United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office O1 Water
(WH-585)
EPA822/R-92-001
February 1992
vvEPA
Consumption Surveys For
Fish And Shellfish
A Review And Analysis
Of Survey Methods
X,.'.". Pnnted on Recycled Paper
-------
Consumption Surveys For
Fish And Shellfish
A Review And Analysis
Of Survey Methods
February 1992
Prepared For:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Science and Technology
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
EPA Contract No. 68-C9-0013
For additional copies of this
publication write:
Fish Contamination Workgroup
401 M Street, SW (WH-585)
Washington, DC 20460
or phone; 202-260-70*'
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Summary v
Acknowledgements vii
I. Introduction 1
II. Survey Approaches 7
Recall - Telephone Survey 8
Recall - Mail Survey 10
Recall - Personal Interview 14
Diary 17
Creel Census 18
III. Important Method Considerations 23
Survey Design 25
Selection of Respondents 27
Information Sought 28
Quality Assurance 31
Statistical Analyses 32
IV. Discussion 35
V. Bibliography 37
Appendix - Summary of Survey Methods Information 49
-------
IV
-------
SUMMARY
Although several studies have demonstrated that fish and shellfish consumption rates differ both
regionally and within specific subpopulations, most States do not have available sufficient data to
calculate local consumption rates or to identify special populations at risk. Examples of these special
populations are recreational and subsistence anglers and members of their households-in particular,
women of child-bearing age, children, and the elderly-who frequently consume fish obtained from
contaminated sites. This report was designed as a critical assessment of fish tissue consumption
rate survey approaches and methods and their applicability for estimating consumption rates in
recreational and subsistence fishing populations. Additional information is provided to assist
Federal and State agencies in developing appropriate surveys to answer questions and resolve issues
related to the fish consumption rates of special populations.
Five approaches to obtaining fish consumption data were reviewed: (1) recalled information collected by
telephone; (2) recalled information collected by in-person (face-to-face) interviews; (3) recalled
information requested on self-administered mailed questionnaires; (4) diaries maintained by anglers;
and (5) on-site creel censuses. The effectiveness of the approach used to obtain adequate information for
fish consumption rate calculations varied with the objective(s) of the survey. For example, creel censuses
usually failed to collect data on consumption. Many surveys combined two or more approaches in order to
maximize the number of respondents or validate the information obtained. Several studies addressed actual
contaminant exposures through physical examinations and measurement of blood serum levels of contami-
nants, while others investigated risk perception and compliance with fish consumption advisories and bans by
the targeted anglers.
Five elements common to all surveys have been identified, and specific methodological details are
provided to help solve problems that may be encountered when undertaking a fish consumption
survey. (1) Survey design must address the purpose for which the survey is to be conducted, the
resources available for carrying it out, including time and funding available, and the approach to be
used. (2) Survey participants should be identified from a pool of subsistence or recreational anglers,
and the method by which the sample is selected may vary depending on the approach that will be
used to collect the data and how the data will be analyzed. (3) The information to be collected
should examine sociodemographic factors that may influence fish consumption rates, as well as
those factors that are needed to calculate fish consumption rates, minimizing the number of
assumptions that could compromise results. The survey length and complexity should be carefully
considered in order to elicit maximum cooperation from respondents. (4) Appropriate quality
assurance procedures need to be developed before beginning the survey, and quality control must
be carefully monitored during the survey to ensure the validity of the data before statistical analyses
are conducted. (5) Data processing procedures and statistical analyses should be performed to
provide the desired information and correlations.
-------
VI
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document was compiled by Esther Peters, under the direction of Clyde Houseknecht, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), with assistance from Andrew Zacherle, Paula
Stouder, and Mary Beth Corrigan of Tetra Tech, Inc. Alison Greene, Richard Hoffmann,
Elizabeth Southerland, and Quentin Stober of the USEPA reviewed drafts of the manuscript.
Additional comments were received from Chuck Cox, Ministry of the Environment, Toronto,
Ontario, Canada; Ellen Ebert, ChemRisk, Portland, ME; Beth Jones Fiore, Wisconsin Depart-
ment of Health and Social Services, Madison, WI; Patricia Guenther, U. S. Department of
Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD; Barbara Knuth, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY; Pamela Shubat,
Minnesota Department of Health, Minneapolis, MN; and Patrick West, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI. Representatives of Federal and State agencies contributed to the development
of the issues and information requirements presented in Table 1.
VII
-------
Vlll
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Concern over potential human health risks associated with chemically-
contaminated fish and shellfish* has led many States to issue consumption
advisories and bans in an effort to limit exposures to certain organic com-
pounds and metals that may become concentrated in the tissues of these
organisms. However, the processes and procedures by which States issue
fish consumption advisories and bans have varied. In a recent effort to
evaluate the fish advisory process in the States, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) provided a grant for the American Fisheries
Society (AFS) to conduct a survey of State fish advisory practices (Cunning-
ham et al., 1990). In the survey, State representatives were asked to describe
their fish advisory process and procedures, to identify State concerns related
to the advisory process, and to recommend actions that could be undertaken
by the Federal government to improve the effectiveness of the advisories.
To follow up on the State recommendations for Federal action, EPA invited
officials from State agencies to attend a Federal-State Forum on August 30,
1990, in Pittsburgh. Representatives of agencies from 27 States and the
District of Columbia, as well as several Federal agencies, including EPA, the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS),
the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), and the Agency for Toxic Sub-
stances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) were present. The agenda for the
Forum contained a list of the Federal action items identified in the AFS
survey. Participants were asked to rank proposed Federal action items as
short- or long-term priorities and to recommend other action items not
previously identified in the survey. Each participant was also requested to
submit the three action items that were most important to his/her program.
The second most frequently requested short-term action item contributed by
Forum participants was to conduct surveys/studies to assess the fish con-
sumption rates of various subpopulations in different regions of the country
(Southerland, 1991).
Fish consumption rates differ throughout the country and for specific sub-
populations (e.g., Hu, 1985). The use of an "average" consumption rate for
typical households, recreational anglers, and subsistence anglers may not
""Hereafter, in this document, "fish" and "fishing" will include shellfish and
shellfishing, except where specific surveys are discussed.
-------
and subsistence anglers may not accurately reflect the local consumption rate
in a particular subpopulation and may overestimate or underestimate the risk
associated with the consumption of contaminated fish tissue by different
members of households. Presently, most States do not have available suffi-
cient data to calculate local consumption rates or identify special populations
at risk. As a result, a variety of methods are used for estimating consumption
rates when calculating risk associated with the consumption of chemically-
contaminated fish tissue (USEPA, 1989). To further complicate the issue,
recreational anglers may catch fish from contaminated sites for sport, but not
consume them, while subsistence anglers may be obtaining a large proportion
of their diet from contaminated resources because they cannot afford to
purchase other foods. There are also commercial-type subsistence fishing
operations, which obtain fish on a larger scale to provide these items to
communities. The amount of time spent in these activities may vary depend-
ing on the weather and the state of the fishery (seasonal restrictions, for
example).
Human exposures to chemical contaminants (e.g., dioxins or poly chlorinated
biphenyls from industrial sources, pesticides from nonpoint sources, or
mercury from natural sources) through fish consumption are a function of
the quantities of these foods consumed by humans as well as the ability of
different species of fish to bioconcentrate the chemicals of concern. The
EPA, FDA, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS/NOAA), and other
organizations are responsible for monitoring the chemicals found in these
organisms. A number of recent studies, however, have pointed out that the
national surveys that are the basis for many human health risk assessments
fail to target some of the potentially most high-risk populations, including
recreational and subsistence anglers and their families.
Early studies of fish consumption provided only limited data (e.g., Nash,
1971; Hu, 1985). Although the number offish meals was tallied, socioeco-
nomic or demographic questions were usually limited and no distinction was
made between recreationally (self-caught) and commercially harvested (in-
cluding processed/canned) fish consumed. Furthermore, in these early stud-
ies there was usually no characterization of types of fish consumed (an
exception was the National Marine Fisheries Service Survey 1973-74).
Surveys were either specific to particular regions of the country or national
in scope (nonspecific). Thus, while these databases did provide important
information on consumers and frequency of consumption of various fish
products, there was no effort to identify subsistence and recreational anglers
obtaining their catches from polluted waters. Regionally specific data could
not be used in consumption rate calculations for other areas of the country,
(Rupp et al., 1980). Another review by SRI International (1980) found that
the most reliable source of data on human fish consumption was the National
Purchase Diary Fish Consumption Survey, a national questionnaire survey
conducted during 1973-74 by NPD Research Inc. SRI performed additional
-------
tabulations of the corrected data to obtain mean consumption rates for various
demographic categories and fish species.
Wagstaff et al. (1986) examined three types of national studies: (1) commer-
cial production data on landings, imports, and exports of food fish; (2) surveys
of food (including fish) intake; and (3) surveys specific for fish intake. Commercial
fish production data failed to include commercial freshwater fish, recreationally
caught fish, or marine fish sold at roadside stands (see also report by SRI
International, 198O, Kleiman, 1985). General food intake surveys were limited in
scope, season, or demographic and socioeconomic data. Specific fish intake
surveys, based on weekly diaries for periods up to a year, included all fish meals,
whether caught or bought, but recreational catch information was sparse to
nonexistent Although estimates of per capita fish consumption based on these
surveys were similar, Wagstaff et al. (1986) concluded that improved survey
design and implementation of quality control in conducting, documenting, and
reporting the results of such a survey were needed. Fisher (1988) reviewed nine
early surveys and found that none of them provided the data needed to estimate
usual or heavy fish intake or to examine recreationally-caught and consumed fish
species. Hence, these surveys had only limited value in determining diet/health
relationships or performing risk assessments associated with fish consumption.
He noted, however, that because studies suggested an upward trend in per capita
consumption, more recent and more detailed information was needed "either by
expansion of currently planned nutrition surveys or by focused efforts to obtain
such data from surveys on fish consumption."
Despite the numerous limitations of these early studies, calculations of fish
consumption rates suggested that certain subpopulations, based on race,
ethnic origin, age, sex, income, and residence, did consume more fish than
other groups. More recent surveys of Michigan sport anglers and their
families by West et al. (1989a,e) revealed that minorities from cities, rural
Native Americans, and the elderly also caught and consumed more fish.
Some recent surveys have attempted to link fish consumption rates to
epidemiologic studies of health status (USEPA, 1984b) or body burden levels
of contaminants (Fiore et al., 1989). These studies and observations of
fishing activity at known chemically-contaminated sites (e.g., Puffer et al.,
1982a,b; Belton et al., 1985; Smith and Enger, 1988; Smith and Thompson,
1989) indicated that more detailed surveys targeting subsistence and recrea-
tional anglers were warranted to improve calculations of fish consumption
rates and risk assessments for specific subgroups (Table 1). Such informa-
tion is important for determining the success of advisories and bans issued
to reduce health risks from eating contaminated fish and/or of changing
waterbody management policies to reduce or el iminate toxic chemical inputs.
EPA recognizes that studies of fish consumption patterns need to be con-
ducted to update current information and to focus on potentially high-risk
geographical or cultural populations. To address this need, EPA has
-------
TABLE 1. ISSUES AND INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS
FOR FISH CONSUMPTION SURVEYS
Sociodemographic Characteristics of Angler:
• Age
• Occupation/employment status
• Income level
• Education level attained
• Number of household members
• Race/ethnic group, sex, age, height, and weight of the fisherman and each
household member
• Pregnancy/lactation status of women in the household
• Language spoken at home
• City of residence
Fishing Activities:
• Location(s) of fishing activities (specific sites, type of waterbody)
• Distance(s) of fishing activities from principal residence
• Seasonal and temporal distribution of fishing activities (total number of days
per season, which months of the year, for each location)
• Fishing effort (hours/outing, hours/day, outings/month, days/month)
• Purpose for fishing (consumption, sport only: catch and return, etc.)
• Mode of fishing (nets, traps, hook and line, etc.; pier, shore, private boat,
charter boat, SCUBA)
• Type of fish captured (general category such as bottomfish, flatfish; or iden-
tified to species or group of species)
• Numbers of fish captured per outing by species
• Size ranges of fish captured (minimum and maximum weights and lengths
by species)
• How the fish were disposed of (released, consumed by household, sold ,
given away)
• How long involved in fishing activities and consuming self-caught fish (new
to sport or years
-------
TABLE 1. Continued
Preparation and Consumption Patterns:
• Portions of fish consumed (may vary with the species)
• How the fish were prepared for eating (skinned, fillet, steak, shucked, etc.)
• How fish were cooked (baked, fried, steamed, etc.)
• Amounts (weight) of wild-caught fish eaten per meal/day/week/month for
each person in household
• Special cultural/ethnic practices in fish consumption and preservation
• Consumption offish purchased in supermarkets, fish markets, or roadside
stands; purchased at the dock; or obtained by bartering (amounts, fre-
quency)
• Consumption of other aquatic organisms, waterfowl, or wildlife that may
have consumed fish from same sites (amounts, frequency)
• Fish frozen or preserved and eaten throughout the year or eaten only when
fresh
• Participation in food assistance program
• Source of home water supply
• Voluntary risk patterns (smoking, drinking)
Fish Consumption Advisory Awareness and Understanding:
• Has the angler heard, from announced fishing bans or posted notices, of
the possible contamination offish by chemical or biologic agents in areas
where presently fishing or where planning to fish?
