[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51133-51143]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25850]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
Sixty-day Notice of Intention To Request Clearance of Collection
of Information--Opportunity for Public Comment
AGENCY: Department of the Interior, National Park Service.
ACTION: Notice and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) Social Science Program is
considering submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a
request for clearance of a three year program of collections of
information that would conduct surveys of the public regarding park
visitors and visitor services. The NPS is publishing this notice to
inform the public of this proposed three year program and to request
comments on the program and the proposed approach.
Under provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR
Part 1320, Reporting and Record Keeping Requirements, the National Park
Service is soliciting comments on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the NPS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) the accuracy of the NPS estimate of the burden of the collection of
information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions
used; (c) the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (d) how to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to respond, including the use of
appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other forms of
information technology.
DATES: Public comments will be accepted on or before December 1, 1997.
SEND COMMENTS TO: Dr. John G. Dennis, NPS Washington Office Social
Science Program Coordinator, Natural Resources (3223 MIB), National
Park Service, 1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John G. Dennis. Voice: 202-208-
5193, Fax: 202-208-4620, Email:
< [email protected] >.
Proposed Request for Clearance of a Three Year Program of
Collections of Information: A Proposed Process for OMB Approval of NPS-
Sponsored Public Surveys.
1.0 Introduction
The National Park System preserves the nation's natural and
cultural heritage and provides for its enjoyment by citizens and
visitors from throughout the world. The management of park resources is
necessarily the management of people. Visitors, employees,
concessioners, nearby communities, interest groups, local governments--
all affect and are affected by units of the National Park System. An
accurate understanding of the relationship between people and parks is
critical to achieving the dual mission of the National Park System:
protecting resources unimpaired and providing for public enjoyment.
Such understanding requires a sound scientific basis. Hence, social
science research is a necessary and important function of the National
Park Service (NPS).
NPS managers face unprecedented needs to better understand the
public's values, attitudes and behaviors with respect to parks. Park
visitation for recreation and other purposes is expected to rise 34% by
the year 2000. Indirect use of parks via print, audio-visual, and
electronic media also is expected to increase. Management of these uses
of parks and of services provided by NPS and park concessioners will
require state-of-the-art techniques. Interactions between park managers
and government or private managers and owners of lands surrounding the
parks will increase in frequency and intensity as differing management
goals meet at common boundaries. The people who live and work in
communities near the parks are affected by the ways park uses grow and
the ways managers of park and adjacent lands interact. The increased
emphasis on securing public participation in NPS decision-making
requires greater knowledge about these many different publics and their
needs. New laws and initiatives, such as the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA), have created additional needs for the information
that NPS social science research can provide.
The NPS has established a new social science program and is
implementing a strategic program plan (Usable Knowledge: A Plan for
Furthering Social Science and the National Parks, 1996). The plan calls
for increased social science research related to the NPS mission. This
research in turn will increase the need for efficient and effective
data collection from the many different publics who may be affected by
NPS efforts to carry out the mission.
This notice describes a proposed 3-year trial effort to
``reinvent'' the Paperwork Reduction Act process by which NPS secures
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for NPS-sponsored
surveys to
[[Page 51134]]
collect data from one specific segment of these publics--the park
visitors. The benefits of this experiment in reinvention will be
significant to the NPS, Department of the Interior (DOI), OMB, NPS
cooperators, and the public. In addition, such a program, if it proves
fully successful, could be adopted by other federal agencies that
routinely conduct studies of visitors to the nation's public lands.
1.1 Definitions
Collection of Information--obtaining information or causing
information to be obtained by or for an agency by means of identical
questions posed to ten or more persons.
Data--material serving as a basis for discussion, inference, or
determination of policy, for example, individual numbers or short
phrases that provide bits of information about a subject.
DOI--Department of the Interior.
GPRA--Government Performance and Results Act, enacted in 1993 to
increase the quality and responsiveness to the American people of the
federal government.
Information--facts or figures ready for use, for example, all forms
of data, written analyses, and graphical presentations that together
provide a body of knowledge about a subject
Information Collection Burden--the effort that a person must make
to respond to a request for information, usually measured in minutes or
hours.
Information Collection Survey--a generic, written or orally
presented format for a collection of information that asks a person to
answer a pre-established set of questions.
Metadata--information about information or about how to access
information, such as information about the characteristics of a set of
data, or a description of data collection categories, or coding
instructions used to store information.
OMB--Office of Management and Budget.
NPS--National Park Service.
National Park System--all 375 units, totaling approximately 83
million acres, of federal land that have been assigned to the National
Park Service to manage, including among other designations, parks,
monuments, recreation areas, lakeshores, seashores, preserves, historic
sites, and battlefields.
NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist--the individual who, on a
rotating basis, heads the National Park Service Social Science Program.
Paperwork Reduction Act--the 1995 statute that directs the Federal
government to reduce the information collection burden it imposes on
the public.
Peer Review--quality assurance review of data, documents, projects,
or programs conducted by reviewers who have equal or greater levels of
technical training and experience than do the preparers of the data,
documents, projects, or programs being reviewed
PI (Principal Investigator)--the person or persons responsible for
conducting a research project.
Survey Topic--a specific type of information needed for planning,
management, operations, and evaluation of performance related to the
NPS mission and responsibilities. Any given survey topic area may
include several variables of interest.
Variables of Interest--characteristics that can be measured,
including the specific kinds of information within a survey topic that
would be sought through questions.
Visitor Survey--a structured, written or oral method for obtaining
from park visitors information that is used to educate park managers
and others about the views of visitors regarding park programs and
resources
83-I Package--a form and attached statements that federal agencies
must submit to OMB to request permission to present a collection of
information to more than 9 members of the public.
2.0 Overview of This Notice
2.1 Summary of Need for Change
NPS needs to sponsor information collection surveys of the public
to provide to park managers information for improving the quality and
utility to the public of park programs. NPS finds the current process
by which it secures OMB approval of proposed collections of information
can be improved with respect to securing public comment and can be made
more efficient for the federal government through reducing current
levels of personnel and funding necessary for preparing and reviewing
the proposed collections of information. NPS believes it has developed
an alternative approach for processing proposed collections of
information that will be both more effective and more efficient. The
proposal presented in this notice is designed to test the alternative
approach using one subset of NPS information collection surveys for a
3-year test period.
