supplemental_statement_A_2004

Supporting Statement for OMB 0596-0186

Perception of Risk, Trust, Responsibility, and Management Preferences among Fire Prone Communities

Approved 7/29/2005

A. Justification

1. Explain the circumstances that make the col­lection of information necessary. Iden­tify any legal or administrative require­ments that necessitate the collection. Attach a copy of the appropriate section of each statute and regulation mandating or authorizing the col­lection of information.

The enabling legislation (PL-95-307) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to research the multiple uses and products, including recreation, of forests and rangelands to facilitate their most effective use.

2. Indicate how, by whom, and for what pur­pose the information is to be used. Except for a new collec­tion, indicate the actual use the agency has made of the infor­ma­tion received from the current collec­tion.

1. What information will be collected - reported or recorded? (If there are pieces of information that are especially burdensome in the collection, a specific explanation should be provided.)

Information on concern about fire and fire risk, knowledge about fire, salient values similarity, trust, value consistency and validity of inconsistency, key fire management objectives, personal experiences with fire, stressors associated with fire, responsibility and accomplishment for fire risk reduction, future orientation, mode of information receipt, and socio-demographics. These will be gathered through a self-administered questionnaire from each participant in the focus group sessions. Information on objectives/values and concerns related to fire management, alternative approaches to accomplishing fire management objectives, values/goals and trust, and types of information needed or of interest will be gathered through focus group discussions. The questionnaire and focus group protocol are included with this submission package.

2. From whom will the information be collected? If there are different respondent categories (e.g., loan applicant versus a bank versus an appraiser), each should be described along with the type of collection activity that applies.

The information will be collected from residents of four San Bernardino National Forest communities, who have agreed to attend and participate in a focus group session. All participants will be asked to complete the questionnaire and to participate in group discussion.

3. What will this information be used for - provide ALL uses?

The information will be used to construct a technical report on findings, to prepare journal articles for submission to peer review outlets, for presentations at scientific meetings, and for presentations to natural resource managers as appropriate. Brief summaries may appear in other outlets such as summaries of research findings produced by the unit for National Fire Plan reporting and general accomplishment reporting. We will assess the feasibility of a workshop for local FS managers who address the SBNF to share the findings from this study.

4. How will the information be collected (e.g., forms, non-forms, electronically, face-to-face, over the phone, over the Internet)? Does the respondent have multiple options for providing the information? If so, what are they?

Information will be collected through self-administered questionnaire and focus group discussions. The questionnaire and focus group protocol are included in this submission package. Only participants in the group discussion sessions will be able to provide the information, and because of the need for gathering in-depth qualitative as well as the quantitative information and the need to link the two, this will be the only mode of collection.

5. How frequently will the information be collected?

The information will be gathered only one time.

6. Will the information be shared with any other organizations inside or outside USDA or the government?

Information will be shared through a technical report to individuals or representatives or organizations in the public and private sectors. Journal articles can be read by anyone gaining access to that journal or the specific article. We typically share our fire research findings with multiple natural resource management agencies to ensure diffusion of information.

7. If this is an ongoing collection, how have the collection requirements changed over time?

This is a new collection.

3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of auto­mat­ed, elec­tronic, mechani­cal, or other techno­log­ical collection techniques or other forms of information technol­o­gy, e.g. permit­ting elec­tronic sub­mission of respons­es, and the basis for the decision for adopting this means of collection. Also describe any con­sideration of using in­fo­r­m­a­t­ion technolo­gy to re­duce bur­den.

Because of the need for indepth discussion and insights derived from the discussions, information technology is not suitable for this inquiry. The questionnaires are self-administered at the beginning of the focus group meeting, and then participants are led through a series of discussion topics. Comments will be tape recorded and simultaneously entered in transcriptions on a laptop computer. Because only the cooperator and focus group transcriber will have access to these tapes, and comments will be coded according to an ID number rather than the individual’s name, confidentiality will be maintained.

4. Describe efforts to identify duplica­tion. Show specifically why any sim­ilar in­for­mation already avail­able cannot be used or modified for use for the purpos­es de­scri­bed in Item 2 above.

The information to be collected is not presently available and is not a planned collection through any other means that we are aware of.

5. If the collection of information im­pacts small businesses or other small entities, describe any methods used to mini­mize burden.

This information collection does not impact small businesses, it involves community residents who will participate and provide opinions as residents of the selected forest communities.

6. Describe the consequence to Federal program or policy activities if the collection is not conducted or is con­ducted less fre­quent­ly, as well as any technical or legal obstacles to reducing burden.

The ability to mange fire and fire risk on the San Bernadino National Forest has gained importance as its complexity has increased. Ecosystem related concerns have gained in complexity, and residents’ concerns have also increased. Public input has become an expectation, and this is one very effective route for gathering public opinions on fire management on the San Bernardino National Forest. Without this information, management decisions will be made based on limited and anecdotal information regarding public values and perceptions as well as perceived responsibility in management of fire risk.