• If the answer to the previous question is yes, has it affected his/her fishing
activities, fish preparation methods, or consumption patterns?
• What, if anything, would stop the angler from eating the fish that he/she has
caught?
• Did the angler ever get sick from eating self-caught/self-prepared fish or
shellfish?
- Did the angler ever observe any abnormalities, internal or external, in cap-
tured fish? If so, were the fish consumed, thrown out, or given away?
-------
implemented a three-phased approach for assisting the States in estimating
fish tissue consumption rates in potentially high-risk populations. This
approach includes the following steps:
- Review and critically evaluate existing fish tissue consumption rate
survey methods and determine their applicability for estimating consump-
tion rates in recreational and subsistence fishing populations.
• Conduct a workshop for the States presenting the results of the review and
critical evaluation offish tissue consumption survey methods.
• Provide direct support to the States in conducting fish tissue consumption
surveys, targeting recreational and subsistence anglers.
This document was prepared to meet the first step in this process. Existing
literature concerning fish tissue consumption was reviewed, and selected
surveys were evaluated to identify approaches (recall vs. diary vs. creel
census) and methods for survey design and analysis. The purpose of this
report is to assess the attributes and shortcomings of these approaches and to
explore the underlying methods involved in designing and conducting fish
consumption surveys. The report also discusses the types of questions that
need to be answered if we are to understand fish consumption patterns in
high-risk populations (Table 1). It does not, however, recommend a specific
protocol for use by the States. The methods, approaches, and questions
chosen will depend on the goals, objectives, and situations of the particular
State and may also vary for the high-risk subpopulation to be investigated.
Therefore, a variety of options and guidelines for designing and executing
surveys is presented. This document is intended to assist Federal and State
agencies in revising surveys so that the types of information needed for valid
statistical analyses to adequately address human health risks in subsistence
and recreational anglers and their families can be collected efficiently and
cost-effectively. Survey professionals from government, academia, and/or
private industry should also be consulted to ensure a successful survey.
-------
II. SURVEY APPROACHES
A variety of approaches has been used in attempts to develop appropriate
estimates of fish consumption rates. Fisher (1988) examined techniques for
obtaining data for a "national" sample of individuals and for samples of
subpopulations that might be more frequent fish consumers. He noted that
the complex problem of estimating fish consumption for possible assessment
of diet/health relationships and risks associated with the use of fish as food
required consideration of the following:
• Sociodemographic characteristics of consumers;
• Geographic and seasonal variations in consumption;
• Species of fish and geographic origin of species consumed;
• Parts of fish consumed; and
• Quantities consumed.
The approaches to collecting data on fish consumption were categorized as
follows:
• Indirect - data collected on food disappearance into marketing channels
or households (the unit of observation) and
• Direct - data collected on actual food use or food consumed by a variety
of methods (i.e., the household or individual intake is the variable mea-
sured).
Indirect techniques were usually deemed unsuitable for small-scale studies
and did not allow for correction of waste or individual intakes. Direct
techniques, such as food diaries or records, weighed intake, dietary recall,
food frequency, and duplicate portion studies, provided individual consump-
tion data but were more labor-intensive in both data gathering and analysis.
More information on the attributes and limitations of direct approaches to
quantification of daily consumption by individuals was provided in Ander-
son (1986).
Five different approaches to conducting surveys of subsistence and recrea-
tional anglers were identified during this review of recent fish consumption
surveys. In this section, each approach will be described and the advantages
and disadvantages presented. Four categories of information needs similar
to those listed above by Fisher (1988) have been compiled and are presented
in Table 1, These categories include questions that need to be answered or
issues that need to be resolved in order to be able to calculate fish consump-
tion rates for special populations. The questions were derived from recent
-------
fishing/shellfishing surveys and comments from representatives of Federal
and State agencies and other organizations. Although the types of data on
sociodemographic characteristics, fishing activities, preparation and con-
sumption patterns, and fish advisory awareness and understanding will be
discussed in more detail below, the ability of each approach to adequately
address these information needs will be examined in this section, in particu-
lar:
• Can the approach assess region-specific (rather than national) consump-
tion rates?
• Can the approach target and identify specific subpopulations of concern
(i.e., subsistence and recreational anglers)?
The use of any particular approach will depend on the specific objectives of
the study and the questions asked, as well as other factors. These will be
discussed further in Chapter in, Important Method Considerations.
Recall - Telephone Survey
The telephone survey recall approach consists of making contact with
respondents by telephone and asking questions to elicit information on
current or recent fishing trips and fish consumption. The answers are
recorded directly on preprinted questionnaires, usually by interviewers work-
ing from one central location under the supervision of an experienced
researcher. Although this approach "is rapidly becoming the principal
method of collecting survey data in research situations where probing or
in-depth exploration of the issues is not required" (USEPA, 1984a), interest-
ingly, none of the surveys reviewed relied exclusively on data collected by
telephone interviews. Instead, these surveys combined this technique with
either on-site personal interviews or mailed questionnaires. A comparison
study of different protocols examined by USEPA (1984a) found thai a
telephone interview based on a written questionnaire previously mailed to
the respondent was the most effective approach because the respondent had
time to review the questions and survey information. Often, the telephone
was used to gather information on non-response bias or to confirm, adjust,
or add to data collected in the field (see West, 1989b; National Marine
Fisheries Service, 1991). Telephone surveys may minimize recall bias and
achieve a better overall response than mail surveys because the personal
contact involved may encourage the respondent's participation and jog
his/her memory.
Telephone surveys may be appropriate for collecting certain types of infor-
mation where long-term recall or familiarity with certain facts is not required
(such as species names offish caught/consumed). SRI International (1980)
found that a 7-day recall period could be quite inaccurate; however, West et
-------
al. (1989b) observed that a 7-day recall period was as accurate as 1-day recall
(see discussion under "Recall - Mail Survey"). Fisher (1988) found that
single-day, 24-hr recalls could be used to estimate mean intakes of population
groups if the days were distributed throughout the year and if the survey
population were large enough. Although large numbers of respondents could
often be reached at a cost savings over personal interviews (e.g., the National
Marine Fisheries Service studies), the types of information that could be
reliably collected by this approach were limited. For example, anglers may
not divulge their fishing sites or give accurate answers to certain
sociodemographic questions. To maintain cooperation, each interview
lasted no longer than 10 minutes and therefore the questions were few
(although other successful telephone surveys have used longer interviews).
Hence, the surveys examined in this review usually relied on other ap-
proaches as their primary means of gathering data.
A number of problems were found in the use of telephone surveys, including
difficulty in scheduling to make contact with selected respondents, absence
of respondents at time of calling, unlisted numbers, and lack of a phone. The
last could be a problem when trying to include low-income, suspected
subsistence, anglers in the sample. Wendt (1986) observed that low-income
anglers consumed more freshwater fish than those with higher incomes.
List-assisted dialing, in which respondents were identified from lists of
licensed anglers or participants in fishing tournaments, or other such pre-
selected lists, was considered to be better than random-digit dialing tech-
niques (see Brown, 1981, for an example of the latter) because specific
populations of anglers could be more easily identified. Computer-assisted
survey techniques (e.g., Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing or
CATI, USEPA, 1984a) may be more efficient and less prone to errors made
when transferring written data to computers since printed questionnaires are
not used and the information is directly entered into the computer during the
interview. If extensive narrative questioning is the basis of the survey,
however, the use of CAT! could compromise data collection. Verification
of the information given is important and could require much additional
work.
Advantages:
• The telephone survey can assess region-specific consumption rates, de-
pending on how the respondents are selected, i.e., determined by residence
or proximity to a particular waterbody.
• This approach can target and identify specific subpopulations of concern
when these populations can be preselected on some basis or when specific
limiting questions are included on the surveys.
• This approach is generally less expensive (by approximately one-half)
and less time-consuming than personal interviews (since less training of
-------
interviewers is required and travel costs are not necessary), so large
numbers of respondents may be contacted (see USEPA, 1984a).
• A high rate of success for completing interviews is likely, although the
sucess rate is 5 percent lower than that for personal interviews (USEPA,
1984a) because of lack of personal contact.
• Sensitive information may be obtained more easily than with other
approaches.
• This approach provides immediate responses to questions, so analyses
may be completed more quickly.
Disadvantages:
• Interviewers cannot reach people who do not have phones or those with
unlisted numbers.
• Interviews may need to be limited in scope and length, so the number of
questions must be carefully chosen.
• It is difficult to verify information given.
To Solve These Problems:
• Use telephone interviews only as a follow-up to collecting information by
other approaches.
• Use other approaches to contact low-income people.
• Use random-digit dialing to reach those with unlisted numbers (USEPA,
1984a), although considerably more effort may be required to reach
members of the target population.
• Have one very specific objective for the survey, such as fishing activities
or fish consumption patterns, to limit the number of questions.
• Carefully design the survey to examine specific subpopulations and
carefully prepare the questions to be asked to obtain optimal responses
and to serve as self-checks on information given.
• Use combined mail/telephone techniques to provide questions and visual
aids or other information prior to contact.
Recall - Mail Survey
A number of surveys used self-administered mailed questionnaires to obtain
information from recreational anglers. As noted by USEPA (1984a), these
mail surveys are best for collecting detailed technical data, especially if the
respondents need to think about the questions or consult their records. The
types of information ranged from simple creel census harvest/angler use data
(Swanson and Stephenson, 1982) to more detailed data on fish meals
consumed by the household and methods of cooking. The Wisconsin survey
10
-------
(Fiore et al., 1989) additionally obtained blood samples for chemical analyses
from some of the respondents who agreed to participate in a follow-up study.
A mail survey by Diana (1989) investigated behavioral groupings that
indicated compliance with fish consumption advisories and respondents'
knowledge of the fish contaminant situation. The available sample popula-
tion for mail fish consumption surveys was most often identified from
records of anglers holding State fishing licenses and was sometimes geo-
graphically stratified to target those anglers nearest waterbodies of concern
(e.g., the Great Lakes, coastal counties, specific rivers). The actual costs
associated with this method will vary with the length of the survey and
number of questionnaires sent, the number of reminders, and the type of
follow-up performed.
Success rates for the return of completed questionnaires varied widely. SRI
International (1980) considered an 80 percent response rate to be acceptable,
but many surveys fell far short of this goal. Cox, et al., (1987) distributed
three sets of questionnaires with the Guide to Eating Ontario Sport Fish. In
1978, questionnaires were sent randomly to people who had requested a
guide in response to newspaper advertising and 876 (44%) responses were
received. In 1983 and 1986, the questionnaire was included in the back of
the guide, and 807 and 1483 responses were received, respectively. The most
recent mailing in 1989 included 100,000 questionnaires placed in the book,
but only 913 responses were received (Cox et al., 1990). This response rate
indicated that other methods, including providing incentives or contacting
nonrespondents, would be necessary to improve the sample size (C. Cox,
Ministry of the Environment, Toronto, Canada, personal communication).
However, direct mail questionnaires were much more effective than the insert
questionnaires in the guide. Questionnaires were mailed to Great Lakes
salmon anglers using randomly-selected names from fishing derby entry
forms, together with an informative covering letter and postage-paid return
envelope. The return rates for three mail-outs (600-800 names each) were
65.6 percent, 67.3 percent, and 71.8 percent (Cox and Johnson, 1990).
Questionnaires sent to a 10 percent random sample of Arizona's resident
1980 Class A and F license holders with a postage-prepaid return envelope
resulted in only a 35 percent return rate (Swanson and Stephenson, 1982).
Most of the other surveys reviewed for this report had higher return rates,
but they required relatively more money and time and included advance
letters, stamped return envelopes, reminder letters or postcards, a second
mailing of the survey to nonresponders and, finally, follow-up telephone calls
to check on non-response bias. A variation of this technique, known as the
"Dillman Method" (Dillman, 1978), in which advance notices and several
reminders are also mailed, increased the response rates up to 47-64 percent
(Fiore et al., 1989; Connelly et al., 1990; West, 1989a; Chem-Risk, 1991a).
Babbie (1973) reported greater success when the survey questionnaire was
either personally delivered to the respondent or picked up later.
11
-------
The information collected in the mail survey approach is typically based on
recall periods of days to months, up to 1 year (Fiore et al., 1989). Thus, these
surveys are all subject to problems of longer term recall accuracy. West et
al. (198%) examined several possible modes for conducting their survey and
concluded that of the the 1-day recall, 7-day recall, or 7-day diary record, the
7-day recall would be best The 7-day recall proved to be as accurate as the
1-day recall when determining group means and was more representative of
fluctuations over time. They noted, however, that this time period could be
subject to "telescoping," in which respondents tend to include events from a
longer time frame than is called for. West et al. (1989b) used the "bounded
recall" technique to minimize telescoping by first having respondents mark
out in a one-week calendar the meals at which fish were eaten before
providing detailed consumption information. The ChemRisk (199la) study
noted that in addition to the length of the recall period (up to 1 year in this
survey), the self-reporting nature of the mailed questionnaire survey, social
desirability of the sport (prestige bias), importance of fishing to the individ-
ual, and frequency of fishing trips also contributed to overestimates of
consumption. Avid anglers were more successful and therefore consumed
more; consequently, 10 percent of the anglers consumed 90 percent of the
fish in that study.
