1024-0224 - Programmatic Form for ROMO Survey

National Park Service
U.S. Department of the Interior
Social Science Program
Programmatic Approval for NPS-Sponsored Public Surveys
1.

2.

Project Title: Exploring RMNP Visitors’ Information Sources,
Communications, and Perceptions of Wildlife
Management Practices

Submission Date

8/30/2011

Abstract: A survey of a purposeful sample of 700 visitors entering Rocky Mountain National
Park by vehicles will be conducted in Fall 2011 to understand their (a) knowledge of
elk biology and elk impact on vegetation; (b) awareness of proposed management
practices—fencing, lethal controls, birth control methods, averse culling—i.e.,
controlled hunting; (c) perceptions and attitudes toward the elk and vegetation
management practices; and (d) understanding elk and vegetation management
practices. Participants will be recruited at the Beaver Meadows and Fall River
entrances during the peak of the elk bugling season (mid- September to mid-October)
by seeking volunteers who would be willing to complete a 20-minute mail survey
about two weeks after their visit to RMNP. The survey will be conducted using
Dillman’s (2007) Tailored Design Method; we will use four contacts after volunteers’
visit to RNMP.
(not to exceed 150 words)

3. Principal Investigator Contact Information
First Name:
Title:
Affiliation:
Street Address:
City:
Phone:
Email:

Donald
Last Name: Zimmerman
Professor
Dept. of Journalism & Technical Communication - Colorado State University
C-231 Clark Bldg
Fort Collins
State: CO
Zip code: 80525-1785
970-491-5674
Fax: 970-491-2908
[email protected]

4. Park or Program Liaison Contact Information
First Name:
Title:
Park:
Park Office/ Division:
Street Address:
City:
Phone:
Email:

Judy

Last Name: Visty

Research Administrator/Ecologist

Rocky Mountain National Park
Continental Divide Research Learning Center
1000 Highway 36
Estes Park
State: CO
Zip code: 81507
970-586-1392
Fax:
[email protected]

Project Information
5. Park(s) For Which Research is
to be Conducted:

Rock Mountain National Park

6. Survey Dates:

9/15/2011

to

2/15/2012

7. Type of Information Collection Instrument (Check ALL that Apply)
Mail-Back Questionnaire
Other (explain):
8.

Survey Justification:
(Use as much space as
needed; if necessary
include additional
explanation on a
separate page.)



On-Site
Questionnaire

Face-to-Face
Interview



Telephone
Survey



Focus
Groups

Social science research in support of park planning and management is
mandated in the NPS Management Policies 2006 (Section 8.11.1, “Social
Science Studies”). The NPS pursues a policy that facilitates social science
studies in support of the NPS mission to protect resources and enhance the
enjoyment of present and future generations (National Park Service Act of
1916, 38 Stat 535, 16 USC 1, et seq.). NPS policy mandates that social
science research will be used to provide an understanding of park visitors,
the non-visiting public, gateway communities and regions, and human
interactions with park resources. Such studies are needed to provide a
scientific basis for park planning, development, operations, management,
education, and interpretive activities.
Legal Justification: The National Park Service Act of 1916, 38 Stat 535, 16
USC 1, et seq., requires that the National Park Service (NPS) preserve the
national parks for the use and enjoyment of present and future generations.
At the field level, this includes activities such as resource preservation, public
education, facility maintenance and operation, and physical developments
that are necessary for public use, health, and safety.
Over the last 50 years, the Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) elk
population has grown to the extent that it is having detrimental effects on
the park vegetation and ecosystems (NPS, EIS, December 2007). With the
increased numbers, elk have damaged vegetation in the riparian zones in
both the summer and winter elk ranges. Therefore, the National Park
Service finalized a 20 year, flexible elk management plan in February 2008.
It called for the reduction of the impact of elk herd to reduce its
overgrazing. The plan called for lethal methods, fertility-reduction
techniques, fencing areas of selected willow and aspen stands, aversive
conditioning of elk, and using unsuppressed weapons for culling to reduce
the elk population to between 1,600 and 2,100 animals by the end of the
plan.
RMNP staff members have provided stakeholders information about the elk
and vegetation management plan through public meetings, news releases
to the local media, the RMNP Website

(http://www.nps.gov/romo/parkmgmt/elkvegetation.htm), signage in
RMNP, articles in RMNP publications, public presentations, exhibits, videos,
interviews with local, regional and national media, education programs, and
other education and communications.
Empirical data are needed to better understand the current stakeholders’
understanding of the elk and vegetation management so that RMNP staff
can provide more effective communications and education programs.
9.