2.2 Summary of this Proposal
NPS is considering submitting to OMB this proposal to request that
OMB approve an alternative set of practices and procedures by which OMB
determines whether or not to approve proposed NPS information
collection surveys of the public regarding topic areas relating to
visitors and visitor services. Under this proposal, NPS would request
that OMB review NPS procedures for these surveys as a program, rather
than reviewing each and every individual survey of the public related
to visitors and visitor services that NPS seeks to conduct. Under the
procedures proposed here, NPS and DOI would conduct the necessary
quality control through requiring peer review of appropriate program
elements, maintaining an ongoing process for improving the scientific
quality and efficiency of survey instruments related to visitors and
visitor services, and proactively soliciting public review of this
proposed alternative set of practices and procedures. NPS also would
maintain an information base of public surveys conducted in parks on
all topic areas to be used to increase the efficiency of future
surveys. Under this proposal, NPS would request that OMB assign an OMB
number, expiration date, and total number of information collection
burden hours to NPS for the topic areas relating to visitors and
visitor services. NPS would then allocate this OMB number, expiration
date, and appropriate number of burden hours to each survey within
these topic areas that NPS recommends and DOI approves. NPS would
request that management oversight of its actions be maintained by
having DOI be responsible for the final decision on all individual
surveys that NPS proposes within the topic areas and by having OMB
monitor NPS actions through its review and decision regarding this
proposed NPS request, its review of NPS annual reports of actions taken
under the OMB number and expiration date that NPS would request be
assigned, and comments that OMB receives directly from the public.
2.3 Summary of Benefits of this Proposal
Adoption of the proposed program presented in this notice would
benefit NPS management of its public survey process by increasing the
efficiency of NPS personnel time and funding allocations, by improving
NPS receipt of effective public and peer comments, and by improving NPS
access to usable information while minimizing the burden on the public.
DOI and OMB would benefit through greater efficiencies of their review
and oversight functions and through the testing of alternative
procedures for managing the information collection process. The public
would benefit directly through a more effective and
[[Page 51135]]
less burdensome process for obtaining its review of NPS proposed
information collection activities, the more efficient expenditure of
NPS federal funds used to develop and approve surveys and manage their
application, and a more efficient use of burden hours. The scientific
community would benefit through a more efficient management review
process, greater focus on use of peer review to improve the scientific
quality of information collection, increased attention to
methodological improvements, and better administration and wider
sharing of data and information obtained from surveys of the public.
3.0 Details of the Elements of this Proposed Process
The following paragraphs discuss each of the elements of this
proposal that NPS is considering presenting to OMB. The discussion
includes: topic areas to be covered by the proposed process, techniques
for ensuring appropriate and effective public involvement in the review
of proposed survey purposes and activities, the approach for obtaining
peer review of proposed survey methodologies, procedures for involving
parks and the NPS in the administration of public surveys, the
procedure by which OMB would assign and NPS would allocate OMB numbers
and related expiration dates and burden hours, responsibilities and
procedures for reporting results of surveys and the use of allotted OMB
numbers and related expiration dates and burden hours, procedures by
which DOI and OMB would maintain effective program oversight,
designation of responsibilities and responsible officials, and
relationship to other NPS initiatives.
3.10 Topic Areas
Topic areas are specific types of information needed for planning,
management, operations, and evaluation of performance related to the
NPS mission and responsibilities. Each topic area may include several
variables of interest. This proposal would focus on topic areas related
to visitors and visitor services. The topic areas and variables of
interest covered in this proposal are identified in detail in Section
4.0.
3.20 Public Involvement
The OMB regulations regarding information collections require
sponsors of such collections to seek adequate, widespread, and useful
public review of proposed information collection activities. The
regulations specifically require publication in the Federal Register of
a notice of opportunity for the public to review a proposed survey at
two different stages during development of the survey instrument. NPS
experience to date suggests that this process does not achieve the
desired public review and comment for NPS sponsored surveys.
The Visitor Services Project, for example, has conducted 100 very
similar studies, has published its survey methodology in peer-reviewed
scientific papers, has solicited peer review of its questionnaires and
questions as they have been revised or new questions added, and has
obtained individual OMB approvals study by study. Despite its following
of established procedures for securing widespread review, the Visitor
Services Project has received very few public and a handful of
governmental inquiries, and no substantive comments, in response to the
opportunities for public review. Similarly, based on limited reports
from practitioners who recently have conducted other types of surveys
in parks, of about 15 surveys that went through the old or new Federal
Register review process, only 3 received any public inquiry, with the
inquiries leading to no specific feedback to NPS. Beyond this required
process, all of these surveys received review by the affected managers
and most received peer review as well.
The individual visitor studies sponsored by the NPS thus have
received little benefit from individually conducting the standard
review process established in response to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
They instead have experienced delays associated with the additional
time periods involved in the review process. They have experienced
Federal Register publication costs which, under the current requirement
for two notices per study, will amount to approximately $500.00 per
study with no return of comments from the public for this cost to the
taxpayers. They have imposed potential additional burdens on the public
by requesting that the public separately review each and every one of
the individual study plans and questionnaires, despite the similarities
in purpose, topic areas, methodology, and planned uses of results.
Using the knowledge gained from this past experience, NPS is
initiating a different approach to achieving public review of its
survey process that it believes will be both more comprehensive and
more effective. NPS is publishing this 60 day notice of intent to
submit to OMB for approval a proposed collection of information to
conduct all surveys prepared under this proposed process. In publishing
this notice, NPS specifically requests public, scientific, and
management comments on the appropriateness, suitability, and
effectiveness of each element of the proposed process. NPS asks that
respondents offer specific comments on the proposed topic areas. NPS
asks for reactions to the proposal's discussion of benefits for program
management, for involving the public with the minimum amount of burden,
and for improving the methodologies for conducting surveys in and about
parks. After addressing all public, scientific, and management comments
received in response to this notice, NPS proposes to submit a revised
version of this proposal to OMB and to publish a 30 day Federal
Register notice to announce to the public that it has submitted a
formal collection of information proposal to OMB to seek approval for
all surveys that would be conducted during the 3 year test of the
revised proposal.
NPS thus in this notice is soliciting public review and comment on
a proposed public survey process that would deal with a group of
selected, common topic areas related to visitors and visitor services,
not on individual survey instruments. NPS believes this proposed
approach will reduce the burden to the public for reviewing documents
and will increase the level of public participation in development of
useful topics and survey approaches.
As part of this broad public review process, NPS also will directly
inform public interest organizations that have a clear interest in
parks, park management, and visitor uses of parks about the opportunity
to comment on this Federal Register notice. Such organizations to be
contacted directly as representatives of large segments of the public
will include: National Recreation and Park Association, National Parks
and Conservation Association, Conference of National Park Cooperating
Associations, National Association of State Park Directors, National
Association of Interpreters, National Inholders Association, National
Association of Counties, National Association of Conservation
Districts, National Governors Association, Appalachian Trail
Conference, American Hiking Society, Partners in Parks, National Tour
Foundation, and National Association of Park Concessioners. By means of
this notice, NPS requests other interested organizations to identify
their interest and to provide NPS with comments regarding this proposed
process for NPS to use in seeking OMB approval of NPS-sponsored public
surveys.
