Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary: Recreation/Tourism in the Florida Keys - A Ten-year Replication
Socioeconomic Research and
Monitoring Program for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary:
Recreation/Tourism in the Florida Keys - A Ten-year
Replication
New
collection (Request for a new OMB Control Number)
In accordance
with 5 CFR 1320.10(c), at the formal request of the agency, OMB
assigns an OMB Control Number to this collection, valid for one
year. However, this approval does not represent an assessment by
OMB that this information collection satisfies the principles of
the PRA. OMB continues to have serious concerns about the practical
utility of this collection due to questions about the soundness and
appropriateness of the methods employed in the collection. NOAA has
also not provided sufficient justification for the burden being
imposed on the public for some components of this collection. Some
of the specific concerns and issues include the following: 1. It is
unclear why the 10-year retrospective on the tourism/recreation
survey has been expanded to include additional surveys on "Global
Climate Change and Coral Bleaching," "Coral Ecosystem Services:
Societal Preferences and Policy/Management," and "Florida Reef
Resiliency Program." NOAA has not justified why these surveys are
being included with the 10-year retrospective, nor has NOAA
described clearly which components of ICR pertain to 10-year
retrospective. 2. NOAA fails to discuss the analytical methods that
will be used to analyze the data gathered through this ICR. Without
sufficient discussion, the evaluation of the practical utility of
the information is not possible. 3. The resident and visitor
surveys are extensive as currently written, but there is little
emphasis on surveying businesses. NOAA does not explain the
relative lack of focus on the business community. 4. Resident
surveys Respondents are asked to recall and provide highly detailed
information on recreational activities including activities by
location, type of activity, number of days, etc. NOAA has not
provided results from pretesting or other research that respondents
are able to recall and report this information accurately. The
nature of the good being valued in the contingent valuation
questions is not discussed. NOAA also fails to discuss how the bid
amounts are generated. There is no discussion in the supporting
statement on how the data from these questions will be analyzed. No
information is provided on the coverage or quality of the sampling
frames for the resident survey of Monroe County. 5. Visitor surveys
(auto, air and cruise ships) Respondents are asked to recall and
provide detailed information on expenditures. NOAA has not provided
results from pretesting or other research that respondents are able
to recall and report this information accurately. 6. Visitor
CUSTOMER surveys. Substitution surveys: Sampling for the CUSTOMER
survey does not use sound statistical methodology that can be
generalized to the universe of study in violation of (5 CFR
1320.5(d)(2)(vi) . Respondent's "favorite" and "most common" reefs
may not be interchangeable. NOAA has not provided pretesting
results that demonstrate that these terms are interchangeable. The
answer categories in the hypothetical behavior questions are forced
to be artificially mutually exclusive. NOAA fails to discuss the
basis for this design. There is no discussion on how the
hypothetical behavior data will be analyzed. The data seem suited
to be used in RUM, but no such discussion is provided. With the
conjoint questions, NOAA fails to discuss the results from
pretesting that evaluated the appropriateness of the design and the
design values. NOAA did not discuss the potential impact of the
length of the questionnaire on data quality due to respondent
fatigue or satisficing behavior. NOAA has not provided the results
from pretesting on this issue. On-site survey: Respondents are
asked to recall and provide detailed information on expenditures.
It¡¦s not clear whether NOAA conducted pretests or other research
to ensure that the respondents are able to recall and report this
information accurately. Coral bleaching survey: What are the bases
for the policy scenarios described in the conjoint questions? Also,
are the respondents likely to believe the policy scenarios? Please
report pre-test results. What are the bases for design values in
the policy scenarios? 7. Questionable research protocols are use to
recruit respondents without discussion of alternatives: Using
off-duty police officers to force sampled vehicles to leave the
highway and enter a parking lot where they are solicited to
participate in the voluntary survey seems coercive and ethically
questionable. The expected response rates are low, and NOAA's plans
to analyze non-response bias focus solely on demographic factors,
not key substantive variables from the surveys. 8. Burden level
seems excessive and was inadequately justified. The design calls
for sampling more than a quarter of the households in Monroe county
with responses expected from more than 13% . It is not clear why
such a high fraction of the population should be burdened with this
collection. In general, clear precision requirements were not
provided to justify the sample sizes. Sample sizes were described
as exceeding "those achieved in previous studies" and exceeding by
50% or more the minimum requirements set by Dr. Chi-OK Oh, the
designer of the choice experiment. No justification was provided
for why it is necessary to exceed these levels and impose this
greater level of burden on the public. 9. NOAA notes in Supporting
Statement Part B (4) that this ICR requires no pretesting since
some of the questionnaires are replication of past work and NOAA is
relying on past experiences to inform new questionnaires. OMB
disagrees with this assessment. This ICR is introducing new
questionnaires with concepts not present in the previous surveys
(e.g., Coral reef bleaching), and the environment in which the
surveys are being conducted have changed significantly (e.g.,
declining response rates for some modes) to warrant new pretests.
10. The ICR does not discuss the relevant Institutional Review
Board (IRB) review, and approval by University of
Massachusetts-Amherst. If the ICR is revised in any way in response
to the IRB review, including changes to methodologies or
instruments, DOC/NOAA must resubmit the ICR for review.
Inventory as of this Action
Requested
Previously Approved
11/30/2008
36 Months From Approved
25,498
0
0
10,539
0
0
0
0
0
This is an approximate ten-year
replication of the study "Linking the Economy and Environment of
the Florida Keys/Florida Bay" which established baseline
measurements for recreation/tourist uses of the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS). The baseline measurements were
taken in 1995-96 for the broader recreation/tourist uses, while for
reef use the baseline measurements were taken in 2000-2001.
Baseline measurements were taken on number of users and
recreation/tourist uses of the Florida Keys, along with estimates
of economic value of resource use, economic impact associated with
these uses on the local and regional economies,
importance/satisfaction ratings for 25 natural resource attributes,
facilities and services, and demographic profiles of users. This
application also includes establishment of new baselines for
knowledge, attitudes & perceptions of Sanctuary management
strategies and regulations for recreation/tourist user groups, adds
evaluations of management alternatives for coral reefs, and adds
information that will support better predictions of how users will
respond to management/regulations.
US Code:
16
USC 1431 Name of Law: National Marine Sanctuaries Act
This is a new information
collection with a maximum estimate of 25,498 responses and 10,539
hours. There are no costs other than time, for the
respondents.
On behalf of this Federal agency, I certify that
the collection of information encompassed by this request complies
with 5 CFR 1320.9 and the related provisions of 5 CFR
1320.8(b)(3).
The following is a summary of the topics, regarding
the proposed collection of information, that the certification
covers:
(i) Why the information is being collected;
(ii) Use of information;
(iii) Burden estimate;
(iv) Nature of response (voluntary, required for a
benefit, or mandatory);
(v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and
(vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control
number;
If you are unable to certify compliance with any of
these provisions, identify the item by leaving the box unchecked
and explain the reason in the Supporting Statement.