Investigating bias in recreational fishing surveys: Fishers listed in public telephone directories fish similarly to their unlisted counterparts (original) (raw)

Export / Share

Export / Share

Export / Share

Share this record

Export this record

PlumX

PlumX

PlumX

Altmetric

Altmetric

Altmetric

View Altmetric information about this item.

Teixeira, D., Zischke, M. T. and Webley, J. A.C. (2016)Investigating bias in recreational fishing surveys: Fishers listed in public telephone directories fish similarly to their unlisted counterparts. Fisheries Research, 181 . pp. 127-136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.04.012

Full text not currently attached. Access may be available via the Publisher's website or OpenAccess link.

Article Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fishres.2016.04.012

Abstract

Several recent offsite recreational fishing surveys have used public landline telephone directories as a sampling frame. Sampling biases inherent in this method are recognised, but are assumed to be corrected through demographic data expansion. However, the rising prevalence of mobile-only households has potentially increased these biases by skewing raw samples towards households that maintain relatively high levels of coverage in telephone directories. For biases to be corrected through demographic expansion, both the fishing participation rate and fishing activity must be similar among listed and unlisted fishers within each demographic group. In this study, we tested for a difference in the fishing activity of listed and unlisted fishers within demographic groups by comparing their avidity (number of fishing trips per year), as well as the platform used (boat or shore) and species targeted on their most recent fishing trip. 3062 recreational fishers were interviewed at 34 tackle stores across 12 residential regions of Queensland, Australia. For each fisher, data collected included their fishing avidity, the platform used and species targeted on their most recent trip, their gender, age, residential region, and whether their household had a listed telephone number. Although the most avid fishers were younger and less likely to have a listed phone number, cumulative link models revealed that avidity was not affected by an interaction of phone listing status, age group and residential region (p > 0.05). Likewise, binomial generalized linear models revealed that there was no interaction between phone listing, age group and avidity acting on platform (p > 0.05), and platform was not affected by an interaction of phone listing status, age group, and residential region (p > 0.05). Ordination of target species using Bray-Curtis dissimilarity indices found a significant but irrelevant difference (i.e. small effect size) between listed and unlisted fishers (ANOSIM R < 0.05, p < 0.05). These results suggest that, at this time, the fishing activity of listed and unlisted fishers in Queensland is similar within demographic groups. Future research seeking to validate the assumptions of recreational fishing telephone surveys should investigate fishing participation rates of listed and unlisted fishers within demographic groups.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Aboriginal people and Torres Strait Islander people are advised the journals and articles on this site may contain images or names of deceased persons in photographs or printed material. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander material and information accessed on this site may be culturally sensitive for some individuals and communities. Some material may contain language, terms, or descriptions that reflect the authors' views, or those of the period in which the item was written and may be considered inappropriate today. These views are not necessarily the views of the Department. While the information may not reflect current understandings, it is provided in an historical context.