[[Page 51136]]
3.30 Peer Involvement
In accordance with standard scientific practice, peer review occurs
throughout the research process for developing objectives, methods,
sampling design, questionnaire design, target populations, and data
analysis strategies for prospective research. This peer involvement
contributes significantly to improving the quality of research and its
potential to address applied problems of the national parks. Each
Principal Investigator (PI) or program manager, as appropriate, would
be responsible for managing the process of obtaining, documenting,
responding to, and summarizing the results of peer review on the PI's
or program manager's research activities. NPS proposes to monitor the
peer review that is obtained during four stages in the visitor survey
process: (1) determination of appropriate topic area variables, (2)
problem identification for each research project, (3) development and
pre-testing of research instruments, and (4) preparation of reports for
individual research projects and for this test of a program of
collections of information.
3.31 Program Topic Area Variables
As part of publication of this notice, NPS will solicit peer review
of the scientific appropriateness of the topic area variables included
in this proposal. Peer reviewers will be asked to comment on the
appropriateness, inclusiveness, and description of the variables
proposed for each identified topic area.
3.32 Research Project Problem Identification
Under terms of this proposal, for each proposed, NPS-sponsored
public survey, the principal investigators (PIs) intending to conduct
the survey would work with park staff to identify and develop the
objectives, scope, and target audience for research to address the
management problem identified by the park manager. For new or
significantly modified existing surveys, the PIs also would be expected
to consult with peer researchers to ensure that the selected
objectives, scope, and target audience are scientifically valid and
have a high probability of yielding results useful for addressing the
identified management problem.
3.33 Development and Pre-testing of Research Instruments
Whenever they are developing sampling strategies, questions to ask,
layout of questionnaires, or statistical techniques to be used for
analyzing results for new or significantly modified surveys, the PIs
would consult, as appropriate, with their research peers. In these
cases, the PIs also may test drafts of their proposed survey
instruments on small samples of students or colleagues, as appropriate.
The PIs would use such peer review comments and test results to provide
insight on probable park visitor perspectives about the research
instruments. They also would use the information to identify any
trouble-spots in the proposed questionnaires regarding syntax, layout,
and design to guide their revising the questionnaires in ways that will
minimize the burden to the public that will be asked to respond to the
questionnaires. The PIs also would request comments on the planned
research design and proposed questionnaires from key individuals in the
park or parks under study. Following this consultation, testing, and
review by peers and managers, the PIs would complete their improvements
to the proposed research and questionnaire designs and prepare final
versions of their research plans and questionnaires.
3.34 Research Project and Program Report Preparation
As they prepare their project reports, the PIs would submit a draft
of each proposed report for review by NPS staff and by research
scientists where appropriate. The PIs would use the review comments
they receive to help them prepare final reports that are clearly
articulated, scientifically sound, and have maximum applicability for
addressing the identified management problem. Similarly, the NPS Social
Science Program would solicit and use appropriate peer review as part
of its preparation of technical reports about NPS Social Science
Program findings.
3.35 NPS Documentation of Peer Review
NPS would document peer review in four ways. First, NPS would
provide in the required 30-day Federal Register notice that is part of
the OMB collection of information decision process an analysis of the
peer review it received on the topic area variables in response to this
60-day Federal Register notice. Second, NPS would require, at the time
each NPS sponsored PI submits a final report, that the PI either
describe the nature of the peer review the PI obtained or explain why
the PI did not obtain peer review. Third, NPS would encourage PIs to
publish their NPS sponsored surveys in peer reviewed publications.
Fourth, NPS would provide in each NPS annual report to DOI and OMB that
would be required by this proposed process a summary of all the peer
review activities conducted during the year being reported.
3.40 Park or NPS Program Involvement
To ensure that NPS-sponsored public surveys provide information of
use to management decision-making, NPS park and central office managers
would maintain appropriate levels of involvement throughout the survey
process. NPS park or central office managers would initiate the process
when they identify needs for information about visitors to parks and
request that a survey be conducted. NPS social science cooperators
would respond to the request by proposing specific visitor survey
projects. The requesting NPS manager then would work with the
cooperators to ensure that the proposed projects can be accommodated
within existing park management or NPS policy constraints and that the
projected results of the proposed research will provide the information
and levels of precision the requesting manager needs for decision-
making. Park managers would provide in-park logistic and public
relations support to the research cooperators as appropriate. The
requesting managers would receive the project reports from the social
scientists who conduct the surveys and would apply the findings to
their management decision-making as appropriate. Park and central
office managers also would monitor the public's response to the survey
process and report to the NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist any
concerns or suggestions about the process that warrant consideration or
follow-up action.
The NPS Social Science Program would serve as the program manager
for the proposed process. Its specific proposed responsibilities are
described later in this proposal.
3.50 Assignment of OMB Number, Expiration Date, and Allowed
Information Collection Budget
Under terms of this proposed collection of information that NPS is
considering submitting to OMB, NPS would propose that OMB assign a
single number and three year expiration date to NPS for NPS to allocate
without further review from OMB to all surveys that NPS might sponsor
within the topic variables and limits regarding visitors and visitor
services identified in this proposal. NPS further would propose that
OMB assign NPS an annual Information Collection Budget from which NPS
would distribute burden hours to the approved surveys according to
need. NPS would not allocate the assigned number, an expiration date,
[[Page 51137]]
and a specific number of burden hours to any proposed questionnaire
until NPS had secured approval of the questionnaire from DOI. Once it
had received that approval, NPS would allocate to the approved survey
the number, a date that does not exceed three years, and an appropriate
number of burden hours, and would notify the applicant that the survey
is approved. NPS also would assign a unique NPS identification number
to each survey NPS approves to ensure that each survey receiving the
common OMB number is identifiable. Once NPS had distributed the total
number of OMB authorized annual burden hours for any given year, NPS
would stop using this pilot process for approving requests for surveys
in these topical areas and would process all additional such requests
in that year through the existing review system. Alternatively, NPS
might request OMB to approve additional burden hours under terms of
this proposed process.
3.60 Annual Information Collection Budget
NPS in recent years has used a total of between 4,000 and 7,000
burden hours per year for conducting public surveys related to visitors
and visitor surveys. Under the terms of this proposal, and given that
NPS expects to add some new public surveys to meet its GPRA
responsibilities, NPS would propose to request that OMB approve a total
annual information collection budget for the surveys that NPS would
process under the terms of this proposal of 8,000 burden hours. This
annual burden would be approximately 2.7% of the total burden hours NPS
reported for Fiscal Year 1997 and 0.2% of the total that DOI reported
for the same year.
