FKNMS SS Part A

Supporting Statement for Paperwork Reduction Act Submission:
Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program in Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary: Recreation/Tourism in the Florida Keys: A 10-year Replication

OMB CONTROL No. 0648-xxxx
Expires: xx/xx/xxxx

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration
National Ocean Service
Management and Budget Office
Special Projects
1305 East West Highway, SSMC4, 9th floor
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Contact: Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy
(301) 713-3000 ext. 138
Bob.Leeworthy@noaa.gov

1

Table of Contents
Page Number
Justification
Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary…………. 6
Explain how, by whom, how frequently and for what purpose the information
will be used……………………………………………………………………………… 7
How and Purpose: Resident Survey..…………………………………………….. 8
Core Questions (included in all resident survey samples……... 8
Part A: Outdoor recreation activities during the past 12
months in the Florida Keys……………………………………
9
Part B: Reef use in the Florida Keys during the past 12
months in the Florida Keys…………………………………… 10
Part C: Specialization………………………………………... 10
Your trip expenditures for your last trip in the Florida Keys
to do outdoor recreation activities……………………………. 10
Annual Vacation Equipment Purchases……………………… 11
Value of the Reefs…………………………………………… 11
Environmental Issues………………………………………… 12
Satisfaction…………………………………………………… 12
Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary Management
Strategies and Regulations……………………………………. 12
Coral Reefs…………………………………………………… 13
Substitution…………………………………………………… 15
Alternative Management Options…………………………….. 16
Demographic Profile………………………………………….. 19
Visitor Survey………………………………………………... 20
Auto Survey Selection Method……………………………….. 23
Air Survey Selection Method…………………………………. 23
Auto, Air & Cruise Ship Survey Questionnaire………………. 24
Expenditure Mailback………………………………………… 27
Long Version……………………………………………… 27
Short Version……………………………………………… 28
Satisfaction Mailback…………………………………………. 28
CUSTOMER Survey (Sample 2)……………………………… 29
CUSTOMER Selection Rules…………………………………. 31
CUSTOMER On-site Survey Questionnaire………………….. 31
Introduction and Qualifying Questions…………………….. 31
Trip Profile…………………………………………………. 31
Activity Participation and Use……………………………… 32
Demographic Information………………………………….. 33
Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary Management
Strategies and Regulations and Non-market Economic Valuation
of Reefs Mailback Questionnaire……………………………… 33
Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching……………………… 34
Substitution and Management Alternatives (Choice Questions). 34

2

By Whom…………………………………………………………………………..
How Frequently……………………………………………………………………
How Collection Complies with NOAA Information Quality Guidelines…………
Utility………………………………………………………………………...
Integrity………………………………………………………………………
Objectivity……………………………………………………………………

34
35
35
35
35
36

Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology…………………………………………………………………. 36
Describe efforts to identify duplication…………………………………………………. 36
If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden……………………………………………………. 36
Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or conducted less frequently……………………………………………… 36
Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a manner
inconsistent with OMB guidelines……………………………………………………….. 37
PRA Federal Register Notification comments…………………………………………….37
Explain any decision to provide payments or gifts to respondents other than remuneration
of contractors or grantees………………………………………………………………….38
Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy…………………………………………38
Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and any other matters that are commonly
considered private……………………………………………………………………….. 38
Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information…………….. 38
Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or record-keepers
resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours)………………… 39
Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government………………………... 39

3

Table of Contents (continued)
Page Number
Justification (continued)
Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items
13 or 14 of OMB 83-I………………………………………………………………….. 40
For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication……………………………………………………………………………… 40
If seeking approval to not display the expiration date fro OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate…….. 41
Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in item 19 of the
OMB 83-I………………………………………………………………………………

41

Collections of Information Employing Statistical Methods
Describe (including a numerical estimate) the potential respondent universe and any
sampling or other respondent selection method used………………………………….

41

Describe the procedures for the collection, including: the statistical methodology for
stratification and sample selection; the estimation procedure; the degree of accuracy
needed for the purposes described in the justification; any unusual problems requiring
specialized sampling procedures; and any use of periodic (less frequent than annual)
data collection cycles to reduce burden……………………………………………….. 47
Describe the methods used to maximize response rates and to deal with nonresponse… 48
Describe any tests of procedures or methods to be undertaken…………………………. 49
Provide the name and telephone number of individuals consulted on the statistical
aspects of the design, and the name of the agency unit, contractor(s), grantee(s), or
other person(s) who will actually collect and/or analyze the information for the agency..49
References…………………………………………………………………………………….. 50
Attachment A: Questionnaires..…………………………….…………………………………54
Resident Mail Survey Questionnaires…………………………………………55
Visitor: Auto, Air and Cruise Ship Survey Questionnaires………………….395
Visitor: CUSTOMER Survey Questionnaires……………………………….430
Supply-side: Post-card Survey Questionnaires………………………………654
Attachment B: Authorities…………………………….………………….……..……………656
Attachment C: Federal Register Notice……………....……………………………………....695

4

List of Tables
Table Number

Description

Page Number

1

DIVING-attributes and levels for use in the FKNMS
stated preference choice model…………………………………… 18

2

FISHING-attributes and levels for use in the FKNMS
Stated preference choice model…………………………………… 19

3

Burden Hour Calculations…………………………………………. 39

4

Resident Mail Survey: Expected Completes……………………… 42

5

Auto, Air and Cruise Ship Survey: Proposed Sampling (Expected
Completes)……………………………………………………….. 44

6

CUSTOMER Survey Sampling (Expected Completes)………….. 45
List of Figures

Figure Number Description

Page Number

1

Resident Samples………………………………………………….

9

2

Visitor Survey Samples……………………………………………

21

3

Visitor Survey Forms………………………………………………

22

5

A. JUSTFICATION
1. Explain the circumstances that make the collection of information necessary.
The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (16 USC 1431, et seq.) authorizes the use of monitoring
within National Marine Sanctuaries (NMS) as does the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (16 USC 1432, et seq). The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
and Protection Act (Public Law 101-605, Sec 7 (5)) also authorizes such monitoring. The
Management Plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) established 18
Sanctuary Preservation Areas (SPAs) and one Ecological Reserve (ER) that are “no take” zones.
In a separate two-year process (Tortugas 2000) a second ER was designed and approved
Tortugas Ecological Reserve. All consumptive or take activities were displaced from these
zones. These special zones were also created to resolve user conflicts. In creating these special
zones, socioeconomic impact analyses were done as required under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). In addition, a Regulatory Impact Review and an Initial and Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (if small businesses are potentially impacted by the no take
regulations) were conducted. However, many of the benefits and costs identified in these
analyses are speculative in nature and there is therefore a great deal of uncertainty about both the
benefits and costs. In response to public concerns about the socioeconomic impacts of many of
the elements of the FKNMS management plan and especially the “no take” zones (e.g., SPAs
and ERs), a socioeconomic element was included in the ecological monitoring program. Dr.
Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy, Leader of the Coastal and Ocean Resource Economics Program,
NOAA, National Ocean Service, Management and Budget Office, Special Projects Division
leads the Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program for the FKNMS.
In 1998, 50 stakeholders and social scientists met for a three-day workshop and established a set
of recommendations for what should be measured in the Socioeconomic Research and
Monitoring Program and how frequently the measures should be taken. A team of social
scientists reviewed the literature and a gap analysis was performed. What was currently known
and a preliminary assessment of the gaps in knowledge were presented to all the workshop
participants two weeks before the workshop. A total of 108 recommendations were made, with
workshop participants preferring that FKNMS management establish priorities. The workshop
participants came to consensus in deciding that the work accomplished in the project “Linking
the Economy and the Environment of the Florida Keys/Florida Bay would be accepted as
“baseline” measurement for Recreation/Tourism. This project, conducted in 1995-96, was
completed prior to the effective date (July 1, 1997) of all the FKNMS regulations, under OMB
Control Number 0596-0110, by a Federal agency partnership among the USDA, Forest Service,
NOAA and others. The basic survey under 0596-0110, called CUSTOMER, was modified for
application in the Florida Keys and Everglades National Park.
In 2000-2001, NOAA formed a partnership with the State of Florida, four Florida counties and
the private sector to conduct the “Socioeconomic Study of Reefs in Southeast Florida”. As part
of this study, separate baseline estimates were made for use of artificial and natural reefs, the
nonmarket economic value of reef use and the market economic use values (e.g. expenditures,
sales/output, income and employment). A five-year replication was done on
importance/satisfaction ratings for 25 natural resource attributes, facilities and services for both

6

resident and visitor boating users. This study was done under OMB Control Number 0648-0410.
This study was also a modification of the CUSTOMER survey, with contingent valuation
questions on reef use added.
The current application is based on a multiple agency, public-private partnership among NOAA,
as represented by the FKNMS, the National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science (NCCOS) and
the Coral Reef Conservation Program (CRCP); The Monroe County Tourist Development
Council (TDC); The Nature Conservancy; The State of Florida; and various businesses and other
private organizations in the Monroe County/Florida Keys. In addition to the socioeconomic
assessment, this application also attempts to take an approximate decadal look at the
recreation/tourism industry to support the Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program for
the FKNMS with a five-year replication of reef use and valuation. Many think of the
recreation/tourism study as equivalent to the Census of Outdoor Recreation in the Florida Keys.
The TDC uses this study to weight their monthly surveys of visitors to the Florida Keys.
In the Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program for the FKNMS, not all measurements
recommended could be done in either baseline 1995-96 or in 2000-2001 for recreation/tourism.
Other priorities and availability of funding have required adopting more flexible baselines for
tracking some issues (Knowledge, Attitudes and Perceptions of Sanctuary Management
Strategies and Regulations--KAP). A baseline for KAP for commercial fishermen, Dive Shop
Owners/Operators and members of local environmental groups was done in 1995-96 and is
currently being replicated under OMB Control Number 0648-0534. In this application, we are
providing baselines for the broader recreation/tourist users of the FKNMS.
New management strategies and new regulations have also come into being since July 1, 1997.
In addition, new programs and new research priorities have been created in NOAA, which are
directed at the FKNMS. The U.S. Coral Reef Task Force recommended to NOAA’s CRCP that
they fund adapting a study done on Global Climate Change and Coral Bleaching by the
Australians on the Great Barrier Reef to the reefs of the FKNMS. NOAA’s NCCOS funded a
five-year study by University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Human Dimensions Program entitled
“Coral Ecosystem Services: Societal Preferences and Policy/Management. The FKNMS has
also joined the State of Florida and The Nature Conservancy in a project entitled “Florida Reef
Resiliency Program”. This application provides a platform for each of these efforts to achieve
their objectives in addition to the basic requirements of the 10-year replication of the
recreation/tourism study for the Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program for the
FKNMS.
2. Explain how, by whom, how frequently, and for what purpose the information will be
used. If the information collected will be disseminated to the public or used to support
information that will be disseminated to the public, then explain how the collection
complies with all applicable Information Quality Guidelines.
How and Purpose
This project has multiple partners and multiple objectives. To accomplish multiple objectives,
we take a modular approach to surveys. Individual survey modules are designed to achieve

7

different objectives. Modules are also mixed and matched to achieve objectives, especially when
multivariate analyses are required.
Overall, there are two basic populations to be surveyed: 1) Permanent residents of Monroe
County/Florida Keys and 2) Visitors to Monroe County/Florida Keys, including seasonal visitors
(visitors who spend up to six months in the Florida Keys).

