Geographical Elements Affecting Quaintness in Tourist Town Developments-Topography and Transportation

Deborah A. Fitzwater-Dewey

Department of Geosciences University of Missouri Kansas City, Missouri 64110-2499

24

INTRODUCTION

An understanding of recreation ge­ography is an important factor, now and in the future, as we strive to make the best decisions to serve the public. Al­though the roots of recreational geog­raphy extend into the 1920s in the United States, l there are few American articles devoted to the subject. Literature per­taining to the field is mainly from Brit­ish, European, and Canadian sources. How transportation, topography, and planning affect tourist destination pat­terns is of utmost importance to recre­ation geographers. Prior studies 1-13 have not reached agreement on what meth­ods may be used for determining the ef­fects of transportation or topography on recreational areas or their influence on maintaining the character of the region.

Gearing, Swart, and Var's model2 used several factors in determining tourist at­tractiveness in Turkey, including cli­mates, relief, and roads. Their test is to be used with caution, however, because for each region to which the test is ap­plied, the independent variables will need to be redefined. Fesenmaier and Lieber3

also conducted a study to evaluate the reliability of outdoor research and con­cluded that human behavior is more consistent within a person's home re­gion. Differences observed within the parameters of demand forecasting models reflected underlying regional variations. To these authors accessibility was a very important factor in determin­ing the popularity of a region. Var, Beck, and Loftus4 predicted that sustained ex­pansion of the travel industry over the next few years in British Columbia would occur, and that attractiveness could serve as a measure of popularity.

Recognition of exploitation and des­poliation of vital natural or historic re­sources is one of the most serious prob­lems affecting the outdoor recreation industry as found in a study by Wilbur Smith and Associates.s Their study found land use was greatly influenced by ac­cessibility and that the design of a trans­portation system could have a major im­pact on a recreational area.

Miossec6 adopted a von Thunen-type

model for study of development of tour­ist facilities around towns and cities. In this study the author found that there was a decline in tourist trade away from population centers. Litton7 and Leopold8

developed methods for evaluating land­scapes and the scenic nature of these landscapes.

Christalier9 reversed usage of his Central Place Theory and attempted to describe factors in recreational devel­opment in Europe. He inferred the growth of tourist areas results from people trying to avoid central places. He believed de­velopment of tourist areas thus occurs as far away from the population center as possible. According to Christaller, "The tourist searches for a position on the highest mountain, in the most lonely woods, along the remotest beaches

,,9

Daffell 'O stated that distance of car trips to countryside sites is a function of site attraction . One very important factor making recreation distinct is that a large portion of the actual out-of-pocket costs or recreation participation may be ac­counted for by travel costs. "

Smith' 2 states that a basic technique used to evaluate landscape aesthetics would be to employ a rating scale which evaluates scenic beauty. Taylor '3 used a random point system to provide a sim­ple and accurate method to measure whether or not a particular resource area will satisfy its users. Garrison '4 drew three lines across each area and mea­sured the airplane distance (X. ) along those lines. He then measured surface route distance (X. ). The airline distance became 100 percent of the total dis­tance, and the surface distance was equal to or greater than airl ine distance. For each line, the surface distance was sub­tracted from the air distance (X. - X. ), and then the three differences were added and divided by three providing a numerical summary of relief.

Two towns are selected as case stud­ies-Eureka Springs, Arkansas , and Branson, Missouri. Both are remote from large urban centers and offer attractions to tourists. The general study area is shown in Figure 1. The following pro­vides a brief discussion of the geologic

and historical development of the two tourist towns.

HISTORY AND BACKGROUND

Found in the Interior Highlands Prov­ince, the two towns are located within a broad area known as the Ozark Dome. The boundary of the dome to the east is the Mississippi River and to the north, the Missouri River. To the west, the domal region blends into the plains of Oklahoma and Kansas and the southern border is formed b?, the Boston Moun­tains of Arkansas. ' The topography is underlain by limestones and dolomites. The soils are cherty and the presence of this chert in the limestone affects not only the character of the soil, but also the topographical forms. Solution valleys, sink holes, caverns, and springs dot the region. The tilt of the rock layers, poros­ity of the rocks, and the work of streams caused the differential resistance to weathering and erosion in this area. 's

Geological development in the area is arguable-the Old School (Davis) rests on the peneplanation theory and the New School (G ilbert) stresses process devel­opment. According to Fenneman,'5 the Davis School holds that the dome is due to incompleteness of base-leveling or rejuvenation. Ritter, '7 a member of the process-development school, contends that the topographic expression of this area results from the dynamic equilib­rium associated with the processes of weathering, erosion, and mass wasting, and the geomorphologic agents-the transporting mechanisms of air, wind, and water.