3.70 NPS Reporting Responsibilities
NPS would submit annually to DOI and OMB a report that would
describe for the past year: (a) NPS survey activities undertaken, (b)
improvements achieved in data collection activities (including savings
in NPS full time equivalent personnel (FTE) and funds), (c) results of
peer evaluation of NPS planned surveys and reports of completed
surveys, (d) public comments about NPS surveys and public responses to
the opportunity to review this proposal provided through the two
Federal Register Notice publications, and (e) plans for the next year.
Toward the end of the three year period identified in this proposal,
NPS would submit a triennial report that would summarize the entire
experience of the authorized activities and make recommendations for
futher action.
3.80 DOI and OMB Oversight
Under this proposed process, DOI would meet its statutory
responsibilities by reviewing and approving or rejecting each
individual NPS proposal to allocate the OMB number to an NPS sponsored
survey instrument that is elligible within the terms of this proposal.
DOI would review the NPS annual and triennial reports and, based on its
review, forward the reports to OMB or return them to NPS for further
work. DOI would review all individual survey instruments that NPS
submits separately from this proposed process and would act on them in
accordance with existing procedures.
OMB would review this NPS request for a 3 year pilot test to
conduct public surveys and approve or reject the proposal. Should OMB
approve this proposal, OMB would use the NPS annual reports to monitor
NPS decisions and actions regarding the allocation of the OMB number to
NPS-sponsored survey instruments. OMB would review all NPS survey
instruments that do not qualify for this proposed process and act on
them in accordance with existing procedures.
3.90 Program Responsibilities and Responsible Officials
3.91 National Park Service
The NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist, working through the NPS
Social Science Program, will secure public review of this program
proposal through the two step Federal Register notification process,
will obtain other forms of public review of this proposal, and will
solicit peer review of the proposal prior to preparing the final
proposal package that would be submitted for OMB decision.
The NPS Visiting Chief Social Scientist, working through the NPS
Social Science Program, would provide guidance for and, as requested,
assist the preparation, public review, and technical review as
appropriate of all NPS-sponsored individual survey instruments. For
those survey instruments submitted under this proposed program and for
which, therefore, individual public review would not be conducted, the
Visiting Chief Social Scientist would review the instruments for
compliance with technical standards and programmatic guidelines. The
Visiting Chief Social Scientist would reject survey instruments that do
not comply with the minimum requirements, would determine appropriate
burden hours and expiration dates for those that do comply, and would
recommend to DOI for approval those instruments that meet the
requirements. Once the Visiting Chief Social Scientist had received
approval from DOI, the Visiting Chief Social Scientist would allocate
the OMB number and an expiration date and number of burden hours to,
and authorize the PI to use, the approved instrument. Should a PI
question a decision by the Visiting Chief Social Scientist, the PI
would submit an appeal to the Associate Director, Natural Resource
Stewardship and Science, for a decision.
For those information collection activities that would fall outside
the OMB-approved topic areas included in this proposal, the responsible
park or other NPS manager would prepare and submit through the NPS
Visiting Chief Social Scientist to DOI and through DOI to OMB
individual standard Paperwork Reduction Act submissions. This process
would include the associated two-fold opportunities for individual
public review in keeping with the existing public notification and
timing requirements.
3.92 Department of the Interior
The DOI Office responsible for oversight of DOI information
collection activities, currently the Office of Policy Analysis, would
provide oversight of NPS within-approved-limits activities. The DOI
Office of Policy Analysis also would review, accept, and forward to OMB
the NPS annual reports of information collection activities. In
addition, the DOI Office of Policy Analysis would review and submit to
OMB those NPS applications for proposed survey activities that would
fall outside whatever topic areas would be approved by OMB should OMB
approve this proposal.
3.93 Office of Management and Budget
The OMB Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs would review
and act on DOI recommended NPS requests for approvals of information
collection topic areas, requests for approvals of information
collection activities that are outside existing approved limits, and
NPS annual reports.
3.100 Additional, Related NPS Initiatives
The NPS would engage in three initiatives related to this proposed
request to OMB. One is preparing a strategic plan for visitor surveys.
The second is sponsoring research on survey methods. The third is
developing an archive of NPS survey results. Each is briefly described
below.
[[Page 51138]]
3.101 A Strategic Plan for Visitor Surveys
Currently, NPS surveys respond to park-specific requests for data
to meet individual park management needs. While this approach
successfully supports those parks that are able to provide funds and
attract researchers, it does not necessarily also contribute to needs
of other parks or of the NPS as a whole. The exception is the Visitor
Services Project, which uses a common survey format for all parks
surveyed and relies on an Advisory Committee that meets annually to
recommend to the NPS Associate Director, Natural Resource Stewardship
and Science, for final decision the approximately 10 parks that will
receive visitor studies during the year. The Advisory Committee
develops its decisions using an established set of criteria and a
formal nomination process.
Within 12 months following approval of this proposal, NPS would
develop a strategic plan for determining where, why, and when to
conduct visitor surveys in units of the National Park System. The plan
would be developed in consultation with park managers, social
scientists, NPS and DOI officials, and OMB. While focusing on ensuring
that visitor surveys meet the needs of the specific parks requesting
them, the plan also would develop an approach for strategically
aggregating the results from the parks selected for study. It also
would explore how to identify a set of possible ``indicator parks'' and
how best to use those parks to represent the National Park System. In
addition, it would determine other actions that would make NPS data
collection at individual parks more cost-effective, more representative
of large classes of visitors, and thus more useful for both park and
national levels of analysis and decision-making. The experience gained
from this strategic analysis of visitor surveys would form the basis of
future strategic analyses of other classes of information collection
activities.
3.102 Research on Survey Methods
Studies conducted by NPS within the topics of visitors and visitor
services offer opportunities to conduct methodological research useful
to both the NPS and other agencies with similar user populations and
data collection needs. Research on improving response rates, reducing
non-response bias, improving survey and interview design, reducing
sampling error, increasing validity of measures, and improving public
review of survey instruments are all important and possible. As an
integral part of this proposal, NPS would initiate a modest program of
research on these and other questions regarding survey methods. At
least one project would be completed in the fiscal year following OMB
approval of this proposal, submitted to a scientific journal for
publication, and shared with OMB and other agencies.
3.103 Archive of NPS Survey Results
To support its research on survey methods and to increase the
efficiency and effectiveness of its use of past information surveys,
NPS would build a social science data and information archival system
that would incorporate the existing Visitor Services Project (VSP) data
base, which currently includes all visitor surveys conducted by the
VSP. This archive ultimately would include survey metadata, survey
data, and written reports for all NPS sponsored surveys. This archive
would be available to the public under existing guidelines.
