SHIPWRECK vs. NONSHIPWRECK SCUBA DIVERS CHARACTERISTICS, BEHAVIOR, AND EXPENDITURE PATTERNS Donald F. Holecek, Associate Professor Department of Park and Recreation Resources Michigan State University and Susan J. Lothrop, Waterways Division Michigan Department of NaturaZ Resources and former Research Assistant, Department of Park and Recreation Resources Michigan State Vninversity December 1980 Michigan Sea Grant Publications Office 2200 Bonisteel Blvd. Ann Arbor, Mi. 48109 This work was supported by NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION Grant # RCZ-1O to the MICHIGAN SEA GRANT PROGRAM Single copies free, bulk orders $.70/ea.

\3 V. ^~~~I",V'-^- l ~, N,, ~i'<} Gust An X 4

INTRODUCTION An estimated 3000 shipwrecks lie in Michigan's Great Lakes Waters.l The historical, anthropological, scientific and recreational values of these shipwrecks are not widely recognized. Although it is known that Michigan's shipwrecks attract recreational scuba divers,2 little information relating to this use and these users is available. Thus, a survey of scuba divers who reside in the Michigan-Ohio-Indiana area was undertaken during the summer of 1978 to develop information relevant to planning for the future use of Michigan's shipwreck resources. In this report, respondents are grouped into shipwreck and nonshipwreck diving subpopulations and compared in terms of demographics, behavior, and expenditure patterns.3 SAMPLE POPULATION AND PROCEDURES A listing of divers was obtained from List Management, Inc. of New York City. Taken primarily from National Association of Underwater Instructors (NAUI) information banks, this list consists of more than 11,000 divers residing in the three states who paid approximately $100 for a scuba diving course, and invested an additional $100 in diving equipment between lWarner, Thomas D. and Holecek, Donald F., "Underwater Parks: An Unexplored Recreation Frontier?", Parks and Recreation, 13 (November 1978) 20. 2 Divers attitudes towards government regulation of underwater resources were also surveyed. That data can be found in: Holecek, Donald F. and Lcthrop, Susan J. "Attitudes of a Scuba Diving Population Concerning Government Regulation of Underwater Resources." inpress, Michigan Sea Grant Technical Report. 3A scuba diver is one who uses portable breathing devices to enable free underwater swimming.

-21972 and 1977. The divers on this list may not be representative of the general diving population. In comparison to the general diving populations, this list probably includes more individuals new to scuba diving who may be younger as well. Since addresses were not updated, this list tends to further favor inclusion of the newer diver because newer listings are more likely to be current than older ones, and/or divers who do not change their residence frequently. From this list, 800 divers were selected randomly to receive a questionnaire. A greater proportion of divers was chosen from Michigan than from Ohio and Indiana. The survey was conducted over an eight week period during the summer of 1978. The first group of questionnaires was mailed on July 14, 1978. To counter possible bias (e.g., newer and/or younger scuba divers, and divers who do not change their residence often), respondents were asked to suggest other divers to whom questionnaires could be, and subsequently were, sent. On August 2, 1978, a reminder postcard was sent to divers who had not responded to the initial mailing, and on August 14, 1978, a second mailing of the questionnaire was made. Questionnaires received after September 8, 1978, were not included in the survey results because computer analysis was initiated on that date. A total of 956 questionnaires were ultimately mailed (800 to individuals from the purchased list and 156 to divers identified by respondents) of which 836 (40%) were returned. An additional 200 questionnaires (21%) were returned unopened due to incorrect or nonforwardable address. Thus, out of the 756 presumably delivered questionnaires, 51% were returned by September 8, 1978. As mentioned previously, there are three potential sources of bias in the results which follow. The list from which subjects were chosen may include a greater

