在线上和在线上:与电话调查相比,对网络调查的无反应率更高,这代表了狂热的休闲钓鱼者

IF 2 3区 农林科学 Q2 FISHERIES
Karina L. Ryan, Stephen M. Taylor, Jeremy M. Lyle, Kate E. Stark, Sean R. Tracey
{"title":"在线上和在线上:与电话调查相比,对网络调查的无反应率更高,这代表了狂热的休闲钓鱼者","authors":"Karina L. Ryan,&nbsp;Stephen M. Taylor,&nbsp;Jeremy M. Lyle,&nbsp;Kate E. Stark,&nbsp;Sean R. Tracey","doi":"10.1111/fme.12752","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Recreational fishing surveys have an important role in providing data to inform fisheries management. The selection of a contact method is an important and often challenging consideration that influences the potential for non-sampling errors that can result in unrepresentative data and biased estimates. Telephones are used for many off-site recreational fishing surveys, but widespread use of digital technology suggests that online surveys could be a viable alternative. We compared phone surveys with alternative online surveys using probability sampling from a licence database. Response rates were lower for online surveys (13%–26%) than phone surveys (97%–98%). The proportion of respondents who reported marine fishing in the previous 12 months did not differ between survey methods (98% for both survey modes), but the proportion of avid fishers was higher for online surveys (41%–54%) than phone surveys (37%–40%). These differences reflect higher respondent burden for online surveys where data are self-administered and respondents are more likely to opt-out. Higher non-response and over-representation of avid fishers from online surveys may compromise data reliability. We recommend comparative studies to quantify and correct for biases when evaluating alternative survey modes for new or ongoing surveys.</p>","PeriodicalId":50444,"journal":{"name":"Fisheries Management and Ecology","volume":"32 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fme.12752","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On the Line and Online: Higher Non-Response to Web-Based Surveys Over-Represents Avid Recreational Fishers Compared With Telephone Surveys\",\"authors\":\"Karina L. Ryan,&nbsp;Stephen M. Taylor,&nbsp;Jeremy M. Lyle,&nbsp;Kate E. Stark,&nbsp;Sean R. Tracey\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/fme.12752\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Recreational fishing surveys have an important role in providing data to inform fisheries management. The selection of a contact method is an important and often challenging consideration that influences the potential for non-sampling errors that can result in unrepresentative data and biased estimates. Telephones are used for many off-site recreational fishing surveys, but widespread use of digital technology suggests that online surveys could be a viable alternative. We compared phone surveys with alternative online surveys using probability sampling from a licence database. Response rates were lower for online surveys (13%–26%) than phone surveys (97%–98%). The proportion of respondents who reported marine fishing in the previous 12 months did not differ between survey methods (98% for both survey modes), but the proportion of avid fishers was higher for online surveys (41%–54%) than phone surveys (37%–40%). These differences reflect higher respondent burden for online surveys where data are self-administered and respondents are more likely to opt-out. Higher non-response and over-representation of avid fishers from online surveys may compromise data reliability. We recommend comparative studies to quantify and correct for biases when evaluating alternative survey modes for new or ongoing surveys.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50444,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fisheries Management and Ecology\",\"volume\":\"32 3\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/fme.12752\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fisheries Management and Ecology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"97\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fme.12752\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"农林科学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FISHERIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fisheries Management and Ecology","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/fme.12752","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FISHERIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

休闲钓鱼调查在为渔业管理提供数据方面具有重要作用。接触方法的选择是一个重要且经常具有挑战性的考虑因素,它会影响非抽样误差的可能性,从而导致不具代表性的数据和有偏差的估计。电话被用于许多非现场的休闲钓鱼调查,但数字技术的广泛使用表明,在线调查可能是一个可行的选择。我们比较了电话调查和其他在线调查,使用来自许可证数据库的概率抽样。在线调查的回复率(13%-26%)低于电话调查(97%-98%)。在过去的12个月里,报告海洋捕鱼的受访者比例在不同的调查方式之间没有差异(两种调查模式均为98%),但在线调查(41%-54%)的狂热渔民比例高于电话调查(37%-40%)。这些差异反映了在线调查的受访者负担更高,因为在线调查的数据是自我管理的,受访者更有可能选择退出。在网上调查中,热心渔民的高无反应率和过度代表性可能会损害数据的可靠性。我们建议在评估新的或正在进行的调查的替代调查模式时进行比较研究,以量化和纠正偏差。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
On the Line and Online: Higher Non-Response to Web-Based Surveys Over-Represents Avid Recreational Fishers Compared With Telephone Surveys

Recreational fishing surveys have an important role in providing data to inform fisheries management. The selection of a contact method is an important and often challenging consideration that influences the potential for non-sampling errors that can result in unrepresentative data and biased estimates. Telephones are used for many off-site recreational fishing surveys, but widespread use of digital technology suggests that online surveys could be a viable alternative. We compared phone surveys with alternative online surveys using probability sampling from a licence database. Response rates were lower for online surveys (13%–26%) than phone surveys (97%–98%). The proportion of respondents who reported marine fishing in the previous 12 months did not differ between survey methods (98% for both survey modes), but the proportion of avid fishers was higher for online surveys (41%–54%) than phone surveys (37%–40%). These differences reflect higher respondent burden for online surveys where data are self-administered and respondents are more likely to opt-out. Higher non-response and over-representation of avid fishers from online surveys may compromise data reliability. We recommend comparative studies to quantify and correct for biases when evaluating alternative survey modes for new or ongoing surveys.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Fisheries Management and Ecology
Fisheries Management and Ecology 农林科学-渔业
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
77
审稿时长
12-24 weeks
期刊介绍: Fisheries Management and Ecology is a journal with an international perspective. It presents papers that cover all aspects of the management, ecology and conservation of inland, estuarine and coastal fisheries. The Journal aims to: foster an understanding of the maintenance, development and management of the conditions under which fish populations and communities thrive, and how they and their habitat can be conserved and enhanced; promote a thorough understanding of the dual nature of fisheries as valuable resources exploited for food, recreational and commercial purposes and as pivotal indicators of aquatic habitat quality and conservation status; help fisheries managers focus upon policy, management, operational, conservation and ecological issues; assist fisheries ecologists become more aware of the needs of managers for information, techniques, tools and concepts; integrate ecological studies with all aspects of management; ensure that the conservation of fisheries and their environments is a recurring theme in fisheries and aquatic management.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信