Sixty-day Notice of Intention To Request Clearance of Collection of InformationOpportunity for Public Comment

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