Eureka Springs and Branson are lo­cated in the geographic region known as the Springfield Plain or Plateau. More specifically, Branson is located in the White River Hills, and Eureka Springs is on the Eureka Escarpment. Streams in the area form a radial drainage system. Entrenched stream valleys and forested slopes provide ideal topography for the development of dams and reservoirs.s

Several artificial lakes have been devel­oped along the White River-Beaver, Table Rock, Taneycomo, Norfolk, and Bull Shoals.

Growth of Eureka Springs began in

25

'" 0)

Ci ty

o 80 160 ~ .

MILES

Figure 1. Location map of study area.

MILES

d id

the late 1800s because of the attraction of the area for health purposes. Dr. Al­vah Jackson first laid claim to the springs and their curative powers in 1856. '8 Dur­ing the next few years, word spread and by 1879, people migrated to the area in great numbers. Hillsides were clear cut to provide shelter and heat for thou­sands of people who came to Eureka Springs for its healing springs. The stagecoach line began in this year with 62 stagecoach arrivals and 25 depar­tures a day but soon that figure rose to 100 arrivals and 30 departures a day.'8 Also that year, the city was platted and a post road constructed. By 1880, Eu reka Springs was incorporated with a popu­lation of approximately 3,000. In 1881, a turnpike was laid from Eureka Springs to Seligman, 18 miles away and the nearest railhead. By 1883, the track was extended to Eureka Springs and, begin­ning in February, six trains arrived daily bringing a new influx of people. The

population reached 10,000-15,000 peo­ple b~ the end of the nineteenth cen­tury.' During this time the streets re­mained unpaved and were essentially dirt trails winding around the mountainside. By the end of World War II, with the cu­rative powers of the springs in doubt, Eureka Springs began to wane.

Today Eureka Springs is a town of approximately 2,000 people during the off season (Fig. 2). Two major transpor­tation routes lead into the town-U.S 62 and Arkansas 23. Although a short rail line offers rides for tourists, there is no rail service between Eureka Springs and other towns. Of 238 named streets, there are no streets that cross at 90° angles in­dicating one of the reasons the natives have adopted the name, "Little Switz­erland of the Ozarks," for their town. Twenty-five miles of streets and high­ways exist in a 415 acre area. '9 One-third of the streets are still dirt. The main at­tractions of Eureka Springs are the

Figure 2. View of downtown Eureka Springs, Arkansas, looking up Spring Street.

27

downtown historic district, the Passion Play, Beaver Lake, and a fine arts colony at Inspiration Point.

Branson developed originally in the 1880s as a mail stop. Although incor­porated in 1912, it was not platted until the 1920s20 but extensive development did not begin until the late 1950s and early 1960s. Branson ' s Chamber of Commerce 20 indicated that this resort town had developed mainly because of three nearby lakes of the area-Table Rock, Bull Shoals, and Taneycomo­major recreational attractions in south­western Missouri. At the time of main development, planning was under the Taney County authority and the U. S. Corps of Engineers. Modern construc­tion tools and equipment which were lacking during Eureka Springs' devel­opment were available to Branson . Branson could build the access routes and manipulate the topography to suit its needs.

Branson today is a community of ap-

proximately 3,300 non-tourists during the off season (Fig . 3). It has four access routes-US 65, US 160, Missouri 76, and Missouri 248. No rail serves Branson al­though tracks run through nearby Holli ­ster. Its major attractions are Shepard of the Hills, Silver Dollar City, Whitewater, the School of the Ozarks, the lakes and caves of the region, and the numerous country music shows which crowd along Missouri 76 (Fig. 4). Tourists to the tri­lakes area in 1982 reached 3,600,000 with an income of $104,500,000. 21

METHODS AND DISCUSSION

Quaintness, as defined by Webster, describes an object or place that is un­usual or old-fashioned in a pleasing way. For the purposes of this paper, the term will be used synonymously with distinct character or flavor of a region. Quaint­ness applies to many different items; for example, architectural style, historic buildings, accommodations, roads, etc.

Why are certain tourist towns able to

Figure 3. View of downtown Branson, Missouri.