-3number of younger, recently certified divers than does the general diving population. Second, 21% of the individuals selected to respond did not receive an opportunity to respond because their questionnaire was not deliverable. These potential respondents are likely more mobile than respondents and may differ in other respects as well. Finally, 49% of the divers who actually received the questionnaire did not return it, and it is conceivable that these divers could differ from responding divers. DISCUSSION In this report, "shipwreck divers" refers to those divers who dive shipwrecks in Michigan.4 Socio-Economic Characteristics The state of residence for the sampled population is shown in Table 1. Because a greater proportion of the sample was drawn from Michigan divers, it is not surprising that the majority of the respondents are from Michigan. The information contained in Table 1 is useful in assessing the popularity of shipwreck diving. About one out of every four respondents (27%) classified themselves as shipwreck divers; however, shipwreck diving is not equally popular in each of the three states. About 40% of Michigan divers participate in shipwreck diving while only about, 13% of the divers from Ohio and Indiana enjoy this activity. Proximity to shipwrecks rather than preference may account for the varying popularity of shipwreck diving from state to state. 4The questionnaire contained the following question: "Do you dive shipwrecks in Michigan?" All respondents answering this question in the affirmative were classified as shipwreck divers. I_______________

Table 1 State of Residence of Responding Divers* State of All Respondents Nonshipwreck Divers Shipwreck Divers Residence Number Percent Number Percent Number lPercent Michigan 197 53.7 117 43.9 80 80.0 Ohio 114 31.1 102 38.2 12 12.0 Indiana 31 8.4 25 9.3 6 6.0 Other states 25 6.8 23 8.6 2 2.0 TOTAL 367 100.0 267 100.0 100 100.0 I This table cannot be used to judge the relative popularity of diving between these states because proportionally more Michigan divers were selected to receive questionnaires.

-5The majority of divers are single (55%) males (86%) between 21 and 30 years of age (63%). These results are fairly consistent with the 1977 survey of divers conducted by Skin Diver magazine. Although slightly more of the respondents to the magazine survey were married, scuba diving was found to be dominated by single males between 25 and 35 years of age. All but 4% of the responding divers completed high school; the majority (76.1%) had at least some college education (see Table 2). Skin Diver found that 72.2% of its respondents had some college education. Probably the most significant difference between shipwreck and nonshipwreck diver educational achievements is that 22.8% only of the former have earned a college degree while 40.6% of nonshipwreck divers have graduated from college. Gross household income for the divers is reported in Table 3. The 1977 Skin Diver survey found the average household income of the responding divers to be $23,220. Our respondents average household income was considerably less ($17,687). The average gross income is slightly higher for shipwreck divers, but the difference between them and nonshipwreck divers is not statistically significant. A possible explaination for this difference in household incomes will be suggested by the information on occupation to be discussed next. Table 4 presents information collected on the occupations of responding divers. More shipwreck than nonshipwreck divers are employed as managers, craftsmen and operatives. On the other hand, more nonshipwreck divers are students and/or are unemployed, and it may be the low earnings of these two groups which lower the average household income for the nonshipwreck diver group of respondents. In summary, the responding divers overall appear to be fairly typical of the general population in this region with respect to income, occupation and education. Divers tend to be relatively young and predominately unmarried. There is little to distinguish the shipwreck

Table 2 Highest Level of Education Achieved by ResDonding Divers Highest Level of Education All Respondents Nonshipwreck Divers Shipwreck Divers Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Some High School 15 4.0 10 3.7 5 5.0 High School 74 19.9 48 17.7 26 25.7 Some College (includes associate degree) 150 40.4 103 38.0 47 46.5 B.A./B.S. 87 23.4 71 26.2 16 15.8 M.A./M.S. 31 8.3 26 9.6 5 5.0 Professional Degree (M.D., D.D.S.,etc.) 12 3.2 10 3.7 2 2.0 Ph.D. 3 0.8 3 1.1 0 0.0 TOTAL 372 100.0 271 100.0 101 100.0

Table 3 Household Gross Income of Responding Divers Hlousehold Gross All Respondents Nonshipwreck Divers Shipwreck Divers Income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent $ 0 - $ 5,000 51 14.6 43 17.1 8 8.2 5,001 - 10,000 40 11.5 27 10.7 13 13.4 10,001 - 15,000 66 18.9 47 18.7 19 19.6 15,001 - 20,000 63 18.1 45 17.8 18 18.6 20,001 - 25,000 50 14.3 37 14.7 13 13.4 25,001 - 30,000 32 9.1 20 7.9 12 12.4 30,001 - 35,000 15 4.3 9 3.6 6 6.2 35,001 - 40,000 7 2.0 3 1.2 4 4.1 over 40,000 25 7.2 21 8.3 4 4.1 TOTAL 349 100.0 252 100.0 97 100.0 Average Household Incomel $17,687 $17,322 $18,635 Difference Between the Means $1,313'Pretests did not indicate that a significant number of divers would have household gross incomes of over $40,000. In order to derive an estimate for average household income it was necessary to arbitrarily establish an upper boundary for this income class. An upper limit of $45,000 was selected.

