The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

anked by an index of relative fishing pressure by mode, month, and weekday or weekend designation. For a given date, interviewers are assigned to a specific site and to a specific mode of fishing. Interviewers are also given two adjacent, alternate sites if a minimum number of interviews cannot be obtained at the original site assignment. Sampling for private/rental and party/charter modes is conducted after the angler’s fishing day has been completed. Sampling for the shore mode may be conducted when at least two-thirds of the fishing for the day has been completed and the angler then estimates total trip effort. The intercept sampling implies a three-stage-sampling framework. In stage one, a given site/day is randomly selected with probability of assignment proportional to the fishing pressure index of the site for that specific day (Cochran 1977). The second stage involves the selection of angling parties, boatloads, groups, or individuals, at the assigned site. Finally, stage three involves possible sub-sampling among the angling parties selected in stage two. Selection of parties (stage 2) and sub-sampling among parties (stage 3) is assumed random with equal probabilities. This allows the use of self-weighting estimators to obtain mean catch-per-trip estimates for each species across all strata. This intercept survey is a creel survey primarily used to estimate mean catch-per-trip by species. Data elements collected during the base part of the intercept survey include state, county, and zip code of residence, hours fished, primary area fished, target species, gear used, and days fished in the last two and 12 months. The creel portion of the survey collects length and weight of all fish species retained by the angler and the species and disposition of all catch not retained by the angler. For a given stratum, estimates of mean catch-per-trip multiplied by an estimate of the total number of trips (effort) equals the total catch for that stratum. The effort estimates are obtained through the second part of this survey process; the telephone survey of coastal households. Residential households are sampled randomly using the random digit dialing technique as described by Groves et al. (1988). All anglers in the contacted household are identified, and each is asked about their fishing activity for the previous two-month period. Multiple attempts are made to contact identified anglers. This survey is used to estimate effort by coastal residents living in households with telephones. Ratios from the intercept survey are used to correct these effort estimates to account for non-coastal residents and coastal residents who do not have telephones, as those groups are not covered in the household sampling frame. Data elements collected for this survey include the number of trips in the last two months and the number of trips in the last 12 months. For trips in the last two months, trip dates, mode, time of return, and state of access are also collected. In NMFS’ previous angler expenditure data collection efforts an intercept add-on survey was used to collect a few basic demographic characteristics and a respondent telephone number. The telephone number was then used to contact the angler to collect trip and durable expenditure information via a telephone follow-up survey. To increase sample sizes for the trip expenditure data, the trip-level questions were moved to the intercept add-on survey. This change in methodology reduced standard errors, increasing the precision of the trip expenditure estimates. 3
The economic intercept survey (Appendix 1) obtained overnight trip information, from those on overnight trips, including number of days away from residence, number of days spent fishing, lodging expenses, and the purpose of the trip. All anglers were asked travel costs, days of fishing in last two months, fishing ability, boat ownership, and trip supply expenditures (bait, ice, refreshments, boat fees, etc.). Interviewers attempted to collect trip expenditure data from every participant in the creel portion of the survey. In the states where the MRIP survey was conducted, a total of 110,719 economic add-ons were attempted and 99,755 contained at least a home zip code allowing the calculation of travel distance and private transportation expenditures (Table 1). Overall, 68,632 respondents (62.0%) completed the trip expenditure portion of the MRIP economic intercept survey and 20,679 of those respondents (30.1%) supplied a mailing address. Intercept survey participants supplying a mailing address were then sent a mail survey to obtain durable expenditure information. Mail Survey The MRIP mail follow-up survey was dedicated to the collection of durable expenditures, socioeconomic, and demographic data (Appendix 2). Expenditure data categories included semidurable goods (tackle, rods, reels, line, etc.), durable goods (motor