i All ,,,4U,., CIRCULAR 178 %sdents -, JUNE 1970 7' .V. Agricultural Experiment Station Smith, DirecAbunUnvrrt Auburn, Alabama CONTE NTS Page METHOD OF STUDY--- - --- ------ -- -- - - - 4 VACATION TRIPS --- -- --- -- -- --- -- --- -- -- -- - -- - 4 D escrip tion -- - - - - - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - - - D estination --- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - - - - --- - - - - 4 -7 M ajor S ta tes -- - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - WEEK END T RIPS-------------------------------------- 8 9 H OM E V ACATIONS-------------------------------------11 S UM M A R Y -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - 13 A P P E N D IX A -- - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 15 A P PEN DIX B . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - -- 15 FIRST PRINTING 3M, JUNE 1970 Vacation ctivities esi ets' of 4 a ama E. W. McCOY, Assistant Professor of Agricultural Economics L. A. WRIGHT, Former Graduate Research Assistant O NE OF THE OUTSTANDING FEATURES of the American economy has been the increase in free time available to the individual. Among the unique features of the increase is the extent of its spread to all levels of society. The average wage earner now has more free time than work time. The combination of a longer life span and earlier retirement is leading to greatly increased free time at upper age levels. The application of technology to production of goods formerly produced in the home and to the mechanical tasks of housekeeping are also adding to the free time of housewives. Gains in free time between 1940 and 1962 by industrial workers covered by collective bargaining agreements are indicated in the data below: 2 Gain in free time from: 11/2 hr. shorter work week -75 Hours gained in free time per year per fulltime employed person 32 6 days more paid vacation 4 days more paid holidays -48 Total 155 1Work on this project, Ala. 1-037, was carried out under a contract with the State Department of Conservation as a portion of the research involved in preparing a Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. 2 Peter, Henle. 1962. Recent Growth of Paid Leisure for U.S. Workers. Monthly Labor Review. These gains of 155 hours per year in free time have come to people at all income levels. A portion of this free time is used by many individuals for vacation activities. The nature and scope of these vacation activities among Alabama residents constitute the theme of this study. METHOD OF STUDY In 1967 a survey was undertaken to ascertain the recreational activities of Alabama residents 12 years of age or older. A stratified random sample of 640 households consisting of 1,346 individuals 12 years of age or older was questioned about recreational activities as well as certain socio-economic factors (Appendix A). The total sample size was preselected to meet certain criteria for statistical significance. The State was stratified on a population basis by State Recreational Planning Regions as defined in the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan,3 Figure 1. The regions were then stratified by the proportion of the regional population dwelling in urban, rural non-farm, and farm households. A random sample was then collected from within the dual stratification. A vacation subpopulation of 1,225 individuals was segregated from the total sample. To ascertain if the segregation was legitimate this subpopulation was compared to the total sample and to population data derived from secondary sources. VACATION TRIPS Description In 1967, 91 per cent of the Alabama residents included in the survey engaged in some type of vacation. Fifty-six per cent of these persons took time from work and left home for their vacation. Some traveled to areas outside the State but 24 per cent remained in Alabama. According to data obtained from the Alabama Bureau of..Publicity and Information, 4 33 per cent of all out-of-state visitors to Alabama in 1967 were on business trips. Only two per cent of the Alabama vacationers listed business as the purpose of their trip,6 Table 1. Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. Part 1. State Responsibility. Ala. Dept. of Conservation. p. 146-147. SFacts and. Figures-Alabama Travel Industry. 