FKNMS SS Part B AND REFERENCES

OMB CONTROL No. 0648-xxxx
Expires: xx/xx/xxxx

Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program in Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary: Recreation/Tourism in the Florida Keys: A 10-year Replication

B. COLLECTIONS OF INFORMATION EMPLOYING STATISTICAL METHODS
1. Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any
sampling or other respondent selection method to be used. Data on the number of entities
(e.g. establishments, State and local governmental units, households, or persons) in the
universe and the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form. The tabulation
must also include expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection has
been conducted before, provide the actual response rate achieved.
a. Resident Mail Survey
In 1995-96, the Resident Survey was done using a combination telephone and mail survey.
Basic demographics and participation in outdoor recreation in the Florida Keys was obtained by
random digit dialing, which achieved a response rate of 66 percent. Detailed activity
participation and use; expenditures, importance-satisfaction ratings; and environmental concern
were obtained by a follow-up mail survey with a net response rate (telephone and mail) of 25
percent.
The current resident population of Monroe County is estimated at about 80,000 living in about
37,000 households. We plan to achieve at least 5,000 completed questionnaires out of the
37,000 households. This time a mail survey will be used by purchasing samples from either
Survey Sampling, Inc. or Info USA and sending out a mail survey. The Dillman Method will be
used with a pre-notification letter. A pre-notification letter will be sent out followed by a
mailing with the full survey package. After two weeks, all those who have not responded will be
sent a post-card reminder. After one month, all those who have not responded will receive the
full survey package. We expect to achieve between 50 and 60 percent response rates.
The resident survey, as explained in Part A, is done in three samples of 1,000 completes and one
sample of 2,000 completes, assuming a 50% response rate or 6,000 completes assuming a 60%
response rate. Within samples, there are different versions. Table 4 shows the different
versions, number of mail outs planned and the expected number of returns per version at both the
50 and 60 percent response rates.

Table 4. Resident Mail Survey: Expected Completes

Survey
Version
1
2a3
2b
2c
2d
3
4a4
4b
4c
4d
4e
4f
Total

Response Rates2
# Mailed
Out1
50%
2,000
500
500
500
500
2,000
667
667
667
667
667
667
10,000

1,000
250
250
250
250
1,000
333
333
333
333
333
333
5,000

60%
1,200
300
300
300
300
1,200
400
400
400
400
400
400
6,000

1. Will purchase household mailing list from Sample Survey, Inc. or Info USA.
2. Assumed range of response rates using full Dillman Method plus pre-notification letter. Will send pre-notification
letter followed by full survey. Two weeks later, for those who have not responded, a post-card reminder will be sent.
After one month, for those who still have not responded, another full survey package will be sent.
3. The Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching module of questions are included in Version 2 and there are four
versions.
4. The Substitution/Management Alternatives module of questions are included in Version 4, which has six versions
of the choice questions.

b. Visitor Survey: Auto, Air and Cruise Ship Survey (Sample 1)
The Auto, Air and Cruise Ship Survey (Sample 1) will be done the same way it was done in
1995-96 with only a few adjustments for changes in institutional structure (e.g. Marathon Airport
now doesn’t have commercial flights but has private planes). This survey is a stratified random
survey with stratifications by season (summer and winter), type of day (weekday, weekend, and
holiday), and mode of access (auto, air and cruise ship). There is an on-site survey and a
mailback survey. In the mailback survey, respondents are asked to participate in two mailbacks;
the expenditure and satisfaction mailbacks.
We don’t know a priori how to exactly stratify the sample since this requires knowing how many
visitors there will be in each season. The project will estimate the number of person-trips and
person-days of visitation by season and mode of access. See Leeworthy (1996) for how this was
done in 1995-96. In recent years, the cruise ship portion of visitation has grown rapidly going
over the one million mark in 2004. In 1995-96, there were 312 thousand cruise ship passengers.
So cruise ship passengers have increased as a share of visitors. We have used a combination of
the 1995-96 results and the increase in cruise ship passengers to arrive at a sampling
stratification. The data will later be post weighted for estimates of the actual distribution. Table
5 shows the sampling stratifications for the on-site component of the survey and the expenditure

and satisfaction mailback expected number of completes under different expected response rates.