Table 4 Occupation of Responding Divers All Respondents Nonshipwreck Divers Shipwreck Divers Job Category, Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Professional/Technical 96 26.3 72 27.2 24 23.7 Managerial/Administrative 40 11.0 25 9.5 15 14.9 Sales/Clerical 24 6.6 17 6.5 7 6.9 Craftsmen 24 6.6 11 4.2 13 12.9 Operative/Laborer 58 15.9 39 14.7 19 18.8 Farmer 2.5 2.8 0 0.0 Service 37 10.1 28 10.6 9 8.9 Retired 1.3 1.4 0 0.0 Student 64 17.5 52 19.7 12 11.9 Self-Employed 7 1.9 5 1.9 2 2.0 Unemployed 12 3.3 12 4.5 0 0.0 TOTAL 365 100.0 264 100.0 101 100.0

-9from the nonshipwreck divers though the former tend less frequently to be college graduates and earn more than the latter. General Diving Information All respondents were asked a number of questions pertaining to four aspects of diving: 1) certification status 2) years of diving experience, 3) preference of maximum diving depth, and 4) level of investment in equipment. Their responses were coded and analyzed, and the results are presented below. Table 5 indicates the level of certification achieved by the sample population. Although 98% of the responding divers are certified, shipwreck divers have achieved significantly higher levels of certification. This may indicate that shipwreck divers are more serious about their sport than their nonshipwreck diving counterparts. Another important factor in assessing a divers overall competency is his or her years of diving experience. Years of diving experience reported by respondents are presented in Table 6. In general, divers have been involved in diving for an average of 5.3 years. Shipwreck divers have been diving for a longer period of time than nonshipwreck divers. The fact that nearly 60% of the respondents have been diving for less than four years is worth noting. This result suggests that: 1) the sport has grown very quickly in recent years, 2) diving is a sport exhibiting a high dropout rate, and/or 3) the sample included a disproportionate number of individuals new to the sport. As the bulk of respondents was drawn from a list of individuals who likely began diving between 1972 and 1977, it is logical to assume that this study's responding population is less experienced than the general diving population. However, there is considerable opinion* to *When these results were presented and discussed during the Institute most of the audience present agreed that a high dropout rate was a characteristic of the sport.

Table 5 Highest Level of uiver Certification Achieved by Responding Divers All Respondents Nonshipwreck Divers Shipwreck Divers Level of Certification Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Skin Diver 5 1.4 5 1.9 0 0.0 Basic Scuba Diver 155 41.9 131 48.7 24 23.8 Openwater/Sport Diver 121 32.7 85 31.6 36 35.6 Advanced/Specialty Diver 41 11.1 29 10.8 12 11.9 Assistant Instructor 15 4.1 6 2.2 9 8.9 Instructor 21 5.6 7 2.6 14 13.9 ^ ~Commercial/Professional 12 3.2 6 2.2 6 5.9 Diver TOTAL 370 100.0 269 100.0 101 100.0

Table 6 Number of Years Responding Divers Had Been Involved in Diving All Respondents Nonshipwreck Divers Shipwreck Divers Number of Years Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0 to 4 years 216 58.5 170 63.4 46 45.5 5 to 8 years 103 28.0 72 26.9 31 30.7 9 to 12 years 21 5.7 16 5.9 5 5.0 13 to 16 years 11 3.0 5 1.8 6 5.9 17 to 20 years 10 2.7 2.8 8 7.9 21 to 24 years 2.5 1.4 1 1.0 25 to 29 years 5 1.4 1.4 4 4.0 30 to 33 years 1.2 1.4 0 0.0 TOTAL 369 100.0 268 100.0 101 100.0 Average Number of years 5.3 years 4.6 years 7.3 years Difference Between the Means 2.7 years *Significant atoc=.05

