography, Ohio
State University, 1967; "An Evaluation of Central
Place Theory in a Recreation Context: The Case of
Columbia, South Carolina," Southeastern Geographer,
Vol. 8 (1968), pp. 46-53.
9. Lisle S. Mitchell, "Toward a Theory of Public Urban
Recreation," Proceedings, Association of American
Geographers, Vol. 1 (1969), pp. 103-108.
10. H. Gardiner Barnum, Market Centers and Hinterlands in
Baden-Wrttemberg, Department of Geography Research
Paper No. 103 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1966) .
11. Ibid.
12. Christaller, p. 96.
13. Edwin von Boventer, "Land Values and Spatial Structure:
Agricultural, Urban and Tourist Location Theories,"
Papers and proceedings, Regional Science Association,
Vol. 18 (1966), pp. 231-242; "Walter Christaller's
Central Places and Peripheral Areas: The Central
Place Theory in Retrospect," Journal of Regional Science,
Vol. 9 (1969), pp. 117-124.
14. Allen K. Philbrick, "Areal Functional Organization in
Regional Geography," Papers and Proceedings, Regional
Science Association, Vol. 3 (1957), pp. 87-98;
"Principles of Areal Functional Organization in Re
gional Human Geography," Economic Geography, Vol. 33
(1957), pp. 306-336.
15. Berry, ...Market Centers.
16. Clawson and Knetsch, p. 37.
17. Peter Haggett, Locational Analysis in Human Geography
(New York: St. Martin's Press, 1966), pp. 40-41.

269
18. Raymond E. Murphy, The American City (New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1966) p. 52; and Emrys Jones, Human
Geography (New York; Praeger, 1964), p. 211.
19. Murphy reproduced an excellent cartographic repre
sentation by Ullman of the variation in area and shape
of some of the separate service areas of Mobile,
Alabama. See Edward L. Ullman, "Mobile; Industrial
Seaport and Trade Center" Ph.D. dissertation, Univer
sity of Chicago, 1943, Figure 7 reproduced in Murphy,
p. 56.
20. Though some work has verified the existence of such
nested service areas for a park, probably more atten
tion has been given the city recreation hinterland
with its day-use zone and overnight and weekend zones
beyond. In an attempt to summarize some of these con
cepts an O.R.R.R.C. report stated that the median dis
tance traveled to outdoor recreation sites for over
night or a weekend stay was between 90 and 125 miles.
U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Shoreline Recreation Resources of the United States,
Study Report 4 (Washington, D. C.: Government Print
ing Office, 1962), p. 5. A good discussion of these
concepts is found in George W. Cornwell, "Conducting
a Feasibility Study for a Proposed Outdoor Recreation
Enterprise," Guidelines to Planning, Developing and
Managing Rural Recreation Enterprises, Bulletin 301,
Cooperative Extension Service (Blacksburg: Virginia
Polytechnic Institute, 1966), pp. 97-121.
21. Haggett, p. 40; Berry, ...Market Centers, p. 15.
22. Berry, ...Market Centers, p. 127.
23. Edwin H. Draine, Import Traffic of Chicago and Its
Hinterland, Department of Geography Research Paper
No. 81 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963), p. 5.
24. Haggett, p. 41.
This represents a 100 per cent visitor sample of a
variably defined (January to December, October to
September, etc.) year at Alligator Point, Beach, and
Pirate Cove campgrounds. Extending from April 4 to
September 22, the K.O.A. sample, for practical pur
poses, encompassed a year's business. Data was
25.

270
unavailable at Magnolia. Spring and Summer (April 1
through September 19) use of St. Andrews, and only
summer visitors to Grayton Beach (June 6 through
September 22, 1970) were included.
26. Among the best known are those by Lucas, for example,
Robert C. Lucas, "Wilderness Perception and Use: The
Example of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area," Natural
Resources Journal, vol. 3 (1963), pp. 394-411. Less
known, but significant, are several research reports
and notes prepared by the various experiment stations
of the U. S. Forest Service.
27. Good reviews are found in David Lowenthal, ed.,
Environmental Perception and Behavior, Department of
Geography Research paper No. 109 (Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1967); L. J. Wood, "Perception Studies in
Geography," Transactions, Institute of British
Geographers, No. 50 (1970), pp. 129-142; and Thomas F.
Saarinen, Perception of Environment, Resource Paper
No. 5 (Washington, D. C.: Association of American
Geographers, 1969).
28. It will be noted that this is similar to the economist's
least cost (site and transfer) location. Most signifi
cant similar work being done in economics builds on
simple intervening distance concepts with a constant
distance multiplier used to transform miles to travel
cost. Therefore, these studies essentially deal with
the same distance interaction concept. However, since
the purpose of this study is oriented to numbers of
people, not revenue, the unnecessary dollar constants
have been removed. See Clawson and Knetsch.
29. U. S. National park Service, Parks for America (Washing
ton, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1964); and
Woodall's Trailering parks and campgrounds (Highland
Park, Illinois: Woodall Publishing Co., 1970).
30. Beach camping in Alabama is located only at Gulf Shores.
The Gulfport-Biloxi area has the only beach camping in
Mississippi. Ibid.
31. Since many dots would have required overplot, location
error resulted from the combination of map scale and
dot spreading.

271
32. Haggett points out that market areas are never truly
circular, or ascribe to a tight theoretical shape, for
the normative field for centers that are packed within
a region tends toward an "irregular amoeba-like" shape.
Haggett, p. 43.
33. August Losch, The Economics of Location, translated
from the Second Revised Edition by W. H. Woglom with
W. F. Stolper (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1954),
p. 13.
34. F. W. Morgan, Ports and Harbours (London: Hutchinson
House, 1952); Guido G. Weigend, "Some Elements in the
Study of Port Geography," Geographical Review, Vol.
48 (1958), pp. 185-200.
35. For example, N. R. Elliott, "Hinterland and Foreland
as Illustrated by the Port of the Tyne," Transactions,
Institute of British Geographers, No. 47 (1969),
pp. 153-170.
36. For example, Henry M. Kendall, "Fairs and Markets in
the Department of Gers, France," Economic Geography,
Vol. 12 (1936), pp. 351-358.
37. For example, R. G. Golledge, "A Model of Marketing
Behavior: The Case of Hog Marketing in East-Central
Iowa," j. v. Minghi, ed., The Geographer and the Public
Environment, B. C. Geographical Series No. 7 (Vancouver:
Tantalus Research Ltd., 1966), pp. 91-97.
38. For example, see John E. Brush and H. L. Gauthier, Jr.,
Service Centers and Consumer Trips, Department of
Geography Research Paper No. 113 (Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1968).
39. Golledge, pp. 91-97.
40. E. M. Hoover, The Location of Economic Activity (New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1948), p. 54.
41. Haggett, pp. 45-46.
42. Losch, pp. 414-420.
43. Jones provides a salient discussion of the historical
witness of man's selection of routes of easy, rather

272
than steep, gradient causing location preferences for
passes, rivers, valleys, etc. Jones, p. 214.
44. Losch, pp. 414-420.
45. Bryan H. Massam, "A Note on Shape," Professional
Geographer, Vol. 22 (1970), pp. 197-199; quote p. 197.
46. This type of flow, or cumulative frequency, map was
used extensively by Gould to show transportation and
commodity flow. See Peter R. Gould, The Development
of the Transportation Pattern in Ghana, Northwestern
University Studies in Geography No. 5 (Evanston,
Illinois: Northwestern University, 1960); see also
F. J. Monkhouse and H. R. Wilkinson, Maps and Diagrams
(London: Methuen and Co., 1963), pp. xix, 254-257,
370-372 and 432.
47. Fred Lukermann, "Empirical Expressions of Nodality and
Hierarchy in a Circulation Manifold," East Lakes
Geographer, vol. 2 (1966), pp. 17-44, reprinted in
B. J. L. Berry and F. E. Horton, eds., Geographic
Perspectives on Urban Systems (Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1970), p. 170.
48. For example, see James R. Kittle et al., Outdoor
Recreation in North Dakota, Bulletin No. 459, Agri
cultural Experiment Station (Fargo, North Dakota;
North Dakota State University, 1965), p. 24.
49. James M. Bingham, C. E. Pickard and G. H. Romsa,
"Population Numbers, Population Density, Per Capita
Income and Distance as Functions of Commercial Camp
ing at Bowling Green, Kentucky," Virginia Geographer,
Vol. 5, No. 2 (1970), pp. 9-11.
50. See, for example, L. Harrington, "Newfoundland Re
discovered, Canadian Geographical Journal, vol. 68
(1964), pp. 132-143; and William L. Garrison,
"Connectivity of the Interstate Highway System,"
Papers and Proceedings, Regional Science Association,
Vol. 6 (1960), pp. 121-137.
51
Haggett, pp. 181-182.