1967. Alabama Bureau of Publicity and Information. The questionnaire was related to recreation and may have underestimated the number of business or non-recreational trips. [4] FIG. 1. Recreational Planning Regions of Alabama. [5] TABLE 1. PURPOSE OF TRIP, METHOD OF TRAVEL, AND DESTINATION BY CENSUS REGION FOR ALABAMA VACATIONERS, 1967 Item Vacationers Purpose of trip Visit friends and relatives-------------------------Sightseeing ----------- --------Bu siness- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Pct. - R e la x ----- ---- --------- ---- ----- ---- ---- -- --- --- -- --- --- -- --- --- ---- ------ -- ---- -2 58 22 16--------------- O ther -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2 Method of travel C a r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -8 B us -- --- ---- - ---- - ---- - -- -- - -- -- - -- --- ---Train - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2 Plan e - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -2 Destination by region No rtheast---------------------------------------------- ------ ----- --- 9 7 N orth Central-------- -------W e st - -------- --- -- -12 -4 1 83 South - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - ------ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - visiting relatives The majority of the Alabama vacationers and friends as the purpose of their trip. Next largest group was the recreational vacationers, a category determined by combining those listing sightseeing and relaxing as trip purposes. Certain recreational aspects were normally present in trips to visit relatives and friends and may have been present for business trips. While recreation normally indicated active participation, quiet conversation or family dinners with friends and relatives were also forms of recreation. The businessman may have used a portion of his free time to play golf or see a movie. The primary purpose of a trip did not preclude secondary activities such as recreational outings. A significant majority of vacationers traveled by personal automobile, Table 1. Personal automobiles tended to allow travel flexibility not available with other types of transportation. Autoamobile costs did not increase in proportion to the number of passengers as was true with other types of transportation. With a decrease in the number of scheduled passenger trains and buses, use of these forms of transportation can be expected to decline in the future. Alternatively, with an increased availability of scheduled air flights, use of this form of transportation can be expected to increase. The vacation travelers engaged in many different primary recreational' activities during their trips.6 Sightseeing was the most gaged in numerous recreational activities besides- those they mentioned. [6] listed ' Only primary recreational activities were listed. Vacationers may have en- prevalent activity with 55 per cent of the travelers indicating they engaged in it during their trip, Appendix Table 1. Only 16 per cent of the week-end vacationers listed sightseeing as the main purpose of their trip, indicating many persons engaged in the activity even though the primary purpose of their trip was something different. The prevalence of outdoor recreation activities which did not require special equipment or skills was apparent. Vacation activity was primarily a family affair with 72 per cent of the vacation parties represented by family units, Appendix Table 2. Vacation parties listed as respondent and children were almost exclusively represented by the wife as respondent. The respondent designation was used to indicate the persons replying to the questionnaire. Of those vacation trips which included children, 79' per cent included children less than 12 years of age. This point was particularly relevant since recreational data often are reported only for persons 12 years of age or older. A significant portion of the outdoor recreation demand represented by Alabama vacationers came from this younger age group. However, the decision regarding what activity is to be engaged in may be made by someone other than the under 12 youth. Destination The Census Regions of the United States as delineated by the Bureau of the Census were used in analyzing the destination of Alabama vacationers, Figure 2. The first subdivision was made on the basis of State Recreational Planning Regions as defined in Figure 1. The majority of vacationers traveled to the Southern Region, which included Alabama, Appendix Tables 3 and 4. Eighty-three per cent of all Alabama vacationers interviewed utilized facilities within the Southern Region, Table 