7. Explain any special circumstances that would cause an information collecti­on to be con­ducted in a manner:

• Requiring respondents to report informa­tion to the agency more often than quarterly;

Information will only be gathered once through participating in a focus group session

• Requiring respondents to prepare a writ­ten response to a collection of infor­ma­tion in fewer than 30 days after receipt of it;

The self-administered questionnaire will be completed in the group session in which the resident agrees to attend; however, scheduling will be made with the resident’s full cooperation and agreement.

• Requiring respondents to submit more than an original and two copies of any docu­ment;

Only one copy of the response will be required.

• Requiring respondents to retain re­cords, other than health, medical, governm­ent contract, grant-in-aid, or tax records for more than three years;

Such a requirement is not part of this information collection.

• In connection with a statisti­cal sur­vey, that is not de­signed to produce valid and reli­able results that can be general­ized to the uni­verse of study;

The results will be applicable to the focus group participants, and will be representative of the styles and ranges of thinking of community residents in the four selected forest communities.

• Requiring the use of a statis­tical data classi­fication that has not been re­vie­wed and approved by OMB;

The forms to be used for the questionnaire and the focus group protocol are submitted as attachments for OMB review.

• That includes a pledge of confidentiality that is not supported by au­thority estab­lished in statute or regu­la­tion, that is not sup­ported by dis­closure and data security policies that are consistent with the pledge, or which unneces­sarily impedes shar­ing of data with other agencies for com­patible confiden­tial use; or

Violations of confidentiality are not a risk in this study, nor will the methods of securing confidentiality impede sharing of information with other agencies or individuals desiring study results.

• Requiring respondents to submit propri­etary trade secret, or other confidential information unless the agency can demon­strate that it has instituted procedures to protect the information's confidentiality to the extent permit­ted by law.

No such information will be requested or required as part of this information collection.

8. If applicable, provide a copy and iden­tify the date and page number of publication in the Federal Register of the agency's notice, required by 5 CFR 1320.8 (d), soliciting com­ments on the information collection prior to submission to OMB. Summarize public com­ments received in response to that notice and describe actions taken by the agency in response to these comments. Specifically address com­ments received on cost and hour burden.

The Federal Register announcement is attached, and on comment was received. That comment was from an individual member of the public expressing concern over the use of Forest Service dollars for research instead of forest management. The argument was made that the best people to ask about fire risk and management are not community residents. Finally, questions on risk were challenged since the respondent felt that the risk should already be known to communities. A written response was sent explaining the need for the information, the basis of this inquiry being much broader in the context of data on other communities and publics regarding fire risk, and the importance of focusing on such a risk-prone community.

Describe efforts to consult with persons out­side the agency to obtain their views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and record keeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be recorded, disclosed, or reported.

Reviewers included:

Tricia Abbas, Public Affairs Specialist, USDA Forest Service

Cees J. Middden, Ph.D., Eindhoven University of Technology, Netherlands

Michael Sierist, Ph.D., Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich

Haiganoush Preisler, Ph.D., PSW, USDA FS

Their comments and our responses to them are attached to this submission package.

Consultation with representatives of those from whom information is to be obtained or those who must compile records should occur at least once every 3 years even if the col­lection of information activity is the same as in prior periods. There may be circumstances that may preclude consultation in a specific situation. These circumstances should be explained.

There are no key representatives who should be contacted for this information collection on behalf of the participating residents. Residents will participant [sic] voluntary [sic] and will be representing themselves and their own opinions.

9. Explain any decision to provide any payment or gift to respondents, other than re-enumeration of contractors or grantees.

No remuneration or gift will be offered. Light refreshments will be served during the group session, to help ensure participant comfort.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for the assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

Respondents will be assured of confidentiality of their responses. Contact information will be maintained separately from their responses and once groups are scheduled and held the contact information will be destroyed. Although constructed codes will be sued to link the questionnaire to the focus group comments, records of discussions will only be handled and viewed by the coding team through Western Washington University. There will be no way to directly identify an individual’s personal identity. Any reporting of comments or responses to the surveys will be in group form, or if individual will be assigned a pseudonym or be free of identifying information.

11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior or attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private. This justification should include the reasons why the agency considers the questions necessary, the specific uses to be made of the information, the explanation to be given to persons from whom the information is requested, and any steps to be taken to obtain their consent.

Participants are asked to complete the Impact of Event Scale – Revised, examining impacts of stressors on daily functioning. It’s measurement addresses aspects of post traumatic stress disorder, which we believe to be similar to the personal experiences of residents in a high fire risk area. This is a valid and reliable scale for assessing stress response, and though questions may be viewed as sensitive, confidentiality is assured and respondents may skip any items they specifically object to. Assessing stress is an important component of understanding the impacts of fire risk on community residents. Because it is an established scale, we have obtained the information on reliability and validity of the scale and found it to be excellent for our purposes.

(www.criminology.unimlb.edu.au/victims/resources/assessment/ptsd/ies-r.html)

12. Provide estimates of the hour burden of the collection of information. Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated.

This is a two part question and both parts must be addressed.