Resident Survey
In 1995-96, the survey of residents was done by telephone/mail. This was a two-stage sampling
with basic demographics collected by a random-digit dialing (RDD) survey. Households were
recruited in a follow-up mail survey to get other details on recreation participation and use,
expenditures, importance/satisfaction ratings and environmental concern. In 1995-96, telephone
response rates were about 66% with over 82% agreeing to participate in the mail survey. The net
response rate to the mail survey components was about 25% (see Leeworthy and Wiley, 1997b
for details of the sample design, estimation methods, analysis of nonresponse bias and sample
weighting) application. We expect to do a straight mail survey drawing samples from either
Survey Sampling, Inc. or INFO USA for Monroe County residents.
We are proposing four different random samples to achieve all project objectives, while keeping
burden to reasonable levels. Three of the samples will have a target sample size of 1,000
completes and one will have a target sample size of 2,000. There are a little over 37,000
households in Monroe County/Florida Keys containing about 80,000 people according to the
2000 Census. We plan to get completed surveys from 5,000 of those 37,000 households or about
13.5% of the population. Again, a modular approach is used to achieve multiple objectives,
while minimizing burden. In this approach, Recreation Participation and Use, Demographics,
and Specialization are considered “core” questions and are included in all versions of the resident
questionnaires. Other components/modules include Expenditures, Environmental Concern,
Satisfaction (Importance/Satisfaction), Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Management
Strategies and Regulations, Substitution & Choice of Management Alternatives, Nonmarket
Economic Use Values, and Climate Change/Coral Bleaching (Figure 1).
Core Questions (included in all resident survey samples): As mentioned above, the “core”
questions include questions on recreation participation and use, specialization, and
demographics. In addition, there are two warm-up questions that address Monroe County as a
place to live (questions 1 and 2). Question 3 is a screener question to identify if anyone in the
household did any outdoor recreation activities in the Florida Keys during the past 12 months. A
White Card is enclosed which lists activities we define as outdoor recreation. Those who answer
Yes to question 3 are sent to complete Part A: Outdoor recreation activities during the past 12
months in the Florida Keys. Those who answer No (nonparticipants in outdoor recreation in the
Florida Keys) to question 3 are sent to Part G: Demographic Profile. Obtaining demographic
profiles of both participants and non participants in outdoor recreation allow us to analyze the
importance of certain demographic factors in explaining participation in outdoor recreation in the
Florida Keys, allow us to analyze non response bias, and allow for post weighting of sample
data.

8

Part A: Outdoor recreation activities during the past 12 months in the Florida Keys. Here we
obtain complete recreation activity participation profiles for all members of the household. This,
with Census data on number of household and number of residents in Monroe County/Florida
Keys, will allow us to estimate the number of people participating in outdoor recreation in the
Florida Keys. Information is obtained on activity participation by each respondent and number
of others in the household (A2 and A4) and number of days of activity (A3) for each activity
(A1) in each of five regions of the Florida Keys (Upper Keys, Islamorada, Marathon, Lower
Keys and Key West). Respondents are provided an activity list (White Card) with each activity
given a number code and a map of the five regions of the Florida Keys. In the 1995-96 study,
only four regions were used (Upper Keys, Middle Keys, Lower Keys and Key West). However,
The Monroe County Tourist Development Council asked us to split the Middle Keys into two
regions so our information would correspond to their five districts, which also correspond to the
areas covered by five Chambers of Commerce in the Florida Keys.

For number of days of activity by region, respondents are asked to answer this question only for
those activities which have an “A” following their number. Activities with the suffix “A” are
high priority activities for which intensity of use is required by project partners. Not collecting
days of use for low priority activities lowers respondent burden.
Question A5 identifies respondents’ “most important activity”. This is used as a screener
question for Part C. Specialization.
Question A6 asks about days of outdoor recreation spent outside the Florida Keys in the past 12
months, addresses the issue of substitution and is important for the assessment of Global Climate
Change/Coral Bleaching with respect to the contingent behavior questions.
Part A questions will allow us to assess the trends in the type of activities, the extent of
participation and use, and the regional distribution of activity in the Florida Keys since 1995-96.

9

Part B: Reef use in the Florida Keys during the past 12 months: Both artificial and natural
reefs. In this section we obtain detailed information on activity participation and use of both the
artificial and natural reefs of the Florida Keys to assess the trends in use since baseline 20002001. As in Part A, information is obtained from all members of the household on participation
in activities on the reefs in all five regions of the Florida Keys (questions B1 thru B3). Again an
activities list (Blue Card) is used to restrict the number of activities asked. Also, a check box is
provided to indicate “No Reef Use” for each of the five regions. Both of these features are
designed to reduce burden while obtaining the necessary information to assess the trends in use
since 2000-2001.

Questions B4 thru B6 obtain the number of days by activity, region and type of reef (artificial
versus natural). As in Part A, for activities which have an “A” suffix on the activity number (See
Blue Card) is the respondent asked for days of activity.
Question B7 thru B9 focus on snorkeling and SCUBA diving activities and obtain number of
dives on both the artificial and natural reefs. The Blue Card is used again to limit what activities
are asked and a definition is provided on how we define a dive. Dives offers an alternative to
days as a measure of activity, since it is common for a diver to undertake multiple dives per day.
Some studies have used annual number of dives as a measure of reef carrying capacity.
Part C: Specialization. This module of questions was not in the 1995-96 or 2000-2001 studies.
It was designed by researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Human Dimensions
Program, who have a five-year project sponsored by NOAA’s NCCOS entitled “Coral Reef
Ecosystems: Societal Preferences and Policy/Management”. There has been a growing body of
literature in outdoor recreation on the issue of recreational specialization over the past few
decades (Bryan, 1977; Salz, Loomis and Finn, 2001; and Salz and Loomis, 2005). Recreation
specialization or “specialization theory” has been used to predict how recreationists would
respond to management strategies and regulations. This set of questions was adopted as “core”
questions to enable researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Human dimensions
Program to test specialization theory in the FKNMS.

All the questions in Part C are used to develop a “specialization index” (Salz and Loomis, 2005).
The specialization index values are then used as a predictor of behavior (support and/or
compliance) with respect to management strategies and regulations.
Your trip expenditures for your last trip in the Florida Keys to do outdoor recreation
activities. This module is a replication of the 1995-96 study and is included in only Version 1 of
the Resident Survey as part D. Expenditure information is used in analyses to estimate the
economic impact of outdoor recreation on the local Monroe County economy in terms of
sales/output, income and employment. See Leeworthy and Wiley (1997a) for results from the
1995-96 study and Leeworthy and Wiley (1997b) for the technical appendix on the estimation
procedures.

Questions D1 thru D6, ask for background data on the nature of the last trip taken. Last trip is
used to reduce recall problems with remembering details of specific trips. Most of the literature
suggests that two to three month recall is optimal for remembering trip details. Question D1

10

obtains information on the types of activities the respondent participated in on the last trip. This
will be used to assess the representativeness of the types of trips for which expenditures are
based. Questions D2 and D3 ask about location of trip distance traveled for the trip. Monroe
County/Florida Keys is a linear county with mile markers on U.S. 1 (the only highway in and out
of the Florida Keys). Questions D4 and D5 ask about the length of the trip measured in days and
nights. With the Florida Keys being over 100 miles in distance from one end of the string of
islands to the other, some people take overnight trips from their home in the Florida Keys to
some other site in the Florida Keys. This provides a check on lodging costs. Question D6
provides the number of people the expenditures for the trip cover so we can normalize
expenditures on a per person basis. The rest of the section focuses on the detailed amounts spent
on each type of expenditure. Expenditures categories can then be mapped into industry
categories as maintained by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census in the
Economic Censuses and the Bureau of Economic Analysis, regional Economic Information
System Accounts for Monroe County to conduct economic impact analyses.
Annual Vacation and Equipment Purchases. This section focuses on non trip related
expenditures and looks at annual expenditures. Three columns are used as in the 1995-96 study
to distinguish total expenditures (column A) from expenditures in South Florida (defined as
Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties—column B) and expenditures in Monroe County.
This section is included only in Version 1 of the Resident Survey as Part E. This information will
support economic impact analyses in both Monroe County and the wider South Florida regional
economy.
Value of the Reefs. This section is included as Part F in Version 1 of the Resident Survey only.
This section is designed to estimate the nonmarket economic use value (consumer’s surplus) of
both artificial and natural reefs in the FKNMS and is a replication of what was done in 20002001 under OMB Control Number 0648-0410. Results of the analysis of 2000-2001 data can be
found in Johns et al (2003a) and details on methods of analysis in Johns et al (2003b).

Question F1 uses as an example a program focused on maintaining the natural reefs of the
FKNMS in their current condition. Respondents are asked to say yes or no to a randomly
assigned dollar amount. The randomly assigned dollar amounts are the same as used in the
2000-2001 study. As in the 2000-2001 study, the payment vehicle is stated as an additional
amount of costs for their last trip (the same trip used to obtain costs on in Part D). Question F1a
is a follow-up for those who answer “no” to question F1 and asks for the reasons for saying “no”.
This will allow for identification of protest bids or rejection of scenarios.
Question F2 uses as an example a program focused on maintaining the artificial reefs of the
FKNMS in their current condition. Again, respondents are asked to say yes or no to a randomly
assigned dollar amount. The same dollar amount is assigned to the artificial reef program as the
natural reef program in question F1. Question F2a is a follow-up for those who answer “no” to
question F2 and asks for the reasons for saying “no”. Again, this will allow for identification of
protest bids or rejection of scenarios.
Question F3 combines the natural and artificial reef programs. Again, respondents are asked to
say yes or no to a randomly assigned dollar amount. As in the 2000-2001 study, the randomly

11

assigned dollar amount is simply the addition of the randomly assigned dollar amounts used in
question F1 and F2. Question F3a is the follow-up question for those who say “no” to question
F3. Again, this will allow for identification of protest bids or rejection of scenarios.
By doing a five-year replication of the same questions, we hope to be able to test whether there is
a change in the nonmarket economic value of the reefs in the FKNMS both on an average
individual basis and in the aggregate across all residents.
Environmental Issues. This module of questions is made up of 16 questions from the Weigel
and Weigel (1978) study that are used to construct the Environmental Concern Index (ECI) or
the Environmental Behavior Index (EBI). None of these questions can be interpreted
independently nor are the responses to individual questions ever reported. Only the summary
statistics are reported for the index (see Leeworthy and Wiley, 1997a). This module is the same
set of questions used in the 1995-96 baseline study. It will be used in Version 2 of the Resident
Survey, Part E only. The index will be used to test for relationships between the answers to the
Climate Change/Coral Bleaching Choice questions.
Satisfaction. This is the importance/satisfaction module, in which respondents are asked to
provide their ratings, on a 1 to 5 scale, both on their importance and satisfaction for 25 natural
resource attributes, facilities and services in the Florida Keys. This module of questions was
asked in the baseline 1995-96 study of all residents and in 2000-2001 of all boating reef users. It
will be asked only in Version 2 of the Resident Survey, Part D.

