Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Cottager characteristics and their effects on cottage use and services : implications for regional policy Moritz, Paul Richard 1976

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1976_A8 M67.pdf [ 5.9MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0093835.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0093835-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0093835-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0093835-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0093835-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0093835-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0093835-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0093835-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0093835.ris

Full Text

COTTAGER CHARACTERISTICS AND THEIR EFFECTS ON COTTAGE USE AND SERVICES: IMPLICATIONS FOR REGIONAL POLICY by PAUL RICHARD MORITZ M.A., Oxford Un iver s i t y , 1962 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES School of Community and Regional Planning We accept this thes is as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF Apr i 1 (?) Paul Richard BRITISH COLUMBIA 1976 Mor i tz , 1976 In presenting th i s thesis in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of Community and R e g i o n a l P l a n n i n g The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date A p r i l 23, 1976 i ABSTRACT The continuing growth in the demand for recreat iona l land for cottaging purposes wi th in a day's dr ive of major urban centres , together with the increas ing s c a r c i t y of su i tab le land, have important env i ron -mental and economic imp l i ca t ions , p a r t i c u l a r l y for regional governments charged with r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for planning land use and settlement density within the i r j u r i s d i c t i o n s . Where cottage developments have been regulated at a l l , regional au tho r i t i e s have tended to assume that cottagers are uniform in the i r des ires and in t h e i r potent ia l impact upon the surrounding areas, and have developed the i r p o l i c i e s accord ing ly . This study explores the p o s s i b i l i t y that, on the contrary, cottagers have d i f f e r e n t des i res that, i f recognized, would lead to the adoption of p o l i c i e s designed to fos ter a va r ie ty of cottage areas with d i s t i n c t i v e features . Using four cottage areas in the Princeton region of B r i t i s h Columbia as a case study, th i s thesis invest igates whether the cottager population has changed in recent years and then examines the r e l a t i o n -ship between the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of cottage owners, the in tens i ty of cottage use and recreat iona l a c t i v i t y , and the level of serv ices des i red. The data is gathered by means of a survey quest ionnaire mailed to a l l the property owners in the four cottage areas. It was found that cottage owners are more occupat iona l ly d iverse than they were a decade ago, and that ce r ta in patterns of summer occupancy i i and a c t i v i t y level are apparent. However, no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n was found between cottager c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and owners' des ires for se rv i ce s , although ce r t a in trends were ev ident . In l i gh t of these f ind ings , three po l i cy a l t e rna t i ve s are advanced for cons iderat ion by regional or p rov inc i a l governments: the large lot approach; the c lu s te r hamlet; and the rental cottage v i l l a g e . The pros and cons of each are assessed in terms of environmental and economic impact, the des ires of cottagers as expressed in the quest ionnaire re -turns, and the potent ia l for s a t i s f y i ng the growing demand for cottag ing. F i n a l l y , suggestions are made for fur ther research. TABLE OF CONTENTS Page PREFACE 1 CHAPTER 1 THE PLACE OF THE COTTAGE IN MODERN SOCIETY 5 H i s t o r i c a l Perspect ive . . 5 Cottaging in Canada 7 Cottaging as a Ref lec t ion of Changing L i f e s t y l e s . 10 Summary I'* II PROBLEM STATEMENT: THE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN GROUPS OF COTTAGE OWNERS 15 Some Problems Associated with Cottaging 15 Def in i t i ons 18 Focus of the Research 19 The Hypotheses 21 Methodology 23 Summary 29 III THE FOUR COTTAGE AREAS 32 Socio-economic P r o f i l e of Cottage Owners 32 Property Cha rac te r i s t i c s 38 Levels of Services Cottage Use and A c t i v i t y Patterns 55 Reasons for Ownership 63 i v CHAPTER Page Perceptions of Environmental Qua l i ty 65 Summary 71 IV EXAMINATION OF THE HYPOTHESES 7*t The Hypotheses Restated . . Ik Changes in Cottage Owner Charac te r i s t i c s 75 Intensity of Cottage Use and Recreational A c t i v i t y Patterns 79 The Demand for Services 82 Summary and Conclusions 83 V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87 The Large Lot Approach 91 The Cottage Hamlet Approach 93 The Cottage Rental Approach 97 A Summary Matrix 99 Further Research 100 LITERATURE CITED 103 APPENDICES I Questionnaire 106 II Map No. 1 Cottage Area Locations 110 III Tables 41-59 (See L i s t of Tab les , ,p . v) I l l V LIST OF TABLES TABLE ; Page 1 Estimate of Vacation Homes Owned in 1971 8 2 Age of Cottage Owners 33 3 Number of Chi ldren per Cottage Owner J>k h Owners' Highest Level of Education 35 5 Owners' Occupation 36 6 Owners' Family Income 37 7 Owners' Place of Permanent Residence 39 8 Age of Cottage 0^ 9 Length of Cottage Ownership 0^ 10 S ize of Lot 2^ 11 Cottage Size 3^ 12 Wi nter i za t ion of Cottage ^ 13 Cottage Sleeping Capacity ^ \k Cottage Value . 5^ 15 S a t i s f a c t i o n with Access Road 7^ 16 S a t i s f a c t i o n with Water Supp l y—A l l Areas ^8 17 S a t i s f a c t i o n with Water Supply—By Area . . . . 49 18 S a t i s f a c t i on with Sewage Disposal System—Al l Areas . . . 50 19 S a t i s f a c t i on with Services by Owners' P r i o r i t i e s for Improvements 50 20 S a t i s f a c t i on with Sewage Disposal System—By Area . . . . 51 21 S a t i s f a c t i on with E l e c t r i c a l System—By Area 52 v i TABLE Page 22 S a t i s f a c t i on with E l e c t r i c a l System--Al1 Areas 53 23 P r i o r i t i e s for Improvements—By Area 54 24 Number of V i s i t s to Cottage per Month 57 25 Percentage of Weekend V i s i t s 58 26 Owner-Days at the Cottage and Average Length of V i s i t . . 58 27 Owners who Vacation at The i r Cottages 59 28 Owner Occupancy A p r i l through October 60 29 Cottage Ac t i v i t i e s - -May through August 61 30 Cottager A c t i v i t i e s — F a l l , Winter and Spring 62 31 Reasons for Going to the Cottage 64 32 How Owners View The i r Property 64 33 Perceptions of Natural Features 66 34 Perceptions of Environmental Change 67 35 Perceptions of Change in Peace and Quiet 68 36 Perceived Density of Cottage Area 70 37 Degree of S a t i s f a c t i on with Cottage Area 71 38 Owners' Reasons for Being More/Less S a t i s f i e d with Their Cottage Area 72 39 Median Income for Occupational Groupings in B r i t i s h Columbia 11 40 Comparison of Average Weekly Wages and Sa lar ies and Consumer Pr i ce Index in B r i t i s h Columbia, 1961-74 . . 78 41 Age at Time of Acquir ing Cottage Property I l l 42 Length of Ownership by Occupation 112 43 Length of Ownership by Highest Level of Education . . . . 113 v i i TABLE Page 44 Cottage Occupancy by Age of Owner 113 45 Cottage Occupancy by Family Income 1 1 ^  46 Cottage Occupancy by Occupation 11** 47 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Selected A c t i v i t i e s by Age 115 48 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Selected A c t i v i t i e s by Family Income . . 115 49 P a r t i c i p a t i o n in Selected A c t i v i t i e s by Occupation . . . 116 50 Water Supply by Age . 117 51 Sewage Disposal by Age 117 52 E l e c t r i c a l System by Age . . . 117 53 Water Supply By Family Income 118 54 Sewage Disposal by Family Income 118 55 E l e c t r i c a l System by Family Income '18 56 Water Supply by Occupation ''9 57 Sewage Disposal by Occupation ''9 58 E l e c t r i c a l System by Occupation 119 59 How Owners View Their Property—by Age 120 vi i i LIST OF MAPS MAP Page 1 Cottage Area Locations 110 i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In submitting th is thes i s , I wish to express my grat i tude to my adv i ser s , Dr. D. R. Webster, for his guidance and cons t ruct ive c r i t i c i s m , and to Dr. W. E. Rees for his good counsel . I am a l so indebted to the Directors and s t a f f of the Regional D i s t r i c t of Okanagan-Simi 1kameen for the i r support, and to the cottagers of the Princeton region for the i r generous cooperation in completing the study quest ionna i re. PREFACE T h i s t h e s i s i s c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d f o r c o t t a g e s , p r i m a r i l y f r o m a r e g i o n a l g o v e r n m e n t v i e w p o i n t . T h i s p a r t i c u l a r f o c u s stems from t h e r e c o g n i t i o n t h a t s e r i o u s p r o b l e m s c a n r e s u l t from c o t t a g e d e v e l o p m e n t s and t h a t t h e i n c r e a s i n g s c a r c i t y o f s u i t a b l e l a n d c o u p l e d w i t h t h e c o n t i n u i n g demand f o r c o t t a g e s have i m -p o r t a n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l and e c o n o m i c i m p l i c a t i o n s . P o l i c i e s c o n c e r n i n g the d e v e l o p m e n t o f c o t t a g e a r e a s a r e r e q u i r e d n o t o n l y t o s o l v e e x i s t i n g p r o b l e m s b u t more i m p o r t a n t l y t o p r e v e n t t h e c r e a t i o n o f new o n e s t h a t w o u l d be e n o r m o u s l y e x p e n s i v e t o c o r r e c t . To p l a c e t h e s e p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t h e i r p r o p e r p e r s p e c t i v e t h e y s h o u l d be e x a m i n e d w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e r e g i o n a l d e c i s i o n -making p r o c e s s , i n t h i s c a s e : 1) t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f g o a l s and o b j e c -t i v e s r e g a r d i n g s e t t l e m e n t p a t t e r n s and r e c r e a t i o n a l d e v e l o p m e n t w i t h i n t h e r e g i o n , 2) t h e f o r m u l a t i o n o f p o l i c i e s t o a c h i e v e t h e s e g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s , and 3) d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f the means by w h i c h t h e p o l i c i e s a r e to be c a r r i e d o u t . B e c a u s e t h e y o c c u r i n r u r a l a r e a s , and n o r m a l l y i n u n o r g a n i z e d t e r r i t o r i e s , c o t t a g e d e v e l o p m e n t s have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been s u b j e c t t o t h e minimum o f g o v e r n m e n t r e g u l a t i o n . As a c o n s e q u e n c e , c o t t a g e s f e s t o o n t h e s h o r e l i n e s o f many C a n a d i a n l a k e s , a l l but e l i m i n a t i n g p u b l i c a c c e s s t o p u b l i c w a t e r s ; t h r o u g h t h e i r r u d i m e n t a r y o r p o o r l y - s i t e d w a s t e d i s -p o s a l f a c i l i t i e s t h e y o f t e n c o n t a m i n a t e the g r o u n d and l a k e - w a t e r s ; and 1 2 not in f requent ly increased occupancy, inc luding permanent res idence, leads to a demand for bas ic municipal serv ices that the responsib le level of government can i l l a f fo rd to provide. How can such consequences be avoided? In B r i t i s h Columbia, regional d i s t r i c t s have been given considerable powers under the Muni-c i pa l Act to control the pattern of development and assure adequate standards. Too o f ten , however, regional boards have concentrated the i r a t tent ion on the more v i s i b l e problems associated with the growth of the i r member mun i c i pa l i t i e s and the in ter face between urban and rural areas. Par t ly in sympathy with the sturdy independence and mistrust of government " i n t e r f e r e n c e " exh ib i ted by rural res idents and par t l y in the genuine b e l i e f that " l a i s s e z f a i r e " p o l i c i e s are pe r fec t l y adequate in sparcely s e t t l ed areas ( i . e . , where few people l i ve permanently), board members have f a i l e d to grasp the need for regulat ing cottage development or have tended to re ly on the health inspectors to protect the publ ic health and sa fety . Of course the f au l t does not l i e e n t i r e l y with regional boards. It can be argued that water p o l l u t i o n could be avoided i f the Department of Health r i gorous ly enforced i t s standards for new construct ion 0 1 — better y e t — r a i s e d those standards to al low a greater margin of sa fety . Research into the e f f e c t s of cottaging on the qua l i t y o f dr ink ing suppl ies and recreat iona l waters is comparatively recent and not widely p u b l i c i z e d , and to the author ' s knowledge no studies have been undertaken of the cost-consequences to municipal or other leve l s of government of c leaning up po l luted lakes and streams and rendering cottages ' water supply and waste disposal arrangements safe. 3 Yet the fact remains that regional boards are empowered to adopt and implement p o l i c i e s that would permit o rder ly cottage development in accordance with overa l l regional ob jec t i ves and at the same time would preserve the scenic and recreat iona l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that a t t r a c t cottagers and minimize the i r adverse e f f e c t s upon the natural env i ron -men t. This thesis does not argue that cottage development should be permitted only where there is no p o s s i b i l i t y whatsoever of groundwater contamination. But i t does suggest that regional boards should assess the environmental and economic impacts of cottaging upon the region pr io r to formulating p o l i c i e s governing future cottage development, and that as part of th is process they should consider the use patterns of cottage owners and the i r preferences for serv ices and recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s . How in tens ive ly cottagers use the i r propert ies and how a c t i v e l y they en-gage in d i f f e r e n t forms of outdoor recreat ion c l e a r l y a f f e c t s the i r impact upon the natural environment, while the i r preferences for basic se rv i ces , such as water supply, sewage disposal and e l e c t r i c i t y , provide an i nd i ca -tor both of the level of serv ices to which owners asp i re and of the mag-nitude of the expenditures that might be demanded of pub l i c agencies in the fu ture . The purpose of th i s study, then, is to examine the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and preferences of cottage owners to see i f patterns are apparent that w i l l enable governments to devise cottage development p o l i c i e s that w i l l both protect the natural environment and meet—to the maximum extent po s s i b l e—w i th the mu l t i f a r i ous wishes of the owners. k In th i s sect ion the broad purpose of th i s study has been out -l ined and set within the context of regional development and environmental management p o l i c y formulat ion. The place' of the cottage in modern soc iety is examined in the next c h a p t e i — i t s h i s t o r i c a l development, the a t t r a c -t ion i t holds for Canadians, and some of the reasons for i t s growing popu la r i ty . The problems associated with cottaging are discussed in Chapter II, and the research hypotheses and methodology out l ined in de-t a i l . In Chapter I I I the returns from owners in the four cottage areas are analysed, and in Chapter IV the hypotheses are examined in l i gh t of the quest ionnaire responses and the conclusions from the previous chapter. The concluding chapter examines the po l i cy impl icat ions of the study f i n d -ings and suggests three a l t e r n a t i v e p o l i c i e s for future cottage development. CHAPTER I THE PLACE OF THE COTTAGE IN MODERN SOCIETY This thesis examines the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and preferences of cottage owners with a view to formulating cottage development p o l i c i e s for the fu ture . To be e f f e c t i v e , these p o l i c i e s should be based upon a c l ea r understanding of the dynamics of cottaging as well as a know-ledge of i t s environmental and economic consequences in a given a rea . Using four cottage areas in the Princeton region of B r i t i s h Columbia as a case study, the re la t ionsh ips between a changing cottager popula-t i o n , cottage use and owners' des i res for serv ices are explored, and p o l i c y a l t e rna t i ve s are suggested for implementation by regional or p rov inc ia l a u t h o r i t i e s . HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Cottaging, or having one's place in the country where the fami ly can relax or enjoy outs ide a c t i v i t i e s , is a popular feature .of today's soc ie ty . Cottages have jo ined automobiles, f reezers and dishwashers as s u f f i c i e n t l y representat ive symbols of the consumer age to qua l i f y as pr izes in mammoth sales promotions. Yet despite i t s present day popular-i t y , ownership of a cottage or second home has a long h i s to ry . Dating back at least to Roman times, i t was un t i l qui te recent ly the exc lus ive preserve of the wealthy. In North America, second homes were not uncommon among the landed a r i s toc racy of the American South and t h e i r Northern 5 6 counterparts p r i o r to the C i v i l War, and during the late nineteenth and ear l y twentieth centur ies a pattern of growth in second homes was d i s -c e r n i b l e , corresponding to periods of a f f luence and improvements in t ransportat ion (Ragatz Assoc ia tes , 1974, p. 27). In Canada, commencing about the time of Confederation, cottage development responded to s im i l a r s t i m u l i . But not un t i l the boom of the 1920's, as new roads were being b u i l t to accommodate the growing automobile populat ion, were summer cottages widely and cheaply ava i l ab l e (Swain, 1964, p. 6). The Depression and World War II fo l lowed, and further cottage development had to await the post-war per iod . Fred Bosworth (1970, p. 27) suggests that summer cottages are one of the many commonplace features of modern soc iety that express urban man's wilderness no s ta l g i a . Indeed they are commonplace in the sense that i t is no longer unusual in North America to own a cottage at the shore or in the mountains. The 1971 census was the f i r s t in Canada in which information on ownership of vacation homes was gathered. According to S t a t i s t i c s Canada there were 395,190 occupied dwell ings (about 6.6% of the tota l ) in which a household member owned a vacation home (Housing: Household F a c i l i t i e s ) . South of the border, the U.S. Bureau of the Census found a to ta l of 1,496,000 second homes owned by approximately 2.5% of a l l U.S. households, according to a survey conducted in A p r i l , 1967 (Second Homes in the U.S., p. 2). By 1970 the count of households owning le i sure homes was 2,890,000 (U.S. Census of Housing, 1970), representing ownership by ju s t over 5% of a l l American households. 7 C o t t a g e o w n e r s h i p i s n o t c o n f i n e d t o N o r t h A m e r i c a n s . In 1965 300,000 Swed i sh f a m i l i e s owned second homes (about one f a m i l y i n e i g h t ) , t h e number i n c r e a s i n g a t t he r a t e o f 5% p e r annum; i n 1966 F r a n c e had 1-1/4 m i l l i o n second homes (one f o r e v e r y f o u r t e e n h o u s e h o l d s ) ( Pa tmore , 1970, p. 155); w h i l e i n Denmark the n a t i o n a l p l a n p r o v i d e s f o r t he p o s s i -b i l i t y o f a c o t t a g e f o r e v e r y t h i r d f a m i l y , on s i t e s a v e r a g i n g h a l f an a c r e (Town and C o u n t r y P l a n n i n g , 1965). The c o t t a g e even has i t s p l a c e i n communist s o c i e t i e s . C z e c h o s l o v a k i a had an e s t i m a t e d 23,000 weekend houses b e f o r e 1938; by 1973 t h e r e were 160,000 " c h a t a s " ( t h e e q u i v a l e n t o f the R u s s i a n d a c h a ) , most o f them c l o s e t o P rague ( C h r i s t i a n S c i e n c e  Moni t o r , 1975). C0TTAGING IN CANADA The a c t u a l number o f c o t t a g e s in Canada i s no t known, even f o r cen su s y e a r 1971, because t h e f i g u r e c i t e d above r e f e r s t o the number o f o c c u p i e d d w e l l i n g s ( b r o a d l y e q u i v a l e n t to h o u s e h o l d s ) i n w h i c h a member owned one o r more v a c a t i o n homes. A c o n s e r v a t i v e e s t i m a t e o f the t o t a l can be c a l c u l a t e d by d o u b l i n g the number own ing two o r more c o t t a g e s and a d d i n g i t t o t ho se owning o n l y one ( T a b l e 1). The r e s u l t i n g p i c t u r e i s s t r i k i n g . In 1971 t h e r e were abou t 408,700 v a c a t i o n homes i n Canada, one f o r e v e r y 15 h o u s e h o l d s . O n t a r i o l e d w i t h 165,365, c l o s e l y f o l l o w e d by Quebec w i t h 143,380; B r i t i s h Co l umb i a was in t h i r d p l a c e w i t h 21,835. More r e v e a l i n g pe rhap s a r e t he r a t i o s o f c o t t a g e s owned t o h o u s e h o l d s . Quebec l e ad s w i t h 1 i n 11 h o u s e h o l d s , New B r u n s w i c k n e x t w i t h 1 i n 12-1/2, O n t a r i o t h i r d w i t h 1 i n 13-1/2, and Nova S c o t i a f o u r t h w i t h 1 i n 14-1/2. 8 TABLE 1 Estimate of Vacation Homes Owned in 1971 Ratio of Vacation Homes Owned Vacation Homes owned to Household Canada 408,675 1 in 14.76 Alber ta 13,705 1 in 33 .87 B r i t i s h Columbia 21 ,835 1 in 30 .56 Man i toba 16,920 1 in 17-02 New Brunswick 12,550 1 in 12.53 Newfoundland 5,325 1 in 20 .69 Nova Scot ia 14,135 1 in 14.64 Ontario 165,365 1 in 13-46 Prince Edward Island 1,445 1 in 19-23 Quebec 143,380 1 in 11.18 Saskatchewan 13,425 1 in 19.93 Yukon and N.W.T. 590 1 in 21.51 Surpr i s ing l y B r i t i s h Columbia and A lberta came las t with 1 in 30-1/2 and 1 in 34 households re spec t i ve l y . It should be noted that the p rov inc i a l t o ta l s do not refer to the number of cottages located in each province, but rather the number owned by permanent residents of the province. For example, the number of cottages on A lber ta lakeshores in 1971 was reported to be nearly 7 ,000 (The Use of Our Lakes, 1974, pp. 11-15) compared with about 13,700 r e -ported by S t a t i s t i c s Canada as owned by A lbertans. Doubtless the f i r s t 9 f i gure would be higher i f mountain and other non-lake cottages were i n -c luded, but the discrepancy is too large to be accounted for in th i s way. Probably a more important reason is that many Albertan cottagers may have bought the i r propert ies outs ide the province. S i m i l a r l y , the Vancouver residents who own cottages in Washington State would presumably be included in the 1971 census t o t a l s , while the Americans owning pro-perty in any province would be missed. Thus, the to ta l s exhib i ted for Ontario and, to a lesser extent, New Brunswick and Nova Sco t i a , may be con-s iderab ly smaller than the actual number of cottages in those provinces. Indeed th is is borne out by estimates of the Ontario Department of Tour-ism and Information that there were approximately 200,000 cottages in the province in 1967 (Analysis of Ontario Cottage Survey, 1968, p. v ) . Assuming cottage ownership increased at the same rate as the tota l popu-la t ion is estimated to have grown since the 1971 Census, a conservat ive estimate of the number of cottages in Canada at the beginning of 1975 would be 430,000. Another way to measure the impact of the cottage on Canadian soc iety is to estimate the number of persons exposed through family t ie s to the cottaging experience. In his study of the Qu'Appel le Va l ley in Southern Saskatchewan, Baker found that an average of 4.9 persons used the cottage on each v i s i t (Baker, p. I89). If the number of cottages owned is mu l t i p l i ed by th is average i t would appear that at the very least 2.1 m i l l i o n Canadians, or 9-3% of the populat ion, are involved in co t tag -ing. In fact th i s is almost c e r t a i n l y an underestimate because i t does not include those fami l ie s who rent a cottage for a short period rather 1 0 than own one; nor does i t include owners' weekend or vacation guests. Regardless, of the true f i g u r e , however, i t is c lear that cottaging is part of the l i f e s t y l e of a large number of Canadians and that propor t ion-a te ly i t is even more popular in Canada than in the United States. COTTAGING AS A REFLECTION OF CHANGING LIFESTYLES One of the most not iceab le changes in North American soc iety s ince World War II has been the rapid growth in the popu lar i ty and ex-tent of outdoor rec rea t ion . Many reasons have been c i t e d for th is growth, among the most important being growing a f f luence, increased le i sure time, urbanizat ion and the changing ro le of the ind iv idua l with in the fami ly . As a component of outdoor rec rea t i on , cottaging has been a f fec ted by these same f ac to r s . Between 19^ 5 and late 1973 most advanced indus t r i a l nations ex-perienced almost uninterrupted economic growth, accompanied by s tead i l y r i s i n g l i v i n g standards and increased d i s c re t i onary income (income a v a i l -able for non -es sent i a l s ) . At the same time, the dec l ine in the average work week, the increase in paid vacations and the introduct ion of labour-saving devices contr ibuted to the growth of l e i sure time. In add i t i on , increased longevity and e a r l i e r retirement provided more time for recrea -t i on , and the fact that the ch i ldbear ing years end e a r l i e r in the l i f e -cyc le than they used to has meant that parents are freed of family r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s when they have about one - th i rd of the i r married l i f e ahead of them and the i r income is c lose to i t s peak (O.R.R.R.C. Report 22, p. 109). 