1024-0224 BIOBLITZ survey

National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior Social Science Program

Expedited Approval for NPS-Sponsored Public Surveys

1.

Project Title:

NPS BIOBLITZ Surveys

Submission Date

7-23-2012

2.

Abstract:

The purpose of this collection will be to provide insight about the effectiveness of public participation in the National Geographic Society/National Park Service’s Bioblitz and other BioDiversity Discovery events through the National Park system. The study will investigate: 1) why visitors participate in the Bioblitz at the park and 2) visitors’ sense of stewardship toward national park resources and nature. Data will be collected from participants during NPS Bioblitzes (2012-2016), via short onsite and on-line surveys.

(not to exceed 150 words)

3.

Principal Investigator Contact Information

First Name:

Gerard

Last Name:

Kyle

Title:

Professor

Affiliation:

Texas A&M University

Street Address:

2261 TAMU

City:

College Station

State:

TX

Zip code:

77843

Phone:

979.862.3794

Fax:

979.845.0446

Email:

[email protected]

4.

Park or Program Liaison Contact Information

First Name:

Sally

Last Name:

Plumb

Title:

Biodiversity Coordinator

Park:

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science (NRSS)

Park Office/Division:

Natural Resource Stewardship and Science Biological Resource Management Division

Street Address:

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 200

City:

Fort Collins

State:

CO

Zip code:

80525

Phone:

970.267.2180

Fax:

Email:

[email protected]

Project Information

5.

Park(s) For Which Research is to be Conducted:

Rocky Mountain National Park

6.

Survey Dates:

8-24-2012

(mm/dd/yyyy)

to

12/31/2016

(mm/dd/yyyy)

7.

Type of Information Collection Instrument (Check ALL that Apply)

Mail-Back Questionnaire

On-Site Questionnaire

Face-to-Face Interview

Telephone Survey

Focus Groups

Other (explain)

Optional internet version

8.

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

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. The National Park Service (NPS) is requesting approval to conduct on-site surveys each year through 2016, at a different national park selected to host an annual NPS/ National Geographic Society (NGS) Bioblitz. A Bioblitz is a special type of field study where NPS and other scientists lead the public through an intensive 24-hour (or 48-hour) biological inventory to identify and record all species of living organisms in a given area Although Bioblitzes have been conducted in national parks for over a decade, little is known about the reasons why park visitors or nearby residents participate in them. Nor has much research been conducted on the outcomes of this engagement for participants. This investigation builds on pilot work conducted by the investigators at the NPS/NGS Bioblitzes at Biscayne and Saguaro National Parks (OMB Control Numbers 1024-0224 in 2010 and 2011 respectively). Anecdotal evidence suggests that the ancillary benefits of NPS Bioblitzes is that the public is actively engaged in the scientific collection of taxonomic data and that Bioblitzes provides an opportunity to: (a) educate the public about NPS resources, science and nature, and current programs; and (b) build lasting relationships that inspire stewardship and the protection of NPS resources (Kyle. &Eccles, (2009).Empirical evidence documenting these benefits, however, is lacking. Findings from ongoing evaluations will provide the NPS with valuable information on how to conduct Bioblitzes in the future to benefit parks, visitors, and residents of nearby communities and contribute to park stewardship. In addition to collecting taxonomic data, there are important secondary benefits gained by visitors who have taken part in previous Bioblitzes. A 2009 study using in-depth interview methods found that Bioblitz participants attending the Big Thicket National Preserve Bioblitz in Texas felt an increased sense of stewardship, a connection to the host park, and a better understanding about the species of concern after their Bioblitz experience.Recent finding from surveys conducted at Biscayne and Saguaro National Parks Bioblitzes revealed similar findings.

9.