28

Figure 4. Photograph of Highway 76 West, Branson, Missouri. The Strip, or as it is now known, 76 Country Boulevard.

retain a distinct regional character, while others forsook their quaintness in favor of commercial strip development? The author's premise is that topography and transportation affect the character of the development of tourist towns, i.e., the road system into the area, and the un­controlled nature of the development.

By quantifying the features in land­scape that affect quaintness and aes­thetic appeal, natural resource planners can make rational decisions about com­mercial development and historic pres­ervation.22 A model based on quantifi­cation, moreover, could be used for many types of landscapes. This model should be able to take into consideration the basic factors which affect areal devel­opment like scenic beauty, accessibility, topography, etc.

In this study, distance and time were used to determine accessibility. In de­termining present day distance between the two tourist towns and points of or-

igin, the Firestone Road Atlas & Vaca­tion Guide was used.23 Graphs shown in Figure 5 and 6 were drawn to indicate major road links and road types (two lane versus four lane). Distance and time fig­ures from origin to destination were then determined. Time was determined by assigning speed limits to different road types. For four-lane highways, an aver­age speed of 60 mph was assumed; for two-lane highways, 45 mph.

Seven Standard Metropolitan Statis­tical Areas (SMSAs) were chosen as points of origin : Kansas City, St. Louis, and Springfield in Missouri; Tulsa and Oklahoma City in Oklahoma; Dallas/Fort Worth in Texas; and Little Rock in Ar­kansas. Table 1 shows that different types of road may affect the time it takes to get from origin to destination. For ex­ample, Kansas City is 212 miles from Branson and 225 miles from Eureka Springs. However because of the differ­ent road types, a tourist may reach Eu-

29

KANSAS CITY SMSA

TULSA

SPRINGS

OKLAHOMA CITY

LITTLE ROCK

DALLAS/FORT WORTH SMSA

TWO LANE HIG HWA Y •• --------------••

FOUR LA NE HIG HW AY •• =======. Figure 5. Eureka Springs, Arkansas. Graph of transportation routes to major orig ins.

reka Springs in 235 minutes (3.9 hrs) while it takes 269 minutes (4.5 hrs) to reach Branson. Table 1 also shows each SMSA ranked by distance and by time.

The population of seven possible or­igin points, all major cities, were used in the determination of attraction (number of tourists attracted). Population figures were obtained for the SMSAs from the 1980 U.S. Census as shown in Table 2. 24

The number of tourists attracted to each of the two towns was determined as

30

shown below:

P A=­

D

where A equals the number of tourists attracted,

D equals travel time in minutes, and

P equals population of the ori­gin SMSA.

KANSAS CITY SMSA

SPRINGFIELD

OKLAHOMA CITY

LITTLE ROCK

DALLAS/FORT WORTH SMSA

TWO LANE HIGHWAY ..... ----------4.

FOUR LANE HIGHWAY •• __ =_=====-. Figure 6. Branson, Missouri. Graph of transportation routes to major origins.

Table 3 ranks SMSAs according to their percentage of the total tourists attracted to the two tourist towns. The total num­bers at the top of the columns indicate that Branson and Eureka Springs have a similar attraction force with a total of 28,583 for Branson and 28,529 for Eu­reka Springs. According to the model, each town draws most of its tourists from a different SMSA. St. Louis is ranked first with regard to Branson with an attrac-

tion force of 30.6 percent. St. Louis, on the other hand, ranks second with re­gard to Eureka Springs' scale which at­tracts 24.2 percent of its tourist popula­tion from that SMSA. (see Fig. 7).

The equal accessibility of the two towns does not really account for any difference in overall attraction. The towns do, however, depend to different de­grees on the same SMSAs for their tour­ist populations.

31

Table 1

Origins by Distance (miles) and Time (minutes)

BRANSON EUREKA SPRINGS

SMSA Distance Time Distance Time

Springfield 43 57 100 133

Little Rock 166 221 181 241

Kansas City 212 269 225 235

Tulsa 244 258 159 198

St. Louis 258 272 315 348

Oklahoma City 339 385 261 300

Dallas/Fort Worth 445 513 354 391

Table 2. 1980 SMSA Population Figures(26)

SMSA Population

Little Rock, Arkansas 74,484

Springfield, Missouri 207,704

Tulsa, Oklahoma 657,173

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 860,969

Kansas City SMSA 1,443,458

St. Louis SMSA 2,376,998

Dallas/Fort Worth SMSA 2,930,516

32

Table 3. Attraction to Tourist Areas

(Weighted by Population of Origins SMSAs)