Again, our definition of seasons is based on past research in South Florida. The summer season
is defined as June through November and the winter season is defined as December through
May. The summer season sampling will take place from mid-June through the end of August
and the winter season sampling will take place from mid-January through the end of April.
The on-site sample expected number of completes is based on 1995-96 number of completions
per sampling day/season/mode of access. About 40 days per season will be surveyed in the auto
mode of access, with each day sampling four hours per day alternating between morning and
afternoon sampling. Air surveys are done about 20 days during the summer season and 35 days
during the winter season. Times of day will depend on flight schedules, which will be obtained
from airport managers. Cruise Ships will also be done about 14 days during the summer season
and 10 days during the winter season, but will depend on the schedule of port calls, which will be
obtained from the Key West Port Authority. See Leeworthy (1996) for calendars of how days
and times were chosen in 1995-96 study for all three modes of access.
Contingency planning is required for the auto survey for days delayed or cancelled due to rain.
In addition, all surveying may end due to hurricane evacuation. This happened in 1995-96.
Interviewers, who all have recreation vehicles and stay in campgrounds, had to be evacuated to a
campground in central Florida. By law, all those in recreation vehicles must be the first to
evacuate 24 hours before the storm is predicted to arrive. Make-up days are later scheduled.
In 1995-96, the expenditure mailback response rate was 37.9% in the summer season and 46%
during the winter season, while the satisfaction mailback response rate was 47.1% in the summer
season and 52.6% in the winter season. There was a learning effect in the 1995-96 study about
how to improve mailback response rates from the summer to the winter survey. So we are
basing our expected mailback response rates on the 1995-96 results and provide a range of
results. Even though we hand both the expenditure and satisfaction mailbacks to the same
people, response rates are always higher for the satisfaction mailback. We think we might be
able to further narrow the difference by utilizing the short version of the expenditure mailback
for those who are on day trips. We use a range of 45-50% for expenditure mailback response
rates and 50-55% for the satisfaction mailback (Table 5).

Table 5. Auto, Air and Cruise Ship Survey: Proposed Sampling (Expected Completes)
Mode of Access
Survey/Season

Auto

Auto
%

Air

Air%

Cruise
Ship

Cruise
Ship
%

Total

On-site Survey
Summer
Winter
Subtotal

1,280
1,720
3,000

68.1
72.6
70.6

300
350
650

16.0
14.8
15.3

300
300
600

16.0
12.7
14.1

1,880
2,370
4,250

Expenditure
Mail
Summer
Winter
Subtotal
Satisfaction
Mail
Summer
Winter
Subtotal
Expenditure
Mail
Summer
Winter
Subtotal
Satisfaction
Mail
Summer
Winter
Subtotal

576
774
1,350

45 Percent Response
Rate
135
135
158
135
293
270

846
1,067
1,913

640
860
1,500

50 Percent Response
Rate
150
150
175
150
325
300

940
1,185
2,125

640
860
1,500

50 Percent Response
Rate
150
150
175
150
325
300

940
1,185
2,125

704
946
1,650

55 Percent Response
Rate
165
165
193
165
358
330

1,034
1,304
2,338

c. Visitor CUSTOMER Survey (Sample 2)
As described in Part A, the Visitor CUSTOMER Survey (Sample 2) is a stratified random
sample with stratification across 200 sites and stratification done with use of local knowledge as
in 1995-96. Data is post-sample weighted using Sample 1.
One of the main objectives of the CUSTOMER On-site Survey is to estimate the intensity of use
(measured in person-days of activity) by activity, by season and region (five regions). In 199596, we utilized 12 interviewers, who completed 1,781 on-site interviews in the summer season
and 2,809 interviews for the winter season for an annual total of 4,590 interviews. Based on the

