2000 Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada

Methodology

Due to the administrative variability in licensing anglers across Canada , different approaches had to be used to conduct the survey across the 14 jurisdictions covered in the survey. This appendix provides general information regarding the methodological procedures associated with the 2000 survey. Detailed information at the jurisdictional level will be provided on request.

1. Sampling Procedures

General

In each jurisdiction, two surveys were conducted - one covering residents and one covering nonresidents. Residents were defined as those anglers living in the jurisdiction under study. Nonresidents were defined as visitors from other jurisdictions in Canada or foreign visitors. Except for resident anglers in Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador , resident and nonresident samples were selected using stratified, systematic random sampling of licence bases with stratification based on licence category. In British Columbia (freshwater) and in the Northwest Territories , licence strata were further stratified by the area in which the licences were sold. In Nova Scotia and Ontario , resident samples were further stratified by area of residence. In Nunavut , Canada 's newest territory, limited licence sales dictated that a census of licence-holder households be selected (to ensure no double counting of expenditure data). The sample sizes were determined from the reliability estimates for days fished for each stratum as calculated from the results of the 1995 Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada . In some jurisdictions, proposed sample sizes had to be adjusted uniformly downward to reflect budget availability.

Special

In Newfoundland and Labrador , a special sample of resident Atlantic salmon licence-holders was selected to ensure adequate sampling for special analyses of these important sub-populations required by the province. A similar effort was made in Quebec , but with special resident samples of both Atlantic salmon licence-holders and general licence-holders to augment the results found in the household pre-screening phase of the survey. These licences were stratified by administrative region of residence. The decision to select special resident samples to augment the pre-screening phase was made because results of earlier surveys had shown that there was inadequate information for certain licence types based solely on the pre-screening results. Augmenting the samples allowed for the detailed analyses required by both provinces.

Residents in Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador

Due to limitations in the licence bases available for residents of Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador , sampling for the populations of resident anglers was conducted by using household samples of the general population. The households in each province were geographically stratified. The required sample of angling households was determined in consultation with representatives of each province based on the distribution of angling households in the 1996 census. In Quebec, one addition administrative zone had been created since the previous survey The overall sample size was then determined using the proportion of angling households to all households in each geographic area as estimated for 1995 combined with reliability of days fished for each area in 1995. The sample size for the new administrative region in Quebec was based on a similar estimate of reliability for days fished, based on those administrative regions which were closest to, and parts of which had previously been part of, the new administrative region.

Households were pre-screened by telephone to determine eligibility for inclusion in the survey. Profiles were obtained by determining for each selected household the age (under/over base age for "adult" anglers in the province) and sex of all individuals residing in the household. It was then further requested for those individuals identified as "adults", how many in the household fished for recreation in 2000. In households where anglers were identified, one was selected at random to respond to the questionnaire. For verification purposes, the selected respondent was asked for the number of days fished in 2000.

The actual pre-screening operations were handled by private research firms under joint contract with DFO and the respective provincial governments. The results of the pre-screening were provided to the responsible agency and, subsequently to DFO for weighting procedures. Mailing labels for selected respondents to the survey were also provided for the fieldwork phase.

2. Field Procedures

Because the survey was conducted across 14 jurisdictions, strict adherence to a specific schedule was not possible. Most jurisdictions had completed the fieldwork phase by late April 2001. Delays occurred in some jurisdictions due to the operational constraints associated with the mailing requirements for large samples of anglers. In those jurisdictions, field operations began as soon as mailing labels were available (mid-February). These delays resulted in the cut-off dates being extended to July.

3. Manual Editing and Coding

Variations across questionnaires, as well as specialized identification requirements, dictated that all coding be provided on the documents by each participating agency before being sent to Ottawa for processing. In some cases, all that was required after assessing completeness of the questionnaire was identification coding on each document. In others, far more involved coding was required ranging from special codes for sub-components of questions to geographic codes in order to allow for sub-provincial/territorial data analysis.

A major requirement of this phase was to verify that the information provided by anglers was both reasonable and sound for the jurisdiction involved. This included assessing species caught by area as well as the availability of the specific species, determining whether or not the catch levels indicated were within acceptable limits, cross-checking administrative lists to eliminate substitutions (someone responding other than the designated respondent), etc. Once questionnaires had been completely assessed and coded, they were shipped to Ottawa for analysis.

4. Data Processing

Each jurisdiction forwarded their completed documents to each mailing to Statistical Services in Ottawa for processing. All documents were verified during the data entry phase, and those with significant levels of incomplete coding, missing information, etc. were set aside. Datacapture procedures were written in-house for each jurisdiction and the documents were then keyed under contract with NCS Pearson Canada , with this phase being completed by September 2001.

All data from the survey was processed using SPSS, Version 10. Programming was done by Statistical Services staff and consisted of:

• systematic editing procedures;
• substitution algorithms for missing data;
• preliminary data estimates for assessment by each jurisdiction;
• final data output programs covering all data collected; and
• special output programs for publication purposes.