The mailed questionnaire surveys did target recreational anglers but usually
did not specifically examine the occurrence of subsistence fishing (except to
include questions from which analysts might infer subsistence fishing, such
as income levels). Only a few studies linked specific waterbodies to the
consumption offish from those waterbodies (e.g., ChemRisk, 1991a; see also
Connelly et al., 1990, which targeted Lake Ontario fish consumption; other
Great Lakes examined by Fiore et al., 1989; West et al., 1989b). The
information collected to calculate fish consumption rates varied in complex-
ity and ease of analysis, but certain assumptions needed to be made to cover
recall bias identified from follow-up surveys.
Advantages:
• Mail surveys can assess region-specific consumption rates, depending on
how the respondents are selected (obtaining addresses from license appli-
cations, fishing tournament entries, etc.).
• This approach can target and identify specific subpopulations of concern
when these populations can be preselected on some basis or when specific
limiting questions are included on the surveys.
• This approach is the least costly since no interviewers are required except
for obtaining follow-up information. Large numbers of respondents may
be contacted over a broad area (see USEPA, 1984a).
• Respondents are most likely to provide honest answers and fewer "so-
cially-desirable" responses (USEPA, 1984a).
12
-------
• Complex technical data may be obtained because the respondent can take
time to consider the questions asked and consult other sources if neces-
sary.
• The survey may cover more types of questions, so more than one objective
may be evaluated.
Disadvantages:
• Mail surveys cannot reach people who lack mailing addresses, such as
migrant workers. If addresses are obtained from specific sources, such as
licensed anglers, the survey will miss unlicensed anglers and others
possibly at high risk from fish consumption.
• Questions must be carefully designed to compensate for the lack of social
interaction provided by telephone or personal interviews and must provide
adequate instructions to elicit satisfactory responses and motivate the
respondents to cooperate (USEPA, 1984a).
• Questions need to be limited in scope and complexity, preferably requir-
ing only short answers or checking off multiple choices, to maintain
cooperation by the respondent.
• Voluntary mail surveys require substantial follow-up efforts or incentives
to achieve reasonable response rates (either by conducting telephone
interviews or by offering the respondents the choice of phoning in their
answers).
• A mail survey is likely to produce a higher number of inaccurate and
incomplete responses because it lacks the personal contact provided by
other approaches to instruct and motivate (USEPA, 1984a).
• This type of survey may miss respondents who are illiterate, who have
difficulty understanding the questions, or who cannot read the language
in which the questions are written.
To Solve These Problems:
' Use mail surveys in conjunction with telephone interviews or other
approaches to check on non-response and recall biases.
• Increase the return success rate by sending out several waves of follow-up
reminders, conducting follow-up telephone interviews, offering respon-
dents the choice of phoning in their answers, personally picking up the
completed questionnaires, or using incentives.
• Use other approaches, such as personal interviews, to contact low-income
people or subsistence anglers, or those who cannot fill out the question-
naires because of literacy problems or language differences.
13
-------
Carefully design the survey to examine specific subpopulations, and
carefully prepare the questions to be asked to obtain optimal responses
and to serve as self-checks on information given (see USEPA, 1984a).
Carefully plan and pretest the questions to be answered to minimize the
length of recall time required.
See Babbie (1973) for more information on how to conduct self-admin-
istered questionnaire surveys.
Recall - Personal Interview
Personal interviews were conducted in a variety of surveys to obtain infor-
mation ranging from angler use to fish consumption patterns. The interviews
occurred at known fishing sites (which personnel had to cover up to 18 hours
per day to contact early morning and late evening anglers) or at home. Home
interviewees were selected from samples of licensed anglers identified by
State fish and game departments, or households located near fishing locations
(Wolfe and Walker, 1987). Subsistence anglers were also specifically iden-
tified because they were participating in special programs, such as that
conducted by the Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program of
Cornell University Cooperative Extension Service (Wendt, 1986). In all
cases, the respondents were asked a fixed set of questions and the answers
were recorded on the questionnaires.
Although the questions in most on-site interviews were limited to those of a
creel census nature (see "Creel Census" below), a few interviews collected
data for fish consumption rates. Three surveys were conducted in the Puget
Sound area (McCallum, 1985; Landolt et al., 1985, 1987). The Landolt et
al. studies targeted shoreside anglers and boating anglers as they returned to
boat ramps. Over 4,000 shoreside angler interviews were conducted during
the first year, but only 437 boating anglers were interviewed the second year.
Landolt et al. noted that the latter interviews produced fewer cooperative
respondents (only 83 percent), and the anglers either refused to give the exact
sites of their fishing activities or only vaguely identified them. The
McCallum study interviewed all anglers, crabbers, and clammers from one
end of the beach or pier to the other end at specific sites throughout the year.
The survey was advertised at local marinas and bait shops to aid in eliciting
cooperation from respondents.
Smith and Enger (1988) conducted 703 interviews at fishing sites along the
Tittabawassee River in Michigan. Although fishing bans had been an-
nounced because of contamination with dioxins, the survey found that fishing
effort had increased as the result of the successful restocking of the river with
walleye. Only 2.7 percent of the anglers interviewed said that they were
fishing for food, but the authors suspected that this was not an accurate
percentage. This particular survey relied on long-term (up to 1 year) recall
of the anglers' fish consumption habits and did not target the actual catch of
14
-------
the day. Despite recall bias and the fact that weather conditions prohibited
fishing in some parts of the river later in the summer (suggesting that this
was not the best representation of the normal fishing effort and catch there),
the study did target a specific local population where chemical exposure
through fish consumption was of concern.
Other types of personal interviews were conducted at home. The Nationwide
Food Consumption Surveys (1977-78, 1987-88), conducted by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), used a list of foods to assist the house-
hold respondent in recalling the kind, form, quantity, and cost (if purchased)
of foods used at home during the previous 7 days. The interviewer also
obtained information on those characteristics that might be related to food
consumption (demographic and socioeconomic data). The interviewer then
recorded the preceding day's food intake for each eligible household member
present and instructed each individual to record his or her intake for the day
of the interview and the next day. This procedure provided three consecutive
days of dietary information. The interviewer returned to pick up the records,
and each household received $1 for each record returned (up to $10 per
household). Data were collected throughout the week. Respondents were
contacted in advance to participate in the survey. The 1977-78 survey
included 15,000 households and 38,000 individuals. The Continuing Survey
of Food Intakes by Individuals, also conducted by the USD A, asked individ-
uals to provide from 1 day to 6 days of dietary data at intervals of 2 months
over a 1-year period (see, for example, USDA, 1985b, 1986b). The first
day's data were collected by personal interview, with subsequent data
collected by telephone interview. Unfortunately, these studies did not target
consumers of recreationally-caught fish, and the consumption of potentially
contaminated fish could not be determined from the questions administered.
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS, 1989)
survey of fishing patterns and contaminant exposure in Lake Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho, included personal interviews with 299 households, using recall peri-
ods of up to 1 month. In another study, Wendt (1986) targeted low-income
freshwater fish consumption by carrying out personal interviews with re-
spondents identified as participants in the Expanded Food and Nutrition
Education Program at Cornell University. She found that these interviews
required the presence of aides to serve as go-betweens or to keep children
entertained during the 30-minute interview. They did, however, yield inter-
esting information on the fish consumption patterns of the participants.
While the on-site interviews could collect information on the species offish
caught and consumed, household interviews suffered from the inability of
the respondents to identify species of fish and to assess recall bias. Both
on-site and household interviews encountered literacy (understanding) and
language barriers.
15
-------
Advantages:
• Personal interviews can assess region-specific consumption rates by
targeting the waterbody or residence of the respondent.
• This approach can also identify specific subpopulations of concern by
obtaining data from known contaminated fishing/shellfishing sites or by
using specific programs to identify potential respondents.
• Personal interviews can provide first-hand observations of the respon-
dents and the interview sites.
• Literacy and language barriers may be more easily overcome using this
approach.
• Recall bias can be minimized by providing appropriate visual aids (for
portion or meal size) or basing the survey on the fish caught at the time
of the interview.
• This approach has a high rate of success for completing interviews
because of personal contact. Interviewers also can clarify confusing
questions or neutrally probe for answers.
• Verification of information may be easy, especially if data collected are
based on the actual catch of the day. It is also relatively easy to use special
techniques such as visual aids and probing.
Disadvantages:
• The number and complexity of survey questions may need to be limited
so that surveys can be performed quickly, depending on the respondents'
availability and interest.
• Personal interviews are the most costly approach, requiring the coordina-
tion, hiring, training, and close supervision of interviewers and field staff
at more than one location, as well as additional paperwork to control the
fieldwork and processing operations (USEPA, 1984a).
To Solve These Problems:
- Conduct the survey in different languages (or use bilingual interviewers
or translation assistance from other family members or associates) and
provide visual aids such as fish models to assist in obtaining information
from the respondents. McCallum (1985) cited problems with questions
on the parts of the catch eaten, fishing frequency, and how the fish were
prepared for eating.
• Use the "clustering" technique to limit the number of sites or group the
residences where interviews will be held, thus reducing costs.
16
-------
Carefully prepare the survey questions to minimize the length of the
survey yet provide the precise information needed to achieve the objec-
tives.
Provide adequate training (including practice interviews) and supervision
of interviewers throughout the survey.
See Babbie (1973) or other survey methodology texts for more informa-
tion on how to conduct interviews for surveys.
While complete food consumption diaries havebeen used in general nutrition
surveys (e.g., USDA, 1983a,b), none of the fish consumption surveys
examined for this report employed this approach for obtaining data. Block
(1982) found that diary methods were subject to selective forgetting or lapses
in diary keeping even after only a few days, and it was difficult to get
respondents committed to the project, especially if no personal contact was
involved. However, Fisher (1988) noted that such records, kept at home for
periods of days to months, can provide reliable data on patterns of food
intake. This approach does require respondent literacy, and the act of
keeping records itself may affect dietary practices, so there is a need to
analyze for changes that may occur in motivation of the subject or changes
in food records (Fisher, 1988). West et al. (1989b) observed that earlier
studies have shown that the most valid and accurate studies offish consump-
tion have been diary studies involving repeated personal contact with the
study subjects (e.g., Humphrey, 1976,1983). Such contact probably maxi-
mized motivation and minimized alterations in diet and recording by the
respondents. Diary records may provide sound information for examining
fish consumption patterns if the survey is carefully designed and monitored.
Advantages:
• The diary approach can assess region-specific consumption rates if re-
spondents are selected appropriately.
• Diaries can provide data over long periods of time for particular sub-
populations of concern if such subpopulations have been appropriately
preselected.
• This approach is less expensive than personal interviews.
• The diary approach can be used with persons inaccessible by telephone.
• Large numbers of respondents may be included.
- This approach results in minimal recall bias, although other potential
sources of error or alterations in record-keeping may occur.
Diary
17
-------
Creel Census
Disadvantages:
• Interviewers must be trained to teach the respondents how to complete
the diary.
• Using the diary approach requires respondent literacy, a high degree of
motivation, and constant monitoring to maintain consistency in the data
collected.
• The act of keeping records can affect dietary practices.
To Solve These Problems:
• Combine the diary approach with other approaches (such as personal
interviews) to provide additional, in-depth, or longer term information on
fish consumption patterns.
The creel census approach is used by fishery managers to obtain harvest data
collected on-site, from single anglers (hook and line, castnet, clam rake, etc.)
or from larger scale commercial-type operations (trawl, gill nets, etc.) that
obtain fish for a specific community. This information is then used to make
management decisions for optimal utilization of the resource. For example,
a number of creel censuses have been done in Georgia, such as Scott (1981),
Hottell et al. (1983), Schmitt and Hornsby (1985), Fowler and Holder (1987),
and Spencer (1987). These on-site interviews examined the species fished
for, species caught, weight caught, method, bait, origin, and type of fishing
(boat, bank, dock, bridge), but did not include questions on fish consumption
or sociodemographic data. These surveys also did not distinguish whether
the fish caught were going to be consumed, given away, sold, or released.
Other surveys of this type include Mullis (1989), who obtained data on angler
effort associated with striped bass fishing on the Roanoke River, and
Ranthum (1975), who recorded lengths and weights of species offish caught.
ChemRisk (1991a) found that creel censuses were often used to estimate
angler use and fish harvest from specific waterbodies, but noted that because
individual anglers may fish in more than one location, such a survey might
not completely characterize the total freshwater fish harvest or consumption
for anglers and others sharing their catch.
Diverse time periods have been selected for creel census interviews.
