vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4305)
EPA-823-B-98-007
November 1998
Guidance for Conducting
Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Surveys
-------
Guidance for Conducting Fish and
Wildlife Consumption Surveys
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
Office of Water
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
-------
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
TABLES vi
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS vii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Historical Perspective 1-1
1.2 Purpose 1-2
1.3 Objectives 1-3
1.4 Relationship of Manual to Other Guidance Documents 1-3
1.5 Organization of This Manual 1-3
SECTION 2: SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS 2-1
2.1 Overview 2-1
2.2 Definition of Survey Objectives 2-1
2.3 Information Needs 2-5
2.4 Summary 2-8
SECTION 3: SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA 3-
3.1 Overview 3-
3.2 Types of Surveys 3-
3.2.1 Telephone Survey 3-
3.2.2 Mail Survey 3-
3.2.3 Diary 3-2
3.2.4 Personal Interview 3-2
3.2.5 Creel Survey 3-2
3.3 Selection Criteria 3-2
3.3.1 Target Population of Concern 3-4
3.3.2 Accuracy 3-5
3.3.3 Time Frame 3-6
3.3.4 Resource Considerations 3-7
3.3.5 Characteristics of the Source of the Fish or Wildlife 3-7
3.4 Summary 3-7
SECTION 4: INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 4-1
4.1 Overview 4-1
4.2 General Instrument and Study Design Issues 4-1
4.3 General Statistical Analysis and Data Interpretation Considerations 4-5
4.4 General QA/QC Considerations 4-10
4.5 Telephone Survey 4-10
4.5.1 Advantages 4-10
4.5.2 Disadvantages 4-11
-------
CONTENTS
4.5.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design:
Telephone Survey 4-11
4.5.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis:
Telephone Survey 4-12
4.5.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Telephone Survey 4-13
4.6 Mail Survey 4-13
4.6.1 Advantages 4-13
4.6.2 Disadvantages 4-14
4.6.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design:
Mail Survey 4-14
4.6.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis:
Mail Survey 4-16
4.6.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Mail Survey 4-16
4.7 Diary 4-16
4.7.1 Advantages 4-16
4.7.2 Disadvantages 4-17
4.7.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design: Diary 4-17
4.7.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis: Diary 4-18
4.7.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Diary 4-18
4.8 Personal Interview 4-19
4.8.1 Advantages 4-19
4.8.2 Disadvantages 4-19
4.8.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design:
Personal Interview 4-20
4.8.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis:
Personal Interview 4-21
4.8.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Personal Interview 4-21
4.9 Creel Survey 4-21
4.9.1 Advantages 4-21
4.9.2 Disadvantages 4-22
4.9.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design: Creel Survey 4-22
4.9.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis:
Creel Survey 4-24
4.9.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Creel Survey 4-24
SECTION 5: SUMMARY 5-1
REFERENCES Ref-1
APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS
APPENDIX B: EXAMPLES OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
Telephone Survey: EPA/Delaware Consumption Survey Phone Questionnaire
Mail Survey: 1991/92 Michigan Fish Eaters Survey
Mail Survey: Your Family and Fishing: A Questionnaire for the Children's Fishing Project
Mail Survey: New York State Fisher Cohort Study
Diary: Fishing Trips and Fish Meals
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Diary: Fishing Trips and Fish Consumption
Personal Interview: 1991 Columbia River InterTribal Fish Commission Survey
Creel Survey: San Diego Bay Fisher Survey Questionnaire
Creel Survey: Alabama State-wide Freshwater Fish Consumption Survey
Creel Survey: Hudson River Fisher Survey
-------
TABLES
TABLES
Table 1 Potential Information Requirements for Fish and Wildlife
Consumption Surveys 2-6
Table 2 Example Development of a Survey 2-9
Table 3 Comparison of Five Fish and Wildlife Consumption Survey Approaches
Using Various Selection Criteria 3-3
Table 4 Characteristics of Creel Survey Methods 4-23
VI
-------
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Access Point Survey
Accuracy
Aerial Survey
Bias
Bioaccumulative Chemical
Bivariate Analysis
Bus Route Method
CATI
Census
Confidence Interval
Confidence Level
Descriptive Statistics
A survey that is administered at locations where fishers or hunters
gain entry to fishing or hunting areas. Examples include boat ramps,
docks, and wildlife refuge check stations.
A measure of agreement, expressed numerically as a percentage,
between a measured value and an accepted or true value.
Flying over a fishing or hunting area to obtain an estimate of the
total population participating in the activity during the period of
time in which a creel survey or personal interviews are conducted.
This procedure is used to estimate the percentage of the population
interviewed when other sampling strategies (e.g., probability
sampling) cannot be used.
Property of a statistical estimator that consistently overestimates or
underestimates a population parameter. The discrepancy between
the expected value of an estimator and the population parameter
being estimated.
A chemical that is accumulated in the tissue of organisms through
any route, including respiration, ingestion, or direct contact with air,
water, or sediment.
Statistical analysis that involves two variables.
A method for conducting a creel survey that involves visiting
predetermined fishing sites at predetermined times to interview
fishers.
Computer-assisted telephone interviewing, a method of telephone
interviewing in which a structured questionnaire is programmed
into a computer. The interviewer enters the respondent's replies
directly into the computer program.
A complete enumeration a population.
The range of values within which it is estimated a population
parameter lies with a defined level of confidence based on sample
data.
The probability that a population parameter lies within a given
range.
The branch of statistics that involves summarizing, tabulating,
organizing, and graphing data for the purpose of describing a
VII
-------
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Frequency Distribution
Inferential Statistics
Measures of Central Tendency
Measures of Dispersion
Multivariate Analysis
Nonparametric Test
Parametric Test
Probability
QA
QC
ROD
Recall Error
sample of objects or individuals that have been measured or
observed.
A tabular or graphical presentation of the number of times each
value occurs in the data set.
The branch of statistics that involves making inferences about the
value of one or more population parameters, on the basis of sample
statistics. The most common applications of inferential statistical
procedures are estimation and hypothesis testing.
Descriptive statistics that identify the center or middle of a
distribution. Common measures are the mode, mean, and median.
Descriptive statistics that identify the spread of values of numerical
data. Common measures are the range, standard deviation, and
variance.
The analysis of data consisting of multiple variables and exam-
ination associations among variables, (e.g., regression and
correlation analysis, analyses of variance and covariance.)
A statistical test of a hypothesis that is not a statement about pop-
ulation parameters and makes no assumptions about the distribution
of the data.
A statistical test of a hypothesis about one or more population
parameters. Parametric tests require a knowledge of the functional
form of the population from which the samples are drawn.
The chance that a given event or result will occur.
Quality assurance; the steps and procedures used to review data and
determine whether the data quality objectives of a study have been
met.
Quality control; the procedures and practices implemented as part
of a study to minimize errors and ensure the accuracy of data.
Random digit dialing; a method used to select samples for
telephone surveys by random selection of telephone numbers within
working exchanges. This method permits coverage of both listed
and unlisted telephone numbers.
A response error resulting from a subject's inaccurate recollection
of particular events.
VIM
-------
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Rolling Cohort Method
Roving Creel Survey
Stratified Sample Design
Univariate Analysis
Weights
A survey method that involves randomly placing survey
participants into groups (cohorts), which are then sequentially
surveyed over equally spaced intervals, for example, intervals of
two or more weeks. Each cohort is asked to provide recall data for
a period of time equal to the interval spacing between cohort
surveys. This method is typically used to provide coverage over an
entire year while avoiding the problems associated with long recall
periods.
A creel survey that is conducted by having the interviewer move
through the survey area in a random or defined pattern to contact
fishers.
Sampling design that separates population elements into non-
overlapping groups (strata) from which samples are to be selected.
The establishment of strata occurs prior to sampling.
Statistical analysis involving a single variable.
Weights are needed when sampled unites are selected by unequal
probability sampling. Weights are used to assign greater relative
importance to some sampled elements than to others. Weights are
calculated as the inverse of the probability of selection.
IX
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This report was prepared by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Office of
Science and Technology. The EPA Work Assignment Manager for this document was Jeffrey Bigler,
who provided overall project coordination as well as technical direction. EPA was supported in the
development of this document by Tetra Tech, Inc., and EVS Environment Consultants, Inc. (EPA
Contract No. 68-C3-0374). Esther Peters of Tetra Tech was the contractor project manager, and
Steven Ellis of EVS was the subcontractor project manager. Mark Fly, Director of Human
Dimensions Research Lab, Department of Forestry, Wildlife, and Fisheries, University of Tennessee,
and Barbara Knuth, Co-Leader, Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resources,
Cornell University, served as expert consultants and assisted the contractors throughout the
development of the document.
Preparation of the final draft of this document was facilitated by the substantial efforts of several
reviewers at EPA Headquarters and the states, who provided technical information, reviews, and
recommendations. The EPA Headquarters reviewers were Dennis Borum, Helen Jacobs, and Robert
Cantilli. Representatives in all 50 states were sent copies of a previous draft, the "External/Peer
Review" version of the document. Participation in the review process does not imply concurrence
by these individuals with all concepts and methods described in this document. Representatives of
state agencies who provided comments on the earlier draft were Margy Gassel, California; Richard
Greene, Delaware; Shannon Winsness, Georgia; Maura Mack, Idaho; Deirdre Murphy, Maryland;
Montressa Jo Elder, Oklahoma; Glen Patrick, Washington; and Jim Amrhein, Wisconsin. These
reviewers' comments were addressed, and the subsequent final draft was sent out for independent peer
review to the following experts in survey research and/or fish consumption surveys: Patrick C. West,
Associate Professor of Environmental Sociology, University of Michigan; G.P. Patil, Center for
Statistical Ecology and Environmental Statistics, The Pennsylvania State University; and Ellen M.
Werner, Mel Kollander, and Lorraine Porcellini, Institute for Survey Research, Temple University.
X
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Concern over potential human health risks associated with chemically contaminated fish and wildlife
has led many states to issue consumption advisories and bans in an effort to limit exposures to certain
organic compounds and metals that can become concentrated in the tissues of these organisms.
However, the processes and procedures by which states issue consumption advisories and bans have
varied. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has developed a series of four documents
designed to provide guidance to state, local, regional, and tribal environmental health officials who
are responsible for issuing consumption advisories for noncommercially caught fish and shellfish.
The documents are meant only to provide guidance and do not constitute a regulatory requirement.
The documents are Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contamination Data for Use in Fish Advisories,
Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis (released in 1993 and revised in 1995), Volume 2: Risk
Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits (released in 1994 and revised in 1997), Volume 3: Risk
Management (released in 1996), and Volume 4: Risk Communication (released in 1995). The current
document provides additional guidance on methods for obtaining consumption rate data for use in
characterizing exposure in a population when estimating potential risks and determining whether a
consumption advisory is warranted to limit exposure to contaminants in fish (a term that includes
shellfish for the purposes of this document) and wildlife. Consumption rate data are also useful to
states that are in the process of developing or modifying water quality standards.
The purpose of this document is to provide explicit instructions for selecting a survey approach and
designing a survey to obtain consumption rate information. A statistician should also be consulted
to provide advice on the specific sampling and statistical analysis considerations for each fish
consumption rate assessment project. The survey methods presented in this document may be used
by regional, state, tribal, or local agencies to obtain information on the consumption of
noncommercially obtained fish and wildlife. This information can then be used to estimate risks to
persons who could consume organisms that might contain bioaccumulative and potentially dangerous
levels of toxicants, and to develop consumption advisories and water quality standards to protect
human health. Such surveys can also provide demographic information about a population for which
advisories are issued, which might assist in the communication of risks and advisory
recommendations.
The primary objectives of this document are as follows:
Emphasize the importance of survey objectives in selecting a survey approach and
designing the survey.
Provide selection criteria for choosing among the various survey approaches.
Critically evaluate key components in survey design and methods, including question
development, statistical analysis, quality assurance/quality control, and data
interpretation.
Section 1 provides an overview on the history of consumption advisories, the purpose and objectives
of this document, the relationship of this document to other guidance documents, and the organization
of this document. Section 2 presents a discussion of the development of the underlying objectives
for conducting a survey and summarizes the factors that should be considered when articulating
ES-1
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
survey objectives. Survey objectives should reflect the purpose for which the data will be used.
Because each survey method has unique biases, the specific survey objectives will dictate how the
survey is conducted. For example, if the target population and/or waterbody is relatively small,
surveys will most likely be conducted at access sites rather than by means of mail or telephone
surveys because the latter type of survey is unlikely to capture enough respondents in the target
population for a statistically valid estimate unless they have been specifically identified and their
addresses or telephone numbers are known. Several key factors or variables can influence the choice
or articulation of an objective. These factors include, but are not limited to, types offish or wildlife
being consumed, geographic location, population of concern, associated behavior, timing,
accuracy/uncertainty, type of decision to be made, and adherence to advisories.
The survey objectives will also help in designing the survey instrument, commonly called a
questionnaire. Information collected in the survey can be placed in one of four categories:
(1) physical and sociodemographic characteristics of fishers and hunters, (2) fishing and hunting
activities and behavior, (3) preparation and consumption patterns, and (4) consumption advisory
awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. Each question in the survey instrument should be
designed so that it addresses one information need.
Section 3 reviews the various consumption assessment approaches included in this document and
presents selection criteria to be used in choosing from among the different approaches (i.e., telephone
survey, mail survey, diary, personal interview, and creel survey). The selection of a consumption
survey approach or approaches should be based on carefully assessing each approach in light of the
stated objectives for conducting the survey. Key considerations include the target population or
subpopulations of concern, the degree of accuracy required from the survey results, the time frame
in which the survey information is needed, human and financial resources available to conduct the
survey and analyze the data, and the characteristics of the fish or wildlife populations being evaluated
and their harvesting.
In Section 4, instrument and study design considerations for each of the survey approaches are
discussed. Many issues are common to all five survey approaches, including issues pertaining to
questionnaire design (question structure, wording, and order), statistical analysis, data interpretation,
and quality control. The selection criteria that can be used to differentiate the survey approaches can
be divided into the following five categories:
• Target population/subpopulation
• Accuracy
• Time frame
• Resources
• Harvest characteristics
This document compares the five survey approaches based on criteria within the five categories listed
above. Often more than one survey approach may provide the required information. In such cases,
the selection of an approach should be based on other considerations such as personal preference, past
experience, available resources (funds and personnel), or consistency with other local, regional, or
national surveys. This last factor is particularly important if the purpose of the survey is to provide
data for comparison with the results of another survey.
ES-2
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EPA welcomes your suggestions and comments. A major goal of this guidance document series is
to provide a clear and usable summary of critical information necessary to make informed decisions
regarding the development of consumption advisories and water quality standards. EPA hopes this
document will be a useful adjunct to the resources used by the states, local governments, and tribal
bodies in making decisions regarding the development of consumption advisories and water quality
standards in their jurisdictions.
ES-3
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Historical Perspective
Concern over potential human health risks associated with chemically contaminated fish, shellfish,
and other organisms that feed on fish and shellfish has led many states to issue consumption
advisories and bans in an effort to limit exposures to certain organic compounds and metals that may
become concentrated in the tissues of these organisms. However, the processes and procedures by
which states develop consumption surveys and use the survey results as a basis for issuing advisories
or bans and water quality standards have varied. In an effort to evaluate the fish consumption
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 consumption advisory
practices (Cunningham et al, 1990). In the survey, state representatives were asked to describe their
fish consumption 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 consumption 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, Pennsylvania.
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
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Tennessee
Valley Authority (TVA), and the Agency for Toxic Substances 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 asked to submit the three action items most important to his or her program. The second most
frequently requested short-term action item contributed by forum participants was to conduct surveys
or studies to assess the fish consumption rates of various subpopulations in different regions of the
country (Southerland, 1991). Fish consumption rate data are essential in developing water quality
standards, and they also play an integral role in developing advisories and bans.
EPA recognized that studies offish consumption patterns should be conducted to update available
information and to focus on geographical or cultural populations potentially at a high risk. For
humans, a technique that has often been used to obtain consumption pattern data is to conduct a
survey in which respondents are asked to estimate how much fish tissue they consume and the
frequency at which it is consumed or to record actual consumption information on a daily basis. To
address this need, EPA implemented a three-phase approach for assisting the states in estimating fish
tissue consumption rates in potential high-risk populations. This approach included the following
steps:
Review and critically evaluate existing fish tissue consumption rate survey methods and
determine their applicability for estimating consumption rates in recreational and
subsistence fishing populations.
1-1
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
• 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 fishers.