1. Only 1 per cent of the vacationers traveled to the Northeast Region, which included the New England states. Only persons with a vacation period longer than 7 days visited the Northeast Region. Approximately 59 per cent of all Alabama vacationers had less than 8 days leave from work in 1967. Consequently, 91 per cent of this group chose to remain in the Southern Region during their vacation. The vacation travelers were cross classified with the census region of destination according to three socio-economic factors: places of residence; income level; and race, Appendix Tables 5, 6, and 7. The travelers were first subdivided into urban, rural nonfarm, and farm residents. All of the farm residents who took a va[71 FIG. 2. Census regions of the United States: West. North Central; and 4 1 - Northeast; 2 -=South; 3 = cation remained in the Southern Region. The urban and rural non-farm travelers differed slightly in the proportions traveling to areas outside the South. The income classification of travelers demonstrated that low income vacationers visited approximately the same regions as higher income travelers. Proportionately fewer low income persons took vacations, however. Only the group having incomes exceeding $15,000 exhibited a different travel pattern, with proportionally more members traveling to the Western Region. The racial distribution of travelers to the census regions was quite different with substantial variation. The total population was 75 per cent white and 25 per cent nonwhite, but visitation to the Northeast Region was 82 per cent white and 67 per cent non-white. Only visitation within the Southern Region resembled the proportions present in the population. The proportion of non-white vacationers was significantly lower than their proportion of the total population. Major States The majority of Alabama travelers vacationed in Alabama or one of the four adjoining states, Appendix Table 8. The travel patterns to the adjoining states from Alabama recreation planning regions differed with proportionately high visitation to Mississippi [8] from Regions 3 and 4. The place of residence classification of Alabama vacationers was not significantly different with regard to travel to the major states. The vacation travel within Alabama and adjoining states was subdivided by income groupings, Appendix Tables 9-13. The proportion of Alabama residents who vacationed in Alabama declined with an increase in income until the upper income range was reached. At the upper income range the number of Alabama vacationers who chose to vacation in Alabama increased. The subdivisions of vacationers by race indicated a very low incidence of non-white Alabama vacationers to Florida. None of the non-white persons interviewed listed Florida as the destination of their vacation trip. The number of vacationers remaining in Alabama or traveling to Mississippi closely approximated the proportion of each race in the Alabama population. One of the major factors influencing the distance traveled on a vacation was the length of the vacation period. Of those visitors to the five major states, approximately 72 per cent were on a vacation of less than 1 week. Fifty-nine per cent of all Alabama vacationers were in this grouping. WEEKEND TRIPS The survey results indicated that 33 per cent of Alabama residents took at least one weekend trip that involved an overnight stay. Since there was less time available on a weekend trip, 54 per cent of all persons taking a weekend trip remained within the State, Appendix Table 8. Many Alabama residents took more than one weekend trip during the year, Table 2. TABLE 2. ALABAMA WEEKEND VACATIONERS BY NUMBER OF TRIPS, 1967 Trips No. 1 Weekend vacationers Pct. 61 3 2: 29 8 2 4 or more Weekend vacationers were subdivided by recreation planning region of residence, income level, place of residence, and race to ascertain if travel patterns existed, Appendix Table 14.1 The division of weekend vacationers by recreation planning region of residence was significantly different from the total population but similar to the vacation population. Many of the weekend vaca[9] tioners also took vacation trips. The percentage of weekend vacationers from Region 2 was below the percentage of the total population living in that region. The place of residence of weekend vacationers was similar to the general population but differed from the vacation population. A comparatively larger percentage