Ranthum sampled two consecutive census days, with a varied schedule (7 to
11 am, 11 am to 3 pm, or 3 to 7 pm) for on-site interviews during the 2-month
study period. The Wisconsin series of creel censuses (e.g., Thuemler, 1981;
Heizer 1986,1988; Schumacher, 1987) used a stratified random sampling
schedule for 2-hour periods. Counts of anglers present on the lake were made
at 2-hour intervals from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., with a final count at 8:00
18
-------
p.m. Between counts, anglers were interviewed to determine the number,
length, and species offish caught and the angler's residence. More censuses
were scheduled for weekend days and holidays and for the entire opening
weekend of the fishing season. Fifty percent of the remaining weekend
periods and 30 percent of the weekday periods were sampled, with an equal
amount of effort given to each month and each hourly time period. Brown
(1981) looked at recreational shrimping along the Gulf coast by allocating
most interviews to the opening days of the seasons for brown and white
shrimp, with the remainder of the interviews taking place on weekend days.
Chandler and Brown (1978) examined potential problems that might be
encountered while collecting marine recreational fishing and shellfishing
harvest data for the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. They noted that the selection
of fishing sites and times with the highest levels of fishing activity was best
for obtaining the maximum number of interviews that needed to be con-
ducted.
Five creel census surveys that attempted to obtain direct information on the
fish consumption patterns and habits of recreational and subsistence anglers
were conducted. An early study by Pierce et al. (1981) sampled fishing and
shellfishing effort at four subareas around Commencement Bay in Washing-
ton State that were suspected of having potentially hazardous seafood. The
on-site interviews were followed by telephone surveys to determine whether
the fish that were caught that day had been eaten and how they had been
prepared. The study suffered from problems in changes of sampling sites
and the number of survey days during the study, but did provide data on fish
consumption patterns for the area.
Puffer et al. (1982a) examined the consumption of potentially hazardous
marine fish and shellfish from 12 sites in the Los Angeles area known to be
both fished and polluted. Teams of two surveyors conducted 1,059 inter-
views with anglers on different days of the week and at different times (61
percent of interviews were held during the week, 39 percent on weekends,
for a total of 400 site visits). Incentives for cooperation included fishing
maps, copies of regulations, and/or recipes sent following the interviews.
Photographs were frequently taken to ensure the correct taxonomic identifi-
cation of the fish caught, to document site conditions, and to confirm sport
anglers' counts. Initially, the surveyors recorded the number of anglers
present at a site and their sex, race, and approximate age. Then only those
anglers who had actually caught fish were interviewed (if more than 20 had
caught fish, a systematic sampling approach was used), resulting in a bias
toward frequent anglers. The more successful the fishing, the more fre-
quently the fisherman was inclined to fish. The information necessary for
accurate fish consumption rate calculations was weak, and there were prob-
lems with having to change sites during the study because of weather, sewage
overflows, and chemical disposal problems. However, the study did indicate
19
-------
a need to assess health risks to consumers at specific sites and for specific
subpopulations.
Belton et al. (1985) examined fishing effort at sites known to be chemically
contaminated and where specific fishing bans had been instituted along the
Raritan River and other sites in New Jersey. An interesting aspect of this
study was that the interviewers initially conducted only visual observations
and informal interviews at the six sites (cross-cultural anthropological field-
work techniques) because they were concerned that this population of anglers
might be leery of formal surveys and distrustful of outsiders. Later, a
subsample of the fishing population was selected to answer the questionnaire
by personal interview at the site. A monetary incentive of $10 was provided
for those who agreed to participate in a long-term study. Although the
questionnaire was fairly thorough and easy to interpret, the data collected for
fish consumption rate calculations were incomplete. The questionnaire
included no questions on size of portions consumed per meal or species.
Assumptions were made to allow such calculations, but data from other
studies were used to evaluate the health risks involved.
Kleinschmidt Associates (1989) examined the fish consumption patterns of
anglers from two areas on the Androscoggin River in New Hampshire. The
areas chosen were the relatively pristine section of the river north of Berlin
to the Errol Dam near the Maine-New Hampshire border and the river below
the James River Corporation's paper mill at Berlin. The New Hampshire
Division of Public Health Service had issued a fish consumption advisory
for that portion of the river downstream from Berlin. While spending
approximately equal periods of time in each area on three weekends in
August, the interviewers were able to find only three anglers fishing in the
lower area, resulting in 5.26 hours per initiated interview there, compared to
66 interviews in the upper area taking approximately 0.3 hour per interview.
Interviewees in the lower area did not consume the fish they caught there
because of health/safety concerns. The report concluded that the fish con-
sumption advisory had been effective. The consumption data collected were
based on recall of how often the anglers ate fish from the particular section
of the river (per week or month) and an average estimate of the meal size (in
number of 8- to 10-inch fish). These data were easy to obtain, but the
ambiguous nature of some of the questions makes calculations of fish
consumption rates impossible.
Finally, a study was conducted to estimate consumption rates of selected
chemicals from contaminated fish caught in San Diego Bay (San Diego
County Department of Health Services, 1990). The survey protocol was
based on that of Landolt et al., (1985) and questions covered species, weight,
and length of fish caught and eaten by Bay anglers and others in their
households, demographics of the angler population, and characterization of
fish consumption rates and patterns. Interviews were obtained from 369
20
-------
anglers at popular pier and shoreline fishing sites and boat launches over a
one-year period, but only 59 interviews (representing 195 potential consum-
ers) contained all of the data for calculating individual consumption rates.
As in the Landolt et al., (1987) study, samples offish (obtained separately)
were analyzed for chemical contaminants and these data were used to
estimate various subpopulation exposures and potential risks of adverse
health effects.
Advantages:
• The creel census approach, as a personal interview approach, can assess
region-specific consumption rates by targeting specific waterbodies.
• This approach can also identify specific subpopulations at high risk by
obtaining data from actual anglers at known contaminated fish-
ing/shellfishing sites.
• Creel censuses can provide first-hand observations of the respondents,
their fishing activities, and the interview sites.
• Recall bias can be minimized by providing appropriate visual aids (for
portion or meal size) and by basing the survey on the fish caught at the
time of the interview.
• The rate of success for completing interviews is high because of personal
contact.
• Verification of information may be easy, especially if data collected are
based on the actual catch of the day. It is also relatively easy to obtain
sensitive information and to use special techniques such as visual aids and
probing.
• When the appropriate questions are included, this type of survey can more
accurately assess fishing behavior by anglers, fish species can be more
accurately identified to species, and important information on consump-
tion rates and characteristics of the anglers can be easily obtained and
verified.
Disadvantages:
• The number and complexity of survey questions must be limited so that
surveys can be performed quickly.
• Interviewers may encounter language barriers.
• Creel censuses are costly because they require the coordination, hiring,
training, and close supervision of interviewers and field staff for quality
control, as well as additional paperwork to control the fieldwork and
processing operations.
21
-------
To Solve These Problems:
• As may be done for personal interviews, conduct the creel census in
different languages.
• Provide visual aids to increase the response rates while minimizing the
level of effort and time needed to conduct the interviews.
• Use the "clustering" technique to hold down costs by limiting the number
of sites where interviews will be held. Try to select sites where there will
be more respondents over longer periods of time or at different seasons
in order to limit the time needed to "search" for respondents at a site.
• Carefully prepare the survey questions to minimize the length of the
survey and the time needed to conduct each interview yet still provide the
precise information needed to meet the objectives.
22
-------
III. IMPORTANT METHOD CONSIDERATIONS
Fisher (1988) noted that, with regard to fish consumption surveys, two
considerations were important in using available data or in designing ap-
proaches to collecting data: (1) the methodology used to collect data and (2)
the population sampling techniques. He explained that the former was more
complex because the dietary data collection method selected would depend
on both the population surveyed and the purpose for deriving the estimate.
Population sampling techniques are important in surveying population sub-
sets that preferentially consume fish because representativeness becomes
important in statistical analyses. Fisher (1988) further stated that since fish,
as a food item, has unique attributes, any of the approaches taken to collect
these data will have inherent advantages and disadvantages in regard to
determining preferential fish consumption.
Many of the recent surveys examined for this report used more than one
approach to obtain information. For example, a simple on-site creel census
might be combined with a telephone interview to include additional charac-
teristics of the fishing population and to determine whether the catch was
consumed. Or, a questionnaire mail survey might ask for general fish
consumption information and then include a table to be filled in asking for
more specific fish consumption data over a period of several days. Other
surveys have combined mailed surveys with follow-up telephone surveys to
check on non-response bias or to obtain more complete information.
Springer (1990) used several different types of questionnaires and either
mailed surveys or conducted personal interviews, depending on the target
audience (the former for recreational anglers, fisheries and health care
experts, and the latter for migrant workers and low-income individuals) to
investigate risk communication theories and the effectiveness of fish advi-
sories and bans. More than one approach may need to be used to make the
survey as informative and useful as possible for the desired objective. The
choice of approach will also depend on the characteristics of the target
population, data requirements, obligation to reply, target response rate, time
available, and funds available (USEPA, 1984a). Highlights of the five
approaches examined in Chapter II are presented in Table 2.
All approaches, however, share a number of common elements including
design, selection of respondents, information to be sought, quality assurance
procedures, and statistical analyses. For the purposes of this document, the
most important criteria for preparing a fish consumption survey are the
following:
• Thoroughness;
• Applicability to subpopulations of concern;
23
-------
Table 2. Comparison of different approaches to conducting fish consumption surveys.
Can assess region-specific
consumption rates
Can target and identify specific
subpopulations of concern
Allows first-hand observations of
respondents and fishing locations
Provides immediate answers
to questions
Easy to verify information
given
Can be used where illiteracy may
be encountered
Success rate for completed,
accurate interviews
Relative cost per interview
Telephone
Survey
yes"
yes"
no
yes
no
yes
high
$$$$
Mall
Survey
yes"
yesb
no
no
no
no
low
$
Personal
Interview
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
high
-^£4A*fc
1"(**t"lrN'
Diary
Record
yes-
yes"
no
no
yes
no
moderate
$$$
Creel
Census
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
high
$$
'Depends on how respondents are selected.
"Depends on how these subpopulations are Identified.
24
-------
• Scientific/analytical validity;
• Ease in interpreting results;
• Reasonableness of assumptions made; and
• Sufficient data to evaluate potential risks.
This section addresses various elements of survey design and analysis that
must be considered prior to undertaking a survey to estimate fish consump-
tion rates. Additional information and references can be found in Babbie
(1973), Dillman (1978), and USEPA (1983,1984a). These resources also
recommend discussing the survey plans with qualified, experienced survey
research consultants and statisticians who can provide answers to questions
that may arise while planning the survey. This step should ensure that the
design will meet the particular survey objectives and adequately sample the
populations of concern.
Survey Design
Fisher (1988) noted that the primary factors controlling the selection of a
strategy to obtain the desired data were (1) the purposes for which an estimate
of usual or preferentially high fish intake is sought and (2) the resources
available to obtain such an estimate. Because of these factors, no one strategy
may fulfill all possible needs for such data, yet each survey may be quite
complex in its own right. He emphasized that the purpose of the survey must
be narrowly defined and tailored to address the identified needs, such as
whether the survey was to be used for diet/health concerns or risk assessment.
Since differences in preferred species, availability, access, length of fishing
season, and cultural heritage greatly influence freshwater fish consumption
in a particular region (ChemRisk, 1991a), these factors must also be exam-
ined when planning a survey. The period of data collection is important.
Will most of the subsistence and recreational anglers be active during the
summer months only or during the entire open season for a particular fish?
If information is required for an entire year, can recall be depended upon to
provide the answers or should a year-long continuing survey be conducted?
The level of literacy of potential respondents should also be estimated. Will
the respondent be able to understand the written or spoken questions? The
types of questions should be prepared and tested with respect to simplicity
and clarity, as well as their ability to elicit the desired information. Language
barriers may also exist, further limiting the amount of data that may be
gathered from important constituencies. Thus, surveys may need to be
conducted using more than one approach or in more than one language to
adequately cover all of the subsistence and recreational anglers in a particular
area.
25
-------
Another general consideration for survey design is the level of detail re-
quired. Although extensive information may be desired for some programs,
longer surveys will require more time and resources for the conduct of the
survey and analysis of the data. Furthermore, increased length and complex-
ity of the survey design may limit the cooperativeness of respondents,
resulting in inadequate or incomplete data that are ultimately useless. All of
the surveys reviewed for this report experienced problems in getting partic-
ipants to cooperate and complete the questionnaire materials. To improve
participation rates, some of the surveys provided incentives, such as lapel
pins, maps, additional information in brochures, copies of the survey results,
and/or cash. (The relative effectiveness of the incentives was not reported.)
Other surveys limited the number of questions but consequently lost valuable
information that would have been helpful for fish consumption rate calcula-
tions.
The approach taken to collect the data will affect the cost of the survey. As
a general guideline, personal interviews cost at least twice as much and take
twice as long as telephone interviews. Both of these methods are more costly
than a mail survey (USEPA, 1983). However, if personal interviews are
clustered at specific locations to maximize the number of respondents to
obtain the fish consumption rates of recreational/subsistence anglers, less
time and effort will be involved than if the same number of respondents who
fished at those specific sites had to be culled from extensive telephone or
mail surveys of the general population or licensed anglers. Some flexibility
in the survey design may be required to accommodate any problems that may
be encountered.