A 1992 document was prepared to meet the first step in this process (U.S. EPA, 1992). Existing
literature concerning fish tissue consumption was reviewed, and selected surveys were evaluated to
identify approaches (recall vs. diary vs. creel) and methods for survey design and analysis. The
purpose of the document was 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 discussed the types of questions that need to be answered in order to understand fish
consumption patterns in high-risk populations. It did not, however, recommend a specific protocol
for use by the states, nor did it provide selection criteria for states to use to develop surveys.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to provide more explicit instructions than those provided in the 1992
EPA document for selecting a survey method and designing a survey to obtain consumption rate
information. Data on exposure and determination of the average daily intake are necessary to assess
risks posed to consumers of fish and shellfish (U.S. EPA, 1997a). Shellfish, including crabs, lobsters,
shrimp, crayfish, mussels, and oysters, have also been included in surveys examining consumption
rates, and consumption advisories and bans have been developed for these organisms in some
localities. In addition to concerns about consumption of contaminated fish and shellfish, recent
studies have indicated that persons who eat wildlife (e.g., frogs, turtles, and waterfowl) that live in
polluted areas and/or consume contaminated fish and shellfish might also be exposed to potentially
toxic levels of bioaccumulative chemical contaminants. For example, consumption advisories have
been issued for snapping turtles and other turtles in New York, Arizona, Massachusetts, and
Minnesota; New York has issued consumption advisories for mergansers because of high levels of
chlordane, DDT, mirex, and polychlorinated biphenyls found in the tissues of these ducks (U.S. EPA,
1996b).
Consumption patterns, including the types and amounts offish and wildlife and frequencies of meals
eaten from these organisms and the preparation methods used, can also vary greatly within
populations because of differences in age or gender. They can differ between populations because
of differences in cultural practices and/or socioeconomic status. The survey methods presented in this
document may be used by regional, state, tribal, or local agencies to obtain information on the
consumption of noncommercially obtained fish (a term that includes shellfish for the purposes of this
document) and wildlife (a term that includes other aquatic and terrestrial animals and birds for the
purposes of this document). This information can then be used to determine whether the amounts of
fish and wildlife being eaten are safe in relation to possible chemical contamination, to estimate risks
to persons who could consume fish and wildlife that might contain bioaccumulative and potentially
dangerous levels of toxicants, and to develop consumption advisories and water quality standards to
protect human health. Information presented in this document should also prove valuable in
evaluating the type and quality of data obtained in surveys conducted by others to determine whether
they are suitable for use in planned risk assessments.
1-2
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.3 Objectives
The primary objectives of this document are as follows:
• Emphasize the importance of survey objectives in selecting a survey approach and
designing the survey.
• Provide selection criteria for choosing among the various survey approaches.
• Critically evaluate key components in survey design and methods, including question
development, statistical analysis, quality assurance and quality control, and data
interpretation.
1.4 Relationship of Manual to Other Guidance Documents
To address concerns raised by the survey of state fish advisory practices (Cunningham et al., 1990),
EPA developed a series of four documents designed to provide guidance to state, local, regional, and
tribal environmental health officials who are responsible for issuing consumption advisories for
noncommercially caught fish and shellfish. The documents are meant only to provide guidance and
do not constitute a regulatory requirement. The documents are Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contamination Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis (released in
1993 and revised in 1995), Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits (released in
1994 and revised in 1997), Volume 3: Risk Management (released in 1996), and Volume 4: Risk
Communication (released in 1995). EPA recommends that the four volumes of this guidance series
be used together since no one volume provides all the necessary information to make decisions
regarding the issuance of consumption advisories. The current volume provides additional guidance
on methods for obtaining consumption rate data for use in developing the exposure assessment to
estimate potential risks and to determine whether a consumption advisory is warranted to limit
exposure to contaminants in fish and wildlife. The reader is directed to consult additional references
provided in this document for more detailed information on designing, conducting, and analyzing
consumption surveys. In addition, reviews of consumption surveys, compilations offish and shellfish
consumption rate data, and detailed discussions of issues pertaining to consumption surveys and the
use of these data in risk assessments are available in Gassel (1997) and U.S. EPA (1997a).
1.5 Organization of This Manual
Following this introduction, Section 2 presents a discussion of potential survey objectives and
summarizes the factors that should be considered when articulating survey objectives. Section 3
reviews the various consumption assessment approaches included in this document and presents
selection criteria to be used in choosing between the different approaches. In Section 4, instrument
and study design considerations for each of the survey approaches are discussed. The document is
summarized in Section 5, and the literature cited is given in the references section. Appendix A
provides a summary in table form of previous consumption surveys. Appendix B presents example
survey instruments for the five survey approaches discussed in this document. The reader should
note that these survey instruments are provided as examples only and their inclusion in this document
does not imply endorsement by EPA.
1-3
-------
2. SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
SECTION 2
SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
2.1 Overview
Consumption rates for fish and wildlife differ throughout the country and for specific subpopulations
(see, for instance, Hu, 1985; Allen et al, 1996; U.S. EPA, 1996a; Gassel, 1997; U.S. EPA, 1997a).
Several recent studies have attempted to develop consumption rate estimates for high-risk populations.
The four steps in the design and development of a consumption survey are as follows:
1. Identification of the survey objectives.
2. Preparation of a sample design and analysis plan, which includes
identification of the target population(s) and selection of the sampling strategy for the survey
population(s)
identification of the specific data to be gained from the survey
the analytical/statistical methods to be used once the data are collected
3. Selection of the survey approach to be used to obtain the data.
4. Design of the survey instrument(s).
This section describes the objectives and information needs of surveys or censuses targeting populations
of concern.
2.2 Definition of Survey Objectives
Developing the consumption survey objectives is a critical step in designing the survey. An objective
is "something toward which effort is directed" (Merriam-Webster, 1993). Objectives can flow from a
problem that has been identified (high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs] in sport fish) or a
question that has been posed (Will eating the fish in this river, or wildlife in this area, make people
sick?). The reasons for conducting the survey (e.g., the need to know whether fishers at Lake X eat
catfish and how much is consumed) should suggest some or all of the appropriate objectives. For
example, if there is a need for fish consumption data for recreational fishers at a contaminated
waterbody, three specific objectives would be the following:
1. Identify the population of fishers who catch and eat fish from the waterbody.
2. Obtain information regarding fishing activities at the waterbody for the target population.
3. Determine the fish consumption practices for the target population.
2-1
-------
2. SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
If the target population is relatively small and it is desirable and feasible to survey the entire population
(i.e., take a census), then the results obtained will be observations of the population parameters. The
more typical situation, however, is when a subset of the target population is sampled at random; the
results obtained are sample statistics which, if obtained correctly, are expected to be good
approximations of the population parameters. Census estimates have less error than sample estimates
because they are subject only to the reliability, validity, and measurement error involved in the survey
response (see discussion of Accuracy in Section 3.3.2). The sample estimates are subject to the same
types of error as censuses, but also to sample selection bias and sampling error.
Survey objectives should reflect the purpose for which the data will be used, one of the reasons for
conducting the survey. For example, in cases where health effects from fish or wildlife consumption are
suspected, an advisory might be implemented to reduce adverse effects or water quality standards might
be established and enforced. Development of an advisory may proceed without site-specific
consumption information (see procedures in U.S. EPA, 1997a) based on contaminant levels in tissue and
a valid EPA risk value (reference dose or cancer slope factor), chronic no-observed-adverse-effect level
(NOAEL), or lowest-observed-adverse-effect level (LOAEL) and an estimated overall average
consumption rate to characterize risk. However, determination of actual consumption levels can improve
the accuracy of the risk estimate. Subsistence fishers or hunters, who rely on noncommercially obtained
fish or wildlife for a major portion of the protein in their diets, might be more at risk than those who fish
or hunt primarily for recreation or sport and thus eat less fish and wildlife. Those who fish or hunt less
frequently but rely on potentially contaminated sources of fish and wildlife from friends or neighbors for
most of their protein needs might be more at risk. Children, women of child-bearing age, and older
persons might be more at risk from exposure to certain contaminants than adult middle-aged males.
Another potential use for fish consumption data is in state ambient water quality standards programs.
For these programs, local fish consumption data are preferred over national default rates.
Consumption rate information is also used in risk management decisions regarding the allocation of
resources and implementation of various public health protection strategies related to consumption of
contaminated fish and wildlife (U.S. EPA, 1997a). Information on methods used by fishers or hunters
to prepare their catch and the extent to which a particular contaminant concentration is likely to be
decreased by trimming and skinning or broiling and frying, for example, are needed to develop dose
modification factors to change the contaminant concentration and the resulting exposure estimate used
as a parameter in the risk equations, for the development of fish advisories, and for risk communication
activities (U.S. EPA, 1997a). Thus, different final uses of the data, in addition to the underlying research
objectives, will also influence the development of the survey objectives and the design and
implementation of the survey.
The objectives for the process of obtaining consumption rate data might be expressed as follows:
Determine the amount and frequency of noncommercially caught fish consumed by
individual members of households in a target population.
Determine the amount and frequency of consumption of fish from River X for children.
Determine the amount and frequency of consumption of frogs caught at Lake Y during the
summer.
2-2
-------
2. SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
Determine the amount and frequency of consumption of shark, tuna, and swordfish either
caught by the fisher or obtained from other sources.
Determine the amount and frequency of consumption of whole fish versus fish muscle for
members of different ethnic populations and socioeconomic sub-populations.
Determine the amount and frequency of consumption of ducks from regions with several
waterbodies containing similar known toxicants.
Different survey objectives will be needed to address different information needs. Consumption rate data
might be required for developing an advisory at a waterbody based on contaminants in all fish, or just
in certain species of fish. Alternatively, data might be used to develop an advisory to protect human
health from exposure to a specific contaminant from a variety of noncommercially caught fish and
wildlife, and other sources. An advisory might also be developed to guide people in preparing fish in
a manner that removes contaminants and thus reduces exposure.
Because each survey approach has unique biases, the specific survey objectives will dictate how the
survey is conducted. For example, if the target population and/or waterbody is relatively small, surveys
will most likely be conducted at access sites rather than through mail or telephone surveys because the
latter type of survey is unlikely to capture enough respondents in a given population for a statistically
valid estimate unless the target population has been previously identified so that their addresses or
telephone numbers are known. A large number of data points might be needed to minimize the
uncertainty of the fish consumption estimates so as to improve the estimate of risks to the targeted
population.
The survey objectives will also help in designing the survey instrument (commonly called a
questionnaire). The information to be collected is targeted to address the objectives. One question might
provide data needed for one or more objectives; one objective might require several questions to collect
the data. The survey objectives can also guide the development of the types of questions to be asked and
analyses of the data that might be performed to obtain specific results (e.g., estimated age distribution
of consumers, estimated number of fish dishes [or fish meals] consumed per person per week [or per
month], and estimated age distribution of persons eating more than 10 g per day). The survey objectives
thus serve as a planning tool to ensure that the required information is collected.
Several key factors or variables can influence the choice or articulation of an objective. These factors
include, but are not limited to, type of consumption, geographic location, population of concern,
associated behavior, timing, accuracy/uncertainty, type of decision to be made, adherence to advisories,
and type of adverse health outcomes associated with the contaminants at a site.
The type of consumption that might be targeted in a particular survey could be total (all fish consumed
from all sources, caught or bought, noncommercial or commercial), recreational only (fish consumed only
when caught for sport), recreational as a percent of total fish consumption, subsistence only (fish
consumed year-round as the primary protein source), or species-specific fish consumption (largemouth
bass only, sharks only, snapping turtles only, all bottom-feeding species only), for example.
The geographic location to be investigated is also important, both for fishing and hunting activity and
for consumers of the fish and wildlife caught. Determining the consumption of bluefish (a saltwater fish)
among fishers in the Great Lakes region might be technically feasible, but it would not provide
2-3
-------
2. SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
information useful in developing an advisory for Lake Michigan, which would need to be based on the
consumption of contaminated lake trout, for instance.
Identification of the population of concern is an important objective that should be articulated during the
early stages of the survey design. Surveys can be designed to identify groups that might be at greater
risk of exposure to contaminants in fish and wildlife due to higher consumption rates. For example,
West et al. (1989) described variations in fish consumption in communities in Michigan by ethnicity,
income, and length of residence. This survey determined that, in general, African Americans and Native
Americans ate more fish than Caucasians; individuals with lower incomes ate more fish than individuals
with higher incomes; and older individuals ate more fish than younger individuals. Surveys also can be
designed to target especially susceptible subpopulations. For pregnant and nursing women, women
planning to have children, small children, people with preexisting health problems, and older persons,
the risk from consuming contaminated fish might be greater than for healthy men and healthy non-
reproducing women (U. S. EPA, 1997a). Exposure to some contaminants is of particular concern during
prenatal or postnatal development because of the rapid tissue growth and development that infants and
children undergo during those periods (NAS, 1993). Persons with preexisting health problems might
be particularly susceptible to contaminants that interact with their medications or are toxic to organs
already affected by disease (U.S. EPA, 1997a). Older persons might be at greater risk to contaminants
because the aging process can increase the retention of toxic chemicals through a variety of
morphological, organ, and cellular changes (e.g., West et al., 1997). Additional information on the
identification and selection of populations of concern is provided in U.S. EPA (1997a).
Timing is an essential consideration for obtaining consumption rate data. How soon will information
from the study be needed? Over what seasons are the data needed, or is the entire year being considered?
Fishing activity might be undertaken by the majority of fishers only during the summer, and duck hunting
is usually limited to specific time periods; however, the popularity of ice fishing has grown in some areas
of the northern United States. In addition, fish or wildlife caught in one season might be preserved (e.g.,
smoked or frozen) and consumed later, indicating that exposure to tissue contaminants might be equally
important year-round.
Another important concept that can influence the development of the objectives is the required accuracy.
If only a "ballpark" figure is needed for issuing advice, identification of consumption rates for specific
populations or sites might be unnecessary. However, if regulatory or legal challenges to issuance of an
advisory, closure, or water quality standards are anticipated, a highly accurate, legally defensible
consumption rate might be required, indicating a need to address more objectives or very detailed
objectives in the survey.
The type of decision to be made based on the consumption data can drive the survey process; for
example, risk assessment (predictive/protective) versus diet/health relationships (empirical). Will data
on actual consumption be used in relation to observed health effects, or is potential consumption
information (e.g., in the absence of contaminants) desired to assist in cleaning up a contaminated site so
that fishing or hunting activity can be restored? For whom will the advice be constructed—the general
public or a specific population?
In some cases, consumption data are desired to evaluate adherence to advisories, i.e., the success of
existing advisory messages recommending certain consumption behavior. The objective of determining
consumption advisory effectiveness should then be included in the list of survey objectives.
2-4
-------
2. SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
The responsibilities and the ethics of conducting the survey should also be considered. Of particular
importance are the requirements for reporting back to the population surveyed so that respondents can
learn the results. In most instances, approval by a human subjects research review board is needed prior
to implementing the survey even when the person to be interviewed is clearly anonymous.
Confidentiality and informed consent are important in any survey process where personal data are
collected and the participant can be identified, as in a personal interview, a listed telephone sample, or
a list of license holders.
2.3 Information Needs
In addition to the overall purpose and objectives of a consumption study, the need for information about
specific aspects of consumption or characteristics offish and wildlife consumers should be considered.
The extent to which these factors are important or to which information is needed to meet the objectives
of the study will influence what survey approach is selected. These factors include:
Physical and sociodemographic characteristics of fishers and hunters and/or fish and
wildlife consumers.
Fishing and hunting activities and behavior.
• Preparation and consumption patterns.
Consumption advisory awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs.
Specific information needs within these general categories are given in Table 1. The list was compiled
from recent fishing/shellfishing surveys and comments from representatives of federal and state agencies
and other organizations.
The most important data needed to develop an exposure assessment are the characteristics of the
population that might be exposed and the exposure or consumption rate, usually expressed in grams per
individual per day (g/day) or grams per kilogram of body weight per day (g/kg/day). These information
needs are marked with a diamond in Table 1. Certain population subgroups are known to be more
susceptible to toxic effects from chemical contaminants (U.S. EPA, 1997a). Of particular concern are
children, women of childbearing age, and elderly persons.
The survey objectives might focus on one or more subgroups for which development of a fish
consumption advisory might be warranted, depending on the possible chemical contaminants to which
consumers might be exposed. The information might be obtained by surveying members of that
subgroup only, or by surveying whole households as sample units and later selecting subgroup data for
separate analysis. The subgroups might be identified by asking whether the respondent (or each
household member) is male or female, his or her actual age or age category, or other designation. The
exposure assessment will also require data on the amount of contaminant found in the fish, shellfish, or
wildlife tissue of concern. The reader is referred to U.S. EPA (1995, 1997a) for further guidance in
obtaining such data.
2-5
-------
2. SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
Table 1. Potential Information Requirements for Fish and Wildlife Consumption Surveys3
Physical and Sociodemographic Characteristics of Fishers/Hunters and/or Consumers:
* Characteristics of fisher or hunter and each household member (ethnicity, gender, date of
birth, height, weight)
* Pregnancy/lactation status of women in the household
* Physical disabilities or medical conditions of each household member
* Number and type of permanent and temporary household members (e.g., child or adult,
fish/wildlife consumer or nonconsumer, resident or migrant)
Occupation/employment status
Income level
Education level
Language spoken at home
City of residence
Fishing and Hunting Activities and Behavior:
Location(s) of fishing or hunting activities (specific sites, type of waterbody)
Distance(s) of fishing or hunting activities from principal residence
Seasonal and temporal distribution of fishing or hunting activities (total number of days per
season, which months of the year, for each location)
Fishing or hunting effort (hours/outing, hours/day, outings/month, days/month)
Purpose for fishing or hunting (consumption, sport only: catch and release, etc.)