-12support a high dropout rate for scuba diving, and it is not possible to eliminate rapid growth in participation as also being important. Unfortuantely, it is not possible to determine scientifically the relative importance of each of these factors in explaining the relatively short duration of involvement in diving found for this group of divers. Although shipwreck divers, on the average, prefer to dive to a slightly greater maximum depth (86.14 feet vs. 74.64 feet) than their nonshipwreck diving counterparts, the average difference is not statistically significant as can be seen in Table 7. Furthermore, the vast majority of responding divers prefer diving depths of less than 100 feet, but the percentage of shipwreck divers willing to dive deeper than 100 feet is more than double that for nonshipwreck divers. Investment in diving equipment was selected as another factor worth investigating as it would be of value in assessing both the economic importance of the sport and possibly the relative interest in diving. As can be seen in Table 8, the shipwreck divers average investment in diving equipment is more than double the amount invested by the nonshipwreck diver. At least part of the difference can be explained by the fact that 89% of the shipwreck divers claim to own their diving equipment whereas only 55% of the nonshipwreck divers own their equipment. Thus, the nonshipwreck diver who owns his/her equipment probably has only slightly less invested in diving equipment than does the shipwreck diver. A final area of interest involving financial investment in scuba diving involves chartering boats for diving trips. Asked if they had ever chartered a boat for a diving excursion, 71.3% of the shipwreck divers responded positively compared to only 38.2% of the nonshipwreck divers. In summary, the information given in Tables 5 through 8 indicates that shipwreck

Table 7 Maximum Depth to which Responding Divers Preferred to Dive Maximum Depth All Respondents Nonshipwreck Divers Shipwreck Divers Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent 0-50 feet 121 33.2 99 37.4 22 22.2 51-100 feet 184 50.6 133 50.1 51 51.5 101-150 feet 53 14.6 28 10.6 25 25.3 151-200 feet 3.8 2.8 1 1.0 over 200 feet 3.8 3 1.1 TOTAL 364 100.0 265 100.0 99 100.0 CO Average Maximum Depth 77.77 feet 74.64 feet 86.14 feet Difference Between the Means 11.5 feet

Table 8 Level of Investment in Diving Equipment Reported by Responding Divers All ResDondents Nonshipwreck Divers Shipwreck Divers Money Invested Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Less than $50 48 12.8 47 17.2 1 1.0 $ 51 - $ 199 63 16.8 56 20.4 7 6.9 $ 200 - $ 350 39 10.4 35 12.8 4 4.0 $ 351 - $ 500 48 12.8 42 15.3 6 5.9 $ 501 - $ 650 34 9.1 23 8.4 11 10.9 $ 651 - $ 800 41 11.0 22 8.0 19 18.8 $ 801 - $ 950 14 3.7 9 3.3 5 5.0 $ 951 - $1,100 21 5.6 14 5.1 7 6.9 $1,101 - $1,250 11 2.9 6 2.2 5 5.0 A $1,251 - $1,400 8 2.1 5 1.8 3 3.0 a over - $1,400 48 12.8 15 5.5 33 32.6 TOTAL 375 100.0 274 100.0 101 100.0 Average Amount of Money Investedl $580.41 $448.50 $938.28 Difference Between the Means $489.78* lPretests; did not indicate that a significant number of divers would have invested more than $1400 in diving equipment. In order to facilitate analysis, it was necessary to arbitrarily establish an upper limit of $1550. The result of this limitation may make the amount of money invested in diving equipment somewhat conservative. *Significant at c =.05