273
52. John Piperoglou, "Identification and Definition of
Regions in Greek Tourist Planning," Papers and Pro
ceedings Regional Science Association, vol. 18 (1966),
pp. 169-176.
53. George F. Deasy and Phyllis R. Griess, "Impact of a
Tourist Facility on Its Hinterland, Annals, Associa
tion of American Geographers, vol. 56 (1966), pp.
290-306.
54. Bingham et_al., pp. 9-11.
55. Harold W. Guthrie, "Demand for Tourist's Goods and
Services in a World Market," Papers and Proceedings,
Regional Science Association, Vol. 7 (1961), pp.
159-175, especially p. 168.
56. Ibid.
57. Harold M. Rose, Social Processes in the City; Race
and Urban Residential choice, Resource Paper No. 6
(Washington, D. C.: Association of American
Geographers, 1969), p. 6.
58. Russell B. Adams, "U. S. Metropolitan Migration:
Dimensions and Predictability," Proceedings, Associa
tion of American Geographers, vol. 1 (1969), pp. 1-6,
map on p. 3.
59. Torsten Hagerstrand, "On Monte Carlo Simulation of
Diffusion," W. L. Garrison and D. F. Marble, eds.,
Quantitative Geography, Part I: Economic and Cul
tural Topics, Studies in Geography Number 13
(Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1967),
pp. 1-32, quote p. 7.
60. Ibid., p. 20; and Peter R. Gould, Spatial Diffusion,
Resource Paper No. 4 (Washington, D. C.: Association
of American Geographers, 1969); Lawrence A. Brown,
Diffusion Processes and Location, Bibliography Series
No. 4 (Philadelphia: Regional Science Research In
stitute, 1968).
The author recognizes inherent data drawbacks. One
set of data for one region and one resource location
is inadequate to generalize effectively for a nation
61.

274
of recreation seekers. Also, the data only deal with
a set of campers. No idea is available concerning the
attitudes of other activity groups, which may or may
not be similar. However, it is assumed that a camping
selection is some what cross-sectional of the major
outdoor recreation body of participants.
62. Robert D. Campbell, "The Geography of Recreation in
the United States," Ph.D. dissertation, Clark Univer
sity, 1949, p. 91.
63. The classification, though arbitrary and subjective,
is made more credible through inclusion of all common
responses. There is no arbitrary division based on
numerical rank (age, income, participation rate, etc.).
As in rounding numbers to significant digits, it is
always necessary to bear in mind that subjective sur
vey responses based on individual differences in
ability to express subjective evaluations (of unique
perceptions) have a significance level beyond which
refinement in reporting may be nonsense. Furthermore,
regardless of methods or degree of objective sophisti
cation, it becomes apparent that grouping or classifying
becomes basically a subjective process according to
R. J. Johnston, "Choice in Classification: The Sub
jectivity of Objective Methods," Annals, Association
of American Geographers, Vol. 58 (1968), pp. 575-589.
64. Samuel Z. Klausner, "A Paradigm of Social Research,"
Appendix A, Outdoor Recreation Research (Washington,
D. C.: National Academy of Sciences, 1969), pp. 61-69,
quote p. 65.
65. Richard 0. Cutler, "Amelia island, Florida; A
Geographic Study of Recreation Development," Ph.D.
dissertation, Department of Geography, University of
Florida, 1965, pp. 64-67.
66. Edward A. Ackerman, Geography as a Fundamental Research
Discipline, Department of Geography Research Paper No.
53 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1958).
67. Haggett, pp. 40-41.
68. Brian J. L. Berry, "Interdependency of Spatial
Structure and Spatial Behavior: A General Field

275
Theory Formulation, Papers and Proceedings, Regional
Science Association, Vol. 21 (1968), pp. 205-227.
69. Gerald Hodge, "The Prediction of Trade Center Via
bility in the Great Plains," Papers and Proceedings,
Regional Science Association, Vol. 15 (1965), pp. 87-
115.
70. Haggett, pp. 40-41.
71. Losch, p. 106.
72. Brush and Gauthier.
73. Brian J. L. Berry and Allen Pred, Central Place
Studies; A Bibliography of Theory and Applications,
Bibliography Series No. 1, with supplement
(Philadelphia; Regional Science Research Institute,
1965).
74. Berry, ...Market Centers.
75. Gunnar Olsson, Distance and Human interaction,
Bibliography Series No. 2 (Philadelphia; Regional
Science Research Institute, 1965).
76. R. J. Chorley and Peter Haggett, Models in Geography
(London; Methuen, 1967), especially pp. 559-561.
77. H. Hotelling, "Stability in Competition," Economic
Journal, vol. 41 (1929), pp. 52-53.
78. The method is discussed in Andrew H. Trice and S. E.
Wood, "Measurement of Recreation Benefits," Land
Economics, Vol. 34 (1958), pp. 195-207. See also in
the same volume pp. 365-370.
79. Clawson and Knetsch.
80. L. E. Peabody and I. M. Spasoff, "Tourist Travel in
the United States," Public Roads, Vol. 18, No. 6
(1937), pp. 101-116.
81. Deasy and Griess, pp. 290-306.
82. Hugh D. Clout, "Second Homes in the Auvergne," Geogra
phical Review, Vol. 61 (1971), pp. 530-553.

276
83. Richard Russell, "Recreation and the South Carolina
Coast," Southeastern Geographer, Vol. 5 (1965),
pp. 48-56.
84. Mitchell, "An Empirical ...."
85. Mitchell, "An Evaluation...," pp. 46-53.
86. Bingham et al., pp. 9-11.
87. Lee Guernsey, and Dennis R. Crowe, "Some Attitudes
and Characteristics of Visitors to State Parks Along
Lake Michigan," Proceedings of the Indiana Academy
of the Social Sciences, Vol. 2 (1967), pp. 1-24.
88. Robert L. S. Cole, Jr. and Lisle S. Mitchell,
"Attendance as a Negative Function of Distance,
Great Smoky Mountains National Park Campgrounds,"
Southeastern Geographer, Vol. 9 (1969), pp. 13-24.
89. Barry Lentnek, Carlton S. Van Doren and James R.
Trail, "Spatial Behavior in Recreation Boating,"
Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1 (1969), pp. 103-
124.
90. James 0. Wheeler and F. P. Stutz, "Spatial Dimensions
of Urban Social Travel," Annals, Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 61 (1971), pp. 371-386.
91. Marion Clawson, Land and water for Recreation (New
York: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1963), p. 58.
92. Note that where cities were given separately from the
county population in which they are located the two
were summed to conform to the majority of city-county
population figures. For example, San Francisco,
Baltimore, Norfolk, St. Louis, etc., were merged with
their respective counties.
93. A small uncorrected inaccuracy in distance results
from use of an Albers conic projection for straight
line measurement.
94. Frank J. Cesario, Jr., "Operations Research in Outdoor
Recreation," Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1
(1969), pp. 33-51.

277
95. E. Philip Howrey, "On the Choice of Forecasting Models
for Air Travel," Journal of Regional Science, vol. 9
(1969), pp. 215-224.
96. Morton Schneider, "Gravity Models and Trip Distribution
Theory," Papers and Proceedings, Regional Science
Association, Vol. 5 (1959), pp. 51-56, quote p. 52.
97. Edward L. Ullman, "Geographical Prediction and Theory:
The Measure of Recreation Benefits in the Meramic
Basin," in Saul Cohen, ed., Problems and Trends in
American Geography (New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1967), pp. 124-145.
98. Guthrie, pp. 159-175.
99. A log-log rectification of the hyperbolic data was
subjected to linear regression analysis with suitable
interval weights yielding a descriptive regression
model of the shape Log Y = log 4.4175 2.0052 log X
(standard error of the estimated regression coefficient
= 0.002309, with "t" significant at the .001 per cent
level). For the techniques used see Mordecai Ezekiel,
Methods of Correlation Analysis (New York: Wiley,
1930), Appendix I, pp. 357-365; and M. Ezekiel and
K. A. Fox, Methods of Correlation and Regression
Analysis (New York: Wiley, 1959).
100. John K. Galbraith, The Affluent Society (New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 1958), especially Chapter 24.
101. Joffre Dumazedier, Toward a Society of Leisure,
translated by Stewart E. McLure (New York: The Free
Press, 1967).
102. Wilbur F. LaPage, "The Mythology of Outdoor Recreation
Planning," Southern Lumberman, Vol. 221 (1970), pp.
118-121, quote p. 119.
103. Marion Clawson, "Economics and Environmental impacts
of Increasing Leisure Activities," Future Environments
of North America, eds. F. F. Darling and J. P. Milton
(New York: The Natural History press, 1966), p. 258.
104.
Ibid., pp. 258-259.