Mode of fishing or hunting (e.g., nets, traps, hook and line; pier, shore, private boat,
charter boat, scuba)
Type of animal caught (general category such as bottomfish, flatfish, turtle; or identified to
species or group of species)
Numbers of animals by species caught per outing
Size ranges of animals caught (minimum and maximum weights and lengths by species)
How the animals were disposed of (released, consumed by household, sold, given away)
How long involved in fishing or hunting activities and consuming self-caught animals (new
to sport or years)
Preparation and Consumption Patterns:
* Amounts (raw wet weight or cooked weight) of wild-caught fish or wildlife tissue eaten per
meal/day/week/month for each person in household (visual cues are helpful to improve
the accuracy of portion size estimates)
* Quantity of fish, or other aquatic organisms, waterfowl, or wildlife that might have eaten
fish from the same sites, consumed during a specified time period
* Geographic and seasonal variations in consumption
* Parts of animal consumed (may vary with the species)
Parts of animal used for cooking but not ingested (e.g., boiling of bones or fish heads)
* How the animals were prepared for eating (e.g., skinned, fillet, steak, shucked)
* How the animals were cooked (e.g., baked, fried, steamed)
* Special cultural/ethnic practices in fish or wildlife consumption and preservation
Consumption offish or wildlife purchased in supermarkets, fish markets, or roadside
stands; purchased at the dock; or obtained by bartering (amounts, number of meals,
frequency)
Whether fish or wildlife were frozen or preserved and eaten throughout the year, or eaten
only when fresh
2-6
-------
2. SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
Table 1. (continued)
Preparation and Consumption Patterns (continued):
Participation in food assistance program
Source of home water supply
Risk behaviors (smoking, drinking)
The level of consumption that would be desired in the absence of contaminants
If advisory has resulted in reduced consumption of fish or wildlife, what has replaced that
protein/food source in the diet?
Consumption Advisory Awareness, Knowledge, Attitudes, and Beliefs:
Has the fisher or hunter heard or read from any source (including interpersonal
communication or mass media sources such as announced fishing bans or posted
notices) of the possible contamination offish or wildlife by chemical or biologic agents in
areas where currently fishing/hunting or where planning to fish/hunt?
If yes, how has it affected his/her fishing or hunting activities, meat preparation methods,
or consumption patterns?
What, if anything, would stop the fisher or hunter from eating the animal that he or she has
caught? Is the fisher or hunter in a situation that precludes him or her from finding other
food sources (i.e., is he or she subsistence fishing and hunting?)
Did the fisher or hunter ever get sick from eating self-caught/self-prepared fish or wildlife?
Did the fisher or hunter ever observe any abnormalities, internal or external, in captured
animals? If so, were the animals consumed, thrown out, or given away?
If aware of the advisory, does the fisher or hunter inform the recipient of the gift meat
about the advisory?
Does the fisher or hunter feel that the health risks indicated in the advisory are relevant to
him or her? If no, why not? If so, why does he or she continue to consume the fish or
wildlife?
Does the respondent know the correct advisory content?
To what extent does the respondent believe the advisory content?
How important does the respondent feel the advisory is to him or her or other members of
the household?
"Information requirements marked with a diamond are of primary importance in determining risk.
One of the fundamental issues surrounding the collection of information is identifying the sampling unit
and the methods by which that sampling unit will be surveyed. In fish consumption surveys, the
sampling unit is typically the individual consumer. When sampling (rather than taking a census of) the
population, it would be inappropriate to consider all members of a household in a particular subgroup
(e.g., children) as independent observations of the population because of obvious "household effects."
If each individual in every household were considered an independent case, the consumption estimates
for the population would be skewed toward those of larger families. If the individual is the sampling
unit, the appropriate design might be to randomly select a household and then randomly select a
household member within the target population. The resulting estimate would represent the average
consumption rate for the target population. Alternatively, if the sampling unit is the household, all
members of the household should be questioned, either individually or perhaps by proxy with the primary
food preparer as the single respondent speaking for all members of the household. The complete
information for a household could then be summarized to produce a single estimate for each subgroup
within the selected household. For example, this single estimate might be the mean or the maximum
consumption for household members in the target population. This household estimate would represent
the average or maximum household consumption rate for the target population. Proxy respondents may
be necessary when the target population is an older person or a child; in these situations, proxy
2-7
-------
2. SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
respondents may actually provide more accurate responses to survey questions regarding fish
consumption and preparation information. When using proxy respondents, the primary concern is to
ensure that the target sampling unit is sampled only once and that all sampling units in the population
have an equal probability of being sampled.
U.S. EPA (1992) noted that fish consumption rates can vary widely in the human population. Different
rates might be obtained for infrequent fish consumers, sport fishers, subsistence fishers, and others who
eat fish frequently or for those who eat wildlife. Also, the rate itself might represent one of several
different possible summary statistics (e.g., mean, median, 95 percent upper confidence limit) of the entire
distribution. Several authors (e.g., West et al., 1993; Gassel, 1997) have noted that a single point
estimate is inadequate to represent consumption rates for a population because of the inherent variability
in the consuming populations; thus the entire distribution or several points in the distribution could be
used to describe the consumption rate or to protect a larger percentage of the overall consuming
population. Various subgroups within these categories might also have different consumption rates
(adults vs. children, children of different ages or sizes, elderly versus middle-aged). Since consumption
rates will "have a significant impact on the risk estimations and on the selection offish consumption
limits" (U.S. EPA, 1992), it is important to consider carefully how the consumption rate will be
determined from the questions asked. For example, consumption rates will be calculated from species-
specific estimates of the frequency offish consumption ("1 meal per week from May through July"),
portion size, and preparation techniques ("approximately half-pound fillet, generally broiled"). These
responses could result in a consumption rate estimate of 225 grams per week for 3 months. Insufficient
delineation on the timing or details of consumption patterns will result in poor estimates of the
consumption rate and consequently inaccurate estimates of risk. The method to be used will also depend
on the survey method selected (see Section 3). See Section 4 for more details on how these estimates
can be obtained for the different survey methods, as well as a discussion of the uncertainties associated
with consumption estimates.
The type and level of detail for the data to be collected will depend on the stated objectives for the survey
and the statistical methods that will be used to meet those objectives. Data (e.g., consumption
information and fishing effort) may be collected as continuous or categorical data types. A survey
question may be constructed to provide categorical answers from which the respondent must choose
(e.g., "none," "a few meals," "some meals ," "most meals ," or "all meals" in response to the question
"How many meals are prepared using method X?"); alternatively, the question may be phrased to force
the respondent to come up with his or her own estimate ("How many meals per month are prepared using
method X?"). The analytical implications associated with these two approaches should be discussed with
an experienced survey researcher and/or statistician before constructing the survey questions. It should
be noted that since the use of categorical response choices can affect the outcome by suggesting
responses or altering memories, the use of categories should be employed judiciously (Wentland and
Smith, 1993).
2.4 Summary
Reasons for conducting a consumption survey can be varied, but it is important to clearly define why the
survey is being conducted and what information can be derived from the survey. This is important so that
those who are using a survey instrument, as well as those participating in the survey, understand what
can and will be done with the information obtained. Consumption survey objectives should be developed
very early in the planning process. The nature of the objectives will dictate what survey method(s) can
be used effectively. Information collected in the survey can be placed in one of four categories (Table
2-8
-------
2. SURVEY OBJECTIVES AND INFORMATION NEEDS
1): (1) physical and sociodemographic characteristics of fishers/hunters and/or consumers, (2) fishing
and hunting activities and behavior, (3) preparation and consumption patterns, and (4) consumption
advisory awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs. Table 2 presents an example of the development
of a survey from an examination of the problem and selection of an approach to production and analysis
of the results.
Table 2. Example Development of a Survey
Problem:
Purpose:
Objectives:
Survey Method:
Instrument Questions:
Analysis and Results:
Catfish in Lake A contain high levels of chemical X, a known
carcinogen.
Determine whether children would be at increased risk of developing
cancer as a result of eating catfish from Lake A.
Determine whether children are eating catfish caught in Lake A.
Determine how much catfish tissue from Lake A children eat.
Personal interviews at Lake A.a
Do you catch catfish from Lake A?
(IF YES) Do you release the catfish or keep them?
(KEEP) How many catfish do you keep per year?
(NUMBER)
How many children do you have in your household, if any?
(NUMBER)
(IF > 0) Do any of the children eat catfish?
(IF YES)
(List each child who eats catfish by age and gender.)
What is the age of each child who eats catfish?
What is the gender of each child who eats catfish?
J eat catfish, if at all? (per week,
) eat per meal? (visual
(For each child listed)
(LIST) How often does (
month, etc.)
(IF > 0) How much catfish does
cues)
How is the catfish prepared?
Percent of population surveyed that have children in household.
Percent of children in household who eat catfish.
Frequency and amount of catfish consumption by children.
"As with all survey instruments, the researcher should be concerned about sampling, recall period, and accuracy, and whether
the respondent on site at the lake can best answer questions about preparation and portion sizes. This instrument is subject
to the weaknesses described in this document; it should be refined whenever possible to ensure that its design supports the
study objectives and that it maximizes the use of available resources.
2-9
-------
3. SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
SECTION 3
SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
3.1 Overview
Currently, most states do not have sufficient data available to calculate local consumption rates or to
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 (U.S. EPA, 1989). As states increase their focus on this type of risk assessment, the need
for site-specific fish—and now wildlife—consumption surveys has become more apparent. This
section briefly summarizes some of the available approaches and provides selection criteria that can
be used to choose among the approaches. The discussion of survey approaches applies to both
population censuses and the surveying of a population sample (e.g., a telephone survey could be
applied to both a census and a sample survey).
3.2 Types of Surveys
EPA (U.S. EPA, 1992) has identified five different approaches to conducting surveys of subsistence
and recreational fishers and hunters—telephone survey, mail survey, diary, personal interview, and
creel survey. Some differences among these approaches include whether respondents must rely on
the recall of past or recent activities or behavior (telephone survey, mail survey, and personal
interview) versus a description of current or recent activities (creel survey, personal interview, and
diary) and whether the survey information is collected away from fishing or hunting locations
(telephone survey, mail survey, diary, and personal interview) or at the site of fishing and hunting
activity (creel survey, personal interview, and diary). These approaches are either self administered
(mail survey or diary) or administered by an interviewer. A self-administered questionnaire is one
in which the respondent marks or writes answers on a paper questionnaire from which answers are
later transferred to a database. Recent developments in software and use of the World Wide Web can
permit respondents to enter information directly into an Internet interface that permits transfer of
electronic data to a database. Those approaches administered by an interviewer can be either
computer-assisted or recorded on paper and later entered into a database. Each of the five survey
approaches is briefly summarized below. A more detailed discussion of each approach is presented
in Section 4. The reader should also consult the detailed information on surveys provided in books
and reports such as Salant and Dillman (1994) and Armstrong et al. (1994).
3.2.1 Telephone Survey
The telephone survey consists of telephoning selected respondents and asking them about current or
recent fishing or hunting trips and fish or wildlife consumption. The answers are recorded on
preprinted questionnaires or entered directly into a computer database, usually by interviewers
working from one central location under supervision.
3.2.2 Mail Survey
For a mail survey, a self-administered questionnaire regarding the recent or past fishing or hunting
activities and consumption of selected individuals is mailed to them.
3-1
-------
3. SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
3.2.3 Diary
The diary approach involves the use of diaries, logbooks, or catch cards, which are completed by
fishers or hunters, preferably at the end of a day's fishing or hunting or at the time of consumption
offish or wildlife. This approach differs from the questionnaire approaches in that there are typically
multiple entries, each of which consists of a smaller amount of information than is typically requested
in a mail or telephone questionnaire. Types of information recorded typically include number and
size of animals caught and by whom, fishing or hunting location, type offish or wildlife eaten, size
of serving, preparation method (how it was cleaned and cooked), and who ate the fish or wildlife.
3.2.4 Personal Interview
Personal interviews can be conducted at known fishing or hunting sites, at the fisher's or hunter's
home, or at a centralized location (see, for example, CRITFC, 1994). In-home interviews ask about
recent fishing or hunting trips and fish or wildlife consumption. On-site interviews have the
flexibility to include questions about the current trip, as well as the respondent's usual fish or wildlife
consumption. Respondents are asked a fixed set of questions, and the answers are recorded on
questionnaires or entered directly into a computer database.
3.2.5 Creel Survey
The creel survey is a specialized form of personal interview that takes place only at or near the fishing
site during or immediately after the fisher's fishing trip. In addition to asking a specific set of
questions about fishing activity and fish consumption behavior, an attempt is usually made to identify
and/or measure fish in the fisher's possession (the "creel"). The creel survey can be conducted at
access points (e.g., boat ramps, docks), along the shoreline, or on the water from a boat. Fish
consumption information obtained from the fishers is hypothetical in the sense that consumption has
not yet occurred.
3.3 Selection Criteria
The selection of which survey approach or approaches to use to gather information from fish and
wildlife consumers should be determined by carefully assessing each approach in light of the stated
objectives for conducting the survey. Key considerations include the target population or
subpopulation of concern, the degree of accuracy required from the survey results, the time frame in
which the survey information is needed, the human and financial resources available to conduct the
survey and analyze the survey data, and the characteristics of the fish or wildlife populations and their
harvest being evaluated.
Table 3 shows these five key considerations that influence the selection of an appropriate survey
approach, with specific selection criteria for each consideration that can be used to discriminate
among the survey approaches. In some cases, more than one survey approach might provide the
required information. In these cases, the selection of an approach should be based on other
considerations such as personal preference, past experience, or consistency with other local, regional,
or national surveys. The key considerations are discussed below separately.
3-2
-------
3. SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
Table 3. Comparison of Five Fish and Wildlife Consumption Survey Approaches
Using Various Selection Criteria
Selection Criterion
Telephone
Survey
Mail
Survey
Diary
Personal
Interview
Creel Survey
1. Target Population/Subpopulation
Survey sample known prior to
conducting survey
Can be used where low literacy
rates might be encountered
yes/noa
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes/nob
yes
yes/noc
yes
II. Accuracy11
Reliability
Potential for response reliability
Validity
Validity of consumption
estimates
Validity of species identification
Bias
Potential to minimize recall bias
Potential to minimize prestige
bias
Measurement error
Opportunity for respondent to
ask for clarification
Potential for respondent
participation
moderate/
high
low
low
moderate
moderate
moderate/
high
moderate
low/
moderate
low/high6
moderate
low/high6
low
low
moderate
low/
moderate
moderate
moderate
moderate
low
low
low
moderate/
high
low/
moderate'
moderate/
high9
moderate/
high9
moderate
high
high
moderate/
high
moderate'
high
not
applicable
moderate
high
high
III. Time Frame
Immediate data from respondent
yes
no
no
yes
yes
IV. Resources
Interviewer burden
Respondent burden
Relative cost
moderate
low
moderate
low
moderate
low/
moderate
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
high
V. Harvest Characteristics
Many access points
High fishing or hunting pressure
Large geographic area
yes
yes/no1
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes/nob
yes
no
yes/noh
yes/no'
no
aYes if phone numbers are obtained after the sample population has been preselected, no if random-digit
dialing (ROD) or general directory frames are used, unless geographically delimited using 3-digit prefix.
"No for interviews conducted at fishing or hunting access points, yes for off-site interviews.
3-3
-------
3. SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
°Depends on ability to estimate total site usage using random sampling of all access points (e.g., using "bus
route method," aerial survey, or other methods; see Section 4.9.4, or Pollock et al., 1994 for more information
on these methods).
dGiven sufficient resources, all five survey approaches can generate accurate data. The descriptions given
here are relative to each other and reflect the typical implementation of each approach.
eDepends on recall method used — six-month recall periods will have lower validity and higher recall bias than
a 14-day rolling cohort approach (e.g., West et al., 1989; 1993).
fOn-site interviews result in valid catch estimates, but consumption estimates are hypothetical because they
measure only the intentio consume (see Section 4.9.2). Off-site interviews result in catch and consumption
estimates with potentially low validity depending on the period of recall (see also footnote d).
9Moderate for off-site interviews, high for on-site interviews.
hYes for roving creel survey, no for access point survey.
'Yes for random telephone numbers, no for known telephone numbers.
'Yes for access point survey, no for roving creel survey.
3.3.1 Target Population of Concern
The five survey approaches can be used to provide consumption information on the general
population or specific subpopulations of concern. However, the survey approaches differ in the
degree to which the target population must be determined prior to conducting the survey. For
telephone and mail surveys, the diary approach, and personal interviews conducted away from fishing
or hunting areas, the survey sample is typically identified before the consumption survey is conducted.
