SCSN SS 121712 Part B

SUPPORTING STATEMENT

SOCIAL CAPTIAL SURVEY OF NORTHEAST GROUNDFISH FISHERY SECTOR PARTICIPANTS

OMB CONTROL NO. 0648-XXXX

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 governmental units, households or persons) in the

universe and the corresponding sample are to be provided in tabular form. The tabulation

must also include expected response rates for the collection as a whole. If the collection has

been conducted before, provide the actual response rate achieved.

The respondent universe for this study consists of all groundfish permit holders in the Northeast Region that are members of a groundfish sector. Published data for delimiting the number of participating vessels are available via the NMFS Northeast Regional Office (NERO) database. The total number of permit holders participating in the sector program is 244.

Given that the phone survey will try to capture all participants, no other sampling method will be used. Based on the response rate of the initial survey implemented by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute, we expect to have a similar response rate of approximately 62% of groundfish permit holders who are also sector members.

2. Describe the procedures for the collection, including: the statistical methodology for

stratification and sample selection; the estimation procedure; the degree of accuracy

needed for the purpose described in the justification; any unusual problems requiring

specialized sampling procedures; and any use of periodic (less frequent than annual) data

collection cycles to reduce burden.

A census of all permit holders participating in the sector program will be attempted and this represents the sampling strategy for the survey. The initial survey achieved a 62% percent response rate.

Data collection will occur via phone surveys. The projected study year is 2013.

3. Describe the methods used to maximize response rates and to deal with nonresponse.

The accuracy and reliability of the information collected must be shown to be adequate for

the intended uses. For collections based on sampling, a special justification must be

provided if they will not yield "reliable" data that can be generalized to the universe studied.

Various steps have been and will continue to be taken to maximize response rates. The first step to increase response rates will be to use a pre-existing refined survey tool that has already been tested and revised. . A maximum of 15 attempts (minimum 9) will be made by phone to reach the Groundfish permit holder. Where numerous attempts are unsuccessful, a paper copy of the survey will be sent to the permit holder’s address, with an envelope with prepaid postage. No further attempt to contact the respondent will be made.

Prior to survey implementation, we will reach out to key industry representatives to inform them about the purpose of the survey as well as the timing. This will include contacting by email/phone all the sector managers that work for and coordinate the activity of each of the sectors members that will be called to complete the survey.

Prior to the implementation of the survey, interviewers will explain that the survey is anonymous, participation is voluntary and that the interview can be stopped at any point. It will also be explained that participants can skip questions they do not want to answer. In the previous study there was no pattern to the very few questions that were refused or skipped. In general all questions were completed by those taking the survey. Additionally, as the survey is done as a phone interview, the respondent will have the opportunity to ask for clarification.

Additionally, we have information about the characteristics of all potential respondents including vessel size, sector membership, homeport that we can use to categorize non-respondents in order to evaluate for the need to adjust to non-response bias.

4. Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken. Tests are encouraged as

effective means to refine collections, but if ten or more test respondents are involved OMB

must give prior approval.

Market Decisions piloted this survey in 2010 prior to full implementation when it was conducted by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute. Refinements/adjustments were made to reflect feedback from the pilot test. Additionally, survey results from the initial round conducted indicated that some questions were not valuable/useful and were therefore removed. A review of the study description, the study methodology, and the survey instrument has been undertaken. NMFS personnel in various regions have reviewed the survey tool and provided comments on both the survey tool and the study.

In order to mirror the 2010 study, we will attempt a census of all permit holders that are sector members. The survey will be implemented by telephone. When a working telephone number is called, the interview will be conducted with the individual that holds the groundfish fishery permit. After several phone attempts, a paper survey will be mailed to the permit holder’s address. A total of 542 permit holders were interviewed in the 2010 survey. This total included 244 permit holders who had signed up for sectors, 56 active vessel owners who were not planning to participate in the sector program, and 242 permit holders who were not active in the groundfish fishery in 2009. The overall response rate for sector member respondents was 62% (total response rate for all respondents was slightly higher at 64%).

This round will target only those permit holders that have signed up for a sector. We expect to get approximately the same number of respondents (244).

5. Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on the 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 internal NMFS team is made up of Dr. Daniel Holland, Economist, 206-302-1752 and Dr. Patricia Pinto da Silva, Social Scientist NEFSC (508) 495-1252. Dr. Holland and Dr. Pinto da Silva will be responsible for analyzing the data that results from the implementation of this survey. They will also be responsible for writing any resulting reports or publications and disseminating results. Note that Dr. Holland was employed by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute when this survey was designed and initially implemented.

Josh Weirsma also participated in the design of this survey. His contact information is: 603.682.6115, [email protected].

Market Decisions, a survey and research company based out of Portland Maine implemented the first iteration of this study. They can be contacted by phone on: 207-767-6440 or 800-293-1538. Their website is: www.marketdecisions.com.

REFERENCES

Acheson JM (2003) Capturing the Commons (Univ Press of New England, Hanover, NH).

Adams WM, Brockington D, Dyson J, Vira B. Managing tragedies: understanding conflict over common-pool resources. Science 2003;302:1915–6.

Field, J. 2003. Social Capital. London: Routledge.

Gittell, R., and A. Vidal. 1998. Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Granovetter MS 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78:1360–80.

Grafton, R. Quentin. “Social capital and fisheries governance.” Ocean & Coastal Management. Vol 48 (2005).

Grafton RQ, Knowles S, Owen PD. Total factor productivity, per capita income and social divergence. The Economic Record 2004;80(250):302–13.

Grootaert, Christina, Deepa Narayan, Veronica Nyhan Jones and Michael Woolcock. Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire. The World Bank. Washington D.C. 2004.

Jentoft S, McCay BJ, Wilson DC. Social theory and fisheries co-management. Marine Policy 1998;22(4–5):423–36.

Kitts, A, E Bing-Sawyer, J Walden, C Demarest, M McPherson, P Christman, S Steinback, J Olson, P Clay. 2010 Final Report on the Performance of the Northeast Multispecies (Groundfish) Fishery (May 2010 – April 2011). US Dept Commer, Northeast Fish Sci Cent Ref Doc. 11-19; 97 p; 2011. Available from: National Marine Fisheries Service, 166 Water Street, Woods Hole, MA 02543-1026, or on the internet at <http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/publications/crd/crd1119/

Knack, Stephen and Philip Keefer 1997.. “Does social capital have an economic payoff? A cross-country investigation.” Quarterly Journal of Economics. Vol 112 (Nov. 1997) No. 4.

Nahapiet, J., & Ghoshal, S. 1998. Social capital, intellectual capital, and the organizational advantage. Academy of Management Review, 23: 242-266.Paldam M. Social capital: one or many? Definition and measurement. Journal of Economic Surveys 2000;14:629–53.

NEFSC. 2010. ‘Lessons Learned’ Sector Workshop. October 25-26 2011. Portland ME. Sector Manager Summaries. http://www.nefmc.org/nemulti/index.html).

Pinto da Silva, P. & A. Kitts. 2006. Collaborative fisheries management in the Northeast US: Emerging initiatives and future directions. Marine Policy (30) pp.832-841.

Pretty J. Social capital and the collective management of resources. Science 2003;302:1912–4.

Putnam, R., 1993. Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press, Princeton N.J.

Putnam, R. 2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community.New York: Simon and Schuster.

Uphoff, N. 2000. Understanding Social Capital: Learning from the Analysis and Experience of Participation. In: Social Capital: A Multifaceted Perspectives, G. Parthadas and S. Serageldin, eds. Washington D. C.: World Bank.

Wilson, J., L.Yan, C. Wilson. 2007. The precursors of governance in the Maine Lobster Fishery. PNAS vol. 104. p.15212-15217 _

Woolcock M. 2001. The place of social capital in understanding social and economic outcomes. In: HRDCOECD,editor. The contribution of human and social capital to sustained economic growth and wellbeing. Ottawa: HRDC; 2001. p. 65–88.

Woolcock, M. and A. T. Sweetser. 2002. Bright Ideas: Social Capital—The Bonds That Connect. ADB Review 34 (2).

5