Mokupapapa_SUPPORTING STATEMENT 082808 Part A rev

SUPPORTING STATEMENT
EVALUATION OF PUBLIC VISITORS’ EXPERIENCE OF EXHIBITS AT
MOKUPAPAPA DISCOVERY CENTER
OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-xxxx

A.

JUSTIFICATION

1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The enabling legislation for the National Marine Sanctuary System, the National Marine
Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), denotes specific educational mandates. Section 309(c)(1) of the
NMSA states that one of the purposes of the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) is:
“ . . .to enhance public awareness, understanding, appreciation and wise and sustainable
use of the marine environment, and the natural historical, cultural and archeological
resources of the national Marine Sanctuary System. Efforts supported, promoted, or
coordinated under this subsection must emphasize the conservation goals and sustainable
public uses of national marine sanctuaries and the System.” .
In 2005, the planning committee of the National Marine Sanctuary Program (NMSP) developed
a 10-year strategic plan of operations for the organization. Specific goals and strategies were
established to guide the progress of the Education and Outreach program. The Education and
Outreach goal is:
“To enhance nation-wide public awareness, understanding and appreciation of marine
and Great Lakes ecosystems and maritime heritage resources through outreach, education
and interpretation efforts”
The specific performance measure for evaluating this goal is:
“By 2010 all education programs implemented in national marine sanctuaries will be
assessed for effectiveness against stated program goals and objectives and appropriate
National and State education standards.”
The NMSP education team has embarked on an ambitious evaluation project that will allow the
NMSP to assess education program outcomes and impacts across all sites and activities and to
link outcome measures to program efforts. The purpose of this effort is to evaluate if current and
future education efforts are meeting the goals and objectives of the education and outreach
programs and the educational mandates of the NMSA. The application of these findings will
assist in adjusting program content, format, range of activities and target audiences to improve
overall effectiveness of educational efforts and expenditures.

Program to be evaluated
Mokupapapa: Discovery Center for Hawaii’s Remote Coral Reefs (Center), located on the island
of Hawaii, is an educational center designed to interpret the natural and cultural history of the
Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument (MNM), and is part of the ONMS. The Center
was constructed to interpret the natural science, culture, and history of the Northwestern
Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) and surrounding marine environment. Most importantly, the exhibits
were created to gain awareness of, as well as support for, additional protection for the remote
area. The abundant natural life of the NWHI comes alive within the Center with models of
sharks swimming overhead, a 2,500 gallon aquarium and a simulated submersible.
After five years of operation, the Center now has a solid base of 60,000 visitors per year. Thanks
to our location, we have a good balance between local residents and visitors to the island. The
Center is an integral part of downtown Hilo, and many visitors come on a regular basis. Every
day we see numerous children pulling their parents by the hand into “The Fish Place”. Teachers
are aware of our facilities and bring approximately 3,500 students through our doors annually.
Best of all, our visitors like what they see: we are continually hearing enthusiastic comments
from people about our facilities.
The recent change from being a coral reef ecosystem reserve to a Marine National Monument
with two co-trustees has had a major impact on the messages we are trying to convey. We are
now taking a fresh look at what messages we are conveying in our exhibits and programs. As we
develop new messages, we are taking into account not only NOAA’s Papahanaumokuakea
Marine National Monument (PMNM) messages, but also applicable messages from our cotrustees, the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the State of Hawaii, as well as the NMSP’s and
NOAA’s goals.
One of the main outreach efforts is through the Center. The NMSP education team needs to
evaluate the Discovery Center to find out if it is indeed conveying our key messages to our
audiences, so that we may make better decisions about exhibit renovations, new exhibits,
interpretation programs and other educational programs that we deliver.

2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be
used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support
information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the collection
complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
The information from this new survey will be used to align exhibit and educational programs
developed in the future at Mokupapapa Discovery Center, to better deliver the NMSP’s, and
Papahanaumokuakea MNM’s messages to the 60,000 people who come to the Center each year.
At this point we do not plan to conduct the survey more than once. As the funding for this
program is available only through September 2009, completion of OMB review is requested no
later than November 15, 2008.