results of 1995-96 and the requirement to expand our estimates from four to five regions, we
have planned to expand sample sizes to be able to reliably estimate days of activity for the five
regions and seasons. To accomplish this we will expand the number of interviewers to 14.
Table 6 shows our expected number of completes for the on-site survey to be 2,072 in the
summer season and 3,276 in the winter season, for an annual total of 5,348.
In 1995-96, the CUSTOMER Survey had a mailback survey only during the winter season. This
was done to achieve objectives of the University of Georgia’s, Department of Applied
Economics and was called the “Ecosystem Mailback Survey”. In 1995-96, the “Ecosystem
Mailback Survey” had a response rate of 53.5%. This time there are three mailbacks included in
the CUSTOMER Survey for both seasons. Each of these was described in Part A. To achieve
each project partner objectives, we determined what adequate sample sizes for each objective
are, and then made sample allocations according to the following rules: Each respondent would
be given two of the three mailbacks:
25% of the sample would be handed the KAP/Reef Valuation and Coral Bleaching
mailback (N=601, assuming a 45% response rate).
25% of the sample would be handed the KAP/Reef Valuation and
Substitution/Management Alternatives mailback (N=601, assuming a 45% response rate.
50% of the sample would be handed the Coral Bleaching and Substitution/Management
Alternatives mailbacks.
So in total, 50% will receive the KAP/Reef Valuation for a total expected completed of 1,203
(assuming a 45% response rate); 75% will receive both the Coral Bleaching and
Substitution/Management Alternatives mailback for a total expected completes of 1,804 for each
mailback (assuming a 45% response rate). Given past experience, we might expect 50%
response rates. Table 6 summarizes the expected completes under the two response rates.

Table 6. CUSTOMER Survey Sampling (Expected Completes)
Survey/Season
On-site Survey
Summer
Winter
Total

2,072
3,276
5,348
Response Rates
45%

50%

Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions/Reef
Valuation1 Mailback
Summer
Winter
Total

466
737
1,203

518
819
1,337

Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching
Mailback1
Summer
Winter
Total

699
1,106
1,805

777
1,229
2,006

Substitution/Management Alternatives
Mailback1
Summer
Winter
Total

699
1,106
1,805

777
1,229
2,006

1. Each respondent is given two mailbacks. Half the sample gets the Knowledge, Attitudes, & Perceptions/Reef
Valuation mailback and three-quarters of the sample get the Substitution/Management Alternatives mailback and the
Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching mailback. The Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching mailback has four
versions with sample size split equally across versions. The Substitution/Management Alternatives mailback has six
versions equally split across the six versions.

d. Supply-side Surveys
(1) Dive Shop Owners/Operators
Under OMB Control Number 0648-0534, we are conducting a survey of Dive Shop
Owners/Operators on their Knowledge, Attitudes & perceptions of Sanctuary Management
Strategies and Regulations. We identified that there are currently 68 operations in the Florida
Keys. The data collection is complete for that project and 65 of the 68 responded to the survey:
a 95% response rate. We have designed a post card, four-question survey as a follow-up effort to
this population. We expect a similar response rate. The President of the Keys Association of
Dive Operators (KADO), Bob Holston, would like us to achieve 100% response rate (a Census)
and is contacting all dive shops through out the Florida Keys and asking them to please
participate.