-15divers have devoted more time to diving training, spent more years diving, and have invested more money in the sport than their nonshipwreck counterparts. Shipwreck Diving Information The 101 respondents involved in diving shipwrecks in Michigan were asked questions concerning 1) how they locate and gain access to wrecks, 2) where they prefer to dive shipwrecks in Michigan, and 3) their objectives in diving shipwrecks. The majority of shipwreck divers (74.3%) have been diving shipwrecks for less than five years.; Most frequently, they rely on the knowledge of friends and relatives to locate shipwreck dive sites. Newsletters are the least used information source for locating shipwrecks, but this may be a result of a lack of newsletters pertaining to this subject. A complete tabulation of how divers acquire knowledge of shipwreck locations is presented in Table 9. The information given in Table 10 shows how divers gain access to shipwrecks. Privately owned boats are used most often. Yet, "charter boat," "club's or friend's boat," and even simply "walking in" appear to be fairly popular means of accessing shipwrecks. The respondents listed 177 favorite shipwreck dive sites; however, different divers frequently listed some of the same sites. Even after taking into account multiple listings of the same s'ites, the remaining list was far too long for convenient reporting. In order to facilitate reporting, sites were grouped into and reported by the Michigan Depart*Five years is likely a low estimate of years of involvement for the total shipwreck diving population because sampling in this study favored inclusion of respondents with fewer years of experience.

-16Table 9 How Divers who Dive Shipwrecks in Michigan Acquire Knowledge of Shipwreck Locations Means of Location Shipwrecks Number Percent Newsletters yes 7 6.9 no 94 93.1 Magazines yes 13 12.9 no 88 87.1 Friends/Relatives yes 67 66.3 no 34 33.7 Charter Boat Crews yes 37 36.6 no 64 63.4 Club Members yes 37 36.6 no 64 63.4 Local Residents in Divesite Area yes 40 39.6 no 61 60.4 Table 10 How Divers who Dive Shipwrecks in Michigan Gain Access to Shipwrecks Means of Gaining Access to Shipwrecks Number Percent Charter Boat yes 41 41.6 no 60 59.4 Personally Owned Boat yes 55 54.5 no 46 45.5 Clubs' or Friends' Boat yes 43 42.6 no 58 57.8 Walk In yes 37 36.6 no 64 63.4

-17ment of Natural Resources 17 standard recreation planning regions. Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of total responses each of these areas received. It is interesting to compare these responses to some suggested underwater park sites (shaded areas of Figure 1 which are numbered 1-11)4. Since four prime0 suggested park sites (shaded areas #3, 4, 5, and 6 in Figure 1) are located off the coast of the two recreation planning regions in Michigan's northern lower peninsula, it was expected that the majority of divers would choose these regions as their favorite areas for diving shipwrecks. About 35% of the divers did choose these regions; however, 23% of the divers selected the southeastern most region, making it the single most popular area. A possible reason for this area's popularity is its proximity to the most populated area of the state. Shipwreck divers may dive this area more frequently than others reputed to be of higher quality simply because it is closer to their homes. Planners of underwater parkhistorical preserves need to examine this hypothesis in greater depth. I-f the time and financial savings involved in diving closer to home outweigh higher quality opportunities at greater distances, then development of park-preserves should proceed accordingly. A final question posed to the shipwreck divers concerns their objectives in diving wrecks. Treasures, photography, and personal/professional research are priorities to some divers, but 86% agree that they dive wrecks just to look at them. A tabulation of divers objectives in diving shipwrecks is given in Table 11. 4"Shipwreck Lovers Push for Lake Parks", Detroit Free Press, December 1, 1975. 5Prime is used here in a subjective sense based upon the authors knowledge of the quality of shipwrecks present in these areas in comparison to other areas.

_d*11 -18— 1 —— ():t l Sy - - -v 9 "\J3%f~~~~-',11% 7%. 4.... 4. *3?~~~~~~': state recreation plonning S - 1 9%o region boundary: suggested areas for under- 16/ water park sites 6 = Port Salinac Area 0 r 2 2 = Point Aux Barques ^ 3= Thunder Boy 4= Mackinac Straits 7 8 / 5 =Beaver Island Group 6= Monitou Island Group * 1 % -L % 7 = Oceona County Area ^ 8 = Muskegon Area _ _4 _ 9 =Whitefish Bay 0% 10 = Grand Marias 11 = Keeweenow Peninsula,.~% 0% 23% 0 48 96 miles 0 % 0 — O8% —.8 % FIGURE 1. Sample Shipwreck Diver's Favorite Areas to Dive Wrecks in Michigan. Designation of areas based on State Recreotion Planning Regions.