11 The O u t d o o r R e c r e a t i o n R e s o u r c e s Review C o m m i s s i o n ( O . R . R . R . C . ) r e p o r t e d t h a t r e a l d i s p o s a b l e income p e r c a p i t a in t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s had r i s e n from $ 1 , 6 5 0 i n 1946 t o $ 1 , 9 6 0 f o u r t e e n y e a r s l a t e r ( e x p r e s s e d i n c o n s t a n t I960 d o l l a r s ) a n d was e x p e c t e d t o e x c e e d $4,000 by t h e y e a r 2 0 0 0 . O v e r the same p e r i o d , w e e k l y h o u r s o f l e i s u r e p e r e m p l o y e d p e r s o n i n c r e a s e d from 19-7 i n 1946 t o 23.1 i n I960 and were p r o j e c t e d to r i s e to 30.6 i n 2000 ( O . R . R . R . C . R e p o r t 2 6 , p . 6). B r o o k s (1961, p . 961) d o c -umented s i m i l a r t r e n d s i n C a n a d a . T h e r e i s , a d m i t t e d l y , c o n s i d e r a b l e d e b a t e a b o u t t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h l e i s u r e t i m e w i l l g r o w . However, t h e r e seems l i t t l e d o u b t , as C l a w s o n and K n e t s c h ( 1 9 6 6 , p . 24) have p o i n t e d o u t , t h a t l e i s u r e t i m e w i l l not i n c r e a s e as much as r e a l i n c o m e . Thus t h e r e i s a p o t e n t i a l f o r a s h i f t t o more e x p e n s i v e and t i m e i n t e n s i v e k i n d s o f o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n . A u t h o r s have s t r e s s e d t h e l i n k between i n c r e a s e d u r b a n i z a t i o n and t h e g r o w t h o f demand f o r o u t d o o r r e c r e a t i o n . Urban m a n ' s w i l d e r n e s s n o s t a l g i a has a l r e a d y been n o t e d . More f u n d a m e n t a l , p e r h a p s , a r e the e f f e c t s o f t h e c h a n g e s t h a t have o c c u r r e d w i t h i n u r b a n s o c i e t y . In t h e words o f P h i l i p H o u s e r , " U r b a n i s m as a way o f l i f e has b r o u g h t w i t h i t p r o f o u n d c h a n g e s i n a t t i t u d e s , v a l u e s , and d i v e r s e forms o f t h o u g h t a n d b e h a v i o u r . I t has t r a n s f o r m e d t h e s t r u c t u r e and f u n c t i o n o f t r a d i t i o n a l i n s t i t u t i o n s s u c h a s t h e f a m i l y , t h e c h u r c h and t h e c o m -m u n i t y and has d r a s t i c a l l y a l t e r e d t h e i r r o l e s . " ( O . R . R . R . C . R e p o r t 2 2 , p . 4 5 ) . In t h e p r o c e s s t h e r o l e o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l w i t h i n t h e f a m i l y has l o s t much o f i t s r i g i d i t y and g a i n e d i n d i v e r s i t y . " F a m i l y r o l e d e f i n i -t i o n s , a g r e e m e n t on what i s a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o u r f o r young o r o l d , male 12 or female are becoming less sharp and more i n d i v i d u a l , more subject to c h o i c e . " (W.J. Goode in O.R.R.R.C. Report 22, p. 107). Older people can choose a much wider range of ro les without being enjoined to "ac t the i r age"; they are t ry ing new forms of outdoor recreat ion without embarrass-ment. Likewise women, whether or not they subscribe to women's l i b e r a -t ion va lues, are much more w i l l i n g to p a r t i c i p a t e in new a c t i v i t i e s , inc luding outdoor recreat ion . Indeed, outdoor recreat ion is increas ing ly recognized as a veh i c le by which every member of the family can to some extent shed his or her f am i l i a r ro le pat terns . For example, the g i r l who is thought of as phy s i c a l l y t imid discovers she can water ski as well as her a t h l e t i c brother. Or the father who does an exce l len t job as home handyman f inds he knows nothing about birds and insects , and his young son must help him ident i f y them. Shared new experiences enable members of the family to see one another in very d i f f e r e n t contexts, reveal ing new aspects of the i r persona l i ty (O.R.R.R.C. Report 22, p. 109). Moreover, freed from the formal i ty and cons t ra in t s of home and neighbourhood, the family can be together in an outdoor se t t i ng while permitt ing each member to synchronize only loosely with the others i f he or she so wishes (O.R.R.R.C. Report 22, p. 108). Cottage ownership c a r r i e s th is process one step fu r ther , enabling parents whose o f f sp r i n g have growing fami l ie s of the i r own to enjoy the i r v i s i t s in a relaxed atmosphere where generational d i f fe rences are m in i -mised. P e r i o d i c a l l y returning to the "nes t " - - a s Ragatz terms i t (Ragatz Assocs. 1974, p. 2k)— is a t t r a c t i v e to many f a m i l i e s , not least because a 13 v i s i t in the country has general appeal and the range of ava i l ab le a c t i v i t i e s is normally wide enough to s a t i s f y a l l ages and tastes . Aside from these soc i o l og i ca l f ac to r s , there are other reasons for the growing popular i ty of cottag ing. P l o tn i ko f f (1970, p. 5) points to the benef i ts of improved technology, in the form of pre fabr icated cottage units and "package" water and sewage systems, which al low owners to enjoy amenities of urban standard at reasonable cost. The expansion and improvement o f the road network has opened up new areas for cottaging both in Canada and the United States. In 1966 the typ ica l one-way distance for a weekend recreat iona l outing was e s t i -mated at 100 to 150 miles (Clawson and Knetsch, p. 99), while Tombaugh (1970, p. 56) noted a marked concentrat ion of cottages within a range of 100 to 299 miles of the primary res idence, presumably within dr i v ing distance,, for a weekend v i s i t . No doubt these f i gures are an ind ica t ion that su i tab le s i t e s are no longer ava i l ab le c l o se r to home, but they a l so r e f l e c t an increase in the d r i v ing distance that is genera l ly regarded as reasonable for a weekend t r i p . However, permanently higher gasol ine p r i ce s and lower speed l im i t s could well reduce th is d i s t a n c e — a t least temporar i ly - - thereby contract ing the area around major urban centres in which cottaging is p r a c t i c a b l e . Other factors could l ikewise i n h i b i t the spread of cottag ing. With growing soc ie ta l awareness that more of our nat ional resources should be devoted to providing Canadians with good f i r s t homes, tax l e g i s l a t i o n is less favourably disposed towards cottage ownership. Registered Home Ownership Savings Plans cannot be used for the purchase of second homes. Nor is a cottage sold at a p r o f i t exempt from cap i t a l gains tax in the same way that a p r i nc i pa l residence i s . Status is f requent ly mentioned as an important motivation for own-ing a cottage. This is undoubtedly a f a c to r , but with cottage property values r i s i n g rap id ly in recent years one is i nc l ined to think that the i n -vestment motive is stronger. Yet Wolfe concluded that status is the pre -v a i l i n g reason for cottage ownership in North America, even though i t is no longer an exc lus ive p leasure. Indeed, he noted wryly, i t is f requent ly less a matter of excluding the herd than of belonging to i t ! (Wolfe, 1956, p. 470). SUMMARY This chapter has traced the h i s t o r i c a l development of the cottaging phenomenon in the Western world and noted the tendency for rapid growth to be associated with periods of a f f luence and improvements in t ranspor ta t ion . The l i nk between increased urbanizat ion and the growth of outdoor recreat ion was examined, and the ro le of the cottage in fo s ter ing a more relaxed pat -tern of family re l a t ionsh ips and l i f e s t y l e s was noted. F i n a l l y , some of the non-soc io log ica l reasons for the popular i ty of cottaging were d iscussed, together with some of the fac tors that could slow down the spread of cottage developments in the fu ture . The post-war growth of cottaging to the point where c lose to one Canadian in ten has p a r t i c i p a t e d , c l e a r l y places Canada in the f o re f ron t of countr ies experiencing this phenomenon of the a f f l uen t urban soc ie ty . This growth has not been without i t s problems, as w i l l be shown in the next chapter, and as Canada becomes increas ing ly urbanized and the demand for cottages continues strong, the need to solve these prob-lems grows in urgency. CHAPTER I I PROBLEM STATEMENT: THE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN GROUPS OF COTTAGE OWNERS In Chapter I the growth of the cottage phenomenon, p a r a l l e l i n g that of outdoor rec rea t ion , was o u t l i n e d . This growth was seen to be p a r t i c u l a r l y associated with rap id l y r i s i n g l i v i n g standards, higher d i s -cret ionary incomes and increased mob i l i t y , such as has genera l ly been experienced throughout the so - ca l l ed "developed" world s ince the late 19^0 1s. In th i s chapter some of the e f f e c t s of th is growth are examin-ed, the focus of the research is e s tab l i shed, and the methodology for carry ing i t out is descr ibed. SOME PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH COTTAGING Unt i l qu i te recent l y , research into the e f f e c t s of cottage de-velopment was large ly neg lected. Not unnatural ly the press ing problems of urban development a t t rac ted p r i o r i t y cons idera t ion . Cottage sub-d i v i s i on s were rout ine ly approved provided they met the minimal requ i re -ments fo r such developments in r u r a l , genera l ly unincorporated, areas. However, i t is now increas ing ly recognized that the growth of cottage areas has fa r - reach ing imp l i ca t ions , extending from economic, landuse and environmental cons iderat ions to the prov i s ion of municipal and com-mercial serv ices and the problems of increased t r a f f i c congestion. 15 1.6 For example, land costs e sca la te , a new sca le and pattern of land ownership develops, and the presence of a growing number of cottages may cause changes in the pattern of land use in adjacent areas (Graham, p. 16). A l so , cottage growth may lead to the loss or displacement of t r a d i t i o n a l rural economic a c t i v i t y , such as ranching or f i s h i n g , and i t s replacement by a tour i s t -based economy vulnerable to seasonal f l u c t u a -t ions and frequent ly character ized by low wages and underemployment. Large-scale cottage developments create nodal growth in compe-t i t i o n with es tab l i shed rural sett lements. This was one of the concerns of the Regional D i s t r i c t of Okanagan-Simi1kameen when i f was consider ing the Twin Lakes development proposal ( B i r t w e l l , p. 81). A l so , cottages a t t rac ted to lake or ocean shore l ines have t r a d i t i o n a l l y developed in a l inear or co r r i do r pattern s im i l a r to highway s t r i p developments, f requent ly creat ing the same types of planning and se rv i c i ng problems (Graham, p. 14). The dangers of water p o l l u t i o n are now widely acknowledged. In March 1970 an Ontario government interdepartmental task force reported that an estimated ten percent of ex i s t ing cottages within the province were contr ibut ing to water p o l l u t i o n (Report, Ontario 1970, p. 3). Bor-chert (1970, p. 22) noted that s o i l absorption sewage disposal systems widely used in Minnesota lakeshore homes po l lu te lakes when shore l ine settlement reaches urban dens i t i e s and sewage is not removed from the immediate lakeshore area. Increased i ntens i ty of use without compensat-ing improvements in disposal arrangements have the same e f f e c t . In New Brunswick, Redpath (1971, p. 127) a t t r i bu ted much of the p o l l u t i o n problem in Shediac Bay to the presence of shore l ine cottages without adequate 17 sewage disposal f a c i l i t i e s . And in response to increasing evidence of ground- and lake-water contamination, lake and shore l ine c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems have been developed (for example see G.A. H i l l s , 1961 and Hough, Stansbury and Assoc iates , 1972). E f f o r t s have a l so been stepped up to per fect se l f - conta ined sewage disposal systems that would permit human habi tat ion without endangering adjacent waters and water supp l ie s . Cottage developments can lead to per i od i c t r a f f i c congest ion, e s p e c i a l l y on summer weekends. Wolfe (19&7, P- 0 has observed that on ce r t a in Ontario highways the f i r s t 150 peak hours occur mostly on summer weekends. During many of these peak hours congestion is as severe as on c i t y s t reets in the worst rush hours. Most of the t r a f f i c is to and from summer resor t s , a large proport ion no doubt generated by f ami l i e s spending the weekend at the i r cottages. A re lated problem is the demand for improving road access to the cottage. (Parenthet i ca l l y , some c o t t a g e r s — f o r example P lo tn i ko f f noted a few in the Squamish-LiMooet region of B r i t i s h Columbia—want no im-provement, in order to preserve the area from further development). In his study of the Qu'Appel le Va l ley of Southern Saskatchewan, Baker (1966, p. 276) found that road surface condit ions were regarded by cottage owners as a major fac tor l im i t i n g the i r enjoyment of the i r property. It is common for them to fee l that they do not receive an adequate share of the i r tax d o l l a r for local improvements (Baker, 1966, p. 89), and thus they see no reason why the access roads should not be upgraded even though r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for these roads may belong to another j u r i s d i c t i o n which receives none of the i r property taxes. Graham (1967, P- 28) ra ises the 18 same question of funding with respect to Ontario and Quebec roads where the heaviest use is by cottagers , and suggests that cottager expenditures wi th in the local economy are not s u f f i c i e n t to warrant the use of federal regional development funds for new and improved roads. In other words, the regional incidence e f f e c t is too low; cottagers do not spend as much as one might expect in local s tores , gas s tat ions and restaurants , tend-ing instead to bring the i r food and other provis ions from home. Further questions are ra ised by the c o n f l i c t i n g interests of cottage owners and members of the pub l i c seeking recreat iona l opportun-i t i e s . Pub l i c access to water bodies l ined by pr iva te cottages is f requent ly a problem. Indeed, Jaakson (197^, p. hk) sees the issue of beach and shore l ine ownership and use esca la t ing to the point of major controversy. The c o n f l i c t s between d i f f e r e n t aquat ic recreat iona l uses— for example water -sk i ing and f i s h i n g - - t h a t Jaakson (1970) and others have discussed tend to be accentuated where cottages are present, s ince the cottagers often d i sp lay a propr ietary a t t i tude towards " t h e i r " waters because they use them more in tens i ve ly than the pub l i c at large, an a t t i tude which may be at variance with the need to increase pub l ic recreat iona l capac i ty . DEFINITIONS Up to th i s point the words "cot tage" and " co t t a g i ng " have been used without prec i se d e f i n i t i o n . The cottage can be a vacat ion re t rea t , a hunting " shack, " a ski lodge, a beach cabin, a seasonal or second home. For the purpose of th i s study, the cottage includes a l l these, plus one 19 other: the bu i ld ing within a grouping of cottages that has been turned into a permanent res idence. It should be noted that the cottage can be of any value, shape or s i ze so long as i t is used for dwell ing purposes, that is for s leep ing , eat ing and l i v i n g i n . Cottaging may be defined as the use of the cottage property for any of the purposes expressed or implied in the d e f i n i t i o n of the word cottage, inc luding p a r t i c i p a t i o n in recreat iona l or other a c t i v i t i e s normally associated with a stay at the cottage. The term cottage area refers to the general area surrounding an ind iv idua l cottage lo t and the other cottage propert ies in the v i c i n i t y . It is a l so used in a broader context to include the natural features within s ight of any of the cottages within the group that might be sa id to contr ibute to the a t t rac t i venes s or otherwise of the cottage l oca t i on . For example, for cottages s i t ed in a narrow v a l l e y , the area would be bounded on each s ide by the watershed separating the va l l ey from the adjacent ones. FOCUS OF THE RESEARCH In 1965 l e g i s l a t i o n was introduced in B r i t i s h Columbia providing for the establishment of Regional D i s t r i c t s , governed by an e lected board of d i rec to r s representing mun i c i pa l i t i e s and unincorporated areas within each d i s t r i c t (B.C. Municipal Act , s.765, et seq. ) . In essence the d i s t r i c t s embody a federated approach to local control of problems that transcend municipal boundaries. Twenty-eight regional d i s t r i c t s have been incorporated, many of which have the i r own planning s t a f f . Section 795 of 20 the Municipal Act requires Regional D i s t r i c t s to prepare regional plans ou t l i n i n g land uses with in the d i s t r i c t , and Sect ion 798A empowers Regional Boards to enact zoning and subdiv i s ion by-laws for the regulat ion of land use and lot d e n s i t i e s . Designation of A g r i c u l t u r a l Land Reserves throughout the province pursuant to the B.C. Land Commission Act of 1973 has focussed a t tent ion on rural land use, and some d i s t r i c t s have adopted or are- in the process of adopit ing zoning., by- laws for the i r en t i re land ' area. Admittedly Section 79^-A of the Municipal Act excludes the a p p l i c a -t ion of such by-laws to fo res t reserves and designated tree-farms, and much of the land wi th in regional d i s t r i c t s is Crown land and under the j u r i s d i c t i o n of departments of the p rov inc i a l government (Rees and K a r l -sen, 1974, p. 12). Yet the fact remains that in B r i t i s h Columbia there is now an i n s t i t u t i o n a l mechanism at the local level fo r c lo ser control of r e s i den t i a l — including cottage—development i f Regional Board members choose to exerc i se the i r powers. What are the means by which th i s can be accomplished? Zoning and subdiv i s ion by-laws, together with bu i ld ing and health regu lat ions , have been the t r a d i t i o n a l methods of enforc ing po l i cy with respect to res iden-t i a l development, endowed with a new f l e x i b i l i t y in B r i t i s h Columbia by the introduct ion of the land use contract as an a l t e r n a t i v e means of c o n t r o l l i n g development (Municipal Ac t , S.702A). The use of pub l ic i n -vestment in municipal serv ices as a way of guiding and d i rec t i ng develop-ment is another method. Taxation is a t h i r d ; and as corporat ions regional d i s t r i c t s have the power to purchase property (Municipal Act s.768). In add i t i on , of course, the p rov inc ia l government can step i n , i f i t so wishes, to impose i t s p o l i c i e s . 21 As was noted e a r l i e r , un t i l recent ly cottaging in B r i t i s h Columbia has large ly gone unregulated. Where zoning for cottage development has been enacted, the p o s s i b i l i t y that cottagers have d i f f e r e n t needs, a c t i v i t y patterns and reasons for ownership that would al low for the recogn i t ion of d i f f e r e n t types of cottage area has been genera l ly overlooked by the a u t h o r i t i e s . Impl ic i t in the re su l t i ng by-laws is the assumption that there is no d i f fe rence between cottaging groups, that owners belonging to d i f f e r e n t age, income or occupational groupings have the same pre-ferences for serv ices and for recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s . It is th i s thesis which the author intends to explore. THE HYPOTHESES It is the f i rm opinion of the author that in the process of pub l ic po l i cy formulation the des ires and concerns of the people should be given carefu l cons idera t ion . There is no need here to ou t l i ne the methods by which th i s pub l i c input can be gathered. Su f f i ce i t to say that, with th i s input, the decision-makers are in a better pos i t i on to determine p o l i c y , whether i t be in accord with expressed pub l i c preferences or modif ied to take account of environmental, f i s c a l or legal cons t ra in t s . In formulat ing po l i cy with regard to cottag ing, decision-makers need information on a va r i e ty of aspects of the cottaging phenomenon: - the reason f o r cottage ownership, - the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of cottage owners and the i r f a m i l i e s , how they use the i r property and how in tens i ve l y , - the range and level of serv ices owners des i re now and in the 22 future, and the likelihood that cottages will be converted to permanent residences as owners' family needs change, the degree of owner satisfaction with their property and the use they can make of i t , the importance owners attach to vehicular access and driving time from their primary residence. The discussion thus far has implied the following: 1) that cottage owners have a variety of reasons for ownership, 2) that they differ in the use to which they put their property and in the intensity of that use, 3) that they differ as to the level of services they desire for their cottage property. If these assertions are correct i t is suggested that these differences are a reflection of the much broader spectrum of society from which cottage owners come compared with one or two decades ago. If this is the case, then if a clear pattern of relationships emerges between certain socio-economic characteristics of cottagers and their patterns of use and desire for services, policy makers can begin to tailor their policies to the needs of the different groups so that conflicts between them and conflicts with environmental factors are removed or at least minimi zed. Based on the above reasoning, the following hypotheses are advanced: 1. That the socio-economic characteristics of cottage owners have changed over time, 2. That there is a re l a t i onsh ip between the age, income and occupation of cottage owners and (a) the number of days they spend at the i r cottages, and (b) the recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s they undertake while at the cottage, 3. That there is a re l a t i onsh ip between the age, income and occupation of cottage owners and the level of serv ices they de s i re . METHODOLOGY In order to obtain the data with which to test the hypotheses, a quest ionnaire was formulated for submission to a group of cottage owners.. Four separate cottage areas were chosen for the study, located wi th in t h i r t y miles of P r inceton, B r i t i s h Columbia, wi th in E l e c t o r a l Area "H " of the Regional D i s t r i c t of Okanagan-Similkameen (see map- in Appendix 2): 1. A l l i s o n Lake, with about 70 cottages, most of them within a narrow subdiv i s ion between Route 5, the Pr inceton-Merr i t t highway, and the lake. 2. Hayes Va l l ey , with about 100 cottages and a few permanent res idences, c lus tered around Chain, Link and Osprey Lakes. The area is connected to Pr inceton, 18 miles to the south-west, by a good gravel road, and to Summerland, t h i r t y miles to the east, by a narrow, winding and occas iona l l y impassable road through the mountains. 