(2) Cruise Ships
We have never sampled the Cruise Ships themselves, only passengers of the ships that disembark
the ships in Key West. Here we propose to ask a post-card, four question survey of each Cruise
Ship business. The number of cruise ships and the number of cruise ship businesses are not
necessarily the same, with the same company operating multiple ships that make a port call in
Key West. We will work with the Key West Port Authority to contact all the cruise ship
companies that have ships planning to make port calls over our study period. We expect this to
be fewer than 20 companies that will receive the post card survey. We are expecting high
response rates (over 90 percent).
2. Describe the procedures for the collection, including: the statistical methodology for
stratification and sample selection; the estimation procedure; the degree of accuracy
needed for the purpose described in the justification; any unusual problems requiring
specialized sampling procedures; and any use of periodic (less frequent than annual) data
collection cycles to reduce burden.
Sampling Procedures and Sample Selection: In Part A, Question 2, Section on “How”, sampling
procedures and sample selection methods were described for each target population and survey
of that population. In Part B, Question 1, sample stratifications were discussed for each survey.
In Part A, Question 2, Section on “How”, we also described the special sampling stratification
using local knowledge for the visitor CUSTOMER Survey.
Degree of Accuracy Needed: For all elements of the Resident and Visitor Surveys that are
replicated from either the 1995-96 study or the 2000-2001 study, we have planned for sample
sizes that exceed those achieved in previous studies that were successful, so we are confident
estimates will be reliable for all of these project elements. For new project elements such as the
Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching, we are basing our selected sample sizes on other recent
applications of the stated preference method used. Our planned sample sizes exceed those of
most other applications so we are confident that we will be able to estimate values with
acceptable statistical accuracy. For the new study on Substitution/Management Alternatives, the
key aspect was sample size to support the choice questions. Dr. Chi-Ok Oh, Department of
Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management at Clemson University, designed the choice
experiment and says that a sample size of 1,100 to 1,200 would meet minimum requirements for
this module of questions, using his 48 choice question approach across six versions of the
survey, with each version containing 8 choice questions for each activity (fishing and diving).
We were able to allocate a sample size of 2,000 for the resident population and 1,804 for the
visitor population, thus ensuring that statistical accuracy required will be achieved.
Frequency of Data Collection: This is a one-time application. The recreation/tourism study was
recommended to be done approximately every ten years. Some sub-components, importancesatisfaction ratings, are recommended to be replicated every five years. Estimates of reef use
were done in the 2000-2001 study and the FKNMS asked if we could update these estimates
since reef use is a high priority given the recent declines in live coral cover due to bleaching
events and various diseases.

3. Describe the methods used to maximize response rates and to deal with nonresponse.
The accuracy and reliability of the information collected must be shown to be adequate for
the intended uses. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be
provided if they will not yield "reliable" data that can be generalized to the universe
studied.
a. Resident Mail Surveys: We use pre-notification letters and the full Dillman Method for mail
surveys. A pre-notification letter is first sent, followed by the full survey package. After two
weeks, those who have not yet responded will receive a post-card reminder with a telephone
number to call to get another copy of the survey. After one month, those who not yet responded
will receive a full survey package. A sweepstakes/lottery is also set up as an incentive. This will
be run by the private sector as part of their contribution to the project. Prizes have not yet been
determined or who will run the sweepstakes/lottery, but it will most likely be a local bank that
runs the sweepstakes/lottery. We believe that following the above procedures will yield response
rates between 50 and 60 percent (Table 4). We will have full demographic profiles of
respondents and will be able to test for nonresponse bias (see Leeworthy, 1996 for tests
conducted for nonresponse bias and sample weighting used to adjust for minor biases).
b. Visitor On-site surveys; Auto, Air and Cruise Ship and CUSTOMER: In both the 1995-96
and 2000-2001 studies, we achieve between 90 and 95 percent response rates for the on-site
surveys of visitors. One of the main reasons we believe we are so successful is our use of the
Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc. (BVI) as our interviewers. The BVI interviewers are typically
retired Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) personnel that volunteer their time for public projects.
A group of these volunteers have their own recreation vehicles (RVs) and we negotiate with
private or government campgrounds to provide free campsites to our volunteers. The volunteers,
being elderly people, do not intimidate any socioeconomic group. The fact that they can
approach any group without intimidation leads to high cooperation rates. The response to first
contact is crucial to survey research and the BVI volunteers are very successful. The volunteers
also help out with ensuring that businesses that are selected as interview sites allow our
interviewers to interview their customers. Some sites that considered their sites catering to high
income/high profile visitors did not at first think their customers could be bothered by surveys.
However, after meeting our BVI Interviewers, all businesses allowed us to interview their
customers. We were in fact successful in turning the interviews into a value-added experience.
Many businesses and the Monroe County Tourist Development Council think the BVI
interviewers are ambassadors for the Florida Keys.
We also believe the use of the BVI interviewers has increased our mailback response rates. Back
in the mid 1980’s we were using students to do the Public Area Recreation Visitor Surveys
(PARVS). Because of quality problems, we switched to using the BVI in the late 1980s early
1990s. Not only did the quality of on-site interview data improve mailback response rates
increased significantly.
c. Visitor Mailback Surveys; Auto, Air and Cruise Ship and CUSTOMER: In Tables 5 and 6, we
show our expected response rates for the various mailback surveys in the two visitor surveys.
Expected response rates are largely based on the experiences of 1995-96, but also the product of