278
105. National Academy of Sciences, Outdoor Recreation
Research (Washington, D. C.: National Academy of
Sciences, 1969), p. 38.
106. Ibid.
107. Roy I. Wolfe, "Economic Development," Canada; A
Geographical interpretation, ed. John Warkentin
(Toronto; Methuen, 1968), pp. 226-227; also "Com
munication," journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 2
(1970), pp. 85-87.
108. David A. King, "Characteristics of Family Campers
Using the Huron-Manistee National Forests," Research
Paper LS-19 (St. Paul, Minnesota; Lake States Forest
Experiment Station, 1965) p. 10; Robert C. Lucas,
"User Evaluation of Campgrounds on Two Michigan
National Forests," Research Paper NC-44 (St. Paul,
Minnesota; North Central Forest Experiment Station,
1970), p. 8; and George W. Orning, "Private Pleasure
Boating in the National Forests of Minnesota,"
Research Note NC-15 (St. Paul, Minnesota; North
Central Forest Experiment Station, 1966), p. 4.
109. Ezekiel, pp. 357-365.
110. Curve A, Y = 2.7509 + 0.3352Xi; Curve B, Y = 3.2366
+ 0.3070 Xx;
Curve C, Y = 7.4565 + 0.0845X-L,* Curve D, Y = 3.9298
+ 0.2161 Xx.
Note also that a single true curve could have been
derived by fitting a second degree function but for
ease of discussion, explanation, and replication this
method was selected. Barnum elected the method of
fitting a series of straight curves to segments of a
curve showing relationship between number of retail
establishments and central functions. Barnum, p. 43.

chapter V
CAMPGROUND PERCEPTION AND SELECTION
To this point the discussion has stressed tributary
area interaction processes. Considerable attention was
given to visitor perception of resource interchangeability
and preferences as these affected selection and choice of
the study area from among alternate locations of similar
and dissimilar recreation resources. The objective of this
chapter is to continue this exploration into camper atti
tudes and perceptions but to focus on factors associated
with specific campground selection within the general re
source setting of the study area, in addition, a few al
ternatives to present public recreation policy also will
be proposed. Again, it must be stressed that the study
objective is not an exhaustive and definitive discourse
on all variables that might be brought to bear on the
problem, but instead the goal is a selectively exploratory
insight into perceptual process and resource use within
the confines of the study area and the sample. Any real
significance to such a study lies in the understandings
gained of the reasons for the distribution of campers in
space.
279

280
It has been common within the outdoor recreation litera
ture, particularly that concerning family camping, to con
ceptualize recreation resources in roughly defined separate
management and use categories. Thus, studies have been made
of camping and recreation in particular national forests,
large reservoirs, national parks, state parks and other land
management areas. Generally it is assumed that some factor
(or factors) accounts for visitor selection of a particular
level in a hierarchy of recreation area alternates. The
author knows of no attempt to ascertain the identity of this
hierarchy-level selection factor or complex of factors.
Furthermore, when studies have been made of the selection
process behind choice of campgrounds within a single area
it often has tended to focus on real differences in the
natural resource base and on real differences in ease of
accessibility. Thus, campground use within an area has
been correlated with proximity to recreation water and
other factors.'*' Other studies have contrasted use of auto
accessible campgrounds with those enjoyed only by
2
shouldering a pack and hiking into an area.
On the other hand, only a few studies have dealt with
more subtle perceived differences associated with selection
of a campground from among area alternates with a high de
gree of resource and physical access similarity. Hecock's

281
study of day-use and vacationing visitors to different cape
Cod beaches is perhaps the most noteworthy from a resource
3
standpoint. He concluded that beach crowding, facility
development, and relative external development were decisive
in visitor selection of particular beaches. Shafer and
Thompson have associated campground use with distance from
4
nearby tourist attractions. A few have examined such
variables as size of the campground (number of campsites),
density of overstory or shade, and factors associated with
camp selection by preference in management type (i.e.,
5
private-commercial or public).
Therefore, the major question or problem dealt with in
this chapter is the following: On what basis do campers
select one campground over another within the resource
setting of the study area? Note that the study area is
dealt with as a whole, or as a sectored and variably
developed complex within a basically constant resource
setting.
It was considered that visitors had arrived at their
area destination when they turned onto US 98 from US 331
near Grayton Beach or when they arrived at Panama City via
US 231 or another route (See Figure 20). Distance from
the visitor's home to his terminal campground, therefore,
was not considered as a factor of intra-area campground

282
selection. Hecock explored this point and found that since
most of the vacationers visiting Cape Cod traveled fairly
long distances to reach the area, it mattered little whether
they traveled an extra hour beyond the barge canal at the
cape neck. Selection of vacation lodging place was based
on factors other than distance access from home. Thus,
the analysis assumption that all campground locations have
equal accessibility to point of visitor origin appears
reasonable by analogy. Therefore, accessibility must be
defined in other relative terms.
Camping Attitudes
The focus of this entire chapter is on factors of
campground selection. It must be stressed that underlying
participant attitudes toward camping (purposes, goals, and
anticipated benefits associated with camping) are the
balance weights placed on the decision making scales that
weigh satisfaction potentials of perceived campground
alternates.
Therefore, before examining factors of intra-area
campground selection it is worthwhile to seek an overview
of basic attitudes that in this particular case study were
incorporated into the selection process. Area visitors'
stated reasons for participation in camping are summarized

283
in Table 12. Most of the responses were results of contrasts
between motels and other lodging options. It will be noted
that a variety of reasons were given for participation in
camping. As can be seen, people pursuing some of the dif
ferent goals could easily fit together in a single camp
ground; however, some might less clearly fit congruously.
For example, a place filled with active noisy socializing
campers may less easily satisfy needs of a couple seeking
quiet relaxation and communion with nature.
Examples of similar findings from a collection of
sociological studies are also pertinent. ORRRC studies,
7
for example, revealed similar reasons why people camp.
The goals of wilderness campers were found to be to get
away from civilization and to observe nature. Other types
of campers had reasons grouped into the following categories:
esthetic-religious, health, sport-play, sociability, and
response to a pioneer spirit.
Others have discussed theories labeled with the terms
compensatory (urban avoiding), familiarity (childhood ex
perience based), and personal community (social circle in-
g
fluence). In a literature review of camping satisfactions
and motivations, Bultena and Klessig observed that different
groups of campers fall into continuums between contrasting
polar viewsa few pairs of which are, for example:

284
TABLE 12
REASONS FOR CAMPING
Expressed Reason Sample Percentage
(In order to:) Responding*
Economize 59
Enjoy outdoors and nature 43
Experience a change of pace from
daily routine 32
Reinforce family unity by sharing
experiences in a neutral setting 21
Relax 14
Participate in various activities
(eg. fish, swim, boat, hunt, tour, hike) 14
Socialize with other campers 10
Enjoy informality of setting 9
Have greater travel flexibility 9
Enjoy greater comfort and convenience
(usually a response of trailer campers) 8
Have greater freedom of movement
(especially for children) 6
Pursue camping as a hobby or retire
ment activity 5
Avoid unliked motels 5
Provide educational experience for children 4
Sample of 514, with multiple responses.

285
gregarious-isolation, active-passive, primitive-convenience,
9
and nature-social. Appendix VI, Klausner's recreation
paradigm, contains the literature's most complete view of
these various attitudes and motivations. Furthermore, these
views by Klausner form the root of the contrasting dis
cussion in the next part of this chapter.
Campground Selection Factors
The preceding chapter demonstrated an area selection
process that involved comparison of variables of perceived
resource nonhomogeneity. It is, therefore, by extension,
reasonable to assume the following working hypothesis, camp
ground selection is a dual function of (1) visitor per
ception of nonhomogeneity of the physical and cultural
setting (internal and external) of a campground (i.e., site
perception), and (2) recreation preferences and their under
lying attitudes, goals, etc. (reasons for camping). An
extension of this logic allows the formulation of a secondary
hypothesis that such a relationship between preference and
perception should result in a gathering of visitors sharing
specific attitudes and conclusions within specific camp
grounds. That is to say, that people searching for a cer
tain camping experience (within an area) should gather at
the same campground. This assumes that all concerned know

286
precisely what are their needs and also have similar per
ception of the array of alternatives. It is at this point
that the logic begins to crumble.
However, for analysis, such a perfect information sys
tem and perceptual response may be assumed. Consequently,
to demonstrate differences between the settings of several
campgrounds would be to predict setting-specific gatherings
of campers in each. Setting-specific users have been
tacitly assumed in most studies of recreation environmental
perception and preference, or the notion simply has been
neglected.
Therefore, it was hypothesized that campgrounds within
the study area attract visitors who have perceived in com
mon certain advantages or potentials within and surrounding
each campground. The following anticipated reasons for
camping (refer to Table 12) were used as a spring-board for
a search for campground clustering based on setting-specific
attitudes and perceptions: to enjoy the outdoors and nature,
to relax, to socialize, and to participate in various
activities.
Klausner's paradigm also offered a reinforcing logic
to the search (See Appendix VI). An elemental component of
this paradigm is his contrast in direction of social move
ment within outdoor recreation participation. Klausner

287
proposed that some people obey a gregarious tendency and
gather together for social contact as a recreation experience
enhancement (i.e., centripetal social movement). Others
shun crowds and human contact in varying degrees and seek
isolation (i.e., centrifugal social movement). It is easy
to equate centrifugal social movement, at one extreme, with
the wilderness experience and communion with nature on a
primitive survival level.
A number of studies have been made of such orientations
in association with wilderness recreation. Hendee and others
have described a scale of "wilderness-purist" orientations
among outdoor recreationists that extends from a "wildernism"
pole to an opposite "urbanism" attitude toward nature and
the outdoors.'1'0 A later comment by Hendee indicated that
he saw application of this continuum concept all the way
from wilderness back-packers to auto campers in developed
park areas (the group dealt with in this discussion).^
Application of Hendee's "wildernism-urbanism" continuum
would also suggest a range, opposite the centrifugal pole,
within the needs and propensities of study area campers.
This would result in some clustering of campers having cen
tripetal gregarious tendencies and orientations toward the
urban-similar camping experience (with its conveniences and
sophisticated excitement).