This module is divided into three parts. Part 1 asks the respondent how important each item was
to him or her as contributing to an ideal recreation/tourism setting in the Florida Keys. Part 2
then asks how satisfied the respondent was with each item. Part 3 is a five-year retrospective
rating and question D51 is used to screen out all those who were not residents of the Florida
Keys or had not visited the Florida Keys in the past five years. Past research has shown that
satisfaction scores are highly correlated with amount of experience with the area (Leeworthy and
Wiley, 1997a). The number of items in Part 3 is reduced from 25 to 13 based on project partner
priorities, this reduction helps to reduce respondent burden.
Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary Management Strategies and Regulations.
This module of questions was not in the 1995-96 baseline study or the 2000-2001 reef study.
The questions are almost exactly the same as those submitted under OMB Approval Number
0648-0534, Expiration Date: 7/31/2009, which is focused on a 10-year replication for three user
groups; commercial fishermen, dive shop owners/operators, and members of local environmental
groups. This application applies to the broader population of Monroe County that participates in
outdoor recreation. However, we expect there will be some duplication with the other study.
This module will be applied only in Version 3 of the Resident Survey, Part D.

This module contains 43 questions. Questions D1 thru D8 address sources where respondents
get their information. This is extremely important to FKNMS education and outreach personnel
for identifying effective means of communicating with the residents of Monroe County/Florida
Keys.

12

Questions D10 thru D20 address people’s perceptions of the FKNMS with respect to the
processes and procedures followed in creating and enforcing management strategies and
regulations and people’s support for the FKNMS as a management/regulation institution. A 1 to
5 point scale is used, with 1 meaning Strongly Agree to 5 meaning Strongly Disagree.
Questions D21 thru D23 ask questions to gauge how important people think the FKNMS is in
affecting the Florida Keys/Key West as a place to live and/or as a place to undertake their
recreation activities.
Question D24 is a lead in question on the people’s knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of
FKNMS special zones. After answering question D24, respondents are provided information on
three different kinds of zones that exist in the FKNMS.
Questions D25 thru D34 provide a set of statements about zones and ask the respondent to place
an “X” under the column for each type of zone the statement applies. Questions D35 thru D37
ask about the use of the zones. Questions D38 thru D42 ask questions about how people
perceive the effectiveness of the FKNMS management strategies and regulations. Question D43
provides an open-ended question format which allows respondents to list which regulations they
would like to see changed and how they would like to see them changed.
Coral Reefs. This module of questions was neither in the 1995-96 study nor the 2000-2001 reef
study. These questions support NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program’s attempt to
implement the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force’s recommendation to estimate the socioeconomic
impacts of global climate change/coral bleaching in the FKNMS as was done for Australia’s
Great Barrier Reef (GBR). Australian economist, Hans Hoegh-Guldberg and Australian coral
ecologist, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, led the study on the GBR and have been asked to lead the study
with a team of American researchers for the FKNMS. This module of questions is included in
Version 2, Part F of the resident survey. There are four Versions: Version 2a, Version 2b,
Version 2c and Version 2d. Each of these versions have different choice questions, so for the
total sample of 1,000 that will receive Version 2, there will be a sample size of 250 completed
for each version (a, b, c, and d).

The basic approach is based on scenario analysis over a range of potential impacts. Here a stated
preference choice method is utilized where people are presented with alternative mixes of global
and local management strategies. This is similar to the approach used by Layton and Brown
(1998) on their analysis of the impacts of Global Climate Change and the forests on the Rocky
Mountains. Each mix of strategies has an expected outcome stated in terms of the percent of live
coral cover which is protected at various costs to the respondent’s household. The costs for each
mix of strategies is randomly assigned from a range of dollar amounts derived from the FKNMS
Management Plan for local costs and from a range of dollar costs from several studies on the
costs of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions and our Science Panels estimates for the different
levels of greenhouse gas emissions. There are 81 possible combinations of global and local
strategies. Twenty-four (24) of the 81 were randomly chosen for implementation. There will be
four versions of this module of questions with each version containing six choice questions.

13

Respondents are given certain facts to help them make their decision. For each choice, a
respondent faces three alternatives, which are mixes of global and local strategies each with an
outcome in terms of the amount of live coral protected with a cost per household. Respondents
choose their “most preferred alternative” and their “least preferred alternative” for each choice
question. There will be four randomly assigned dollar amounts for each of the 24 alternatives.
The baselines are based on the cost calculations and are shown in the attached questionnaires.
The range of dollar amounts is simply 2 times the base, 3 times the base and four times the base.
Questions F1 thru F4 are warm-up questions to assess respondent’s perceptions on the threats to
coral reefs and their opinions on various recommended actions. In question F1, respondents are
asked to rank 12 different threats to the coral reefs with 1=greatest threat and 12=lowest threat.
Question F2 is a follow-up to question F1 and provides the respondent an opportunity to list
other threats not mentioned in question F1.
Question F3 list seven recommendations for actions to reduce the threats to coral reefs and asks
the respondents to rank them from 1 to 7 with 1 meaning the highest rank or most important
recommendation to 7 or the least preferred action. Question F4 is a follow-up to question F3 and
allows the respondent to provide other recommended actions.
Respondents are then provided some facts about coral bleaching and climate change. Then they
are asked some questions that address their knowledge, attitudes and perceptions about climate
change and coral bleaching (Questions F5 thru F8).
After answering questions F5 thru F8, respondents are given some additional facts about climate
change and coral bleaching and the local and global management strategies that can address the
problem of climate change and coral bleaching. Different levels of protection are explained and
the expected outcomes. Information is given on how costs were derived for management
strategies. Information is also provided on how local and global strategies work together and
how global strategies are more effective (in terms of efficiency in protecting coral cover) when
mixed with local strategies. Then an example is provided to show respondents how to record
their answers to the choice questions (questions F9 thru F14).
In questions F9 thru F14, respondents are presented with three alternative mixes of global and
local strategies. Alternative A is always the “No change” alternative and cost the household $0
per year, but results in a 95% loss in coral cover by year 2027. Alternatives B and C always
represent more protective strategies with higher costs per household per year. The respondent is
always asked to select his/her “most preferred alternative” and “least preferred alternative” for
each choice question. After answering each choice question, respondents are asked an openended question to briefly explain the reason for their choices.
Questions F15 thru F19 take a different approach. The contingent behavior approach is used
here. The approach is similar to that used by Richardson and Loomis (2004) on how visitors to
Rocky Mountain National Park responded to the impacts of global climate change. Preceding
these questions, respondents are first reminded of their responses in Part A on their participation
in outdoor recreation both inside and outside the Florida Keys over the past 12 months. Question

14

F15 asks the respondent to confirm any outdoor recreation activities in the Florida Keys during
the past 12 months.
Questions F16 thru F19 explore how respondents would have changed their number of days of
outdoor recreation both in and outside the Florida Keys if they had faced different coral cover
conditions. The contingent behavior results will be used in combination with expenditure
profiles to estimate the economic impacts on the local economy due to global climate
change/coral bleaching for various scenarios.
Substitution. This is a module of questions designed by researchers at the University of
Massachusetts-Amherst, Human Dimensions Program and supports both the NOAA NCCOS
project entitled “Coral Reef Ecosystems: Societal Preferences and Policy/Management” and the
Florida Reef Resiliency Program. The idea of substitution is not an economic definition of
substitution, but instead is based on work in the recreation literature which views substitution in
a slightly different manner.

Substituting another site, time or activity is thought to be a common coping strategy employed
by resource users who experience conflict, crowding, loss of resource access, or who observe
environmental degradation at an often used location. More research, especially leading to
improved theory, is needed on recreation substitution with regard to snorkelers, SCUBA divers
and recreational fishermen.
The following description is taken from Ditton & Sutton, 2004:
“Recreation substitution was first described as the interchangeability of activities in satisfying
participant needs, motives, and preferences (Hendee & Burdge, 1974). This definition was
expanded further to refer to the interchangeability of recreation experiences “such that
acceptably equivalent outcomes” can be achieved by varying the timing, means of access,
setting, or activity (Brunson & Shelby, 1993, p. 69). Thus, only when an alternative activity is
perceived as satisfying one’s needs and providing outcomes equivalent to the original can it be
considered substitutable (Iso-Ahola, 1980). If a replacement does not provide the same benefits
as the original, it is a complement or an alternative, but not a substitute (Shelby & Vaske, 1991).
Previous studies of substitution decision making have identified various independent variables
important to individuals’ willingness to substitute: frequency of participation, skill level, and
monetary investment (Snow, 1980; Vaske & Donnelly, 1982). Based on recreation specialization
theory (Bryan, 1977; Ditton, Loomis & Choi, 1992; Fisher, 1997), it can be expected that those
with well developed skills, large investments in equipment, and who are more committed to
[diving] than the other outdoor activities in which they participate are less likely to identify
another outdoor activity that would provide them with the same satisfaction or enjoyment they
received from [diving]”.
The following substitution questions will be cross analyzed with recreation specialization and
demographic questions to better predict for managers how Florida Keys resource users will react
to variations in use levels, user norms, natural and anthropogenic resource impacts, and
alternative management actions.

15

There are two sections for the substitution questions; one for those who participate in snorkeling
or SCUBA diving in the Florida Keys and one for those who participate in recreational fishing in
the Florida Keys. If the respondent did not participate in the activities in the Florida Keys,
he/she is instructed to go to the next section.
Besides the screening criteria, there are 13 questions in each section, which are only slightly
modified to the reference activity. The respondent is asked to answer the questions using either
their favorite or most common reef for the reference activity or, if he/she does not have a favorite
or most common reef for their reference activity, then the last reef used is used for the reference
activity. For these questions, “reefs” mean natural reefs in the Florida Keys.
Question 1 thru 5 pose different conditions which make the favorite/most common/last used reef
for the reference activity either unavailable for the reference activity of less desirable for the
reference activity. The respondent is asked to provide a response on how he/she would change
his/her behavior.
Question 6 attempts to identify how many other reefs in the Florida Keys the respondent thinks
offer an experience just as good as their favorite/most common/last used reef for the reference
activity. Question 7 follows by asking how many other reefs in the Florida Keys the respondent
thinks offer a similar, but not as good an experience for the reference activity as the
favorite/most common/last used reef. Question 8 then asks the respondent to rate how similar
the best similar reef is to the favorite/most common/last used reef. Question 8 uses a seven point
scale with 1=Not as good, 4=Equivalent and 7=Better.
Question 9 asks about factors respondents consider when choosing a substitute site. The
respondent is asked to rate the importance of nine factors plus an other (specify). Importance is
scored on a five point scale with 1=Not at all important to 5=Extremely important.
Question 10 is a yes/no question that asks the respondent if other activities would provide the
same satisfaction or enjoyment as the reference activity, if the reference activity was not possible
to undertake either in the Florida Keys or elsewhere. Question 11 follow-up on question 10 to
ask the respondent to identify up to three activities he/she might consider as substitute activities
for the reference activity.
Question 12 asks about factors that might explain why respondents are not able to participate in
their reference activity. Respondents are asked to rate seven factors plus an “other” (specify)
factor using the same five point importance scale as in Question 9.
Question 13 asks about factors that motivate respondents in participating in their reference
activity. The respondent is asked to score 12 factors plus an “other” (specify) factor on a five
point scale on expectations with 1=Did not expect to 5=Very large expectations.
Alternative Management Options. This is a module of questions designed by researchers at the
University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Human Dimensions Program and supports both the
NOAA NCCOS project entitled “Coral Reef Ecosystems: Societal Preferences and