some learning from the 1995-96 experience. From the 1995-96 experience, we learned that there
was some nonresponse bias in the expenditure mailback of the Auto, Air and Cruise Ship
Survey. The bias came from day-trippers. Day-trippers, except Cruise Ship passengers, were
not differentiated from other visitors as to type of mailback questionnaire they were given. This
time we will provide a short version (the one the Cruise Ship passengers get) to day-trippers. We
think this will improve response rates for this group and eliminate nonresponse bias from daytrippers.
As in 1995-96, we will obtain the names, addresses and telephone numbers from many of the
visitors during the on-site interview so we can do follow-ups to increase response rates. The
Monroe County Tourist Development Council (TDC) provides small gifts to hand out to visitors.
They also provide a bookmark/brochure that explains the sweepstakes/lottery and the potential
prizes visitors can win by returning their completed mailback questionnaires. If they return both
questionnaires, visitors are told it doubles their chances of winning.
We are also able to analyze the data for nonresponse bias as was done in 1995-96 and adjust for
nonresponse bias, if present, by sample weighting (see Leeworthy, 1996 for analyses of
nonresponse bias for all mailbacks and sample weighting used to correct for any bias).
4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Tests are encouraged as
effective means to refine collections, but if ten or more test respondents are involved OMB
must give prior approval.
Most of the questionnaire modules are replications of past work and required no testing.
Although, the Substitution/Management Alternatives modules are new in the Florida Keys, they
have been used in many other places successfully and are merely adapted for application in the
Florida Keys. The Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching is also a new application in the
Florida Keys, but the general methods have been used in tested elsewhere and we are confident
in the design. The only aspect we would have liked to test is the range of randomly assigned
dollar amounts. We believe that we can draw on our past experiences with willingness to pay in
the Florida Keys (2000-2001 reef valuation study, see Johns et al, 2003a) to derive the range
without expensive pre-testing.
5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on the statistical
aspects of the design, and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or other
person(s) who will actually collect and/or analyze the information for the agency.
Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy
Leader, Coastal and Ocean Resource Economics Program and
Leader, Socioeconomic Research & Monitoring Program FKNMS
NOAA/NOS/Special Projects – N/MB7
1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, 9th floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Telephone: (301) 713-3000 ext. 138
Fax: (301) 713-4384
E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Hans Hoegh-Guldberg
Economic Strategies Pty Ltd
55 Whiteley Road, Oberon 2787 Australia
Web: http://economicstrategies.wordpress.com
Tel: +61 2 6336 0239 Mobile: 0419 220 377
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (on sabbatical in Mexico can be reached through Hans)
Dr. David K. Loomis
Human Dimensions Research Unit
Department of Natural Resources Conservation
University of Massachusetts Amherst
Amherst, MA 01003
Telephone: 413-545-6641
Fax: 413-545-4358
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Chi-Ok Oh
Assistant Professor
Dept. of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management
Clemson University
Clemson, SC 29634-0735
Telephone: 864-656-2005
Fax: 864-656-2226
E-mail: [email protected]
Dr. Robert Ditton
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77840-2258 USA
(Voice) 979.845.9841
(E-mail) (w) [email protected]