These survey approaches might be preferable when the objective is to characterize consumption for
an identified population or subpopulation of concern and there is a lack of specific information on
fishing locations. However, when a subpopulation is difficult to reach (e.g., low-income families with
no permanent address or phone number), combining these survey methods with on-site interviews
may be necessary to account for selection biases. Creel surveys, on-site personal interviews, and
random-digit dialing telephone surveys do not necessarily require identification of a target population
of concern, although these approaches do require that a geographic area of concern be identified.
Creel surveys and on-site personal interviews might be preferable when there are concerns about
contaminant levels in a specific waterbody, but little information is available on consumption offish
or wildlife from the waterbody.
Another criterion that can influence the selection of the survey approach is the likelihood that the
target population of concern will have a low literacy rate or respondents will have difficulty
interpreting or providing responses to written questionnaires because of language or cultural barriers.
Survey approaches that involve direct interaction with respondents (telephone survey, personal
interview, and creel survey) might be more effective when it is suspected that the target populations
could have a low response rate or difficulties with written questionnaires. In some cases, the use of
multilingual questionnaires can assist the target population in providing responses to written
questionnaires. The same question, however, might mean different things to different groups of
people; thus, careful attention must be paid to ensure that responses to questions provide the same
information for all groups. It may be necessary to conduct an initial study of community
characteristics, including preliminary testing of a survey approach on focus groups and individual
cognitive interviews (Biemer et al., 1991). The information obtained can be used to develop effective
survey approaches tailored to the population of concern.
Because it can be difficult to identify subsistence fisher or hunter populations solely through
traditional approaches such as mail or phone surveys, it may be necessary for researchers to use other
methods to target these populations. A couple of methods might be of use. One method involves
3-4
-------
3. SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
contact with community organizations that represent these populations (e.g., Indian tribal
organizations) and have already established a relationship with community members (see, for
example, CRITFC, 1994). In addition, creel clerks (those who interview fishers at specific fishing
locations) might be good sources of information on fisher demographics because they have direct
contact with people at fishing sites (Shubat, 1993, cited in U.S. EPA, 1997b).
It is important to anticipate cultural and language requirements of each ethnic group in following the
community-based approach indicated above, as well as in other situations when conducting surveys.
Language barriers and literacy rates are important issues that must be addressed. Who is permitted
to ask questions and how the questions are asked can vary within different societies and can affect the
willingness and forthrightness of respondents. Cultural and religious sensitivity on the part of the
interviewer is important to maximize respondent participation and minimize errors or bias in the
consumption estimates offish and wildlife. For example, Asians and Pacific Islanders are currently
the fastest growing minority population in the United States. For many first- and second-generation
immigrants and refugees, surveys that use creel, mail-in, telephone, or door-to-door approaches are
ineffective in obtaining reliable data characterizing fish and seafood consumption patterns (Nakano,
1996, cited in U.S. EPA, 1997b). Cultural patterns in species preference, preparation techniques, and
parts of the fish that are eaten or used in the cooking process should be understood when developing
the survey questions. Informal studies indicate a preference for bottom-dwelling fish, so Asian and
Pacific Islander surveys should include an appropriate species list (Soukhaphonh et al, 1996, cited
in U.S. EPA, 1997b). Pictures that help persons to identify what species they are catching would also
increase the understandability of the survey instrument. Socioeconomic issues and fear of authority,
particularly among subsistence fishers and hunters, can also adversely affect survey results if these
are not taken into consideration early in the planning process. In these situations, it may be useful to
consult and ask for assistance from community organizations such as churches or tribal organizations
in developing and conducting surveys.
3.3.2 Accuracy
The required accuracy of consumption rates is an important topic to be considered when establishing
the objectives for the survey. The survey study design has the greatest impact on the overall accuracy
with which consumption rates can be estimated. Thus, all five survey approaches can provide
estimates of high accuracy provided resources are sufficient, statistically valid survey designs that
include provisions for surveying an adequate number of respondents are used, and the design is
sensitive to the characteristics of the subject matter and the target population.
There are several different components to accuracy, including reliability (the variability or
repeatability of the response); validity (the ability of the respondent to provide the correct answer,
e.g., the number offish consumed in the past month); measurement errors (which are associated with
the interviewer, the respondent, the questionnaire, and the mode of data collection); bias (the
consistent overestimation or underestimation due to survey design and sample selection); and random
errors. The measurement errors can be minimized by careful consideration of the target population
to ensure that the survey questions are not phrased in a way that is leading or unclear. Research has
shown that minor changes in a question's wording can lead to large changes in respondent answers
(Biemer et al. (eds), 1991). Some level of respondent error is unavoidable since such error is a
function of differences in cognitive abilities or differential motivation to answer the questions.
However, sensitivity to these population differences in survey design and question construction can
3-5
-------
3. SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
help ensure that accurate information is obtained from as many respondents as possible. Interviewer
errors can be minimized using training and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) to standardize
interviewing procedures. Some respondent errors are inherent to the mode of data collection. For
example, it has been found that telephone interviews tend to result in shorter answers than do face-to-
face interviews (Biemer et al. (eds), 1991).
Other factors influencing the accuracy of the survey responses include whether the respondent views
the subject as nonthreatening or sensitive; whether respondents remain anonymous; the length of the
recall period (recall bias); the tendency for respondents to provide responses that conform to ideal
norms or enhance their self-image (prestige bias); the clarity of questions (question
misinterpretation); the familiarity of the respondent with the subject matter; the interest level of the
respondent in the subject matter; and the amount of specificity in the question (e.g., requests for exact
numbers versus approximations or ranges) (Wentland and Smith, 1993).
Selection criteria that can be used to discriminate among survey approaches with regard to accuracy
include the potential for recall bias, prestige bias, question misinterpretation, species misidentification,
and survey participation. Table 3 compares these criteria for the five survey approaches. Survey
approaches having a criterion listed as high have the least potential for inaccurate survey responses
and hence might result in a more accurate survey. Survey approaches based on on-site interviews and
creel surveys, if well designed, might not be affected by recall bias because the fish caught will not
have been consumed yet. Prestige bias is inherent in all survey approaches but might have the least
impact on creel surveys, which directly observe and record fish catch. The potential for question
misinterpretation is lowest for survey approaches that use direct interaction with respondents
(telephone survey, personal interview, creel survey) since the interviewer can clarify topics that are
unclear to the respondents, as well as showing models, photographs, or other visual aids to increase
accuracy of responses.
The potential for misidentification offish or other species consumed is affected by recall bias, prestige
bias, and the familiarity of the respondent with the subject matter. The potential for fish
misidentification is lowest for creel surveys and on-site personal interviews because the interviewer
can both directly observe fish catch and allow respondents to visually select the species consumed
from displays of fish species. Survey participation affects the accuracy of consumption estimates by
affecting the number and characteristics of respondents that are evaluated in the survey. In general,
surveys that include a larger number of respondents and a low refusal rate provide a more accurate
representative estimate of consumption in the target population. Nonresponse bias resulting from low
respondent participation can be adjusted using various follow-up techniques. Survey approaches
using on-site interviews and creel surveys have the highest potential for survey participation since the
interviewer can directly engage respondents and motivate them to participate. An understanding of
and sensitivity to the characteristics of the target population of concern, as discussed in Section 3.3.1,
can help minimize nonresponse bias due to culture, religion, language, and attitudes toward
government and authority. Experts in the field have developed specific strategies to counter these
problems. The reader is directed to Tarrant and Manfredo (1993) and Vaske et al. (1996) for
additional information.
3-6
-------
3. SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
3.3.3 Time Frame
The allotted time frame for the study, including survey development, implementation, analysis, and
reporting, might be driven by the need or needs the survey is designed to fulfill, for instance, making
management decisions. The fish consumption surveys listed in Appendix A required lengths of time
ranging from 4 months to 2 years to complete. It is difficult to discriminate among different survey
approaches based on study durations because the length of time to collect and process consumption
survey data depends on the resources available to conduct the study and the study design.
The survey approaches do differ on whether the responses to survey questions are obtained in real
time (telephone survey, personal interview, and creel survey) or over a longer time frame (mail survey
and diary approach). The mail survey and diary approaches might take longer to complete than other
approaches because respondents might not provide timely responses to the questionnaires.
3.3.4 Resource Considerations
The survey approach selected affects the resources (labor and cost) required to complete the survey.
As a general guideline, personal interviews cost at least twice as much as telephone surveys. Both
of these approaches are more costly than mail surveys (U.S. EPA, 1983). Few of the fish
consumption surveys listed in Appendix A include information on the level of effort and costs
expended to complete the survey. Cost and level of effort vary widely depending on the type of
survey and its geographical extent. Personal interviews and creel surveys will in most cases be more
expensive to implement than the other approaches because of the high personnel costs of one-on-one
contacts with respondents. Other costs can be incurred when survey planners consider offering
respondents some type of incentive (monetary or otherwise) for completing and returning the survey
instrument or participating in interviews. Examples of such incentives include reports of the survey
results, cash payments, food vouchers, recipes, or items such as baseball caps. Although some survey
approaches can be implemented for a lower financial cost, there may be an associated loss of data
quality and/or accuracy that can have serious management implications depending on the research
objectives.
3.3.5 Characteristics of the Source of the Fish or Wildlife
The decision about which survey approach to use can depend on the characteristics of the fish or
wildlife populations being evaluated and how the animals are harvested. Three important
characteristics are (1) the number of access points, (2) the fishing or hunting pressure, and (3) the
geographic area. Access points refer to fishing or hunting locations for shore fishers or hunters (e.g.,
beach, river bank, boat dock, fishing pier) and boat ramps for offshore fishers or hunters, as well as
parking lots or preserve entrances where fishers or hunters might begin their activities. In situations
with many different access points, off-site approaches like telephone surveys, mail surveys, and
diaries are preferred. One exception to this trend is the roving creel survey, an on-site approach that
can also yield good results in fisheries with many access points. In fisheries with high fishing
pressure, mail surveys, personal interviews, and access-point creel surveys may be effective because
fishers are concentrated in relatively small areas. Roving creel surveys, in which the interviewer
moves from fisher to fisher and sometimes from site to site, are more applicable to fisheries with low
fishing pressure, where ample time is available for instantaneous counts and for interviewing all
fishers. For fisheries covering a large geographic area, approaches not requiring face-to-face contact
3-7
-------
3. SURVEY APPROACHES AND SELECTION CRITERIA
(e.g., phone and mail surveys, diaries) could be more appropriate. In any case, available personnel
and time resources are also important considerations in selecting the survey approach since, for
example, multiple interviewers can cover larger geographic areas simultaneously.
3.4 Summary
This chapter introduced the five consumption survey approaches covered in this document and
presented selection criteria states and tribes can use to choose the appropriate method for the
objectives of their project. Due to the complexity of estimating consumption in specific
subpopulations, no single method can be recommended in all cases. In fact, a combination of
approaches may be most appropriate in many cases. For example, a mail survey for which the sample
population is taken from fishing license records might not accurately assess consumption for a group
that does not always hold licenses (e.g., subsistence fishers). Thus, a combination of mail surveys
with on-site interviews might provide a more representative picture of consumption. Key
considerations that should be carefully evaluated in selecting a survey approach include the target
population or subpopulations of concern, the level of accuracy required in the survey results, the time
frame in which the survey information is needed, the staff and financial resources available to conduct
the survey and analyze the survey data, and the characteristics of the fishery being evaluated.
3-8
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
SECTION 4
INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Overview
This chapter provides specific guidance on designing and implementing consumption surveys using
one of the five approaches introduced in Chapter 3. For the sake of brevity, the reader is referred to
other texts where appropriate for detailed guidance and examples. Because all of the approaches are
aimed at obtaining consumption rate estimates, there are similarities in study design and
implementation. Issues common to all approaches are discussed in Sections 4.2 through 4.4; Sections
4.5 through 4.9 present method-specific issues.
4.2 General Instrument and Study Design Issues
The four steps in the design and development of a consumption survey are as follows:
1. Identification of the survey objectives.
2. Preparation of a sample design and analysis plan, which includes
• identification of the target population(s) and selection of the sampling strategy for the survey
population(s)
• identification of the specific data to be gained from the survey
• the analytical/statistical methods to be used once the data are collected
3. Selection of the survey approach to be used to obtain the data.
4. Design of the survey instrument.
Study objectives and data needs were discussed in Chapter 2. The issues surrounding the selection
of a particular survey approach were discussed in Chapter 3. This chapter addresses the remainder
of the issues involved in questionnaire design and the preparation of the analysis plan.
Population selection cannot be separated from how the consumption data will be used. If the
consumption data will be used for the assessment of human health risk, surveying the population that
consumes fish or wildlife from a specific region or contaminated waterbody is appropriate. This
population will typically consist of fishers or hunters and perhaps their families if the sample unit is
the entire household. Additional considerations in selecting populations are described under the
specific survey approaches. The reader is advised to consult a statistician at this stage in the process
to ensure a good study design, appropriate selection of the survey population, and confidence that the
research questions can be answered by the survey results.
Each of the five approaches described in Section 3 requires that questions be answered, verbally or
in writing, by potential consumers of fish or wildlife. The specific questions to be asked in a
consumption survey are dependent on (1) the objectives of the survey, (2) the population being
4-1
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
surveyed, and (3) the available resources of the interviewer. For most surveys, the questions can be
developed from the list of information requirements given in Table 1.
Each question in the questionnaire should make a contribution to answering a specific information
need. Pollock et al. (1994) suggest creating a data requirement-by-question matrix for the
questionnaire to confirm that each question is relevant to the study objectives. This matrix should
specify all information requirements necessary to adequately describe the consumption patterns for
the target population (Table 1). This matrix will help facilitate the iterative process of constructing
effective questions for the questionnaire.
Of the four issue categories given in Table 1 (personal and demographic characteristics, fishing and
hunting activities and behavior, preparation and consumption patterns, and consumption advisory
awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs), only questions on demographic characteristics and
consumption patterns are strictly necessary to derive rough consumption estimates. Questions on
fishing and hunting activities and behavior would be asked only of respondents who indicated they
fished or hunted. Advisory awareness questions would be relevant only in areas where there are
advisories; these questions can be especially relevant if epidemiological data will be used to
supplement a risk assessment.
Personal and demographic questions are asked to identify the respondent's membership in a particular
population group and to allow the researcher to test for correlations between consumption and various
population parameters (see Table 1 for examples). Sociodemographic variables such as age, gender,
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 can
influence patterns of intake. Current employment status might affect the amount of time spent fishing
or hunting and the amount offish or wildlife consumed. Without an adequate demographic base, the
interpretation of the results can be biased in unforeseen ways.
Before specific questions regarding fishing and hunting and consumption can be developed, the
researcher must choose a time period for which respondents will be asked to recall consumption. One
of the most important methodological issues in regional fish consumption surveys is to adequately
address the dual objectives of obtaining accurate recall of consumption estimates and capturing
variation overtime (usually a full year cycle). The accuracy of recall is inversely proportional to the
length of the recall period. Recall periods typically range from 7 days to 1 year. One method
developed to meet these dual objectives is the "rolling cohort" method, which minimizes an
individual's required recall time but maximizes the length of the study. The rolling cohort method
uses statistical random selection techniques to place sample cases into random cohorts and then
surveys the cohorts in waves spaced two or more weeks apart. The results obtained are treated with
standard statistical weighting techniques to represent an even flow of data across the year cycle (West
et al. 1993). Using this method, different groups of people are sampled for portions of a relatively
long study period; for more information on this approach see West et al. (1989, 1993). Alternatively,
using a single cohort approach, the estimation of consumption over an entire year is a relatively
difficult matter. The respondent's recall over that period of time is likely to be incomplete. Recall
error can occur in any one of the four steps involved in answering a question: (1) comprehension, (2)
retrieval of information, (3) judgment, and (4) response (Eisenhower et al., 1991). The rolling cohort
method is an important surveying method that can be used to reduce recall error based on inaccurate
retrieval of information. Additional ways in which recall error in each of these four areas can be
4-2
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
reduced are discussed by Eisenhower et al. (1991). Some examples include designing questions that
are easy to comprehend and do not require complicated judgments about whether the response is
representative of others' responses, and providing visual cues to aid recall and estimation. For some
survey methods (e.g., diary and creel survey), recall period is not an issue.
Questions on consumption are obviously central to the questionnaire, but are often the most difficult
to design in an unambiguous manner. Estimates of meal size are subject to considerable error. This
type of question is more difficult to ask and answer in surveys without personal contact (e.g.,
telephone and mail surveys) because questioning must be done without the help of the models of
portion sizes often used in personal interviews. The use of photos of different-sized fish or other meat
portions in mail surveys (with ruler bars for scale) and reference to familiar objects (e.g., a deck of
cards as approximately the size of a 3-ounce [oz] portion) in telephone surveys can assist participants
in providing accurate responses to inquiries about meal size. A typical fish or wildlife consumer
might have difficulty quantifying the weight of tissue eaten over a specified interval, but might be able
to recall the number of meals eaten over the time period in question. During the analysis of data, the
number of meals can be converted into weights by multiplying the number of meals by the
participant's estimate of the meal size typically consumed. EPA (1997a) has identified a value of 8
oz (227 g) of cooked fish fillet per 70-kg consumer body weight as an average meal size for the
general adult noncommercial-fish-consuming population and for women of reproductive age. This
meal size, however, does not represent higher-end exposures where persons consume more than the
average amount in a given meal, and it might not reflect meal sizes consumed by children or those
adults who eat smaller portions. For this reason, it is recommended that participants be asked to
estimate meal size instead of assuming default values.
