SUMMARY REPORT OF METHODS AND
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS FOR THE 1994
NORTHEAST REGION MARINE RECREATIONAL ECONOMICS SURVEY
CHAPTER 2
METHODS AND PROCEDURES
The economic survey was designed as an add-on to the MRFSS to take advantage of sampling, survey design, and quality control procedures already in place. The MRFSS is a long-term, monitoring program that provides estimates of effort, participation, and finfish catch by recreational anglers. The MRFSS survey consists of two independent, but complementary, surveys: a random digit-dial telephone survey of households and an intercept survey of anglers at fishing access sites. Economic questions were added onto each survey and a follow-up survey conducted over the telephone was designed to elicit additional socio-economic information from anglers who completed the add-on economic intercept survey. This document presents findings of the economic intercept survey and the subsequent economic follow-up telephone survey. Since results of the random digit-dial telephone survey questions will be utilized in the second phase of the research, these findings are not presented here.
Several non-periodic surveys have been conducted as add-ons to the standard MRFSS in California (1985-1986), along the coast from New York to Florida (1987-1988), and in the Gulf of Mexico (1990). The design of the 1994 economic survey is based upon results of the study conducted by the University of Maryland and the EPA from New York to Florida which tested the validity and efficacy of alternative survey questions and demand models.[9]
The sample area was the Northeast Region, which consists of two subregions: (1) New England (Maine-Connecticut), and (2) Mid-Atlantic (New York-Virginia). Data were collected from May through December in 1994 (MRFSS waves 3 through 6).[10] Allocation of sampling effort corresponded to the usual MRFSS sampling procedures--wave, state, and mode, as well as type of day (weekend or weekday) and months within a wave.
2.1 Add-On Economics Intercept Survey Instrument
The economics intercept survey of anglers was designed to follow the usual MRFSS intercept survey as an on-site add-on. The questionnaire solicited data about trip duration, travel costs, distance traveled, and on-site expenditures associated with the intercepted trip (Appendix B); these data will be used to develop angler or trip profiles and in the development of statistical models to estimate saltwater fishing values.
The economic survey was conducted by a private consulting firm[11] and administered to all marine recreational anglers intercepted in the field that were at least 16 years of age or older. Data were collected using the field sample procedures specified in the MRFSS Procedures Manual. The economic questionnaire was administered either at the completion of the MRFSS questions (before inspection of fish) or after all available fish were identified and biological measurement had been obtained. As in the MRFSS, all survey participants, with the exception of beach-bank shore anglers, must have completed their fishing for the day. Table 2-1 contains a breakdown of the number of MRFSS interviews obtained by state and the subsequent number of associated economic interviews. A total of 33,117 economic intercepts were attempted in the Northeast Region. Of these 22,594 economic intercepts were fully completed. Approximately 10 percent of the surveys (3,364) were terminated because of initial refusals or interviewees under the age of 16. The remaining 7,151 surveys were not completed because individuals refused to answer certain key questions.[12]
2.2 Economic Telephone Follow-Up to Intercept Survey Instrument
The economics telephone follow-up was designed to elicit additional socio-economic information from anglers who completed the add-on economics survey. The questionnaire targeted two distinct groups of anglers: (1) anglers who targeted--not merely caught--bluefish, striped bass, black sea bass, summer flounder, Atlantic cod, tautog, scup or weakfish and (2) anglers that targeted other species and happened to catch any of these eight species (Appendix C). The questionnaires solicited data and information about recreational fishing avidity, attitudes, and experience.
Anglers were screened for willingness to participate in the telephone follow-up survey at the time of field intercept. The name and telephone number of individuals willing to participate in the follow-up were obtained at the time of the initial interview. If an angler agreed to participate in the follow-up phone survey, telephone interviewers contacted the angler within three weeks of the date of the intercept survey. Four attempts were made to contact an eligible angler intercepted in the field. Two versions (long and short) of the telephone follow-up survey were administered to participants. The entire version (long) was administered to first time participants. If an angler was intercepted in the field more than once and had previously completed the long telephone follow-up, the angler was asked a shorter version of the follow-up on subsequent calls. Final results of the telephone follow-up survey are summarized in Table 2-2. A total of 14,868 follow-up surveys were attempted in the Northeast Region. Of which 8,226 ( 55%) interviews were completed. Refusals, wrong numbers and households that could not be reached in four calls comprised the remaining 45 percent of the interviews.
2.3 Training and Data Collection
The interviewing staff at QuanTech consisted of existing MRFSS interviewers and thus were experienced in general field and telephone interviewing techniques. Prior to conducting the economic surveys, all staff received economic survey training and were evaluated by experienced supervisors based on their performance during training sessions. Those interviewers who passed certain evaluation criteria were kept on staff.[13]
Computerized logic checks were developed as part of the data entry system to alert the data entry staff to any obvious coding errors. Manual and computer based edit checks were performed weekly and interviewers were informed of errors and retrained as necessary to avoid repeated errors. Additional computer based edit checks were performed by Northeast Fisheries Science Center staff upon obtainment of the data.