References
Brunson, M. W., & Shelby, B. 1993. “Recreation substitutability: A research agenda.” Leisure
Sciences, 15, 67–74.
Bryan, H. 1977. “Leisure Value Systems and Recreational Specialization: The Case of Trout
Fishermen.” Journal of Leisure Research, 1: 174-187.
English, Donald B. K., Warren Kriesel, Vernon R. Leeworthy, and Peter C. Wiley, 1996 .
“Economic Contribution of Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West.” Athens, GA:
USDA, Forest Service, Southern Forest Research Station; Athens, GA: The University of
Georgia, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics; and Silver Spring, MD: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 22 pp.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/publications/96-26.pdf
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. New York:
John Wiley.
Ditton, Robert B., Loomis, David K., and Choi, Seungdam. 1992. “Recreation Specialization:
Re-conceptualization from a Social Worlds Perspective.” Journal of Leisure Research,
24 (1): 33-51.
Ditton, R. B. and Sutton, S.G. 2004. “Substitutability in Recreational Fishing.” Human
Dimensions of Wildlife 9: 87-102.
Fisher, M.R. 1997. “Segmentation of the Angler Population by Catch, Participation, and
Experience: A Management-oriented Application of Recreation Specialization.” North
American Journal of Fisheries Management, 17: 1-10.
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Draft Revised Management Plan. 2005. U.S.
Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean
Service, National Marine Sanctuary Program, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
Marathon, Florida, February 2005.
http://www.fknms.nos.noaa.gov/regs/5yearreview/docs/fknms_mgt_plan.pdf
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Socioeconomic Research & Monitoring Program.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/keys.html
Hendee, J. C., & Burdge, R. J. 1974. “The substitutability concept: Implications for recreation
research and management.” Journal of Leisure Research, 6, 155–162.
Iso-Ahola, S. E. 1980. The Social Psychology of Leisure and Recreation. Dubuque, IA: William
C. Brown.
Johns, G. M., Leeworthy, V.R., Bell, F.W. and Bonn, M.A. 2003a. “Socioeconomic Study

of Reefs in Southeast Florida.” Final Report October 19,2001 as revised April 18,
2003 from Hazen and Sawyer to Broward County, Palm Beach County, Miami-Dade
County, Monroe County, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/02-01.pdf
Johns, G. M., Leeworthy, V.R., Bell, F.W. and Bonn, M.A. 2003b. “Socioeconomic Study
of Reefs in Southeast Florida, Technical Appendix.” Final Report October 19,2001 as
revised April 18, 2003 from Hazen and Sawyer to Broward County, Palm Beach County,
Miami-Dade County, Monroe County, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/Reefs/PDF's/Tech/TechApp.pdf
Layton, David F. and Brown, Gardner. 1998. “Heterogeneous Preferences Regarding Global
Climate Change. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, University of California –
Davis and Department of Economics, University of Washington, unpublished manuscript.
Leeworthy, Vernon R. 1996. “Technical Appendix: Sampling Methodologies and Estimation
Methods Applied to the Florida Keys/Key West Visitor Surveys.” Silver Spring, MD: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 170 pp.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/publications/97-29.pdf

Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Bowker, J. Michael. 1997. “Nonmarket Economic User Values
of the Florida Keys/Key West.” Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and Athens, GA: U.S. Forest Service. 41pp.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/publications/97-30.pdf
Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley, Peter C. 1996a. “Visitor Profiles: Florida Keys/Key West.”
Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 159pp.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/publications/96-25.pdf
Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley, Peter C. 1996b. “Importance and Satisfaction Ratings by
Recreating Visitors to the Florida Keys/Key West”. Silver Spring, MD: National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration. 23pp.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/publications/96-27.pdf
Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley, Peter C. 1997a. “A Socioeconomic Analysis of the
Recreation Activities of Monroe County Residents in the Florida Keys/Key West.”
Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 49pp.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/publications/97-18.pdf
Leeworthy, Vernon R. and Wiley, Peter C. 1997b. “Technical Appendix: Sampling
Methodologies and Estimation Methods Applied to the Survey of Monroe County
Residents.” Silver Spring, Maryland: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
58pp.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/publications/97-29.pdf

