National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife ... - All About Birds

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Appendix C.Significant Methodological Changes FromPrevious Surveys and Regional TrendsThe 2011 National Survey of Fishing,Hunting, and Wildlife-AssociatedRecreation (FHWAR) was designedto continue the data collection ofthe 1955 to 2006 Surveys. Whilecomplete comparability between anytwo Surveys cannot be achieved, thisappendix compares major findings ofall the Surveys and presents trends forthe major categories of wildlife-relatedrecreation where feasible. Differencesamong the Surveys are discussed in thefollowing two sections.The principal characteristics of the1955 to 2011 Surveys are summarizedin Table C-1. The table shows the scopeand design of all 12 Surveys.This appendix provides trend informationin two sections (1991 to 2011 and1955 to 1985). A significant changewas made in 1991 in the recall periodused in the detailed phase of theFHWAR Surveys. The recall periodin 1991 was shortened from the 12months used in previous Surveys to 4months in order to improve the accuracyof the data collected. As a resultof that change, the Surveys conductedsince 1991 cannot be compared withthose conducted earlier.The 1955 to 1985 Surveys requiredrespondents to recall their recreationactivities for the survey year at thebeginning of the following year. The1991 to 2011 Surveys went to therespondents two or three times duringthe survey year to get their activityinformation. The change in the recallperiod was due to a study 1 of theeffect of the respondent recall length1Investigation of Possible Recall/Reference Period Biasin National Surveys of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, December 1989, Westat, Inc.on survey estimates. The study foundsignificant differences in FHWARSurvey results using annual recallperiods versus shorter recall periods.Longer recall periods lead to higherestimates. Even when everything elsewas held constant, such as questionnairecontent and sample design,increasing the respondent’s recallperiod resulted in significantly higherestimates for the same phenomenon.The recall study also found that theextent of recall bias varied for differenttypes of fishing and hunting participationand expenditures. For example,annual recall respondents gave anestimate of average annual days of saltwaterfishing that was 46 percent higherthan the trimester recall estimate, whilethe annual recall estimate of averageannual saltwater fishing trips was 30percent higher than the trimester recallestimate. This means there is no singlecorrection factor for all survey estimateswhen calculating trends fromSurveys using different recall periods.Reliable trends analysis needs to usedata compiled from surveys in whichthe important elements, such as thesample design and recall period, are notsignificantly different.1991 to 2011 SignificantMethodological DifferencesThe most significant design differencesin the five Surveys are as follows:1. The 1991 Survey data wascollected by interviewers fillingout paper questionnaires. The dataentries were keyed in a separateoperation after the interview. The1996, 2001, 2006, and 2011 Surveydata were collected by the use ofcomputer-assisted interviews. Thequestionnaires were programmedinto computers, and the interviewerkeyed in the responses at the timeof the interview.2. The 1991 Survey screeningphase was conducted in Januaryand February of 1991, when ahousehold member of the samplehouseholds was interviewed onbehalf of the entire household.The screening interviews for the1996, 2001, and 2006 Surveys wereconducted April through June oftheir survey years in conjunctionwith the first wave of the detailedinterviews. The 2011 Survey alsoconducted screening interviews andthe first detailed interviews Aprilthrough June of 2011, but furthermorehad an additional screeningand detailed effort from February2012 to the end of May 2012. TheApril–June 2011 screening efforthad a high noncontact rate becauseof poor results using sample telephonenumbers obtained from aprivate firm. Census went back tothe noncontacted component of theoriginal sample in February-May2012 and interviewed a subsample,requiring annual recall for thoserespondents. The Wave 3 screensample was 12,484 of the total48,600 household screen sample. Amodification of the 2011 samplingscheme was to oversample countiesthat had relatively high proportionsof hunting license purchases.The screening interviews for all fiveSurveys consisted primarily of demographicquestions and wildlife-relatedrecreation questions concerning activityin the previous year (1990, 1995, etc.)and intentions for recreating in thesurvey year.108 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau
Table C-1. Major Characteristics of Surveys: 1955 to 2011Characteristic 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980Survey design:Screening interviewmode and populationof interest ..............Combined withdetailed phasePersonal interview, 12years old and olderPersonal interview, 9years old and olderMail questionnaire, 9years old and olderTelephone interview,6 years old and olderTelephone/personalinterview, 6 years oldand olderDetailed interviewmode and populationof interest .............. Personal interview, 12years old and olderPersonal interview,12 years old andolder. Substantialparticipants 1Personal interview,12 years old andolder. Substantialparticipants 1Personal interview, Mail questionnaire, 912 years old and years old and olderolder. Substantialparticipants 2Personal interview, 16years old and olderRespondent’s recallperiod ................. 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 year 1 yearSample sizes:Screening phase(households)............ 20,000 18,000 16,000 24,000 106,294 116,025Detailed phase(individuals):Fishing and hunting. . . . . . 9,328 10,300 6,400 8,700 20,211 30,291Wildlife watching 3 ....... (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 5,997Response rates:Screening phase .......... (NA) (NA) (NA) (NA) 95 percent 95 percentDetailed phase:Fishing and hunting. . . . . . (NA) 93 percent (NA) (NA) 37 percent 90 percentWildlife watching 3 ....... (X) (X) (X) (X) (X) 95 percentLevel of reporting ........... National National National National State andNationalState andNationalData collection agent .........PrivatecontractorU.S.Census BureauU.S.Census BureauU.S.Census BureauPrivatecontractorU.S.Census BureauSee footnotes at end of table.U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Census Bureau 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation 109
Page 1:
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service2011Nat
Page 4 and 5:
Economics and StatisticsAdministrat
Page 6 and 7:
List of TablesFishing and Hunting1.
Page 8 and 9:
ForewordWhen I was growing up, it w
Page 11 and 12:
Highlights
Page 13 and 14:
watching (observing, photographing,
Page 15 and 16:
Expenditures for Wildlife-Related R
Page 17 and 18:
Fishing
Page 19 and 20:
Fishing ExpendituresAnglers spent $
Page 21 and 22:
Freshwater Fishing ExpendituresAngl
Page 23 and 24:
pike, pickerel, and muskie, as well
Page 25 and 26:
Sex and Age of AnglersAlthough more
Page 27 and 28:
The majority of anglers had househo
Page 29:
2001-2011 Fishing Participants, Day
Page 32 and 33:
Hunting HighlightsIn 2011, 13.7 mil
Page 34 and 35:
Big Game HuntingIn 2011, a majority
Page 36 and 37:
Days per hunterTrips per hunterTrip
Page 38 and 39:
Hunting on Public and PrivateLandsm
Page 40 and 41:
Large MSA25%Medium MSA17%Percent of
Page 42 and 43:
Hispanics, who represent a growingp
Page 45 and 46:
Wildlife WatchingU.S. Fish and Wild
Page 47 and 48:
Wildlife-Watching ExpendituresThirt
Page 49 and 50:
Wildlife Fed, Observed, orPhotograp
Page 51 and 52:
Metropolitan and NonmetropolitanAro
Page 53 and 54:
Education, Race, and Ethnicity ofAr
Page 55 and 56:
Away-From-Home Participantsby Type
Page 57 and 58:
Away-From-Home WildlifeWatchers by
Page 59 and 60:
Metropolitan and NonmetropolitanAwa
Page 61 and 62:
2001-2011 Comparison of Wildlife-Wa
Page 63:
2006-2011 Wildlife-Watching Partici
Page 66 and 67:
Guide to Statistical TablesPurpose
Page 68 and 69: Table 3. Freshwater Anglers and Day
Page 70 and 71: Table 7. Hunters and Days of Huntin
Page 72 and 73: Table 8. Selected Characteristics o
Page 74 and 75: Table 9. Selected Characteristics o
Page 76 and 77: Table 10. Selected Characteristics
Page 78 and 79: Table 12. Expenditures for Fishing:
Page 80 and 81: Table 14. Trip and Equipment Expend
Page 88 and 89: Table 22. Special Equipment Expendi
Page 90 and 91: Table 25. Freshwater Anglers and Da
Page 92 and 93: Table 29. Hunters and Days of Hunti
Page 94 and 95: Table 33. Hunters Preparing for Hun
Page 96 and 97: Table 37. Participation in Wildlife
Page 98 and 99: Table 40. Expenditures for Wildlife
Page 104 and 105: Table 46. Total Wildlife-Related Pa
Page 106 and 107: Appendix A.DefinitionsAnnual househ
Page 108 and 109: State governments (such as State pa
Page 110 and 111: Appendix B.2010 Participation of 6-
Page 112 and 113: Table B-4. Most Recent Year of Fish
Page 114 and 115: Table B-7. Selected Characteristics
Page 116 and 117: Table B-9. Participation by 6-to-15
Page 120 and 121: Table C-1. Major Characteristics of
Page 122 and 123: Table C-2. Anglers and Hunters by C
Page 124 and 125: household income in the 2001Survey.
Page 126 and 127: Table C-4. Comparison of Major Find
Page 128 and 129: Table C-5. Anglers and Hunters by C
Page 130 and 131: Appendix D.Sample Design and Statis
Page 132 and 133: lation 6 to 15 years of age were de
Page 134 and 135: compute in advance the standard err
Page 136 and 137: Illustration of the Computation of
Page 138 and 139: Table D-2. Approximate Standard Err
Page 140 and 141: Table D-4. Approximate Standard Err
Page 143: U.S. Department of the InteriorU.S.
show all

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife ... - All About Birds

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?