288
Setting Variation
However, the setting-specific camper clustering hypo
thesized for the study area should only exist if a range of
campground settings from the urban toward the wilderness-
type is present. This has yet to be demonstrated.
Chapter III described the linear operational study area.
The discussion of primary study selection rational should be
reviewed, particularly the subjective park development-
isolation ranking (Table 3). In this section it will be
noted that park polarity was tentatively established and
Grayton and St. Andrews were therefore selected for study.
The section of Chapter III dealing with recreation land use
in 1970 is now particularly pertinent, especially as it
expands on the locational aspects of the base map (Figure 7)
and includes a descriptive land use traverse (Figure 8).
Note also the descriptions of internal and external settings
of the private campgrounds included in this study. It is
assumed that these descriptive passages are sufficient,
without repetition, for continuation of the present theoreti
cal discussion. In order to demonstrate intensity of develop
ment or density of land use in the study area another dimension
was needed which could not conveniently be shown on Figure 8.
Two linear profile graphs (Figures 29 and 30) were con
structed to show study area internal variation in intensity

SOURCE: Mapped by author, 1970.
TRANSIENT LODGING UNITS
O N3 Co Co -v O)
O O O > O Oi O
o o o o o o o
I I 1 1 I I I 1
w
H-J
o
a
s
o
ST. ANDREWS STATE PARK
289

Figure 30
ST. ANDREWS STATE PARK

291
of recreation oriented land use. Both graphs were con
structed from data collected by one-fifth mile units. All
traversed highway routes were collapsed or contracted along
the north-south axis leaving east-west oriented relative
development profiles. Horizontal scaling is by miles with
no numerical designation since no single terminal point
exists. Now identifiable is the spatial variable of relative
location of campgrounds to their surrounding developed
recreation and service lands.
Not only do Figures 29 and 30 effectively add the
dimension of density, but they are designed to selectively
eliminate "noise" or extraneous information shown on the
12
land use traverse (Figure 8). As an overall area develop
ment indicator, Figure 29 shows the density of commercial
overnight accommodations expressed in occupance units
(rooms, cottages, and apartments). Figure 30 on the other
hand, shows the density of area development by visitor
supportive commercial establishments oriented toward recrea
tion and allied services (eg., service stations, restaurants,
amusements, etc.).
The graphs were designed to include the entire coast
fringe between Destin and Panama city (despite exclusion
of part of this area from the operational study area) in
order to more clearly demonstrate location of all study

292
campgrounds relative to the area's developmental structure.
The contrast in amount of nearby auxiliary commercial
development between Grayton Beach and St. Andrews parks is
obvious from these two profiles, it will be seen that
visitor services and transient lodging follow essentially
the same profile of relative density. in both cases Grayton
Beach is relatively isolated in terms of its external com
mercial setting while St. Andrews is relatively near the
development peaks on both graphs.
Grayton clearly lies within a profile trough between
the urbanized extremes of the graphs. One modest resort,
a handful or rental house trailers, and a small motel offer
Grayton's only nearby transient lodging. The visitor support
profile is somewhat deceptive since several recreation and
service businesses are indicated as surrounding Grayton.
Actually a number of these units are small roadside automo
tive service stations and businesses serving the resident
needs of nearby Santa Rosa Beach which is located on the
main through route, US 98.
Of the private campgrounds in the survey, two deserve
comment here (in addition to the descriptions of Chapter III).
Pirate Cove is the private camp nearest to Grayton Beach
State Park in isolation and solitude. Beach, on the other
hand, lies amid the area's most intense zone of recreation.

293
service, and lodging, as is clearly indicated by both pro
files .
Setting-Specific Camper Groupings
Because polarity and a variable array does exist within
area campground settings, then the hypothesized preference
clustering at different campgrounds appears to be a valid
test hypothesis. it was decided to focus on the two po
larized settings of Grayton Beach and St. Andrews for clus
ter testing. However, visitor attitudes were examined at
the private campgrounds, also. Subjective observations
could not suggest as acceptable a ranking of all of the
private campgrounds. Also, though any different attitudes
clustering would suggest acceptance of the hypothesis, it
was decided to probe specifically for attitude differences
that could be predicted by settings on an urban-nature
continuum.
It was, therefore, predicted that St. Andrews would be
characterized by visitors seeking a highly active, gre
garious, centripetal social direction camping experience.
Grayton Beach was predicted to be characterized by centri
fugal social direction, and a search for seclusion, solitude,
privacy and relaxation amid a more natural setting. Among
the private campgrounds, Beach was expected to be the most
urban-convenience oriented as well as sharing the predicted

294
characteristics of St. Andrews.
Sample visitors in all survey campgrounds were asked
the following question:
Do you have any particular reasons for
visiting this campground instead of
another in the Panama City area?
It was essential to concentrate only on those respondents
who indicated a type of comparative campground selection
process (regardless of how incomplete a comparison). There
fore, only answers indicative of a comparative selection
basis are included in Table 13. Note that for each selec
tion reason the frequency of response is given, represented
by a percentage of the total of comparative responses at
each campground. Other responses will be discussed later.
As can be seen, visitor responses varied widely, but
there appear to be several dominant themes or answer groups.
Many selected a campground on the basis of services. Though
not an exclusive domain, private campgrounds tended to
attract visitors because they were perceived to offer
superior services (especially those personally rendered)
and friendly management. A wide range of facilities, both
for camping and for allied activities attracted many.
Though supervision, regulations, and a sense of security
attracted many, an opposite group selected their campground
in order to avoid restrictions, and to have a greater sense

TABLE 13
REASONS FOR CAMPGROUND SELECTION
Preferred Quality
Campground*
G S A B K M P
(Percentage of Total Response by Campground)
Services
1
Reservations
.4
15.4
2
Better (more personal)
.8
1.6
5.8
1.7
7.4
3
Good (friendly) management
1.7
1.8
1.6
5.8
2.6
13.7
4
Pets allowed
3.6
1.9
2.6
1.1
Facilities
5
Better
2.4
4.2
3.6
2.5
5.8
3.4
6
For trailers
.4
.8
.9
1.1
7
Uniform quality
10.0
8
Laundromat
1.9
.9
9
Pool
7.4
19.2
10
Recreation room
3.8
11
Store
3.8
.9
Supervision
12 Better control, security and
strict regulations .8 5.0 6.9
13 Fewer restrictions and more
freedom of movement 1.8 1.1
295

TABLE 13 (Continued)
Preferred Quality
Maintenance
14 Cleaner or better maintained
Economy
15 Cheaper
Activities
16 Larger variety of recreation
facilities (activities)
17 Good skin diving
18 Safe children's swimming
19 Uncrowded beach
Location
20 Near beach
21 Near shopping
22 Near town
23 Near amusements
24 Near restaurants
25 Central location
Campground*
G S A B K M P
(percentage of Total Response by campground)
4.4
.4
2.0
2.0
3.8
3.6
.8
2.6
3.2
2.1
1.8
1.9
2.6
2.1
1.7
.4
1.3
5.4
1.9
1.7
1.7
11.3
5.4
23.8
3.8
.9
3.2
.4
2.5
.9
6.3
.8
3.8
1.7
1.1
9.2
5.4
35.2
5.8
1.7
2.1
1.3
1.6
3.3
11.5
2.6
296

TABLE 13 (Continued)
Preferred Quality
26 Not isolated
27 Near crowds
28 Away from commercial areas
29 Near deep sea fishing
30 Easy boat access to Gulf
31 On (near) fresh water or bay
Environment
32 More natural (less developed
or commercial)
33 Scenic
34 Shady
35 Breezes
Privacy
36 Larger, more popular
37 Smaller campground
38 Less (not) crowded
39 More privacy
40 Larger sites
Campground*
G S A B K M P
(Percentage of Total Response by Campground)
.4
10.4
1.3
3.6
1.3
.8
00

00
15.1
32.1
5.6
2.5
3.6
.8
1.7
13.4
19.6
.8
2.4
1.3
3.6
18.3
.8
3.6
9.6
.8
2.4
.8
3.3
5.7
.8
1.7 4.2
.9
13.8 18.9
.9 1.1
1.9 1.7
1.9 38.8 22.1
.9
3.2
3.8 5.3
297