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

Respondent Universe: Participants of at least 5 national Bioblitz events (between August 2102 – December 2016) who are 18 years of age or older Sampling Plan/Procedures: Face-to-face interviews will be conducted with Bioblitz participants at staging areas within parking lots adjacent to the park. Participants congregate at staging areas where they are transported on shuttles to the park. A team of five researchers will select every second individual/group in the staging area. The selected individual will be invited to participate in the interview. For groups, the person with the next birthday and who is 18 or older will be invited to participate. The interviews are designed to last no longer than 5 minutes. At the conclusion of the interview, respondents will be invited to participate in a longer survey examining their motives for participating in the Bioblitz. Those who agree will be given the option of receiving the instrument via mail or completing online. Instrument Administration: Face-to-face interviews: The face-to-face interviews will be conducted by trained interviewers from Texas A&M at staging areas in parking lots where Bioblitz participants are transported to the national park. The interview will take 5 minutes. A log will be maintained by interviewers to record the disposition of each contact. Mail back survey & online survey: At the conclusion of each face-to-face interview, the respondents will be asked to participate in a more extensive survey examining their Bioblitz experience. Those who agree will be given the option to receive a hard copy of the survey instrument via mail or online. If wanting a hard copy, their name and postal address will be recorded by the interviewer. If preferring to take the online survey, the interviewer will request an email address and send them the web link that will take them to the online survey. We will follow protocols outlined by Dillman, Smyth and Christian’s (2009) tailored design method for mixed-mode surveys to administer the surveys for both the online and hardcopy mailback surveys. For those opting to receive a hardcopy of the survey instrument, these protocols include: One week following the onsite contact, the visitor will receive a survey packet including: (a) a cover letter describing the study purpose, the importance of their feedback for the management of NPS Bioblitzes, and the respondents’ right to opt out of the study at any time; (b) a hard copy of the survey instrument; and (c) a postage-paid, self-addressed return envelope for the completed instrument. A reminder/thank you postcard two weeks following the onsite contact thanking respondents for their participation as well as a reminder for them to complete the instrument if they haven’t already done so. A second survey packet mailed three weeks following the onsite contact containing: (a) a cover letter describing the study purpose, the importance of their feedback for the management of NPS Bioblitzes, and the respondents’ right to opt out of the study at any time; (b) a hard copy of the survey instrument; and (c) a postage-paid, self-addressed return envelope for the completed instrument. A final survey packet mailed one month following the onsite contact containing: (a) a cover letter describing the study purpose, the importance of their feedback for the management of NPS Bioblitzes, and the respondents’ right to opt out of the study at any time; (b) a hard copy of the survey instrument; and (c) a postage-paid, self-addressed return envelope for the completed instrument. For those preferring to take the online survey, an email invite with the web link will be sent to respondents – and then each week for four weeks following the onsite contact as a reminder. Expected Response Rate/Confidence Levels: Face-to-face interviews: We expect response rates for the face-to-face interviews to be 90%. This is due to the brevity of the initial onsite contact and the fact that all interviews will be conducted while visitors wait to board shuttles transporting Bioblitz participants to Saguaro NP. We expect to contact approximately 500 groups or individuals with an expectation that 450 will agree to complete the initial onsite interview. . Mail back/online surveys: Participants over the age of 18 years visiting the Park not affiliated with participating agency of organization will be approached onsite to participate in the study. Based on pilot testing in Biscayne and Saguaro National Parks, we anticipate contacting approximately 350 participants attending each Bioblitz. We expect a 90% participation rate in the onsite survey (n=315). Of these, we expect that a further 90% (n=284) will agree to provide their postal/email address to participate in the follow-up survey. Finally, we expect a 70% response rate to the follow-up survey (n=199). This is a conservative estimate, however, there is evidence to support increased response rates using mixed-mode designs, such as those (Dillman et al., 2009a; Dillman et al., 2009b; Kaplowitz et al., 2004). For the onsite survey, assuming a population of 1,000 visitors from the general public, our sample size allows for +5% level of precision with a 95% level of confidence and P=.5 (Cochran, 1963). For the mailback survey, our estimated precision is + 7% with a 95% level of confidence and P=.5 (Cochran, 1963).