16

Policy/Management” and the Florida Reef Resiliency Program. The questions are designed to
support a conjoint analysis using a stated preference discrete choice model. These questions
will be included in Version 4 of the Resident Survey and implemented in Sample 4 (2,000
expected completes). There are six versions of the survey to accommodate 48 different choice
questions for each activity (fishing and diving), with each respondent getting 8 choice questions
for fishing and 8 choice questions for diving. Large sample sizes are required for this module
since researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Human Dimensions Program want
to be able to estimate some parameters by region in the Florida Keys. For their purposes, they
have aggregated our five regions to three regions (Upper Keys, Middle Keys and Lower
Keys/Key West).
The stated preference discrete choice (SPDC) model has it roots in the assumption that decisions
about resource use and activity-related expenditures are the result of several factors considered
jointly (Sorice, Oh, & Ditton , 2005). The model seeks to identify the tradeoffs people
(snorkelers, SCUBA divers, and recreational fishermen in this case) are willing to make. This
information can assist managers by illustrating how users might change their behavior in
response to management actions.
The project proposed does not seek to evaluate any specific management alternatives, current or
pending, within the FKNMS. Nor does it explicitly attempt to compare current management
actions to users’ preferences. Rather, the purpose is to study how people evaluate generic
packages of management attributes in order for managers to be able to predict support for new
policies.
There are two sections for the choice questions; one for those who participate in snorkeling or
SCUBA diving in the Florida Keys and one for those who participate in recreational fishing in
the Florida Keys. If the respondent did not participate in the activities in the Florida Keys,
he/she is instructed to go to the next section.
For diving, there are eight attributes for each choice question. Each attribute has three to four
levels. In total there are 15,552 possible combinations of attributes/levels. Using the paired
comparison approach and a randomized design, 48 of the 15,552 possible combinations are
covered across six versions of the survey, with each respondent getting 8 paired choice
questions.
For fishing, there are seven attributes for each choice question. Each attribute has three to four
levels. In total there are 5,184 possible combinations of attributes/levels. Using the paired
comparison approach and a randomized design, 48 of the 5,184 possible combinations are
covered across six versions of the survey, with each respondent getting 8 paired choice
questions.
Besides the screening criteria, for each reference activity, respondents are asked 8 choice
questions. In each of the choices, two different trips are presented (Trip A and Trip B). The
respondent is asked their preferred choice of trip. The respondent is always given the
opportunity to select neither trip in each choice question.

17

Table 1 shows the attributes and their levels for snorkelers and SCUBA divers and Table 2
shows the attributes and levels for recreational fishermen.
Table 1. DIVING- attributes and levels for use in the FKNMS stated preference choice model.
Attribute
Number of Snorkelers
and Divers

Description
The number of other
snorkelers and divers in
the water at the reef site

Site Settings

Coral cover and algae
cover at the reef site

Restrictions

Percent area of reef site
open to use

Number of fish

Overall amount of fish
observed on a dive

Size of Fish

Percent increase in the
number of larger fish
seen at the dive site

Species

Number of species of
fish observed on a dive

Enforcement

Number of patrols a
person we expect to
encounter

Travel cost / day

Level
1. The usual number of other snorkelers/divers
at the dive site
2. 15% fewer snorkelers/divers
3. 30% fewer snorkelers/divers
1. High live coral cover
2. Mix of coral and algae cover
3. High algae cover
1. No area closed
2. 25% of area closed
3. 50% of area closed
4. 75% of area closed
1. No increase in numbers of fish
2. 20% more fish
3. 40% more fish
4. 60% more fish
1. No increase in larger fish
2. 20% more larger fish
3. 40% more larger fish
4. 60% more larger fish
1. Fewer species
2. No change in species numbers
3. Many more species
1. No additional patrols
2. One additional patrol
3. Two additional patrols

Travel cost that an diver 1. 10% less than your current total cost per day
spends for a diving trip 2. Your current total cost per day
3. 10% more than your current total cost per
per day
day
(including gas and
other trip expenses)

18

Table 2. FISHING-attributes and levels for use in the FKNMS stated preference choice model.
Attribute
Number of Recreational
Fishing Boats

Description
The number of other
angler boats near
fishing location

Number of Boats

The number of other
non-angler boats near
fishing location

Restrictions

Percent area of zone
closed to use

Number of Species

Number of different
species

Number of fish

Overall amount of fish
caught

Size of Fish

Percent of legal sized
fish caught

Travel cost / day

Travel cost that an
angler spends for a
fishing trip per day
(including gas and
other trip expenses)

Level
1. The usual number of other boats near the
location
2. 15% fewer boats
3. 30% fewer boats
1. The usual number of other boats near the
location
2. 15% fewer boats
3. 30% fewer boats
1. No area closed
2. 25% of reefs in zone closed
3. 50% of reefs in zone closed
4. 75% of reefs in zone closed
1. No increase in numbers of species caught
2. Fewer species caught
3. More species fish caught
1. No increase in numbers of fish caught
2. 10% more fish caught
3. 20% more fish caught
4. 30% more fish caught
1. No increase in the number of caught kept
2. 20% more keepers
3. 40% more keepers
4. 60% more keepers
1. 10% less than your current total cost per day
2. Your current total cost per day
3. 10% more than your current total cost per
day

Demographic Profile. The demographic questions are “core” questions and thus included in
every version of the resident survey. This section is labeled as different Parts (e.g. Part G in
Versions 1 and 2 and Part E in Version 3) of the questionnaire and is always the last section of a
questionnaire version. Demographic profiles serve multiple purposes. First, many demographic
factors are explanatory variables in various multivariate analysis (e.g. activity participation,
spending and nonmarket economic valuation). Second, the demographic profiles allow us to
compare our samples to the general population to assess whether we got representative samples
and to analyze potential nonresponse bias. Third, demographic factors are used for post sample
weighting.

Questions 1 and 2 ask about the number of permanent residents of Monroe County live in the
household and how many of these people are 16 years of age or older. This information will
allow us to compare household sizes with Census and provide important information for
extrapolating estimates from sample to population.

19

Question 3 asks about the closest mile marker to the respondent’s residence. This will allow us
to calculate mileage from the respondent’s residence to the site of the last trip for the expenditure
profile.
Question 4 asks about access to the water from respondent’s residence. This is a key feature of
the Florida Keys as many residents live on canals, which provide a place to dock their boats and
increase the probability of participating in boating activities. Question 5 asks if they own a boat.
Question 6 asks for how many years the respondent has lived in Monroe County. Various
relationships have been found between experience and other project measurements. Satisfaction
ratings and years of experience are highly correlated. In many studies in Florida, it has been
found that there is negative relationship between participation in various recreation activities and
years of experience living in Florida.
Questions 7 thru 14 are focused on the usual demographic factors for comparison with Census
data and supporting other analyses. Question 7 is used to derive age. Questions 8 and 9 address
race/ethnicity. Question 10 addresses level of educational attainment and question 11 addresses
employment status.
Question 12 asks if the respondent works outside Monroe County. This is important information
in our methods for estimating the amount of visitors that access the Florida Keys via the highway
and supplements information obtained from the Census of Inter-county Commuters.
Question 13 obtains zip code of the residence. Originally, this was to be a telephone/mail
survey. This may not be needed if it is a mail survey only.
Question 14 is total household income before taxes and is a critical demographic factor for many
analyses.

Visitor Survey
In 1995-96, the visitor survey was done using two separate sample designs. We propose to use
the same sample designs, only modified with the current changes in institutional structures. For
detailed sample designs, estimation methods, analyses of nonresponse bias and sample weighting
used in 1995-96, see Leeworthy (1996). For an overview of objectives from each of the two
visitor samples proposed and the components of each questionnaire see Figure 2. Figure 3
provides a graphic overview of the different questionnaire forms that will be discussed below.
Sample 1. Survey of Air, Auto and Cruise Ship passengers. There are essentially three ways
that visitors access the Florida Keys: 1) by Air through either Key West International Airport or
Marathon Airport. In 1995-96, Marathon provided commercial airline service; now Marathon
only provides service to private airplanes; 2) by Auto, U.S. 1 is the only road which can be used
to access the Florida Keys; and 3) by Cruise Ship. All cruise ships visit Key West only. A
fourth way visitors can access the Florida Keys is by private boat. In 1995-96, we estimated that
less than one percent of visitors access the Florida Keys by their own boat. Some additional

20

ways visitors can access the Florida Keys are by commercial bus service and a new ferry service
from Naples Florida to Key West. Both of these services are relatively small, but they will be
included in the survey.
Figure 2. Visitor Survey Samples
Sample 1

Sample 2

Objectives
• Estimate the number of person-trips by visitors
to the Florida Keys, by activity and geographic
area (Upper, Islamorada, Marathon, Lower,
and Key West)
• Develop profiles of visitors (age, race, sex,
income, place of residence)
• Estimate spending by visitors in local and
regional economy and total contribution to the
economy in terms of sales, employment, and
income
• Provide information on importance/ satisfaction
attitudes and perceptions about facilities and
natural resources
• Provide information on environmental concern
• Provide information on special issues

Objectives
• Estimate intensity of use in terms of number of
days and number of dives for selected activity
groups (10 to 12 activity groups) by geographic
region
• Provide information for travel cost modeling
used to estimate net economic use values for
marine resources
• Assess knowledge, attitudes & perceptions of
Sanctuary management strategies and
regulations
• Specialization – identify special commitment to
activities to provide predictive capacity
• Assess socioeconomic impacts of Global
Climate Change/Coral Bleaching
• Estimate nonmarket economic values of reefs
• Assess Substitution and Management
Alternatives

Survey of Air Auto & Cruise Ship Passengers

CUSTOMER SURVEY

On-Site

On-Site

•
•
•
•

Expenditure Mailback
•

Types of
accommodations
used

•

Modes of
transportation used

•

•

Mode of Travel
Profile of visitors (age, race, sex,
income, place of residence)
Activity participation by region
Number and length of visits

Trip spending
profiles

•
•
•

Satisfaction Mailback
•

•

Number of days and dives by activity and
geographic area
Trip itinerary
Specialization
Profiles of visiting group (age, race, sex,
education, income, household size)