TABLE 13 (Continued)
Preferred Quality
G S
(Percentage
Campground*
A B K M P
of Total Response by campground)
41
Good spacing and layout
2.8
.8
1.8
42
Good vegetative buffering
between sites
1.2
.4
Solitude
43
Quieter
11.6
.8
1.9 3.4 7.4
44
Fewer teens
.4
45
Fewer motorcycles
.4
46
More relaxing place
.8
.9 2.1
47
More suited for families
(less boisterous or
coarse language)
3.2
2.1
.9
48
No drinking
.8
1.3
Campground names and total response for each are as follows: G/ Grayton Beach State
Park (251); S, St. Andrews State park (239); A, Alligator point (56); B, Beach (122);
K, K.O.A. (52); M, Magnolia (116); P, Pirate Cove (95).
298

299
of freedom in movement. A few specifically considered
cleanliness of facilities, condition of grounds, and price
of fees in selecting a camp. In addition, variety, safety
and crowding of on site recreation facilities were partly
decisive for many. As was expected, considerable comment
was made on perceived solitude, privacy, naturalness of
the setting and proximity to off-site developed activity
areas.
By simply comparing entries in the first two columns
the anticipated different perceptions and clustering be
tween Grayton and St. Andrews are suggested. Services and
facilities are more emphasized at St. Andrews and nearly
unmentioned by those selecting Grayton. Though some visitors
to both parks selected partly on an activity potential basis,
note that it is the uncrowded beach at Grayton that attracted
campers. The locational advantages stressed by St. Andrews
campers are those associated with proximity to activity and
crowds. The privacy associated contrast between small and
large camp preferences also should be noted.
A more intensive examination of Table 13 shows more
pronounced differences between visitor preceptions of and
attitudes toward Grayton and St. Andrews. Nevertheless, the
contrast between these two park campgrounds is not as great
as was anticipated. The real polarity or setting-specific

300
cluster contrast is between Grayton and Beach campground. A
ranking of perceptions and inferred visitor attitudes toward
the individual campgrounds was made from Table 13 which
forms the subjective basis of the following comments.
Grayton and St. Andrews essentially were shown to be,
as predicted, respectively centrifugal and centripetal in
social direction. Both were selected for cleanliness and
well maintained facilities and both were favored (St.
Andrews much more, however) for having a high perceived
potential for Gulf and other water activity. St. Andrews'
shade was an obvious advantage unshared by Grayton. The
key perception of Grayton was that of an uncrowded, quiet,
highly private, natural, and noncommercial (internally and
externally) setting. St. Andrews, on the other hand, con
trasted with features stressed oriented toward perceived
internal and external advantages for urban-convenient, high
amusement-excitement potential recreation in and around a
well supervised and secure campground with modern facilities.
The array of the private campgrounds fell into an ill defined
range between the extremely urban-oriented, convenience
stressing, crowd and activity excitement seeking visitors
at Beach and the quiet fishing and shade relaxing visitors
in secluded pirate Cove.
The observant reader will by now have noted that in

301
outdoor recreation, and especially family camping, it seems
impossible to separate meaningfully the elements of camp
ground selection. Social direction, resource and activity
preferences, and preferred campground internalities and
externalities, among other factors, seem to be, for the
individual decision maker, an interwoven fabric that in
extricably relates with perception and ultimate choice.
Even if assumptions are made that information is uni
formly and comprehensively disseminated, that people are
aware of their needs, and that satisfaction optimizing
behavior is the norm, then site selection probably still
would involve a compromise between one or more of the major
preferences in a realistic attempt to approach a perceived
optimum mix of satisfactions.
In addition, it must be noted that the extremely relative
concept of quality has been skirted. In a sense, maximizing
quality of experience is the logical goal of a deliberately
selective process (unless economic rationale is dominant).
The value of the estimated experience or the perceived recrea
tion satisfaction potential determines quality (i.e., site
utility) of a campground's internal and external setting.
In reality, respondent comments indicated that the
process of campground selection is quite divergent from that
which would be expected from a strict application of minimax

302
assumptions or for that matter a satisficer model. Clearly
the selection process is often couched in gross imperfections
in the information system and in a camper attitude that often
is not greatly concerned with optimizing. To a large ex
tent campground selection is a chance process, or at best
it is characterized by much camper indifference.
For example, several indicated that they considered no
campgrounds other than the one in which they camped. Friends
and relatives suggested particular camps. Others chose a
location simply because it was a convenient place to stop
while en route to another area or while touring. Nearly all
of this group stopped at Grayton (25 of 514 parties). Some
selected a campground vicariously by road signs and guide
books and a few were diverted from destinations by appealing
road signs. State park overflow, en route needs, late night
exhaustion, tired and screaming children, beach anxiety,
need to be near work or a relative's residence, ignorant
novices, etc., all tended to confuse the total array of
campground selection reasons. Of questionable value is the
often used "random variation" factor that dismisses these
factors -.
A last modifying caution must be made. The concept of
isolation or campground location relative to urban and other
developed areas is extremely variable in nature. Results

303
indicated that perceptual response to relative isolation or
accessibility is nonuniform aligned along a continuum. In
other words, what is to some near, is to others far. For
example, to some K.O.A. or Magnolia visitors, nearby Alli
gator Point was nearly a wilderness setting. To some St.
Andrews campers their location was deep within a natural
setting and "away from it all," despite commercial develop
ment at the park gate. To some Grayton campers, all of the
Panama city campgrounds were almost "in town." Another
point is called for in future interpretation of the results
of this study. What is located away or in isolation is a
function of resource use, urbanization, and cultural per
ception factors and is likely to change with passage of time.
Nevertheless, the results, among those who exercised
an evaluation and selection process, were as predicted.
Visitors have been shown to cluster or gather in somewhat
like-minded groups in order to utilize particular perceived
location advantages within different campground settings.
But this should not be taken to imply that all users of a
campground, should be expected to vary similarly in attitude
from those of other campgrounds, for erratics are also very
much a part of the process.

304
Implications
The reasons for camping are diverse. The camping
family's environmental objectives are many. Within the
spectrum of campers' tastes lie many needs based on these
divergent attitudes. The campground selection compromise
(discussed earlier) is probably infinite in trade-offs
between available resources, and preferences in social and
natural environment. Activity propensity compounds the
already intricate fabric. Clearly there is need for a
variety of types of campgrounds (not just an average type
for a mythical average camper).^ Needs range from simple
facilities to those offering sophisticated luxury and from
camper independence and freedom to catered personal service.
It has been customary to discuss public recreation
resource allocation for diverse human needs along with es
tablished resource management practices and types of land.
Hence, the variety of camper needs are met within a range
of lands from federal wilderness areas, national forest
remote camps, state game management camps, state forest
campgrounds, reservoir-management recreation area camps,
national park camps, state park and recreation area camps,
to county and local campgrounds. With few exceptions, most
of these types try to please everyone and they maintain
management level "types" of camps that meet average assumed

305
camper needs. There are, of course, exceptions, and some
federal resource agencies are approaching planned camp
grounds for specific experience enhancement.
The planning and management implications of the
preceding discussion of campground visitor grouping by
preference are more specific than simply a plea for a
variety of management types and camp settings. Recall that
discussion centered on the existence of a setting-specific
range of attitudes within a single basic natural resource
type (ocean beach), by a group of recreationists with a
specific activity mode (family easy-access automobile camp
ing) and within an approximately equal management-service
hierarchy level (state park campgrounds and area associated
private facilities).
Consequently, it is proposed that campground planners
and managers review their objectives regarding attempts
to satisfy specific camper needs within the parallel array
of management areas having comparable resource settings.
The obvious implication for Florida beach state parks is
that a need exists for a variety of sub-regional management
settings, with a range of development for camping and other
activities. Beach lands should be deliberately acquired,
planned, developed and then managed to provide a choice in
settings. Need exists for planned low-density, natural

306
beach campgrounds as well as for those with large, dense,
fully developed social-activity beach camping locations.
In other words, if serving all the people who camp is a
valid social objective for public concern, then within-
resource-type development must be group specific.
The question now is whether publicly managed lands
must serve all needs. Florida has to a certain extent
avoided competition with the private commercial segment,
insofar as extremes are considered, for the public camp
grounds cannot measure up to the luxury of overnight
facilities and campground services in the most lavish pri
vate camps. However, perhaps public subsidy could be
concentrated more effectively in maintenance of valuable
soon-to-be remnant outdoor recreation environments and in
commercially noncompetitive segments of the camping-need
spectrum. In the opinion of the author, for example, any
expansion of Grayton Beach's recreation facilities or
campground size and convenience level would tend to work
change on the ability it now has to serve specific needs.
The alternatives to specific provision of deliberately
differentiated campground product are few and perhaps in the
long range unsatisfactory. The solution to keeping up with
increasing use of campgrounds and to always provide a
supply of unknown locations with consequent low density is