BRANSON

Total: 28,583

SMSA Attraction

St. Louis 30.6%

Dallas/Fort Worth 20.0

Kansas City 18.8

Springfield 12.7

Tulsa 8.9

Oklahoma City 7.8

Little Rock 1.2

Topography also exerts a great influ­ence upon the extent and direction of tourist trade.25 Unusual topography ap­peals to the tourist who comes from a landscape dominated by plains. For this study, two topographic profiles (one in a north-south direction and another in a east-west direction approximately 2-3 miles), were drawn across each of the two towns and surrounding areas. U.S. Geological Survey quadrangles were used to provide the topographic data for these cross sections. To determine a representative slope figure for each study area, slopes were measured for each 1000 feet across each topographic pro­file. These figures were then summed and divided by the number of 1000 feet sections to provide an indication of the relief of the two tourist towns. In Bran-

EUREKA SPRINGS

Total: 28,529

SMSA Attraction

Dallas/Fort Worth 26.3%

St. Louis 24.2

Kansas City 21.5

Tulsa 11.6

Oklahoma City 10.0

Springfield 5.5

Little Rock 1.1

son, the slope was approximately 368 feet/ mile while in Eureka Springs, it was 453 feet/mile. Thus the change in aver­age slope was 23 percent higher in Eu­reka Springs than it was in Branson as shown in Figures 8 and 9.

Because the number of hills and val­leys is a significant factor in indicating the texture of topography, counts were made of peaks and valleys. Branson (Fig. 8) had a total of nine hills and seven val­leys. Eureka Springs (Fig. 9) had a total of 22 hill peaks and 21 valleys. An av­erage slope of 368 feet/mile up and down with only nine peaks and seven valleys indicates Branson has more gentle slopes than the abrupt up-and-down topogra­phy of Eureka Springs. Another indica­tor of the greater relief in Eureka Springs is the range from highest point in the

33

BRANSON ATTRACTION TO TOURIST AREA

OKLAHOMA CITY (7.8%) ~--.-..,..lI_TT_LE ROCK (1.2%)

SPRINGFIELD (12.7%)

KANSAS CITY (18.8%)

DALLAS/ FORT WORTH (20.0%)

EUREKA SPRINGS ATTRACTION TO TOUR IST AREA

SPRINGFIELD (5.5%) LITTLE ROCK (1 .1%)

OKLAHOMA CITY (10.0%)

DALLAS/ FORT WORTH (26.2%)

TULSA (11 .6%)

KANSAS CITY (21 .5%) ST. LOUIS (24.2%)

Figure 7. Graphs of attraction to tourist areas from major SMSAs.

34

~ w w u.

z

.J W > W .J

« w (J)

z « w ~

~ Cl w a: a: w u. w a:

z o f= « > w .J W

~ w w u.

z

.J W > W .J

« w (J)

z « w ~

~ Cl w a: a: w u. w a:

z o f= « > w .J W

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

ROARK

NORTH

BRANSON

US

WEST

BRANSON

BRANSON, MO.

LAKE

TANEYCOMO

SOUTH

2 MILES

BRANSON, MO.

LAKE

TANEYCOMO

EAST

2 MILES

Figure 8. Topographic profile of Branson, Missouri, from the U.S.G.S. Branson Quadrangle (1 :24,000) Map. Average slope : 368.4 ft/mile. Vertical exaggeration = 1 Ox.

35

f=' w w u.

z

...J W > W ...J

oct w Vl

Z oct w :;:

~ o w a: a: w u. w a:

z a i= oct > W ...J W

f=' w w u.

z

...J W > W ...J

1700

1500

1300

1100

900

700

500

1700

1500

oct 1300 w Vl

z oct w :;: 1100

a I-

o w a: 900 a: w u. w a:

z a ~ > W ...J W

700

500

EUREKA SPRINGS, AR

___ EUREKA SPRINGS

I

NORTH SOUTH

2 MILES

EUREKA SPRINGS , AR

__ EUREKA SPRINGS

WEST

MOUNT OBERAMMERGAU I

2

EAST

3 MILES

Figure 9. Topographic profile of Eureka Springs, Arkansas, from the U.S,G.S, Eureka Springs Quadrangle (1 :24000) map. Average slope: 425.6 ft/mile. Vertical exagger­ation = 10X.

36

town to the lowest point. In Branson the range is 1000 feet to 720 feet (difference of 280). In Eureka Springs, the range is 1520 feet to 1120 feet (difference of 400). Thus, a difference of 120 feet exists be­tween the ranges.