Few of the surveys reviewed for this report include information on level of
effort, length of time to conduct the survey, and/or costs. Limited data were
obtained by contacting the individual or agency responsible for the surveys
(see Appendix). Costs and levels of effort ranged widely depending on the
type of survey and its extent. Some surveys were conducted by volunteers
or graduate students or were conducted as part of normal in-house responsi-
bilities. Hence, it would be difficult to determine a meaningful "average"
cost per survey. As noted by West (1989a), inadequate resources may
prevent the researcher from obtaining statistically valid sample sizes. There-
fore, it is important to have a clear understanding of the amount of funding
and number of personnel available in order to achieve the best balance of
resources for the desired survey. This analysis should determine work that
can be done in-house versus work that must be done by outside consultants
or volunteers, as well as other pertinent factors that may affect the costs.
The survey design should specify the following (see USEPA, 1983 for more
information):
26
-------
The objectives of the survey, clearly stated in terms of the kinds of
information to be collected, the problems to be solved, the hypotheses to
be tested, and the key survey variables. For example, what are the
minimum questions that need to be answered? What hypotheses will be
tested-consumption rates related to income, ethnic group, or frequency
of fishing, etc.? Each of the key survey variables and the specific data to
be collected to meet the stated objectives must then be defined.
The population to be surveyed and the extent of coverage (e.g., regional,
site-specific, recreational anglers, subsistence fishermen, minority an-
glers).
Identification of respondents by probability sampling. This means that
every unit (e.g., person/household) has a known, non-zero chance of being
included in the sample, thus allowing for statistically valid inferences
about the entire population the sample is designed to represent.
The required level of precision, specified in terms of sampling error-that
is, the difference between the values and statistics that would have been
obtained had all the members of the target population been surveyed and
the values and statistics that were obtained from the sample population.
This level will depend on the survey purpose, intended use of the data,
level of effort, and available funds. Nonsampling errors, such as random,
deliberate, wrong or unintentional replies and systematic one-sided errors
or biases, must also be considered.
The target response rate, defined as the ratio of the number of completed
interviews to the total number of eligible units in the sample. As noted
above, a 75 percent response rate is acceptable for an in-person or
telephone survey, but a mail survey may receive less than a 40 percent
response unless telephone calls or personal visits can raise the initial
response rate
Recommendation:
Follow-up activities should be included with whatever approach is
selected to ensure an appropriate response rate, check for non-response
bias, and confirm data.
Selection of Respondents
Various methods have been used to select the anglers to be interviewed, (the
sampling frame) depending on the approach to be taken to obtain the data.
The sample may consist only of anglers or may include members of their
households. (USEPA, 1983). Some national surveys have used random-
digit dialing to obtain their samples. However, recreational or subsistence
27
-------
anglers might not be captured by this technique. On the regional or local
level, lists of sport fishing license holders may be used to obtain stratified
samples based on a particular type of license or geographic reference, such
as counties located close to the waterbody in question. Intercept or on-site
interview approaches may attempt to question everyone, interview only those
who have caught fish at the time (non-uniform), or randomly select anglers
to be questioned. The Georgia creel censuses used non-uniform probability
sampling, interviewing anglers on a predetermined basis up to a certain
number required for statistical validity. The number of interviews needed
was based on preliminary surveys, and these numbers were readjusted every
6 months to reflect possible changes in the fishing population. Depending
on the objectives of the survey, other strategies may be required to obtain
samples of recreational and subsistence anglers.
Sample selection must be carefully planned to achieve the numbers necessary
for statistical validity. Final sample size will depend on the level of precision
required for the estimates. The Bureau of Census may be consulted to obtain
information about total population and/or subpopulation numbers present in
a particular area. The Bureau can provide breakouts by age, sex, and/or
ethnicity, for a cost Then probability tables can be generated to determine
the minimum numbers of respondents required. This technique can also be
used to select subsamples of licensees or other designated groups. Sample
stratification in the Bureau of Census design also allows for sampling
procedures that are self-weighted. Additional respondents may need to be
added to the pool to provide sufficient numbers if there are problems in
obtaining the interviews (e.g., loss of questionnaires in the mail, non-re-
sponders, language barriers, etc.). Babbie (1973) contains detailed informa-
tion on the selection of a survey population, probability sampling theory, and
sampling distributions.
Recommendation:
It is essential to work with a statistician prior to initiation of the study to
ensure that appropriate and representative sample sizes of the population
to be examined are obtained by the technique that is selected.
Information Sought
The type of data to be collected will depend on the purposes of the study, as
well as the complexity and length of the survey (single or multiple seasons,
multi-year) to be conducted. Some of the surveys reviewed for this document
were designed to collect information for purposes other than measuring fish
consumption and therefore did not ask the "right" questions (e.g., creel
censuses). Many assumptions must be made to obtain estimates of fish
28
-------
consumption in these cases, and errors of overestimation or underestimation
may be large. Questions on sociodemographic characteristics, fish-
ing/shellfishing activities, preparation and consumption patterns, and aware-
ness of fish advisories and bans can all contribute data that may be used to
analyze fish consumption rates. Examples of questions that need to be
answered or issues that need to be resolved for fish consumption rate
determinations are presented in Table 1.
Sociodemographic variables such as age, community type, educational level
of head of household or respondent, ethnic origin or race, family size and
composition, geographic region, income, occupation of head of household,
and religion may influence patterns of intake. Current employment status
may affect the amount of time spent in fishing/shellfishing activities and the
amounts of these foods consumed. However, this type of information may
be difficult to obtain or controversial (for example, income level, race, ethnic
group, language spoken at home, religion). Thus, including
sociodemographic questions may decrease the number of successful inter-
views or completed questionnaires.
Although the residence of anglers may indicate that they are fishing at
potentially contaminated waterbodies, it is more important to determine
whether there is a possible contaminant exposure problem at the particular
fishing site(s). Other information on fishing activities, such as distance from
residence and mode of fishing, may be irrelevant for some surveys but may
provide important data for others, depending on the objectives of the study.
Accurate identification of the type and amount offish caught and consumed
is important. Levels of contamination vary with the preferred habitat of the
organism, its trophic level (for example, bottom-feeding versus planktivore),
and its lipid content, as well as the waterbody. Pictures of the fish may need
to be taken for verification if identification in the field is impossible. The
level of detail required for fishing activities may also be difficult to obtain,
especially since anglers often keep their fishing spots secret Providing
visual aids such as maps of fishing areas may produce more accurate
information from respondents when recalling the location(s) of fishing
activities. Persons involved in illegal sales of fish from contaminated sites
would probably refrain from answering these questions.
Actual amounts of fish consumed need to be determined as accurately as
possible. Silverman (1990) noted that "data on average meal size is glaringly
absent..." from most studies. Pictures or models of portion sizes may be
provided to aid in estimating the size offish portions consumed (although it
should be noted that this may vary with the species involved). West et al.
(1989b) included pictures of an 8-ounce steak and fillet portion on a normal
size plate for comparison, then estimated "more" as 10 ounces and "less" as
5 ounces for their survey. This 8-ounce portion size was derived from
29
-------
restaurant surveys and the USDA (1983a,b) study. Cox et al. (1990) found
that 8 ounces was the portion most commonly reported. These and other
product identifiers can be used to provide the level of detail required in the
answers. The survey should also specify whether the amounts eaten are to
be determined for the angler only or for all household members.
Other information that may be useful in examining consumption patterns and
levels of exposure to potentially contaminated fish includes the following:
• Whether a part of or the whole animal is eaten: for fish, muscle only, skin,
head, entrails, broth; for shellfish, muscle, hepatopancreas, entrails.
• Method(s) of preparation (raw, dried, canned, smoked, steamed, boiled,
baked, fried, stewed, marinated, barbecued; or whole, fillet, skin removed,
etc.); accompaniments used in preparation (butter, lemon/lime juice,
tomato sauce, garlic, etc.).
• Other types of aquatic organisms consumed from the same site(s) such as
snapping turtles, frogs, sea cucumbers, sea urchins, squid, algae or other
vegetation, etc. (quantities, frequency consumed).
• Whether fish are also consumed from other sources (market, restaurant,
or gifts).
Finally, the objectives of the survey may require an assessment of the
awareness of health advisories and an understanding of contamination issues.
Questions may address knowledge of fish consumption advisories or bans
present in a particular fishing area and behavioral modifications resulting
from these concerns. The impact of advisories may be reflected in changes
in fishing locations and in the species, sizes, and parts of fish kept and
consumed. If these issues are not addressed, biases may be introduced into
the survey. Several surveys have also investigated links between diet and
health. As noted by Fisher (1988), such studies may include questions on
medical history, a physical examination for health status and clinical signs
of deficiency or toxicity, food and nutrient intakes, body measurements, and
hematological and biochemical tests (USEPA, 1984b; Fiore et al., 1989).
For any approach, requiring long-term recall may produce substantial bias
in estimates of fish consumption and other variables. Although difficult to
document, recall bias can be affected not only by anglers' attitudes toward
their sport, their skill, and their investment in time and equipment, but also
hy the value of the fish to the family diet (P. Shubat, Minnesota Department
of Health, Minneapolis, personal communication). Thompson and Hubert
(1990) reported that anglers inflated the amount of time spent fishing. Other
self-report surveys have documented overestimates of fishing statistics (see
Westat, Inc., 1989, ChemRisk, 1991a).
30
-------
Information requirements for the survey must be carefully planned based on
the survey approach to be used. For example, food frequency recall ap-
proaches may need to include some probing questions to jog memories for
consumption of fish meals over extended periods. Personal interviews and
telephone surveys may also need such "neutral probing" to obtain complete,
clear, relevant, and specific answers. Survey questions must be worded for
understandability. The questions must then be pretested and revised as
necessary before beginning the full survey. Actual phrasing of the questions
is critical to obtaining usable data. For example, "How many fish did you
eat?" will require assumptions on portion size, frequency of consumption,
and preparation for cooking (whole, steak, fillet). Note that "preparation" of
the fish may mean different things if the purpose is for cooking (scaled,
filleted), for eating (pan fried, broiled), or for preservation (salted, smoked);
this information, however, may provide acceptable data on portion sizes
consumed or whether the preparation minimized exposure to contaminants.
It is equally important to ensure that the wording of the question will provide
the correct data for evaluation, rather than give a vague or potentially
uninterpretable response that becomes useless when calculations are to be
made. The information to be collected may need to be modified depending
on whether the survey will be answered directly by the respondent or through
proxy. Conducting interviews in more than one language may also be
necessary to reach the population of concern (for example, see Puffer et al.,
1982a, and the National Marine Fisheries Service studies). Babbie (1973)
discusses the construction and sequencing of questions in order to avoid
many common pitfalls, as well as providing sufficiently clear instructions so
the survey can be completed. He also suggests methods for conducting and
evaluating pretests and pilot studies (see also Sudman and Bradburn, 1982).
Recommendation:
The selection and phasing of questions to meet the survey objectives is
critical. Questions must ultimately be used only for the purposes intended
and not stretched to try to fit other unrealistic purposes, thus introducing
serious biases. The importance of consulting experts in nutrition and
survey design and analysis cannot be overstressed.
Appropriate quality assurance procedures must be incorporated into both the
planning and execution of the survey. The types of quality controls proposed
will ultimately depend on the approach to be taken, but should include the
following (USEPA, 1983):
Quality Assurance
31
-------
Statistical Analyses
• Validation of at least 10 percent of the interviews to verify that the
interviews did take place and that information was accurately obtained
and recorded.
• Manual checking of questionnaires for completeness and proper entry of
answers.
• Checks on the manual coding operations and comparisons of results and
error rates in interviews conducted by different interviewers.
• Verification of correct data entry; for example, by having all of the data
entered twice and then compared.
• Computer edits to detect inadmissable and out-of-range values.
Other quality assurance considerations include the qualifications and training
of interviewers. (Can they conduct interviews pleasantly and correctly? Can
they identify the fish to species?) Close supervision should be provided
throughout the survey to make sure that all data are entered and recorded on
the forms correctly, all interviewers are performing similarly, and each
interview session is conducted as the previous ones were conducted. Another
technique is to use responses given in one category to check those in another,
such as fishing history (catch rates, locations) vs. fish consumption (amounts,
species). For mailed questionnaires, each questionnaire should be assigned
an identifying number both at the time of delivery to the respondent and on
completion or receipt. This procedure will allow monitoring of the number
of questionnaires returned each day, as well as the cumulative total returned
(Babbie, 1973), to help plan follow-up mailings and reminders.
After the data have been collected, answers must be compiled and numeri-
cally analyzed. As emphasized above, it is essential to work with experi-
enced statisticians during the design of the survey to ensure an adequate
representation of the survey population. It is also important to conduct
pretests and to ensure that test conditions, including the questions and
instructions, are adequate for the purposes of the survey. Appropriate
correlations cannot be made if the data are weak or missing.