307
simply yearly allocation and development of new parks with
campgrounds. But this is not perpetually feasible. The
other solution is to disregard low density camping needs
(assume they will be met by private timber land and wildlife
management swamps) and increase the carrying capacity of
existing facilities. Of course, such intensive use and
sophisticated (or worn) settings would perhaps result in a
decreased quality of experience for a new group on the
urban-nature attitude continuum. A possible compromise
solution, for a while, is multiple-density-zoned and
managed recreation areas.
Management Preferences
A greatly neglected area of research in campground use
has been camper attitudes toward management types. At least
one study has been done relating variation in camper socio
economic and attitudinal characteristics to type of public
14
land management agency facility. This study specifically
dealt with expressed reasons for specific agency facility
use and allied visitor attitudes toward different agency
facilities. Attitudes toward equal hierarchy-level private
and public campgrounds have remained largely unstudied. Do
some campers prefer only public campgrounds and others the
opposite? Do some treat them with equal preference? If

308
such specific preferences can be demonstrated, upon what
basis do they exist? All of these questions are essentially
unprobed in the literature. Consequently, within the scope
of this exploratory sampling a few of these questions were
approached.
Visitors were asked if, in general, they preferred to
camp at private or public campgrounds. A summary of their
responses is found in Table 14. Of the total sample of 514
camping parties, distributed about equally between public
and private campgrounds, over one-third responded that they
had no preference in campground management type, while nearly
half of those interviewed preferred a public campground. The
between-camp contrast in public preference is revealing of
clientele mix at various study area campgrounds. Among the
group some apparently function more than others as public
i
park campground overflow facilities (see K.O.A.). Parti
cularly revealing is the proportion of state park campers
who had no real preference.
It was felt that since private campgrounds are relatively
new on the camping scene perhaps availability and experience
were biasing preferences. Whether a restated preference or
measurement of experience was gained is uncertain, but the
percentage of public experience of total camping experience
was estimated. Both Grayton and St. Andrews had medians

TABLE 14
CAMPGROUND MANAGEMENT PREFERENCE
Campground
Private Public No Preference
(Percentages by Campground)
Grayton
2*
73
22
St. Andrews
0
70
28
Alligator Point
12
27
59
Beach
31
23
42
K.O.A.
31
41
29
Magnolia
33
8
55
Pirate cove
33
28
39
All Parks
14
49
35
*e.g., 2 per cent of Grayton sample

310
(percentage public of total) of 80 and the private camps
ranged from 42 (Beach) to 67 (Alligator, K.O.A., and
Magnolia). The total sample had medians of eight and three
for respective number of public and private campgrounds
previously visited.
Among the two-thirds of the sample respondents who
expressed a management preference, the following additional
question was askedj
What are the most important reasons for
your preference of public (private)
campgrounds?
The answers are summarized in Table 15. Note that responses
are grouped by degree of exclusiveness. Some characteristics
associated with type-preference were not listed for the
opposite type. A second group of answers were listed by
respondents favoring both management types. To a large
extent this is evidence of incongruous reasoning or a
vagary of perception. It is significant, however, that
people emphasizing preference for the same attribute in a
campground stress both management types. In addition, since
the data were so subjective in coding and interpretation,
statistical manipulation yielding confidence levels was not
done. Therefore, confidence in significance of differences
stated is questionable in many cases. Nevertheless, it may
be stressed that real preferences do exist, however

.311
TABLE 15
MANAGEMENT PREFERENCE FACTORS
Favored Characteristic (* = emphasis) Public Private
Exclusive
* Camp stores
Laundromat
Trailer access
Conveniences
Daily trash pickup X
Vegetation between sites X
Personal service
Less fawning management X
Nicer campers X
No Blacks
Less restrictive security (gates, etc)
Fewer motorcycles X
Highway locations
Located on road maps X
Scenic locations X
* Located in choice recreation spots X
* More natural X
More solitude X
Nature interpretation, museums, etc. X
* Less commercialized X
Away from towns X
No false advertising X
Used to them X
Older, more established X
Always site availability
Reservations
Prefer to support government X
Prefer to support private enterprise
Dominant
Camping facilities X
* Recreation facilities X
* Swimming pools
Trailer sewage, etc.
* Cleanliness, general maintenance X
* Campground design X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X

312
TABLE 15 (Continued)
Favored Characteristic (* = emphasis) Public Private
* Larger sites X
* Less crowded X
Facility-people ratio X
* Privacy X
Convenient locations of facilities X
Management (better and friendlier) X
* Security X
* Supervision and restrictions X
Less restrictive X
Friendly campers X
* Family-type campers X
No drinking X
Near activities X
* Economical X
Equal
Pets not permitted in public
Better traffic control
Don't know any

313
imperfect the perception, comparison, and opinion.
Some implications of these data must be discussed. It
is proposed that public agencies, particularly state parks,
need not feel obligated to try to keep up with all of the
increasing demand for family camping. Clearly, some people
have distinct preferences for the commercial-convenience
setting of private campgrounds. Another group has no pre
ferences either way. For these campers public and private
campgrounds are essentially interchangeable. In this case,
if Florida should try to give the people exactly what they
want, they would have to conclude that only part of in
creased demand must be met by park camps. If policy makers
decide that the type who have no preference should not be
subsidized by public camping, then an even larger proportion
of future camping demand increase needs no public considera
tion.
The point made earlier that campers perceive both public
and private facilitates to offer identical advantages is also
significant. This would seem to indicate a need for better
dissemination of information. If all potential park campers
could be informed at the gate or another conspicuous place
of alternatives in private area camps, possibly many would
be diverted to a private camp.
The following question is old, but valid. If private

314
enterprise can provide an equal facility and service (dis
regarding the often superior provision), at a comparable
direct consumer cost, then why should public agencies feel
a responsibility to compete?
The preceding table indicates a variety of preferred
features associated with public campgrounds. It is proposed
that public management should emphasize, through maintenance
and land management, these desired characteristics, while
deemphasizing other unessential characteristics that overlap
with private business. Again, the proposal is to emphasize
the environmental and low-density camping aspects that are
probably noncompetitive with private enterprise and that may
(with validity) justify the use of public funding.
Economic Considerations
In the first part of this chapter it was noted that
59 per cent of the visitor sample camped at least partly
in order to economize (See Table 12). The interpretation
of this statement is made complicated when it is realized
that this category includes a considerable range in impor
tance to individual participation. Some campers added
comments that the economy of camping was the major reason
their group could even consider an overnight outing or
vacation trip. At the other extreme, families with heavy

315
investments in luxury camping equipment and sporting goods
claimed economy of vacation to be their reason for camping.
There also was the group of respondents who used the
economy of camping as a means of extending their vacation
budget in order "to see more" or travel farther.
The ORRRC reports found considerable cross-income
bracket camping participation and concluded that the economy
15
motive was "not of major importance." This author pro
poses that the economy motive is a real factor associated
with participation, but that the personally subjective con
cept of economy is extremely variable resulting in tenuous
cause and effect conclusions. Consequently, the following
discussion relates survey results to a subjective enquiry
into a few economic considerations involved in camping and
campground selection.
As has been demonstrated under ideal conditions each
camping party would have full knowledge of the location and
characteristics of each campground within an area or at a
destination. Knowledge would be of such things as campground
relative location (i.e., to facilities for recreation
activities, to stores and supplies, to built up areas, to
crowds of people, to transportation routes, etc.), internal
camp features or site characteristics (such as amount of
shade, size and spacing of sites, privacy factors, activity

316
and noise levels, nature of recreation provisions, amount
and quality of camping facilities and services), and the
campground use price.
The results of this study would appear to substantiate
the notion that (at least in this specific study area) camp
ground selection is not made on the basis of a comparative
survey of the offerings of the area camping market. Selec
tion is for the greatest part either entirely a matter of
chance and travel routing or it is distinctly oriented
toward some unexplainable loyalties or a variety of personal
preferences. Consequently camp fees are not always a factor
of critical concern in camp selection. Note the very small
proportion of responses pertaining to economy of camping in
the reasons visitors gave for campground selection (Table 13).
Combined, all of these represent only 13 of 514 interviewed
parties.
Fees and Campground Selection
The chance or choice campground selection is made and
if the fee is reasonable the party stays. It must be
stressed that often this is done with little attempt to
verify that other campgrounds even exist. For many parties
no comparisons are madeor very few at best. A total of
66 per cent of the surveyed visitors indicated that they made

317
no shopping comparisons before selecting their campground.
Thus, the camp fee, as a factor of spatial variation, becomes
significant primarily when considered at the level of mar
ginal cost to the camper. in other words, the fee level
that causes a prospective camper to consider the cost high
enough to make it worthwhile to look at another possibly
less expensive campground is that which illicits a response
capable of influencing the distribution of campers within
an area. Lower fee levels are greatly disregarded.
Campers were asked,.in essence, for their estimation of
marginal camping costs or the fee at which diminishing mar
ginal value would cause them to seek another campground, or
to shop more before selecting a site. The total response
was so complex, based as it was on several different fee
levels, etc., that it was decided to represent the totality
of visitor response to increases of fees for the nonexistent
assumed average of the combined study campground product.
The results of this question are given in Table 16.
In order to compile Table 16 an assumption was made that no
reduced camping would result from reduced fees; thus, any
fee paid represents an equal willingness to pay a lower fee.
Note that at each fee level parties generally were found
willing to pay another dollar or two before they would have
shopped for a lower price at another campground. Such a

318
TABLE 16
FEE LEVEL AND WILLINGNESSI
Fee Paid*
(Dollars)
Additional
0** 1 2
Fees
3
Willing
4 5
to Pay
6 7
1
2
5
11
6
1
3
123
194
68
5
3
4
29
26
4
5
18
9
3
1
* Each fee level is an interval centered on the dollar value
shown.
** An additional fee dollar would have resulted in those
listed below to search for another campground.