Studies show that the typical weight loss in cooking a fillet or steak offish is about 20 percent (Jacobs
et al., 1998). Thus, using cooked weights results in a slightly lower intake rate. In researching
consumption surveys, EPA has found that some surveys have reported rates for cooked fish, others
have reported rates for uncooked fish, and many more are unclear as to whether rates for cooked or
uncooked fish were used. For the purpose of developing ambient water quality standards, EPA
intends to use cooked weight assumptions because, by and large, cooked fish is what people consume.
EPA believes, therefore, that these values appropriately reflect the potential exposure from fish
consumption better than uncooked weights. Pictures of cooked fish on a plate in relative size
comparison to other food on the plate, the plate itself, silverware, and napkin help respondents
visualize portion size and lead to enhanced accuracy (Humphrey, 1976, 1983; West, 1989,1993).
However, EPA's fish advisory program recommends that intake rates in developing risk analyses for
advisories be based on uncooked weights because chemical analysis to determine concentrations of
pollutants in tissue is almost always based on analysis of uncooked portions offish. Uncooked fish
portions can similarly be compared to a common object, such as a deck of cards, to better estimate
weight. Questions included in the surveys should clearly identify whether weights represent cooked
or uncooked fish.
For a question to be readily understood, it must be simple and straightforward. The design of each
specific question must consider both question structure and question wording. The position of each
question in the overall survey is also important. Each of these topics is discussed below. The reader
is referred to Biemer et al. (1991), Wentland and Smith (1993), Pollock et al. (1994), and the
references cited therein for more information.
4-3
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
Question structure. Four general types of question structures are available (Pollock et al., 1994): (1)
open-end questions, (2) closed-end questions with ordered response choices, (3) closed-end questions
with unordered response choices, and (4) partially closed-end questions. Open-end questions have
no categories from which the respondent can choose; however, interpretation of all but the simplest
open-end questions can be quite difficult. Closed-end questions provide several answer categories,
which can be ordered sequentially (e.g., numerically) or unordered. The answers to closed-end
questions are easy to summarize quantitatively. Response options must be selected carefully so that
the choices are mutually exclusive, inclusive of all reasonable choices, and easy to understand.
Categories also may provide cues to aid respondents' recall (Bradburn and Sudman, 1991). Partially
closed-end questions allow an open-ended option such as "other." This option represents a good
compromise between open-ended and closed-end structures (Pollock et al., 1994), but some research
suggests that the "other" category is rarely selected (Bradburn and Sudman, 1991).
For closed-end questions, the specific ranges for each response alternative can affect the way in which
the question is answered. Values in the middle range of the scale selected are often assumed by
respondents to reflect the "average" or "typical" behavior, whereas the extremes of the scale are
assumed to represent the extremes of the distribution (Schwarz andHippler, 1991). Thus respondents
will choose a given value more frequently if it is not at either extreme of the range in which it is
placed, and they will select a given range more frequently if it lies closer to the middle of the overall
range.
Question wording. The specific wording of questionnaires on fish consumption must be developed
very carefully to elicit nonbiased responses. Some recommended guidelines for question wording are
listed below (Pollock et al., 1994):
All alternatives of a multiple-choice question should be given.
As few words as necessary should be used.
The units that apply to each response should be given.
The time frame covered by the survey should be clear.
Only one concept or issue should be addressed by each question.
Draft questions should be reviewed carefully for ambiguity. In survey approaches that include
personal contact (e.g., telephone surveys and personal interviews), ambiguity can be corrected through
interaction between the interviewer and respondent. It is preferable to minimize ambiguity by testing
the questionnaire on a focus group. Salant and Dillman (1994) also provide a good discussion of
many of the issues surrounding good question wording, such as content, sentence structure, and the
order of response choices. Appendix 6.A of that book provides samples of wording problems and
possible solutions.
Question order. Topic sections should be arranged for the convenience of the respondent, not that
of the researcher. There is likely a logical order to grouping questions which will aid in respondent
recall. The questions should build on each other. For example, rather than asking "Did you wear
your seatbeltthe last time you were a passenger in a car?" the following series of questions may be
more effective: "When was the last time you rode in a car as a passenger? (Today, yesterday, 2 days
ago)" "How long was the trip? (Less than a mile, 1-2 miles, more than 2 miles)" "Did you wear your
seatbelt? (The entire time the car was moving, part of the time, or not at all)" This kind of cognitive
design can be very effective in minimizing respondent error and should be used for important
4-4
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
questions (Salant and Dillman, 1994). In addition, it might be useful to phrase important questions
a couple of different ways and ask them at different points in the survey to measure respondent
accuracy. In a personal interview, these answers can be compared and if needed, the respondent can
be asked additional questions to help clarify the most accurate response.
The first one or two questions might be the most critical, particularly for mail surveys, since these
might determine whether the respondent chooses to complete the questionnaire. Sensitive questions
or questions that are difficult to answer should be asked near the end of the interview so as not to
threaten the respondent and compromise the rapport between interviewer and respondent. Sensitive
questions include demographic questions such as age, income, and education and questions about
whether the fisher has an applicable fishing or hunting license or is familiar with a particular advisory
or regulation (Pollock et al, 1994).
4.3 General Statistical Analysis and Data Interpretation Considerations
A typical survey will generate a considerable amount of data from each respondent. Although the use
to which the data will be put is established before the survey begins, the same is not always true of
the manner in which the data will be analyzed and interpreted. To the extent possible, however, the
researcher should specify the details of analysis and interpretation methods as early as possible in the
survey design process because they might have a significant bearing on the form and content of the
questions asked. Addressing these issues during questionnaire design minimizes difficulties that arise
during data analysis and interpretation.
Statistical considerations play an important role at both the survey design and results analysis levels.
At the survey design level, statistical methods are used to determine the appropriate number of
sampling units (potential fish consumers) and how those sampling units are to be selected from the
target population. Final sample size will depend on the level of precision required for the estimates.
In some cases, the statistical design might need to be modified based on the resources available to
conduct the survey. The Bureau of the Census may be consulted to obtain information about total
population and/or subpopulation numbers present in a particular area. The Bureau can provide data
files listing demographic information of age, gender, and/or ethnicity by census tract, for a cost.
The probability technique can be used to select subsamples of licensees or other designated groups.
For example, if existing survey data indicate that 20 percent of the general population 16 years of age
and older in a state fish, a researcher could have to contact 5,000 people to have a sample size of
1,000 fishers. If the response rate is 50 percent, however, a researcher could collect data from only
500 fishers. To adjust for nonresponse, the researcher would need to attempt to contact 10,000 people
to collect data on 1,000 fishers. Obviously, this process would be more efficient if the sample were
from a list of fish license holders. This is a process known as stratified sampling, where a target
population is subdivided into subgroups prior to sample selection. With a license holder list,
however, the researcher would not obtain consumption data from those people who fish without a
license, who can account for as much as 25 percent of fishers. This and other issues relating to sample
representativeness are discussed in Pollock etal. (1994), U.S. EPA (1997a), Scheaffer et al., (1990),
and other references cited in this chapter.
An appropriate sampling design is imperative to ensure statistical rigor and minimize bias and
sampling error in the study; the reader is therefore advised to consult an experienced survey researcher
4-5
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
and/or statistician during the sample selection stage to achieve adequate representation of the survey
population.
Additional problems in sample size selection might be encountered when attempting to look at special
populations, such as those who eat fish or wildlife frequently. The design of population surveys and
sampling techniques for events and populations that are nonuniform or infrequent presents additional
statistical constraints (Kalton and Anderson, 1986; Sudman et al, 1988). A common solution to
determining sample size in these cases is to predict the response frequency of the most constraining
(i.e., rarest) piece of data among the questions to be answered and then calculate the sample size
required to ensure that the minimum number of replies needed for statistically valid results for the
group described by that constraining datum would be received. If fish consumption by pregnant
women (3 percent of the population) represents the rarest piece of data desired and one wanted a
sampling error of plus or minus 5 percent, assuming a conservative 50/50 distribution, a survey of 400
pregnant women would be needed. To reach 400 pregnant women, one would need to contact 53,332
people in the general population: 53,332 people x 0.50 (response rate) x 0.50 (% female) x 0.03 (%
pregnant) = 400 pregnant women. If the percentage of pregnant women in the target population
differs from 3 percent, this calculation would need to be adjusted accordingly. Obviously, this
method would be very inefficient and costly, so alternative methods for contacting pregnant women
would likely be considered, such as working through medical doctors, clinics, or hospitals.
Once data are gathered and prepared for analysis (coded, entered into a database, and checked for
errors), they must be statistically analyzed. Three basic methods of statistical analysis are used with
survey data—univariate, bivariate, and multivariate analysis. Univariate analysis examines one
variable at a time for the purpose of describing a survey sample and is usually presented as frequency
distributions (percentages), measures of central tendency (mean, median, or mode), and measures of
dispersion (range, standard deviation). Measures of central tendency and dispersion are applicable
only to interval or ratio data. Frequency distributions can be used for nominal, ordinal, or interval and
ratio data, although for interpretation and presentation purposes, interval data are often collapsed into
categories, such as age ranges. Subgroups within a sample can be described using univariate analysis
as well. For example, if females were selected in the analysis, this subsample would become the new
"sample" and could be described using univariate analysis on other variables, such as income.
Bivariate and multivariate analyses are used to examine associations among variables. In bivariate
analysis one variable is used to explain the distribution of another variable; for instance, the
relationship between income and subsistence fishing or hunting could be investigated using regression
analysis. In multivariate analysis two or more variables, such as income and education, are used in
combination to attempt to explain the distribution of another variable, such as subsistence fishing or
hunting.
The term descriptive statistics refers to data reduction techniques used to present results in a usable
and comprehensible form. The most common descriptive statistical methods are the estimation of
population parameters such as percentages, means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients,
all of which are used to summarize data. Care must be taken when summarizing the data because the
statistical methods appropriate for calculating unbiased estimates of the population parameters will
depend on the sampling method (e.g., simple random sampling, stratified sampling, proportional
stratified sampling). There are important statistical issues to consider when making adjustments for
the various types of sampling inaccuracies (see Section 3.3.2). Weights might need to be applied
4-6
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
during the estimation of population parameters where the weights account for different sizes of
subpopulations, for differential nonresponse rates, or for disproportionate sample selection
probabilities. For example, there might be cases where probabilities of respondent selection become
disproportionate in field implementation such that the sample population disproportionately represents
different demographic groups. In those cases where probabilities change between the design and
implementation stages, post-stratified weights are used to estimate population parameters that are
derived from a sample distribution that does not correspond to the known population distribution.
An experienced survey statistician should be consulted to facilitate the appropriate summary of your
data. The term descriptive statistics also includes methods of displaying data graphically. Numerical
and graphical exploratory data analysis techniques (Tukey, 1977) can be used to investigate the data
for trends or patterns that might not be immediately obvious. Interactions between factors such as
class, income, and race can be significant and extremely important in a fish consumption evaluation
(West et al, 1995). Interactions between such factors can mask important characteristics of the data
set unless thorough exploratory techniques are used.
Inferential statistics can be divided into estimation and hypothesis testing. Estimation is probably the
most useful statistical method for analyzing consumption data. The process of estimation entails
calculating, from the data of a sample, some statistic (e.g., the sample mean) that is offered as an
approximation of the corresponding parameter of the population (e.g., the population mean) from
which the sample is drawn. Interval estimates such as a 95 percent confidence interval for the mean
can be constructed. The interpretation is that the probability is 95 chances in 100 that the interval
contains the true but unknown mean. Estimation methods can be helpful in analyzing the relationship
between two or more variables (measures of association). Different statistical tests of association are
used for different types of data, such as nominal and ordinal data (F-test), and interval or ratio
variables (Mest, Pearson's product-moment correlation, regression, path and factor analysis, analysis
of variance, discriminant analysis, and log-linear models).
Hypothesis testing employs tests of statistical significance that measure the probability that a
parameter falls within a certain range. The most common acceptable level of significance is 0.05 (p
< 0.05), which means "the probability of a relationship as strong as the one observed being
attributable to sampling error alone is no more than 5 in 100" (Babbie, 1990). It is important to note
that although there could be a statistically significant difference in a measure of association between
two groups, the actual difference might be so small as to be irrelevant in the study. Conversely, large
differences in consumption rates might not be statistically significant. When sample sizes are large,
it is particularly important to pay attention to this phenomenon since small differences might appear
to be statistically different. For example, fish consumption (mean g/person/day) might be 17.5 g for
Group A and 18.5 g for Group B and might be significantly different at the 0.05 level. For policy
development and decision-making processes in risk assessment, a difference of 1 g might not be
important. Common tests of significance are chi square for nominal/ordinal data and t-tests and
analysis of variance (ANOVA) for interval data. Note that stated hypotheses (null and alternative)
are required for tests of association. Large differences in consumption rates that are not statistically
different are related to small sample sizes or large variances. If variances are high, it is appropriate
to examine the data for outliers and apply the appropriate nonparametric test.
For parametric tests, however, the underlying assumptions of independent samples, normality, and
equal variances should hold true. If the assumptions of normality and equal variances do not hold,
4-7
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
nonparametric tests should be used. Nonparametric statistics consist of counting or ranking of data
or examination of the sign differences of paired data (Steel et al., 1997).
EPA (1997a) has provided guidance on using fish consumption data to develop estimates of
population exposure to contaminants for human health risk assessments. The document includes
guidance on deriving fish consumption estimates and provides summary results and methods for many
of the fish consumption surveys performed in recent years. The information in the document is
summarized briefly below; the reader is referred to the source for a more complete discussion.
If consumption rates are to be used in a risk assessment, which typically evaluates chronic exposure,
an estimate of average daily consumption for a relatively long period of time (e.g., weeks to a year)
is appropriate. For some chemicals of concern, acute toxicity or developmental toxicity might also
be of concern. In these cases, estimates of maximum individual daily consumption over a shorter
period of time (e.g., 1 week or less) might also be warranted. The most basic equation for estimating
individual consumption rates is as follows:
averagedailyconsumption - 9rams(uncooked) tissue consumed
averaging time (days)
The averaging period must be carefully selected, keeping its intended use in mind. Consumption
estimates to be used to evaluate acute exposure should be the maximum of the daily consumption
rates calculated, assuming an averaging time of 1 day. The reader should consult U.S. EPA (1997a)
for more information on the calculation and application of averaging periods.
Per capita consumption rate estimates require that days in which fish or other organisms of concern
are not consumed be factored into the calculation. For estimates of daily consumption over a 1-year
period, surveys that include less than a 1-year recall period must include some method of
extrapolation to time periods for which consumption estimates are not available. For example, if a
respondent indicates he eats four fish meals per month from the waterbody in question during the 3-
month fishing season and none during the remaining 9 months, the consumption rate would be one
meal per month for the entire year (4 meals/month x 3 months/12 months). This information could
also be translated into consumption per day if the meal size were known.
Another issue that must be addressed is the treatment of respondents who do not eat fish or wildlife
from the waterbody in question, or do not eat fish or wildlife at all. In a telephone survey, for
example, the number of nonconsumers offish might outnumber the consumers. The decision on
whether to include these respondents in the consumption estimate or exclude them is dependent on
the specific goal of the risk assessment. Per capita consumption rates by definition would include
nonconsumers and consumers offish. Including the zero-consumption respondents is a more accurate
representation of the overall fish consumption rate for a population, but it also underestimates the
mean consumption rate of those who eat fish from the target site by diluting the estimated mean
consumption with nonconsumer zeros. Thus using the estimated mean per capita fish consumption
could seriously underestimate the risk to regular consumers offish. An alternative approach, which
is more conservative with regard to risk, is to use an upper percentile of the per capita fish
consumption distribution, such as the 90th, 95th, or 99th percentile, for risk assessment purposes. If,
4-8
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
on the other hand, the decision is made to exclude nonconsumers offish from the analysis of the
survey results, the researcher must be able to distinguish between the respondents who never eat fish
and the respondents who eat fish but did not eat fish during the recall period. The latter should be
included in consumption rate calculations. Many of the fish consumption rate estimates provided by
EPA (U.S. EPA, 1997a) are based on fish consumers only, resulting in higher consumption rates,
which would be more conservative or protective of those persons when estimating risk (see also
Gassel, 1997). Thus, it is important to state explicitly whether the consumption rate derived from the
survey data includes consumers only or both consumers and nonconsumers.