Carl Sauer26 in his classic study of the Ozarks stated that usually the poorest land, which even the natives have avoided, is chosen for development. No one could say that either Branson or Eu­reka Springs could be considered prime farm land. Both town governments rec­ognize this factor and are adopting the type of economy that is dependent on the tourist population .

Eureka Springs is now in its second boom era because of tourist related in­dustries. 27 In a report by the Eureka Springs Planning Commission, '9 the Commission stated that the city, with all its " eccentric" diversity, is an extremely interesting community and recommends this characteristic be preserved. The tourist trade is generated by the unique qualities of this area. In a study com­missioned by the city, a survey of peo­ple off the streets found that Eureka Springs' visitors enjoyed the preserva­tion efforts underway downtown. Visi­tors specifically warned against modern­ization and a majority of the responses pertained to the retention of the "char­acter" or "quality" of the town and strongly urged the city to preserve its natural charm.28

The Planning Commission recognizes the importance of Eureka Springs' unique topography and the need to protect its historic district. However, the Arkansas State Highway Department ranks US 62 and Arkansas 23 highways in the critical category-in need of major upgrading. ' 9 Traffic circulation is at best circuitous and congested during the tourist season. With 25 miles of streets in such a small area, this is to be expected. But, unlike most cases, straightening and improving the streets are not adequate solutions as in­dicated by a response of a tourist to Eu­reka Springs, " Once you change or widen or improve the streets, you ' ll have elim­inated the charm that brought me here.'t28 Similarly, Branson's planning pol icy includes the following statement,

"The natural character of stream slopes and valleys, areas of natural beauty, and historical, geological, and archeological sites of significance in the Branson area should be preserved.',29

Wilbur Smith & Associates, in a study of the Southern Highlands of the south­east United States, found development of scenic roads and trails can be prop­erly guided and innovative means can be employed to balance the needs of providing recreation access and of pro­tecting the region's fragile scenic re­sources.s The firm suggested future de­velopments should be built in compact and accessible clusters and use of ex­isting roads would maintain the integrity of the area.

However in the Ozark Region, new highways are built without regard to the scenic beauty of the region. Cut and fill roads make access to the Branson area fast and smooth. Tourists zip through landforms they may have passed over before and miss the vistas offered be­fore. Stretches of gas stations and mo­tels do not compare with the beauty or mystery that awaits one behind each bend in the road. Rafferty'6 stated that the many tourist attractions along the Ozark highways give a Coney Island ap­pearance to the landscape. A fine ex­ample of this is the strip of highway west of Missouri 76. Billboards, country mu­sic shows, arcades, tourist shops, and amusement parks crowd the road sides. Trees have been bulldozed away and dirt brought in to fill the ravines and valleys for more buildings. Developers build roads without thought to future main­tenance. A similar area, unfortunately, is beginning to develop at the top of the ridge along US 62 in Eureka Springs.

CONCLUSION

The attraction differences between Eureka Springs and Branson prove to be not as great as originally hypothesized. Branson currently attracts more tourists because of its greater accessibility, but Eureka Springs is as easily accessed. The topographical measures also show that Eureka Springs could potentially attract more tourists than Branson. The slope and number of hills and valleys in Eu-

37

reka Springs add to the excitement and mystery of the area aptly termed " Little Switzerland of the Ozarks." However, the diffe rences between the two towns and t he ir developments need to be ex­pla ined by other variables as well. The development in downtown Eureka Spri ngs, unlike Branson, has been con­trolled to the benefit of the community. Preservation of the unique character of the region has added to its attraction . Branson's downtown development, ad­mitted ly newer, shows signs of the cir­cus-li ke atmosphere that exists along the Highway 76 to the west.

Accessibility and topography do play a role in the development of tour ist towns. Fu rther resea rch should be im­plemented so that the other variables af­fect ing tourist development in t hese towns can be identified. Then, perhaps planners and recreation geographe rs could take note of these find ings and use them to ma intain the integrity of scen ic regions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wou ld li ke to thank Assoc. Professor Steven Driever, Professor E. D. Goebel, and Professor Raymond Cove­ney Jr. fo r their opinions and encour­agement. I would also like to thank Mr. Dan Chappell for his help. Special thanks goes for support from Mr. John Dewey.