319
response suggests the visitors either were asked acceptable
prices in most cases or they responded to the question with
out carefully thinking. Interviewer observation suggests
the first explanation in most cases.
Table 17 is a summary of Table 16 in which is shown the
number of camping parties that would have shopped for a lower
priced campground at each of several fee increment levels.
The ogive cumulative curve derived by plotting the last
column in this table is shown in Figure 31. This indif
ference curve shows total sample expressed response to
various fee levels. For example, at the three-dollar daily
fee level on the graph nearly all of the campers interviewed
considered it a fair price and even would have been willing
to pay at least another dollar in daily fees. Thus 99 per
cent (See Table 17) were indifferent to a three-dollar fee.
One per cent of the sample was found to be at the margin
at three dollars, for if they had been asked to pay that
much they would have looked elsewhere.
Nearly all campers interviewed paid at least three
dollars per night as indicated in Table 16; therefore,
though some would have preferred lower fees, they clearly
indicated their acceptance or indifference by paying that
minimum fee. Figure 31 shows, however, that the incremental
fee increases between four and six dollars include the

320
TABLE 17
FEE LEVEL AND WILLINGNESSII
Fee
Paid
(Dollars)
Sample Num
ber Willing
to Pay More
Percentage
of
Sample
Sample Num
ber Unwilling
to Pay More
Percentage
of
Sample
1
506
100
0
0
2
506
100
0
0
3
501
99
5
1
4
367
72.5
139
27.5
5
138
27.3
368
72.7
6
25
4.9
481
95.1
7
7
1.4
499
98.6
8
4
0.8
502
99.2
9
1
0.2
505
99.8
10
0
0.0
506
100
* N = 506 Parties

PERCENTAGE OF VISITOR SAMPLE COMPARING ALTERNATE CAMPGROUNDS
321
VISITOR INDIFFERENCE TO CAMPGROUND FEES
DAILY PARTY CAMPING FEE IN DOLLARS
Source: Stratified random sample of parties camping at
Grayton Beach, St. Andrews, Alligator Point,
Beach, KOA, Magnolia Beach, and Pirate Cove,
summer, 19/0.
Figure 31

322
marginal fees for nearly all parties surveyed, thus indicating
practical maximum fees and percentage turn-away at different
between levels for an average campground (fees of course re
duced from present inflationary level to that of 1970).
The result is a valuable management tool for area campground
operators considering fee increases. It should be noted
that there would be an unknown proportion that would prefer
lower fees, but having an investment in equipment they would
camp anyway even at higher fees. If they had a choice they
would look elsewhere at each price level examined.
The spatial effects of nonuniform fee changes within
the study area (with quality provision remaining constant)
would be a variably increased selective process in which
more shopping and price comparison would take place. The
amount of increased shopping resulting in actual physical
travel to different campgrounds for on site comparison and
evaluation and the proportion taken up by increased perusal
of camping directories is unknown. In any case, some would
result in shifts of campers to lower priced camps while
some would result in decisions to pay the higher price for
perceived quality, service, or facility differences.
It may be speculated that the result of a cross-study-
area noncompetitive major fee increase would result in either
shorter visits, a search for an alternate recreation area,

323
or the demise of campgrounds as potential campers switch to
other lodging types in order to enjoy the area's recreation
resources. It might be added that the shape of the shift
away from camping in the area would presumably take the form
of Figure 31.
Fees and camping participation
The preceding comments concerned the price elasticity
of demand for the 1970 campground product in the study area
or the presumed effects of alternate pricing practices on
rate of consumption (use of camping facilities). In addi
tion, without hypothesis formulation, another concept of
camping elasticity was probed for. It was simply desired
to see what possible ramifications would result from a
hypothetical pushing of camping fees to an absolute ceiling.
By so doing, price elasticity for participation in camping
as an activity would theoretically result.
The question asked visitors was:
What would be your reaction to a situa
tion in which all campgrounds (here and
elsewhere in the nation) charged an over
night fee equal to local prices for your
group at a good motel (eg. Holiday inn)?
Table 18 presents the array of responses and the sample
proportion responding each way. it is interesting to note
that though a large number would stop camping, over 56 per

324
TABLE 18
REACTION TO FEE INCREASE TO
MOTEL COMPARABLE LEVEL
Response Sample
Percentage Responding*
Quit Camping Completely:
44
Quit camping (unqualified intent)
Quit camping and switch to motels
13
exclusively
26
Unqualified intent
With decreased trip length
24
or frequency
2
With kitchen facilities
1
Quit camping and stay home
5
Continue Camping but Also Use Motels
10
Continue Camping Exclusively:
46
Unqualified intent
23
With no changes in habits
But seek public primitive, non-
10
rental areas
11
But seek permission to use private
land
2
But illegally use road sides, etc.
1
But change to boat camping
**
Total
100
* N = 410 respondents, per cents rounded to whole numbers.
** Less than one per cent.

325
cent would continue camping at least occasionally. Spatial
and resource use implications of this table are quite ob
vious. Since only camping purists would remain participating
in the activity, a shift away from developed-site camping
would occur in some cases, while about one-fifth of the
respondents would continue to patronize developed camp
grounds and pay high prices. The other half of the camping
market would either patronize motels, visit relatives, or
increase day-use pressures on recreation facilities near
their residences. In any case, widespread repercussions
would surely result.
In summary, regarding fees, it may be stated that though
low prices may or may not attract campers, high prices will
drive a great many away. All things considered, there must
be a perspective placed on the preceding discussion. Since
fees are only a portion of the cost of a recreation outing
or vacation, it would be expected to find fee increases
affecting attendance jointly relative to total trip expendi
ture. Consequently, if only distance is considered one
16
must expect distance variable price elasticity of demand.
In actuality, it is a far more complex factor than implied
by the discussion.

326
Summary
This chapter has dealt primarily with site and local
considerations. Primary emphasis was on the process of
campground selection, with a spatial implication in the
result of selection: a movement internal to the study
area resulting in gathering or agglomeration (clustering)
of camping parties at specific places (campgrounds).
Though emphasis was on factors of selection, the objective
was to gain an understanding of the reason for the distri
bution pattern of campers in space. In addition, a few
questions and alternatives were offered for consideration
by public campground management and policy makers.
Campground selection factors were examined against a
background of basic attitudes toward camping (motivations).
Setting-specific camper groupings were demonstrated at the
several study sites. The implication is that there is need
for a variety of campground settings (relative to internal
and external development) within a single resource type.
Visitor satisfaction only can be maximized by a planned
mix of alternate sites. There is no satisfactory average
campground development setting.
In addition, it was found that site selection involves
considerable perceptual confusion by those who choose a site

327
for reasons of private or public management preference.
Last, consideration was given the role of campground fees
in site selection. A considerable indifference to fees
was found, indicating that only at extreme levels are fees
influential in the campground selection process. in
addition, the impact of maximum fee levels on camping
participation was inventoried.