4.0 Topic Areas
This proposal focuses on the general subject of visitors and
visitor services. It covers the specific kinds of information needed by
NPS for planning, management, operations, and evaluation of performance
related to meeting needs of visitors. The specific topic areas included
in this proposal are: visitor characteristics, trip/visit
characteristics, visitor activities and uses of park resources, visitor
expenditures, visitor evaluations of park services, visitor perceptions
of their park experiences, and visitor opinions on park management. For
each topic area, this proposal provides definition, scope,
justification for data collection, and a few examples of typical
questions that could be asked and variables that could be expected as
answers. The specific questions to be prepared for any individual
survey would have to relate to one or more of the approved topic areas
and would have to be approved by NPS and DOI as part of the review and
approval process requested in this proposal.
4.10 Topic Area on Visitor Characteristics
4.11 Definition
Visitor characteristics are attributes of individual park visitors
or visitor groups. Some examples include: age, zip code or country of
residence, group type, ethnicity, disabilities/impairments, language
abilities, socio-economic status, and visit frequency.
4.12 Scope
Visitor characteristics relevant to the mission, management, and/or
operations of National Park System units are included.
4.13 Justification for Data Collection
The diverse units of the National Park System cater to the total
diversity of the U.S. population and a cross section of international
visitors. Qualitative and quantitative data about the nature and
breadth of this diversity of park users provide NPS managers with
information they need to ensure that park visitor services, education
programs, facilities, and management operations respond appropriately
to the capabilities, needs, and concerns of park visitors.
4.14 Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers
A. For you and your group on this visit, please indicate:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of visits made
Current age U.S. Zip Code or name to this park (including
of foreign country this visit)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yourself.............................
Member #2............................
Member #3............................
Member #4............................
Member #5............................
Member #6............................
Member #7............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. On this visit, what kind of group were you with? Please check
only one.
Alone
Family
Friends
Family and Friends
Other (Please describe: ____)
C. What languages do you or members of your group regularly speak
at home? Please check all that apply.
(Answer choices should reflect the languages most frequently spoken
by visitors to the park)
D. Does anyone in your group have any physical disabilities which
limited their ability to visit (park)? yes/no
If yes, what kind of disability? Please check all that apply.
Hearing
Visual
Mobility
Learning
Mental
4.20 Topic Area on Trip/Visit Characteristics
4.21 Definition
Trip/visit characteristics include travel factors which affect a
trip or decisions which visitors make prior to, during, or following
their trip to a park.
[[Page 51139]]
Examples include use of overnight accommodations, transportation, trip
route, trip origin, trip destination(s), entrance/user fees, ability to
obtain tickets, and length of trip.
4.22 Scope
Trip characteristics relevant to the mission, management, and/or
operations of National Park System units are included.
4.23 Justification for Data Collection
Information about how visitors plan their trips, about features of
their trips, and about their visits in the parks support park managers'
efforts to provide park-access and park-specific information to
visitors before they arrive at the parks; to work with local and
regional planners dealing with transportation alternatives, facilities,
and services that support visitors traveling to and from parks; to
assist park concession managers in providing appropriate trip planning
information to prospective visitors; and to more effectively handle
visitors' trip-related needs (such as fees, tickets, permits,
facilities, and services) once the visitors have arrived in the parks.
4.24 Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers
A. On this trip, how much time did you and your group spend in
(park)?
If less than 24 hours:
Number of Hours: ____
If 24 hours or more:
Number of Days: ____ (Please list partial days as \1/4\, \1/2\, etc.)
B. On this visit, what forms of transportation did you and your
group use to get to (park)? Please check all that apply.
(Choices of answer should be appropriate for the park situation.)
C. On this visit, what were your reasons for visiting (park)?
Please check all that apply.
(Choices of answer should be appropriate for the park situation.)
D. Prior to this visit, how did you and your group get information
about (park)? Please check all that apply.
Received No Information Prior to Visit ____
Go on to Question ____
Friends/Relatives ____
Travel Agency ____
(Answer choices should be appropriate for the park situation.)
4.30 Topic Area on Visitor Activities and Uses of Park Resources
4.31 Definition
Visitors participate in a variety of activities during their visits
to parks or related areas. While there are hundreds of activities in
which visitors can engage, some important examples include:
sightseeing, visiting visitor centers, day hiking, backpacking,
picnicking, camping, shopping, observing wildife, attending ranger-led
programs, taking photographs, boating, fishing, and many others.
Visitors also use a variety of park or related area resources
including natural and cultural resources as well as infrastructure when
they visit these areas. Some examples include roads, trails, restrooms,
parking lots, drinking water, viewpoints/overlooks, visitor centers,
gift shops, stores, lodges/motels, etc. Depending on the site, visitors
may harvest berries, fish, game animals, fire wood, or sea shells;
travel cross-country in roadless and trailless parts of the park;
travel through historic structures or landscapes; or handle historic
objects.
4.32 Scope
Visitor activities or uses of resources which are relevant to the
mission, management, and/or operations of National Park System units
are included.
4.33 Justification for Data Collection
Park and related area managers and planners use knowledge about
visitor activities to design and operate interpretation, resource
management and preservation, law enforcement, safety, and facility
management activities to meet the needs of the visitors. They also use
this information to support all aspects of planning, from buildings,
roads, and trails, to exhibits. In addition, they must have the
collected data available to track visitor use trends and project future
demands for visitor uses. In conducting their management, planning, and
monitoring activities, managers also use the information to effectively
allocate their limited personnel and financial resources to the highest
priority elements of their visitor services programs.
4.34 Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers
A. On the list below, please check all of the activities that you
and your group participated in during this visit to (park).
(Answer choices should include all appropriate activities and
``other'' for write-in answers)
To gain additional information, the above question can be asked in
different ways:
(a) On the list below, please check the activities that you and
your group did at (park) on this visit. Please check all that apply.
(b) For your past visits to (park), please check the activities
that you and your group have done. Please check all that apply.
B. Please check the services which you or your group used at (park)
during this visit.
(Answer choices should include all appropriate services.)
4.40 Topic Area on Visitor Expenditures
4.41 Definition
The visitor expenditures topic area deals with the time and dollar
costs that vistors experience in association with visiting parks and
surrounding areas.
4.42 Scope
Visitor expenditures data include information related to direct
visitor expenditure patterns in the park or surrounding area (direct
expenditures) and to visitor expenditures associated with their travels
to access the park or surrounding area (indirect expenditures).
4.43 Justification for Data Collection
Park and related area managers and business managers, planners, and
other members of communities around the parks use visitor expenditure
information to identify relationships between parks and local/regional
economic development. Visitor expenditure data also provide insight to
government and business managers regarding pricing issues related to
entrance and user fees, costs of services in parks and related areas,
concession fees, and to estimate the value of parks and park-related
attributes for visitor uses.