3. Manning, the Towers Ranch subd iv i s ion of about f i f t y lots 2k beside the Similkameen R iver, ju s t outs ide the eastern entrance to Manning Prov inc ia l Park and with in "earshot " of the southern Trans -Prov inc ia l highway, route 3-k. Missezula Lake, with some t h i r t y cottages and another f i f t y unimproved l o t s , at the end of a f i f t e e n - m i l e gravel road along a narrow va l l ey leading o f f the P r ince ton -Mer r i t t highway. A l l prov is ions have to be brought in . No c la im is made that these areas represent the f u l l range of cottag ing p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Indeed, one of the more v i s i b l e types of cottage development, the h i g h l y - c a p i t a l i z e d and developed recreat iona l community such as that being promoted by Block Brothers at Mi le 108 in the Cariboo, or the Big Sky project in Montana, is not included. How-ever, while the resu l t s of th i s case study may not necessar i l y be a p p l i c -able everywhere, i t is bel ieved that the methodology is v a l i d in a broader context and that the major conclusions may have relevance, par-t i c u l a r l y for s im i l a r mountainous areas in Canada and the P a c i f i c North-west of the United States. To obta in comprehensive data on the cottage areas and cottager preferences the quest ionnaire (see Appendix l) was designed to e l i c i t information in the fo l lowing categor ies : - Owner p r o f i l e , inc luding age, family s i ze and income; owner education and occupation^ place of permanent res idence. - Property c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , amenities and improvements. - Level of se rv i ces : present, intended and des i red . - Reasons for ownership and l i ke l i hood of conversion to permanent res idence. 2 5 - Cottage use and in tens i ty of use, a c t i v i t y patterns - Owner perceptions of area c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , environmental qua l i t y , in tens i ty of development and amenity problems. To. avoid unnecessary bias the questions were ho t i d e n t i f i e d on the quest ionnaire according to category. If one is tes t ing for cons i s -tency of response, for instance, i t is inadvisable to group the questions so that the respondent is read i l y aware that he is being incons is tent in his r e p l i e s . The quest ionnaire leads o f f with simple, factua l quest ions, gradual ly introducing more d i f f i c u l t , perceptual questions and leaving to the end the more sen s i t i ve ones concerning income and educational l e v e l . The hypotheses are designed to test whether there has been a change in the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of cottage owners over the years, and then to explore the impl icat ions of these f ind ings in terms of the in tens i ty of cottage use, the a c t i v i t y patterns of owners and level of serv ices des i red, in p a r t i c u l a r age, income and occupational groups. To determine the extent of change, the length of ownership (question 19) is measured against key var iab les such as age, occupation and educat ion. It is recognized that s ince the survey was conducted among present cottage owners there is l i k e l y to be some bias in favour of more recent buyers as some of the o r i g i n a l owners may have moved away. How-ever, some minor resale of property in the four cottage a r e a s — i f i t occurred—shou ld not inva l idate the ana l y s i s , p a r t i c u l a r l y as there are s u f f i c i e n t cottagers who have owned the i r property for ten years or more to make comparisons meaningful. If, for example, i t i s found that the 26 age at time of a c q u i s i t i o n has r i sen in the past decade and that o lder owners spend more time at the i r cottages and prefer more e laborate serv ices (a common assumption), then governments should note the imp l i ca -t ions when formulating p o l i c i e s with respect to cot tag ing. S i m i l a r l y , i f the more recent purchasers of cottage property are in p a r t i c u l a r occu-pations and owners in these occupations tend to choose cer ta in - recrea - -t i ona l a c t i v i t i e s , th is f ind ing w i l l be important to those responsible for recreat iona l planning or for assessing the environmental impact of cottage developments. There i s , of course, no guarantee that such trends or preferences w i l l not change over time, but at least one w i l l be in a better pos i t i on to estimate the l i k e l y e f f e c t s of a p a r t i c u l a r po l i c y with respect to cot tag ing. Given the time const ra int s and the expense that would have been involved in conducting personal interviews, i t was decided to use a mail quest ionna i re. T y p i c a l l y the response to quest ionnaires received through the mails is a low 15 to 30%, which makes v a l i d s t a t i s t i c a l ana lys i s extremely d i f f i c u l t unless you have a large universe. To i n -crease the number of returns two approaches were taken. F i r s t , the quest ionnaire was sent to every cottage- and lot-owner in the four areas rather than to a random sample. Secondly, the Regional D i s t r i c t of Okanagan-Simi1kameen (RDOS) k indly agreed to sponsor the survey and to provide o f f i c i a l s ta t ionery for the covering l e t t e r s . Undoubtedly the response was improved by such governmental sponsorship. Further, by sending the quest ionnaires in late October, while the experience of the previous summer was s t i l l f resh in cottagers ' minds, i t was hoped 2 7 to achieve a better return ra te . Of three hundred and fourteen quest ion-na i res mai led, 191 (61%) were returned; 141 were from cottage owners and the remainder were from owners of vacant l o t s . The quest ionnaires were mailed from the RDOS o f f i c e in Pent i c -ton, with a fol low-up mai l ing ten days l a t e r . Response from the f i r s t mai l ing t o t a l l e d 153; from the second 38. Fourteen quest ionnaires were returned by the Post O f f i c e as being unde l iverab le . As there was no apparent d i f fe rence in the pattern of response between the two mail ings they were considered together. " It had been hoped to include the ana lys i s responses from lo t owners who have yet to bu i ld a cottage. However, these responses were genera l ly so incomplete that i t was decided not to use them. This reduced the data base to 141. The responses were coded for data processing and ana l y s i s , using the S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Soc ia l Sciences programme (Nie, Bent and H u l l , 1970) a va i l ab l e at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre. Most of the data co l l e c ted involved a nominal or ord ina l s ca le , i . e . , was non-parametric. Of the non-parametric tests the Chi Square is the most appropriate and was therefore used in examining the hypotheses to determine the s t a t i s t i c a l s i gn i f i c ance of the data generated. The Chi-square test is used to determine whether the observed frequencies in a matrix d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from the frequencies that - Jackson (1963i P- 73) suggests that rep l ie s to a second mai l ing are more representat ive of the non-response..group than the rep l i e s to the i n i t i a l mai l ing and should therefore be given extra weight in tabu la -t ing the r e s u l t s . The author has not done so for the reason stated above 28 might be expected according to the breakdown of the populat ion base. For example the fo l lowing table shows the number of vacations taken in a given time period by s im i l a r groups of people in three towns of equal s i ze. Town  A B_ C_ Vacations taken 12 5 13 Expected vacations 10 10 10 If the hypothesis is tested that there is no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rence be-tween town and the number of vacations taken ( i . e . , that the groups in each town take the same number of v a c a t i o n s — i n th is case 10), the re su l t is rather s u r p r i s i n g . At f i r s t glance there would appear to be a s i g n i -f i c a n t d i f fe rence between the vacation rates for the three towns. How-2 ever, computing the chi -square (x ) i t is found that: X2 >^2-4~# + £- 3.8 where 0 denotes the observed frequency and E the expected frequency. With two degrees of freedom and a chi -square of 3.8, the p r o b a b i l i t y of ob ta in -ing such a frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n by chance is approximately .16 or 16%. Thus, in the absence of further evidence i t would be unwise to conclude that a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rence has been determined. In th i s thes is the chi-square is used to test the r e a l i t y of the a s soc ia t i on between se lected cottager c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s (such as age, i n -come and occupation) and categories of behaviour, a c t i v i t y and a t t i t u d e , 29 rather than to test for d i f ferences between cottage areas. In each case where the test is used the nu l l hypothesis to be tested is that there is no a s soc ia t ion between the va r i ab l e s , that the d i f ferences between observed and expected frequencies occur by chance. For example, Table 41 (p. I l l ) measures the age of cottage owners against the time of property purchase. The nu l l hypothesis to be tested is that there is no a s soc ia t ion between these two va r i ab l e s . However, i f one examines the percentages alone i t would appear that there is a marked and probably s i g n i f i c a n t d i f fe rence in the d i s t r i b u t i o n of frequencies in that in the past decade purchasers have been more representat ive of various age groups than was the case in the previous decade. Yet the chi -square test t e l l s us that the p r o b a b i l i t y of th i s frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n occurr ing by change is .22 or 22%; in other words, better than 1 in 5. Thus, a l -though the observed frequencies may indeed represent a trend, the evidence does not j u s t i f y the conclus ion that the nu l l hypothesis should be re -jected in favour of the research hypothesis that there is a s i g n i f i c a n t assoc iat ion between age and date of cottage purchase. On the other hand, i f the computed value of chi -square had been 6.0, ind icat ing that the p r o b a b i l i t y of the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n occurr ing by chance was .05, or only 5%, one would be on f irmer ground in re jec t ing the nul l hypothesis and concluding that there was a s i g n i f i c a n t a s soc ia t ion between the two va r i ab le s . SUMMARY In th i s chapter the more important problems assoc iated with cottag ing have been examined, the focus of the research e s tab l i shed , and 30 the research methodology o u t l i n e d . It was seen that cottage develop-ments can ser ious ly a f f e c t regional development by d i sp l ac ing t r a d i t i o n a l rural economic a c t i v i t y and creat ing nodal growth in competition with ex i s t i ng population centres . Water contamination, pe r i od i c t r a f f i c congestion and c o n f l i c t s between the in teres t s of cottage owners and members of the pub l i c seeking water-based recreat ion are other problems f requent ly assoc iated with cot tag ing . To a l l e v i a t e some of these problems i t was argued that Regional D i s t r i c t s should exerc i se the i r powers to exert s t r i c t e r contro l over cottage developments. It was noted that where contro l measures had been i n s t i t u t e d , the not ion that there might be d i f f e r e n t types of cottage a r e a - - r e f l e c t i n g d i f f e r e n t cottager needs and conceptions of the cottaging exper ience—had been genera l ly overlooked, and as a resu l t opportuni t ies might have been missed to provide for a wider var ie ty of cottage areas while at the same time minimizing the i r adverse e f f e c t s upon the reg ion. To discover whether there are recognizable groups of cottage owners with d i f f e r e n t needs and views of the cottaging experience that could be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d for the purposes of po l i cy formulat ion, three research hypotheses were proposed: 1. That the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of cottage owners have changed over time, 2. That there is a re l a t i onsh ip between the age, income and occupation of cottage owners and (a) the number of days they spend at the i r cottages, and (b) the recreat iona l 31 a c t i v i t i e s they undertake while at the cottage, 3. That there is a re l a t i onsh ip between the age, income and occupation of cottage owners and the level of serv ices they d e s i r e . The data with which to test the hypotheses was obtained from responses to a quest ionnaire mailed to cottage owners in the Pr inceton region of B r i t i s h Columbia, and the responses were coded for data processing and ana lys i s using the S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Socia l Sciences programme. The next chapter w i l l conta in an ana lys i s of the returns as a whole as they re l a te to the four cottage areas. In Chapter IV, the hypotheses w i l l be examined in l i gh t of the quest ionnaire responses and the conclusions of the previous chapter. The f i na l chapter w i l l explore the p o l i c y impl icat ions of the o v e r a l l f ind ings and suggest po l i cy a l t e r n a t i v e s . CHAPTER I I I THE FOUR COTTAGE AREAS In th is chapter the quest ionnaire returns are analyzed and the more pert inent d i f fe rences between the four cottage areas are d iscussed. Considered f i r s t are p r o f i l e s of the cottagers and t h e i r propert ies and the level of serv ices they enjoy and de s i re . An ana lys i s of cottage use and a c t i v i t y patterns fo l lows, a f t e r which there is a d i scuss ion of the reasons for ownership and cottager perceptions of environmental qua l i t y and cottage dens i ty . SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE OF COTTAGE OWNERS For po l i cy concerning cottage areas to be soundly based, i t is important that the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of those who purchase and use cottage propert ies should be examined. Age of Cottage Owners As cottage ownership requires a considerable out lay of cap i ta l for purchase and maintenance i t is not surpr i s ing that owners are con-centrated in the middle and upper age brackets. This was found to be the case in the United States (Second Homes in the United States, p. 5), and the same is true for the Princeton region of B r i t i s h Columbia. According to Table 2, 82 (53%) of the quest ionnaire respondents are k5 years old, or over, compared with 53% of a l l heads of households in 32 33 TABLE 2 Age of Cottage Owners Total Number of Respondents (%) Cottage Area ; A l i i son Hayes Manning Missezula 20-24 years 2 (1) - - - -25-34 years 20 (14) 3 ( 9) 6 (11) 4 (14) 7 (30) 35-44 years 36 (26) 5 (16) 14 (25) 8 (29) 9 (39) 45-54 years 47 (34) 12 (38) 17 (30) 13 (45) 5 (22) 55-64 years 27 (19) 8 (25) 13 (23) 4 (14) 2 ( 9) 65 and over 8 ( 6) _4 (12) J t ( 7) - -Total 140 32 56 29 23 B r i t i s h Columbia at the time of the 1971 Census. A l l but s i x of the owners in the 55 and over age group have cottages in the A l l i s o n and Hayes cottage areas, while two-thirds of the Missezula respondents are under 45, a f ac t which could be a t t r i bu ted to the area having been opened up to cottag ing only in the past three years (see Table 9, p. 40) . Number of Ch i ldren Cottaging is genera l ly regarded as a family a c t i v i t y . Yet a high proport ion (50 or 39%) of respondents in the study area have no ch i l d ren under the age of 18 (Table 3). These f igures are 11 (44%) in the A l l i s o n va l l ey and 25 (48%) in the Hayes area, and are probably due to the concentrat ion of owners in the upper age groups in those areas. In f a c t , a few respondents indicated that the i r grandchi ldren v i s i t the 34 TABLE 3 Number of Chi ldren Per Cottage Owner Number of Respondents with Average 0 1 2 3 4 7 Per Res-ch i l d ren Total pondent A l l areas {%) 50(39) 24(19) 21 (17) 23(18) 8(6) 127 1.37 A l i i son 11(44) 7(28) M16) 2( 8) 1(4) - 25 1 .00 Hayes 25(48) 10(19) 7(13) 5(10) M8) 1(2) 52 1.19 Mann i ng 9;(32) Ml*0 Ml*0 10(36) 1(4) - 28 1.64 Mi ssezula 5(23) 3(14) 6(27) 6(27) 2(9) - 22 1.86 cottage. In cont ras t , 14 (63%) of the owners in the Missezula area have from 2 to 4 c h i l d r e n , which is no doubt a r e f l e c t i o n of the lower age level of respondents there. The average number of ch i ld ren per owner con-firms these d i f f e rence s , ranging from a low of 1.00 in the A l l i s o n va l l ey to 1.86 in the Missezula area, with an overa l l average of 1.37. Education E i gh ty - f i ve (63%) of the respondents received only elementary or high school educat ion, while 36 (26%) possess un i ve r s i t y degrees or have completed some un iver s i t y education (Table 4). These proportions are very s im i l a r to those found among cottagers in the Squamish-Li1 looet region of B r i t i s h Columbia (P lo tn iko f f , 1970, p. 52), in contrast to those of the Ontario Cottage Survey where almost fo r ty per cent had at least some un ive r s i t y educat ion. ^Nevertheless, cottagers in the study area are more highly educated as a group than heads of household throughout 35 TABLE 4 Owners' Highest Level of Education Total Number of Cottage Area' ; Respondents '•• {%) A l i i son Hayes Manning Mi ssezula Elementary 9 ( 7) 1 ( 3) 4 ( 7) 2 ( 7) 2 ( 9) Some High School 42 (31 9 (29) 16 (29) 10 (37) 7 (30) High School Graduate 34 (25) 10 (32) 15 (27) 4 (15) 5 (22) 2 year Col lege 3 ( 2) 1 ( 3 ) 2 ( 4) - -Apprent ice-shi p 12 ( 9) - 3 ( 5) 4 (15) 5 (22) Some Un i vers i t y 18 (13) 5 (16) 9 (16) 2 ( 7). 2 ( 9) Un i vers i ty Graduate 14 (10) 2 ( 6) 6 (11) 4 (15) 2 ( 9) Post-graduate 4 ( 3) _3 (10) - _ L ( 4) -Total 136 31 55 27 23 the province, since in 1971 only fourteen per cent of heads of household in B r i t i s h Columbia had received some un iver s i t y education (1971 Census). Occupation Occupat iona l ly , the cottage owners are very d i ve r se . The largest s ing le group among respondents was in technica l and trade occupations: 32 (23%), fol lowed by the profess ions: 26 (19%), the r e t i r e d : 18 (13%), 36 and those in managerial po s i t i ons : 17 (12%) (Table 5). Almost a l l the r e t i r e d people own cottages in the A l l i s o n or Hayes v a l l e y s , while those in the profess ions have a s l i gh t preference for the A l l i s o n and Manning areas. TABLE 5 Owners' Occupation Total Number of Cottage Area  Respondents {%) A l l i s o n Hayes Manning Missezula C l e r i c a l 2 ( 1) 1 ( 3) 1 ( 2) Farming and Forestry 5 ( 4) 1 ( 3) 2 ( 4) 1 ( 4) 1 ( 5) Labourer 5 ( h) 2 ( 6) 1 ( 2) 1 ( 4) 1 ( 5) Managerial 17 (12) 1 ( 3) 1 1 (19) 3 ( 10 2 ( 9) Profess iona1 26 (19) 8 (25) 7 (12) 7 (26) 4 (18) Recreation & Servi ce 2 ( 1) 1 ( 3) 1 ( 2) Reti red 18 (13) 7 (22) 10 (18) 1 ( 4) Sa les 9 ( 7) 3 ( 5) 1 ( 4) 5 (23) Technical & Trade 32 (23) 6 (19) 12 (21) 7 (26) 7 (32) Transporta-t ion and Communi c a -t ions 1 k (10) 2 ( 6) h ( 7) 6 (22) 2 ( 9) Other 7 ( 6) _± ( 9) _k ( 7) Total 137 32 56 27 22 37 Compared with the occupational d i s t r i b u t i o n among heads of household throughout B r i t i s h Columbia, excluding r e t i r e d persons from the proport ions, the managerial and profess ional occupations are markedly overrepresented among cottage owners (14% and 22% respect ive ly compared with 6% and 12% for B r i t i s h Columbia as a whole), while serv ice and c l e r -ica l occupations and, to a lesser extent, farming and fo res t ry are under-represented. The percentage of owners in technica l and trade occupations is almost equal to the p rov inc i a l percentage. Fam?ly Income As might be expected, cottager family income exceeds the p rov inc i a l norm (Table 6 ) . E ighty-n ine (73%) of respondents had an annual family TABLE 6 Owners' Family Income Total Number of Cottage Area  Respondents (%) A l i i son Hayes Mann i ng Mi ssezu Less than i $4,000 7 ( 6) 4 (14) 2 ( 4) - 1 ( 5) $4,000 - 5,999 5 ( 4) 2 ( 7) 3 ( 6) - -6,000 - 7,999 4 ( 3) 1 ( 3) 1 ( 2) 1 ( 4) 1 ( 5) 8,000 - 9,999 2 ( 2) - 2 (10) 10,000 - 11,999 15 (12) 5 (17) 7 (15) 2 ( 8) 1 ( 5) 12,000 - 14,999 30 (25) 7 (24) 12 (25) 7 (28) 4 (20) 15,000 - 19,999 35 (29) 7 (24) 13 (27) 8 (32) 7 (35) 20,000 - 24,999 14 (11) 1 ( 3) 6 (13) 4 (16) 3 (15) 25,000 & over 10 ( 8) _2 ( 7) _4 ( 8) _1 (12) _ L ( 5) Total 122 29 48 25 20 38 income of at least $12,000, inc luding 24 (19%) who earned in excess of $20,000. This compares with 59% in B r i t i s h Columbia who reported family income for 1970 of $8,000 or more (the equiva lent of $12,460 at November 1974 wage and sa lary l e v e l s ) ; * At the other end of the sca le , 18 (15%) had income of less than $10,000, compared with 26% in B r i t i s h Columbia report ing less than $6,000 in 1970 (the equivalent of $9,360 at November 1974 wage and sa lary l e v e l s ) . Place of Permanent Residence One hundred and four (74%) of the respondents l i ved in Greater Vancouver (57%) or elsewhere on the Lower Mainland (17%). Nineteen (14%), the next largest group, l i ved in the Princeton area, while 4% each had the i r primary residence in the Kamloops region and the Okanagan (Table 7). Although owners from the Lower Mainland are f u l l y represented in the four cottage areas, there is a s l i g h t l y greater concentrat ion (25, 87%), in the Manning subd iv i s i on , which is not unexpected s ince th i s area is at least f o r t y miles c loser to Vancouver than are the other areas. PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS Age of Cottage and Length of Property Ownership Forty- three (31%) of the cottages in the study area have been constructed in the past three years, and 97 (70%) are less than ten years * According to the Canadian S t a t i s t i c a l Review, average weekly wages and s a l a r i e s in B.C. rose from $137-97 in 1970 to $214.69 in Nov-ember 1974, an increase of 56% (Canadian S t a t i s t i c a l Review 50:3, March 1975, p. 55). Thus $8,000 of 1970 income is equivalent to $12,460 in November 1974, when the quest ionnaire was completed. 