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Questions 1, 2 & 14 provide us with basic information about the person.
Question 3 is an introductory non-threatening question seeking the interviewee’s basic
impression of the Center.
Questions 4 & 5 determines what people believe the exhibits are about (including
possible top-of-mind perception of messages).
Question 6 determines if people value the exhibits.
Question 7 determines which exhibits people want to see again.
Question 8 determines which exhibits people looked at.
Question 9 determines what people may have learned.
Question 10 determines which (if any) of our main messages are coming across in our
exhibits.
Question 11 helps us understand if visitors understand people’s impact on PMNM.
Question 12 informs us if people understand and intend to participate in helping the
PMNM.
Question 13 allows people to ask us questions.
Three final questions allow us to obtain demographic information in order to receive
some indication of how broad a cross-section of people are visiting. One of these
questions asks for race/ethnicity in accordance with OMB guidelines, which set out the
minimum categories, and terms for, race to choose from, allow respondents to indicate
“Hispanic/not Hispanic in addition to selecting a race, as well as the option to choose
more than one race category.

All of this information will help us determine what messages are and are not being conveyed in
our exhibits, and what we need to improve on in both exhibits and educational programs to fulfill
the ONMS and PMNM goals.
As explained in the preceding paragraphs, the information gathered has utility. NOAA ONMS
will retain control over the information and safeguard it from improper access, modification, and
destruction, consistent with NOAA standards for confidentiality, privacy, and electronic
information. See response to Question10 of this Supporting Statement for more information on
confidentiality and privacy. The information collection is designed to yield data that meet all
applicable information quality guidelines. Although the information collected is not expected to
be disseminated directly to the public, results may be used in scientific, management, technical
or general informational publications. Should NOAA Office of National Marine Sanctuaries
decide to disseminate the information, it will be subject to the quality control measures and predissemination review pursuant to Section 515 of Public Law 106-554.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.

The collection of information from visitors to the exhibits at the Mokupapapa Discovery Center
will consist of intercept interviews, conducted in person by volunteers and paid assistants. The
interviews will be conducted on paper, using a clipboard, for three reasons:
● The public’s general wariness of “surveys” is best transcended by a personable
approach (the more that the interview feels like a conversation, and appears to be a
person-to-person interaction, the higher the rate of cooperation).
● People are more likely to finish an interview due to the social characteristics of the
interpersonal situation, compared to the impersonal experience of filling out a survey
electronically; they feel less like “a number” and more like “a person whose opinions are
being listened to” when being interviewed by another person.
● The process of an interviewer using a laptop or other electronic device to input the data
during an interview tends to be distracting and less efficient (it is easier to train
inexperienced people to conduct interviews than it is to train them to conduct interviews
and use a data entry program).
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.
This is the first effort of its kind to understand the educational value of visitors’ experience of
exhibits at a National Marine Sanctuary visitor center (confirmed in a December 2007 meeting of
representatives from all 13 Sanctuaries).
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.
This project will not have a significant impact on small entities such as small businesses,
organizations, or government bodies. All respondents will be individuals or families.
6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.
If this evaluation were not conducted, we would not be able to assess if the Discovery Center is
indeed fulfilling applicable portions of NOAA’s mandate to have an informed society that
comprehends the role of the ocean, coasts, and atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the
best social and economic decisions. In addition, we would not be able to modify our exhibits
and education programs to best fulfill NOAA’s, NOS’, ONMS’ and Papahanaumokuakea Marine
National Monument’s education and outreach goals. Nor would we contribute to our role in
fulfilling the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS) goal of evaluating all of its
programs by 2010.
This evaluation has never been conducted before and is not currently planned to be repeated.