4.44 Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers
A. We are interested in the expenditures your group made within
(name of state). Please indicate the amount of dollars spent by your
group in each of the following categories regarding your trip to (name
of park).
a. transportation to (name of park) $____
b. equipment and supplies $____
c. lodging $____
d. raft outfitters $____
e. food and beverage $____
f. other, please specify $____
4.50 Topic Area on Visitor Evaluation of Park Services
4.51 Definition
Visitor evaluation data include quality and importance ratings of
services which visitors used or
[[Page 51140]]
potentially could have used during their park or nearby area visit.
4.52 Scope
Services or facilities provided in parks by NPS, concessioners, or
other cooperators that are used by visitors, available to visitors but
not used, or potentially available to visitors are included.
4.53 Justification for Data Collection
Planners and managers of parks and related areas use data from
visitor evaluations of services and facilities to improve customer
service directly onsite; improve the efficiency of other park or
related area operations that results in improved customer service;
improve agency operations at the local, regional, and national levels
to remove institutional barriers that prevent the providing of better
services to visitors; develop a long-term data base to permit
monitoring any changes in the provision of visitor services over time;
and compile information that can satisfy reporting requirements of the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
4.54 Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers
Typically an evaluation asks visitors to rate services and
facilities such as the courtesy of employees, the cleanliness of
facilities, and quality of brochures and maps. Visitors rate these
services and facilities on a scale from excellent to poor. For example:
A. Overall, how would you rate the quality of the visitor services
provided to you and your group at (park) during this visit?
(a) Please check the visitor facilities or services in (park) which
you or your group used during this trip.
(b) Next, for only those facilities or services which you or your
group used, please rate their importance to you on a scale from 1-5,
with 5 being of great importance and 1 being of no importance.
(c) Finally, for only those facilities or services which you or
your group used, please rate their quality from 1-5, with 5 being of
high quality and 1 being of low quality.
(a) Use facility/service in (park)
(b) If used, how important
(c) If used, what quality?
[Check If Used]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not important Extremely Very poor Very good
------------------------ important ---------------------------------------
----------------
1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Restrooms.......................
Trails..........................
Etc.............................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Answer choices should be appropriate to the park)
4.60 Topic Area on Visitor Perceptions of Their Park Experiences
4.61 Definition
Visitor perception data deal with the visitors' awareness of
elements of the natural and social environments in the parks they
visit, their observations about those elements, and how their awareness
and observations influence their overall park experiences.
4.62 Scope
Involves visitor experiences regarding park natural and cultural
resources, other visitors to the park, park and other employees, and
park infrastructure and services. Also includes visitors' perceptions
of their experiences while in the park and surrounding areas.
4.63 Justification for Data Collection
Park managers use visitor perception information to guide decision-
making about resource and visitor activity management to ensure that
park programs both provide visitors with high quality experiences that
meet the visitors' expectations and also protect the integrity of the
resources and visitor activities that the visitors come to experience.
Managers use visitor perception information to develop specific,
measurable indicators and standards of quality for both the visitor
experiences and resource conditions. Managers also may use the
information to identify what personal and social norms to use for
developing these indicators and standards of quality. The indicators of
quality show what levels of quality of experience result from the
various different levels of management effort. The standards of quality
show the levels of quality that visitor experiences must equal or
exceed to be considered acceptable outcomes. NPS will need visitor
perception data and associated indicators and standards of quality to
be able to benchmark the GPRA standards for acceptable outcomes that
NPS established in 1996. Meeting these outcomes will ensure that NPS
achieves its mission of providing high quality visitor experiences
while protecting park natural and cultural resources.
4.64 Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers
Visitor perception questions seek to identify indicators of quality
and standards of quality. For example:
A. What have you enjoyed most about your visit to (park) today?
B. Has anything detracted from the quality of your visit to (park)
today? If so, what?
C. How much of a problem do you feel the following issues are at
(park)? (Visitors are presented a list of potential indicators of
quality and asked to judge--using a standardized response scale--the
degree to which each issue is a problem.)
D. We are interested in how many people you feel could visit this
place at any one time without your feeling too crowded. To help judge
this, we have developed a series of photographs that show different
numbers of people at this place. Please rate each of the photographs by
indicating how acceptable you feel each one is based on the number of
people shown. (Visitors are presented a series of photographs and asked
to judge--using a standardized response scale--the acceptability of
each photograph.)
4.70 Topic Area on Visitor Opinions on Park Management
4.71 Definition
Visitor opinions about park management include the ideas, beliefs,
attitudes, preferences, and values that visitors express regarding all
aspects of NPS park management.
[[Page 51141]]
4.72 Scope
Includes visitor opinions about how the park manages its natural
and cultural resources, maintains its physical structures, guides human
uses of park resources and facilities, and provides educational and
other services to the visitor.
4.73 Justification for Data Collection
NPS manages park resources according to general and specific park
plans that interpret general legislation, specific park enabling
legislation, and NPS policy. Surveys that include visitor opinions on
park management provide an important avenue for securing the public
involvement that permits the NPS to understand what visitors know and
think about park resource and other management actions. Such surveys
will be necessary to evaluate fee and any other demonstration projects
directed by the Congress. These surveys also help NPS to determine
whether or not park educational efforts about park management actions
are addressing the proper avenues of thought, are being presented
effectively and in the most productive venues, are being understood by
the recipients, and are useful to the recipients. Park managers use
this knowledge to improve park planning, resource management, visitor
education, maintenance, and visitor services.
4.74 Examples of Typical Questions and Variables Expected as Answers
A. The park's lake naturally contained no fish and the fish that
are there now resulted from humans planting fish in the lake. How would
your use of the lake area be affected if all the fish were removed from
the lake? (Circle a number to indicate your response)
1 Would come to the area more often
2 No change in use of the area
3 Would come to the area less often
4 Would stop coming to the area
5 Would stop visiting the park
5.0 Benefits
NPS expects the procedure proposed in this notice for processing
proposed collections of information related to the topic areas
involving visitors and visitor services will provide substantial
benefits to NPS, DOI, and OMB management of the information collection
program, to public review of proposed collections of information, to
the public burden related to reviewing proposed collections of
information and responding to approved surveys, and to the science of
conducting surveys of those members of the public who use parks.
5.10 Benefit to Program Management
5.11 NPS
By managing surveys related to visitors and visitor services as a
coherent, single information collection program, NPS would increase the
efficiency of its use of personnel and fiscal resources, improve the
timing and focus of the public and peer review it obtains about its
activities, reduce duplication of survey effort, develop improvements
in procedures used to estimate the burden imposed by surveys of
visitors to parks, improve the delivery of usable knowledge to park
managers, and improve the archiving, use, and availability to the
public of the results of past surveys.