39 TABLE 7 Owners' Place of Permanent Residence Total Number of Cottage Area  Respondents . • {%) A l l i s o n Hayes Manning Missezula Kami oops area 5 ( 4) 1 ( 3) 3 ( 5) 1 ( 3) -Princeton area 19 (14) 10 (3D 4 ( 7) 2 ( 7) 3 (14) Okanagan va l l ey 6 ( h) 1 ( 3) 5 ( 9) - -Greater Vancouver 80 (57) 15 (47) 33 (58) 19 (66) 13 (59) Elsewhere on Lower Mainland 24 (17) 3 ( 9) 9 (16) 6 (21) 6 (27) Elsewhere in B.C. k ( 3) 1 ( 3) 2 (4) 1 ( 3) -Out of Province 2 ( 0 _ i_ (3) _ ] _ ( 2) i. Total 140 32 57 29 22 old (Table 8), a proport ion that wou 1 d be even higher had not severa1 cottages in the Missezula area been b u i l t as cabins for the former f i s h -ing re sor t . Thus, cottaging on a large sca le is a comparatively recent phenomenon in the region and appears to be increasing r ap id l y . This observat ion is supported by the pattern of property owner-ship (Table 9). Even though some of the respondents may not be the o r i g i n a l owners, i t is nonetheless s i g n i f i c a n t that 75 (55%) of the propert ies have been owned for f i v e years or less , whi le only 31 (22%) have been owned for eleven years or more. Overal l the mean length of ownership is 6.8 years , but i t r i ses to over 8 years in the A l l i s o n and Hayes va l leys where most of the o lder owners have the i r property. 40 TABLE 8 Age of Cottage _____ Number of Cottage Area  Respondents (%) A l l i s o n Hayes Manning Missezula 3 years or less 43 (3D 6 (19) 15 (26) 13 (45) 9 (39 ) 4 - 6 years 30 (22) 7 (22) 13 (23) 7 (24) 3 (13) 7 - 9 " 24 (17) 9 (28) 10 (18) 5 (17) 10-12 " 18 (13) 6 (19) 7 (12) 3 (10) 2 ( 9) 13 - 15 " 9 C.6) 3 ( 9) 4 ( 7) 1 ( 3) 1 ( 4) More than 15 y r s . 15 (11) J _ ( 3) _ 8 (14) _6 (26) Total 139 32 57 29 21 TABLE 9 Length of Cottage Ownership Total Number of Cottage Area Respondents - (-) A l i i son Hayes Mann ing Mi ssezula 1 Year 9 ( 7) 1 ( 3) 2 ( 4) - 6 (26) 2 11 23 (17) 2 ( 6) 3 ( 5) 3 (11) 15 (65) 3 " 13 ( 9) 5 (16) 3 ( 5) 3 (11 ) 2 ( 9) 4 " 18 (13) 1 ( 3) 8 (14) 9 (32) -5 " 12 ( 9) 1 ( 3) 8 (14) 3 (11) -6-10 Years 31 (23) 9 (28) 17 (30) 5 (18) -11-15 11 22 (16) 10 (31 ) 7 (12) 5 (18) -16-20 " 7 ( 5) - 7 (12) - -Over 20 " 2 .( 0 - _2 ( 4) - -Total 137 29 57 28 23 Mean length of ownershi p 6.8 years 8.1 years 8.5 years 5.9 years 1 .8 years These f ind ings are very s im i l a r to those of P l o tn i ko f f in the Squamish-Li1looet region (P lo tn iko f f , p. 38), and suggest that cottage development to s a t i s f y the Lower Mainland market is gradual ly spreading fur ther into the mountains as ava i l ab le s i t e s c loser to Vancouver are used up or are pr iced beyond the means of most potent ia l cottage pur-chasers. Provided higher fuel costs and the current recession do not permanently a l t e r the demand pat tern , th i s outward extension of what might be termed the "cottage r i n g " seems l i k e l y to cont inue. Such an extension would be in accord with Friedmann and M i l l e r ' s concept of the expanding "urban f i e l d , " where the metropol itan core and the rura l p e r i -phery become increas ing ly interdependent and the populat ion can take advantage of a vas t l y greater choice of l i v i n g environments (Friedmann and Mi 1ler, 1965). Lot Size According to the responses, the median lot s i ze for the study area is between one-quarter and One-half acre . One hundred and seven (78%) of the cottages are b u i l t on lots of less than three-quarters of an acre, and 18% are on parcels smaller than one-quarter acre (Table 10). This compares with Ontario where i t was found that 61% of cottages had a s i t e 0.9 acres or less in s i z e , and 33% were b u i l t on s i te s of 0.4 acres or smaller (Analysis o f Ontario Cottage Survey, p. 27). The contrast with the Squamish-Li1looet region is even more s t r i k i n g s ince 62% of the cottages in that region were reported to be on lots exceeding three-quarters of an acre (P l o tn i ko f f , p. 36). 42 TABLE 10 S ize of Lot Total Number of Cottage Area Respondents A l i i son Hayes Mann ing Mi ssezula Less than 9,000 sq. f t . 5 ( k) 2 ( 6) 1 ( 2) 1 (.3) 1 ( 5) 9,000 sq. f t . -]/k acre 20 {]k) 10 (32) 8 (14) - 2 (10) ]/k - 1/2 acre 55 (kO) 10 (32) 15 (26) 17 (59) 13 (62) 1/2 - 3/k acre 27 (20) 5 (16) 9 (16) 8 (28) 5 (24) 3/4 - 1 acre 13 ( 9) 4 (13) 6 (11) 3 (10) -Over 1 acre 18 (13) 18 (32) - -Total 138 31 57 29 21 Median S ize (acres) 1/4-1/2 1/4-1/2 1/2-3/4 1/4-1/2 1/4-1/2 Most of the very small lots are located in the A l l i s o n and Hayes v a l l e y s . In the A l l i s o n area almost a l l the respondents are connected to a community water supply (see Table 17, p. ^6), thereby reducing the p o s s i b i l i t y of one co t tager ' s sewage disposal arrangements contaminating the water supply of h i s neighbours. However, the p o s s i b i l i t y of seepage from sept i c tank leach f i e l d s po l l u t i n g the lake water remains. In the Hayes va l l ey the r i s k is more apparent. Twenty-seven (52%) of the res -pondents in th i s area be l ieve that lake water qua l i t y has dec l ined (see Table 34, p. 64), and as less than ha l f the cottages receive the i r water 43 from the community system the p o s s i b i l i t y of contamination of dr ink ing water through seepage is that much greater . Cottage S ize , W in ter i za t ion , Sleeping Capacity and Value Most of the cottages are modest in s i z e , 79 (56%) with a f l oo r area of less than 600 square f ee t , and only 14 (10%) exceeding 900 square feet (Table 11). Eighty-seven (63%) are f u l l y w in ter i zed , and 88 (63%) TABLE 11 Cottage S ize to ta l Number of Cottage Area  Respondents (%) A l l i s o n Hayes Manning Missezula Less than 400 sq. f t . 34 (24) 4 (12) 13 (23) 4 (14) 13 (59) 400 - 599 s q . f t . 45 (32) 14 (44) 21 (37) 8 (29) 2 ( 9) 600 - 899 " 46 (33) 12 (38) 16 (28) 11 (39) 7 (32) 900 -1199 " 6 ( 4) 2 ( 6) 3 ( 5) 1 ( 4) -1200 -1499 " 7 ( 5) 3 ( 5) 4 (14) -1500 sq. f t . and over 1 ( 0 _1_ ( 2) - -Total 139 32 57 28 22 have a s leeping capacity of 4 to 6 people (Tables 12 and 13). Estimates of cottage value are more var i ab le and probably r e f l e c t d i f fe rences in the level of serv ices i n s t a l l e d and such things as i n su l a t i on , plumbing and f i x t u r e s . Seventy-three (55%) of the cottages ( i . e . , excluding the land) TABLE 12 Winter izat ion of Cottage Total Number of Cottage Area Respondents {%) Al 1 i son Hayes Mann ing Mi ssezula Fu l l y winter i zed 87 (63) 14 (44) 34 (62) 28 (97) 11 (52) P a r t i a l l y " 8 ( 6) 4 (12) 4(7) - -Not winter ized J t 2 (3D JA (44) 17 (30 _L ( 3) _10 (48) Total 137 32 55 29 21 TABLE 13 Cottage Sleeping Capacity Total Number of Cottage Area  Respondents {%) A l l i s o n Hayes Manning Missezula 3 or fewer people 13 ( 9) 3 ( 9) 5 ( 9) 5 (23) 4 - 6 people 88 (63) 25 (78) 37 (66) 14 (48) 12 (55) 7-9 " 27 (19) 3 ( 9) 9 (16) 12 (41) 3 (14) 10 -12 " 10 ( 7) 1 (.3) 5 ( 9) 2 ( 7) 2 ( 9) Over 12 1 1 1 ( 0 _- - _1_ ( 3) Total 139 32 56 29 22 were v a l u e d a t under $7 ,500 , and 33 (26%) a t $12,500 and o v e r ( T a b l e 14 ) . I t i s n o t e w o r t h y t h a t 12 (57%) o f the r e s p o n d e n t s in the M i s s e z u l a Lake a r e a ( a l l o f whom p u r c h a s e d t h e i r p r o p e r t y w i t h i n the p a s t t h r e e y e a r s ) f e l t t h e i r c o t t a g e s were w o r t h l e s s than $3 ,000 , w h i c h i s pe rhaps an i n d i c a t i o n t h a t i n i t i a l l y c o t t a g e r s a r e s a t i s f i e d w i t h r e l a t i v e l y s i m p l e a ccommoda t i on . TABLE 14 C o t t a g e V a l u e T o t a l Number o f C o t t a g e A r e a  Respondent s (%) A l l i s o n Hayes Manning M i s s e z u l a Le s s than $3,000 30 (23) 3 (10) 11 (21) 4 (14) 12 (57) $3 ,000 - 4 ,999 16 (12) 3 (10) 8 (15) 3 ( 1 0 2 ( 9) 5 ,000 - 7,499 27 (20) 10 (33) 11 (21) 4 (14) 2 ( 9) 7,500 - 9,999 13 (10) 2 ( 7) 7 (13) 3 ( 1 0 1 ( 5) 1 0 , 0 0 0 — 1 2 , 4 9 9 13 (10) 5 (17) 3 ( 6) 4 (14) 1 ( 5) 12,500 - 1 4 , 999 10 ( 8) 3 (10) 3 ( 6) 2 ( 7) 2 ( 9) 15,000 - 1 7 , 4 9 9 10 ( 8) 2 ( 7) 3 ( 6) 4 (14) 1 ( 5) 17,500 £ o v e r 13 (10) _2 ( 7) _ 7 (13) _k_ (14) _• T o t a l 132 30 53 28 21 46 LEVELS OF SERVICES As was noted in Chapter II, cottage development can to a large extent be guided or cont ro l l ed by the adoption of zoning and subd iv i s ion by-laws or by pub l i c investment in basic serv ices such as water, sewage d i sposa l , e l e c t r i c i t y and roads. Fundamental to e i t he r method is the recogni t ion that the general hea l th , safety and welfare of the pub l i c may require the imposition of minimum standards for serv ices as well as of regulat ions to prevent overcrowding of land and to preserve the amen-i t i e s pecu l i a r to an area. But before such act ion is taken, i t is important to determine what serv ices are already enjoyed and what improvements are planned or asp i red to. This is the purpose of th is sec t i on . The next step is to see i f s p e c i f i c groupings of owners have s im i l a r a t t i tudes towards ce r -ta in serv ices that might be of more general app l i c a t i on and could be used fo r po l i cy determination elsewhere. This i nves t i ga t i on , which is the object of the author ' s hypothesis, w i l l be pursued in the next chapter. In the d i scuss ion that fol lows i t is assumed that d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with a serv ice means that the respondent would l i ke to see that serv ice improved. S a t i s f a c t i on with Access Roads As was indicated prev ious ly , the roads leading to the four cottage areas d i f f e r markedly in q u a l i t y . The A l l i s o n and Manning developments are served by wel l -mainta ined, paved roads, while those provid ing access to the Hayes va l l ey and Missezula areas have a gravel surface ranging from 47 good to poor. Table 15 shows the degree of respondents' s a t i s f a c t i o n with the i r access roads. A l l i s o n and Manning cottagers reg i s tered broad s a t i s f a c t i o n ; Missezula owners were s l i g h t l y d i s s a t i s f i e d ; and those in the Hayes va l ley were more genera l ly d i s s a t i s f i e d . These answers are cons is tent with owners' choice of improvements they would most l i ke to see in the i r cottage area (Table 23, p. 54). For example, Hayes and Missezula cottagers both ranked road surface qua l i t y f i r s t on t h e i r l i s t of des ired improvements. TABLE 15 S a t i s f a c t i on with Access Road Very Sati s f i e d Moderately S a t i s f i e d Not Sat i sf i ed A l l areas 46 58 30 A l i i son - paved 14 12 1 Hayes - gravel 7 28 21 Mann i ng - paved 20 7 1 Missezula - grave 1 5 11 7 Water Supply Of the 136 respondents, 40 (23%) have to fetch the i r water from a stream, lake or well (Table 16). Yet 12 of these 40 owners are very s a t i s -f i e d with th is arrangement and only seven reg i s tered d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n . Within th i s group, 20 plan improvements in the next three years, which indicates that some of those who are moderately s a t i s f i e d with the i r pre -sent supply a l so plan to upgrade the i r f a c i l i t i e s . 48 TABLE 16 Sa t i s f a c t i on with Water Supp l y—A l l Areas Very Sati s f i e d Moderately Not S a t i s f i e d S a t i s f i e d Tota 1 Respon-dents (%) Have made 1mprove-ments Wi l l make 1 improve-ments By hand 12 21 7 40(29) 7 20 Pumped from stream/lake 7 5 12( 9) 9 5 Pumped from we 11 12 8 20 (15 ) 14 6 Commun i ty supply 40 23 1 6 4 ( 4 7 ) 22 J_8 Tota 1 71 57 8 136 52 49 The two areas with a large proport ion of the i r owners having to fetch the i r water are Manning and Missezula (Table 1 7 ) . Yet the d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n rate for these areas is not apprec iab ly higher, and only at Missezula (the new area) are a majority of the owners intending to make improvements. Sewage Pisposa1 S i x t y - s i x (48%) of the respondents report having sept i c tanks, whi le 60 (44%) use outdoor p r i v i e s and 11 (8%) have chemical t o i l e t s (Table 1 8 ) . Of those using p r i v i e s , 16 (27%) are very s a t i s f i e d with them and 14 (23%) are d i s s a t i s f i e d . However, the degree to which owners are d i s s a t i s f i e d is open to quest ion, s ince only seven of those d i s s a t i s -f i e d with the i r present arrangements included sewage disposal among the 49 TABLE 17 Sa t i s f a c t i on with Water Supp l y -By Area A l l i s o n Hayes Manning Missezula By hand (percentage to ta l ) 4 (13) 12 (22) 14 (52) 10 (43) Pumped from stream/lake 1 ( 3) 9 (16) 2 ( 9) Pumped from we 11 - 7 (13) 13 (48) -Community supply 26 (84) 27. (49) U_ (48) Total respondents 31 55 27 23 Number who have improved the i r water supply (per-centage to ta l ) 10 (32) 26 (47) 12 (44) 5 (22) Number who plan improve-ments (percentage to ta l ) 7 (23) 21 (38) 6 (22) 16 (70) Sa t i s f a c t i on l e v e l : Very s a t i s f i e d 19 32 11 9 Moderately s a t i s f i e d 11 22 15 11 Not s a t i s f i e d 1 3 2 3 three problems they most want to see tackled in thei r cottage area (Table 19). F i f teen (54%) and 13 (57%) of the owners in the Manning and Missezula areas re spec t i ve ly and 27 (47%) of those in the Hayes va1 ley use p r i v i e s , a tota l of 55 for the three areas, and c l e a r l y most of them are reasonably content with th i s s i t ua t i on s ince only 16 expressed 50 TABLE 18 S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h Sewage D i s p o s a l System- -Al1 A r e a s Moder-Very a t e l y Not S a t i s f i e d S a t i s f i e d S a t i s f i e d T o t a l Respon-den t s Have made i mprove-ments W i l l ma ke i improve-ments Outdoor p r i v y 16 30 14 60(44) 8 26 Chemi ca1 T o i l e t 4 5 2 1 1 ( 8 ) 5 6 S e p t i c Tank 54 10 2 66(48) 34 _2 T o t a l 74 45 18 137 47 34 TABLE 19 S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h S e r v i c e s by Owners' P r i o r i t i e s f o r Improvements Number o f owners ex-p r e s s i n g High P r i o r i t y (1-2-3) f o r improve-ment ( Q u e s t i o n 16): Very S a t i s f i e d Moder-a t e l y S a t i s f i e d Not S a t i s f i ed Road s u r f a c e Road ( q u e s t i o n 24) 2 13 25 Water s u p p l y Water ( q u e s t i o n 26) 3 10 4 Sewage d i s p o s a l Sewage d i s p o s a l ( q u e s t i o n 28) 2 3 7 L a k e / r i v e r p o l l u t i o n Sewage d i s p o s a l 20 16 3 E l e c t r i c i t y E l e c t r i c a l s ystem ( q u e s t i o n 30) 1 11 23 51 d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n with the i r present arrangements (Table 20). As with water supply, only in the Missezula area are a majority of owners planning to make improvements. Thus i t would appear that r e l a t i v e l y few cottagers apprec iate the re la t ionsh ip between po l l u t i on of water bodies (which is a major concern to many of them) and sewage disposal arrangements. Indeed TABLE 20 Sa t i s f a c t i on with Sewage Disposal System--by Area A l l i s o n Hayes Manning Missezula (Percentage)  Outdoor pr ivy (% tota l ) 6 (19) 27 (47) 15 (54) 13 (57) Chemica1 t o i l e t 8 (14) 1 ( 4) 3 (13) Sept ic tank 25 (81) 22 (39) J_2 (43) _7 (30) Total respondents 11 57 28 23 Number who have improved the i r sewage disposal a r -rangements {% tota l ) 1 1 (35) 20 (35) 9 (32) 8 (35) Number who plan improve-ments (% tota l ) 3 (10) 13 (23) 7 (25) 12 (52) Sa t i s f a c t i on l e v e l : Very s a t i s f i e d 20 31 12 11 Moderately s a t i s f i e d 9 19 10 7 Not s a t i s f i e d 2 5 6 5 of the 39 respondents who included lake or r i ve r p o l l u t i o n among the three area problems they most wished to see tack led, the majority were very s a t i s f i e d with the i r sewage disposal arrangements and only three were d i s s a t i s f i e d (Table 19, p. 50). Perhaps many of them bel ieve that i f 52 the i r f a c i l i t i e s were approved by the Health Department there is no p o s s i b i l i t y of the i r contaminating the groundwater or lake water. E l e c t r i c i ty Only one of the four areas, the A l l i s o n v a l l e y , is served by hydro. As a r e su l t , 86 (62%) of the owners responding have no e l e c t r i c i t y at a l l , and 28 (20%) re ly on generators (Table 21). T h i r t y - f o u r (ko%) of TABLE 21 Sa t i s f a c t i on with E l e c t r i c a l System—By Area A l l i s o n Hayes Manning Missezula (Percentage)  Hydro 2k (80) Community generator 2 ( k) Own generator 13 (23) 10 (36) 3 (13) None _6 (20) kl (7k) J l (6k) 20 (87) Total respondents 30 57 28 23 Number who have improved the i r e l e c t r i c a l system 12 (ko) 10 (18) 7 (25) 1 m Number who plan improve-ments 2 ( 7) ]k (25) 6 (21) 8 (35) S a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l : Very s a t i s f i e d 22 2k 9 9 Moderately s a t i s f i e d 8 10 10 k Not s a t i s f i e d 1 13 8 6 53 those who have no e l e c t r i c i t y are very s a t i s f i e d and presumably want no change, while 20 (28%) are d i s s a t i s f i e d (Table 22). Twenty-seven (22%) of respondents intend to make improvements within the next three years. TABLE 22 S a t i s f a c t i o n with E l e c t r i c a l System—Al l Areas Very Sati s f i e d Moder-a te ly Sat i s f i ed Not S a t i s f i e d Tota l Respon-dents (%) Have made improve-ments Wi l l make improve-ments Hydro 18 6 - 24(20) 12 2 Communi ty generator 1 - 1 2( 2) 1 1 Own generator 10 9 7 26(21) 16 7 None .11 JL7 20 71(58) _]_ 27. Total 63 32 28 123 30 27 This contrasts with 43 who included e l e c t r i c i t y serv ice among the f i r s t three improvements they would l i ke to see made in the i r cottage area (Table 23), which suggests that perhaps more owners want e l e c t r i c i t y , but only i f i t is suppl ied by hydro rather than from a generator. To summarize, 96 (71%) of the cottagers responding have piped water, 66 (48%) have sept i c tanks and 52 (38%) have e l e c t r i c i t y . This may be compared with the United States where i t was found that 58% of l e i su re homes possessed ins ide running water and t o i l e t s and 91% had e l e c t r i c i t y (Second Homes in the United States, p. 3), and with the 5k TABLE 23 P r i o r i t i e s for Improvements—by Area Number of Respondents who ranked 1, 2 or 3 Al1 Areas Al1 i son Hayes Mann ing Mi ssezula Road surface qual i ty 51 k Ik 1 12 E l e c t r i c i t y servi ce k3 1 18 \k 10 Lake/r i ver pol1ut ion 39 k 28 k 3 Garbage disposal 38 13 13 5 7 1nsects 2k 3 9 3 9 Trespassing and vanda1i sm 18 2 8 3 5 Water supply 17 1 7 3 6 Noi se 12 6 5 - 1 Sewage disposal 12 - 1 8 3 Li t t e r 10 2 8 - -Lack of general store 10 k 2 3 1 Snow remova1 9 1 2 1 5 Other 12 5 1 k 2 Squami sh-L i1 looet region where k 7% had runn ing water, 27% had sept i c tanks and 3k% had e l e c t r i c i t y (P lo tn iko f f , p. 29). Thus the cottages in the Princeton region are in an intermediate pos i t i on between the r e l a t i v e l y low level of serv ices found in the Squamish-Li1looet area and those enjoyed by the average American cottager. 55 P r i o r i t i e s for Improvements in the Cottage Areas The act ions and perceptions of cottagers concerning the i r u t i l i t i e s and serv ices are general ly confirmed when seen within the broader context of problems or lack of amenities in the cottage area that they would l i ke to see tackled f i r s t (Table 23, p. 54). Road sur-face qua l i t y has the highest p r i o r i t y , almost e n t i r e l y due to the res -ponses of cottagers in the Hayes and Missezula areas. E l e c t r i c i t y s e r v i ce , lake or r i v e r p o l l u t i o n , and garbage disposal are the next most important concerns. Water supply is seventh on the l i s t , and sewage disposal shares eighth place with no i se. At the area l e v e l , d i f ferences in emphasis emerge. In the more highly-developed and - se rv i ced A l l i s o n v a l l e y , garbage disposal and then noise are the problems that most need a t t en t i on . A f ter e l e c t r i c i t y serv ice Manning owners s ing le out sewage d i sposa l , which is not su rpr i s ing in view of the problems the subd iv i s ion has been exper iencing with high water tables and the threat of f lood ing at f reshet time. COTTAGE USE AND ACTIVITY PATTERNS Having discussed the socio-economic t r a i t s of the cottage owners, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i r propert ies and the.serv ices they enjoy and des i re , the next step is to determine how in tens ive ly they use the i r cottages and what they do while they are in res idence. Cottage Use Cottagers were asked how many v i s i t s they make to the i r cottages each month and the percentage of those v i s i t s that are ju s t for the weekend. 56 Combined with data on the place of primary res idence, an accurate p i c ture can be obtained of the amount of highway t r a f f i c that is generated by cottagers t r a v e l l i n g to and from t h e i r cottages. This is p a r t i c u l a r l y important in the study area s ince a very high proport ion of the owners l i ve on the Lower Mainland and have no choice but to travel the Hope-Pr inceton highway across the Cascade Mountain range in order to reach the i r cottages. The percentage of weekend travel is c r i t i c a l , as i t is at these times that t r a f f i c volume reaches the peak for which the roads must be designed (Wolfe, 1967). As has already been noted, ]0k (7k%) of the respondents l i ve in the Greater Vancouver area or elsewhere on the Lower Mainland (Table 7, p. 39). These people account for J2>% of the tota l annual v i s i t s and 76% of the v i s i t s during May through August (Table 2k). Moreover, 59 (63%) of these same Lower Mainlanders make more than ha l f of t he i r summer v i s i t s ju s t for the weekend (Table 25), thereby adding to the peak t r a f -f i c vo1ume. Cottagers were a l so asked how many days they spend at the i r cottage in each month.. For the four study areas non-resident owners v i s i t the i r property for a to ta l of over 7,600 days in a year, an average of 3~k days per v i s i t (Table 26). The average length of v i s i t r i ses dur-ing the summer months, but nonetheless the pattern of occupancy is markedly peaked, a fact with important design impl icat ions for the pro-v i s i on of any pub l i c water or conventional sewerage system, s ince to funct ion e f f i c i e n t l y and with minimum repair costs these f a c i l i t i e s should not be subject to long periods of d i suse. 57 TABLE 24 Number of V i s i t s to Cottage per Month Total Lower Main land Month A l i i son Hayes Mann ing Mi ssezula Tota1 Res idents January 14 23 76 5 118 103 February 14 21 74 3 112 100 Ma rch 22 31 70 10 133 110 Ap r i 1 39 60 69 22 190 151 May 68 84 39 42 233 167 June 79 94 43 48 264 190 July 61 112 49 48 270 211 August 61 126 53 48 288 224 September 45 105 51 47 248 194 October 33 69 46 30 178 143 Novembe r 19 37 41 11 108 -84 Decembe r 13 20 63 5 101 82 Total 468 782 674 319 2,243 1,759 Summer Total Lower Mainland Total Residents 1,055 792 (76%) 58 TABLE 25 P e r c e n t a g e o f Weekend V i s i t s Number o f Respondents and P e r c e n t a g e May t h r o u g h August Rest o f Year  P l a c e o f permanent Lower Lower r e s i d e n c e : M a i n l a n d E l s e w h e r e T o t a l M a i n l a n d E l s e w h e r e T o t a l P e r c e n t a g e v i s i t s 0 - 2 5 26 - 50 51 - 75 76 -100 17 (18) 7 (28) 17 (18) 3 (12) 33 (35) 7 (28) 26 (28) 8 (32) 24 (20) 19 (24) 20 (17) 5 ( 6) 40 (34) 6 ( 8) 34 (29) 49 (62) 8 (44) 27 (28) 1 ( 6 ) 6 ( 6 ) 3 (17) 9 ( 9 ) 6 (33) 55 (57) TABLE 26 Owner-Days a t the C o t t a g e and Average Length o f V i s i t A l 1 i son Hayes Mann i ng Mi s s e z u l a T o t a l day day day day day Month days /av days /av. days /av. days / av. days /av. Janua ry 22 1 .6 49 2.1 172 2.3 12 2.4 255 2.2 F e b r u a r y 24 1.7 43 2.0 147 2.0 7 2.3 221 2.0 March 37 1.7 63 2.0 166 2.4 21 2.1 287 2.2 Apr i 1 120 3.0 142 2.4 169 2.4 57 2.6 488 2.6 May 204 3.0 268 3.2 91 2.3 106 2.5 669 2.5 June 245 3.1 313 3-3 95 2.2 165 3.4 818 3.4 J u l y 433 7.1 592 5.3 198 4.0 278 6.0 1,501 6.0 August 412 6.8 659 5.2 220 4.2 302 6.3 1,593 6.3 September 187 4.2 333 3.2 117 2.3 132 2.8 769 2.8 O c t o b e r 105 3.2 183 2.7 95 2.1 88 2.9 471 2.9 November 34 1.8 99 2.7 87 2.1 34 3.1 254 3.1 December 24 1.8 55 2.7 206 3-3 25 5.0 310 5.0 T o t a l 1,847 3.9 2,799 3.6 1,763 2.6 1 ,227 3.8 7,636 3-4 59 A s t u d y o f t h e days s p e n t a t t h e c o t t a g e and t h e a v e r a g e l e n g t h o f v i s i t r e v e a l s i m p o r t a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between s e a s o n s and between t h e f o u r a r e a s . In a l l a r e a s o c c u p a n c y peaks d u r i n g J u l y and A u g u s t , b u t M a n n i n g has a s e c o n d a r y peak p e r i o d t h r o u g h o u t the s k i i n g s e a s o n from December u n t i l A p r i l . V i s i t s to A l l i s o n and M i s s e z u l a i n J u l y and A u g u s t a p p e a r t o be s i i g h t l y l o n g e r than t h o s e to o t h e r a r e a s and p r o b a b l y r e -f l e c t t h e l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n o f owners who c u s t o m a r i l y v a c a t i o n a t t h e i r c o t t a g e s ( T a b l e 27). A v e r a g e s , o f c o u r s e , o b s c u r e v a r i a t i o n s , and i t i s TABLE 27 Owners who V a c a t i o n a t T h e i r C o t t a g e s T o t a l Number o f C o t t a g e A r e a  R e s p o n d e n t s {%) A l l i s o n Hayes Manning M i s s e z u l a A l w a y s 39 (29) 10 (33) 17 (3D. 4 (15) 8 (36) Usua 1 l y 50 (37) 15 (50) 21 (38) 2 ( 7) 12 (54) Somet i mes 41 (3D 5 (17) 15 (27) 19 (70) 2 ( 9) N e v e r 4 ( 3) _- _2 ( 4) _2 ( 7) T o t a 1 134 30 55 27 22 c l e a r from the a c t u a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e r e s p o n s e s t h a t c o t t a g e o c c u p a n c y i s even more p e a k e d . F o r e x a m p l e , from A p r i 1 t h r o u g h O c t o b e r one o r more c o t t a g e owners s p e n d a t l e a s t one c a l e n d a r month a t t h e c o t t a g e ; w h i l e d u r i n g t h e same months some owners do n o t use t h e i r c o t t a g e s a t a l l ( T a b l e 2 8 ) . 