boats and accessories, nonmotorized boats, boating electronics, mooring, boat storage, boat insurance and vehicles or homes) and angling accessories and multi-purpose items (magazines, club dues, saltwater angling specific clothing and camping gear). Also, the expenditure survey collected a set of socioeconomic and demographic variables. The switch to a mail survey in 2006 eliminated a number of concerns associated with collecting durable expenditure data over the telephone, as was done in the first round of angler expenditure surveys conducted by NMFS. These concerns included recall of detailed durable expenditures during a short telephone survey, the growing prevalence of cell phone only households, and falling response rates for telephone surveys in general. To compare how this change in methodology may have affected the results, both mail and telephone surveys were administered in the state of Florida. Results of the side-by-side comparisons are reported below. The mail survey followed a four contact methodology outlined in Dillman (2000) for MRIP intercepted anglers, Hawaii Commercial Marine License (CML) holders, and Texas saltwater license holders. The mailing sequence for these anglers included a pre-notification letter, a survey and cover letter, a reminder postcard, and a final survey and cover letter mailing. Hawaii CML holders were sampled because a CML can be purchased by recreational fishermen so that catch can be sold. Also, while the MRIP is conducted in Hawaii, the survey samples at lower sampling rates than on the mainland, and due to the nature of shore access on many of the islands, shore mode anglers can be difficult to contact. To augment the sample in Hawaii, the CML data base was utilized as well as voluntary angler sign-ups through tackle shops and various fishery events attended by NMFS personnel. 4
Page 1: The Economic Contribution of Marine
Page 4 and 5: Suggested citation: Gentner, Brad,
Page 6 and 7: LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Intercept a
Page 8 and 9: Table 39. Total Income Generated in
Page 10 and 11: Table 75. Total Income Generated in
Page 12 and 13: Table 111. Total Income Generated i
Page 14 and 15: Table 147. Total Employment Generat
Page 20 and 21: ABSTRACT Marine recreational fishin
Page 24 and 25: Mail survey questions in Hawaii wer
Page 26 and 27: (i.e., fishing tackle or gear), all
Page 28 and 29: at the stratum level so it was nece
Page 30 and 31: For the remainder of this report, U
Page 32 and 33: RESULTS Anglers’ expenditures and
Page 34 and 35: level of import requirements for an
Page 36 and 37: followed by Texas, North Carolina,
Page 38 and 39: Across all of the Pacific and North
Page 40 and 41: The $755.9 million spent on retail
Page 42 and 43: ethnicity (under both the Rao-Scott
Page 44 and 45: storage, and registration with a to
Page 46 and 47: Keynesian multipliers can also be u
Page 48 and 49: REFERENCES Archer, H.B. 1984. Econo
Page 50: APPENDIX I MRIP ECONOMIC INTERCEPT
Page 65: APPENDIX III LICENSE FRAME MAIL SUR
Page 79 and 80:
Table 2. Angler Effort in Thousands
Page 81 and 82:
Table 4. Recreational Expenditure S
Page 83 and 84:
Table 6. Results of Survey Mode Tes
Page 85 and 86:
Table 7. Mean Expenditures by Mode
Page 87 and 88:
Table 9. Total Economic Impacts Gen
Page 89 and 90:
Table 11. Total Value-Added Generat
Page 91 and 92:
Table 13. Total Employment Generate
Page 93 and 94:
Table 15. Federal and State Tax Imp
Page 95 and 96:
Table 17. Total Marine Recreational
Page 97 and 98:
Table 19. Total Sales/Output Genera
Page 99 and 100:
Table 21. Total Income Generated in
Page 101 and 102:
Table 23. Total Economic Impacts Ge
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
SOUTHEAST REGION TABLES Alabama Eas
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Table 100. Total Sales/Output Gener
Page 181 and 182:
Table 102. Total Income Generated i
Page 183 and 184:
Table 104. Total Economic Impacts G
Page 185 and 186:
Table 106. Mean Expenditures by Mod
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Table 110. Total Value-Added Genera
Page 191 and 192:
Table 112. Total Employment Generat
Page 193 and 194:
Table 114. Federal and State Tax Im
Page 195 and 196:
Table 116. Total Marine Recreationa
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Table 1034. Total Economic Impacts
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Table 176. Federal and Sate Tax Imp
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
PACIFIC REGION TABLES California Or
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
NORTH PACIFIC REGION TABLES Alaska
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
HAWAII TABLES 284
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
UNITED STATES TABLES 294
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321:
show all

The Economic Contribution of Marine Angler Expenditures in the ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?