of rural non-farm residents engaged in weekend vacations. The income level of weekend vacationers was significantly different from both the general and vacation populations. Lower income families may have been able to take a weekend trip whereas a vacation was beyond their means. Income and available time may be determinants in vacation activity. In 1960, over 60 per cent of the families in Alabama received an income of less than $6,000 per year. More than 47 per cent of the 1967 sampled population had family income below this amount. Only 37 per cent of the weekend vacationers and 32 per cent of the vacationers received a family income of less than $6,000 per year. With an upgrading of family income the number of vacationers and weekend trips may increase. The racial distribution of the weekend vacationers differed from both the total population and the vacation population. If the nonwhite population were to assume the travel characteristics of the white population, the number of weekend vacationers would increase. Thirty-nine per cent of the white population took weekend vacations during 1967 while only 15 per cent of the non-white population were taking weekend trips during this period. The distribution of persons accompanying the respondent on a weekend trip was similar to the distribution for persons taking vacations. The majority of the trips were family oriented. Many of the trips taken alone were by single persons or by older children in the family. The inclusion of a "friend and relatives" category disclosed the frequency of this type of trip. The types of recreational activities participated in on weekend trips were similar to vacation trips, Appendix Table 1. The first four activities were the same with swimming transferred to first place and fishing to third. Much of the fishing was on weekend trips within the State. Many persons taking weekend trips did not list any recreational activities on the trip. The purpose of the trip was to visit relatives and friends or to attend some group function. This did not mean that the respondent failed to engage in a recreational activity. No listings of recreational activities were made for children under 12 years of age. [10] In essence, a weekend represented an opportunity to extend the recreational range. A family could leave Friday evening, travel to a site, recreate Saturday and a portion of Sunday and travel back home without taking formal time off from work. The distance traveled limited the amount of time available at the ultimate site. HOME VACATIONS The third type of vacation period was represented by those persons who had formal time off from work but who, for various reasons, did not use this time for an overnight stay away from home. Some of this vacation time was involuntary in that the vacation period was specified by the employer. Approximately 9 per cent of the population of Alabama interviewed had an at-home vacation. As with the other types of vacation activities, at-home vacations were subdivided by recreation planning region, place of residence, income level, and race to determine patterns of participation, Appendix Tables 5-7. The at-home vacations were distributed throughout the State recreation planning regions approximately in proportion to the total population in the regions. This differed from the weekend vacationers and the vacation population. The place of residence of the at-home vacationers was significantly different from all the other subpopulations as well as the total population. Almost half of the at-home vacationers were rural non-farm, Appendix Table 14. The income distribution of the at-home vacationers did not explain the high incidence of rural non-farm participants. Low income would indicate an inability to travel on a vacation trip; however, none of the at-home vacationers reported an income below $3,000. This discrepancy is partially explained by multiple working members of the family. Often the husband and wife were both employed and their vacation periods were not concurrent. Higher income was reported under these conditions; however, the opportunity for a vacation trip together was decreased. A secondary factor was the relatively high incidence of both at-home vacations and vacation trips reported. Approximately 74 per cent of the at-home vacationers also took one or more vacation trips during 1967. The length of the at-home vacations, Table 3, as well as the type of recreational activities