60 TABLE 28 Owner Occupancy Apr i l Through October A p r i l May June July August Sept. Oct. Number of owners at cottage the whole month 1 4 6 12 11 1 1 Number of owners not using cottage during month 36 14 12 5 2 6 23 A c t i v i ty Patterns Tables 29 and 30 show the frequency of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in outdoor a c t i v i t i e s . During the summer, of the water-based a c t i v i t i e s , f i sh ing and swimming are far and away the most popular, with canoeing, power boat ing, water sk i i ng and s a i l i n g undertaken to a lesser extent. Walking for p leasure, h ik ing and photography are the leading land-based a c t i v i t i e s , fol lowed by nature study, mountain cl imbing and p i c n i c k i n g . These f i n d -ings broadly co inc ide with those of P l o tn i ko f f in the Squamish-Li1looet region (P lo tn iko f f , p. 4 l ) . They should be q u a l i f i e d , however, in that they are the a c t i v i t y patterns of the respondent and may not be completely representat ive of other members of the fami ly. Nevertheless, i t can be sa id that summer cottaging is c l e a r l y associated with aquatic forms of rec rea t ion , at least within th is study area. It is important, then, that one of the prime resources that a t t r ac t people to the reg ion—the lakes and r i v e r s — s h o u l d not be permitted to deter iora te in q u a l i t y . In other seasons of the year, walking and f i s h i ng are s t i l l the most popular a c t i v i t i e s for cottagers , as well as the winter sports of TABLE 29 Cottager Ac t i v i t i e s - -May Through August Al 1 Areas Responden ts p a r t i c i pating by . Total respondents Cottage Area once in p a r t i c i p a t i n g (131) at least several once once 3 weeks (percentage respon-once t i mes a in 2 or less dents answering a day a week week weeks frequently question) A l i i son Hayes Manning Missezi F i sh ing 59 27 13 3 12 1 ]k (87) 27 46 19 22 Walking for pleasure 63 28 11 k 2 108 (82) 21 44 22 21 Swimmi ng 49 24 9 1 10 93 (71) 23 36 15 19 Hiking 16 23 20 k 15 78 (60) 13 28 19 18 Photography 12 16 16 6 12 62 (k7) 13 21 11 17 Nature study 20 ]k 3 1 3 k] (3D 6 15 7 13 Canoei ng 14 8 k 2 10 38 (29) 7 14 12 5 Mountain cl imbi ng 5 7 8 9 33 (25) 8 14 4 7 P icn i cki ng 3 7 7 8 29 (22) 3 7 12 7 Power boating 11 12 - - 2 25 ; (T9) 3 12 - 10 Water ski ing 6 5 1 - 6 18 (14) 13 4 - 1 Sa i 1 i ng 8 1 1 1 6 17 (13) k 12 - 1 TABLE 30 Cottager A c t i v i t i e s — F a l l , Winter and Spring A l l Areas Respondents p a r t i c i p a t i n g by Cottage Area at least once a day severa1 times a week once a week once in 2 weeks once in 3 weeks or less frequently Total respondents p a r t i c i p a t i n g (101) (percentage respon-dents answering ques t i on) A l1 i son Hayes Mann i ng Mi ssezula Walking for p leasure 23 8 4 2 1 38 (38) 13 10 10 Fi shing 23 6 1 2 4 36 (36) 10 14 2 10 Ski i ng 13 8 5 1 6 33 (33) 4 3 24 2 Ice f i sh ing 14 3 4 1 9 31 (3D 6 16 1 8 Skat i ng 7 5 4 1 10 27 (27) 5 6 12 4 Hi ki ng 7 4 5 4 7 27 (27) 4 9 5 9 . Photography 6 8 6 1 5 26 (26) 3 8 6 9 Hunt i ng 8 3 1 2 9 23 (23) 4 12 3 4 Snomobi1i ng 7 3 3 - 5 18 (18) 2 10 3 3 Nature study 9 4 1 - 3 17 (17) 4 6 2 5 Snowshoe i ng 4 0 4 1 7 16 (16) 2 6 6 2 ON ho 63 s k i i n g , i ce f i sh ing and skat ing. Undoubtedly sk i ing is the raison d ' e t re for the Manning development in winter. REASONS FOR OWNERSHIP The reasons an owner has for going to his cottage have an impor-tant bearing on what he does at the cottage and how he regards the cottage area and i t s problems. For example, i f he goes p r imar i l y for the benef i t of the ch i ldren or i f the family are avid outdoorspeop1e i t w i l l not matter i f neighbours are much in evidence. In fact such c lose proximity may be welcomed and even viewed as an es sent ia l part of enjoying the cottage. On the other hand, i f the owner seeks pr ivacy or peace and quiet his to lerance of others w i l l be very d i f f e r e n t and his concern for e n v i r -onmental qua l i t y and high level serv ices may be much greater . In the Pr inceton region the respondents want peace and qu ie t , a change from everyday l i f e , and an opportunity to re lax in about equal measure, with s l i g h t l y fewer interested in outdoor a c t i v i t i e s (Table 3 0 • Respondents in each of the four areas expressed the same des i res , with minor va r i a t i on s in the degree of emphasis. Manning owners are e s p e c i a l l y a c t i v i t y - o r i e n t e d , while those in the Missezula area place the benef i t s to the i r ch i ld ren ahead of outdoor a c t i v i t i e s . The respondents were emphatic as to how they view the i r property: overwhelmingly as a place for seasonal recreat ion (Table 32). However, 16 owners ranked eventual year-round residence f i r s t and a fur ther 23 placed i t second. These responses came from a l l four cottage areas, and i f the owners do in fact convert the i r cottages into permanent homes the 64 TABLE 31 Reasons for Going to the Cottage Number of Respondents who ranked Reason 1 or 2 Reason Al1 areas A l i i son Hayes Mann ing Mi ssezula Peace and quiet 59 10 30 9 10 Change from every-day 1 i f e 56 12 25 9 10 Relaxation 50 13 22 8 7 Outdoor a c t i v i t i e s 43 11 11 16 5 Pr i vacy 19 6 10 2 1 Good for ch i1dren 19 3 5 4 7 Rough i t 15 2 7 3 3 TABLE 32 How Owners View Their Property Number of Respondents Ranking 1 or 2 Al 1 areas A l i i son Hayes Mann i ng Mi ssezula Place for seasonal recreat ion 118 27 46 25 20 Eventual year-round residence 39 7 15 9 8 1nvestment 21 - 12 2 7 Other 4 1 3 - -65 impl icat ions for the areas w i l l be f a r - reach ing . Instead of having jus t one or two permanent residents in each area there w i l l be the nucleus of a new year-round sett lement. Cottages with rudimentary sanitary and other serv ices may be pe r fec t l y acceptable when they are used only i n t e r -m i t ten t l y . But i f the owner decides to l i v e in his cottage year-round he normally wants to improve his f a c i l i t i e s , to have an assured water supply and a r e l i a b l e sewage disposal system, to be connected to hydro and to be able to dr ive to the nearest town on an a l l -weather road. Thus the demand for these serv ices is l i k e l y to increase as permanent residence grows. PERCEPTIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Cottage owners were asked how a t t r a c t i v e they found the natural features of the i r cottage areas. Not su rp r i s i ng l y the vast majority f e l t they were a t t r a c t i v e or very a t t r a c t i v e , although a few (a l l in the Hayes va l ley) expressed reservat ions about the lakes (Table 33). These reservat ions were confirmed by the responses to the question about changes in environmental q u a l i t i e s (Table 3*0. Twenty-seven out of 52 respondents from the Hayes v a l l e y bel ieved that the qua l i t y of the lake water had dec l ined s ince they acquired the i r property. Indeed owners from a l l areas think that water qua l i t y has de te r io ra ted . In view of th is perception and the a t t r a c t i o n the reg ion ' s lakes and streams ev ident ly hold for v i s i t o r s , preservat ion of water qua l i t y should be a matter of the highest p r i o r i t y . 66 TABLE 33 P e r c e p t i o n s o f Natura1 F e a t u r e s Ve ry A t t r a c t i / A t t r a c t ve i v e O r d i n a r y Not v e r y a t t r a c t i v e / u n a t t r a c t i ve A l l A r e a s : F o r e s t s 111 13 -Mountains 110 \k 3 Lakes S Streams 111 12 5 Views 92 14 1 A l i i son: F o r e s t s 2k 3 -Mountains 23 2 2 Lakes £ Streams 27 2 -Vi ews 16 5 -Hayes: Fores t s ko 9 -Mounta i n s k] 8 1 Lakes S Streams 38 8 5 V i ews 33 7 1 Mann i n g : F o r e s t s 26 - -Mountains 25 2 -Lakes 6 Streams 2k 2 -Views 25 1 -Mi s s e z u l a : F o r e s t s 21 1 -Mounta i n s 21 2 -Lakes & Streams 22 - -Views 18 1 -67 TABLE 34 Perceptions of Environmental Change '1; Much improved 2 Improved a l i t t l e 3 Rema i ned the same 4 Declined a l i t t l e 5 Decli ned a lot Water Quali ty Al1 areas 7 14 59 32 12 A l i i son 2 5 14 5 -Hayes 5 9 11 18 9 Mann ing - - 14 7 3 Missezula - - 20 2 -Ai r Quali ty Al1 areas - 1 111 4 -Al1 ison - 1 22 1 -Hayes - - 44 2 -Mann i ng - - 23 1 -Mi ssezula - - 22 - -Quali ty of View Al1 a reas 4 6 96 11 1 A l i i son - 1 22 2 -Hayes 1 2 39 4 -Mann i ng - 1 18 5 1 Mi ssezula 3 2 17 - -68 Respondents had a good deal to say about r i s i n g noise l eve l s . Eighty-one (67%) indicated a dec l ine in the peace and quiet of the i r area (Table 35), and one should not be surpr i sed at co t tagers ' s e n s i t i -v i t y to th i s issue s ince peace and qu iet is a major reason for coming TABLE 35 Perceptions of Change in Peace and Quiet 1 2 3 k 5 Much improved Remained Declined Declined improved a l i t t l e the : same a l i t t l e a lot Al1 Areas - 1 39 ks 32 Al 1i son - 1 6 1 1 8 Hayes - - 15 17 16 Mann ing - - 6 ]k 6 Mi s sezu la - - - 12 7 2 Source of Noi se - - Frequency Speci f i ed Power Trai 1 Other Gener- Snow-boats b i kes People Traf f i c ators mobiles Al1 areas 2k 23 17 12 9 3 A l i i son 13 9 1 : 3 - -Hayes 10 7 11 2 5 -Mann ing - 3 k 7 3 3 Mi ssezula 1 k 1 - 1 , -to the cottage. This is an area where local governments and recreat ion planners, in p a r t i c u l a r , could bring about improvements. Power boats are the major source of aggravation, e spec i a l l y in the A l l i s o n and Hayes v a l l e y s , and several respondents urged that a l im i t be placed on the s i ze of the motor permitted on what are r e l a t i v e l y small lakes. Another approach would be to d iv ide lake surfaces into zones so as to separate c o n f l i c t i n g aquat ic uses, such as swimming and water - sk i ing , and to reduce speed boat noise c lose to the shore l ine . Such zoning is s p e c i -f i c a l l y author ized in the B.C. Municipal Act (s.702 (b ) ) . Where the lakes are smal l , zoning may be impract icable or i n e f f e c t i v e , in which case reserving lakes for p a r t i c u l a r recreat ion uses may be the only a l t e r n a t i v e . T r a i l bikes were a l so f requent ly c i t ed as an i r r i t a n t . Their use could perhaps be con t ro l l ed by local by-law, preferab ly combined with prov is ion of a t r a i l - b i k i n g course at some locat ion where the noise would not be bothersome to non-par t i c ipant s . To the extent that "other people, " c i t e d as a source of noise, re fer to campers and day - t r ipper s , carefu l planning of pub l i c recreat ion areas to ensure an adequate buffer between them and cottage areas would appear to o f f e r the most p r a c t i c a l s o lu t i on . In fact such a buffer would be even more necessary i f the roads into the Hayes and Missezula va l leys were to be upgraded. Improved access is bound to increase the number of campers using the areas and thus the potent ia l for c o n f l i c t with the in teres t s of cottagers , a point that very few respondents appear to have considered in expressing the i r preference for better roads. S a t i s f a c t i on with the Degree of Development It w i l l be reca l l ed that the median lot s i ze in the study area is between one-quarter and one-hal f acre . From responses to the question on degree of development, then, i t appears that 108 (78%) of the cottage 70 owners are s a t i s f i e d with th i s level of density (Table 36). This compares with 88% who were content with a density of approximately one cottage per developed acre in the Squamish-Li1looet region (P l o tn i ko f f , p. 51). The point of th is comparison is not that one-tenth fewer cottagers in the Pr inceton region are happy with present dens i t i e s , but rather that broadly s im i l a r proport ions of owners can be s a t i s f i e d with very d i f f e r e n t leve l s of dens i ty. - Ev iden t l y , each group f inds what i t wants, not only in quite d i f f e r e n t phys ica l locat ions but at quite d i f f e r e n t cottage dens i t i e s . TABLE 36 Perceived Density of Cottage Area Al1 areas (%) Al 1 i son Hayes Manning Mi ssezula Underdeveloped 3 ( 2) - - 1 ( 3) 2 ( 9) About r ight 108 (78) 28 (88) 39 (71) 22 (76) 19 (83) Overdeveloped 28 (20) J t (12) J6 (29) _6 (21) _2 ( 9) Total 139 32 55 29 23 In view of th is conclus ion i t comes as no surpr i se that 103 (76%) cottage owners are as s a t i s f i e d or more s a t i s f i e d with the i r cottage area as they were when they f i r s t acquired the i r property (Table 37). The two northern areas, A l l i s o n and Missezula, seem to produce a higher level of contentment, while cottagers in the Hayes and Manning areas who ex-press themselves less s a t i s f i e d p r imar i l y appear to be responding to the i n te r re l a ted problems of overcrowding-arid-water p o l l u t i o n . Table 1 3 8 71 includes a se lec t i on of the reasons c i t ed for being more, or les s , s a t i s f i e d . TABLE 37 Degree of Sa t i s f ac t i on with Cottage Area Al 1 areas Al 1 i son Hayes Manning Mi ssezula More s a t i s f i e d 26 (19) 6 (21) 11 (19) - 9 (39) About the same 77 (57) 18 (62) 27 (47) 18 (67) 14 (61) Less s a t i s f i e d 33 (24) _5 (17) 19 (33) _3 (33) Total 136 29 57 27 23 SUMMARY In th is chapter the responses to the quest ionnaire have been examined and the more important d i f ferences between the four cottage areas d i scussed. It was shown that cottage owners come from a wide range of occupational backgrounds, income leve l s and age groups and that large-scale cottaging in the study area is a comparatively recent development. In general , modest l i v i n g accommodations and leve l s of serv ices were found to be acceptable, although considerable importance was attached to the prov i s ion of good access roads and hydro, and an improvement in the qua l i t y of recreat iona l waters. Cottages are used much more in tens ive ly in summer, and the prevalence of weekend v i s i t s by many owners c l e a r l y contr ibutes to the t r a f f i c problems associated with summer weekend travel between Vancouver and the B r i t i s h Columbia I n te r io r . TABLE 38 Owners' Reasons for Being More/Less S a t i s f i e d 7 2 with Their Cottage Area More S a t i s f i e d - The f i sh ing is bet ter ; the lake has been restocked with trout. - I know more of the area; i t grows on you. - I feel so rested and good when I spend a weekend away from the c i t y . - The serv ices are improved. We have a good water system, e l e c t r i c i t y . - The road is improved. - Rumour of e l e c t r i c i t y coming. - We now r e a l i s e we have a place that won't be spo i led by people for many, many years. - Our area has remained unpopulated compared with other areas. - More enjoyment now i t ' s developed the way I want i t . - Homes and cabins are being b u i l t . - Area has been cleaned up and made more a t t r a c t i v e . - Pr ivacy - More summer t r a f f i c , but s t i l l quiet and enjoyable in spr ing and f a l l . - New fr iends from neighbours and guests. - A place to have fr iends and re lax. - Older now and appreciate i t more. - Can get more out of the property now. - Telephone. Less S a t i s f i e d - Too many bu i ld ings in the area. No contro l on housing development. - Don't l i ke cottages that spo i l the view. - Lots too sma11. - Too many lots being subdivided, therefore overcrowding in future years. - Too many people. - Gett ing too crowded. - Neighbours. - Permission was given to a Society to bu i ld a ho s te l , c reat ing a con-f l i c t with those who bought property for sec lus ion and f ind a lot of people around who trespass. - Lake has a ser ious algae problem which requires government help. - Can't swim because of the a lgae. - More weekend campers staying who have l i t t l e or no respect for the area as they have no f i n a n c i a l in teres t in i t . - Pub l i c campsite is source of vandalism, p o l l u t i o n , heavy t r a f f i c through pr ivate property, debris a f t e r the weekend. - Moose, deer and beaver that used to be round my home are a l l gone. - Road has never been looked a f t e r , graded, e t c . Needs o i l i n g to keep down the dust. - Too much noise: power boats, motorcycles, generators, min i -b ike speed-way, t r a i l b i k e s , snowmobiles. Loud music, even power mowers! - Less freedom. - Too many dogs. - Too much departmental red tape re sept i c tanks and bu i ld ing permits Sept ic tank permit cancel led without good reason. - Increased taxes without se rv i ce . - Loss of pr ivacy . - O i l p o l l u t i o n from over - s i zed boat engines. - Extensive f lood ing and eros ion of r i v e r bank. 73 The returns demonstrated that owners go to t h e i r cottages p r i -mari ly to re lax , to enjoy the rural t r a n q u i l l i t y as a change from every-day l i f e , and to engage in recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s . Respondents were genera l ly s a t i s f i e d with the density of the cottage development around them even though many of them expressed concern about de te r io ra t ing water qua l i t y and r i s i n g noise l eve l s . F i n a l l y , more than one-quarter of the owners—drawn from a l l cottage areas—view the i r property as an eventual retirement home, a f ind ing with impl icat ions for regional po l i cy makers. CHAPTER IV EXAMINATION OF THE HYPOTHESES In the p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r i t was no ted t h a t 75 (55%) o f the c o t t a g e p r o p e r t i e s i n the s t udy a r e a had been owned f o r f i v e y e a r s o r l e s s compared w i t h 31 (23%) p u r c h a s e d i n the p r e v i o u s f i v e y e a r s and 22 (16%) i n the f i v e y e a r s p r i o r t o t h a t ( T a b l e 9, p. 40) . I f p r o p e r t y owners who c u r -r e n t l y have no c o t t a g e on t h e i r l a n d a r e i n c l u d e d (42 o r 88% o f whom bought t h e i r p r o p e r t y i n the p a s t f i v e y e a r s ) , i t i s v e r y e v i d e n t t h a t c o t t a g e o w n e r s h i p in t h e s e f o u r c o t t a g e a r e a s i s g a t h e r i n g momentum. Put a n o t h e r way, l and f o r c o t t a g e s i s b e i n g s u b d i v i d e d , s o l d and b u i l t upon a t an i n c r e a s i n g r a t e . Thus the impact upon the n a t u r a l e n v i r o n -ment i s t h a t much more i m m e d i a t e . THE HYPOTHESES RESTATED I t has been shown t h a t c o t t a g e r s d i f f e r w i d e l y in t he e x t e n t t o w h i c h they use t h e i r p r o p e r t y , the a c t i v i t i e s they u n d e r t a k e a t t h e i r c o t t a g e s and the l e v e l o f s e r v i c e s they d e s i r e . I t i s t he pu rpo se o f t he h ypo the se s t o d i s c o v e r and examine any p a t t e r n s t h a t may u n d e r l i e t h e s e g e n e r a l o b s e r v a t i o n s . A r e new c o t t a g e owners s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r -e n t f rom t ho se who bought t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s a decade o r more ago? Are t h e r e p a t t e r n s t o the i n t e n s i t y w i t h w h i c h d e f i n a b l e g roups o f owners use t h e i r c o t t a g e s ? Do t h e s e g roups engage i n s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s , and have t h e y s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s towards s e r v i c e s t h a t m i gh t be o f g e n e r a l a p p l i c a t i o n 74 75 and could be used for po l i c y determination elsewhere? These are some of the questions behind the hypotheses. The three hypotheses out l ined in Chapter II were as fo l lows: 1. that the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of cottagers have changed over time, 2. that there is a re l a t i onsh ip between the age, income and occupation of cottage owners and (a) the number of days they spend at the i r cottages, and (b) the recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s they undertake while at the cottage. 3. that there is a re l a t i onsh ip between the age, income and occupation of cottage owners and the level of serv ices they des i re. In the d iscuss ion that fo l lows, the Chi Square test has been used, where appropr iate, to test the r e a l i t y of the re la t ionsh ips being hypothesized. In these cases the nul l hypothesis has been that there is no a s soc ia t ion between the var iab les being tes ted. CHANGES IN COTTAGE OWNER CHARACTERISTICS The f i r s t hypothesis was tested by measuring responses to the ques-t ion regarding length of property ownership (question 19) against the age, Occupation and highest" level of education of respondents. No f i rm conc lu -sions can be drawn from the tabulat ions for age (Appendix I I I, Table k], p. I l l ) or education (Table h3, p. 113) : s ince the probabi1 i ty "of these frequency d i s t r i b u t ions•occurring byochance is .22 and ^35 re spec t i ve l y . Thus, although 76 i t would appear that cottagers are acqu i r ing the i r propert ies both at an e a r l i e r and at a l a te r age and that more recent purchasers are f r a c t i o n a l l y better educated, these conclusions should be discounted. With respect to occupational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , however, the f ind ings are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (Table hi, p. 112), i nd ica t ing a progress ive d i v e r s i f i c a t i o n in the occupations of cottage owners. Those who have owned the i r propert ies longest are r e t i r ed or employed in the profess ions or t ransportat ion and communications. About ten years ago those in managerial, technica l and trade occupations began to acquire cottage property, and more recent ly they have been jo ined by sales people and those in other occupat ions. A comparison of cottager occupations with those of household heads in B r i t i s h Columbia shows that cottage owners in the study area are becoming more representat ive of the populat ion at large. The cottager/prov ince r a t i o s " ind icate that the managerial and profess iona l occupations are s t i l l over-represented among owners who acquired the i r property in the past e ight years, but the degree of overrepresentat ion is less than among owners of nine years or more. On the other hand, the technical and trade and sales occupations are much better represented among recent purchasers; indeed, in the past e ight years a higher proport ion The ra t ios for each occupational category have been obtained by using the equat ion: Percentage cottage owners  Percentage household heads in B.C. according to the 1971 census The author had intended to use the 1961 census data for comparison with the e a r l i e r group of cottage purchasers. However, extensive changes by S t a t i s t i c s Canada in the d e f i n i t i o n of occupational groupings between the 1961 and 1971 censuses would render such a comparison meaningless. 