Table 11 Shipwreck Divers Objectives in Diving Shipwrecks Objectives Number Percent Treasure/Trophy yes 30 29.7 no 71 70.3 Photography yes 27 26.7 no 7 4 73.3 Per s onal/Profes sional Research yes 19 18.8 No 82 81.2 Just to look at the wrecks yes 36 85.1 no 15 14.9

Table 12 Responding Divers' Views on the Role of State Government in Controlling Shipwreck Salvage Activies te o All Respondents Nonshipwreck Divers Shipwreck Dive Extent of Government Number Number Number Number Number Number Control selecting Peselecting Percent selecting Percent sel options options options Minimal Control 41 14.0 31 14.2 10 13.7 Allow salvage of items that can only be 32 11.0 20 9.1 12 16.4 taken without tools Ban all salvage in selected areas 54 18.5 36 16.4 18 24.7 Require permits to C salvage anything of CI historical or 108 37.0 90 41.1 18 24.7 recreational value Allow salvage without restriction or permit 7 5 42 15 20. 57 19.5 42 19.2 1 20.5 in all but designated areas TOTAL 292 100.0 219 100.0 73 100.0

-21Expenditure Patterns For some time now, planner-policymakers have recognized the value of systematic impact assessment of policy alternatives. The objective of such assessments is basically to identify those alternative uses of scarce resources which are most beneficial to society. Economic impact is usually included in these assessments. One objective of this study is to produce some data needed to begin to estimate the economic impact of the sport of scuba diving. To ascertain spending patterns, divers who were actively involved in scuba diving in 1977, were asked to fill in a table pertaining to each individual diving trip. They were asked to give such information as: 1) list of trips taken in 1977, 2) number of people in each diving party, and 3) a breakdown of personal expenditures per trip. Nonshipwreck divers and shipwreck divers differ significantly in most areas concerning general diving trip characteristics. As shown in Table 13, shipwreck divers took more trips in 1977, traveled a greater number of miles from home to the dive site area, and participated in the activity with a greater number of people in the diving party. Shipwreck divers also probably spent more nights away from home on diving trips. The expenditure patterns of the two diving subpopulations are shown in Table 14. Shipwreck divers spend slightly more money annually in all but one category (hotel/motel accomodations); however, Figure 2 presents information which suggests that both groups of divers allocate their total annual expenditures similarly. Average per trip expenditures total $103.38 for shipwreck divers and $111.68 for nonshipwreck divers since both groups of divers spend about $100 per trip this leads to the conclusion that differences in total expenditures result from the number of trips taken per year rather than expenditures per trip.

-22Table 13 1977 Diving Trip Information from Nonshipwreck Divers and Shipwreck Divers Number of Sample Difference E Cases Means tween the Me Number of Trips in 1977 Nonshipwreck Divers 108 2.26 142* Shipwreck Divers 60 3.68 Total Number of Miles from Place of Residence to Divesite Area Nonshipwreck Divers 108 898.77 Shipwreck Divers 60 1475.81 577. 4 Total Number of Nights Spent Away from Home on Diving Trips Nonshipwreck Divers 108 7 Shipwreck Divers 60 11 Total Number of People in Diving Party Nonshipwreck Divers 108 12 1 Shipwreck Divers 60 26 *Significant at C> =.05

-23Table 14 Expenditure Patterns of Nonshirwreck Divers and Shipwreck Divers During 1977 Diving Trips Number of Sample Difference Cases Means Between the Means Total Expenditures in Commercial Establishments (restaurants, etc.) Nonshipwreck Divers 108 $ 60.24 Shipwreck Divers 60 $10316 $.92 Total Expenditures in Grocery Store Purchase Nonshipwreck Divers 108 $ 24.52 $22.13.' Shipwreck Divers 60 $ 46.65 Total Expenditures in Hotel/Motel Lodgings Nonshipwreck Divers 108 $ 56.93 $ 7 25 Shipwreck Divers 60 $ 49.68 7 Total Expenditures in Campground Lodgin.gs Nonshipwreck Divers 108 $ 10.39 7 Shipwreck Divers 70 $ 18.01 Total Expenditures on Boat Charter Nonshipwreck Divers 108 $ 48.96 Shipwreck Divers 60 $ 70.31 21. Total Expenditures on Diving Equipment Nonshipwreck Divers 108 $ 26.73 Shipwreck Divers 60 $ 27.28 $. Total Expenditures on Miscellaneous Items Nonshipwreck Divers 108 $ 24.62 $. Shipwreck Divers 60 $ 65.37 TOTAL EXPENDITURES ON DIVING TRIPS IN 1977 Nonshipwreck Divers 108 $252.39 $128 06 Shipwreck Divers 60 $380.45 *Significant at oC =.05