Estimated Annual Response Rate

Number of Initial Contacts

Expected Response Rate

Expected Number of Responses

Margin of Error +/- %

Onsite Interviews

350

90%

315

Mail back/Online

284

70%

199

5.2

Strategies for dealing with potential non-response bias: We will use the follow process to evaluate any non-response bias during this collection: First, for face-to-face interviews, observable information (e.g., gender and age (category) of the respondent and group size of every party contacted) will be recorded by the interviewers on the survey log. Additionally , each person contacted on site will be asked the following questions: “Have you participated in Bioblitzes at other national parks?” Do you have friends, family or colleagues that are also participating in the NPS/NGSBioblitz at [Park Name]? Additionally, a comparison of the responses between those agreeing and refusing to participate in the full onsite interview will be made. Past collections at Biscayne and Saguaro National Park Bioblitzes yielded samples that were accurate (+ 5%) reflections of the participant population. Should non-response bias be observed, the data will be weighted accordingly using propensity modeling (Groves, 2006). This model makes use of the available data (i.e., gender and age) to generate a log probability of responding for each case (the propensity score). The inverse of the predicted propensity score will be used to calculate the weight adjustment factor. Any non-response bias and implications for interpretation of results will be reported in any final documents or presentations. Description of any pre-testing and peer review of the methods and/or instrument (recommended): The survey sampling protocols and instrumentation used to collect data from the general public follow established protocols used in survey research (Babbie; 2010; Dillman et al., 2009; Hornback & Eagles, 1999) and studies of issues related to humans’ interactions with nature. This applies to both the onsite and follow-up collections. The measures used in both instruments have an established history of use in surveys of the American public involving visitors to natural resource recreation areas (see USDA Forest Service National Visitor Use Monitoring [NVUM] project: http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/Forest.aspx/Home?Forest=A08013&Round=2). Questions used in the onsite and in the follow-up mail and online instruments have also been tested in a collection at Biscayne National Park in 2010 and Saguaro National Park in 2011. The measures used in the survey instrument were developed from: Work published in peer-reviewed outlets: Place attachment - Kyle et al., 2005; Enduring involvement - Kyle et al., 2007; Motivation – Manfredo et al., 1996; and Environmental values – Dunlap et al., 2000 Peer review of the survey design and content was provided by the following – Staff from Saguaro NP; the NPS Human Dimensions of Biological Resources Program in Fort Collins, CO; the Resources and Science Division at Yosemite National Park; and faculty at Texas A&M University. Their critiques and suggestions have been integrated into the current draft of the instrument and study design.

10		Burden Estimates:					With an anticipated response rate of 63%, we plan to approach 350 individuals. We expect that the initial contact time will be at least five minutes per person 350 x 2 minutes = 12 hours). We expect that 35 (10%) people will refuse to participate in the onsite interview, for those individuals we will record their reason for refusal and ask them to answer 2 questions that will be used for the non-response check. This is estimated to take no more than 2 minutes (35 x 2 = 1 hour) to complete each session. For those who agree to participate (n=315) we expect that 199 will complete and return the survey (by mail or internet), with that, an additional 30 minutes will be required to complete the follow through 199 response x 30 minutes = 100 hours). Based on previous experiences with a similar collection, we expect that one-third of the respondent will use the internet to respond to the survey (n=33) and remaining (n=133) will use the mail back option. The burden for this collection is estimated to be 113 annual hours.
			Estimated Annual Burden
			Total Number of Initial Contact and onsite interviews				350		Estimated Time (mins.) to Complete Initial Contact	2		Estimated Burden Hours	12
			Estimated number of refusals				35		On-site Refusal/ nonresponse	2		Estimated Burden Hours	1
			Expected number of responses mail and internet				199		Time to complete and return surveys	30		Estimated Burden Hours	100
				Total Burden										113
	11.				Reporting Plan:	A final technical report will be delivered to the park and it will contain a description of the study purpose and key findings. Frequencies, means and/or proportions will be presented for each question. A comparison of those responding online vs. by mail also will be reported. A final copy of the report will be transmitted to the NPS Social Science Division for archiving in the Social Science Studies Collection.

REFERENCES CITED

Babbie, E. R. (2010). The practice of social research (12^thed.). Independence, KY: Wadsworth.

Cochran, W. G. (1963). Sampling Techniques (2^nded.). NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009a). Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method. Wiley & Sons: New York.

Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Bereck, J., & Messer, B. J. (2009b). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (VCR) and the internet Social Science Research, 38, 1-18.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NE scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425–442.

Eccles, K. (2010). The effects of volunteering on the development of place attachment and stewardship of natural places. Unpublished masters thesis. College Station, TX.

Fisher, M. R. (1996). Estimating the effect of nonresponse bias on angler surveys.Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 125, 118-126.

Groves, R. M. (2006). Nonresponse rates and nonresponse bias in household surveys.Public Opinion Quarterly, 70, 646-675.

Hornback, K. E., & Eagles, P. F. J. (1999).Guidelines for public use measurement and reporting at parks and protected areas. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.

Kyle, G. T. & Eccles, K. (2009).Creating stewardship through discovery. Texas AgriLife Communications, Texas A&M University: College Station, TX thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.

Kyle, G. T., Absher, J. D., Norman, W., Hammitt, W. E., & Jodice, L. (2007). A modified involvement scale.Leisure Studies, 26, 399-427.

Kyle, G. T., Graefe, A., & Manning, R. E. (2005).Testing the psychometric properties of a place attachment scale.Environment and Behavior, 37, 153-177.

Manfredo, M. J., Driver, B. L., & Tarrant, M. A. (1996). Measuring leisure motivation” A meta-analysis of the Recreation Experience Preference scales. Journal of Leisure Research, 28, 188-213.