Knowledge, Attitudes &
Perceptions/Reef
Valuation Mailback

Substitution &
Management
Alternatives Mailback

Importance/
satisfaction of
facilities and natural
resource attributes

•

•

Perceptions on state
of resources

Sources of
information

•

Substitution based
on reef condition

Zones

•

•

Conditions of
resources

•

Reef Valuation

Preferences for reef
conditions and
management
alternatives

•

Environmental
concern index

•

Special issues

Global Climate Change/
Bleaching Mailback
•

21

Information to
support scenario
analyses

22

Sample 1 is a stratified random sample of visitors and is used to derive estimates of total
visitation and provides the information necessary for deriving sample weights for Sample 2
called the CUSTOMER Survey Sample. CUSTOMER is not a truly stratified random sample, as
will be explained below.
Sample 1 is stratified by the different types of access. We will have air enplanement counts for
all flights leaving the Florida Keys from the Airport Authority, traffic counts from the Florida
Department of Transportation at the 106.5 mile marker for all traffic by the hour every day of the
year, and number of cruise ships and number of people onboard each cruise ship from the Key
West Port Authority. A highway survey will be conducted 80 days per year stratified by season,
type of day (weekday and weekend/holiday) and time of day (morning and afternoon). The
airport surveys will also be stratified by season, type of day and time of day. The cruise ship
survey will also be stratified by season but will be based on when port calls are scheduled. Each
ship scheduled has a known passenger capacity and arrival and departure time. The ferry and
bus services are highly variable due to low demand. We use the same design procedures as used
for cruise ships. See Leeworthy (1996) for how estimates of total person-trips and total persondays were estimated.
Auto Survey-Selection Method. Off-duty police officers are used for traffic control. A permit
will be obtained from the Florida Department of Transportation to conduct the survey. Signs are
set up notifying drivers that a survey is being conducted. Two police cars are placed on both
sides of the northbound lanes of the highway with their emergency lights on to calm the traffic.
An officer selects randomly (every 5th car on light traffic days, every 10th car on medium traffic
days and every 20th car on heavy traffic days) eligible vehicles (eligible vehicles exclude
commercial vehicles and buses) and points to the driver and directs them into a parking lot. The
police officer never comes into contact with people in selected vehicles; he simply points at them
and directs them into the parking lot. Cones are placed in the middle of the highway to help
direct drivers into a parking lot. Once in the parking lot, drivers are greeted by a member of the
Bicentennial Volunteers, Inc. and asked if they are permanent residents of Monroe County. If
so, they are thanked, tallied on the Talley Sheet (see Tally Sheet, Auto Survey, U.S. 1) and sent
back into the traffic stream. If not permanent residents of Monroe County, they are asked if they
are ending their stay in the Florida Keys: if not, they are thanked and sent back into the traffic
stream. If they are ending their trip to the Florida Keys, they are then screened for having
participated in any recreation/tourist activities (the volunteer hands them the Blue Card which
lists recreation/tourists activities). Those not qualifying for the survey are thanked and sent back
into the traffic stream, if they qualify they are asked if they would participate in a 5-10 minute
interview about their visit to the Florida Keys. If they refuse or there is a language barrier, they
are sent back into the traffic stream, and if they agree to the interview they are sent to a parking
spot where another volunteer interviews them. The tally sheet is used to record the disposition of
each contact. Also, traffic is tallied every 15 minutes of a sampling period for 10 minutes at a
time to determine the proportion of eligible vehicles in the car traffic counts (see Tally sheet, left
and right lanes of U.S. 1). The complete method of estimation is explained in Leeworthy (1996).
Air Survey-Selection Method. A schedule of flights leaving the Florida Keys is first obtained
from the airport manager. Sampling days and times are then selected. Sampling is also stratified
by season (summer and winter). People are screened after they pass through security.

23

Volunteers use the Talley Sheet, Air Survey to screen for eligible respondents. Again,
respondents are chosen randomly using a similar rule as in the Auto survey by choosing every
5th, 10th or 20th person based on the number of people coming through security to the terminal
departure lounge. People are first asked if they are a permanent resident of Monroe County, if so
they are thanked and told we are only interviewing nonresidents of Monroe County and then
tallied. If they answered no, they are asked if they did any recreation/tourist activity. The
volunteer hands them the Blue Card, which lists what we mean by recreation/tourist activities. If
no they are thanked and tallied; if yes, they are asked if they will participate in a 5-10 minute
interview. If no, they are tallied and if yes, they are interviewed.
For private planes in Key West and Marathon, we will select random days and times stratifying
by season, type of day and time of day as with the auto and air surveys and use the same tally
sheet as the commercial airplane passenger survey. We will label the tally sheet as the private
plane tally sheet with one for Key West and one for Marathon. The airport managers will
provide the numbers of private planes departing each day.
Cruise Ship Passenger-Selection Method. All cruise ship passengers that disembark the ships in
Key West are considered visitors that participated in recreation/tourist activities, so the selection
method and tallying is shortened versus the auto and air surveys. However, in 1995-96, we
learned that not all passengers disembark the ships in Key West. Some passengers on ships that
anchor in the channel and then transport passengers from the cruise ship to the docks choose not
to visit Key West and stay onboard. We send a team to count the number of passengers that get
off the ships that anchor in the channel. We do this for a sample of ships each season to derive
an average percent of passengers that disembark the ships. We then apply the estimated percent
of passengers that disembark the ships to the total number of passengers on the ship manifests,
maintained by the Port Authority, to arrive at estimates of passengers that are recreating visitors.

For the cruise ships, ship port calls are first obtained from the Port Authority. Ships are
randomly selected for passenger interviews. Ships are stratified for selection by passenger
carrying capacity and by whether they are anchored at the docks or ferry their passengers from
ships anchored in the channel. Separate samples are done by season (summer and winter).
For each ship selected, volunteers randomly select passengers as they are approaching the ship to
get back aboard thus ending their visit to Key West. Again random selection is done by selecting
every 5th, 10th or 20th passenger depending on volume of traffic. Passengers are simply asked if
they are a permanent resident of Monroe County. If yes, they are thanked and told we are only
interviewing nonresidents of Monroe County. If no, they are asked if they would participate in a
5-10 minute interview. Again, disposition of each contact is tallied on the Tally Sheet, Cruise
Ship.
Auto, Air and Cruise Ship Survey Questionnaire. The survey is limited to four pages (three
pages of questions) to stay within the 5-10 minute survey time period. Surveys conducted off the
highway, in the airports and on the cruise ships cannot exceed 10 minutes since people are
ending their trips and are in the process of traveling. We have not changed our survey
questionnaire from that used in 1995-96, so we are certain in will be successful in staying within
the 5-10 minute constraint.

24

The Auto, Air and Cruise ship survey on-site questionnaire has several cards that are printed on
color paper and assist respondents in answering questions. The Green Card is the “Respondent
Card” and contains the “Confidentiality Statement”; Section 1, responses to question 11a;
Section 2, responses to question 12; section 3, responses to question 15b; and Section 4,
responses to question 16. The “White Card” is the Activities List and the Map of the Florida
Keys, which specifies the five regions of the Keys is the third card used. The “Yellow Card” is
the Special Events Card” that lists special events promoted by the TDC. The “Yellow Card”
cannot be produced at this time since events are time dependent and we don’t have the schedules
of events for the time periods of sampling.
To begin the interview, the interviewer is handed the Green Card and asked to read the
Confidentiality Statement. The interviewer assigns an interview number to each onsite
questionnaire. This is important because there are two mailback questionnaires that are handed
to each respondent, if they agree to participate in the mailback portion of the survey. These
interview numbers must be written also on the mailbacks so data on the mailbacks can be linked
to the on-site questionnaire data.
The interviewer records the location of the interview, the day, month and time of the interview
and the number of people in the vehicle (auto survey) or number of people in the party (air and
cruise ship survey).
Question 1 asks for the number in the vehicle (party) that is age 16 or older. Question 2 obtains
information on primary residence. Information is obtained on City or Nearest City; County (if
USA); State (if USA); zip code (If USA); country; and then country/region of world.
Question 3 asks for time of arrival in the Florida Keys (month, day and time). This information
is combined with time of interview to construct an alternative measure of length of stay.
Question 4 asks about the number of times the respondent visited the Florida Keys and
participated in recreation/tourist activities over the past 12 months. Similarly, question 5 asks
the number of days the respondent spent in the Florida Keys over the past 12 months where the
respondent did some recreation/tourist activities.
Question 6 asks the number of nights spent in each of the five regions of the Florida Keys on the
current trip. The interviewer first determines if there was an overnight trip from information
obtained in question 3 and the interview date. If overnight trip, they hand the respondent the
map of the Florida Keys with the five regions of the Florida Keys.
The next section of the survey (page 2) asks about activity participation in each of the five
regions. The interviewer first hands the respondent the “White Card”, which is the activity list.
The interviewer first asks question 7 which asks the respondent to read of the activity numbers
for each activity they the respondent or anyone else in their vehicle (party) did during this trip to
the Florida Keys. Question 8 then asks for each activity in which regions the respondent
participated in the activity. Question 9 then asks for how many others participated in each
activity in each region.

25

The next section (top of page 3) asks about special events and the primary purpose of the trip.
All of these questions support objectives of the Monroe County Tourist Development Council
(TDC). Questions 10 thru 11c address special events. A “Yellow Card” will be produced closer
to the time of the beginning of the summer season survey (June 15 – August 31, 2007). The
“Yellow Card” will list all the special events sponsored by the TDC with names and dates of the
events. The interviewer first hands the “Yellow Card” to the respondent, then asks Question 10,
which simply asks if the respondent attended any of the events. The respondent is then handed
the “Green Card” and referred to Section 1 of the “Green Card” for answers to question 11a,
which asks about the importance of the special events in planning the trip to the Florida Keys.
Question 11b follows with asking if attending any special events resulted in extending the length
of stay on the trip. If yes, question 11c. asks for how many days longer the trip was extended.
Appropriate skip patterns are built into each question to direct the interviewer to the next
appropriate question.
Question 12 asks for which reason best describes the primary purpose of the trip to the Florida
Keys. The respondent is referred to Section 2 of the “Green Card” for the responses to this
question.
The next to last section of the survey (bottom of page 3) is the demographics section. Questions
13 thru 17, obtain information on the respondent only for age, sex, race/ethnicity, household
income, and ownership of a second home in the Florida Keys.
Question 18 is important for the expenditure mailback survey and asks who is paying the
expenses and information necessary for putting expenditures on a per person per trip basis.
The last section of the survey (page 4) asks respondents if they would agree to participate in the
mailback surveys. The respondent is informed of a sweepstakes/lottery that will be conducted
for all people that respond to the mailback survey. Respondents are told there are two surveys;
the expenditure survey and the satisfaction survey. Agreeing to take both surveys and
responding to both surveys will double their chance of winning the sweepstakes/lottery. See
answer to Question 9 on gifts to respondents.
Names, addresses and telephone numbers are obtained that will allow for follow-up efforts; one
post card reminder is sent after two weeks and a full survey after one month if they have not
returned their completed mailback questionnaires. The information is also used to notify winners
and award the prizes. This information is destroyed after the prizes are awarded.
Separate surveys are conducted of summer and winter season visitors. Almost every statistical
test we have ever performed has found statistically significant differences between summer and
winter season visitors. For the Florida Keys, as with the rest of South Florida, the summer
season is defined as from June through November and the winter season from December through
May. Our survey year will consist of the summer season being June through November 2007
and the winter season being December 2007 through May 2008. Our samples will be taken for
the summer season from June 15, 2007 through August 31, 2007 and the winter season samples
will be taken between January 15, 2008 and April 31, 2008. These are approximately the same

26

times used in the 1995-96 and 2000-2001 studies. See Leeworthy (1996) for the 1995-96 study
and Johns et al (2003b) for the 2000-2001 study.
Expenditure Mailback. This questionnaire is almost identical to the one used in 1995-96. The
only difference is a couple of new expenditure items. As described above, this questionnaire is
handed to all Auto, Air and Cruise Ship passengers that agree to participate in the mailback
survey. The questionnaire is designed as a self-mailer, which can be folded and sealed and
dropped in the mail for delivery. At this time, we don’t yet know who will implement the survey
(contracts or agreements have not yet been completed), so the introductory letter’s letterhead and
the return address are not correct, they are just used as holding places.

There are two versions of the expenditure mailback. One version is for those who accessed the
Florida Keys by Auto and Air, and were on trips of more than one day. This version can
generally be referred to as the “long version”. The second version is the “short version” and is
designed to reduce the burden and increase response rates for those who accessed the Florida
Keys by Cruise Ship and those who were on day-trips. In our analysis of nonresponse bias in the
1995-96 study, we found that day-trippers had a lower response rate and had lower expenditures
both on a per person-trip and on a per person-day basis. This resulted in a slight upward bias in
estimates of expenditures, which was adjusted for by sample weighting (see Leeworthy, 1996).
Long Version.