Some of the questions that might be asked in the interview (e.g., preparation methods, tissues
consumed, species, size) do not relate directly to overall consumption estimates but may be used to
modify the dose calculations in a risk assessment. For example, cooking fish almost always reduces
contaminant levels, so reducing the dose by an appropriate correction factor depending on the cooking
method might be appropriate. A detailed discussion of the way in which this ancillary information
on fish consumption can be used is given in U.S. EPA (1997a).
Consumption data can be presented in a variety of ways. Consumption estimates can be given as
point estimates or as distributions illustrating the variability in the population. A point estimate is a
single value such as 50 g/day, whereas a distribution can be summarized by a measure of central
tendency (e.g., mean, median), a standard deviation, and a shape of the distribution curve (e.g.,
lognormal). For many risk assessments, risk estimates for individuals at both the central tendency and
high-end portions of the exposure distribution are made. To preserve the maximum amount of
flexibility for future uses of the data, researchers should present consumption data as a distribution.
Point estimates from within the distribution can be used in deterministic risk assessments, and a
discussion of the distribution can be used in probabilistic risk assessments. The lognormal
distribution has been shown to provide a good fit to consumption data (Murray and Burmaster, 1994;
Ruffle et al, 1994). The choice of a distribution for use in a probabilistic risk analysis should be based
on a thorough evaluation of the data, however, since the lognormal distribution might not always
provide a good fit to food consumption data (Driver et al., 1996). Ideally, the response for each
sampling unit should be retained, thereby providing an accurate description of the observed
distribution of responses without relying on assumptions about the theoretical distribution. It is highly
recommended that consumption data be collected and presented as a distribution, rather than as point
estimates, to provide sufficient information for the decision-making process.
Demographic data collected in the questionnaire can be used in conjunction with the consumption
data in several ways. For diet/health surveys that could result in consumption advisories,
consumption data for various ethnic groups can suggest the form (e.g., languages) in which the
advisory should be available (Allen et al., 1996). Data on age and residence time can be used in risk
assessments to evaluate whether additional subpopulations (e.g., children, older persons, and pregnant
and lactating women) should be evaluated based on their different rates of consumption. In all cases
where demographic data are used in this manner, statistical tests of significance should be employed
to determine whether specific subpopulations have consumption rates significantly different from
those of the rest of the sample population.
4-9
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
4.4 General QA/QC Considerations
Establishing adequate quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) procedures during all stages
of a survey is critical for collecting valid data. Both QA and QC procedures are incorporated as part
of the study design and are intended to minimize measurement errors or other biases. QA procedures
are put in place before data collection begins; QC procedures are followed during or after data
collection. Thorough training of the interviewers in fish identification would be considered a QA
activity, while random spot checks of interviewers by a supervisor during data collection would be
a QC activity. QA and QC procedures for reducing interviewer-related errors are discussed by Fowler
(1991).
At the heart of nearly all QC procedures is the simple concept of double checking, for example, of
data collected, data entered into a database, or calculations. Field and/or office audits to ensure that
planned procedures are being followed might be appropriate depending on the survey approach.
For some survey approaches, direct entry into computers might not be practical. In these cases,
secondary entry into some sort of data processing software is typically necessary. The data entry step
has a high potential for errors, but several QC procedures can be implemented to minimize or
eliminate errors of this type. The two most common procedures are (1) proofreading of some or all
the data entered and (2) entry of all data twice into separate files and subsequent comparison of the
two files. Data entry errors can be minimized by designing the survey forms in such a way that they
can be easily read by Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software (Heineman, 1991). Survey
forms that require a considerable amount of hand entry by the interviewer might not lend themselves
readily to this type of scanning. Once the data have been entered into a computer, checks can be
performed to detect inadmissible and out-of-range values.
QC procedures can be implemented to check the internal consistency of the questionnaire responses.
Responses given in one category can be used to check those in another. For a target waterbody,
information on catch rates and locations should be consistent with information on amounts and
species offish or wildlife consumed. If data from a respondent are not consistent, the researcher may
consider deleting that respondent from the database. A list of specific information needs and cross-
checks should be prepared prior to checking the data to ensure that respondents are objectively and
consistently deleted from the database when information is missing or not consistent.
4.5 Telephone Survey
4.5.1 Advantages
The telephone survey can assess region-specific consumption rates, depending on how
the respondents are selected (for instance, by proximity to a particular waterbody).
This approach can target 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 about half as expensive and less time-consuming than the
personal interview because less training of interviewers is required and travel costs are
4-10
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
not necessary. Larger numbers of respondents can thus be contacted (see
U.S. EPA, 1984).
• A high rate of success for completing interviews is likely for known phone numbers,
although the success rate is 5 percent lower than that for personal interviews
(U.S. EPA, 1984) because of lack of personal contact. Success rates are lower for
random phone numbers (random-digit dialing) because of the prevalence of unsolicited
phone calls from telemarketers and solicitors.
Sensitive information can be obtained more easily than with other approaches,
particularly if the respondent remains anonymous.
Since this approach provides immediate responses to questions, analyses can be
completed more quickly.
4.5.2 Disadvantages
Interviewers cannot reach people who do not have phones or those with unlisted
numbers. (Only random-digit dialing includes unlisted numbers.)
Interviews might need to be limited in scope and length, so the number of questions must
be carefully chosen.
Language and cultural barriers that might be encountered are difficult to compensate for
in telephone surveys.
• It is difficult to verify information given.
Telephone surveys do not have the ability to show visual aids, which can help in locating
study site boundaries and in standardizing meal sizes; however, a common size reference
such as a deck of cards can still be used.
4.5.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design: Telephone Survey
Telephone surveys have not been widely used in fisheries, but they might become more common in
the future (Pollock et al, 1994). Selecting the numbers to be dialed is a critical first step that must
be addressed before any other details of the survey. If the sample group includes people who do not
eat fish or wildlife, additional questions will have to be asked to separate this population from the
fish/wildlife-consuming population.
Various methods have been used to select the individuals to be interviewed. Pollock et al. (1994)
divide the methods into (1) random-digit dialing, (2) directory frames, and (3) special frames.
Random-digit dialing is easy to do, but may be costly and inefficient if done manually because of the
additional effort required to eliminate nonworking or nonresidential numbers. A computer-assisted
telephone interviewing (CATI) system can make random-digit dialing very efficient, particularly if
numbers are purchased from a survey sampling company and are prescreened. Computer dialing
eliminates nonworking and nonresidential numbers quickly.
4-11
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
Directory frames can be constructed from telephone directories. However, they do not include
unlisted numbers and quickly become out-of-date. Both random-digit dialing and directory frame
methods will include a large proportion of people who do not consume fish or wildlife. Special
frames can be constructed from boat registration lists, angling or hunting club membership lists, and
fishing and hunting license files, for example (Pollock et al., 1994). Such special frames have the
effect of selecting a subpopulation likely to have a consumption profile that differs from that of the
general population. This should be noted in interpreting these results, and care should be taken not
to generalize from such a group to the greater population.
Telephone surveys are often conducted from a single location with the help of several different
interviewers. Interviewers should be told how many callbacks to make and at what times of day
before they abandon a sample unit. With a CATI system, the number of callbacks can be preset for
the whole sample in the supervisor's computer. Generally, telephone methods are least efficient
during holidays and summer, when people are away from home and more redialing is necessary to
obtain an interview (Pollock et al., 1994). To maximize the cooperativeness of respondents, telephone
surveys should last no longer than 10 minutes.
Estimating consumption over a long time period can be difficult. Ideally, respondents would be
interviewed using the rolling cohort method described in Section 4.2: cohorts would be selected
randomly, and calls and callbacks would be spaced out over the study period to give fairly even time
period coverage. This approach is also effective at minimizing necessary recall time so recall
accuracy is improved.
For a question to be understood verbally, it must be simple and straightforward. For questions that
have a definite number of responses, the possible responses should not be so numerous that they must
be repeated.
4.5.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis: Telephone Survey
In addition to determining the number of respondents required, statistical methods should also be used
to select the respondents from the target population. For random-digit dialing, several methods can
be used to select numbers. Phone numbers can be purchased from companies that specialize in the
scientific development of random telephone number lists by geographic area. An alternative two-
stage sampling method, known as the Mitofsky-Waksberg method, requires that the first six digits
(area code and prefix) be preselected and the last four digits be selected randomly. Multistage
methods are designed to improve the frequency of residential number hits. For example, a two-stage
cluster method treats the sampling frame of telephone numbers as a set of banks of 100 numbers each.
A bank is defined by an area code, a prefix, and the first two digits of the suffix. Within a bank,
numbers are selected randomly. If the first number selected is not a residential number, the entire
bank is rejected because banks usually have no or many residential numbers. If the first selected
number is a residential number, additional numbers are selected until the specified number of
households has been drawn (Pollock et al., 1994).
Directory frames can be created by simple random sampling, stratified random sampling, systematic
random sampling, and add-a-digit sampling. The last method involves adding a number from 1 to
9 to a selected telephone number. This method can select people with unlisted numbers or people
4-12
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
with numbers put in service after the directory was published. Sampling methods for creating
directory frames are discussed in Pollock et al. (1994) and Salant and Dillman (1994).
Bias can be associated with telephone surveys due to the presence of multiple phone lines in a
household (including cellular phones), households without any phones, or a large number of no
answers due to the prevalence of answering machines. It might not be appropriate to assume that the
results for the responding group are representative of the nonresponding group. This is especially true
in fish consumption surveys, where the lower income, non-telephone households might have a higher
consumption rate than that of other households. In this situation, an alternative mode of
administration would be more appropriate to effectively reach the target population or sub-population.
For more information regarding the analytical treatment of bias, the reader is referred to texts such
as Scheaffer et al. (1990) and Biemer et al. (1991), or a statistician.
4.5.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Telephone Survey
If the telephone interviews are conducted from a central location, the supervisor can listen to a portion
of the interviews to ensure that the survey is being completed in accordance with the design quality
control procedure. During these audits, the supervisor should also check the data entry forms that the
interviewer completes for transcription or other errors. The interviewer can also conduct a brief self-
review after each interview or at the end of the day. Data entry errors can be corrected more easily
if they are caught while the events of the interview are still fresh in the interviewer's memory.
Many telephone surveys incorporate a CATI system, whereby the interviewer keys responses directly
into the computer. This eliminates the error-prone transfer of data from paper to computer. A typical
system is programmed with editing instructions to ensure that only valid responses that are consistent
with the question may be entered. The computer automatically follows complex skip patterns (e.g.,
if answer to number 4 is no, go to question number 9) which reduces both confusion during the
interview and training time for the interviewers.
4.6 Mail Survey
4.6.1 Advantages
Mail surveys can assess region-specific consumption rates, depending on how the
respondents are selected (obtaining addresses from license applications, fishing
tournament entries, etc.).
This approach can target 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 interviewers are required only for obtaining
follow-up information. Large numbers of respondents can be contacted over a broad area
(see U.S. EPA, 1984).
Respondents are most likely to provide honest answers and fewer "socially desirable"
responses (U.S. EPA, 1984).
4-13
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
More complex data can be obtained because the respondent can take time to consider the
questions asked and consult other sources if necessary.
The survey can cover more types of questions, so multiple objectives can be evaluated.
Visual aids (geographic, meal size) can be added to improve accuracy.
4.6.2 Disadvantages
Mail surveys cannot reach people who lack mailing addresses, such as migrant workers,
homeless people, and other people who move frequently or have informal living
arrangements. These groups might contain a disproportionately high number of
subsistence fishers and thus might be groups at higher risk overall.
If addresses are obtained from specific sources, such as lists of licensed fishers or
hunters, the survey will miss unlicensed fishers or hunters and others possibly at high risk
from fish or wildlife 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 (U.S. EPA, 1984).
Questions need to be limited in scope and complexity, preferably requiring 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).
Skewed or biased response is possible because there is no opportunity for clarification
through personal interaction.
A mail survey is likely to produce a higher number of inaccurate and incomplete
responses because it lacks the opportunity to instruct and motivate provided by personal
interview approaches (U.S. EPA, 1984).
This type of survey may undersample groups with low literacy rates and respondents who
have difficulty understanding the questions or cannot read the language in which the
questions are written.
4.6.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design: Mail Survey
Mail surveys have often been the preferred off-site approach for collecting fish and wildlife
consumption information because they can be relatively simple to conduct and cost-effective. If the
consumption data will be used for the assessment of human health risk, surveying subpopulations that
consume fish or wildlife from a specific region or waterbody that might be contaminated is
4-14
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
appropriate. This can be done by selecting addresses within a specified distance from the waterbody
in question.
The population to be interviewed is often selected with the help of fishing or hunting license files.
This method might exclude on-reservation Native American subsistence fishers, who do not need
licenses to fish on tribal waters; however, off-reservation Native Americans would not be excluded
in states where they are required to have state fishing licenses. Also excluded would be those who
fish or hunt illegally and those who do not require a license, such as children and seniors. The sample
population drawn from license files will consist of fishers or hunters and perhaps their families and
friends, but there is no way to preselect respondents who consume fish from a particular waterbody.
A typical mail survey includes an initial mailing to all respondents, followed by one or more follow-
up mailings to nonrespondents after a specified interval. The first mailing should consist of a cover
letter, a questionnaire with a unique respondent number, a postage-paid return envelope, and perhaps
an inducement to participate in the survey. The cover letter should begin with a brief explanation of
the purpose of the survey. The letter should also stress the confidentiality of the response. The
respondent number on every questionnaire should be used to check off the name from the mailing list
so that nonrespondents can be identified for future mailings; for confidentiality purposes, the names
should not be included on the questionnaire itself. In the most common sequence for addressing
nonrespondents, the four-wave Dillman Method, the initial survey is followed by a postcard reminder,
then a second survey with a new cover letter reiterating the purpose of the survey and indicating that
no response was received from the first mailing (Dillman, 1978; Salant and Dillman, 1994). A final
postcard is sent if no response is received. Another approach is to send out a second survey with a
new cover letter to nonrespondents approximately 3 weeks after the first mailing. A third mailing,
which Pollock et al. (1994) recommend be by certified mail, may be sent out 4 weeks after the second
mailing, again only to nonrespondents. Multiple mailings are important for reducing the nonresponse
rate and its associated bias. Shorter time periods than those described above might be desirable
(Knuth and McMullin, 1996).
Nonresponse bias can be checked by using the telephone or by sending a very brief survey on a
postcard with prepaid postage. Another method of evaluating nonresponse bias is to compare data
from surveys returned early with data from surveys returned much later. Greater bias in the
respondents' profile can result because effort is involved in completing the survey. This means that
respondents can be either more highly motivated for some personal reason, incentive, or interest in
health and contamination issues and more likely to return the completed survey or, conversely, less
motivated because of indifference or mistrust of those conducting the survey, leading to a low
response rate.
Estimating consumption over an entire year by using mail surveys is a relatively difficult matter. The
respondent's recall over that period of time is likely to be incomplete. Ideally, respondents would be
surveyed during different times of the year to minimize the recall period. This approach might work
relatively well for the mail survey method, particularly if respondents are screened in the first mailing
for their degree of cooperativeness. Alternatively, the rolling cohort approach described in Section
4.2 can be used.
Questions in a mail survey can be more complex and technical than those in interviews because the
answer period is not time-constrained and the respondent can seek answers from other sources. Draft
4-15
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
questions should be reviewed carefully for ambiguity because of the lack of direct personal interaction
(see Section 4.2 for discussion and references).
4.6.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis: Mail Survey
Nonresponse bias in mail surveys can frequently be large according to Brown (1991). However, West
(1989) found that nonrespondents ate nearly as much fish as respondents; when the consumption rate
was adjusted for nonrespondents, it was almost equal to the regional average found in numerous other
studies. The magnitude of this bias can be analyzed statistically if information about the
nonrespondents can be obtained. Such a followup survey is commonly conducted by telephone, but
other methods are possible (Fisher, 1996). Nonresponse bias (B) is represented by the following
equation:
B = (W2)(Y1-Y2)
where W2 is the fraction of nonrespondents and Y: and Y2 are the population means for respondents
and nonrespondents, respectively. An estimate of Y: comes from the mail survey. If an estimate of
Y2 can be obtained through a telephone survey, the results of the mail survey can be corrected for
nonresponse bias (Pollock et al., 1994). For information regarding the analytical treatment of bias,
the reader is referred to texts such as Biemer et al. (1991), Scheaffer et al., (1990), or a statistician.
Other types of bias can be associated with poor selection of the survey sample and poor questionnaire
design. The importance of understanding the characteristics of the target population and how this can
affect the survey results is described in Section 3.3.1.
4.6.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Mail Survey
An efficient means of tracking the status of all questionnaires and respondents is an important QA
mechanism for mail surveys. Software programs for administering mail surveys are reviewed by
Larson and Jester (1991). QC procedures used during personal contact survey methods, such as field
audits, cannot be used for mail surveys because the respondents "collect" the data themselves by
completing the questionnaire. After the questionnaires are returned, entry into some sort of data
processing software is typically necessary. QC procedures for data entry are described in Section 4.4.
4.7 Diary
4.7.1 Advantages
The diary approach can assess region-specific consumption rates if respondents are
selected appropriately.