REFERENCES

1. Mitchell . Lisle S., and Smith. R. V., 1985, " Aecreational geography: inventory and prospect," The Professional Geographer, v. 37, pp. 6-13.

2. Gearing, Charles E., Swart, William W., and Vart, Turgut. 1974, " Establish ing a mea sure of touristic attractive­ness," Journal of Travel Research, v. 12, pp. 1-8.

3. Fesenmaier. Dan iel A. , and Lieber, Stanley A. , 1985, " Evaluating the stability of outdoor recreation partici­pation models," The Professional Geographer, v. 37, pp. 15-21 .

4. Var, Turgut, Beck. R. A. D., and Loftus, Patrick, 1977, De­termination of touristic attractiveness of the touristic areas in British Columbia, v. 15, pp. 23-29.

5. Wilbur Smith and Associates, Inc., 1974. Soulhern high­lands mountain resources management plan, Executive Summary. for Georg ia Dept. of Natural Aesources, North Carolina Dept. of Administration, and South Carolina Dept. of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism.

38

6. Miossec. Jean-Marie, 1977. " Un modele de I'espace touristique." L'Espace Geographique, v. I , pp. 41-48.

7. Litton, A. B., 1973, Landscape control pain Is: A proce­dure for predicl ing and moniloring impacls, USDA For­est Service Aesearch paper, PSW-19, Pacific SW Forest & Aange Experiment Station, Berkeley, California.

8. Leopold, l. 8., 1969, " Landscape esthetics," Natural His­lOry, v. 78, pp. 36-45.

9. Cristaller, W., 1964, " Some considerations of tourism lo­cation in Europe: The peripheral regions-underdevel ­oped countries-recreation areas," Papers of the Re­gional Science Associalion 12, pp. 95- 105.

10. Daffel, J. Roger, 1984, " The attraction of countryside sites," Transportalion Planning & Technology, v. 9, pp. 153- 179.

11 . Cicchetti, Charles J., Forecasling Recreal ion in the Uniled Slales, (Lexington MA: Lexington Books). 1973.

12. Smith, Stephen l. J., Recrealional Geography, (Essex, England: Longman Group Ltd), 1983.

13. Taylor, Gordon 0 .. 1965. " An approach to the inventory of recreational lands," The Canadian Geographer, v. 9, pp. 84-91.

14. Garrison, W. l., and Marble, D. F., 1974. " Graph theo­retic concepts," in Michael E. Eliot Hurst (ed). Transpor­lalion Geography: Comments and Readings. pp. 58- 80.

15. Fenneman, N. V .• 1938, The Ozark Plateau. in Physiog­raphy of Easlern Uniled Slales, 1st ed., (New York: McGraw-Hili Books), pp. 631 - 662.

16. Rafferty, Milton D., 1980, The Ozarks : Land and Life, (Norman: Univ. of Oklahoma Press), p, 282.

17. Ritter, Dale F., 1978, Process Geomorphology. (Dubuque. IA: W. C. Brown).

18. Westphal, Jane, and Osterhage, Catharine, 1970, A Fame nOI Easily Forgotten, (Conway, Ark : River Road Press). p. 224.

19. Eureka Springs Planning Commission, Comprehensive Plan, November 1969.

20. Welcome to Branson : The City w ith Ozark Pride, 1984. Chamber of Commerce pamphlet.

21 . Blase, Jan M., City Planner, City of Branson, personal communication, March 20, 1985.

22. Shafer, Jr., E. G., Hamilton Jr., John F., and Schmidt, Elizabeth A., 1969, " Natural landscape preferences: A predictive model," Journal of Leisure Research, v. I , pp. 1- 19.

23. Fireslone Road Alias & Vacalion Guide. (Chicago: Rand McNally), 1983.

24. U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1983, 1980 County and Cily Dala Book. U.S. Department of Commerce (Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office).

25. Selke, Arthur C., 1936, " Geographic aspects of the Ger­man tourist trade," Economic Geographer. v. 12, pp. 205-216.

26. Sauer, CarlO., 1920, "The geography of the Ozark High­lands of Missouri," Geog. Soc. of Chicago Bull. 7, pp. 186-187.

27. Leisure and Recreation Concepts. Inc .• Profile of a pro­posed family theme park at Eureka Springs. Arkansas. September. 1977.

28. Comprehensive Planning Institute. 1981 . A tourist profile

analysis for Eureka Springs. Ark .• Appendix F. Dallas. Texas.

29. Land Use Policy Plan. City of Branson. Missouri. Janu­ary. 1985.

39