Part A focuses on the expenditures made on the recent trip (the interview trip). First respondents
are asked who was paying expenses. There are two choices. If they paid their own expenses or
if they shared expenses with someone else, they are asked to check the first box and then are
instructed to report only expenses they personally paid for. If they were paying all the expenses
for themselves and for one or more others, they are asked to check the second box. If they
checked the second box, they are asked for the number of people they were paying expenses for,
including themselves. Again, this will allow for normalizing estimates of expenditures per
person-trip. Estimates of expenditures per person-trip will be multiplied by aggregate estimates
of person-trips to derive total aggregate expenditures.
Trip expenditures are obtained for each expenditure item in three ways and for reporting
purposes are organized into three columns. Column A: Total amount spent for this trip; Column
B: Of the amount in column A, how much did you spend in South Florida; and Column C: Of
the amount in column B, how much did you spend in the Florida Keys.
Respondents are first provided an explanation of the three columns and the definition of South
Florida, then are provided an example using expenditure item “LODGING, PRIVATELY
OWNED.
Part B. Annual Vacation and Equipment Purchases. The expenditure items in this section are
non trip related expenditures. We ask for expenditures during the past 12 months. First,
questions 1 and 2 ask for total boating trips away from home and the number of those trips to the
Florida Keys over the past 12 months. Respondents are then provided an example and how the
answers in the example should be recorded in the three columns. The expenditure items are

27

broken down into three sections: 1) Major Recreational Equipment, 2) Boating Equipment and
3) Annual Lodging-related Fees.
The last page of the survey provides for people supplying their names, addresses and telephone
numbers so they can be entered into a sweepstakes/lottery to win various prizes. The prizes are
listed. We don’t know the exact prizes that will be offered at this time, so the current prize list is
just a holding place. The prizes are provided by private businesses as part of their contribution to
the project. A local bank will conduct the sweepstakes lottery. We (whoever is the contractor
implementing the surveys) will provide the bank a list of database identification numbers. The
bank will select the winning numbers and we will then send the bank names, addresses and
telephone numbers of the winners. We will then destroy all names, addresses and telephone
numbers in project databases. See details in answer to Question 9 which addresses gifts to
respondents.
Short Version. This version of the expenditure survey was designed for Cruise ship passengers,
who in 1995-96 did not stay in Key West for more than a few hours. Based on the results of the
1995-96 study, we will give this version to not only Cruise Ship passengers, but all those who
are day-trippers. As discussed above, we think this will reduce nonresponse bias associated with
day-trippers with low expenditures that don’t want to fill out a large mailback on expenditures
since so many of the expenditure items were not relevant (see Leeworthy, 1996 which found that
there wasn’t nonresponse bias in the Satisfaction mailback—people were willing to answer a
more significant set of questions, if the questions seemed more relevant). In 1995-96, both the
expenditure and satisfaction mailback were given to the same people, but the satisfaction
mailback had significantly higher response rates.

The short version of the expenditure mailback questionnaire differs from the long version by a
shorter list of expenditure items for trip expenditures and total elimination of the non-trip related
expenditures.
Satisfaction Mailback. As in the 1995-96 and 2000-2001 studies, visitors interviewed on-site
are asked to participate in two mailback surveys (expenditure and satisfaction). They are handed
both the expenditure and satisfaction mailback surveys, which are both designed as self-mailer
questionnaires, if they agree to participate. As with the expenditure mailback, the introductory
letter on the first page, the return address/self-mailer page, and the sweepstakes/lottery cannot be
completed at this time and the current versions just serve as holding places.

Question Ia, asks respondents to rate the importance of 25 natural resource attributes, facilities
and services as they contribute to an ideal recreation/tourism setting for the activities they did in
the Florida Keys on a five point scale, where 1=Not important and 5=Extremely important. Not
Applicable (NA) and Don’t Know (DK) responses are also provided. The respondent is asked to
simply circle the appropriate response for each item.
Question Ib, asks the respondents to rate their satisfaction with the same list of items for which
they rated importance in Section 1a. Again a five point scale is used with 1=Terrible to
5=Delighted. Again, respondents can answer Not Applicable (NA) or Don’t Know (DK).

28

In analysis, the information from questions Ia and Ib are combined in what is called importancesatisfaction or importance-performance analysis (see Leeworthy and Wiley, 1997 for the
importance-performance analysis using the 1995-96 study data and Leeworthy et al, 2004 for a
comparative analysis of 1995-96 and 2000-2001 data). Importance-performance analysis
provides a simple but more powerful method of analysis and interpretation than simple
satisfaction scores. It allows for assessment of relative priorities.
The next section uses a five-year retrospective to look at trends in satisfaction scores for 11 of
the 25 items included in questions Ia and Ib. The 11 items were selected by project partners
based on their priorities and by reducing the list, reduces respondent burden. In the baseline
1995-96 study, the questions were designed for analysis of trends because no trend data existed.
In this application, we have the 1995-96 data and we can compare changes in scores with the
new data from questions 1a and 1b. We have decided to maintain this section since it provides
an alternative method of assessing trends.
Question Ic asks if the visitor had visited the Florida Keys more than five years ago. This is
important because in analyzing the 1995-96 and 2000-2001 data we found that those who had
more experience with use of the Florida Keys had significantly different satisfaction scores
(lower) than those who had less experience—a frame of reference effect. Those who visit the
Florida Keys for the first time think everything is great and provide relatively higher satisfaction
scores.
Question Id asks the respondent to rate their satisfaction, as of five or more years ago, with 11
items. The same five-point satisfaction scale used for questions Ib is used.
In the next section, a few special issue questions are asked. These questions address various
issues for project partner objectives. Questions IIa and IIb address issues on boating for the
FKNMS. Marina capacity and boat access to FKNMS waters is thought to be limited relative to
growing demand. The FKNMS wants to know how many boats are trailered versus stored in
marinas in the Florida Keys. This will provide aggregate estimates of capacity that will support
future micro studies of capacity and the relationship to particular reefs.
The remaining questions in this section address issues of the Monroe County Tourist
Development Council (TDC). Questions IIIa through IVc address the issue of return visitation
and if cruise ship passengers return to the Florida Keys as non-cruise ship visitors on subsequent
trips.
The last section of questions is the 16 questions for the Environmental Concern Index (ECI) or
the Environmental Behavior Index (EBI) discussed in the Resident Survey above. The index
will allow us to test if there are changes in the ECI or EBI of the visitor population.
Sample 2. CUSTOMER Survey. The CUSTOMER survey has it origins in the 1972 and 1977
Federal Estate Surveys, which later became the Public Area Recreation Visitor Survey (PARVS).
PARVS was implemented on hundreds of recreation sites between 1985 and 1992. PARVS
became CUSTOMER in the early 1990’s. So CUSTOMER is the product of many years of
research and learning about surveys on outdoor recreation. CUSTOMER was used in both the

29

1995-96 and 2000-2001 surveys. Actually, the Auto, Air, Cruise Ship Survey questionnaires are
the CUSTOMER Survey questionnaires shortened. OMB approval for CUSTOMER expired
4/31/2006 and the survey was conducted under the burden hours of the USDA, Forest Service,
hence the approval number 0596-0110, even though CUSTOMER was a multiple Federal agency
effort including NOAA. As in the 1995-96 and 2000-2001 applications of CUSTOMER in the
Florida Keys, it has been modified to meet the needs in the Florida Keys. There is an on-site
questionnaire that takes on average 15 minutes to complete. There are also three follow-up selfmailer mailback questionnaires designed to achieve other project objectives (see Figures 2 and
3). These objectives were already discussed in the resident survey (e.g. Global Climate
Change/Coral Bleaching and Coral Ecosystem Services: Societal Preferences and
Policy/Management), so they will not be repeated here.
What is important to note here is that as in the 1995-96 and 2000-2001 studies, CUSTOMER is
not a strictly stratified random sample. Because the on-site component of CUSTOMER takes on
average 15 minutes to complete, it cannot be implemented in the Auto, Air and Cruise Ship
Survey, which is a strict stratified random sample. Sample stratification in CUSTOMER is
achieved by the use of “local knowledge”.
The Monroe County/Florida Keys is unique in that it has five different local Chambers of
Commerce. In addition, the TDC has five districts (our regions) that correspond to the
jurisdictions of the Chambers of Commerce. Within each TDC district there are sub-groups
called umbrellas that promote different aspects of the tourist industry. There is a dive umbrella,
a fishing umbrella, and a historic site and museum umbrella in each region. In addition to the
Chambers of Commerce and TDC, there are several other organizations representing
hotels/motels, dive shop owners/operators, and fishing guides. This local infrastructure contains
a wealth of knowledge about local recreation/tourism.
In the 1995-96 and 2000-2001 studies, we used “local knowledge” to help us stratify our
CUSTOMER samples across and within regions of the Florida Keys to get “representative”
samples of visitors. In both previous studies, locals provided us with 200 interview sites and
helped us stratify the samples across the 200 sites. We randomly select visitors at each of the
200 sites, but it is “local knowledge” that determines how we stratify the samples. That is why
we describe CUSTOMER as not being a strict stratified random sample.
In analyzing the 1995-96 study data, which used the same two-sample approach being proposed
here, we tested for differences between the two-samples. We found few statistically significant
differences for demographic factors and activity participation. Sample weights were constructed
using sample 1 to weight for sample 2. See Leeworthy (1996) for a discussion of these tests and
the sample weighting. In the 1995-96 study, we concluded that “local knowledge” was very
successful in providing us with a “representative” sample. Of course there is no guarantee that
we will have the same success with “local knowledge” as we did in 1995-96, but all the same
local infrastructure exists today and we believe they are even more informed today than they
were more than a decade ago. So we propose to follow the same protocols as in the 1995-96
study relying on sample 1 to weight sample 2 for any discrepancies.
CUSTOMER Selection Rules. Although visitors are selected at random, there are rules for

30

qualification. As with the Auto, air and Cruise ship survey, they must not be permanent
residents of Monroe County/Florida Keys, they must have participated in some form of outdoor
recreation on their current visit, and they must be ending their visit. This last criterion is critical
because we use CUSTOMER to estimate the intensity of use for each recreation activity in each
region of the Florida Keys. We don’t want people extrapolating about what they will or might
do; we want to know what they did. We do relax the “exit condition” in a couple of
circumstances. In the 1995-96 study, we learned that people in campgrounds are hard to
interview in the morning they are leaving, since they are busy breaking camp. Interviewers try to
interview at campsites in the evenings and if visitors are planning to leave before noon the next
day, they are then qualified for the interview. Also, at other interview sites, when interviews are
conducted at the end of the day, if the person will be leaving the Florida Keys before noon time
the next day, they are qualified for the interview.
CUSTOMER, On-site Survey Questionnaire. The CUSTOMER Survey On-site questionnaire
is an 11-page form not including the cover page. On the bottom right corner of the cover page is
where the interviewer records a unique interview identification number (Survey #). The Survey
# allows connecting the on-site data to follow-up mailback questionnaire data.

