0596-0189 2012 renewal Supporting_statement_B 3-29-12

Supporting Statement for OMB 0596-0189

Understanding Value Trade-offs Regarding Fire Hazard Reduction Programs in the Wildland-Urban Interface

February 2012

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.

Approximately 1500 households will be sampled each in California and Colorado. A stratified random sampling procedure will be used. Communities selected to participate in the study will represent varying levels of historical wildfire damage, including communities that experienced catastrophic loss from the 2007 California and Colorado wildfires. Communities that have not experienced catastrophic wildfire loss in the recent past will serve as a control. If possible, we will identify a “risk gradient” based on risk maps developed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and Colorado State Forest Service. The risk maps will characterize the mean fire risk across California and Colorado communities. Then, communities can be sampled along the “risk gradient.”

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.

A stratified random digit dialing along a fire risk gradient across California and Colorado consisting of 3000 head of households (average of 1,000 per year)

Various choice models will be considered to estimate the preference parameters, such as multinomial logit and nested logit models in the LIMDEP, GAUSS, or EVIEWS statistical packages.

Proponents do not envision any unusual problems requiring specialized sampling procedures. There is a need to ensure that the sample is representative to the point that proponents are able to generalize to the general populations of California and Colorado.

The hourly burden minimized by the following methods:

• Initial contact determines participants

• Additional contact restricted to those who have agreed to participate, at which time they agree to respond to mini-survey.

• Participants receive questionnaire by mail before the in-depth telephone interview

• Participants informed of estimated length of in-depth interview at moment of initial contact

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.

The initial stratified random digit dialing procedure will identify and serve to select all study participants. Those agreeing to participate, respond to the initial short phone survey, receive a mailed questionnaire, and answer questions via an in-depth telephone interview. In-depth interviews are scheduled during the initial telephone contact.

At the beginning of the in-depth interview, respondents are asked if they received the questionnaire. Those who have not received the questionnaire are sent one and another interview date and time for the in-depth interview is scheduled. If the questionnaire was received, the respondents are asked to have it available, and if they have read it. If the questionnaire is not available, respondents are asked to get it. If the questionnaire has not been read, the interviewer will go over the material.

For non-response issues, all respondents are asked questions, included in the questionnaire, about why they chose not to respond to the question or why they answered in a certain way. This allows proponents to determine if the zero responses were valid responses or protest responses to the scenarios presented in the survey. A tally of all non-responses is analyzed to determine if non-respondents are different from respondents.

Respondents receive a $20 incentive for participation and completion of the survey interview. Proponents expect a minimum response rate of 70 percent.

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.

The survey instrument used in this research has been refined based on a peer review process, as well as employing statistical review. A small focus group of nine persons also reviewed the survey instrument for clarity and understanding of the content, to ensure the reality of the fuels reduction alternatives presented. To ensure the accuracy of the information presented, Forest Service fire managers and planners reviewed the survey instrument. Based on these reviews and a review conducted by the National Agricultural Statistical Service, adjustments and refinements were made to this project. Based on previous reviews and application in Florida we feel unnecessary another round of reviews for application of the instrument to California and Colorado residents. Though three residents of California, one in San Jose and 2 in Riverside, did read the survey instrument and found it to be clear, concise, and easy to understand and answer.

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.

The National Agricultural and Statistical Service reviewed and commented on this proposal and associated instruments.

Data to be collected by:

• Dr. John B. Loomis, Colorado State University

• Dr. Thomas Holmes, Southern Research Station, USDA Forest Service

• Dr. James Bason, University of Georgia, Survey Research Center

• Dr. Armando González-Cabán, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service

• PhD. Candidate, José Sánchez Ortiz, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service and University of California Riverside

Data will be analyzed by Drs. González-Cabán, Loomis, Holmes, and José Sánchez Ortiz

Reports and manuscripts will be prepared jointly by Drs. González-Cabán, Loomis, Holmes, and José Sánchez Ortiz