Leeworthy, Vernon R., Wiley, Peter C., and Hospital, Justin D. 2004. “Importance-Satisfaction
Ratings Five-year Comparison, SPA & ER Use, and Socioeconomic and Ecological
Monitoring Comparison of Results 1995-96 to 2000-01.” Silver Spring, MD: National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 59pp.
http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/impsat.pdf
Mendelsohn, R. and Neumann, J.E. (Eds). The Impact of Climate Change on the United States
Economy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Richardson, Robert B. and Loomis, John B. 2004. “Adaptive Recreation Planning and Climate
Change: A Contingent Visitation Approach.” Ecological Economics, 50: 83-99.
Salz, Ronald J. and Loomis, David K. 2005. “Recreation Specialization and Anglers’ Attitudes
Towards Restricted Fishing Areas.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10: 187-199.
Salz, Ronald J., Loomis, David K. and Finn, Kelly L. 2001. “Development and Validation of a
Specialization Index and Testing of Specialization Theory.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife,
6: 239-258.
Shelby, B., & Vaske, J. J. 1991. “Resource and activity substitutes for recreational salmon
fishing in New Zealand.” Leisure Sciences, 13, 21– 32.
Snow, R. 1980. “A structural analysis of recreation activity substitution.” Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Texas A&M University, College Station.
Vaske, J. J., and Donnelly, M. P. 1982. “Predicting attractive resource choices.” In Forest and
River Recreation: Research Update (Miscellaneous Publication 18). (pp. 85–88). University
of Minnesota Agricultural Station, St. Paul.
Weigel, Russell H. and Weigel, Joan. 1978. “Environmental Concern: The Development of a
Measure, “ Environmental Behavior 10 (1): 3-15.

Overview of Questionnaires
•

Resident Mail Survey

•

Visitor: Auto, Air and Cruise Ship Survey
- On-site Survey
- Expenditure Mailback
- Satisfaction Mailback

•

Visitor: CUSTOMER SURVEY
- On-site Survey
- Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary Management Strategies
and Regulations/Reef Valuation Mailback
- Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching Mailback
- Substitution/Management Alternatives Mailback

•

Supply-side Surveys
- Dive Shop Owners/Operators – Post-card Survey
- Cruise Ships – Post-card Survey

RESIDENT MAIL SURVEY
•

Sample 1/Version 1
- Questionnaire
- Activities List (White Card)
- Activities List – Reefs (Blue Card)
- Map of Florida Keys (Five Regions)

Sample 1/Version 1 includes the core questions (Activity Participation and Use; Specialization; and Demographics);
Trip Expenditures; Annual Vacation and Equipment Purchases; and Reef Valuation.
•

Sample 2/Version 2
- Questionnaire
- Version 2a
- Version 2b
- Version 2c
- Version 2d
- Activities List, Activities List – Reefs and Map are the same as Sample 1/Version 1 and are not
repeated here.

Sample 2/Version 2 has four sub-versions. The difference between versions is the choice questions for the Global
Climate Change/Coral Bleaching Module. Each version has six choice questions, which are different combinations
of management strategies. There are 24 different choice questions across the four sub-versions. This version
includes the core questions; Satisfaction; Environmental Concern; and the Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching.
•

Sample 3/Version 3
- Questionnaire
- Activities List, Activities List – Reefs and Map are the same as Sample 1/Version 1 and are not
repeated here.

Sample 3/Version 3 includes the core questions; and the Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary
Management Strategies and Regulations.
•

Sample 4/Version 4
- Questionnaire
- Version 4a
- Version 4b
- Version 4c
- Version 4d
- Version 4e
- Version 4f
- Activities List, Activities List – Reefs and Map are the same as Sample 1/Version 1 and are not
repeated here.

Sample 4/Version 4 has six sub-versions. The difference between versions is the choice questions for the
Alternative Management Options Module. Each version has eight (8) choice questions for each of two activities
(fishing and diving). Across the five sub-versions there are 48 different choice questions for each of the two
activities. This version includes the core questions; Substitution; and Management Alternatives.