5.12 DOI
In overseeing NPS management of the topic areas relating to
visitors and visitor services as a coherent, single program, DOI would
benefit by receiving more systematic and technically current survey
instruments to review, having available to it the information contained
in the NPS archive, and having available the NPS annual reports as
tools for monitoring the responsiveness of the NPS program. The more
efficient, effective, and independent position provided to DOI for
overviewing NPS conduct of a program of surveys related to topic areas
dealing with visitors and visitor services also would reduce financial
costs and administrative burdens experienced by DOI.
5.13 OMB
OMB would benefit by having better public and peer review of a
program of surveys, by having the NPS annual report available for
efficient program monitoring and oversight, by testing a process for
improving agency management of the review of proposed collections of
information, by testing alternative procedures for conducting
information collections in ways that minimize the burden to the public,
and by receiving information from several NPS initiatives, including
elements of research methodology and administration (see Section 5.3),
related to the topic areas of visitors and visitor services. In
addition, OMB would experience a reduction in its administrative burden
with respect to reviewing proposed collections of information.
5.20 Benefit to the Public
The OMB approval process proposed in this notice would result in
substantial benefits to the public. The public's opportunity and
ability to assess the entire program of NPS surveys of visitors would
benefit because of the general streamlining of the review process,
enhanced coordination of survey research efforts, and more efficient
and effective communication with the public. The public also would
benefit because better coordination of the information derived from
visitor surveys will contribute to more productive use of social
science information in the management of the national parks, resulting
in better customer service and resource protection. Additionally, both
of these sets of benefits would result in more efficient use of public
funds, including through reducing expenditures and government personnel
time spent on preparing and publishing individual Federal Register
notices.
5.21 Involvement of the Public
The public would be engaged in meaningful dialogue about the social
science survey process through its opportunity to review the program
proposal at two stages of proposal development and through the reports
that would be provided by the proposed, coordinated annual and
triennial reporting process.
This notice in itself benefits the public by providing information
in a concise and comprehendable way about the purposes for which NPS
conducts surveys of the public, the types of questions NPS asks of the
public, and how NPS uses the responses to those questions to meet
management needs for information. By focusing public review on the
development and administration of a collection of information program
rather than on individual, apparently unrelated survey instruments, NPS
is encouraging greater public involvement in assessing the program and
is making that involvement easier, more encompassing, more
intelligible, and more productive.
The annual reports to be prepared as part of the proposed program
would summarize the research activities conducted within the topical
areas identified in this proposal. The triennial report would provide a
synthesis of what has been learned during the three year cycle and,
should the program perform as envisioned, describe topical study areas
that NPS would propose for a subsequent three year planning cycle.
These reports together would inform the public of the underlying
purposes of proposed survey research and of the results of already
conducted research.
5.22 Burden Efficiency
By shifting the timing and focus of public review of NPS sponsored
public
[[Page 51142]]
surveys from individual surveys to a program of surveys, the process
initiated with this notice is reducing the potential number of public
burden hours expended on reviewing proposed public survey
questionnaires and is increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of
those burden hours that the public does expend. By building
methodological research into its overall strategy, the proposed process
would stimulate development of improved and more efficient survey
questions, survey designs, and sampling approaches, thus reducing the
public burden in responding to surveys while at the same time making
the application of that burden have broader utility.
5.30 Benefit to Science
5.31 Peer Review
Currently, individual scientists are responsible by DOI policy to
obtain peer review for social science work plans and reports associated
with in-house survey research. The extent of this review varies widely
by individual scientist and the type of project.
The proposed OMB approval process identified in this notice would
result in a comprehensive series of survey and program reports and
records that are reflective of the overall NPS program of social
science research and its methodologies. Consequently, NPS would be able
more easily to solicit peer review that focuses on Servicewide efforts
and methodologies. This type of review would represent a significant
benefit beyond that received from current individual peer review
contributions. In addition, the NPS Social Science Program Office under
the proposed plan would monitor individual requests for information
collection and would require that requestors document the peer review
they already have obtained and explain the absence of peer review where
such review is lacking.
Within 12 months following approval by OMB of a proposal of the
type contained in this notice, NPS would develop an expanded peer
review process to ensure that all social science activities receive
appropriate levels of peer review at appropriate stages in the
development of the activities. NPS would involve both scientists and
managers in this development and would ensure that the resulting
process reflects academic, NPS, DOI, and OMB guidance regarding peer
review.
5.32 Methodological Development
One of the significant advantages of this proposal is that it
clearly establishes an incentive for methodological development and
improvement. This would work in two ways. First, there would be
stronger incentives for constructive peer review. Second, the proposed
process would remove an unintended consequence of any reliance on a
question catalog. In the past, NPS projects to conduct public surveys
experienced a strong incentive to use an NPS question catalog because
its use offered a somewhat reduced time for achieving OMB review.
However, an unintended consequence of the use of the question catalog
was the emergence of a disincentive to develop more valid and reliable
measures for more complex items because of the burden of securing OMB
review and approval. Because the application of survey research and
social science concepts to park management is still developing, this
disincentive is actually counter-productive to stimulating the
methodological improvement needed in many research areas.
Under the proposed process, individual projects would receive peer
review requested by individual researchers. All survey proposals would
be reviewed by the Visiting Chief Social Scientist. Many projects would
receive and benefit from additional peer review requested by the NPS
social science program. Within this umbrella of increased professional
dialogue and oversight, individual researchers would be encouraged to
scientifically develop questions and other items that provide better
data for NPS managers. Improvements in methodology, because they would
be closely monitored by the NPS social science program, would be more
quickly transmitted to all parks and researchers who could benefit.
The proposed process would lead to more competent planning and
administration of survey research in the National Park System. Research
would be more focused on topics which have high research and management
priority. Researchers, themselves, would be more efficient because of
reduced waiting time for questionnaire approvals. The more centralized
research focus and repository of survey research findings would
encourage a greater degree of synergy in survey research in the
National Park System.
5.33 Data Management
The activities envisioned in this proposal would include an effort
to develop and implement protocols for data management, data set
documentation, and sampling methodology documentation that would
benefit the exchange of data among scientists and the consolidation and
assessment of data across individual research projects. The development
of a data archive system and a clearly stated requirement that all
publicly funded research projects must deposit a complete data set in
the archive would increase the availability of data to the broad
research community.
5.34 Efficiency of the Proposed Process for Scientists and Science
The proposed review process would increase the focus of scientists
on dealing with the scientific effectiveness of their planned surveys.
The proposed changes would foster the evolution of methods and
questions that must occur for the survey process to become more
efficient and effective. The growing availability over time of park
data from the proposed archive would support comparative, longitudinal,
multi-park, and National Park Systemwide analyses that would increase
scientific understanding about visitors in parks. The data archive
would provide baseline analyses that can make future scientific surveys
and assessments more efficient at a lower overall burden cost to the
public.