Diaries can provide data over long periods of time for particular subpopulations of
concern if such subpopulations have been appropriately preselected.
This approach is less expensive than personal interviews.
The diary approach can be used for respondents inaccessible by telephone.
4-16
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
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 can occur.
Visual aids (geographic, meal size) can be added to improve accuracy.
4.7.2 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.
Depending on respondent involvement, there can be a high degree of failure in daily
recordkeeping.
There can be language barriers both in setting up respondents and in interpreting their
responses.
4.7.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design: Diary
The diary approach for measuring fisher participation has been infrequently reported in the literature.
Recently, however, there has been a trend to use the method to measure both fishing participation and
fish consumption (Connelly and Brown, 1996). Various methods have been used to select the fishers
to be surveyed by the diary approach. Fishers can be contacted by mail, by telephone, or at the
fishing site. Even if material is distributed at the fishing site, the diary approach is considered "off
site" because it uses self-reporting of data. Diaries are also used for hunting participation and could
be used for wildlife consumption as well.
The diary approach can be used to collect either single-trip or multi-trip records. Diaries are normally
used when information about more than one trip is needed. Fishers and hunters may be issued diaries
to record their catch and consumption practices over a specified period of time. Diaries are usually
returned by mail at the end of the study period. For single trips, catch cards may be issued to persons
at the fishing or hunting site to record their catch and estimate their consumption based on a single
day of fishing or hunting. They are handed out to fishers or hunters at the beginning of their fishing
or hunting trip and either collected at the end of the day or mailed in later (Pollock et al., 1994).
Because participants are not required to recall fishing or hunting and fish or wildlife consumption but
can record it directly, recall errors are minimized, assuming that diaries are completed on a regular
basis. Some recall period is inevitable, however, because some people will forget to record their data
until reminded. Typically, the diary method yields much lower estimates of fishing and fish
consumption than either mail or telephone surveys (Thompson and Hubert, 1990; Connelly and
Brown, 1995).
4-17
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
The structure of the diary is slightly different from the structure of the questionnaires developed for
other survey approaches. Because entries are usually repeated overtime, not all questions need to be
answered for each entry. Demographic questions are asked only once. Charts or tables can be used
to report catch rates and consumption patterns. Because of higher levels of complexity, diary
instructions are more thorough than typical questionnaire instructions.
The study period must be long enough to provide the data necessary for consumption estimates, but
not so long as to burden respondents. Estimating consumption over a entire year by using a diary is
a relatively simple matter if participants are willing to participate for that long. The degree of
cooperativeness can be gauged during initial contact. An alternative to keeping the same participants
for the entire study would be to use the rolling cohort method (Section 4.2) to reduce the time
individuals are asked to keep diaries and eliminate participant burnout.
Questions in a diary can be more complex and technical than those in interviews because the answer
period is not time-constrained and the respondent can seek answers from other sources. However,
the questions should not be so complex that the participant does not want to complete the diary on
multiple occasions. Draft questions should be reviewed carefully for ambiguity because of the lack
of direct personal interaction.
4.7.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis: Diary
If catch cards or diaries are handed out at a target waterbody, planning for sampling consists of
determining specific sites and times to hand them out. If the survey instruments are mailed out, living
close to the waterbody could be a criterion for selecting respondents. Sampling frames may be
constructed using a variety of probability sampling methods, including (1) simple random sampling
without replacement, (2) stratified random sampling, (3) systematic random sampling, (4) two-stage
(cluster) sampling, and (5) nonuniform probability sampling. These methods as applied to fisher
surveys are discussed in Pollock et al. (1994). Bias in the diary survey approach can be associated
with poor selection of the survey sample and poor questionnaire design. The importance of
understanding the characteristics of the target population and how they can affect the survey results
is described in Section 3.3.1. For information regarding the analytical treatment of bias, the reader
is referred to texts such as Scheaffer et al. (1990) and Biemer et al. (1991) or a statistician.
4.7.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Diary
Field audits and other QC procedures used in personal contact survey approaches cannot be used for
diaries and catch cards because data are self-reported by the respondents. Periodic phone contacts
might be useful to provide oversight and motivation to complete the diaries (Connelly and Brown,
1995). Data obtained on the phone can later be compared with data in the diaries.
Once the diaries are returned, entry into some sort of data processing software will typically be
necessary. QC procedures for data entry are described in Section 4.4.
4-18
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
4.8 Personal Interview
4.8.1 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 working with community agencies
to identify potential respondents.
Interviewees' responses can be augmented with first-hand observations of the
respondents and the interview sites.
Literacy and language barriers might be more easily overcome using this approach.
Recall bias can be minimized by providing appropriate visual aids (for species and
portion or meal size) or by basing the survey on the fish or wildlife caught at the time of
the interview.
This approach has a high rate of success for completing interviews because of personal
contact. Interviewers can be trained to clarify confusing questions or neutrally probe for
answers.
Verification of information is comparatively 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.
4.8.2 Disadvantages
The number and complexity of survey questions might need to be limited so that surveys
can be performed quickly, depending on the respondent's availability and interest.
Personal interviews are the most costly approach, requiring the coordination, 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
(U.S. EPA, 1984).
For on-site personal interviews, responses to questions about consumption are
hypothetical because consumption of the catch has not yet occurred and it is unknown
how many fish will be given away and consumed by the friends or family of the fisher.
In addition, these responses measure only the intent to consume, which might not be an
accurate representation of the true consumption rate. Follow-up studies might be needed
to understand the relationship between the intent to consume and actual consumption.
As preliminary estimates, the consumption estimates from creel surveys are conservative
(potentially overestimating consumption for the angling population).
4-19
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
4.8.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design: Personal Interview
Various methods have been used to select the fishers or hunters to be interviewed. The sample may
consist only of fishers or hunters or may include members of their households who could later be
separated into subgroups of the sample unit (U.S. EPA, 1983). On the regional or local level, lists
of fishing or hunting license holders might 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.
This method might exclude on-reservation Native American subsistence fishers, who do not need
licenses to fish on tribal waters, or urban subsistence fishers, who might not have obtained licenses.
Intercept or on-site interview approaches may attempt to question everyone, interview only those who
have caught fish or wildlife at the time (nonuniform sampling), or randomly select fishers or hunters
to be questioned. Depending on the objectives of the survey, other strategies might be required to
obtain samples of recreational and subsistence fishers or hunters.
Once the population has been identified, the location of the interviews should be selected. Locations
can be off site or on site, where "site" refers to the waterbody in question (Pollock et al, 1994). Off-
site personal interviews are usually based on sampling from a list of fishers or hunters (e.g., license
holders), and such an interview usually takes place in the respondent's home. Clustering methods can
be employed for off-site surveys to interview a number of respondents in one location. This technique
can lower the costs of the interview survey and may be particularly effective if incentives are offered
to respondents to meet at a central location. On-site approaches are based on sampling from a list of
fishing or hunting places and times. Fishers are interviewed while in the act of fishing or just as they
come off the water. On-site approaches allow more information to be verified by the researcher. For
example, researchers in the field are less likely than fishers to make mistakes about the identification
offish species. A specialized form of on-site interview, the creel survey, is discussed in Section 4.9.
The accuracy of recall is inversely proportional to the amount of time for which recall is required.
Off-site interviews often include longer recall periods than on-site interviews. For example, fishers
found at fishing sites may, on the average, fish more frequently than fishers contacted off site and
should be able to provide estimates offish consumption more readily over a shorter period of time
(including the interview day). Ideally, the same respondents would be interviewed during different
times of the year to minimize the recall period. This approach is often not financially practical.
Alternatively, the rolling cohort method (Section 4.2) may be used to interview different respondents
over the course of the year. This method could be financially practical if only a small group of
interviewers were trained and employed over the period of the study, though it might be financially
impractical if trying to cover a large study area. Although the results might be equally reliable, the
consumption rates obtained could differ. Each of these methods presents different problems and
introduces different biases. For example, interviewing the same respondents during a long period
might unconsciously affect their consumption since they know they are participating in a consumption
survey. Again, the reasons for conducting the survey and the survey objectives are important in
determining which approach might be used.
As with all approaches, meal size estimates are subject to considerable error. Questions on meal size
are often accompanied in a personal interview by models of a typical fillet meal (e.g., 3 oz, 5 oz, or
8 oz). These visual cues are very helpful in triggering a more accurate response from the respondent.
It is important to note that the most helpful visual aids represent the species that are being caught or
are being asked about in the questions and the size and shape of the portions being eaten (Save San
4-20
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
Francisco Bay Association, 1995). For example, commonly eaten portions of eel, shark, and bass
vary greatly in shape, size, and weight. Since fish caught in small or constricted waterbodies do not
grow as large as fish caught in bays and oceans, showing an 8-oz fillet model or picture might not be
appropriate for waterbodies where fish of that size are not routinely caught. An fisher could also be
asked to describe the species and size offish routinely caught and eaten and approximately how much
of the fish each household member eats (e.g., one-half of the white meat from a 12-inch perch, both
fillets of an 8-inch catfish). For on-site interviews in which the fish can be identified and measured
(length and breadth at belly), it is possible to relate meal size to the size of the fish if it is to be
consumed (Allen et al, 1996). The question wording and responses should be limited so that
reporting of ranges (e.g., 2 to 4 meals per week, 6 to 8 oz per meal), which would be difficult to deal
with in the analyses, is eliminated. The respondent should be asked to provide a best estimate of the
average meal size consumed and frequency for the recall period needed.
4.8.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis: Personal Interview
For on-site interviews, sampling consists of determining specific sites and times for interviewing, and
methods for selecting interviewees. For off-site interviews, living close to the waterbody could be
a selection criterion. Sampling frames may be constructed using a variety of probability sampling
methods, including (1) simple random sampling without replacement, (2) stratified random sampling,
(3) systematic random sampling, (4) two-stage (cluster) sampling, and (5) nonuniform probability
sampling. Sampling frames that consist only of sites or times are also possible. These methods as
applied to fisher surveys are discussed in Pollock et al. (1994). Bias in the personal interview
approach can be associated with poor selection of the sample and poor questionnaire design. The
importance of understanding the characteristics of the target population and how these characteristics
can affect the survey results are described in Section 3.3.1. For information regarding the analytical
treatment of bias, the reader is referred to texts such as Scheaffer et al. (1990), Biemer et al. (1991),
or a statistician.
4.8.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Personal Interview
For both on-site and off-site interviews, the supervisor can be present with the interviewer for some
of the interviews to ensure that the questionnaire is being completed in accordance with the survey
design. During these field audits, the supervisor should also check the data entry forms that the
interviewer completes for transcription or other errors. The interviewer can conduct a brief self-
review after each interview or at the end of the day. Data entry errors can be corrected more easily
if they are caught while the events of the interview are still fresh in the interviewer's memory. Data
from personal interviews are typically entered into a computer database. QC procedures for data entry
are described in Section 4.4.
4.9 Creel Survey
4.9.1 Advantages
Creel surveys, as a personal interview approach, can assess region-specific consumption
rates by targeting specific waterbodies.
4-21
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
This approach can also identify specific subpopulations at high risk by obtaining data
from actual fishers at known contaminated fishing/shellfishing sites.
Creel surveys can provide first-hand observations of the respondents, their fishing
activities and behavior, their catch, and the interview sites.
Recall bias can be minimized by providing appropriate visual aids (for species and
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 is comparatively 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.
Because creel surveys are often regularly conducted by state and tribal agencies for
fishery management purposes, questions on fish consumption can be added at relatively
little additional cost.
4.9.2 Disadvantages
The number and complexity of survey questions must be limited so that surveys can be
performed quickly.
Interviewers might encounter language barriers.
Creel surveys 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. Creel surveys consisting
of questions added to ongoing creel survey activities are less expensive.
Responses to questions about consumption are hypothetical because consumption of the
catch has not yet occurred and it is unknown how many fish will be given away and
consumed by the friends or family of the fisher. In addition, these responses measure
only the intent to consume, which might not be an accurate representation of the true
consumption rate. Follow-up studies might be needed to understand the relationship
between the intent to consume and actual consumption. As preliminary estimates, the
consumption estimates from creel surveys are conservative, potentially overestimating
consumption for the fishing population.
4.9.3 Specific Issues for Instrument and Study Design: Creel Survey
The creel survey approach is used by fishery managers to obtain harvest data collected on site, from
single fishers (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 (see Gutherie et al, 1990). Although
questions on fish consumption practices are not normally included in a creel survey, this information
4-22
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
can be readily obtained if desired. If surveys are regularly conducted as part of agency management
programs, questions on fish consumption may be added for relatively little additional cost.
Two types of creel survey methods can be distinguished—access point surveys and roving creel
surveys. The characteristics of the two types of surveys are given in Table 4. The access point survey
is preferred when entry points into the fishery are relatively few and well defined. When access to
the fishery occurs at too many points to be accommodated in a traditional access point design, the
roving method might be preferred.
Questions on meal size are often accompanied in a personal interview by models of a typical fillet
meal (e.g., 5 oz or 8 oz). These visual cues are very helpful in triggering a more accurate response
from the respondent. It is important to note that the most helpful visual aids represent the species that
are being caught or are being asked about in the questions and the size and shape of the portions being
eaten. For example, commonly eaten portions of eel, shark, and bass vary greatly in shape, size, and
weight. Since fish caught in small or constricted waterbodies do not grow as large as fish caught in
bays and oceans, showing an 8-oz fillet model or picture might not be appropriate for waterbodies
where fish of that size are not routinely caught. An fisher could also be asked to describe the species
and size offish routinely caught and approximately how much of the fish each household member
eats (e.g., one-half of the white meat from a 12-inch perch, both fillets of an 8-inch catfish). For on-
site interviews in which the fish can be identified and measured (length and breadth at belly), it is
possible to relate meal size to the size of the fish if it is to be consumed (Allen et al., 1996). The
question wording and responses should be limited so that reporting of ranges (e.g., 2 to 4 meals per
week, 6 to 8 oz per meal), which would be difficult to deal with in the analyses, is eliminated. The
respondent should be asked to provide a best estimate of the average meal size consumed and
frequency for the recall period needed.
Table 4. Characteristics of Creel Survey Methods
Characteristic
Takes place on site, physically on shore or water
Fishery has countable number of access sites
Specific locations on waterbodies can be targeted
Sampling events are chosen with probability methods
Fishers using sites are representative of all fishers using the fishery
Fishers fishing longer are sampled disproportionately more than
short-term fishers
Fishers are interviewed as they leave the fishery
Fishers are counted while they are still fishing
Information gathered on effort and harvest is unbiased
Harvest can be examined by the creel clerk
Access Point
Survey
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
yes
Roving Creel
Survey
yes
no
yes
yes
no
yes
no
yes
no
yes
Source: Pollock et al. (1994).
4-23
-------
4. INSTRUMENT AND STUDY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION
4.9.4 Specific Issues for Statistical Sampling and Analysis: Creel Survey
Access sites must be selected in a statistically sound manner. Statistical considerations are perhaps
more profound for surveys in which fishing effort is calculated, but fish consumption might also vary
with the characteristics of the access site. For waterbodies with a small number of sites, the traditional
one-site-per-day approach might be suitable. For waterbodies with many access sites, the bus route
method might be more appropriate. This method entails numerous access sites being treated as a
group that is sampled during one or more days. The survey route is analogous to a bus route with
stops at designated places (access sites) on a predetermined time schedule. Examples of scheduling
both traditional and bus route access surveys are provided in Pollock et al. (1994).
It should be noted that creel surveys are likely to target persons who consume more fish than the
general population and therefore estimates offish consumption by fishers obtained from creel surveys
should not be applied to the general population. A number of statistical concerns are peculiar to creel
survey data. The reader is advised to consult Lester et al. (1991) and Pollock et al. (1994) for more
information on this topic.
Bias in creel surveys can be associated with the time of year, time of day, and length of the interview
(affecting the proportion of the angling population that could actually be sampled for a fixed level of
effort). These sources of bias are associated with poor sample selection and poor questionnaire
design. The importance of understanding the characteristics of the target population and how this can
affect the survey results is described in Section 3.3.1. For information regarding the analytical
treatment of bias, the reader is referred to texts such as Biemer et al. (1991), Scheaffer et al. (1990),
or a statistician.
4.9.5 Specific Issues for QA/QC: Creel Survey
For both on-site and off-site interviews, the supervisor can be present with the interviewer for some
of the interviews to ensure that the questionnaire is being completed in accordance with the survey
design. During these field audits, the supervisor should also check the data entry forms that the
interviewer completes for transcription or other errors. The interviewer can also conduct a brief self-
review after each interview or at the end of the day. Data entry errors can be corrected more easily
if they are caught while the events of the interview are still fresh in the interviewer's memory. Data
from creel surveys are typically entered into a computer database. QC procedures for data entry are
described in Section 4.4.