77 of buyers have been in technica l and trade occupations than the propor-t ion of household heads in those occupations throughout the province. It is perhaps no accident that these four occupational groupings— managerial, p ro fe s s i ona l , technica l and trade, and sa les—head the l i s t of groups in B r i t i s h Columbia in terms of median income during 1970 (Table 39). TABLE 39 Median Income for Occupational Groupings in B r i t i s h Columbia, 1970* 1 Median Occupational Groupings Income A l l occupations $ 6,850 Managerial 11,178 Profess ional 8,543 Sales 7,235 Technical and Trade 7,144 Processing 6,771 C l e r i c a l 6,517 Forestry, Mining, F ish ing & Hunting 6,473 Services 5,434 Farming 2,559 * Male workers on ly. Source: S t a t i s t i c s developed from raw data in 1971 Census of Canada, 1ncomes'of'I rid? vidua 1s. Catalogues 94-766, March 1975, pp. 17-139 on. 78 Unfortunately comparable data for a more recent period is not ava i l ab le so that no assessment is poss ib le of r e l a t i v e changes in earnings. There are many poss ib le reasons for the occupational d i v e r s i f i -cat ion that has occurred in recent years, some of which were discussed in Chapter 1. But perhaps the over r id ing reason is the steady increase in real incomes that most segments of the populat ion have experienced in the past twenty-f ive y e a r s — a t least up un t i l 1973 --which has brought cottage ownership with in the means of a wider range of occupational groups. There is evidence to suggest that, despite increases in the cost of l i v i n g , d i s c re t ionary income has grown more rap id ly in the ea r l y 19701s than in the 1960 1s, and i t may well be that the recent growth in the a c q u i s i t i o n of cottages is re la ted to th i s f a c t . In B r i t i s h Columbia, for example, between 1960 and 1970, average weekly wages and sa l a r ie s rose by 65% while in the same period the Consumer Pr ice Index rose only 30% (Table 40). However, between 1970 and 1974 average weekly earnings TABLE 40 Comparison of Average Weekly Wages and Sa lar ies and Consumer Pr ice Index in B.C., 1961-74 January, I96I 1970 November 1974 (prel iminary f igures) Average Weekly Wages & Sa la r ie s in do l l a r s $ 83.83 $ 137.97 $ 214.69 Average Weekly Wages & Sa la r ie s expressed as an Index (Jan. 1961=100) 100.00 164.60 256.10 Consumer Pr ice Index (1961=100) 100.00 129.7 174.10 Source: Canadian S t a t i s t i c a l Review, Jan. .1962, p. 19, Oct. 1972, p. 50, March 1975, p. 55, (Catalogue No. 11-003). 79 increased 56% while the Consumer Pr ice Index rose 3^ %. Not everyone, of course, is sharing to the same extent in this increase in d i s c re t ionary income, e s p e c i a l l y as the amount ava i l ab le to the wage earner large ly depends on the stage he or she has reached in the l i f e cyc le . But i t seems l i k e l y that those who are bene f i t t i ng in f u l l measure are the people in labour unions and in s k i l l e d trades. These groups appear to be swel l ing the ranks of cottage owners, and as the i r real income may s t i l l be r i s i n g while that of others may be d e c l i n i n g , th is trend could become more pronounced. In summary, these f ind ings uphold the f i r s t hypothesis by demon-s t r a t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t occupational changes, but f a i l to do so with respect to the age and educational attainment of cottage owners. If i t can be shown that p a r t i c u l a r occupational g roups—espec i a l l y those that were formerly underrepresented--have s im i l a r patterns of occupancy, rec rea -t iona l preferences or des i res for se rv i ces , then planners w i l l be in a better pos i t i on to pred ict future cottaging trends, assuming these patterns do not change very much over time. The next hypothesis examines the f i r s t two of these p o s s i b i l i t i e s . INTENSITY OF COTTAGE USE AND RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY PATTERNS Given the changes that are occurr ing in the cottager populat ion, do pa r t i cu l a r groups of cottage owners use the i r cottages more in tens ive ly than others and as a resu l t have more impact on the cottage area? This question is addressed in the second hypothesis: oO - that there is a re l a t ionsh ip between the age, income and occupation of cottage owners and (a) the number of days they spend at the i r cottages, and (b) the recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s they undertake while at the cottage. Intensity of Cottage Use The f i r s t part of the hypothesis was tested by measuring responses to the question on the number of days spent at the cottage each month (question 12) against the age, income and occupation of cottage owners, aggregating the resu l t s and c a l c u l a t i n g the average occupancy per month on a seasonal basis (Appendix III, Tables 44, 45, and 46 (pp. 113 & 114). The f indings suggest important c o r r e l a t i o n s . It is apparent, for example, that there is a d i r ec t re l a t ionsh ip between age and cottage use during the summer: owners 55 and over average almost eleven days at the cottage, whereas the average for those under 35 is 7-1/2 days (Table 44). During the remainder of the year occupancy averages about 3 days a month regard-less of age. On the other hand, there appears to be an inverse re la t ionsh ip between income and summer cottage use: cottagers with family income be-low $10,000 average twice as many days at the i r cottage from May to August as the ir more a f f l uen t neighbours (Table 45), which suggests that the l a t t e r have less l e i su re time and/or more a l t e rna t i ve s to choose from. Again, there is no 0 apprec iab le d i f ference between the groups during the remaining e ight months. 81 The key to th i s pattern may l i e in the co r re l a t i on s according to occupation (Table 46), which show that cottages are used most in ten-s i ve l y in summer by owners who are r e t i r e d . On the average, r e t i r ed cottagers spend ha l f of each summer month at the i r cottages; those in the profess ions average 10-1/2 days a month, sales people about 9 days— the overa l l average--and those in technical and trade occupations jus t over 8 days. Managers and owners in t ransportat ion and communications and "o ther " occupations use t h e i r cottages rather less i n tens i ve ly . Outside the summer months the d i f ferences in occupancy rates are less pronounced. In short, these f indings support the f i r s t part of the second hypothesis by e s tab l i sh ing a l ink between the var iab les of age, income and occupation and the amount of use owners make of the i r cottages. Recreational A c t i v i t y Patterns To determine the degree to which p a r t i c u l a r groups of cottage owners pa r t i c i pa te in outdoor recrea t ion , the summer and non-summer a c t i v i t i e s (question 17) were cross - tabu la ted with age, income and occu-pations of respondents (Appendix III, Tables 47, 48, 49 (pp. 115 & 116). According to Table 47, the youngest group appears to be more ac t i ve genera l ly , although there are proport ionate ly as many in the middle age group who take part in winter sports . As one might expect, apart from being less ac t i ve o v e r a l l , those over 55 p a r t i c i p a t e less in sports i n -vo lv ing physical exert ion such as canoeing, water sk i ing and h ik ing . Canoeing and h ik ing , together with photography are the exceptions to the general pattern that p a r t i c i p a t i o n in summer a c t i v i t i e s increases 82 w i t h f a m i l y income ( T a b l e 4 8 ) . In o t h e r seasons the m i d d l e income group appears t o be more a c t i v e , a p a r t from in w i n t e r s p o r t s w h i c h a t t r a c t a somewhat l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n o f h i g h income owners. These same h i g h i n -come pe o p l e seem to p a r t i c i p a t e i n t e c h n o l o g i c a l l y - d e p e n d e n t and e x p e n s i v e a c t i v i t i e s such as p o w e r b o a t i n g , s n o w m o b i l i n g and s k i i n g t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than the m i d d l e - and lower-income owners. T a b l e 49 r e v e a l s no s t r i k i n g d i f f e r e n c e s between degrees o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o o c c u p a t i o n , e x c e p t perhaps that.owners i n the p r o f e s s i o n s and i n s a l e s tend t o be more a c t i v e and c o n f i r m a t i o n t h a t r e t i r e d p e o p l e a r e g e n e r a l l y l e s s a c t i v e . Canoeing seems to be e s p e c i a l l y p o p u l a r w i t h owners i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and t e c h n i c a l and t r a d e o c c u p a t i o n s , and p h o t o graphy w i t h p r o f e s s i o n a l and s a l e s p e o p l e . In summary, the second p a r t o f the second h y p o t h e s i s , c o n c e r n i n g a c t i v i t y p a t t e r n s , i s p a r t i a l l y s u p p o r t e d by the e v i d e n c e , t o the e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e i s a c l e a r i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between age and r e c r e a t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , and a g e n e r a l l y d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n summer a c t i v i t i e s . THE DEMAND FOR SERVICES I t has been shown t h a t the o c c u p a t i o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f c o t t a g e owners have broadened i n r e c e n t y e a r s and t h a t c e r t a i n groups tend t o use t h e i r c o t t a g e s and engage i n r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s more tha n o t h e r s . A r e s i m i l a r p a t t e r n s d i s c e r n i b l e w i t h r e s p e c t t o the d e s i r e f o r s e r v i c e s ? T h i s i s the c r u x o f the t h i r d h y p o t h e s i s : - t h a t t h e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the age, income and occu p a -t i o n o f c o t t a g e owners and the l e v e l o f s e r v i c e s they d e s i r e . 83 In order to obtain a measure of the des ire for a pa r t i cu l a r serv ice the responses to the questions on water, sewage d i sposa l , e l e c t r i c i t y and plans to improve these services (questions 25, 27, 29 and 32) were cross - tabulated with the age, income and occupations of respondents (Appendix III, Tables 50 through 58 (pp. 117-119). It is noteworthy that in no case is the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n s i g n i f i c a n t at the .05 level of p r o b a b i l i t y . Certain trends are apparent, but they should be interpreted with extreme caut ion. For example in Table 51, a higher percentage of respondents in the o ldest age group have sept i c tanks; the converse is observable for the middle and youngest age groups. In Table 53, the lowest income group has a larger percentage connected to community water. The same r e l a t i o n -ship occurs with respect to sept i c tanks and serv ice by hydro in Tables 54 and 55, which suggests that there may be a number of r e t i r ed people in th is category who equipped the i r cottages p r i o r to retirement when they were in a higher income bracket. This would be cons is tent with the f ind ings in Tables 50 and 52, and would seem to be corroborated by the s t a t i s t i c s on leve ls of serv ice measured against occupation (Tables, 56, 57 and 58). SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In th i s chapter the hypotheses have been examined against a back-ground of increasing a c t i v i t y in land subdiv i s ion and cottage construct ion with in the study area. It was shown that the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s -t i c s of cottage owners have changed in the past decade, in pa r t i cu l a r with 84 respect to the occupational mix. Before 1964, most owners appear to have been in the profess ions , t ransportat ion or employed in a managerial capac i ty . More recent ly , many people in technica l and trade occupations have become owners as well as some sales persons, labourers and people in farming and f o re s t r y , so that the cottager population now more nearly represents the p rov inc i a l norm. Next, the re la t ionsh ip between owners' age, family income and occupat ion, and the in tens i t y of cottage use was examined, and i t was found that summer use increases with age and decreases with income. This is at least p a r t i a l l y explained by the fact that r e t i r ed people spend s i g n i f i c a n t l y more time at the cottage than other groups during the summer months. Concerning a c t i v i t y patterns, as was to be expected younger owners were found to p a r t i c i p a t e in more recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s , and those over 55 were both less involved and preferred less strenuous forms of rec rea t ion . In genera l , the higher income groups were more ac t i ve in outdoor recreat ion and, notably, in technological ly-dependent a c t i v i t i e s . There was no evidence, however, of a marked occupational preference for p a r t i c u l a r outdoor a c t i v i t i e s . F i n a l l y , having es tab l i shed that the cottager population is be-coming more d iverse occupat iona l l y and that i d e n t i f i a b l e groups use the i r cottages more i n tens i ve l y , the des i re of these groups for ce r ta in leve l s of water supply, sewage disposal and e l e c t r i c i t y serv ice was examined, to -gether with the i r recreat iona l a c t i v i t y patterns. Although cer ta in trends were apparent, no f i rm conclusions could be drawn regarding desired leve ls of serv ices s ince the observed frequencies were not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . 85 From these f indings several impl icat ions a r i s e . The " cohor t " of cottagers is changing as a resu l t of growing occupational d i v e r s i t y , br inging d i f f e r e n t a t t i tudes and l i f e s t y l e s to cottage areas and in the process a l t e r i n g the character of the areas themselves. Thus, cottage areas that were once slow to change may be faced with rapid ly evolving expectations among new owners--expectations that the planner should take into account in formulating p o l i c y . On a more s p e c i f i c l e v e l , the d i f ferences in in tens i ty of cottage use, e s p e c i a l l y during the summer months when occupancy is at i t s peak and cottager impact on the area is most apparent, are important from a p o l i c y standpoint. In terms of recreat iona l planning i t can be argued that a natural regulator is at work in that those who spend more time at the i r cot tages - - the o lder owners and r e t i r e d peop le—are less l i k e l y to engage in recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y those that could be e c o l o g i c a l l y harmful. By the same token the younger owners and those with higher incomes, who tend to be more a c t i v e , use the i r cottages less . However, assuming d i s c re t i onary income continues to r i s e , i t would seem that on the evidence here presented, recreat iona l demand may in tens i f y , putt ing more s t r a in on the natural resources o f the area, p a r t i c u l a r l y for short periods of time. Furthermore, as a f f luence increases the demand for technological ly-dependent a c t i v i t i e s may a l so r i s e , again putt ing s t r a in on the environment as well as increasing the potent ia l for con-f l i c t between d i f f e r e n t area users. It should a l so be noted that the two occupational groups who— a f te r r e t i r ed people—spend the most time at the i r cottages during the 86 summer, those in the profess ions and sa les , are among the most ac t i ve r e c r e a t i o n a l l y . Thus, even without consider ing the needs of campers and other non-cottagers, the au tho r i t i e s should be carefu l not to approve the development of cottaging to the point where the demand for recreat iona l space generated by the i n f l ux of cottagers exceeds the capaci ty of the lakes and s t reams—in p a r t i c u l a i — t o provide i t . With regard to the prov i s ion of se rv i ces , even though the f i n d -ings lack s t a t i s t i c a l s i gn i f i c ance , the impl icat ions of the trends should not be overlooked. The o lder and lower income owners were found to spend more time at the i r cottages during the summer months, and these are the owners who appear to be more l i k e l y to have or want higher leve l s of se rv i ce s . Moreover, t h i r t y per cent of the respondents aged 55 and over and 33% of those in the 3 5 - 5 ^ age bracket viewed the i r property as an eventual year-round residence (Appendix III, Table 59, p. 120). It is c l e a r , then, that with bu i ld up of ex i s t i ng lots and increased permanent residence, the danger of po l l u t i on and the_demand for ' better serv ices could grow to the point where the au thor i t i e s are faced with some ex-pensive choices i f publ ic health and safety are to be maintained. CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This study has been concerned with the development of recrea -t ional land for cottages, with in the context of regional government pol icy-making. It has been shown that various problems are associated with cottag ing, the most important being the dangers of contaminating dr ink ing water suppl ies and recreat iona l waters, the c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r -ests of cottagers and general pub l ic who increas ing ly f i nd themselves competing for f i n i t e recreat iona l resources, and the p o s s i b i l i t y of l a rge- sca le cottage co lonies creat ing nodal growth in competition with es tab l i shed rural sett lements. Impl ic i t in a l l three is the l i k e l i -hood that as cottage areas develop to matur i ty, demands for pub l ic ex-penditures w i l l emerge which regional au thor i t i e s can i l l a f ford to s a t i s f y and which in any case are low p r i o r i t y in terms of the needs of the i r permanent res idents . In order to avoid being forced into these remedial expenditures, i t is necessary to formulate p o l i c i e s for regulat ing cottage development based upon a c lear notion of regional p r i o r i t i e s expressed in env i ron-mental, soc ia l and economic terms and a sound understanding of the benef i t s and d i sbenef i t s cottaging can confer on the region. A necessary input into this po l i cy framework is a knowledge of the a c t i v i t y patterns and preferences of cottage owners, so that an accurate assessment can be made of the environmental and economic impacts of cottaging upon the area. 87 88 It has been the purpose of th i s study to contr ibute to th i s input by e s tab l i sh ing a pattern of re la t ionsh ips between the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of cottagers and the i r use of the i r property and the i r preferences for services and recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s . Using four se lected cottage areas in the Princeton region of B r i t i s h Columbia as a case study, i t has been shown that cottagers are more d iverse, at least occupat iona l l y , than they used to be, and that summer use of the cottage increases with age and decreases with income. However, in the c r u c i a l area of leve ls of serv ices no s i g n i f i c a n t pre-ference patterns emerged which could be used to devise p o l i c i e s to cater to the needs of d i f f e r e n t categor ies of cottage owners. In the absence of such preference patterns, regional boards are faced with a number of po l i cy a l t e r n a t i v e s . They could p roh ib i t new cottage developments wi th in the i r area of j u r i s d i c t i o n (a non-starter in the judgment of th is author) un t i l such time as the completely se l f - conta ined sewage disposal units are per fected. They could attempt to discourage permanent residence by such devices as only issuing seasonal occupancy permits, blocking o f f access roads in winter (of doubtful l ega l i t y ) or withholding serv ices such as snow-ploughing. Such a po l i cy would probably be p o l i t i c a l l y unacceptable as well as i n e f f e c t i v e against a determined cottage owner. They could encourage Health Departments to develop standards for sewage disposal that are intermediate between those required for permanent r e s i -dences and those cur rent l y acceptable in cottage subdiv i s ions , using the ra t iona le that unl ike the s i tua t i on in towns and v i l l a g e s only a cer ta in proport ion of the dwell ings would be occupied year round. Such a po l i c y , 89 i f i t could be agreed upon and implemented, would no doubt lessen the l i ke l i hood of groundwater contamination, but at best i t would be a stop-gap measure that on i t s own would not control the haphazard growth of cottage areas. Or regional boards could adopt p o l i c i e s for future cottage developments on the assumption that at some point in the l i f e of a l l cottage s tructures they would be used for a prolonged period as i n -tens ive ly as year-round homes. This would mean that the standards set for sewage and wastewater disposal should be as s tr ingent as those for areas of permanent residence with s im i l a r dens i t ie s and so i l cond i -t ions . If one accepts that th i s l a t t e r a l t e rna t i ve is the most prudent in environmental terms as well as the most p o l i t i c a l l y acceptable in that i t is read i l y understandable and would al low for the future re laxa -t ion of s tandards—for instance to permit greater dens i ty, i f d e s i r e d — in l i ght of technological advances, the data c o l l e c t e d for th is study suggests a number of ways in which governments can respond to the demand for cottage development. A l l involve t r ade -o f f s , but at least they pro-v ide further opportun i t ies for cottaging while a f ford ing a greater measure of protect ion for local taxpayers and for the natural environment that cottagers seek to enjoy. The study has shown conc lus ive ly that owners go to the i r cottages to re lax, to enjoy peace and t r a n q u i l l i t y as a contrast to the i r normal urban-suburban ex i s tence, and to engage in outdoor a c t i v i t i e s . Further, a s i g n i f i c a n t proport ion view the i r property as an eventual retirement home. Po l i cy for future cottage developments should a l so recognize that 90 cottaging appeals to people with an increas ing ly wide range of occupa-t ional backgrounds, income levels and age groups, whose l i f e s t y l e s , value systems and tastes are constant ly evo lv ing . For the most part modest l i v i n g accommodations and rudimentary water, power and sewage disposal f a c i l i t i e s appear to be acceptable, although older people not unnatural ly prefer improved serv i ces , in part perhaps because they spend more time at the cottage. Good access roads are important for most cottagers s ince owner use of the i r propert ies is markedly peaked and they want to be able to spend the maximum amount of weekend or vacation time at the i r cottages. Preservat ion of water recreat ion opportuni t ies — e s p e c i a l l y f i s h i n g , swimming and boa t i ng— i s paramount, c a l l i n g for p o l i c i e s to protect water qua l i t y , to lessen c o n f l i c t s between competing aquatic uses, as well as to reduce noise l e v e l s . F i n a l l y , overcrowding should be avoided, by measures to prevent cottage areas becoming the rural equivalents of c i t y subd iv i s ions . Balancing these wishes against the broader regional and soc ie