NOTES
1. See, for example, Elwood L. Shafer, Jr., The Average
Camper Who Doesn't Exist, Forest Service Research
Paper NE-142 (Upper Darby, Pennsylvania; North
eastern Forest Experiment Station, 1969).
2. For example, William R. Burch, Jr., and Wiley D.
Wenger, Jr., The Social Characteristics of Partici
pants in Three Styles of Family Camping, Forest Service
Research Paper PNW-48 (Portland, Oregon: Pacific
Northwest Experiment Station, 1967).
3. Richard D. Hecock, "Public Beach Recreation Oppor
tunities and Patterns of Consumption of Cape Cod,"
Ph.D. dissertation, Clark University, 1966; "Recrea
tion Behavior Patterns as Related to Site Characteris
tics of Beaches," Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 2
(1970), pp. 237-250.
4. Elwood L. Shafer, Jr., and R. C. Thompson, "Models
that Describe Use of Adirondack Campgrounds," Forest
Science, Vol. 14 (1968), pp. 383-391.
5. For example, see George A. James and H. K. Cordell,
"Importance of Shading to Visitors Selecting a Campsite
at Indian Boundary Campground in Tennessee," Forest
Service Research Note SE-130 (Asheville, North Carolina
Southeastern Experiment Station, 1970); Wilbur F.
Lapage, Camper Characteristics Differ at Public and
Commercial Campgrounds in New England, Forest Service
Research Paper NE-38 (Upper Darby, Pennsylvania;
Northeastern Experiment Station, 1967).
6. Hecock, "Recreation ...," pp. 240-243.
7. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
Prospective Demand for Outdoor Recreation, Study Report
No. 26 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office,
1962), p. 62.
328

329
8. William R. Burch, Jr., "The Social Circles of Leisure:
Competing Explanations," Journal of Leisure Research,
Vol. 1 (1969), pp. 125-147.
9. Gordan L. Bultena and Lowell L. Klessig, "Satisfaction
in Camping: A Conceptualization and Guide to Social
Research," Journal of Leisure Research, Vol. 1 (1969),
pp. 348-354.
10. John C. Hendee, et al., Wilderness Users in the pacific
NorthwestTheir Characteristics, Values and Manage
ment Preferences, Forest Service Research Paper PNW-61
(Portland, Oregon: Pacific Northwest Experiment
Station, 1968) .
11. John C. Hendee, "Recreational values, Use and Manage
ment of Natural Areas," Proceedings, Northwest Scientific
Association, 1970, pp. 35-38.
12. Use of such graphs is taken up in Jeremy Anderson,
"Putting the Graph Back in Geography: The Role of
Graphs in Geographic Analysis," Professional Geographer,
Vol. 21 (1969), pp. 23-27.
13. Shafer, p. 16.
14. John C. Hendee, "Recreation ClienteleThe Attributes
of Recreationists Preferring Different Management
Agencies, Car Campgrounds or Wilderness in the Pacific
Northwest," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washing
ton, 1967.
15. U. S. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission,
participation in Outdoor Recreation: Factors Affecting
Demand Among American Adults, Study Report No. 20
(Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1962),
p. 65.
Marion Clawson and Jack L. Knetsch, Economics of Out
door Recreation (Baltimore: The John's Hopkins Press,
1966), pp. 33-36.
16.

CHAPTER VI
RECAPITULATION AND CONTINUATION
It is not the intent of this chapter to summarize at
length on the previous discourse. Instead, the purpose is
an evaluation of objectives by concise statement of con
clusions and suggestions implied by results. Following this
brief evaluation are selected comments appropriate to a
continuation of this research (i.e., future research
directions).
Recapitulation
The first objective was to describe spatial inter
action between the study area recreation complex and its
visitor tributary area for the specific recreation function
of family camping. Chapter IV proposed a cartographically
delimited tributary area surrounding the panama city opera
tional study area. This market area map was derived by
plotting the spatial distribution of camping visitor trip
origins. However, since it was desired to seek explanations
for some regularities and irregularities associated with
this distribution, the underlying travel and area selection
330

331
process was probed further. (Discussion of this aspect was
made to fit against the conceptual framework of marketing
and central place theory.)
The maximum tributary area was reduced by distance
minimizing and perceived resource homogeneity assumptions
to a predicted irregularly shaped functional tributary area.
Map comparisons permitted a tenuous verification of the
hypothesis that campers visit nearest beaches. it was
stressed, however, that a large array of perceptual and in
formation factors as well as variation in friction of dis
tance might also have contributed to the actual shape of
the tributary area. The descriptive goal of the primary
objective was realized but explanation of market area shape
irregularity was less satisfactory by comparison.
Another part of the analysis dealt with more
generalized aspects of spatial interaction within the
tributary area. Interaction theory formed the basis for a
selective examination of field aspects for the area camp
ing complex. As expected (based on literature perusal),
a selection rule based on perceived travel costs was found
operating within the study tributary area.
Visitor origin data were considered as a continuous
surface and its slope outward from the focal node was
shown to be a negative function of distance (i.e.,
cost in

332
various terms). In addition, certain time elements were
considered. Most important, it was found that a positive
relationship exists between trip period and willingness to
tolerate increased travel time. These generalized aspects
of tributary area interaction also were a satisfactory
completion of desired objectives.
The second objective was essentially to inventory and
describe visitor concepts of resource interchangeability
and preferences. Particular emphasis was given to per
ception of utility, or satisfaction potential, as these
elements influence area and site selection from among
alternates. An analysis was made of several closely in
terrelated test hypotheses dealing with resource perception
and associated movement. Results showed that overall
camper attitudes toward coastal beach resources were of
resource nonhomogeneity or to a large extent they involved
perceived noninterchangeability of separate resource loca
tions. Though not all campers were shown to be highly
resource or site specific, a large proportion of those
surveyed had very distinct preferences in resources. Most
resource areas could not be considered even as a trip
alternative because of these specific attitudes.
The inventory and description goals of the second
objective were handled successfully. Chapter IV described

333
resource attitudes and area selection. Chapter V dealt
with variables associated with campground selection. Most
important was the demonstration of camper clustering by
setting-specific attitudes at different campgrounds.
The third objective was to generate selective back
ground information for public campground planning and
policy development. The secondary goal was to stimulate
discussion of some alternatives to existing policy regard
ing use of land for family camping. The effectiveness of
this approach will only be seen later, but pertinent back
ground information was satisfactorily isolated. Though
emphasis was still on factors of campground selection from
among alternates, specific attention was given to possible
effects of pricing and to management preferences. it was
shown that a major segment of the camping market would
cease to participate at certain maximum fee levels. In
addition, it was demonstrated that fees are considered very
little in actual campground selection processes and that
only at their margins do they exert significant influences
on site selection.
Campground management preferences were also probed.
Selection was often partly based on preference for private
or public management. A large group demonstrated either
no specific preference or a confused and ill-perceived

334
logical basis for their preference. It was proposed that
(at least) public (state particularly) agencies should not
attempt to serve these nonspecific needs, but should rely
on private management for their satisfaction.
The success of the fourth objective of moving toward
a conceptual and theoretical focus in recreation geography
also remains to be seen. In Chapter I the stage for the
general tone of this entire research report was set.
Additional specific and general remarks in summary are
incorporated into the following section of this chapter.
Specific conclusions from this research are limited
from the standpoint of comparability and from possible data
limitations. in general, however, descriptive objectives
were met and theoretical considerations were satisfactorily
pursued. Exploratory considerations of perceived resource
and site alternates were extremely high yielding. Though
many questions were dealt with, it is in partial justice
to the extreme complexity of the subject that such a multi
farious and multiscalar approach was taken.
Continuation
It is not surprising that a large number of new
questions have resulted from this study. Furthermore, it
is not grounds for disillusionment to realize that those

335
questions approached were answered tentatively. For all
considerations within this research are only now barely
scratched at their surface by the available literature.
Without readdressing inherent study variables that
might have influenced results it is worthwhile to address
the interrogative phrase "What next?." There are a number
of interwoven threads that have been partly unwound in
this study and that still need individual attention in
continued research.
The results of this study point to the necessity of
additional careful evaluation of camper perception of
alternate locations. Stouffer's interactance model of
intervening opportunities may have particular value in
future studies.-1- However, this study makes clear the
necessity of knowing far more than presently is known
about the way people perceive hierarchies of recreation
resources, activities, facilities, etc. It cannot safely
be assumed that gross numbers (of variably mixed hierarchy
level) of intervening recreation opportunities (alter
nates) are valuable indicators of the filtering of effective
demand as it flows between two points.
This study further points to the imperfections of con
cepts of economic man, competitive market places, and
perhaps even rational man within the recreation decision-

336
making process. An undercurrent throughout this research
has been perception and the information base. The outdoor
recreation information system is imperfect at best in
regard to its completeness of sharing accurate knowledge
of alternates among concerned individuals. The expenditure
minimizing and recreation satisfaction maximizing decision
maker with complete and accurate information is virtually
nonexistent. Huff has proposed that marketing specialists
find a way to deal with uncertainty avoidance as a modifying
2
factor within individual decision-making processes. As
early as 1962 Isard and Dacey proposed that since selection
of activity or consumption sites involves a behavioral
process there is need to consider classes of attitudes
3
within decision-making. They stressed the need to re
evaluate the definition of rational and optimizing be
havior. They went on to propose a classification of
decision-making attitudes on the basis of uncertainty
avoidance or the degree of risk tolerated by individuals.
There would appear to be quite profitable channels
open for future investigation of such attitudinal structures
underlying human behaviorparticularly in outdoor recrea
tion. Since the applied aspects of camping research fall
well within the realm of marketing it would seem reasonable
for recreation specialists to pursue the behavioral approach

337
4
recently advocated by marketing specialists.
The key for future research would appear to lie in
perception studies. Resource evaluation, satisfaction
potential, and site valuation are all terms that relate
to a deeply personal response to a visual or other perceived
stimulus. Huff has classified a number of the variables
5
of marketing allied perception. Golledge has added to
this base, but the myriad of factors causing variation