Survey Methodology:
(Use as much space as
needed; if necessary
include additional
explanation on a
separate page.)

(a) Respondent Universe:
A purposeful sample of RMNP visitors (18 years old and older) entering the
primary entrances to RMNP during the peak of the elk bugling season
between mid-September and mid-October.
(b) Sampling Plan/Procedures:
Volunteer recruiters and the research team will approach every 26th car
entering the Fall River and Beaver Meadows entrances to Rocky Mountain
National Park during the sampling period (see below) during the height of
the elk bugling season.
Early fall snowstorms, although rare, and other inclement weather can
reduce visitors coming to RMNP during the elk bugling season. Thus, we
plan to sample Saturday (Sept. 24, 2011), Sunday (Sept. 25, 2011) and
Wednesday (Sept 28, 2011). We estimate that sampling every 26th car will
yield about 595 volunteer participants. If not, we will sample again
beginning Saturday (Oct. 1, 2011), Sunday (Oct.2, 2011), Wednesday (Oct.
5, 2011), and continue sampling October 8, 9, & 12, 2011 until we reach a
sample of 630 volunteer participants.
The recruiters will provide a brief explanation of the project to the
occupants of the vehicle, give them a cover letter explaining the project,
and ask if they are willing to help with the study. If they agree, the recruiter
will ask the person, above 18 years old, in the group with the most recent
birthday to complete the information/ contact form.
The contact form requests volunteers provide their name, address,
telephone, e-mail address, and the number of people in their vehicle. For
each vehicle approached, recruiters will observe and record the number of
passengers, estimated ages and gender. Further, for the individuals not
willing refusing to participate with the project we will ask three questions
that will allow us to compare for bias with answers to the same question:
(1) number of days spent in RMNP in the last three years,
(2) awareness of willow conditions in RMNP and
(3) number of times view RMNP’s Website in the last three years.
These data will be recorded and used to check for non-response bias.

(c) Instrument Administration:
The survey will be conducted according to Dillman’s (2007) Tailored Design
Method (TDM). After the initial contact in the park, the sampled visitors will
be contacted four times. The first mailing will be about two weeks after
visitors are contacted in RMNP. This mailing will include a packet containing
a personalized letter; a stamped, addressed, return envelope; and the
questionnaire. The survey contains a control number for tracking
respondents. A reminder/thank you letter will be sent to all participants
two weeks after the first mailing. Two weeks after that, the third mailing to
non-respondents only will include another personalized letter, replacement
questionnaire, and a stamped, return envelope. A final letter will be sent to
non-respondents.
(d) Expected Response Rate/Confidence Levels:
Based on reviews of other surveys of park visitors using similar methods, we
anticipate a 60% response rate for the mail survey. Face-to-face intercept
interviews are generally high for park studies, for example 86% (Jaakson &
Shin, 1993) and 99% (Boulware, 2004). Because the onsite contact
represents a minimal burden on visitors, we anticipate that about 85% of
the visitors in 700 vehicles will agree to volunteer (n=595) to complete the
questionnaire. The mail-back portion of the NPS VSP visitor surveys
generally achieved response rates of 50% to 75%. Steward, Fix, & Manfredo
(2004) obtained a 52% response rate on mail survey on the public’s
perception of the Rocky Mountain National Park Elk and Vegetation
management Plan.
We estimate 630 Park visitors will volunteer to help with the study. We will
send them the mail survey using the Dillman process (outlined above).
Assuming a 60% response rate, the final sample size will be 378
respondents. For finite populations of 400, the 95% confidence interval of
about +/- 5.2% for questions with dichotomous responses.
Number of
Contacts