in which people engaged further clarified the position of this type of vacation. None of the at-home vacations exceeded 5 days in length, which would [ 11] TABLE 3. NUMBER OF VACATION TRIPS TAKEN, LENGTH OF VACATION, AND SEASON OF YEAR VACATION TAKEN, ALABAMA HOME VACATIONERS, 1967 Item Number of vacation trips taken 1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -8 2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 3 or m o re - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -5 Length of home vacation (days) 2 -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - - - -- - -4 Home vacationers Pct. 8 1-----4 7 3 33 15 15 5 40 - 4 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 5 --- - - -- - - -- - - -- - - --- - -- - - -- - - -- - --Season of home vacation F a ll -- - - - -- - - ---- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- --- -- ----- --- -- ----Win ter--- -- ------- ---- ---- --- -- --Sprin g -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1 Sum m er----------------------- More than one season -- ------------------------------- - 15 represent a 9 day vacation if both weekends were included. A 1-day vacation would allow a long weekend. This length of vacation would allow an individual to participate, for example, in opening day of the hunting season or to catch up on odd jobs around the house, Appendix Table 1. Summer was the most prevalent season for home vacations with the other seasons having an even distribution, Table 3. This differs from vacations and weekend trips where the great majority of trips occurred during the summer and spring with limited activities during the fall and winter. The persons with the respondent during the at-home vacation period were quite different from the persons accompanying the respondent on other types of vacations. Only 3 per cent of the at-home vacationers had children while 49 per cent had nonrelated persons present. The racial disparity was more apparent in at-home vacations than in the other types. Since at-home vacations appeared to be income related and associated with vacation trips, it was possible that the lower non-white incomes did not allow dual vacations. At-home vacations in Alabama did not represent a significant source of demand for outdoor recreation. Lack of quality facilities nearby could have contributed to the low participation levels. Only hunting participation approximated the population level. Cross classification with vacation trip data. and socio-economic factors indicated at-home vacations were of short duration, were primarily a result of visitors, and did not preclude a vacation trip [12] by the family. If children were present in the household, the probability that an at-home vacation would be taken was appreciably lessened. SUMMARY In 1967 a survey of 640 Alabama families was made to determine their vacation activities. Three types of family vacations were identified; vacation trips, weekend trips, and at-home vacations. Most of the vacationers engaged in more than one type of vacation. Collectively, 56 per cent of the population interviewed took one or more vacation trips, 33 per cent traveled on at least one weekend trip, and 9 per cent stayed at home for a vacation. Those people taking vacation trips traveled to all parts of the United States and to foreign countries. Most of the travelers visited either within the State or one of the four adjoining states. Weekend travelers were limited by time and remained primarily within the adjacent five-state area. The proportion of lower income families participating in vacations was not consistent with the proportion that low income families were of total population. Those lower income families who participated did not differ appreciably in travel or recreation from higher income vacationers. The most popular recreational activities for Alabama travelers were sightseeing, swimming, fishing, and picnicking. The at-home vacationers replaced sightseeing and picnicking with hunting and gardening. Vacation travelers from Alabama differed substantially from travelers entering Alabama. The Alabama Bureau of Publicity and Information estimated that 33 per cent of out-of-state travelers entering the State were on business trips and that another 25 per cent were visiting relatives and friends. Approximately 58 per cent of the Alabama travelers were visiting relatives and friends and only 2 per cent were on business trips. Thirty-eight per cent