On the top of page 1 there is information the interviewer fills out before the interview begins.
The interviewer writes down their name, fills in the Location Code (each of the 200 survey sites
is given a three-digit code), the type of interview site is recorded, the agency for which the study
is being done (all will be recorded as NOAA here, but this field is maintained so if data is shared
with the U.S. Forest Service to support their assessments of the supply and demand for recreation
under the Resource Planning Act), the date of the interview (month, day and time), the type of
day of the interview (weekday, weekend or holiday) and number of vehicles or intervening
groups between interviews. This last item is used to look at cooperation rates.
Introduction and Qualifying Questions. These are the selection rules described above. Also
once a visitor qualifies and agrees to be interviewed he/she is handed the “Yellow Card” called
the Respondent Card and asked to read the Confidentiality Statement.
Trip Profile. The first section of the survey obtains information on the trip profile and contains
15 questions that address place of residence (Question 1); purpose of trip (Question 2); time of
arrival in the Florida Keys (Question 3); time of departure or when ending the trip (Question 4);
hours and/or miles of travel from residence to Florida Keys (Question 5); time spent visiting
other sites on the trip (Question 6); was Florida Keys primary destination of trip (Question 7);
distance Florida Keys is from primary destination of trip (Question 8); did travel to Florida Keys
from a temporary location outside the Florida Keys (Question 9); will return to temporary
residence after visit to Florida Keys (Question 10); distance from temporary residence to the
Florida Keys (Question 11); have been to Florida Keys before (Question 12); year first visited
Florida Keys (Question 13); number of visits to Florida Keys for outdoor recreation in the past
12 months (question 14); and number of days spent in Florida Keys during the past 12 months
(question 15).
The trip profile information supports the travel cost model. The travel cost model relates the
number of trips a respondent has taken to the Florida Keys over a 12-month period to the

31

estimated travel cost per trip and other factors (e.g. income, age, race/ethnicity, length of trip,
substitute sites, etc.). The travel cost model is used to derive nonmarket economic use values for
natural resource use in the Florida Keys (see Leeworthy and Bowker, 1997 for estimation of the
travel cost model from the 1995-96 data). Answers to Question 1, 2, 3 (combined with question
4 to estimate length of trip), 13 and 14 can be used to test for differences between the
CUSTOMER sample and the Auto and Air samples (Cruise Ship passengers are not included in
the CUSTOMER sample because of their short stay and the length of the CUSTOMER survey).
Questions 5 thru 11 provide the necessary information to adjust the travel cost model for
multiple-destination bias. Question 2 makes use of the “Yellow Card” Section 1 to assist
respondents in answering Question 2.
Activity Participation and Use. Questions 16 thru 19 obtain detailed information on activity
participation and use by region for all members of the recreation party. The “White Card” or
“Activities List” is handed to the respondent to assist them with answering the questions in this
section. The map of the Florida Keys showing the five regions is also handed to the respondent.
Number of days is only asked for those activities which have an “A” suffix on the activity
number. This is done to reduce burden on respondents for activities where such information is
not a high priority. Estimates of recreation participation by region can be used to test is
“representative” samples were achieved in CUSTOMER versus the Auto and Air components of
the Auto, Air and Cruise Ship Survey. The main objective in CUSTOMER is to get estimates of
the intensity of use by activity and region as measured by number of days of use. The time
available for the Auto, Air and Cruise Ship survey is too short to obtain this kind of detailed
information.
Questions 20 thru 28 are focused on reef use both artificial and natural, separately. The focus
here is limited to the activities that were undertaken during the current trip. The “Blue Card” or
“Activities List for Reef Use” is used to help visitors with what activities are generally done on
the reefs. Again the number of days and dives are only asked for those activities which have an
“A” suffix on the activity number. Again this is done to lower burden on respondents for
activities for which this information is not a high priority.
A check box is provided for each region on the top left corner of the area for recording answers.
This box is checked when there was no reef use in the region. The questionnaire has also been
designed for efficient coding by the interviewer. Questions 22 thru 28 are repeated over the
recording matrixes for each region, so the interviewer doesn’t have to flip pages back and forth
in the middle of the interview.
Questions 29 thru 31 focus on the respondents “main activity”. Question 29 asks which, if any,
activity was the main reason for making the trip to the Florida Keys. This question is used as a
screening question for answering questions 31 thru 38. Question 30 asks the respondent how
many visits to the Florida Keys over the past 12 months were to do the main activity. And,
Question 31 asks the respondent how many visits they made to any site (not just Florida Keys)
for the main activity over the past 12 months.
The next set of questions (32 thru 38) are the “specialization” questions discussed in the Resident
Survey above designed by researchers at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Human

32

Dimensions Program. The questions are only asked of those whose main activity was
snorkeling, SCUBA diving or fishing. If one of these activities was not identified as the main
activity in Question 29, then the interviewer skips to Question 39. For those who said that their
main activity was snorkeling, SCUBA diving or fishing, the “Orange Card” was designed to help
respondents answer the questions in this section. For questions 32 thru 35, the respondent
simply reads a number corresponding to their answer to each question from the “Orange Card”.
The same is true for each of the items in Questions 37 and 38.
Question 39 is used to obtain information on the number of people covered by the expenses the
respondent made on the trip. This is used in the travel cost model to adjust for the number of
people covered in the travel cost (See Leeworthy and Bowker, 1997 for an application to the
1995-96 data). Question 40 is also related to the travel cost model in addressing the value of
time. Question 41 obtains information on all the modes of travel used on the trip to the Florida
Keys. This question serves several purposes. First, it is used to segment the visitors into main
type of access so comparisons can be made with the Auto and Air components of the Auto, air
and Cruise Ship Survey for testing sample representativeness and for sample weighting. Second,
the information is used in conjunction with the expenditure survey in the Auto, Air and Cruise
Ship Survey to derive travel costs by different modes of travel (see Leeworthy and Bowker,
1997). Third, the TDC would like to know the various modes of travel people use on their trips
to the Florida Keys.
Demographic Information. In this section information is obtained on demographic information
with details on many items for up to eight people in the recreation party. Question 42 obtains
information on the party size. Question 43 asks about the type of recreation party. Section 2 of
the “Yellow Card” is used to assist the respondent. Question 44 asks about the respondent’s
household. Again, the “Yellow Card”, Section 3 is used to assist respondents in answering this
question. Question 45 asks about Household income before taxes. Again, the “Yellow Card”,
Section 4 is used to help respondents answer the question. After Question 45, the respondent is
asked to help the interviewer fill out the matrix on demographic characteristics for up to eight
people in the recreation party. Demographic factors include age, sex, ethnicity, race, educational
attainment, disability and employment status. Again, all these demographic factors can be used
in various analyses, but also in checking sample representativeness.
On the final page of CUSTOMER On-site, there is a section for the interviewer to ask if the
respondent will participate in a mailback survey. There are three mailback survey
questionnaires. The first one includes the Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary
Management Strategies and Regulations and Nonmarket Economic Valuation of Reefs, the
second is for the Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching issue, the third is for Substitution and
Management Alternatives using choice questions. These are the same questions as used in the
Resident Survey. Each respondent will be asked to participate in two of the three mailback
surveys. The respondent is told by completing and returning both questionnaires it will double
their chance in the sweepstakes/lottery. Which pair of mailbacks a particular respondent will
receive will alternate on different days. The objective will be to obtain sufficient sample sizes in
each season for each questionnaire.

33

Knowledge, Attitudes & Perceptions of Sanctuary Management Strategies and Regulations
and Non-market Economic Valuation of Reefs Mailback Questionnaire. The questions used in
each of the two modules of questions are the same as are included in the Resident Survey
discussed above. The difference for the visitor survey is the combination of modules of
questions. In the Resident Survey, nonmarket economic valuation of reefs was combined with
the expenditure module. There is a direct connection with trip expenditures and the additional
amount of expenditures people are asked to make in the choice questions. In the visitor
application, we don’t ask visitors to go through the details of providing their expenditures; we
just ask them to think about what it cost them on their current trip. We are not sure if this will
make any difference, since people should have a general idea of what their trip costs were and
should be able to judge the amount in addition we are asking them to pay for the different reef
protection programs.

An important difference between the resident and visitor surveys for the nonmarket economic
valuation of reefs is the randomly assigned dollar amounts. The amounts are greater than those
used for residents because of the much higher expenditures per person-trip by visitors. We use
the same values used in the 2000-2001 study of reefs.
Global Climate Change/Coral Bleaching. The same questions are used in both the stated
preference choice questions and contingent behavior questions sections as in the Resident
Survey. There are also four different versions as in the Resident Survey with each visitor asked
six choice questions so that 24 different combinations of management strategies out of the total
of 81 possible combinations of strategies are implemented. Randomly assigned dollar amounts
in each choice question are done in the same manner as described in the Resident Survey.

The difference between the Visitor and Resident Surveys is that, in the Visitor Survey, the
Importance-Satisfaction module of questions is used at the beginning of the mailback
questionnaire. This is done for two reasons. First, importance and/or satisfaction ratings may be
related to how people answer the choice questions. Second, the importance-satisfaction ratings
provide another dimension to check if the CUSTOMER sample is yielding “representative”
samples. This will be done by comparing importance and satisfaction scores from the
CUSTOMER survey with the Auto and Air components of the Auto, Air and Cruise Ship
Survey.
Substitution and Management Alternatives (Choice Questions). Again, the same questions are
used as in the Resident Survey for both the “Substitution” module of questions and the
Management Alternatives (choice questions).
By Whom

At this time we have not selected a contractor to implement the survey. Dr. Vernon R. (Bob)
Leeworthy is the project leader and Leader of the Socioeconomic Research & Monitoring
Program for the FKNMS. Bob will be the Contracting Officer’s Technical Representative
(COTR) on any contract to implement the survey. It hasn’t been decided yet whether Bob will
be involved in analysis and report writing or if all this will be done by contract. Hans HoeghGuldberg will be analyzing the data and developing reports for the Global Climate Change/Coral

34

Bleaching. Professor David Loomis leads the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Human
Dimensions Program and will be responsible for analysis and reports dealing with information
designed by his group.
How Frequently

This is a one-time application. The recreation/tourism study was recommended to be done
approximately every ten years. Some sub-components, importance-satisfaction ratings, are
recommended to be replicated every five years.

How Collection Complies with NOAA Information Quality Guidelines
Utility: Completing the approximate 10-year replication of the study on recreation/tourism will
demonstrate to the public that the FKNMS is living up to its commitments to implementing the
recommendations for the Socioeconomic Research & Monitoring Program for the FKNMS.
Completing of the study will also allow for the analysis of what some are calling “shifting
baselines”. What is meant by “shifting baselines” has to do with what people want from the
natural resources of the FKNMS. The study attempts to address this issue by tracking who
comprises the local resident and visitor populations, what activities they are undertaking, the
intensities of the activities (measured in person-days of activity), their importance/satisfaction
ratings on key natural resource attributes, their knowledge, attitudes and perceptions of
Sanctuary management strategies and regulations and how they value the natural resources in the
FKNMS. By taking a decadal look at trends in these measurements, we will be able to
investigate if there are fundamental changes in what people want from the natural resources in
the FKNMS. Ultimately this information will feed the adaptive management process.