Expected
Response
Rate

Expected
Number of
Responses

Margin of
Error +/- %

Initial onsite
contacts

700

90%

630

4.4

Agreeing to
Participate

630

60%

378

5.2

(e) Strategies for dealing with potential non-response bias:
For each vehicle approached, recruiters will observe and record the
number of passengers, their estimated ages, and gender on a sampling log,
see enclosed form. For the individuals refusing to participate in the project,
we will ask three questions that will allow us to compare for bias with
answers to the same question: (1) number of days spent in RMNP in the last
three years, (2) awareness of willow conditions in RMNP and (3) number of
times view RMNP’s Website in the last three years. These data will be

recorded and used to check for non-response bias.
For each vehicle approached, recruiters will observe and record the number
of passengers, their estimated ages, and gender; the data will be recorded
and used to check for non-response bias.
Respondents and non-respondents will be compared on these
characteristics. The report will document the results of the non-response
bias check and discuss implications for interpreting the results.
(f) Description of any pre-testing and peer review of the methods and/or
instrument (recommended):
The questionnaire, letters, and forms were peer reviewed by NPS
managers, Colorado State university professors, and research scientists. We
pre-tested the survey with 5 visitors. The questions were developed
specifically for this project, except for the standard questions provided by
the National Park Service Social Science unit.

10.

Burden Estimates:

With a response anticipated rate of 90%, we plan to approach 700
individuals. We expect that the initial contact time will be at least five
minutes for each person agreeing to participate (630 x 5 minutes = 53
hours). This includes the time that it will take those individuals who to
participate in the survey, record contact information.
We expect that 70 (10%) people will refuse to participate in the study, for
those individuals we will ask them to answer 3 questions, from the survey
that will be used for the non-response bias check, and record their reason
for refusal. This is estimated to take no more than 2 minutes per response
to complete each session (70 x 2 minutes = 2 hours).
For those who agree to participate (n=630) we expect that 60% (n=378)
(will complete and return the survey, with that, an additional 20 minutes
will be required to complete the follow through (378 response x 20
minutes = 126 hours). The total burden for this collection is estimated to
be 180.33 hours.

Estimated number
agreeing to participate
in the study

630

Estimated number of
refusals

70

Expected number of
responses

378

Estimated Time (mins.) to
Complete Initial Contact

5

Estimated Burden
Hours

53

On-site Refusal/
nonresponse

2

Estimated Burden
Hours

2

20

Estimated Burden
Hours
Total Burden Hours

Time to complete and
return surveys

126
181

11.

Reporting Plan: Our data analysis will include frequencies, percentages, means, and
standard deviations for questions/variables. We will run reliability scores
on the scale questions and use analysis of variance when comparing
different demographic groups. We will provide a final report to the Rocky
Mountain National Park staff on the survey results. We will provide
electronic copies to the NPS Social Science Division for inclusion in the
Social Science Studies Collection

REFERENCES CITED
Boulware, D.R. (2004). Influence of hygiene on gastrointestinal illness among wilderness backpackers. Journal of
Travel Medicine, 11, 27-33.
Dillman, D. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method.2nd Edition. Hoboken, NJ: John Riley &
Sons.
Ellen, P.S., Wiener, J.L., & Cobb-Walgren, C. (1991). The role of perceived consumer effectiveness in motivating
environmentally conscious behavior. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 10, 2, 102-117.
Jaakson, R. & Shin, W.S. (1994). Purism and campers. The Journal of Social Psychology 133, 4, 489-493.
Marion, J.L., & Reid, S.E. (2007). Minimizing visitor impacts to protected areas: The efficacy of low impact
education programmes. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 15, 1, 5-27.
Rocky Mountain National Park (2007). Final environmental impact statement: Elk and vegetation management
plan. United States Department of the Interior. National Park Service. Rocky Mountain National Park,
Colorado.
Stewart, S.C., Fix, P., & Manfredo, M.J., Public perceptions of elk and vegetation management in Rocky
Mountain National Park, Colorado. Fort Collins, CO., Technical Report. Human Dimensions in Natural
Resources Unit. College of Natural Resources, Colorado State University,
Widener, C.J., & Roggenbuck, J.W. (1999). Reducing theft of petrified wood at Petrified Forest National Park.
Journal of Interpretation Research, 5, 5, 1-18.