ta l ob jec t i ves , three po l i cy options are o f f e r e d . One would e s tab l i sh a large minimum parcel s i ze which, along with regulat ions governing the locat ion of the cottage on the l o t , would assure adequate d i sper s ion . Another would encourage the c reat ion of cottage hamlet s—c lus ter s of cottages b u i l t c lose enough to each other to make i t economic to construct community sewage disposal and water supply f a c i l i t i e s . Both of these approaches could be adopted by local or regional governments. The t h i r d , a much more innovative po l i c y , could be implemented at p rov inc ia l l e v e l : to construct and operate f u l l y - s e r v i c e d , planned cottage communities where 91 the cottages would be rented on a short-term basis rather than owned by the cot tager . Each approach w i l l be discussed in turn. THE LARGE LOT APPROACH This po l i cy could be adopted by enacting conventional zoning and subdiv i s ion by-laws s t i pu l a t i n g a minimum lot s ize of one to three acres . The large lo t s i ze would help to preserve the rural character of the area and assure cottagers of the peace and freedom from int rus ive noise that they seek in coming to the cottage. Eventual permanent residence could be accommodated, and the low density of settlement would al low owners to choose the i r own level of accommodation and amenities without a f f e c t i n g the enjoyment of the i r neighbours. The p o s s i b i l i t y of water contamination would be reduced, e spec i a l l y i f waterfront setbacks were regulated, and shore l ine crowding would be prevented, resu l t ing in less intens ive use of the shore for boat docks and recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s which tend to damage aquatic vegetat ion, important to the surv iva l of f i s h and w i l d l i f e . Because fewer people would be involved there would be less c o n f l i c t between incompatible water uses and between d i f f e r i n g concepts of the cottaging experience. Yet owners would be c lose enough to the i r neighbours fo r soc ia l i n te rac t ion to take place as des i red. There would be serious disadvantages, of course- Land su i tab le fo r cottaging is a lready scarce with in a day 's d r i ve of major urban centres. A one- to three-acre minimum per cottage would reduce s t i l l further the number of a va i l ab l e s i t e s and dr ive pr ices much higher, e f f e c t i v e l y excluding a l l but the most a f f l uen t purchasers. Moreover, 92 the prov i s ion of des ired serv ices—paved roads in p a r t i c u l a r , to assure quick access—would be much more c o s t l y , l im i t i n g s t i l l fur ther those who could a f fo rd to own such cottage p roper t i e s . To the extent that would be cottage owners were pr iced out of the market they would l i k e l y swell the ranks of campers and day- t r ippers competing for the same r e -creat iona l resources as the cottage owners. Thus the potent ia l for c o n f l i c t between the two groups—already evident in the study a r e a -would be increased. Fewer cottagers would mean fewer purchases from local merchants, and lower tax r ece ip t s . Yet the access roads would s t i l l have to be maintained. And paradox ica l l y , i f lower density increased cottager con-tentment—as is l i ke l y—more of them might decide to convert to permanent residency and thus increase.the potent ia l demand for improved serv ices to be paid for out of the publ ic purse. For a given length of shore l ine fewer cottages would have d i r ec t access to the water. This would not matter so much i f waterfront pro-per t ie s could be reserved for the younger, more a c t i ve group of owners. However, under market cond i t ions , unless there were very carefu l phasing of the development aimed at obtaining a good owner age mix, i t is l i k e l y that the cho icest waterfront s i te s would be occupied by the more a f f l u e n t , genera l ly o lder , owners, e s p e c i a l l y i f cottage turnover was low. There is another level of argument against adoption of the large-lot approach. Is i t r i ght that a f i n i t e but h i gh l y -p r i zed resource l i ke recreat iona l l a n d — p a r t i c u l a r l y waterfront p r o p e r t y - s h o u l d be reserved for the enjoyment of a comparatively few wealthy f a m i l i e s , who according 93 t o t h i s s t u d y tend t o use t h e i r c o t t a g e s l e s s i n peak v a c a t i o n p e r i o d s than t h e i r l e s s a f f l u e n t f e l l o w c o t t a g e r s ? In t h e a u t h o r ' s v i e w , such i n t e r m i t t e n t and l o w - d e n s i t y c o t t a g i n g c o n s t i t u t e s a m i s a l l o c a t i o n o f r e s o u r c e s . THE COTTAGE HAMLET APPROACH The hamlet c o n c e p t i n v o l v e s the c l u s t e r i n g o f groups o f f i v e t o ten c o t t a g e s w i t h i n a l a r g e c o t t a g e community so t h a t i t would be ec o n -o m i c a l t o p r o v i d e a c e n t r a l sewage d i s p o s a l system as w e l l as a community water s u p p l y and e l e c t r i c i t y s e r v i c e . In B r i t i s h Columbia t h i s c o u l d be a c h i e v e d t h r o u g h a d o p t i o n o f the a v e r a g i n g p r i n c i p l e f o r l o t s i z e s i n s u b d i v i s i o n by-laws or by e x e c u t i o n o f a Land Use C o n t r a c t w i t h the d e v e l o p e r as p r o v i d e d f o r under s e c t i o n 702A o f the M u n i c i pa 1 A c t . The p r o v i s i o n s o f the by-law o r c o n t r a c t c o u l d be as d e t a i l e d o r as g e n e r a l as t h e g o v e r n i n g a u t h o r i t y wlished, a n d — i n the case o f a land use con-t r a c t — o n c e a pproved would d i s p l a c e any e x i s t i n g z o n i n g by-law w i t h i n the a r e a c o v e r e d by the c o n t r a c t and, i n e f f e c t , would become the by-law f o r t h a t a r e a . To be a t t r a c t i v e t o p o t e n t i a l c o t t a g e p u r c h a s e r s and t o a s s u r e adequate p r i v a c y , each c l u s t e r would have t o be i m a g i n a t i v e l y d e s i g n e d . Each c o t t a g e would be c o n s t r u c t e d on i t s own s m a l l l o t , but between c l u s t e r s t h e r e would be ample open sp a c e , owned i n common by a l l t h e c o t t a g e r s , t o a l l o w f o r t r a i l s and b r i d l e p a t h s and t h e passage o f w i l d -l i f e . More open space would p e r m i t a g r e a t e r range o f o u t d o o r a c t i v i t i e s , as w e l l as encourage t h e i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n f a m i l i e s (O.R.R.R.C. Report 22, 3h 1962, p. 108) and with neighbours that respondents to the study quest ion-naire noted. Permanent residence would be f a c i l i t a t e d s ince the higher leve l s o f serv ices that o lder people appear to prefer would a lready be in p lace. Indeed, retirement in such a community could be mutually bene f i c i a l as the permanent res idents could provide a year-round demand and s tab le income that would make a general store or other serv ice f a c i l i t y economi-c a l l y v i a b l e . And at the same time they would be members of a wider community composed of a l l age groups and var ied occupational and soc ia l backgrounds. The centra l sewage system would v i r t u a l l y e l iminate any publ ic health r i s k and the seepage of n u t r i e n t - r i c h waste into the groundwater which feeds lakes and streams. In consequence, recreat iona l waters would be purer and there would be less l i ke l i hood of algae growth to i n te r fe re with aquat ic l i f e and sports . C lus ter ing would al low for the accommoda-t ion of more owners, thereby making i t more economic to provide add i t iona l recreat iona l and other f a c i l i t i e s . At the same time more owners would mean more property taxes with which to bu i ld the good access roads which cottagers p re fe r . A l t e r n a t i v e l y the developers might be pursuaded to contr ibute to the cost of construct ing the roads, s ince poor access to the area would adversely a f f e c t the market prospects of the development, p a r t i c u l a r l y with higher-income purchasers and those seeking retirement property. Another benef i t from economies of scale would be the greater ease with which the development could be phased. Cottage c lu s te r s and adjacent 95 f a c i l i t i e s could be designed to appeal to p a r t i c u l a r age or occupation groups, and d i f f e r e n t marketing techniques used to encourage purchasers with s im i l a r in teres t s or a c t i v i t y preferences to locate in the same phase of the development. F i n a l l y , the hamlet c l u s te r concept better lends i t s e l f to the idea of conscious area management through the common ownership of open space and community f a c i l i t i e s . Conservation of the recreat iona l resource would be a major concern, as i t was to the cottagers answering the study quest ionnaire, but in add i t ion management would be expected to reduce the incidence of trespassing and vandalism. In larger developments es -p e c i a l l y , i t could a l so arrange for property rental when owners were unable to use the i r cottages. Such a rental system has been pract i sed in the United States, and i f successful can both increase cottage occu-pancy and ease the f i nanc i a l burden of ownership, thereby bringing owner-ship within the means of more people. On the debit s ide, there would be less absolute pr ivacy in the sense that the cottages would be phys i ca l l y more proximate. However, the.overa l l spatiousness of the community design would be a compensating f a c t o r . Some cottagers might fee l that the i r property ownership was somewhat d i l u ted by the open space and community f a c i l i t i e s being held in common and poss ib ly "managed." On the other hand, younger cottagers and those in the higher-income brackets, who appear to use the i r cottages less f requent ly and yet take part in more a c t i v i t i e s when in res idence, might welcome this aspect, e s p e c i a l l y i f i t meant they spent less time on household chores and yard clean-up during each v i s i t . There would have 96 to be c e r t a i n minimal ru les governing the community's a f f a i r s , a draw-back s ince regulat ion is one of the things many owners come to the i r cottages to escape. But th is escape is l a rge ly i l l u s o r y now anyway, as most cottage areas must comply with bu i ld ing and health regu lat ions , and the au tho r i t i e s do not hes i tate to c lose o f f beaches where water po l l u t i on poses a hazard to pub l i c hea l th . Pr ivate ownership of waterfront property would be very l im i ted , de l i be ra te l y so to ensure the non-waterfront major i ty of owners a f a i r share of the water-based recreat iona l opportuni t ies they purchase cottages to enjoy. Moreover, the regional d i s t r i c t could require dedicat ion of a s t re tch of shore l ine for pub l i c use as a cond i t ion of a land use con-t r a c t . But in any case, ava i l ab le waterfront property is increas ing ly hard to f i nd except at exorbi tant p r i ce s , and i t is un l i ke l y that Crown land containing lakes w i l l in future be a l ienated for recreat iona l pur-poses except under the most s t r ingent condit ions regarding pub l ic access and environmental safeguards. In economic terms, ownership within such a cottage community would probably cost more than the prevalent \/U to 1/2 acre property be-cause of the f a c i l i t i e s provided, but considerably less than under the large lot approach. But from the equity standpoint th is is only j u s t , because owners would be paying, by way of prevent ion, for the " e x t e r n a l -i t i e s " : the costs that would otherwise accrue to governments (and there-fore to a l l the taxpayers rather than only to those large ly responsible) for e l im inat ing water p o l l u t i o n created by the cumulative e f f ec t s of sep t i c f i e l d seepage and contamination from outdoor p r i v i e s . 97 THE COTTAGE RENTAL APPROACH Given the evident huge demand for cottaging that cannot poss ib ly be s a t i s f i e d within the const ra int s of ava i l ab le land using t r a d i t i o n a l ownership concepts, the cottage rental approach has two basic advantages: i t would al low for area management to maximize recreat iona l opportun i t ies while protect ing the environment, and i t would make cottaging ava i l ab l e to many more people than h i t h e r t o . Rental v i l l a g e s could be constructed on Crown land, e i ther in conjunction with or completely apart from prov-i nc i a l or national parks, and run by a Crown corporat ion or pr ivate company on a f ranch i se bas i s , with s u f f i c i e n t c a p i t a l to make f u l l use of the most advanced planning and design concepts. The v i l l a g e s would enjoy a l l the advantages of the hamlet concept, while a l lowing for even greater f l e x i b i l i t y in cater ing to the rec rea -t iona l preferences of the enlarged cottaging pub l i c . A l l of the a c t i -v i t i e s enumerated in Table 29 (p. 60 could be provided f o r , with spec ia l emphasis on water sports, together with some that were not included, such as horseback r i d i n g , sa i lboat rental or archery. To cater to d i f -ferent tastes , accommodations could range from simple d o - i t - y o u r s e l f cabins to luxurious country lodges. Subject to a " f a i r shares" po l i cy cottagers could rent a cabin for any length of time, and would pay only for the days of occupancy rather than carry mortgage in teres t charges, property taxes and maintenance costs throughout the years of ownership regardless of use. Cottagers would a l so benef i t from a wider range of locat ions to v i s i t . For example, they could spend one vacat ion, or weekend, at a 98 cottage on the P a c i f i c shore of Vancouver Island, another at a ski v i l l a g e in the B r i t i s h Columbia In ter ior , and a t h i r d , trout f i sh ing in the Kamloops area. The a c t i v i t y - o r i e n t e d younger and higher income cottagers , in p a r t i c u l a r , might welcome such f l e x i b i l i t y , as well as those with a yen for cottage l i v i n g who have never been able to a f fo rd a cottage of the i r own. Furthermore, by carefu l s i t i n g to take advantage of a c t i v i t i e s pursued in d i f f e r e n t seasons, and by d i f f e r e n t i a l p r i c i n g to encourage mid-week and of f - season ren ta l s , a much higher occupancy rate per cottage could be achieved than the average of 58 days a year found in the study area around Pr inceton. If i n t e l l i g e n t l y planned and responsive to consumer demand, and ava i l ab l e on a wide enough sca le , these rental v i l l a g e s might d i ve r t potent ia l cottage buyers, thereby lessening the pressure for consumption of scarce land for conventional cottage developments. Cap i ta l that would otherwise be t ied up in property ownership would be ava i l ab le for more productive investment. The v i l l a g e s would a l so have a greater impact on the loca l economy than conventional cottages appear to have. A perman-ent work force would be needed to manage each v i l l a g e and keep i t s f a c i -l i t i e s in good repa i r , and the extended occupancy period would generate more business for local merchants. Admittedly, the idea of rent ing rather than owning would not appeal to every cottager and would-be cottager any more than the Club M£di terrane"e appeals to a l l those who enjoy vacations in far o f f , exot i c p laces . Rent-ing a cottage for a month is not the same as having a place of one's own, e s p e c i a l l y i f one has b u i l t i t with one's own hands. V i s i t i n g w i th " f r iends 99 in f am i l i a r surroundings rep lete with happy assoc iat ions would be im-pos s ib le , as would permanent res idence. If present work week patterns continued, there would inev i tab ly be ce r ta in weekends and other peak periods when demand would exceed supply. And there would probably be less opportunity for complete so l i tude than is achieved by many cottagers today, although i t is c lear that with cottage developments approaching urban density th i s qua l i t y is being lost in any case. Even e f f i c i e n t and unobtrusive management is recognizable as o rgan iza t ion , a character^ i s t i c of the c i t y that the cottager is seeking r e l i e f from. Yet, in the face of dwindling suppl ies of recreat iona l land, i n -creased awareness of the harm that cottaging can cause to the eco log i ca l equ i l i b r ium, and a seemingly in sa t i ab le demand for the cottaging exper-ience, new concepts such as the rental v i l l a g e should be ser ious ly con-sidered as an a l t e rna t i ve to present p o l i c i e s or non -po l i c i e s . A SUMMARY MATRIX How does one assess the r e l a t i v e merits and disadvantages of such options as the foregoing? An admittedly crude method—arguable in some respects and subject to considerable refinement and d e f i n i t i o n of terms at a l a ter time—would be to prepare a simple summary matrix rank-ing the po l i c y a l t e rna t i ve s according to the factor under cons idera t ion . For example: 100 E f f i c i e n t use of land E f f i c i e n t use of c ap i t a l Total costs per user per year Equity in use of scarce natural resource Contr ibut ion to local economy Local tax revenues generated Water qua l i t y protect ion Preservat ion of w i l d l i f e habitat Permanent residence potent ia l Interact ion with f r iends and neighbours Range of outdoor a c t i v i t i e s Seclus ion factor Pol icy A1ternatives Large Lot Hamlet Rental V i l l a g e 3 2 1 3 2 1 Higher Medium Lower 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 2 1 3 1 2 3 1 2 2 1 3 2 1 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 FURTHER RESEARCH This study has explored the preferences and use patterns of cottage owners and sought to e s t ab l i s h l inks between key socio-economic factors and demands for basic se rv i ce s . This is a l ine of research that should be tested on a wider sca le , preferab ly in Eastern Canada where cottaging is more preva lent . A re la ted question that requires more de-t a i l e d invest igat ion is the extent to which cottage owners a c t u a l l y convert 101 the i r propert ies into permanent residences and how they assess the ex-perience of l i v i n g year-round in a community that was intended, and is s t i l l used p r i m a r i l y , as a place of seasonal res idence. It has been shown that l a i s s e r f a i r e p o l i c i e s with respect to cottage developments can resu l t in serious water p o l l u t i o n , involv ing substant ia l pub l i c expenditure to c o r r e c t . Case studies of these co s t -consequences would add considerably to our knowledge of past mistakes and, hopefu l ly , by quant i fy ing the resu l t s serve to concentrate the minds of those policy-makers who might otherwise be tempted to fo l low the l ine of least res i s tance . The three a l t e r n a t i v e p o l i c i e s fo r cottage developments that have been advanced in th is chapter should be costed to determine the i r economic f e a s i b i l i t y . As a s t a r t i t would be i n s t ruc t i ve to compare the amount of cap i ta l that would be required for each option and the tota l costs per user in a given time per iod . Another area that deserves further study is the a t t r a c t i o n that recreat iona l property ownership has for cottagers . It has been suggested that cottage rental might supplement ownership as a way of s a t i s f y i n g demand. This suggestion assumes that cottaging is popular because of the opportunity i t a f fords to l i v e in rural surroundings and pursue a wide va r ie ty of recreat iona l a c t i v i t i e s . But to what extent is s a t i s f a c t i o n of ownership or of construct ing your own place a l so a factor? The f l e x -i b i l i t y o f fered by the rental concept to try d i f f e r e n t types of cottaging experiences is undeniable. But in a fast-changing world, how important is a return to fami1 iar_surroundings, to resuming pleasurable a c t i v i t i e s 102 in an u t te r l y relaxed atmosphere that is increas ing ly hard to maintain in the c i t y or the suburb? These, then, are some of the areas that require further research i f the true s i gn i f i c ance of cottaging and i t s e f f ec t s are to be understood and accommodated. L i te ra ture C i ted Ana lys i s of Ontario Cottage Survey 1968. Travel Research Report 55. Ontario Department of Tourism and i n f o r m a t i o n , Toronto (1971) -Baker, W.M. Tour i s t and Outdoor Recreation Patterns and Prospects in  the Qu'Appel le Va l ley and on Last Mountain Lake, Part I I. Prepared for Saskatchewan Department of Natural Resources and Department of Forestry (A.R.D.A.) Canada (1966). B i r t w e l l , R.I. "Large Scale Second Home Recreational Communities in the P a c i f i c Northwest: Charac te r i s t i c s and Potent ia l for Permanent Sett lement. " Unpublished M.Sc. Thes i s , The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver (1971). B la lock, H.M. Social S t a t i s t i c s . New York, McGraw-Hill (1972). Borchert, J.R. et a l . Minnesota's Lakeshore. Parts 1 and 2. Un iver s i t y of Mi nnesota (1970) . Bosworth, F. in Wilderness Canada, ed. Borden Spears. Toronto: C larke, Irwin and Co. L t d . , (1970). Brooks, L. "The Forces Shaping Demand for Recreational Space in Canada." Background Paper, Resources for Tomorrow Conference, Vo l . 2. Ottawa: Queen's P r in ter (1961). Canadian S t a t i s t i c a l Review. 50: 3 (1975). Chr i s t i an Science Monitor. February 19, 1975, p. 3D. Clawson, M. and J . L . Knetsch. Economics of Outdoor Recreat ion. B a l t i -more: Johns Hopkins Press (1966). Friedmann, J . and J . M i l l e r . "The Urban F i e l d , " A.I .P. Journa1 , November, 1965, pp. 312-319. Graham, W.W. Cottage Development in Rural Areas. A.R.D.A. Project No. 15039, Ottawa (1967). H i l l s , G.A. The Eco log ica l Basis for Land Use Planning. Research Report No. 46, Ontario Department of Lands and Forests , Research Branch. Toronto (1961). Hough, Stansbury and Associates L td. Lakealert Phase Two. A report to the Ontario Min is try of Natural Resources, Toronto (1972). 103 104 Housing: Household Fac i1 i t i e s . 1971 Census of Canada. Catalogue 93~737-S t a t i s t i c s Canada. (December, 1973). Jaakson, R. -"A Mosaic Pattern of Balanced Land-Water Planning for Cottage Development and Lake P lanning. " Plan Canada 14:1 (1974), pp. 40-45. . "Planning for the Capacity of Lakes to Accommodate Water-Oriented Recreat ion. " Plan Canada. 10:3 (1970), pp. 29-40. . "Recreat ion Zoning and Lake P lanning. " Town Planning Review. 417T (1972), pp. 41-55. Jackson, J .N. Surveys for Town arid Country Planning. London: Hutchison and Co. L t d . , (1963). Nie, N.H., D.H. Bent and C H . H u l l . S t a t i s t i c a l Package for the Soc ia l  Sc iences. New York: McGraw-Hil l . (1970). Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Report 22, Trends in American L iv ing and Outdoor Recreat ion. Washington D.C~ (1962) . Patmore, J .A. Land and Leisure in England and Wales. Newton Abbot; David and Char les, Ltd. (1970). P l o t n i k o f f , J . P. "Cottaging and Related Support Se rv i ce s . " Unpublished M.A. Thes i s , The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver. (1970). Project ions for the Years 1976 and 2000. Outdoor Recreation Resources Review Commission, Report 23. Washington, D.C. (1962). Prospect ive Demand for Outdoor Recreat ion. Outdoor Recreation Resources ' Review Commission, Report 26. Washington, D.C. (1962). Province of B r i t i s h Columbia. Land Commission Act . V i c t o r i a : Queen's Pr in te r (1973). . Municipal Act . V i c t o r i a : Queen's P r i n t e r . (1974). Ragatz, Richard L. Assoc ia tes , Inc. Recreational P roper t ies : An Ana lys i s  of the Markets for Pr i vately-Owned Recreat iona1 Lots and Lei sure  Homes. Eugene, Oregon. (1974). Redpath, D.K. " P o l i c y Implications for Shoreland Recreation: A P i l o t Study in New Brunswick and Nova S c o t i a . " Unpublished M.A. Thes i s , Univers i ty of Waterloo. (1971). Rees, W.E. and E. Kar lsen. The Regional D i s t r i c t s and Environmental Management in B.C. Papers on Local Government 1:2, Centre for Continuing Education, The Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, Vancouver, (1974). 