24 Nornshinwreck Divers Miscelle-eous Items Commercial E 9.6% s -Esa-ablishments Diving 24% Equipment Boat 19.7 ) Grocery Store Charter 19.4% Prchase 4.1% Campgrounrd Hotel/Motel Lodgings Lodgings Shipwreck Divers Miscelleanous Items Commercial Establ shments /. 7.2 i 27~0 Diving / Equipment \ IP 18t-o. I i52 xo% /Grocery S-ore \ 18.5% /7 \ 12\' /~ Purchases Boat Charter Campground Hotel/Motel Lodg i s Lodgings Figure 2 How the shipwreck and nonshipwreck diving subpopulations allocate their expenditures per diving trip.

-25It is now possible to develop some preliminary estimates of the economic impact of scuba diving which can be refined as more information becomes available. Listed below are some of the data and assumtions which will be used to generate these estimates. 1. The list from which the sample was taken contains 11,000 names. These divers reside in Michigan, northern Ohio and northern Indiana. This does not include all divers in these regions because it covers the period from 1972-77. If one is willing to assume that the number of divers on the list who do not dive in Michigan is equal to the number of divers not included on the list who do dive in Michigan is about equal, then 11,000 may be a reasonable estimate of Michigan's diving population's size. 2. The average respondent in this study reported an investment of $600 in diving equipment. 3. The average respondent in this study reported spending about $300 per year per diving trip. 4. The "rule of thumb". estimate of the multiplier impact of tourist expenditures is about 2.0. Thus, the total investment in equipment by divers who dive in Michigan is $6,000,000. The annual expenditure on dive trips for this population is $3,300,000. Since these expenditures are made while divers are away from home, their impact falls upon the communities where they are spent, and these initial expenditures stimulate subsequent rounds of spending by those who receive them. Thus, the total impact of these expenditures is: $3,300,000 in the first round x 2.0 (the tourism multiplier) = $6,600,000. It should be noted that some unknown

-26portion of diver trip expenditures are made outside Michigan. Although the above are but crude estimates, they do provide some insight into the magnitude of the economic impacts of scuba diving in Michigan. CONCLUSIONS This report is based on a survey which investigated the general characteristics, diving habits and expenditure patterns of scuba divers in the Michigan-Ohio-Indiana area. Survey re.sults indicate that scuba diving is dominated by young, well-educated males with fairly high levels of discretionary income. In general, the divers have been involved in this sport for approximately five years, prefer a diving depth of 75 feet, and have invested approximately$500 in diving equipment. Shipwreck divers differ somewhat from these general patterns. They have been diving for a greater number of years, have achieved higher levels of certification and have invested slightly more money in diving equipment. The fact that shipwreck divers devote more time and invest more dollars in training and pursuing scuba diving further suggests a sincere interest in this particular aspect of the sport. Finally, the data were interpreted to provide some preliminary estimates of the economic importance of scuba diving in Michigan. However, in order to present a complete picture, the archaeological, scientific and recreational value of shipwrecks must also be considered. No information concerning the cost side of the ledger has been included. Thus, there is need for considerably more data before a comprehensive economic analysis can be made. Only then, can we determine the best use for Michigan's shipwreck resources.

-27REFERENCES McDiarmid, Hugh, "Shipwreck Lovers Push for Lake Parks." Detroit Free Press. December 1, 1975, Section A, p. 34. Nie, Norman H., et. al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. 2nd edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1979. Warner, Thomas D. and Holecek, Donald F., "Underwater Parks: An Unexplored Recreation Frontier?" Parks and Recreation, (November 1978). "77 Reader Survey", Skin Diver Magazine, 1977. Holecek, Donald F. and Lothrop, Susan J. "Attitudes of a Scuba Diving Population Concerning Government Regulation of Underwater Resources".