Additional problems may be encountered when attempting to look at special
subpopulations, such as those who eat fish frequently. The design of
population surveys and sampling techniques for events and populations that
are nonuniform or infrequent presents statistical issues that result in an
additional series of trade-offs (Kalton and Anderson, 1986; Sudman et al.,
1988). Fisher (1988) examined the case of looking for preferential fish
consumers and noted that a larger total sample may be required. The recent
ChemRisk (1991a) survey based the size of the population sample on the
most constraining piece of data among the questions to be answered and
32
-------
calculated the sample size required to ensure that the minimum number of
replies needed for statistically valid results would be received. In this case,
the inverse of the participation rates (percent anglers seeking to catch perch)
for perch harvest from warm water riverine fisheries was multiplied by the
desired number of consumption observations for perch (believed to represent
the rarest subpopulation to be encountered) and concluded that a minimum
of 1,363 completed surveys would be required. ChemRisk (1991a) then
estimated the percentage of undeliverable mailed surveys (10 percent),
the percentage of those not answered due to changes in fishing status (10
percent), and the potential response rate of anglers who received the
surveys (75 percent) and calculated a minimum sample size of 2,244
using the following equation:
r.- Tr
where:
Ts = Total number of surveys sent,
Tr = Total required for a statistically valid sample size (1,363),
Pdi = Fraction of surveys deliverable as addressed (0.90),
Pd2 = Fraction of 1989 licensed anglers who also purchased
1990
licenses or had changes in fishing status (0.90), and
R = Expected rate of response to delivered surveys (0.75).
ChemRisk mailed surveys to 2,500 anglers, selected from a pool of 2,953
names drawn randomly from the fishing license files to represent different
resident categories and other special types.
Other statistical considerations include the accuracy of the responses that can
be expected depending on the approach used to collect the data. For example,
Carline (1972) found that harvest rates on the number offish caught per day
or per year were much higher than the catch rates determined by personal
interviews of anglers. Swanson and Stephenson (1982) observed that the
numbers of fish reported caught were often rounded off to 5, 10, 20, etc.,
indicating that biases and sources of error were greater for recall of angler
harvests than of angler effort. The inaccuracy of respondents' memories is
troublesome for recall, in addition to the inability of respondents to accurately
identify fish species, confusion over the questionnaires, and frank exagger-
ation.
Additional checks may need to be made to examine non-response bias. West
et al. (1989a) found that those who did not return surveys ate less fish, thereby
resulting in a skewed calculation of consumption rates if the results were
assumed to be accurate for the entire subpopulation originally sent the
33
-------
questionnaires (see West et al., 1989c for calculation of nonresponse bias
adjustment factor). Weighting techniques, based on demographic character-
istics or other factors, may need to be applied to allow more accurate
determinations of consumption rates for various subpopulations (e.g., Pao et
al., 1982).
The final statistical calculations should be carefully planned and based
solidly on the data collected in order to minimize assumptions that could
compromise the results. For example, were the questions correctly phrased
to elicit the number of fish meals per angler or per household? If the latter,
were the members of the household enumerated, or must an average size
household be assumed to determine the individual fish consumption rates?
Can the data be used to calculate fish consumption by race or ethnic group,
income, education, sex, or other factors that the survey may wish to test? A
number of multivariate analyses may be used to compare differences in
consumption rates for many factors. Detailed discussions on statistical
analyses that may be used with survey data are presented in Babbie (1973).
Whenever possible, these should be investigated and the appropriate infor-
mation and numbers of responses should be planned prior to the collection
of data.
Recommendations:
It is important to consider using data management protocols that will
allow the data to be readily accessible. These include using standard
formats, such as dBASE™ or Lotus®, standard statistical packages, and
simple coding systems for ease in interpretation of the survey data.
A system for archiving the data (both paper and computer records) and
ensuring future availability should also be determined prior to comple-
tion of the study, and this information should be included in the final
report to aid other researchers on fish consumption.
34
-------
IV. DISCUSSION
Wagstaff et al. (1986) noted that fish constitute the only class of foods subject to total governmental
prohibition in large geographic areas of the United States for substantial time periods because of
exposure to potentially hazardous environmental pollutants. Therefore, nutritionists, the medical
community, marketing specialists, fishery resource managers, and ecosystem administrators would
benefit from fish consumption databases that are "well-defined, validated, and accessible."
A variety of methods and approaches have been used in the fish consumption surveys presented in
this report, but it appears that a thoroughly satisfactory survey remains to be conducted. Although
the surveys may have been satisfactory for the objectives of the designers at the time, the goal of
obtaining valid fish consumption rate data for high-risk subsistence anglers remains elusive. On-site
interviews are more likely to reach subsistence/recreational anglers, who may not be licensed, but
more detailed data may be obtained by diaries and written questionnaires. Many questions remain.
Over what period of time must a survey be conducted (for one day, seasonally, or for one year)?
What is the best approach for reaching the most anglers in a particular region? How have fish
consumption bans and advisories affected the utilization of these resources and changed the public's
perception of risks (see Reinert et al., 1991)? Silverman (1990) reviewed recent national and Great
Lakes regional studies and noted the absence of detailed information about the public's consumption
of sport fish. She also found that fish consumption had been partitioned into commercial vs.
recreational portions that were not adequately covered in the surveys. Important information was
missing on the sport fish consumption habits of the nonfishing public. Silverman (1990) described
the West et al. (1989b) survey as one of the best of its type because fish consumption was reported
based on demographic variables. However, other variables, such as fishing frequency, may prove
necessary to our understanding of fish consumption rates.
Clearly, additional efforts will be required to improve the survey methods and identify the best
approaches) to obtaining the desired data for fish consumption rates of subsistence and recreational
anglers and special subpopulations of concern. For example, because most State fishery managers
conduct creel census surveys routinely to assess resource use, additional public health-related
questions could be included in the creel census to provide information needed for health officials.
Other interagency and interdisciplinary cooperative ventures should be encouraged to reduce costs
and effort. It is hoped that the information in this document will assist fisheries managers and health
officials in designing and conducting surveys that will more accurately assess the fish consumption
rates by various subpopulations in different regions of the country.
35
-------
36
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ahmed, F.E. (ed.). 1991. Seafood safety. Institute of Medicine, Committee on Evaluation of the
Safety of Fishery Products. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. 432 pp.
Anderson, S.A. (ed.). 1986. Guidelines for use of dietary intake data. Report prepared for the
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, Washington,
DC. Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Experimental
Biology, Bethesda, MD. 89 pp. National Technical Information Service, PB87-210886,
Springfield, VA.
Anderson, S.A. (ed.). 1988. Estimation of exposure to substances in the food supply. Report
prepared for the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration,
Washington, DC Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for Exper-
imental Biology, Bethesda, MD. National Technical Information Service, PB89-205199,
Springfield, VA
Babbie, E.R. 1973. Survey research methods. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 384 pp.
Beak Consultants, Inc. 1989. Human consumption rates of fish from the Columbia River, Project
#73296. Prepared for Northwest Pulp and Paper Association, Bellevue, WA, December 1989.
27 pp. + appendix.
Belton, T., B. Ruppel, K. Lockwood, S. Shiboski, G. Bukowski, R. Roundy, N. Weinstein, D.
Wilson, and H. Whelan. 1985. A study of toxic hazards to urban recreational anglers and
crabbers. Office of Science and Research, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Trenton, NJ. 68 pp.
Belton, T., R. Roundy, and N. Weinstein. 1986. Urban fisherman: Managing the risk of toxic
exposures. Environment 28:19-20, 30-37.
Block, G. 1982. A review of validations of dietary assessment methods. Amer. J. Epidemiol.
115(4):492-505.
Brown, G.L. 1981. A survey of recreational shrimping in the bay and sound systems of the Gulf
coast for 1980. Human Sciences Research, McLean, VA, Document No. HSR-RR-81/2-Pon,
April 1981. Prepared for Gulf states Marine Fisheries Commission, Ocean Springs, MS. 140pp.
Brown, H.S., R. Gable, and L. Telelbaum. 1988. Methodology for assessing hazards of contami-
nants in seafood. Reg. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 8:76-101.
Capuzzo, J.M., A. McElroy, and G. Wallace. 1987. Fish and shellfish contamination in New
England waters: An evaluation and review of available data on the distribution of chemical
contaminants. Coast Alliance, Washington, DC. 59 pp. + appendices.
37
-------
Carline, R.F. 1972. Biased harvested estimates from a postal survey of a sport fishery. Trans. Am.
Fish. Soc. 2:262-267.
Chandler, K.A., and G.L. Brown. 1978. A pretest of an approach to collection of marine
recreational fishing data on the East and Gulf coasts. Human Sciences Research, McLean, VA,
Document No. HSR-RR-78/1-C1, January 1978. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries
Service, Data Management and Statistics Division, Contract No.6-35339, Washington, DC. 175
pp.
Chase, D.R., and M. Harada. 1984. Response error in self-reported recreation participation rates.
J. Leisure Res. 15(4):322-329.
ChemRisk. 1991a. Consumption of freshwater fish by Maine anglers. ChemRisk, Portland, Maine,
July 1991.
ChemRisk. 1991b. Saco River creel survey. Preliminary report ChemRisk, Portland, Maine,
January 1991.
ChemRisk. 1991c. Penobscot River creel survey. Preliminary report. ChemRisk, Portland, Maine,
January 1991.
Clark, M.J., L. Fink, and D. DeVault, 1987. A new approach for the establishment of fish
consumption advisories. Great Lakes Reservoir 13(3):367-374.
Congdon, J.C 1988. Angler use and harvest on Fox Lake, Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries Management, Madison, WI. Fish Management Report
133. 20pp.
Connelly, N.A., T.L. Brown, and B.A. Knuth. 1990. New York statewide angler survey 1988. New
York State/Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife, Albany,
NY. 158pp.
Cooper, C.B., M.E. Doyle, and K. Kipp. 1991. Risks of consumption of contaminated seafood:
the Quincy Bay case study. Environ. Health Perspect. 90:133-140.
Cordle, F., P. Cornellussen, C. Jelinik, B. Hackley, R. Lehman, J. McLaughlin, R. Rhoden, and R.
Shapiro. 1978. Human exposure to polychlorinated biphenyls and polybrominated biphenyls.
Environ. Health Perspect. 24:157-172.
Cordle, F., R. Locke, and J. Springer. 1982. Risk assessment in a federal regulatory agency: An
assessment of risk associated with the human consumption of some species contaminated with
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). Environ. Health Perspect 45:171-182.
Cox, C., and A.F. Johnson. 1990. A study of the consumption patterns of Great Lakes salmon and
trout anglers. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch, Toronto, Ontario.
199 pp. (ISBN-0-7729-7428-4)
-------
Cox, C, A. Vaillancourt, and A.F. Johnson. 1987. A comparison of the results from the "Guide
to Eating Ontario Sport Fish" questionnaire. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water
Resources Branch, Toronto, Ontario. 85 pp. (ISBN 0-7729-2359-0)
Cox, C. A. Vaillancourt, and A.F. Johnson. 1989. A method for determining the intake of various
contaminants through the consumption of Ontario sport fish. Ontario Ministry of the Environ-
ment, Water Resources Branch, Toronto, Ontario. 20 pp. (ISBN 0-7729-3498-3)
Cox, C, A. Vaillancourt, and A.F. Johnson. 1990. The results of the 1989 "Guide to Eating Ontario
Sport Fish" questionnaire. Ontario Ministry of the Environment, Water Resources Branch,
Toronto, Ontario. 27 pp. (ISBN 0-7729-7084-X)
Crunkilton, R.L., L.M. Smith, J.D. Petty, and R.D. Kleopfer. 1987. Residues of 2,3,7,8-
tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin in the Spring River, Missouri. Water Air Soil Pollution (Nether-
lands) 32 (1-2):219-231.
Cunningham, P.A., J.M. McCarthy, and D. Zeitlin. 1990. Results of the 1989 census of state fish
consumption advisory programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water
Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
DeVault, D.S. 1985. Contaminants in fish from Great Lakes harbors and tributary mouths. Arch.
Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14:587-594.
Diana, S.C. 1989. Anglers' perceptions and practices related to contaminants in sport-caught fish
from Lake Ontario. M. S. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY. 284 pp.
Dillman, D.A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: The total design method. New York, NY: John
Wiley and Sons.
Dillman, D.A. 1983. Mail and other self-administered questionnaires. In: Handbook of Survey
Research (P.H. Rossi, J.D. Wright, and A.B. Anderson, eds.), pp. 359-376. New York:
Academic Press.
Fiore, B.J., H.A. Anderson, L.P. Hanrahan. L.J. Olsen, and W.C. Sonzogni. 1989. Sport fish
consumption and body burden levels of chlorinated hydrocarbons: A study of Wisconsin
anglers. Arch. Environ. Health 44(2):82-88.
Fisher, K.D. 1988. Approaches to estimating fish consumption in the United States. Prepared for
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Order no.
FDA-003459-01-87 by Life Sciences Research Office, Federation of American Societies for
Experimental Biology, Bethesda, MD. 58 pp.
Food Chemical News. 1988. NMFS survey of recreational fishing halted by lack of funding. Food
Chem. News 30:35-37.
39
-------
Foran, J.A., M. Cox, and D. Croxton. 1989. Sport fish consumption and projected cancer risks in
the Great Lakes Basin. Am. J. Health 79:322-325.
Fowler, D.L., and D.R. Holder. 1987. A fisheries survey of the St. Mary's River. Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Atlanta, GA. 81 pp.