• Indicate the number of respondents, frequency of 5response, annual hour burden, and an explanation of how the burden was estimated. If this request for approval covers more than one form, provide separate hour burden estimates for each form and aggregate the hour burdens in Item 13 of OMB Form 83-I.

a) Description of the collection activity: Collection will occur through self-administered questionnaire and transcription of focus group discussions.

b) Corresponding form number (if applicable): The forms created specifically for this information collection are included in this submission package.

c) Number of respondents: 50 adult residents from each of the 4 selected forest communities will serve as respondent/participants to the questionnaire and focus group discussion; community residents will serve as contact for the focus group scheduling, involving as many as 800 possible contacts.

d) Number of responses annually per respondent: 1 response for scheduling into a session, and then 1 questionnaire completion and focus group participation are requested in this information collection.

e) Total annual responses (columns c x d): 2 responses total

f) Estimated hours per response: 2 hours per focus group participant, 12 minutes average for focus group scheduling

g) Total annual burden hours (columns e x f): total annual burden hours is 466

•

Record keeping burden should be addressed separately and should include columns for:

a) Description of record keeping activity: None

b) Number of record keepers: None

c) Annual hours per record keeper: None

d) Total annual record keeping hours (columns b x c): Zero

• Provide estimates of annualized cost to respondents for the hour burdens for collections of information, identifying and using appropriate wage rate categories.

The estimated annual cost to respondents is based on the mean hourly wage for the San Bernadino MSA (www.calmis.ca/gov) at $16.95 per hour. Total cost is $7,898.70 based on burden of 466 hours.

13. Provide estimates of the total annual cost burden to respondents or record keepers resulting from the collection of information, (do not include the cost of any hour burden shown in items 12 and 14). The cost estimates should be split into two components: (a) a total capital and start-up cost component annualized over its expected useful life; and (b) a total operation and maintenance and purchase of services component.

Cost of this type is zero.

14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government. Provide a description of the method used to estimate cost and any other expense that would not have been incurred without this collection of information.

The response to this question covers the actual costs the agency will incur as a result of implementing the information collection. The estimate should cover the entire life cycle of the collection and include costs, if applicable, for:

• Employee labor and materials for developing, printing, storing forms: $2,223.70

• Employee labor and materials for developing computer systems, screens, or reports to support the collection: N/A

• Employee travel costs: $2,832

• Cost of contractor services or other reimbursements to individuals or organizations assisting in the collection of information: $38,037 (cooperative agreement with Western Washington University at $28,037 plus anticipated amendment at $10,000 to cover transcription assistance, and computer support)

• Employee labor and materials for collecting the information: $5,559.25

• Employee labor and materials for analyzing, evaluating, summarizing, and/or reporting on the collected information: $14,454.05

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in items 13 or 14 of OMB form 83-I.

This is a new information collection.

16. For collections of information whose results are planned to be published, outline plans for tabulation and publication.

Questionnaire responses will be entered in an SPSS for windows datafile and data entry will be verified for accuracy. Analysis of questionnaire responses will include summary and descriptive statistics, as well as correlation and linear regression. Analysis will be across the four communities, providing an adequate n [sic] to support statistical comparisons. Focus group discussions will be transcribed, and cross verified for correspondence with audio recordings of discussions. Content analysis will be employed for each discussion area, with themes developed in keeping with content analysis protocols. Findings will be summarized in a technical report, and aspects of the study prepared for submission to one or more peer reviewed journals. The focus will be on respondents, rather than attempts to generalize the population of community residents on the San Bernardino National Forest. Presentations will be made at scientific meetings, and natural resource agency meetings as appropriate.

17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons that display would be inappropriate.

The OMB approval number and expiration date will be displayed on the self-administered questionnaire.

18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in item 19, "Certification Requirement for Paperwork Reduction Act."

No exception is requested and the certification statement will be supplied to each participant upon arrival at the discussion session.

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 government units, households, or persons) in the universe covered by the collection and in the corre­sponding sample are to be provided in tabular form for the uni­verse as a whole and for each of the strata in the proposed sample. Indicate expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection had been conducted previously, include the actual response rate achieved during the last collection.

[Response]

2. Describe the procedures for the collection of information including:

• Statistical methodology for stratification and sample selection,

• Estimation procedure,

• Degree of accuracy needed for the pur­pose described in the justification,

• Unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures, and

• Any use of periodic (less frequent than annual) data collection cycles to reduce burden.

[Response]

3. Describe methods to maximize response rates and to deal with issues of non-response. The accuracy and reliability of information collected must be shown to be adequate for intended uses. For collections based on sam­pling, a special justification must be provid­ed for any collection that will not yield "reli­able" data that can be generalized to the universe studied.

[Response]

4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Testing is encouraged as an effective means of refining collections of information to minimize burden and improve utility. Tests must be approved if they call for answers to identical questions from 10 or more respondents. A proposed test or set of tests may be submitted for approval separate­ly or in combination with the main collection of information.

[Response]

5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on 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.

[Response]

Page 10