Education and outreach is an important management tool in the FKNMS. The information
provided in this project will be an overwhelming boon to the Education and Outreach Program of
the FKNMS. Knowledge of who are the users of the FKNMS, their knowledge, attitudes and
perceptions of Sanctuary management strategies and regulations and, how users get their
information are all important in designing effective education and outreach efforts.
Economic valuation information is important for supporting both public and private investments
in the protection of the natural resources of the FKNMS and supporting damage assessments and
restoration efforts. While benefit-cost analyses of public investments, damage assessments, and
restoration efforts require net economic valuation measures, many local decision-makers are
more concerned with the economic impact in terms of local sales/output, income and
employment. So we provide this capability as well.
Integrity: Procedures have been established to protect the proprietary information provided by
all respondents to all surveys. All personal identification information is removed from all
databases to be sent to NOAA or distributed to the public. Each individual is assigned a database
identification number in the database so the data from different portions of the survey can be
linked for analysis. Personal identification information obtained to support awarding prizes in
the sweepstakes/lottery is destroyed after the prizes have been awarded. Release of proprietary

35

information is further protected by the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 522 (b) (4))
concerning trade secrets or proprietary information, such as commercial business and financial
records.
All project reports are converted to Read-Only in portable document format (pdf) before being
placed on the NOAA Web site for public dissemination.
Objectivity: All analyses and reports developed in this project will be peer reviewed before
release to the public. This is the NOAA standard for socioeconomic information under the
Information Quality Act. All survey modules of questions included in this project have all been
through peer review as well. Most of the survey questions have been tested and analyzed in
previous applications. New modules of questions have been peer reviewed.
3. Describe whether, and to what extent, the collection of information involves the use of
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological techniques or other forms of
information technology.

No automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological or other forms of information
technology are being used. All surveys are either conducted face-to-face and recorded on paper
forms or mail survey forms are used.
4. Describe efforts to identify duplication.

There are three major efforts either being planned or underway in Southeast Florida which
address the socioeconomics of reef use; the study proposed here, the Florida Reef Resiliency
Program, and the Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative. We have formed a steering committee
with representatives from each of these studies. We have all agreed to harmonize our studies to
avoid duplication, but most importantly to take consistent measurements when possible so as to
support larger area assessments and to make comparisons across areas. Sample designs and
questionnaires for all surveys are shared among projects. Dr. Vernon R. (Bob) Leeworthy is the
Leader of the Socioeconomic Research & Monitoring Program for the FKNMS. One of his
duties is to keep informed about what research is going on in the FKNMS. This project is a
multiple group partnership for the purpose of integrating efforts and avoiding duplication.
5. If the collection of information involves small businesses or other small entities, describe
the methods used to minimize burden.

The supply-side portions of this project require collection of information from Dive Shop
Owners/Operators and from cruise ship lines. Cruise ship lines may not technically be small
businesses but we treat them as such for purposes of this project. For both supply-side surveys,
we have designed simple post-card surveys with postage paid self addressed post cards with a
maximum of four questions.

36

6. Describe the consequences to the Federal program or policy activities if the collection is
not conducted or is conducted less frequently.

NOAA and the managers of the FKNMS have agreed to include socioeconomic monitoring in
the ecological monitoring program for the FKNMS. The information collection proposed here
delivers on items identified by the user groups as necessary elements of a socioeconomic
monitoring program. Many federal agencies that manage natural resources have been tasked by
the National Academy of Sciences to adopt adaptive management practices. Adaptive
management requires monitoring, both ecological and socioeconomic, to be able to assess what
is happening to both the natural resources and the humans that depend upon those resources.
The FKNMS has taken important steps along these lines and is living up to their compact with
the stakeholders that have participated in developing the management plan for the FKNMS and
have helped design the Socioeconomic Research and Monitoring Program. Not completing these
data collections would leave NOAA and the FKNMS in violation of these agreements.
NOAA, the Monroe County Tourist Development Council and The Nature Conservancy are in
the process of getting approved an interagency agreement which involves pooling resources
across the three entities to conduct this project. Not being able to live up to this agreement
would seriously jeopardize NOAA’s ability to build public-private partnerships to accomplish
NOAA missions.
7. Explain any special circumstances that require the collection to be conducted in a
manner inconsistent with OMB guidelines.

Data collection will be consistent with OMB guidelines.
8. Provide a copy of the PRA Federal Register notice that solicited public comments on the
information collection prior to this submission. Summarize the public comments received
in response to that notice and describe the actions taken by the agency in response to those
comments. Describe the efforts to consult with persons outside the agency to obtain their
views on the availability of data, frequency of collection, the clarity of instructions and
recordkeeping, disclosure, or reporting format (if any), and on the data elements to be
recorded, disclosed, or reported.

A Federal Register Notice (copy attached) solicited public comment on this collection. None
was received.
9. Explain any decisions to provide payments or gifts to respondents, other than
remuneration of contractors or grantees.

The Monroe County Tourist Development Council (TDC) sales force arranges for the prizes for
the sweepstakes/lottery. The sweepstakes/lottery prizes are provided by private businesses as
part of their contribution to the project. This is done for the resident mail survey and the
mailback portions of the visitor surveys. A local bank will operate the sweepstakes/lottery and
will award all prizes. The actual gifts listed in the sweepstakes/lottery are from the 1995-96
study. The list on the last page of each mail-back questionnaire is a placeholder. Since private

37

businesses are providing and awarding the prizes, the actual prizes have not yet been determined,
since the surveys aren’t scheduled to begin until June 15, 2007. Neither NOAA nor the TDC is
responsible for the prizes or the awarding of the prizes.

10. Describe any assurance of confidentiality provided to respondents and the basis for
assurance in statute, regulation, or agency policy.

In the visitor surveys, we provide a “Confidentiality Statement” that we ask survey participants
to read (On Green Card or Respondent Card of the Auto, Air and Cruise Ship Survey and the
Yellow Card or Respondent Card of the CUSTOMER Survey. In the mailback surveys for the
visitors and in the letters accompanying the mail surveys for residents, we inform survey
participants of how we protect the confidentiality of their information.
All survey respondents are assigned unique database identification codes so data can be linked to
follow-up mailback surveys and for quality analysis/quality control of the data. Any names,
addresses or telephone numbers obtained for purposes of survey follow-up efforts to increase
response rates or awarding prizes in the sweepstakes/lottery are eliminated from the databases
after all survey follow-up efforts have ended and sweepstakes/lottery prizes have been awarded.
This will be specified in the contract for implementation of the survey and development of
project databases.
We protect the privacy of survey respondents and the extent of confidentiality is assured by
exemption under the Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 522(b)(4) concerning trade secrets or
proprietary information, such as commercial business and financial records.
11. Provide additional justification for any questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual
behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered
private.

No questions included in any of the data collections proposed here would be classified as
sensitive. Most are standard questions used elsewhere. All identifying information for an
individual or business are considered sensitive to protect confidentiality and will not be included
in any of the data bases for release to the public.
12. Provide an estimate in hours of the burden of the collection of information.

We currently estimate the number of respondents will be 15,686, responses will be between
23,537 and 25,498 and burden hours will be between 9,242 and 10,540 depending on mailback
response rates (Table 3).

38

Table 3. Burden Hour Calculations
Survey
Completes
Respondent
Hours
________________________________________________________________________________
Visitor: Auto, Air & Cruise Ship
On-site
4,250
4 minutes
283.33
Mailbacks
4,038 - 4,463
15 minutes
1,009.5 - 1,115.75
Expenditure (45% Response rate)
1,913
15 minutes
478.25
Satisfaction (50% Response rate)
2,125
15 minutes
531.25
Expenditure (50% Response rate)
Satisfaction (55% Response rate)
Subtotal
Visitor: CUSTOMER
On-site

2,125
2,338
8,288 – 8,713

15 minutes
15 minutes

531.25
584.5
1,293 - 1,399

5,348

15 minutes

1,337
1,604.34 1,796.34

1,203
1,805

20 minutes
20 minutes

401
601.67

1,805

20 minutes

601.67

1,337
2,006

20 minutes
20 minutes

459
668.67

2,006
10,161 - 10,697

20 minutes

668.67
2,941 - 3,133
5,000 - 6,000

5,000
6,000
5,000 – 6,000

1 hour
1 hour

5,000
6,000

68
20
88
23,537 – 25,498

5 minutes
5 minutes

5.7
1.7
7.0
9,243 - 10,539

Mailbacks
KAP/Reef Valuation (45% Response
rate)
Coral Bleaching (45% Response rate)
Substitution/Management Alternatives
(45% Response rate)
KAP/Reef Valuation (50% Response
rate)
Coral Bleaching (50% Response rate)
Substitution/Management Alternatives
(50% Response rate)
Subtotal
Resident Mail Survey
All four samples/versions (50% response
rate)
(60% Response Rate)
Subtotal
Supply-side Surveys
Dive Shop Owners/Operators
Cruise Ships
Subtotal
Total - All Project Surveys

13. Provide an estimate of the total annual cost burden to the respondents or recordkeepers resulting from the collection (excluding the value of the burden hours in #12
above).

There will be no cost to respondents beyond burden hours.
14. Provide estimates of annualized cost to the Federal government.

Data collection, analysis and basic reports will take 2 to 3 years. Our “best” estimate of what we
think it will cost to get these tasks completed is about $541k. These costs are only the expected
extramural costs for the data collection, analysis and basic reports. Not all the extramural costs

39

are borne by the Federal government. The Monroe County Tourist Development Council will
provide $65k and The Nature Conservancy will provide $40k for a total non Federal contribution
of $105k of the $541k. Thus, the total Federal share of the extramural costs is equal to $436k.
Additional costs to the Federal government include the staff time of NOAA employees in
developing and overseeing the interagency agreement with project partners; developing survey
questionnaire, sample designs and support items; developing and overseeing contracts to conduct
surveys, do analyses and develop reports; develop data documentation on CD-ROM; post project
reports on NOAA web site in pdf; and travel to support setting up project with the community
and project partners. The total other costs to the Federal government are estimated at $26,700.
So the total project costs to the Federal government are estimated at $462,700 over a three year
period. When annualized, the costs are estimated to be $154, 233.
Total Project Cost to the Federal Government (Costs over three years):
Socioeconomic Monitoring Program – Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary:
recreation/Tourist Study
Contracts for Data Collectors…………………………………………..$436,000
NOAA Staff time in developing questionnaires, maps, interagency agreements and contracts:
a.
Development and oversight………………………………………$23,700
1. GS-14 Economist 300 hours * $71/hour………..... $21,300
2. GS-12 Economist 25 hours * $50/hour……….…….$1,200
3. Intern 80 hours * $15/hour………………….………$1,200
b.
Travel………………………………………………………………$3,000
Total Cost to Federal Government……………………………………..$462,700
Annualized Cost to Federal Government (Total Project Costs to the Federal government divided
by three years): $154, 233.
15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in Items 13 or
14 of the OMB 83-I.

This is a new program.
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and
publication.

Similar reports to those developed in 1995-96 and 2000-2001 will be developed summarizing the
results of the study. This includes separate reports and summaries for resident and visitor
populations. Executive summaries, full reports and technical appendices (how it was done) will
all be produced and posted on our web site in pdf. See our website for examples of 1995-96
work at http://marineeconomics.noaa.gov/SocmonFK/Linking.html#reports.

40

All reports will be peer reviewed per the NOAA standard under the Information Quality Act.
In addition to the above, some project results may be published in journals, since we have
academic partners. Also, other project partners, such as the Monroe County Tourist
Development Council (TDC) may have other special tabulations they want to produce over time
beyond the summaries mentioned above. The TDC will be provided with all data and
documentation on CD-ROM. This CD-ROM will also be made available to the general public,
subject to any masking of the data required to protect privacy. We (NOAA) are not in control of
what the TDC or others will publish.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the
information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.

OMB approval number and expiration date will be put on all questionnaires.
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in Item 19 of the
OMB 83-I.

No exceptions.

41