Gahler, A.R., R.L. Arp, and J.M. Cummins. 1982. Chemical contaminants in edible non-salmonid
fish and crabs from Commencement Bay, Washington. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Services Division, Seattle, WA. 117 pp. National Technical Information Ser-
vice, PB83-172163, Springfield, VA.
Haines, P.S., B.M. Popkin, and D.K, Guelkey. 1987. Determinants of fish consumption among
U.S. women. Paper presented at the American Dietetic Association meeting October 19-24,
1987.
Heatwole, C.A., and N.C. West. 1983. Urban shore-based fishing: A health hazard? Vol. Ill,
Coastal Zone '83, Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Coastal and Ocean Management.
Publ. by American Society of Civil Engineers.
Heizer, R.E. 1986. Summer creel survey of Cosgrove and Elwood Lakes, Florence County,
Wisconsin, 1979. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI. Fish Manage-
ment Report 130. 23 pp.
Heizer, R.E. 1988. A creel survey on Bass and Boot Lakes, Oconto County, Wisconsin, December
1981-September 1982. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fisheries
Management, Madison, WI. Fish Management Report 137. 24 pp.
Honstead, J.F., T.M. Beetle, and J.K. Soldat. 1971. A statistical study of the habits of local
fisherman and its application to evaluation of environmental dose. Prepared for U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, WA.
Hottell, H.E., D. R. Holder and C. E. Coomer, Jr. 1983. A fisheries survey of the Altamaha River.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Atlanta, GA. 68 pp.
Hu, T-W. 1985. Analysis of seafood consumption in the U.S. 1970, 1974, 1978,1981. National
Marine Fisheries Service Grant No. NA82AA-H-00053. Institute for Policy Research and
Evaluation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA.
Humphrey, H. 1976. Evaluation of changes of the level of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) in
human tissue. Final report on FDA contract 223-73-2209. Michigan Department of Public
Health, Lansing.
Humphrey, H. 1983. Evaluation of humans exposed to waterborne chemicals in the Great Lakes.
Final report to the EPA. Cooperative agreement CR-807192. Michigan Department of Public
Health, Lansing.
40
-------
Kalton, G., and D.W. Anderson. 1986. Sampling rare populations. J. R. Stat. Soc. (A) 149:65-82.
Kleiman, CF. 1985. Fish consumption by recreational fisherman: An example of the Lake
Ontario/Niagara River region. Prepared for Office of Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, by Environ Corporation, May 1985.
16pp.
Kleinschmidt Associates. 1989. Report on the fish consumption survey, Androscoggin River, New
Hampshire. Prepared for James River Corporation, Berlin, NH. November 1989. 17 pp. +
appendices.
Landolt, M.L., FJL Hafer, A. Nevissi, G. van Belle, K. Van Ness, and C. Rockwell. 1985. Potential
toxicant exposure among consumers of recreationally caught fish from urban embayments of
Puget Sound. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 23. National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration, Rockville, MD. 104 pp.
Landolt, M., D. Kalman, A. Nevissi, G. van Belle, K. Van Ness, and F. Hafer. 1987. Potential
toxicant exposure among consumers of recreationally caught fish from urban embayments of
Puget Sound: final report. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 33. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Rockville, MD. 104 pp. National Technical Information
Service, PB91-172833, Springfield, VA.
Lepkowski, J., and R. Groves. 1986. A two-phase probability proportional to size telephone sample
design. In: Proceedings of the survey methods research section, American Statistical Associa-
tion, pp. 357-362.
McCallum, M. 1985. Recreational and subsistence catch and consumption of seafood from three
urban industrial bays of Puget Sound: Port Gardner, Elliott Bay, and Sinclair Inlet. Washington
Department of Social and Health Services, Division of Health, Olympia, WA. 59 pp.
Mullis, A* W. 1989. Age composition and sport harvest of striped bass from Roanoke River. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina, October 1989.15 pp.
Nash, D.A. 1971. A survey offish purchasers by socioeconomic characteristics. Data Report No.
62. National Marine Fisheries Service, Seattle, WA. National Technical Information Service,
COM 71-00647, Springfield, VA.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1976. Seafood consumption study 1973-1974. National
Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC 146 pp. (Tape of raw data also available.)
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1986a. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Atlantic
and Gulf coasts, 1986. Current Fishery Statistics no. 8392, National Marine Fisheries Service,
Washington, DC
41
-------
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1986b. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Pacific
coast, 1985. Current Fishery Statistics no. 8328, National Marine Fisheries Service, Washing-
ton, DC
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1989. Fisheries of the United States -1988. Current Fisheries
Statistics no. 8800. National Marine Fisheries Service, Washington, DC.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991. Marine recreational fishery statistics survey, Atlantic
and Gulf Coasts, 1987-1989. Current Fisheries Statistics no. 8904, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Washington, DC
NOAA, FDA and EPA. 1986 and 1987. Report on 1984-1986 Federal Survey of PCBs in Atlantic
Coast bluefish (Data Report 1986; Interpretive Report, 1987). National Oceanic and Atmo-
spheric Administration, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. National Technical Information Service, PB86-218070, Springfield, VA.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1983. Georgia fishery study: Implications for dose calculations.
Memo from M.D. Turcotte to H. Olson. Savannah River Laboratory, Technical Division,
August 5, 1983.
Olson, L. J., 1988. Fish consumption rate literature survey compilation. Wisconsin Department of
Health and Social Services, Madison, WI.
Pao, E.M., K.H. Fleming, P.M. Guenther, and S.J. Mickle. 1982. Foods commonly eaten by
individuals: Amount per day and per eating occasion. Home Economics Research Report No.
44. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD.
Pierce, R.S., D.T. Noviello, and S.H. Rogers. 1981. Commencement Bay seafood consumption
report. Preliminary report. Tacoma-Pierce County Health Department, Tacoma, WA.
Puffer, H.W., S.P. Azen, M.J. Duda, and D.R. Young. 1982a. Consumption rates of potentially
hazardous marine fish caught in the metropolitan Los Angeles area. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Environmental Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. EPA 600/3-82-070.
National Technical Information Service, PB82-229493, Springfield, VA.
Puffer, H.W., MJ. Duda, and S.P. Azen. 1982b. Potential health hazards offish caught in polluted
coastal waters of Los Angeles County. N. Am. J. Fish. Management 2:74-79.
Ranthum, R.G. 1975. Five-year summary of Mississippi River special tailwater creel censuses in
Pool 7, 1969-1973. Bureau of Fish and Wildlife Management, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, Madison, WI.
Reinert, R.E., B.A. Knuth, M.A. Kamrin, and Q.J. Stober. 1991. Risk assessment, risk management
and fish consumption advisories in the United States. Fisheries 16(6):5-12.
42
-------
Rupp, E.M. 1990. Age dependent values of dietary intake for assessing human exposures to
environmental pollutants. Health Physics 39:151-163.
Rupp, E.M., F.L. Miller, and LCF. Baes. 1980. Some results of recent surveys offish and shellfish
consumption by age and region of U.S. residents. Health Physics 39:165-175.
San Diego County Department of Health Services. 1990. San Diego Bay health risk study.
Environmental Health Services, Document No. 25467, San Diego, CA. 322 pp.
Schuman, L. M., et. al. 1982. Evaluation of the methods used to determine potential health risks
associated with organic contaminants in the Great Lakes basin. School of Public Health,
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN. EPA-600/3-84-002. National Technical Informa-
tion Service, PB84-128305, Springfield, VA.
Schmitt, D.N., and J. H. Hornsby. 1985. A fisheries survey of the Savannah River. Georgia
Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Atlanta, GA. September 1985.
Schumacher, E.R. 1987. Creel survey on Pewaukee and Nagawicka Lakes, Waukesha County,
Summer 1982. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fish Management,
Madison, WI. Fish Management Report 131.
Schwartz, P.M., S.W. Jacobson, G.G. Fein, J.L. Jacobson, and H.A, Price. 1983. Lake Michigan
fish consumption as a source of polychlorinated biphenyIs in human cord serum, maternal serum
and milk. Am. J. Public Health 73:293-96.
Scott, T.M., Jr. 1981. Creel survey on the Flint River between Lakes Blackshear and Worth.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Atlanta, GA. 23 pp.
Silverman, W. 1990. Fish consumption in the Great Lakes basin: A review of the literature.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Water Division, with support
of the National Network for Environmental Management Studies.
Skea, J.C., H.A. Simonin, EJ. Harris, S. Jackling, JJ. Spagnoli, J. Synula, and J.R. Colquhoun.
1979. Reducing levels of Mirex, Aroclor 1254, and DDE by trimming and cooking Lake Ontario
brown trout and smallmouth bass. J. Great Lakes Res. 5:153-159.
Smith, B.F., and E.E. Enger. 1988. A survey of attitudes and fish consumption of anglers on the
Lower Tittabawassee River, Michigan. Michigan Department of Public Health, Center for
Environmental Health Sciences, Document No. 172, Lansing, MI.
Smith, B.F., and W.N. Thompson. 1989. Environmental sociology: Anglers of the Tittabawassee.
Environment 26(5):5,43.
Southerland, E. 1991. Federal assistance plan for state fish consumption advisories. Presented at
the Institute of Medicine Symposium on Seafood Safety Issues, May 14, 1991. National
Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.
43
-------
Spencer, M.D. 1987. A survey of the fishery resources of the Conasauga and Coosawattee Rivers.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Game and Fish Division, Atlanta, GA. 48 pp.
Springer, C 1990. Risk perceptions and communications needs in Lake Ontario's chemically
contaminated sport fishery. M.S. thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
SRI International. 1980. Seafood consumption data analysis. Final report Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency under contract 68-01-3887.
Sudman, S., and N. Bradburn. 1982. Asking questions: A practical guide to questionnaire design.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Sudman, S., M.G. Sirken, and C.D. Cowan. 1988. Sampling rare and elusive populations. Science
240:991-996.
Swanson, E.D., and R.L. Stephenson. 1982. Fishing effort and harvest by Arizona's licensed
resident anglers. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Planning Branch, May 1982.
Thompson, T., and W.A. Hubert. 1990. Influence of survey method on estimates of statewide
fishing activity. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 10:111-113.
Thuemler, T.F. 1981. A creel census on Lake Noquebay, Marinette County, Wisconsin, 1977.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Fish Management, Madison, WI. Fish
Management Report 108. 20 pp.
Tollefson, L., and F. Cordle. 1986. Methylmercury in fish: A review of residue levels, fish
consumption and regulatory action in the United States. Environ. Health Perspect. 68:203-208.
USDA. 1978. Foods commonly eaten by individuals. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville,
MD.
USDA. 1983a. Food consumption: Households in the United States, seasons and year 1977-78.
Nationwide Food Consumption Survey 1977-78. Human Nutrition Information Service, Con-
sumer Nutrition Division. Report no. H-6. National Technical Information Service, PB91-
105379, Springfield, VA.
USDA. 1983b. Food intakes: Individuals in 48 states, year 1977-78. Nationwide Food Consump-
tion Survey 1977-78. Human Nutrition Information Service, Consumer Nutrition Division.
Report no. 1-1.
USDA. 1985a. Food and nutrient intakes: Individuals in four regions, 1977-78. Nutrition
Monitoring Division, Human Nutrition Information Service. Report no. 1-3.
USDA. 1985b. National food consumption survey: Continuing survey of food intakes by individ-
uals, low-income women 19-50 years, 1 day 1985. NFCS, CSFn Report no. 85-2. National
Technical Information Service, PB88-110127, Springfield, VA.
44
-------
USDA. 1985c. Nationwide food consumption survey: Continuing survey of food intakes by
individuals, men 19-50 years, 1 day 1985. MFCS, CSFII Report no. 85-3.
USDA. 1985d. Nationwide food consumption survey: Continuing survey of food intakes by
individuals, low-income women 19-50 years and their children 1-5 years, 4 days 1985. NFCS,
CSFII Report no. 85-4. National Technical Information Service, PB88-246202, Springfield,
VA.
USDA 1986a. Nationwide food consumption survey: Continuing survey of food intakes by
individuals, women 19-50 years and their children 1-5 years, 1 day 1986. NCFS, CSFII Report
no. 86-1. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD.
USDA. 1986b. Nationwide food consumption survey: Continuing survey of food intakes by
individuals, low-income women 19-50 years and their children 1-5 years, 1 day 1986. NFCS,
CSFII Report No. 86-2. National Technical Information Service, PB88-110119, Springfield,
VA.
USDA. 1986c. Nationwide food consumption survey: Continuing survey of food intakes by
individuals, women 19-50 years and their children 1-5 years, 4 days 1986. NCFS, CSFII Report
no. 86-3. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hyattsville, MD.
USDA. 1986d. Nationwide food consumption survey: Continuing survey of food intakes by
individuals, low-income women 19-50 years and their children 1-5 years, 4 days 1986. NFCS,
CSFH Report no. 86-4. National Technical Information Service, PB89-179485, Springfield,
VA.
USDA, 1987-88. Nationwide food consumption survey, Household. National Technical Informa-
tion Service, PB92-50001, Springfield, VA. (Magnetic tape of data. Documentation also
available separately.)