105 Report of the Advisory Committee on Po l l u t i on Control on Environmental  Management of Recreational Waters in Cottage Areas of Ontar io. Prepared by an Interdepartmental Task Force, Ontar io. (1970). Second Homes in the United States . Current Housing Reports Ser ies H-121, N o ! 1 6 , U . S . D e p a r t m e n t of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. Wash-ington, D.C. (1969). Swain, H. "Recent Changes in the D i s t r i bu t i on of Summer Cottages in Ontar io . " Unpublished B.A. Thes i s , The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h C o l -umbia, Vancouver. (1964). The Use of our Lakes and Lake Shorelands. Technical Report No. 12. Alberta Land Use Forum. Edmonton. (1974). Tombaugh, L.W. "Factors Influencing Vacation Home Locat ions . " Journa1  of Leisure Research 2:1. (1970). Town and Country Planning. 33:6 (1965) p. 246. U.S. Census of Housing 1970, Detai led Housing C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Wash-ington, D.C. (1972). Wolfe, R.I. A Theory of Recreational Highway T r a f f i c . Department of Highways, Ontar io. D.H.O. Report No. RR 128. (T967). p. 1. . "Recreat iona l Land Use in Ontar io . " Unpublished Ph.D. Thes i s , Un ivers i ty of Toronto. (1956). APPENDIX I QUESTIONNAIRE 106 APPENDIX 1 QUESTIONNAIRE REGIONAL DISTRICT OF 0KMGM4-Sir«Affl SURVEY OF RESORT COTTAGE PROPERTY OWNERS, 1974 Please read each question carefully'before answering. Where the term "cottage area" is used; it refers to the general area surrounding your lot and the other cottage properties in the vicinity. 1. . I s t h e r e a c o t t a g e on your l o t ? yes - no 2. I f t h e r e i s , about hour o l d i s t h e c o t t a g e ? 3 y e a r s o r l e s s > _ _ 1 0 - 1 2 y e a r s . 4 - 6 y e a r s . 1 3 - 1 5 y e a r s 7 - 9 y e a r s more t h a n 15 y e a r s 3 . I s t h e c o t t a g e w i n t e r i s e d ? ( i n s u l a t e d , h e a t i n g i n s t a l l e d ) ' yes no ' 4 . What i s t h e a p p r o x i m a t e f l o o r a r e a o f your, c o t t a g e ? l e s s t h a n 4 0 0 s q . f t \ ; 4 0 0 - 5 9 9 s q . f t 6 0 0 - 6 9 9 s q . f t . . . 9 0 0 - 1 1 9 9 s q . f t 1 2 0 0 - 1 4 9 9 s q . f t ' 1 5 0 0 s q . f t and o v e r 5 . What i s t h e s l e e p i n g c a p a c i t y o f t h e c o t t a g e ? 3 or fewer p e o p l e 4 - 6 7 - 9 . . 1 0 - 1 2 more t h a n 12 6 . P l e a s e e s t i m a t e t h e market v a l u e o f your c o t t a g e , e x c l u d i n g t h e l o t . • I B S S than 5 3 , 0 0 0 8 1 0 , 0 0 0 - 1 2 , 4 9 9 ' $ 3 , 0 0 0 - 4 , 9 9 9 " ; 5 1 2 , 5 0 0 - 1 4 , 9 9 9 ' •_ 8 5 , 0 0 0 - 7 , 4 9 9 . ' 8 1 5 , 0 0 0 - 1 7 , 4 9 9 . 8 7 , 5 0 0 - 9 , 9 9 9 _ _ 8 1 7 , 5 0 0 and ov e r 7 . What i s t h e a p p r o x i m a t e s i z e o f your l o t ? I B S S than 9 , 0 0 0 s q . f t 9 , 0 0 0 t o 1 0 , 8 9 0 ( q u a r t e r a c r e ) 1 0 , 8 9 1 t o 2 1 , 7 8 0 ( q u a r t e r t o h a l f a c r e ) . 2 1 ^ 7 8 1 t o 3 2 , 6 7 0 ( h a l f t o t h r e e - q u a r t e r a c r e ) 3 2 , 6 7 1 t o 4 3 , 5 6 0 ( t h r e e - q u a r t e r t o one a c r e ) o v e r one a c r e ( s t a t e s i z e ) 8 . Oo you use t h e c o t t a g e as your y e a r - r o u n d r e s i d e n c e ? yes — — no ( I f you answered y e s , p l e a s e go t o q u e s t i o n 1 4 ; ' l e a v e q u e s t i o n s 9 t o 1 3 b l a n k ) 9 . I f you do not use t h e c o t t a g e as your ye.ar-round r e s i d e n c e , p l e a s B rank i n o r d e r o f i m p o r t a n c e ( . . 1 , 2 , 3 ) hoy you vi e w t h e p r o p e r t y : as a p l a c e f o r s e a s o n a l r e c r e a t i o n as an e v e n t u a l y e a r - r o u n d r e s i d e n c e as an i n v e s t m e n t o t h e r ( p l e a s e s p e c i f y ) 1 0 . Do you spend y o u r a n n u a l v a c a t i o n a t the c o t t a g e ? always' • . u s u a l l y sometimes .__ never 1 1 . About how many v i s i t s do you make t o your c o t t a g e i n each month? P l e a s e w r i t e t h e number b e s i d e t h e month: J a n u a r y F e b r u a r y March A p r i l May June Duly , August September Octobor November December .12 . About how many days do y o u s p e n d a t your c o t t a q e i n each month? > * '• Danuary . F e b r u a r y March A p r i l . May Duna Ouly August September Oc t o b e r November December 107 13. Whet percentage) o f y o u r v i s i t s t o t h e c o t t a g e , a r e j u s t f o r the; weekend? Check t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s p a c e s : . . May t h r o u g h August r e s t o f y e a r 0-2i% ~ - •' • 2G-50?5 ' 51 - 7 5 5 6 76-100%. 11, Please, r a t e y o u r r e s o r t c o t t a g e a r e a For tho f o l l o w i n g n a t u r a l f e a t u r e s . Use the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e ! 1 - v e r y a t t r a c t i v e 2 - a t t r a c t i v e • • 3' - o r d i n a r y ' , 4 - not v e r y a t t r a c t i v e ; • 5 - u n a t t r a c t i v e " f o r e s t s mountains " j l a k e s anri streams' ' G e n e r a l v.i.nins . . . TS.' Why rio you qo t o your r e s o r t c o t t a g e ? ftehk the f o l l o w i n g i n o r d e r ' a f importance..1,2,.1 e t c . peace end q u i e t . . ohnnno from e v e r y d a y l i f e -c hancn t o "rnuqh i t " , c l o s e r t o n a t u r e . ' p r i v o c v . . . o u t d o o r a c t j v.i. t i e s good f o r t h e c h i l d r e n ' ' / r e l a x a t i o n o t h e r ( s o e c i f y ) 16. I f the f o l l o w i n g i t e m s o r l a n k o f them a r e p r o b l e m s i n your c o t t a g e a r e a , which would you l i k e t o see t a c k l e d f i r s t ? P l e a s e r a n k . i n o r d e r o f i m p o r t a n c e . . 1,2,3 - e t c . Leave b l a n k any i t e m t h a t '. i s n o t a p r o b l e m , • . . " garbage d i s p o s a l • j. l a k e o r r i v o r p o l l u t i o n [ ' r o a d s u r f a c e q u a l i t y . . t r e s p a s s i n g and v a n d a l i s m •• n o i s e ' • • i n s e c t s ' l i t t e r ' '.. . 1 ' ' . water s u p p l v '( ___ e l e c t r i c i t y s e r v i c e ' ' sewage d i s p o s a l system . t e l e p h o n e , T V , r a d i o . snow r e m o v a l , l a c k o f g e n e r a l s t o r e c l o s e by _ _ l a c k o f l a u n d r o m a t c l o s e by • o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) 17. About how f r o n u s n t l y do you engage i n the f o l l o w i n g o u t d o o r a c t i v i t i e s w h i l e a t your c o t t a g e ? P l e a s e use t h e f o l l o w i n g s c a l e ( l e a v e b l a n k i f n e v e r ) . : 1 - e t l e a s t once a day 2 - s e v e r a l t i m e s a week 3 - once e week 4 - once i n two weeks 5 -. ones i n t h r e e weeks or l e s s " f r e q u e n t l y May t h r o u g h o t h e r s a i l i n g swimming• ' ' ' • -.jotar s k i i n g c a n o o i n g , , , . ,-,. r , .„ pouiGr b o o t i n g f i s h i n g p h o t o g r a p h y p i c n i c k i n g t r a i l h i k i n g m ountain c l i m b i n g camping w a l k i n g f o r p l e a s u r e n a t u r o s t u d y h o r s e b a c k r i d i n g hunti.no a n o u s h o e i n g XXX anowmobiJ i n g XXX s k i i n g XXX i c r a s k a t i n g XXX i c e f i . a h i n g XXX 1Q. On a t y p i c a l summer day, about how many hours would you say members o f the f a m i l y spend! each/ a d u l t each c h i l d i n s i d e t h e c o t t a g e ( e x c l u d i n g s l e e p i n g ) h r s h r s on the beach/swimming/ b o a t i n g h r s h r s more than 2 m i l e s from tho c o t t a g e h r s b r a 19. How many y e a r s ago d i d you a c q u i r e your r e s o r t c o t t a g e p r o p e r t y ? .• y e a r s 1.08 20. At. the t i m e you a c q u i r e d your p r o p e r t y , how i m p o r t a n t were t h e f a c t o r s o f s e c l u s i o n and conven-i e n c e i n y o u r d e c i s i o n t o l o c a t e - i n y o u r s p e c i f i c c o t t a g e a r e a ? P l e a s e w r i t e i n the number, u s i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g f i v e - ; p o i n t s c a l e o f d e g r e e s o f i m p o r t a n c e : 1 - e x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t 2 3 - m o d e r a t e l y i m p o r t a n t 4 .5 - not i m p o r t a n t a t a l l s e c l u s i o n ( a r e a somewhat i s o l a t e d and r e l a t i v e l y w i l d ) c o n v e n i e n c e ( a r e a easy t o r e a c h From homo, e t c ) 2 1 . To what e x t a n t do you t h i n k t h e f o l l o w i n g e n v i r o n m e n t a l q u a l i t i e s o f your c o t t a g e a r e a have changed s i n c e you a c q u i r e d your p r o p e r t y ? Use the f o l l o w i n g s c a l e : 1 - much improved ' 2 - i m p r o v e d a l i t t l e 3 - remained t h e same 4 - d e c l i n e d a l i t t l e 5 - d e c l i n e d a J o t l a k e / r i v e r w a t e r q u a l i t y a i r q u a l i t y _____ q u a l i t y o f v i e w __ peace end q u i e t ( s p e c i f y s o u r c e o f n o i s e ) 22. In g e n e r a l , how s a t i s f i e d a r a you w i t h your c o t t a g e a r e a now compared w i t h when you f i r s t a c q u i r e d y o u r p r o p e r t y ? more s a t i s f i e d about the same '• _____ l o s s s a t i s f i e d 23. I f y o u r answer t o q u e s t i o n 22 was "more s a t i s f i e d " o r " l e a s s a t i s f i e d " , p l e a s e g i v e y o u r r e a s o n s : 24. To what e x t e n t a r e you s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e r o a d l e a d i n g t o y o u r c o t t a g e a r e a ? ____ v e r y s a t i s f i e d _____ m o d e r a t e l y s a t i s f i e d ' '. . . . n o t s a t i s f i e d 25. How do you o b t a i n your w a t e r ? Check the i t e m t h a t b e s t d e s c r i b e s your p r e s e n t water s u p p l y : by hand from a s t r e a m , l a k e or w e l l pumped from a s t r e a m o r l a k e pumped from your own w e l l . community s u p p l y p i p e d from a common s o u r c e 26. How s a t i s f i e d a r e you w i t h t h e s e arrangements Cor o b t a i n i n g w a t e r ? v e r y s a t i s f i e d m o d e r a t e l y s a t i s f i e d _ not s a t i s f i e d 27. Which one o f the f o l l o w i n g b e s t d n s c r i h f s your p r e s e n t sewage d i s p o s a l a r r a n g e m e n t s ? _. o u t d o o r p r i v y ______ c h e m i c a l t o i l e t s e p t i c tank 20, How s a t i s f i e d a r e you w i t h the sewage d i s p o s a l a r r a n g e m e n t s as d e s c r i b e d above? v e r y s a t i s f i e d m o d e r a t e l y s a t i s f i e d n o t s a t i s f i e d 29. Which one o f the f o l i o w i n n b e s t d e s c r i b e s your p r e s e n t e l e c t r i c a l system? . ' s u p p l i ed by West Kootenuy Power end U.nht ... s u p p l i e d from community g e n e r a t o r _____ have own p o r t a b l e g e n e r a t o r none- • 30. How s a t i s f i e d are. you w i t h the o l e c t t - i c o l s y s t e m as d e s c r i b e d above? ._.„ v e r y s a t i s f i e d _____ m o d e r a t e l y s a t i s f i e d n o t s a t i s f i e d 3 1. •' S i n c e a c q u i r i n g your p r o p e r t y have you i m p r o v e d y o u r : w a t e r s u p p l y 'system? yes no sewage d i s p o s a l a r r a n g e m e n t s ? yes no . e l e c t r i c a l s ystem? yes ____ no 32. In t h e n e x t t h r e e y e a r s do you i n t e n d t o improve y o u r : w a t er s u p p l y system? y«s ___ no .. sewage d i s p o s a l a r r a n g e m e n t s ? yes _ no e l e c t r i c a l s ystem? yns .no 1 09 33. Suppose you were t o s e l l your c o t t a g e and buy a n o t h e r one o f s i m i l a r v a l u e e l s e w h e r e , which o f thB' f o l l o w i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s b e s t d e s c r i b e s the s o r t o f c o t t a g e a r e a you would choose f o r your new p r o p e r t y ? __ a n . i s o l a t e d s e m i - w i l d e r n e s s a r e a w i t h o u t s e r v i c e s , w i t h o n l y s e a s o n a l occupancy _____ a more a c c e s s i b l e l o c a t i o n w i t h e l e c t r i c i t y , community water and a few y e a r - r o u n d homes a f u l l y - s e r v i c e d r e c r e a t i o n a l c o t t a g e community w i t h a g r o w i n g number o f y e a r - r o u n d homes 34. Where i s your permanent p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e ? Kamloops a r e a P r i n c e t o n a r e a . ' Okanagan v a l l e y ' G r e a t e r Vancouver a r e a ' e l s e w h e r e on Lower M a i n l a n d e l s e w h e r e i n B.C. . o ut o f p r o v i n c e 40. What was your h i g h e s t l e v e l o f e d u c a t i o n ? e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l soms h i g h s c h o o l h i g h s c h o o l g r a d u a t e t wo-year c o l l e g e a p p r e n t i c e s h i p some u n i v e r s i t y u n i v e r s i t y g r a d u a t e p o s t - g r a d u a t e 4 1 . How would you c h a r a c t e r i z e your r e s o r t c o t t a g e a r e a ? I s i t : u n d e r d e v e l o p e d ( t o o few p e o p l e ) ? ___ about r i g h t ? _____ o v e r - d e v e l o p e d ( t o o crowded)? PLEASE USE SPACE BELOW FOR ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 35. What i s your age? _____ under 20 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65 1 o v e r 36. Your s e x ? male female '37. How many c h i l d r e n do you have i n t h e f o l l o w i n g age g r o u p s ? • '••' ' . ' ; • ' up t o 5 y e a r s . •" 6-10 \ 11-15 . ' . . - . • , • • • , • 16-18 ,. • , . ' , 38.. What i s your o c c u p a t i o n ? • c l e r i c a l ______ far m i n g . & f o r e s t r y • . l a b o u r e r ____.. m a n a g e r i a l p r o f e s s i o n a l r e c r e a t i o n & s e r v i c e r e t i r e d s a l e s • s e c r e t a r i a l t e c h n i c a l A t r a d e t r a n s p o r t a t i o n * communications o t h e r ( s p e c i f y ) 39. What i s your a n n u a l f a m i l y income? under 44,000 _____ $4,000-5,999 . •: 86,000-7,999 ' _____ 88,000-9,999 _ _ 810,000-11,999 812,000-14,999 • 815,000-19,999 820,000-24,999 825,000 and o v e r Thank you v e r y much f o r co m p l e t i n g , t h i n q u n n t i u n n n i r n , APPENDIX I I MAP OF COTTAGE AREA LOCATIONS APPENDIX TABLES k] I l l APPENDIX I I I - TABLES 41-59 TABLE 41 Age at Time of Acquir ing Cottage Property Year Under 30 (* age) 30-49 50 and over 1954-63 3 (10) 23 (79) 3 (10) 1964-74 22 (21) 65 (61) 18 (17) Chi-square = 3-071 with 2 degrees of freedom. P robab i l i t y of th is frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n occurr ing by chance = .22 TABLE 42 Length of Ownership by Occupation Yea rs Years Grouped Manager i a 1 Profess ional Reti red Sales Techn i ca1 & Trade Transportat ion and Commun i cat ions Other 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 1 3 1 5 10 1 2 1 5 3 0 1 2 1 5 6-10 11-14 15 £ over 4 5 1 0 4 2 1 0 1 3 5 5 2 1 9 2 4 3 0 1 Cottager/Province r a t i o = 0 % age cottage owners 1 2 6 0 1 2 2 Cottager/ Cottager/ 0-8 Province 9 & over Province r a t i o r a t i o 13 20 6 8 27 7] u l 2.70 1 .91 0.79 1.09 0.50 4 6 10 1 4 2.98 2.05 0.36 0.58 0.90 % age household heads in B r i t i s h Columbia according to 1971 census Chi-square = 17.46 with 6 degrees of freedom. P robab i l i t y = .008 113 TABLE 43 Length of Ownership by Highest Level of Education 0-8 years {% age) 9 years and over Elementary or some high school 33 (35) 17 (44) High school graduate 21 (23) 10 (26) Apprenti cesh ip 11 (12) 1 ( 3) Some co l lege or un iver s i t y 28 (30) 11 (28) Chi-square =.3.116 wi th 3 degrees of freedom. Probabi1 i ty = .35 TABLE 44 Cottage Occupancy by Age of Owner Under 35 35-54 Years 55 Years & over Average per month Average per month Average per month May-August 7-49 days 8.26 10.76 Rest of year 2.93 2.91 3.01 Enti re year 4.45 4.70 5.59 114 TABLE 45 Cottage Occupancy by Family Income Under $10,000 $10-20,000 Over $20,000 Average per.month Average per month Average per month May-August 16.39 days 8.27 8 1 1 Rest of year 3.26 3.04 3 16 Enti re year 7.64 4.79 4 81 TABLE 46 Cottage Occupancy by Occupation Manager-ia l Profes -s ional Reti red Sa les Techn i -ca 1 S Trade Trans-por ta -t ion & Commun i -cat ions Other Ave rage per month Aver/mo. Aver/mo. Aver/mo. Aver/mo. Aver/mo. Aver/mo. May-August days 6.86 10.55 15.00 9.03 8.06 6.52 6.65 Rest of Year 2 . 8 2 3-30 3.13 2.30 3.37 3.39 2.41 En t i re Year 4.17 5.73 7 . 0 9 4.54 4.93 4.43 3.82 PARTICIPATION IN SELECTED ACTIVITIES TABLE 47: By Age TABLE 48: By Fam i l y Income SUMMER Under 35(%) 35 -54 55 & over T o t a l Under $10,000(%) $10,000-19,999 $20,000 S Over T o t a l F i s h i ng 22 (100) 69 (83) 22 (63) 113 (81) 10 .056) 70 (88) 21 (88) 101 (83) Swi mmjng 20 ( 91) 60 (72) 12 (34) 92 (66) 8 (44) 55 (69) 19' (79) 82 (67) Canoe i n g 1 1 ( 50) 24 (29) 3 ( 9) 33 (27) 3 (17). 26 (33) 5 (21) 34 (28) Powerboat i n g 6 ( 27) 16 (19) 3 ( 9) 25 (18) 2 (11) 12 (15) 7 (29) 21 (17) W a t e r s k i i ng 3 ( 14) 13 (16) 2 ( 6) 18 (13) 1 ( 6) 11 (14) 4 (17) 16 (13) W a l k i n g f o r P l e a s u r e 21 ( 95) 65 (78) 21 (60) 107 (76) 10 (56) 64 (80) 21 (88) 95 (78) H i k i ng 18 ( 82) 49 (59) 10 (29) 77 (55) 5 (28) 51 (64) 13 (54) 69 (57) Photography 17 ( 77) 32 (39) 13 (37) 62 (44) 7 (39) 40 (50) 10 (42) 57 (47) T o t a l C o t t a g e r s i n Given Group 22 83 35 140 18 80 24 122 OTHER SEASONS F i s h i ng 7 ( 32) 22 (27) 7 (20) 36 (26) 3 (17) 25 (31) 5 (21) 33 (27) Wa1ki ng 9 (41) 25 (30) 4 (10 38 (27) 0 26 (33) 7 (29) 33 (27) H i k i ng 7 { 32) 18 (22) 2 ( 6) 27. (19) 0 19 (24) 3 (13) 22 (18) Photography 8 [ 36) 16 (19) 2 ( 6) 26 (19) 0 21 (26) 4 (17) 25 (20) Hun t i ng 7 ( 32) 14 (17) 2 ( 6) •23 (16) 2 (11) 16 (20) 4 (17) 22 (18) S k i ing 6 ( 27) 24 (29) 3 ( 9) 33 (24) 1 ( 6) 21 (26) 8 (33) 30 (25) Ice F i s h i n g 6 ; 27) 23 (28) 2 ( 6) 31 (22) 3 (17) 21 (26) 6 (25) 30 (25) S k a t i n g 6 ( 27) 19 (23) 2 ( 6) 27 (19) 1 ( 6) 17 (21) 6 (25) 24 (20) Snowmobi1i ng 3 ; 14) 13 (16) 2 ( 6) 18 (13) 1 ( 6) 10 (13) 7 (29) 18 (15) The C h i - s q u a r e t e s t has n o t been used s i n c e t h e r e c r e a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s a r e n o t independent, i . e. , resp o n d e n t s i n d i c a t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a number o f d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s . PARTICIPATION IN SELECTED ACTIVITIES TABLE 49: By Occupation Transporta-Technical t ion S Com-SUMMER Managerial{%) Profess i ona1 Ret i red Sa les and Trade mun i cat ions Other Total F i sh ing 13 (76) 21 (81) 9 (50) 8 (89) 29 (91) 12 (86) 14 (67) 106 (77) Swi mmi ng 11 (65) 20 (77) 6 (33) 9 (100) 19 (59) 9 (64) 12 (57) 86 (63) Canoe i ng 3 (18) 7 (27) 3 (17) 2 (22) 12 (38) 7 (50) 3 (14) 37 (27) Powerboa t i ng 3 (18) 4 (15) 3 (17) 4 (44) 7 (22) 2 (14) 2 (10) 25" (18) Waterski ing 2 (12) 6 (23) 1 ( 6) 0 3 ( 9) 1 ( 7) 3 (14) 16 (12) Walking for Pleasure 14 (82) 21 (81) 10 (56) 9 (100) 27 (84) 9 (64) 11 (52) 101 (74) Hi ki ng 9 (53) 17 (65) 4 (22) 5 (56) 18 (56) 10 (71) 9 (43) 72 (53) Photography 5 (29) 17 (65) 7 (39) 5 (56) 16 (50) 4 (29) 6 (29) 60 (44) Total Cottagers in Group 17 26 18 9 32 14 21 137 OTHER SEASONS F i sh i ng 3 (18) 7 (27) 3 (17) 3 (33) 8 (25) 3 (21) 7 (33) 34 (25) Walki ng 4 (24) 7 (27) 1 ( 6) 5 (56) 8 (25) 6 (43) 5 (24) 36 (26) Hiking 3 (18) 7 (27) 1 (f-6) 2 (22) 3 ( 9 ) 4 (29) 5 (24) 25 (18) Photography 2 (12) 8 (3D 0 3 (33) 6 (19) 3 (21) 3 (14) 25 (18) Hunti ng 3 (18) 4 (15) 1 ( 6) 1 (11) 7 (22) 1 ( 7) 3 (14) 20 (15) Ski i ng 3 (18) 8 (3D 1 ( 6) 1 (11) 9 (28) 6 (43) 2 (10) 30 (22) 1ce f i s h i n g 6 (35) 5 (19) 3 (17) 3 (33) 8 (25) 2 (14) 2 (10) 29 (21) Ska t i ng 3 (18) 7 (27) 2 (11) 2 (22) 6 (19) 2 (14) 3 (14) 25 (18) Snowmob i1 i ng 3 (18) 5 (19) 2 (11) 2 (22) 2 ( 6) 1 ( 7) 2 (10) 17 (12) The Chi-square test has not been used since the recreat iona l categories are not independent, i . e . , respondents indicated p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a number of d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s . ON TABLE 50: Water Supply by Age WATER SUPPLY Under 35 {% age) 35-54 55 and over Total By hand 8 (36) 26 (32) 6 (19) 40 (30) Pumped from stream 9 lake or wei1 2 ( 9) 22 (27) 8 (26) 32 (23) Community system 12 (55) 34 (41) 17 (55) 63 (47) Chi=square = 2 .23 wi th 4 degrees of freedom.. Probabi 1 i ty. = .68 Plann ing 1mprovements 9 (41) 28 (34) 12 (39) 49 (36) TABLE 51: Sewage Di sposa1 by Age SEWAGE DISPOSAL Under 35 (% age) 35-54 55 and over Tota 1 Outdoor p r i vy 12 (54) 39 (48) 10 (29) 61 (44) Chemi ca1 t o i l e t 1 ( 5) 8 (10) 3 ( 9) 12 ( 9) Sept ic tank 9 (41) 35 (43) 21 (62) 65 (47) Chi-square = 5 .04 wi th 4 degrees of freedom. Probabi1 i ty = .28 Planning 1mprovements 6 (27) 21 (26) 8 (24) 35 (25) TABLE 52: E l e c t r i c a l System by Age ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Under 35 (% age) 35-54 55 and over Tota 1 Hydro 3 (14) 12 (15) 9 (26) 24 (18) Generator 5 (23) 17 (21) 6 (19) 28 (20) None 14 (64) 52 (64) 19 (56) 85 (62) Chi-square = 2.578 with 4 degrees of freedom. P robab i l i t y = .62 Planning Improvements 3 (14) 19 (23) 8 (24) 30 (22) 118 TABLE 53: Water Supply by Family Income Under $10,000 $10,000- $20,000 WATER SUPPLY (% age) $19,999 f, Over Tota l By hand 3 (18) 26 (33) 6 (26) 35 (30) Pumped from stream, lake or wei1 3 (18) 20 (26) 6 (26) 29 (25) Community system 11 (65) 32 (41) 11 (48) 54 (46) Chi-square = 3. 370 wi th 4 degrees of freedom. Probabi1 i ty = = .51 Planni ng 1mprovements 5 (29) 29 (37) 9 (39) 43 (36) TABLE 54: Sewage Disposal by Family 1 ncome Under $10,000 $10,000- $20,000 SEWAGE DISPOSAL {% age) $19,999 S Over Total Outdoor pr ivy 2 (12) 39 (49) 9 (39) 50 (42) Chemical t o i l e t 4 (24) 6 ( 7) 2 ( 9) 12 (10) Sept ic tank 11 (65) 35 (44) 12 (52) 58 (48) Chi-square = 8.543 with 4 degrees of freedom. Probabi1 i ty = = .08 Plann i ng 1mprovements 2 (12) 24 (30) 5 (22) 31 (26) TABLE 55: E l e c t r i c a l System by Family 1 n come Under $10,000 $10,000- $20,000 ELECTRICAL SYSTEM {% age) $19,999 S OVer Total Hydro 6 (35) 13 (16) 2 ( 9) 21 (18) Generator 1 ( 6) 15 (19) 8 (36) 24 (20) None 10 (59) 52 (65) 12 (55) 74 (62) Chi-square = 9. 177, with 4 degrees of freedom. Probabi1 i ty = .06 P1anni ng 1mprovements 0 19 (24) 4 (18) 23 (19) TABLE 56: Water Supply by Occupation Transporta-Technica1 t ion & Com-WATER SUPPLY Manageria1{%) Profess iona l Retired Sales and Trade munications Other Total By hand 7 (41) 9 (36) 4 (25) 0 8 (26) 4 (31) 5 (36) 37 (30) Pumped 2 (12) 4 (16) 2 (13) 2 (22) 10 (32) 5 (38) 4 (29) 29 (23) Communi ty supply 8 (47) 12 (48) 10 (62) 7 (78) 13 (42) 4 (3D 5 (36) 59 (47) Chi-square = 13.002 wi th 12 degrees of freedom. Probab i1 i ty = .38 P1ann i ng 1mprovements 8 (47) 8 (32) 4 (25) 4 (44) 12 (39) 9 (69) 2 (14) 47 (38) TABLE 57: Sewage Disposal by Occupation SEWAGE DISPOSAL P r i vy 9 (53) 13 (50) 2 (12) 4 (44) 13 (41) 9 (69) 5 (36) 55 (43) Chemical t o i l e t 2 (12) 1 (4) 2 (12) 2 (22) 5 (16) 0 0 12 ( 9)' Sept ic tank 6 (35) 12 (46) 13 (76) 3 (33) 14 (44) 4 (3D 9 (64) 61 (48) Chi-square = 18.968 with 12 degrees of freedom. Probab i1i ty = .09 Plann i ng 1mprovements 6 (35) 5 (19) 2 (12) 4 (44) 9 (22) 6 (46) 2 (14) 34 (27) TABLE 58: E l e c t r i c a l System by Occupation ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Hydro 1 ( 6) 6 (24) 6 (35) 0 4 (12) 2 (15) 3 (21) 22 (17) Generator 2 (12) 5 (20) 1 ( 6) 4 (44) 7 (22) 3 (23) 5 (36) 27 (21) None 14 (82) 14 (56) 10 (59) 5 (56) 21 (66) 8 (62) 6 (43) 78 (61) Chi-square = 15.839 with 12 degrees of freedom. Probabi1 i ty = .20 P1 ann i ng 1mprovements 5 (29) 5 (20) 2 (12) 3 (33) 6 (19) 3 (23) 3 (21) 27 (21) 120 TABLE 59 How Owners View Their Property—by Age Number of Respondents ranking l o r 2 Under 35 {% age respondents) 35~54 55 & Over Tota 1 Place for seasonal recrea t i on 20 (100) 72 (92) 25 (83) 117 (91) Eventual year-round res i dence 4 ( 20) 26 (33) 9 (30) 39 (30) 1nvestment 8 (40) 9 (12) 5 (17) 22 (17) Other 0 3 ( 4) 1 ( 3) 4 ( 3) Total Respondents 20 78 30 128 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0093835/manifest

Comment

Related Items