5. Weighting Procedures

All output programs were weighted to ensure that the data provided population estimates. This procedure for most jurisdictions where licence sales were known was a simple application of inverse weighting by stratum (population of licence-holders divided by resultant sample). In all jurisdictions where additional stratification was done based on geographic information, adjustments were made on the basis of both licence-holding and geographic stratification. In jurisdictions where anglers could hold different types of licence, either by choice or due to regulations, adjustments to weighting were made to ensure that there was no double counting of anglers across licence types.

For residents of Quebec and Newfoundland a more complex procedure was required. First, it was necessary to estimate the total population by age-group and sex in each stratum based on the pre-screening data. Household weights, determined from the estimated households in each stratum divided by the sample of households pre-screened, were used to generate estimates of population. Of primary interest were the estimated populations of "adult" anglers by sex. The definition of "adult" varied with Quebec using 15 years of age and, Newfoundland , 18. Using the pre-screening data, it was possible to determine the proportion of anglers in each geographic area of each province.

The estimates of population in each stratum of interest were then compared to official statistics on population available from Statistics Canada. Population data was based on the 1996 census with post-censal estimates as at July 1, 2000 . The initial estimates of population and the respective estimates of anglers in each stratum were adjusted to reflect these statistics. Respondent weights for survey estimates were then derived using standard inverse weighting functions.

6. Post-Survey Adjustment Procedures

All participants were provided with the opportunity to request adjustments to survey results provided such adjustments were based on identifiable errors or changes required due to revised administrative information. While most jurisdictions had few adjustments, others required a considerable number of changes. Final revisions to the data were not completed until September 2002.

The area of primary concern to most jurisdictions was catch and retention of specific species by geographic area. Most errors were a result of incorrect identification of species and the changes were relatively straightforward. Another area where significant adjustments were required was refinement of population estimates. Most changes were made based on updated information on licence sales, however, in the two provinces where population samples had been used, a considerable number of refinements were requested to ensure that the estimated number of anglers was accurately reflected.

In Quebec and Newfoundland , adjustments were based on ranges of days fished as determined from the household pre-screening information as well as the distribution of Atlantic salmon anglers in each province. The latter adjustment was necessary since in both provinces, the Atlantic salmon angling population is a licensed activity. From previous surveys it was known that using population-based pre-screening invariably resulted in over-estimates within these populations.

7. Nonresponse Follow up

In a departure from previous surveys, a follow up survey, using a 20% sample of nonrespondents in the 2000 survey, was conducted by telephone. A list of 5,186 prospective respondents in all jurisdictions except Northwest Territories and Prince Edward Island , were contacted to SOM Inc. of Quebec City . Contacted anglers were asked why they did not respond and, if they were willing, provide us with the number of days fished, if any, and whether or not they kept any fish. A total of 3,629 anglers responded (70%). Based on these returns, only activity data for resident anglers in six jurisdictions was adjusted as follows:

• British Columbia Freshwater estimates reduced approximately 13%
• British Columbia Tidal Waters estimates reduced approximately 15%
• Alberta estimates reduced approximately 9%
• Saskatchewan estimates reduced approximately 13%
• Ontario estimates reduced approximately 12%
• New Brunswick estimates reduced approximately 10%

Resident expenditures in these jurisdictions were affected to a lesser degree due to the use of household weighting factors (adjustments were downward in the range of 5-9%).

No adjustments were made to nonresident information due to limited sample sizes in the follow up returns. In future, higher sampling rates will be used to ensure the availability of adequate samples to determine if adjustments to initial data must be made. Due to an oversight, the sample data for the Northwest Territories and Prince Edward Island was not entered into SOM's system during the telephone follow up. The error was discovered too late to consider calling nonrespondents in these two jurisdictions.

8. Statistical Reliability

While the 2000 Survey of Recreational Fishing in Canada was designed to provide reliable information on angling activity in the country, it is not possible to provide tables of statistical reliability for all estimates. Two tables are provided at the end of this appendix in which the sample sizes for each province and the reliability of key variables are presented. Since differing methodologies were used for the survey, reliability has been estimated as if all information had been developed from samples selected using simple random sampling. Because all sampling was based on stratified, systematic random sampling, these estimates of reliability may be considered as conservative.

Information on reliability is presented in terms of the coefficient of variation of the mean, at one standard deviation. Because exact estimates of variance cannot be calculated, the coefficient of variation of the mean is used as a proxy for the assessing the variability of the data. As can be seen from the tables, the smaller the jurisdiction (and by extension, a smaller sample), the higher the variability of the data collected. Also true is that there may be higher or lower variability depending on the type of data being considered. For example, the number of days fished tends to have lower variability than the total amount spent on major purchases merely because the range of days fished is quite narrow whereas expenditures have extremely wide ranges depending on the purchases made. Similarly, direct expenditures tend to have lower variability since the expenditure patterns are directly related to the fishing activity which occurred.

The ranges of coefficient of variation below provide guidelines as to the use of data:

It should be noted that under Statistics Canada's guidelines, data with CV's in excess of 33.5% would not be published.