7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.
There are no special circumstances that deviate from OMB guidelines as listed in Attachment 1
of the instructions.
8. Provide information on the PRA Federal Register Notice that solicited public comments
on the information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments
received in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response
to those comments. Describe the 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 recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be
recorded, disclosed, or reported.
A Federal Register Notice published on March 18, 2008 (73 FR 14441) solicited comments from
the public. No comments were received.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.
No payments, gifts or incentives will be offered.
10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.
All persons interviewed will be anonymous; no information will be collected that would identify
the specific individual (e.g., name, address, phone number, social security number, driver’s
license number); therefore, no assurance of confidentiality will be required or provided.
Demographic information will only be used for statistical analysis and aggregate information
about the sample (e.g., age, gender, area of residence, visitor group size and composition).
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.
No questions of a sensitive nature are being asked in this survey.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.
a. Respondent sample: This one-time study will seek one interview each from a sample of 250
visitor groups (pre-existing parties who arrived together, including single adults visiting alone,
couples, families, etc.), randomly selected after they have seen exhibits at the Mokupapapa
Discovery Center and are about to exit the building. One adult (age 18+) per visitor group will
be approached and invited to give his/her opinion; participation will be voluntary. Extensive
prior experience with this type of work suggests that the response rate will be approximately 8590%. [From the social scientist researcher who will direct this study, we have information about
actual rates of cooperation at similar facilities (aquariums, museums). In general, the
cooperation rate averages about 90%; the rate from about 20 projects in the last two years has
ranged from 72% to 98%.]

Data sought
from:

# of
respondents

Visitors to
Mokupapapa
Discovery
Center

278-294
visitors
approached
to obtain a
sample of
250

Responses
per
respondent

Total #
Responses

Response
Time

Total
Burden

Labor
Cost to
Public *

1 interview

250

7.5 min
avg. per
interview

31 hrs.

$418

Based on the US Census data from 2004, the average household income is $44,334 ($13.36 per
hour for adults in household). The average estimated time per respondent is 7.5 minutes (12.5%
of an hour). Therefore, the average labor cost per adult answering the questions would be $1.67,
multiplied by the 250 responders, with a total burden of $418.
13. Provide an estimate of the total annual recordkeeping/reporting cost burden to the
respondents resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in #12
above).
a. Capital and start-up costs: none.
b. Operations and maintenance costs for the public: none (an interviewer will ask a series of
questions, and the interviewer will write visitors’ answers on the interview form; no follow-up or
mailing or other expense will be required of the visitors).
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.
The NMSP education team will discuss goals, best practices, and techniques with the contractor
(evaluator) who is developing the interview, and who will help us prepare for data collection.
We estimate 120 hours of work for the Mokupapapa Discovery Manager (Manager) in this
capacity as a normal part of her job, and 8 hours of work for three other Mokupapapa Staff
members, also part of their normal job hours. Collection of data will be conducted by a
combination of both staff and volunteers, and overseen by the Manager. With the estimate of 68
hours of data collection time, we anticipate only 24 hours will be of staff time, with the other 44
hours being conducted by volunteers. Processing of data will be handled by our evaluator.
Consultation of results will be with Manager. Our evaluator who is responsible for developing
the instrument, training data collectors, processing the data, and analyzing the results is on
contract.

Personnel
Manager Time
Staff Time
Volunteer Time
Contractor

Time
120 hours @ $25 per
hour
24 hours @ $20 per hour
44 hours
XXX

Additional cost
Normal job
responsibilities
Normal job
responsibilities
No cost
$20,000

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or 14
of the OMB 83-I.
This is a new program.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.
Since the primary purposes of this evaluation are to reflect on the achievement, or lack thereof,
of education and outreach goals of several partner organizations as represented in the exhibits at
this Discovery Center, the distribution of results is intended to be primarily intra-governmental.
The public is not likely to receive any additional benefits from this evaluation’s information.
However, to facilitate possible professional uses (e.g., among other marine sanctuaries), a short
summary of the results will be made available on the NWHI web site home page, citing the
evaluation and explaining how to request a full copy from the Mokupapapa Discovery Center.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
Not applicable.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the OMB
83-I.
No exceptions.