listed recreation as the purpose of their trip, making this total comparable to the 42 per cent estimated for out-of-state visitors. The at-home vacation presently occupies a unique position. People who take vacations at home also take vacation trips. Their at-home vacations are for short periods. Many of these families have no children and often their vacation is associated with nonrelatives. [13] APPENDIX A Sample Survey Data (1,346 Under 3,000 9,000-11,999 INDIVIDUALS SAMPLE SIZE-640 FAMILY UNITS 12 YEARS OF AGE OR OLDER) Income distribution Income (dol.) 3, 000-5, 999-------- -----6,000-8,999------------------ State recreational planning region distribution -------------- Over 12,000-14,999 ----------- -------------15,000---------- Pct. 19 29 21 15 12 4 Region --- --- - -- - - -- - - - --- -- Pct. 23 -- - ---- - - - - - - - - - - - --------- - -- - - ---- - - -- - 36 2 0 -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Race distribution 21 Place of residence distribution Classification Pct. U rban ------------------71 Rural F arm -------------------- non-farm ------- -----24 5 Race W hite --- - - -- - - -- - - -- -- - N on-white------ ---------- Pct. 75 25 APPENDIX B APPENDIX TABLE 1. TOTAL ALABAMA VACATIONERS, WEEKEND AND HOME VACATIONERS BY ACTIVITIES ENG-AGED IN, VACATIONERS, 1967 Home vacationers Actvit Actviy Vcaionrs Vvacationers Pct. 55 54 23 20 1 10 9 6 15 Weekend Pct. 16 Pct. 7 4 14 7 5 -4 33 AND Sightseeing--------------- --------Sw imm ing -------------------------------- Picnicking-----------------Fishing ------------ ----- - -------H unting ------------- - - - --Boating & skiing------------------V isiting zoo -----------------------W alking --------------------------- Oth er--- ----- -------- ----- ------ ----- - 17 8 9 2 4 5 1 5 APPENDIX TABLE 2. ALABAMA VACATIONERS, WEEKEND VACATIONERS, HOME VACATIONERS BY PERSONS WITH RESPONDENT', 1967 Peronwit rspodet itvacationers Vcaionrs Weekend Pct. 12 30 6 125 Home vacationers A lon -------- ----------- ------- ---Spouse-------------------------Children -------------------------Friends & relatives----------------------------_ Family--------- ------- ----------------------------- -------Other--- --------- 2 Insufficient Pct. 12 24 10 48 Pct. 5 38 3 -- 2 6 6------- 40 1 49 The respondent was designated as the individual replying to the interviewer. data. [15 ] APPENDIX TABLE 3. ALABAMA VACATIONERS BY STATE REGION OF RESIDENCE AND BY CENSUS REGION OF DESTINATION, 1967 Census region of destination 1 Pct. 20 State recreational planning region 2 Pct. 61 38 3 Pct. 18 4 Pct. 1 N ortheast-----------------------------------39 - 25 North Central---------------------_- 1- 19 South ------------West -------- -------------- 7 31 10 24 41 25 42 ' Sample size too small for significant analysis. APPENDIX TABLE 4. ALABAMA VACATIONERS BY LENGTH OF VACATION AND BY CENSUS REGION OF DESTINATION, 1967 Length of vacation Census region of destination (days) 15 and over Pct. 50 19 6 25 Northeast----North CentralSouth . -----W est-------- 1-7 Pct. 0 39 65 7 8-14 Pct. 50 42 29 68 APPENDIX TABLE 5. ALABAMA VACATIONERS BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE CLASSIFICATION AND BY CENSUS REGION OF DESTINATION, 1967 Census region of destination LivingUlassifation North east-------------------------------------------North Central--------------------- -South --------------- -------------------W est ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- - Pct. 67 77 78 92 Pct. 33 23 19 8 Pct. 0 0 3 0 APPENDIX TABLE 6. ALABAMA VACATIONERS BY ANNUAL INCOME LEVEL AND CENSUS REGION OF DESTINATION, 1967 Annual income level Census region of destination Northeast North Central Dol. Under 3,0003,000-5,999---------------------6,000-8,999-------------------9,000-11,999-------------------- ---------------Over 15,000-------------------- Pct. 1 --- ---1 --1 Pct. 14 8 19 9 1 13 South Pct. 82 88 80 90 West Pct. 4 4 1 1 12,000-14,999---- -1 81 74 8 13 1Insufficient data for analysis. [I 16] APPENDIX TABLE 7. ALABAMA VACATIONERS BY RACE AND BY CENSUS REGION OF DESTINATION, 1967 Race Census region of destination Northeast----------------------North Central-------------------------South ----------------------------W est -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - -- - Pct. 33 61 83 92 Pct. 67 39 17 8 APPENDIX TABLE 8. ALABAMA VACATION AND WEEKEND TRIPS BY MAJOR STATE OF DESTINATION, 1967 Major state Vacationers vaatine Alabam a -------------------------------- -- Pct. 24 21 Pct. 54 12 ---- -- -- -- -- -Florida --- -------- -- -- -- -Georgia - - -- 10 11 7 -----------Mississippi ---------- - ----------Tennessee------ ------------------- 11-----8 8----8 O ther states --------------------------------- 27 7 APPENDIX TABLE 9. ALABAMA VACATIONERS BY STATE REGION OF RESIDENCE AND BY MAJOR STATE OF DESTINATION, 1967 Major state State recreational planning region Alabama---------------------Florida-----------------------------Georgia ----------------Mississippi--------------------- Tennessee ---- 1 Pot. 20 23 27 9 22 2 Pct. 31 35 43 14 33 3 Pct. 24 21 15 38 22 4 Pct. 25 21 15 39 23 _---------- ----- Other states-------------------- 20 31 24 25 APPENDIX TABLE 10. ALABAMA VACATIONERS BY PLACE OF RESIDENCE CLASSIFICATION AND BY MAJOR STATE OF DESTINATION, 1967 MajorstateLiving classification Urban Rural non-farm Farm Alabama---Georgia----- Florida----Mississippi-- UIC states Y\FIIMCI neseOther -- -------- -- -. -- -- ------ ---- -- --- -- --------- -- -- --- -- --------- -- ----- ----- -- ---- -- ---- --------- -- ----- -- Pct. 78 67 77 87 82 84 Pct. 19 30 20 13 18 13 Pot. 3 3 3 0 0 3 [17] APPENDIX TABLE 11. ALABAMA VACATIONERS BY ANNUAL INCOME LEVELS AND BY MAJOR STATE OF DESTINATION, 1967 Major state Under 3,000 Pct. Alabama Florida Georgia Mississippi --------------- ______ 298 4 24 Tennessee ______ Other states ____ ----17 18 Annual income level 3,0006,0009,0005,999 8,999 11,999 Pct. Pct. Pct. 39 17 20 14 19 36 7 10 11 10 8 9 10 7 6 20 39 18 (dol.) 12,000- 15,000 14,999 and over Pct. Pct. 16 22 27 8 7 15 10 14 7 7 33 34 615,000 Total and per cent Pct. 24 21 10 10 7 28 APPENDIX TABLE 12. ALABAMA VACATIONERS MAJOR STATE OF DESTINATION, BY RACE AND BY 1967 MajorstateRace MjrsaeWhite Alabama Florida - Non-white Pct. 71 100 83 77 68 89 Pct. 29 0 17 23 32 11 Georgia - - - - - - - - - - - Mississippi--- Tennessee Other states APPENDIX TABLE AND 13. ALABAMA VACATIONERS BY LENGTH OF VACATION BY MAJOR STATE OF DESTINATION, 1967 Mao saeLength Major1-7 Alabam a ---------------------Florida ------------------ of vacation (days) over 8-14 15 and Pct. 33 25 12-8 12 7 11 State total - --- Georgia Mississippi ----- Tennessee ----------------------------- Pct. 12 18 9 9 44 --- O ther .----- --------- -------- Pct. 11 8 4 8 0 69 Pct. 24 21 10--------------11 7 27 [ 18] APPENDIX TABLE 14. RESIDENCE, ANNUAL INCOME, AND HOME VACATIONERS, ALABAMA, AND RACE OF WEEKEND 1967 Item Residence (State recreation planning region) 1 2 .-- - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - -- -- - --3- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27 Residence Urban Rural non-farm Farm Annual income (dol.) Under 3,000 3,000-5,999 6,000-8,999 9,000-11,999 12,000-14,999 15,000 and over...................... Race White' N on-white--------------------1 Weekend vacationers Pct. 18 29 26 Home vacationers Pct. 23 36 20 21 51 46 3 68 26 6 111 26 28 17 13 5 87 13 26 39 21 11 3 90 10 ---- Insufficient data. [19] AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION SYSTEM OF ALABAMA'S LAND-GRANT UNIVERSITY 0 WVith an agr icultural r uit isa ie in everx mia jot snil arca, Auburni sCrve s the needs of field Crop, livestock, forestryV and horticuiltural p)rodu~cers in 11nix rsitx each region in Ala-0 bama. Exerx citizen of the State has a stake in this~ research program. stiitc alns adv'antage 0 0 0 0 0 Ce Kron news and more economical ways of prodiucig aitd handling lIarm prtoductts directlx bsi efits the (mnsuming pulic. 0 Research Unit Identification * Main Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn I. Tennessee Valley Substation, Belle Mina. 2. Sand Mountain Substation, Crossville. 3. North Alabama Horticulture Substation, Cullman. 4. Upper Coostal Plain Substation, Winfield. 5.Forestry Unit, Fayette County. 6. Thorsby Foundation Seed Stocks Farm, Thorsby. 7. Chilton Area Horticulture Substation, Clanton. 8. Forestry Unit, Coosa County. 9. Piedmont Substation, Camp Hill. 10. Plant Breeding Unit, Tallassee. 11 Forestry Unit, Autauga County. 12. Prattville Experiment Field, Prattville. 13. Black Belt Substation, Marion Junction. 14. Tuskegee Experiment Field, Tuskegee. 15. Lower Coostal Plain Substation, Camden. 16. Forestry Unit, Barbour County. 17. Monroeville Experiment Field, Monroeville. 18B Wiregrass Substation, Headland. 19. Brewton Experiment Field, Brewton. 20. Ornamental Horticulture Field Station, Spring Hill. 21. Gulf Coast Substation, Fairhope.