USDHHS. 1989. The relationship of human levels of lead and cadmium to the consumption of
fish caught in and around Lake Coeur D'Alene, Idaho. Final report. U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry, Atlanta, GA.
USEPA. 1983. Survey management handbook. Volume I: Guidelines for planning and managing
a statistical survey. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation, Washington, DC. EPA-230/12-84-002, November 1983. 105 pp. + appendices.
National Technical Information Service, PB85-187672, Springfield, VA.
USEPA. 1984a. Survey management handbook. Volume II: Overseeing the technical progress of
a survey contract. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation, Washington, DC EPA-230/12-84-002, December 1984. 168 pp. PB85-187680.
45
-------
USEPA. 1984b. Evaluation of the methods used to determine potential health risks associated with
organic contaminants in the Great Lakes Basin. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office
of Research and Development, Duluth, MN. EPA-600/3-84-002, January 1984. 458 pp.
National Technical Information Service, PB84-128305, Springfield, VA.
USEPA 1989. Assessing human health risks from chemically contaminated fish and shellfish: a
guidance manual. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and Estuarine
Protection/Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Publication EPA-503/8-89-002.
National Technical Information Service, PB91-168369. Springfield, VA.
USFDA. 1990. Risk assessment methodology for environmental contaminants in fish and shellfish.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration. October 1990.
Volland, M., K. Gall, D. Lisk, and D. MacNeil. 1990. The effectiveness of recommended
fat-trimming procedures on the reduction of PCB and Mirex levels in Lake Ontario brown trout
(Salmo trutta): A final report. New York Sea Grant Extension Program, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY.
Wagstaff, D.J., M. Meaburn, M. Boger, S. Conrath, and B. Hackley. 1986. Status of data sources
on fish consumption in the United States. Mar. Fish. Rev. 48:20-23.
Walker, R.J., D.B. Andersen, and L. Brown. 1988. Community profile databases catalog, Volume
2, Southwest and Western Alaska Regions. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Anchorage,
AK.
Washington Department of Social and Health Services. 1985. Report: Seafood catch and consump-
tion in urban bays of Puget Sound. Washington Department of Social and Health Services.
January 1985.
Wendt, M.E. 1986. Low income families' consumption of freshwater fish caught from New York
State waters. Master's thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
West, P.C, M.J. Fly, F. Larkin, and R. Marans. 1989a. Minority anglers and toxic fish consump-
tion: Evidence from a state-wide survey of Michigan. School of Natural Resources, University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
West, P.C., M.J. Fly, R. Marans, and F. Larkin. 1989b. Michigan sports anglers fish consumption
survey. A report to the Michigan Toxic Substance Control Commission. Michigan Department
of Management and Budget Contract No. 87-20141. Natural Resource Sociology Research Lab,
Technical Report No. 1.
West, P.C. M.J. Fly, R. Marans, and F. Larkin. 1989c. Michigan sports anglers fish consumption
survey, Supplement I, Non-response bias and consumption suppression effect adjustments.
School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Natural Resource Sociology
Research Lab, Technical Report No. 2.
46
-------
West, P.C, MJ. Fly, R. Marans, and F. Larkin. 1989d. Michigan sport anglers fish consumption
survey, Supplement n, Test for stability of consumption rates over time. School of Natural
Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Natural Resource Sociology Research Lab,
Technical Report No. 3.
West, P.C, M.J. Fly, R. Marans, and F. Larkin. 1989e. Toxic fish consumption and the elderly.
School of Natural Resources, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Westat Inc. 1989. Investigation of possible recall/reference period bias in national surveys of
fishing, hunting and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washing-
ton, DC.
Willett, W.C., L. Sampson, MJ. Stampfer, B. Rosner, C. Bain, J. Witschi, C.H. Hennekens, and
F.E. Speizer. 1985. Reproducibility and validity of a semiquantitative food frequency ques-
tionnaire. Am. J. Epidemiol. 122:51-65.
Wisconsin Department of Health and Social Services. 1987. Study of sport fishing and fish
consumption habits and body burden levels of PCBs, DDE, and mercury of Wisconsin anglers.
Final report to participants. September 1987.
Wolfe, R.J., and R.J. Walker. 1987. Subsistence economies in Alaska: productivity, geography,
and developmental impacts. Arctic Anthropology 24(2):56-81.
47
-------
48
-------
APPENDIX
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION
49
-------
50
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION
Title of Survey
A Pretest of an Approach to
Collection of Marine
Recreational Fishing Data
on the East and Guff
Coasts
1977
Fishing Effort and Harvest
by Arizona's Licensed
Resident Anglers
1980
I Contact
Address
Phone No.
Creel census
and telephone
survey
Mail survey and
creel census
The following
information was
given in K.A.
Chandler and G.L
Brown, HSR-PR-
78/1 -C1, 25
January 1978,
prepared for NMFS
Eric Swanson
Arizona Game and
Fish Department
Phoenix, AZ
(602) 942-3000
6x1608
||
Time J| Cost
6,077 telephone
surveys, 1 ,644
fishermen
interviewed at 3
locations to
estimate sample
sizes required
and number of
days
Sent out 18,000
surveys (10% of
registered
fishermen);
33% response
For a total of
18,800 fish to
provide
estimates of the
proportional
distribution of
fish caught for
an area (not to
determine fish
consumption
rates), estimated
132 days to
interview 3,003
fishermen in
Rhode Island,
120 days for
3,087 interviews
in South
Carolina, 282
days to interview
6,373 in Texas
About 9 months
including set-up,
data gathering
and analysis
Telephone
interviews:
RI$1.50;SC
$1.73;TX
$1 .68; cost for
intercept
interviews not
given but
average
number of
interviews per
hr: Rl 2.59;
SC 2.29; TX
2.26; assumed
10hrsof
interviewing
per day
Cost for
surveys in
these 3 States
estimated to
be $333,236
(1979)
Funded
through
Federal aid
Comments
Noted cost per interview for
surf fishermen may be higher
Ballpark estimates
Have done subsequent
surveys
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (continued)
II
Type of
Title of Survey Survey
Commencement Bay
Seafood Consumption
Study
1981
Fisheries Surveys:
Altamaha River
St. Mary's River
1982
1986
A Study of Toxic Hazards
to Urban Recreational
Fishermen and Crabbers
1983
Evaluation of Methods
Used to Determine
Potential Health Risks
Associated with Organic
Contaminants in the Great
Lakes Basin
1983
Creel census
Creel census
Personal
interview and
creel census
Telephone and
mail surveys
Contact
AddreM
Phone No.
Doug Pierce
Tacoma- Pierce
County Health
Department,
Tacoma, WA
(206) 591-5543
Dan Holder
Georgia Dept. Nat.
Resources, Game
& Fish Div.
Atlanta, GA
(912) 285-6094
Bruce Ruppel
NJ Dept. Environ.
Protection,
Trenton, NJ
(609) 984-6548
Given in report:
USEPA
Environmental
Research
Laboratory, DiHuth,
MN
Level of Effort | Time
5 months in the
field collecting
data;
7 months writing
report.
10-month creel
survey using
college students,
random samples
87 interviews on-
site
Collected data by
3 different
protocols, 587
respondents
1 year
10-month or 12-
month creel
survey
2 years for entire
study
About 2 years
Co«
$25,000
primarily to
pay contract
staff
$9,077 (based
on$5.50/hr
wage for
surveys)
Estimate:
$50,000,
funded by the
State
About $21 per
participant for
each protocol,
excluding data
analysis
i
Comments
Cost does not include tissue
analysis done by EPA
Ballpark estimates
Have done subsequent
surveys
Also funds from Hudson
River Foundation
52
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (continued)
1 Type of
Survey
Recreational and
Subsistence Catch and
Consumption of Seafood
from Three Urban Industrial
Bays of Puget Sound
1983-1984
Low Income Families'
Consumption of Freshwater
Fish Caught from New York
State Waters.
1985
Potential Toxicant Exposure
Among Consumers of
RecreationaJly Caught Fish
from Urban Embayments of
Puget Sound
1983-1987
Study of Sport Fishing and
Fish Consumption Habits
and Body Burden Levels of
PCBs, DDE, and Mercury
of Wisconsin Anglers
1985
Personal
interview and
creel census
Personal
interview
Personal
interview and
creel census
Mail survey
Contact
Addrees
Phone No.
Mary McCallum
Washington State
Division of Health,
Epidemiology
Section, Seattle,
WA
(206)753-5964
Marie Wendt
KVRHA
122 State Street
Augusta, ME
04330
Dr. Marsha
Landott, School of
Fisheries,
University of
Washington
Seattle, WA
(206) 543-4270
Beth Fiore
Wisconsin Division
of Health
Madison, Wl
(608) 266-6914
Level of Effort
1643 interviews
oo-site
40 personal
interviews over a
2-week time
frame
1st year -4, 181
angler interviews;
2nd year - 437
interviews on-site
at boat ramps
1 600 surveys
mailed
801 returned
Time
Data collection
over a 12-month
period,
2 years total
Data collection
and analysis -
1 year
2 years
About 1 year
Co*t
Grant-
Si 00,000 for
salary of
supervisor
Graduate
student
thesis funded
through Sea
Grant
$207,000
(excluding
indirect costs)
Estimate of
$27,250
Comment*
Significant portion of funds
were for analytical chemistry;
rest for data entry and
analysis, salaries of
interviewers, etc.
Phone follow-up to mail out
50% responded
Cost does not include blood
analyses for contaminants
Would use two-tiered
approach next time
1) Great Lakes
2) general
53
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (continued)
Title of Survey
Marine Recreational
Fishery Statistics Survey.
Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
1986
1987-1989
Relationship of Human
Levels of Lead and
Cadmium to the
Consumption of Fish
Caught on and around
Lake Coeur d' Alene, Idaho
1986-1987
A Survey of Attitudes and
Fish Consumption of
Anglers on the Lower
Tittabawassee River,
Michigan
1987
Angler Use and Harvest on
Fox Lake, Wl
1987
Type of
Survey
Creel census
Personal
interview or
telephone
survey
Creel census
Creel census
Contact
AddreM
Phone No.
Mark Holliday
National Marine
Fisheries Service,
NOAA,
Washington, DC
(301) 427-2328
Mike Qreenwell
Agency for Toxic
Substances and
Disease Registry
Public Health
Service
US Dept of Hearth
& Human Service
Atlanta, GA
(404) 639-0700
John Hesse
Michigan
Department of
Public Health,
Lansing, Ml
(517) 335-8353
(8350)
James C. Congdon
DNR Madison
Wisconsin Bureau
of Fisheries Mgmt
Horicon County
(414) 485-3003
Level of Effort
46,000 intercept
interviews and
74,000 telephone
interviews (1 986)
299 households,
follow-up study
on 33 individuals
5 interviewers
conducted 703
interviews
1/2 FTE doing
creel survey for
entire fishing
season (1 May-
1 5 March,
11 1/2 mos
Time
Data collection
1 year - data
ready fa
distribution within
4 months
About 2 years
4 months for
surveys (1 May
to 31 Aug)
1 1 1/2 months
Cost
Collaboration
with 5 State
agencies -
$2,000,000
Done
in-house
$6,500
Funded with
state funds
Comment*
The 1987 - 1989 survey Is
now available
Have done similar surveys for
the Pacific coast
Done by Division of Health
Studies, Sharon Campofulu
FoHow-up telephone survey
done by Michigan State
University as part of a survey
class
54
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (continued)
Title of Survey
Michigan Sports Anglers
Fish Consumption Survey
1988
New York Statewide Angler
Survey
1988
A Study of the
Consumption Patterns of
Great Lakes Salmon and
Trout Anglers
1989
Consumption of Freshwater
Fish by Marine Anglers
1990
Type of
Survey
Mail survey
and telephone
survey
Mail survey
Mail survey
Mail survey
Contact
Address
Phone No.
Dr. Patrick West
School of Natural
Resources
University of
Michigan
(313)764-7206
(313) 763-2200
Dr. Nancy Connelly
Cornell University
NY State College
of Agriculture and
Life Sciences,
Fernow Hall,
Ithaca, NY
(607)255-2830
Chuck Cox
Water Resources
Branch, Ministry of
the Environment,
Toronto, CANADA
(416) 323-4994
Ellen Elbert
ChemRisk
1685 Congress St.
Portland, ME
(207) 744-0012
Level of Effort
2,600 surveys
mailed out 4
waves of mailings
and follow-up
phone calls for
non-response
bias
17,000 mailed
out
3 follow-up
mailings
200 telephone
follow-ups for
non-response
bias
10,31 4 quest.
returned
21 00 surveys
mailed out, 1 427
returned (68%
response)
2,500 mailed out
1,612 returned
Time
1 year
10 months,
total time
about 18 months
4 months for
data collection
and analysis
9 months
Cost
$30,000
Funded by
Dept. Environ.
Conserv.,
Bureau of
Fisheries,
State of New
York
$1,500 mailing
costs, plus
staff time for
processing
results
Client
confidential
Comments
Very effective with proper
cover letter, stamped return
envelope, and multiple choice
questionnaire. Also provide
space for comments, so
anglers may voice concerns.
Revised draft report available
55
------- |