6.0 Conclusion: An Important Experiment
The approach for review and decision-making proposed in this notice
regarding collections of information provides NPS, DOI, and OMB with a
voluntary test of an alternative method for improving the productivity,
efficiency, and effectiveness of a Federal information collection
program. This test may affirm a method by which NPS can reduce the
potential future information burden on the public, increase useful
public review and comment, reduce duplication and increase
collaboration in the information collection and analysis effort, meet
shared data needs with shared resources, enhance access to information
through use of electronic formats for both researchers and the public,
and contribute to meeting NPS information collection and technology
needs. It is an important experiment in reinventing government.
7.0 Contributing Authors
John Dennis, Jean Haley, Darryll Johnson, Dave Lime, Margaret
Littlejohn, Gary Machlis, Bob Manning, John Peine, and Bill Stewart
contributed to preparation of this proposal.
8.0 Selected Literature
Barber, B. 1987. Effective social science: eight cases in
economics, political science, and sociology. New York. Russell Sage
Foundation.
[[Page 51143]]
Guston, D.H. and K. Keniston. 1994. The fragile contract:
university science and the federal government. Cambridge, MA and
London, England. The MIT Press.
Hammitt, W.E. and D.N. Cole. 1987. Wildland recreation and ecology.
New York. John Wiley and Sons.
Harmon, D. (ed.). 1994. Coordinating research and management to
enhance protected areas. Cambridge, UK. International Union for the
Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources.
Leopold, A.S. and D.L. Allen. 1977. A review and recommendations
relative to the National Park Service science program. Memorandum to
the Director of the National Park Service. Washington, DC. National
Park Service.
Lewis, M.S., D.W. Lime, and D. Anderson. 1996. Paddle canoeists'
encounter norms in Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.
Leisure Sciences 18(2):143-160.
Lime, D.W. 1993. Analysis of emerging issues in national parks: a
1992 employee study in the midwest region. Univ. of Minnesota,
Cooperative Park Studies Unit. National Park Service.
Lindblom, C.E. and D.K. Cohen. 1979. Usable knowledge: social
science and social problem solving. New Haven, CT and London. Yale
Univ. Press.
Machlis, G.E. 1992. Social science and protected area management:
the principles of partnership. Paper to Fourth World Congress on
National Parks and Protected Areas. Caracas, Venezuela. February.
Machlis, G.E. 1996. Usable knowledge: a plan for furthering social
science and the national parks. Washington, DC. National Park Service.
Manning, R.E. 1986. Studies in outdoor recreation. Corvallis:
Oregon State University Press.
Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, M. Hof, and W. Freimund. 1995. The
visitor experience and resource protection (VERP) process: the
application of carrying capacity to Arches National Park. The George
Wright Forum 12(3):41-56.
Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, and M. Hof. 1996a. Social carrying
capacity of natural areas: theory and application in the U.S. national
parks. Natural Areas Journal 16(2):118-127.
Manning, R.E., D.W. Lime, W.A. Freimund, and D.G. Pitt. 1996b.
Crowding norms at frontcountry sites: a visual approach to setting
standards of quality. Leisure Sciences 18(2):39-59.
Manning, R.E., D. Johnson, and M. VandeKamp. 1996c. Norm congruence
among tour boat passengers to Glacier Bay National Park. Leisure
Sciences 18(2):125-142.
Marion, J.L. 1993. A social science plan for the mid-Atlantic
region. Virginia Tech. Inst. Cooperative Park Studies Unit. Blacksburg,
VA. National Park Service.
National Academy of Sciences. 1992. Science and the national parks.
Washington, DC. National Academy Press.
National Park Service. 1988. Management policies. Washington, DC.
National Park Service.
National Park Service. 1992. National parks for the 21st century:
the Vail agenda. Post Mills, VT. Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
National Park Service. 1993. Visitor experience and resource
protection process. Denver: Denver Service Center, National Park
Service.
National Park Service. 1995. Visitor experience and resource
protection implementation plan for Arches National Park. Denver: Denver
Service Center, National Park Service.
Osborne, D. and T. Gaebler. 1992. Reinventing government: how the
entrepreneurial spirit is transforming the public sector. New York.
Penguin Books USA Inc.
Shelby, B. and T. Heberlein. 1986. Carrying capacity in recreation
settings. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.
Vaske, J.J., A.R. Graefe, B. Shelby, and T. Heberlein. 1986.
Backcountry encounter norms: theory, method, and empirical evidence.
Journal of Leisure Research 18(3):137-153.
Williams, D., J.W. Roggenbuck, and S.P. Bange. 1991. The effect of
norm encounter compatibility on crowding perceptions, experience, and
behavior in river recreation settings. Journal of Leisure Research
23:154-172.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Title: A Proposed Process for OMB Approval of NPS-Sponsored Public
Surveys.
Bureau Form Number: None.
OMB Number: To be requested.
Expiration date: To be requested.
Type of request: Request for new clearance.
Description of need: The National Park Service needs information
concerning park visitors and visitor services to provide to park
managers information for improving the quality and utility to the
public of park programs.
Automated data collection: At the present time, there is no
automated way to gather this information, since the information
gathering process involves asking visitors to evaluate services and
facilities that they used during their park visits. The intrusion on
individual visitors is minimized by rigorously designing visitor
surveys to maximize the ability of the surveys to use small samples of
visitors to represent large populations of visitors and by coordinating
a program of surveys to maximize the ability of new surveys to build on
the findings of prior surveys.
Description of Respondents: A sample of visitors to parks or of
people who have relationships to parks.
Estimated average number of respondents: The proposal does not
identify the number of respondents because that number will differ from
individual survey to individual survey, depending on the purpose and
design of each individual survey.
Estimated average number of responses: The proposal does not
identify the average number of responses because that number will
differ from individual survey to individual survey, depending on the
purpose and design of each individual survey. For most surveys, each
respondent will be asked to respond only one time, so in those cases
the number of responses will be the same as the number of respondents.
Estimated average burden hours per response: The proposal does not
identify the average burden hours per response because that number will
differ from individual survey to individual survey, depending on the
purpose and design of each individual survey.
Frequency of response: Most individual surveys will request only 1
response per respondent.
Estimated annual reporting burden: The proposal identifies the
requested total number of burden hours annually for all of the surveys
to be conducted under its auspices to be 8000 burden hours per year.
The total annual burden per survey for most surveys conducted under the
auspices of this proposal would be within the range of 100 to 300
hours.
Diane M. Cooke,
Information Collection Clearance Officer, WASO Administrative Program
Center, National Park Service.
[FR Doc. 97-25850 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P