4-24
-------
5. SUMMARY
SECTION 5
SUMMARY
Fish consumption surveys are typically conducted using one or more of the approaches described in
this document. Each approach has strengths and weaknesses, as described in Tables 2 and 3 and
Section 4. Which survey approach is appropriate depends on (1) the objectives of the survey, (2) the
population being surveyed, and (3) the resources available for the survey. During the planning of the
survey, the trade-offs between data desires, data needs, data quality, survey length, representativeness,
survey cost, and other factors must be taken into consideration. Usually, one or more of these factors
will limit what the survey can expect to accomplish. Understanding these problems early in the
planning process can lead to the development of the most appropriate survey for the problems
presented and the information needed.
A common objective of recent surveys is to characterize subpopulations at the higher end of the
consumption scale. Persons in these groups might be at greater health risk if the fish or wildlife they
consume are from contaminated waterbodies. Ease of access to persons in certain subpopulations
differs in the various methods. On-site interviews are more likely to reach subsistence/recreational
fishers or hunters, who might not be licensed, but more detailed data might be obtained by diaries and
written questionnaires. Pilot studies might be necessary to determine whether the proposed study
design can reach a statistically valid number of respondents in the target population.
The process of developing a consumption survey is time-consuming and might require the help of
various professionals, including fisheries biologists, risk assessors, epidemiologists, statisticians, and
survey and human dimensions specialists. Essig and Holliday (1991) present a case study describing
how the National Marine Fisheries Service developed one survey. States, tribes, and others who are
planning to conduct consumption surveys are urged to solicit help from persons who have previously
performed surveys so that costly pitfalls can be avoided.
Appendix A contains information on a number of consumption surveys (primarily for fish). Several
examples of recent survey instruments are presented in Appendix B. The reader should note that these
are examples only and no endorsement by U.S. EPA is implied. They are provided to illustrate the
diversity in survey approaches, instruments, and information needs that have been addressed in
various consumption surveys. The reader should consult the report cited for each survey to
understand the underlying hypotheses and objectives that survey instrument was developed to meet.
Contact information for obtaining copies of these survey reports is provided in Appendix A.
The reader is again advised that this document and the documents Guidance for Assessing Chemical
Contamination Data for Use in Fish Advisories, Volume 1: Fish Sampling and Analysis (released in
1993 and revised in 1995), Volume 2: Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits (released in
1994 and revised in 1997), Volume 3: Risk Management (released in 1996), and Volume 4: Risk
Communication (released in 1995) are offered as guidance only and are not regulatory requirements.
EPA recommends that these guidance documents be used together since no one volume provides all
the necessary information to make decisions regarding the issuance of consumption advisories.
5-1
-------
REFERENCES
REFERENCES
Allen, M.J., P.V. Velez, D.W. Diehl, S.E. McFadden, and M. Kelsh. 1996. Demographic variability in
seafood consumption rates among recreational anglers of Santa Monica Bay, California, in 1991-1992.
Fish. Bull 94:597-610.
Armstrong, B.K, E. White, and R. Saracci. 1994. Principles of Exposure Measurement in Epidemiology.
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Babbie. 1990. Survey Research Methods, 2nd edition. Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, California.
Barclay, B. 1993. Hudson River Angler Survey: A Report on the Adherence to Fish Consumption Health
Advisories Among Hudson River Anglers. Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, Inc., Poughkeepsie, New
York.
Biemer, P.P., R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman (eds.). 1991. Measurement Errors
in Surveys. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Bradburn, N.M., and S. Sudman. 1991. The current status of questionnaire research. In Measurement Errors
in Surveys, P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz, and S. Sudman (eds.), pp. 29-40.
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Brown, T.L. 1991. Use and abuse of mail surveys in fisheries management. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 12:255-
261.
Brown, T.L., and N.A. Connelly. 1991-1993. Estimating the Sportflshing Participation and Consumption
of Lake Ontario Fish. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Connelly, N.A., and T.L. Brown. 1995. Use of angler diaries to examine biases associated with 12-month
recall on mail questionnaires. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 124:413-422.
Connelly, N.A., and T.L. Brown. 1996. Using diaries to estimate fishing effort and fish consumption: A
contemporary assessment. Hum. Dimen. Wildlife l(l):22-34.
CRITFC. 1994. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, NezPerce, Yakama, and Warm Springs Tribes
of the Columbia River Basin. Technical Report 94-3. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission,
Portland, Oregon.
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.
Dillman, P.A. 1978. Mail and Telephone Surveys: The Total Design Method. Wiley, New York.
Driver, J.H., M.E. Ginevan, and G.K. Whitmyre. 1996. Estimation of dietary exposure to chemicals: A case
study illustrating methods of distributional analysis for food consumption data. Risk Anal 16:763-771.
Ref-1
-------
REFERENCES
Eisenhower, D., N.A. Mathiowetz, and D. Morganstein. 1991. Recall error: Sources and bias reduction
techniques. In Measurement Errors in Surveys, P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz,
and S. Sudman (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Essig, R.J., and M.C. Holliday. 1991. Development of a recreational fishing survey: The marine recreational
fishery statistics survey case study. Amer. Fish. Soc. Symp. 12:245-254.
Fisher, M.R. 1996. Estimating the effect of nonresponse bias on angler surveys. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.
125:118-126.
Fishery Information Management Systems, Inc., and Department of Fisheries and Allied Aquacultures,
Auburn University. 1994. Estimation of daily per capita freshwater fish consumption of Alabama
anglers. Prepared for Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Montgomery, Alabama.
Fowler, F. J., Jr. 1991. Reducing interviewer-related error through interviewer training, supervision, and other
means. In Measurement Errors in Surveys, P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz,
and S. Sudman (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Gassel, M. 1997. Chemicals in Fish Report No. 1: Consumption of Fish and Shellfish in California and the
United States. Final draft report. California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment, Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Section, Berkeley, California.
Guthrie, D., J.M. Hoeing, M. Holliday, C.M. Jones, M.J. Mills, S.A. Moberly, K.H. Pollock, and D.R.
Talhelm (eds.). 1990. Creel and Angler Surveys in Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society
Symposium 12, Bethesda, Maryland.
Heineman, G. 1991. Use of machine-readable forms to record creel survey and biological data. Amer. Fish.
Soc. Symp. 12:227-231.
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 Poly chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in Human
Tissue. Final Report on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Contract 223-73-2209. Michigan
Department of Public Health, Lansing, Michigan.
Humphrey, H. 1983. Evaluation of Humans Exposed to Waterborne Chemicals in the Great Lakes. Final
Report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cooperative Agreement CR-807192. Michigan
Department of Public Health, Lansing, Michigan.
Jacobs, H.L., H.D. Kahn, K.A. Stralka, and D.B. Phan. 1998. Estimates of per capita fish consumption in
the U.S. based on the Continuing Survey of Food Intake by Individuals (CFFll). Risk Anal. 18: 283-291.
Kalton, G., and D.W. Anderson. 1986. Sampling rare populations. J. R. Stat. Soc. (A) 149:65-82.
Ref-2
-------
REFERENCES
KCA Research, Inc. 1993. Results of a survey of recreational marine fishermen to evaluate an approach to
collect per person fish consumption. Alexandria, Virginia. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology, Standards and Applied Science Division,
Washington, DC, under subcontract to Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia.
Knuth, B.A. 1995-1997. Children's fishing and fish consumption patterns. (Diary for children.) Prepared
for New York Great Lakes Protection Fund. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Knuth, B.A. 1995-1997. Children's fishing and fish consumption patterns. (Mail survey of children's
guardians.) Prepared for New York Great Lakes Protection Fund. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Knuth, B.A., and S.L. McMullin. 1996. Measuring the human dimensions of recreational fisheries. In
Fisheries Techniques, 2nd edition, B.R. Murphy and D.W. Willis (eds.). American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Larson, C.L., and D.B. Jester. 1991. Software for administering mail surveys. Am. Fish. Soc. Symp. 12:262-
270.
Lester, N.P., M.M. Petzold, and W.I. Dunlop. 1991. Sample size determination in roving creel surveys. Amer.
Fish. Soc. Symp. 12:25-39.
Merriam-Webster. 1993. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition. G. & C. Merriam Co.,
Springfield, Massachusetts.
Murray, D.M., and D.E. Burmaster. 1994. Estimated distributions for average daily consumption of total and
self-caught fish for adults in Michigan angler households. Risk Anal. 14(4): 513-519.
Nakano, C. 1996. Personal communication between Roseanne Lorenzana, U.S. EPA Region 10, and Connie
Nakano, Asian and Pacific Islander Seafood Consumption Study Coordinator, Refugee Federation Service
Center, Seattle, Washington. (Cited in U.S. EPA, 1997b.)
NAS. 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. National Academy of Sciences, Commission
on Life Sciences, Board on Agriculture and Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Committee
on Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Pollock, K.H., C.M. Jones, and T.L. Brown. 1994. Angler Survey Methods and Their Applications in
Fisheries Management. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 25. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland.
Ruffle, B., D.E. Burmaster, P.O. Anderson, and H.D. Gordon. 1994. Lognormal distributions for fish
consumption by the general U.S. population. Risk Anal. 14(4):395-404.
Salant, P., and D.A. Dillman. 1994. How to Conduct Your Own Survey. John Wiley & Sons, New York.
San Diego County Department of Health Services. 1990. San Diego Bay Health Risk Study: An evaluation
of the potential risk to human health from fish caught and consumed in San Diego Bay. Prepared for The
Port of San Diego, San Diego, California.
Ref-3
-------
REFERENCES
Save San Francisco Bay Association. 1995. Fishing for food in San Francisco Bay. An environmental health
and safety report from Save San Francisco Bay Association, Oakland, California.
Scheaffer, R. L., W. Mendenhall, and L. Ott. 1990. Elementary Survey Sampling, 4th edition. The Duxbury
Advanced Series in Statistics and Decision Sciences. PWS-KENT Publishing Company, Boston.
Schwarz, N., and H.-J. Hippler. 1991. Response alternatives: The impact of their choice and presentation
order. In Measurement Errors in Surveys, P.P. Biemer, R.M. Groves, L.E. Lyberg, N.A. Mathiowetz, and
S. Sudman (eds.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Shubat, P. 1993. Draft Health Risk Assessment for the Consumption of Sport Fish Contaminated With
Mercury, PCBs, andTCDD. Minnesota Department of Health.
Soukhaphonh, S., L. Keill, D. LaFlamme, et al. 1996. Draft Report: A Fish Consumption Survey of Laotians
in Washington State. Washington Department of Ecology. (Cited in U.S. EPA, 1997b.)
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.
Steel, R.G.D., J.H. Torrie, and D.A. Dickey. 1997. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical
Approach, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., New York.
Sudman, S., M.G. Sirken, and C.D. Cowan. 1988. Sampling rare and elusive populations. Science 240:991-
996.
Tarrant, M.A., and M.J. Manfredo. 1993. Digit preference, recall bias, and nonresponse bias in self reports
of angling participation. Leisure Sci. 15:231-238.
Thompson, T., and W.A. Hubert. 1990. Influence of survey method on estimates of statewide fishing activity.
North Amer. J. Fish. Manage. 10:111-113.
Tukey, J.W. 1977. Exploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading,
Massachusetts.
U.S. EPA. 1983. Survey Management Handbook. Volume I: Guidelines for Planning and Managing a
Statistical Survey. EPA-230/12-84-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy,
Planning, and Evaluation, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1984. Survey Management Handbook. Volume II: Overseeing the Technical Progress of a Survey
Contract. EPA-230/12-84-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and
Evaluation, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1989. Assessing Human Health Risks from Chemically Contaminated Fish and Shellfish: A
Guidance Manual. EPA-503/8-89-002. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection/Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
Ref-4
-------
REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 1992. Consumption Surveys for Fish and Shellfish: A Review and Analysis of Survey Methods. EPA
822/R-92-001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1996a. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume
II. Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. Supplement A. Exposure Assessment. EPA-823-B-96-
004. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1996b. National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Consumption Advisories, Version 2.1. EPA/823-C-
96-011. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1997a. Guidance for Assessing Chemical Contaminant Data for Use in Fish Advisories. Volume
II. Risk Assessment and Fish Consumption Limits. 2nd edition. EPA-823-B-97-009. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA. 1997b (in prep). Ambient Water Quality Criteria Derivation Methodology for the Protection of
Human Health - Technical Support Document. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC.
Vaske, J.J., et al. 1996. Response strategy, recall frame and digit preference in self-reports of angling
participation. Human Dimen. Wildlife l(4):54-68.
Vena, J. 1992. Preliminary findings from the New York State Angler Cohort Study. Perspectives Great
Lakes Program 6:1-5.
Wentland, E.J., and K.W. Smith. 1993. Survey Responses: An Evaluation of Their Validity. Academic Press,
Inc., San Diego, California.
West, P.C., M.J. Fly, R. Marans, and F. Larkin. 1989. Michigan Sport 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., J.M. Fly, R. Marans, F. Larkin, and D. Rosenblatt. 1993. 1991-1992 Michigan sport anglers fish
consumption study. Final report to the Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund and Michigan Department
of Natural Resources. Technical Report No. 6. University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources
Sociology Research Lab, Ann Arbor, MI.
West, P.C., J.M. Fly, R. Marans, and D. Rosenblatt. 1995. Minorities and toxic fish consumption:
Implications for point source discharge policy in Michigan, pp. 124-137. In Environmental Justice:
Issues, Policies, and Solutions, B. Bryant (ed.). Island Press, Washington, DC.
West, P.C., D. Rosenblatt, J.M. Fly, and R. Marans. 1997. Fish consumption and the elderly: Implications
for fish consumption advisories. Soc. and Nat. Res. 10:87-96.
Ref-5
-------
APPENDIX A
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (Page of 7)
Title of Survey
A Pretest of an Approach
to Collection of Marine
Recreational Fishing
Data on the East and
Gulf Coasts
1977
Fishing Effort and
Harvest by Arizona's
Licensed Resident
Anglers
1980
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
Type of
Survey
Creel census
and telephone
survey
Mail survey
and creel
census
Creel census
Creel census
Personal
interview and
creel census
Contact Address/ Phone No.
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
Ext. 608
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
Level of Effort
6,077 telephone sur-
veys, 1 ,644 fishermen
interviewed at 3 loca-
tions to estimate
sample sizes required
and number of days
Sent out 18,000
surveys (10% of
registered fishermen);
33% response
5 months in the field
collecting data;
7 months writing report
10-month creel survey
using college students,
random samples
87 interviews on-site
Time
For a total of 18,800 fish to provide
estimates of the proportional
distribution offish caught for an
area (not to determine fish con-
sumption 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 setup,
data gathering and analysis
1 year
10 months of 12-month creel
survey
2 years for entire study
Cost
Telephone interviews: Rl
$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 10
hours of interviewing per day
Cost for surveys in these 3
states estimated to be
$333,236(1979)
Funded through federal aid
$25,000 primarily to pay
contract staff
$9,077 (based on $5.50/hour
wage for surveys)
Estimate: $50,000
Funded by the State
Comments
Noted cost per
interview for surf
fishermen may be
higher
Ballpark estimates
Have done
subsequent surveys
Cost does not
include tissue
analysis done by
EPA
Ballpark estimates
Have done
subsequent surveys
Also funds from
Hudson River
Foundation
-------
>
IV)
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (Page of 7)
Title of Survey
Evaluation of Methods
Used to Determine
Potential Health Risks
Associated with Organic
Contaminants in the
Great Lakes Basin
1983
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
Recreationally Caught
Fish from Urban
Embayments of Puget
Sound
1983-1987
Type of
Survey
Telephone and
mail surveys
Personal
interview and
creel census
Personal
interview
Personal
interview and
creel census
Contact Address/ Phone No.
Given in report:
EPA Environmental Research
Laboratory
Duluth.MN
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 Landolt
University of Wash.
School of Fisheries
Seattle, WA
(206) 543-7468
Level of Effort
Collected data by 3
different protocols, 587
respondents
1 ,643 interviews on 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
Time
About 2 years
Data collection over a 12-month
period, 2 years total
Data collection and analysis - 1
year
2 years
Cost
About $21 per participant for
each protocol, excluding data
analysis
Grant - $100,000 for salary of
supervisor
Graduate student thesis
funded through Sea Grant
$207,000
(excluding indirect costs)
Comments
Significant portion of
funds were for
analytical chemistry;
rest for data entry
and analysis,
salaries of
interviewers, etc.
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (Page of 7)
Title of Survey
Study of Sport Fishing
and Fish Consumption
Habits and Body Burden
Levels of PCBs, DDE,
and Mercury of
Wisconsin Anglers
1985
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, Wisconsin
1987
Type of
Survey
Mail survey
Creel census
Personal
interview or
telephone
survey
Creel census
Creel census
Contact Address/ Phone No.
Beth Fiore
Wisconsin Division of health
Madison, Wl
(608)266-6914
Mark Holliday
National Marine Fisheries
Service, NOAA,
Washington, DC
(301) 427-2328
Mike Greenwell
Agency for Toxic Substances
and Disease Registry Public
Health Service
U.S. Dept. of Health & 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
1 ,600 surveys mailed
801 returned
46,000 intercept
interviews and 74,000
telephone interviews
(1986)
299 households, follow-
up study on 33
individuals
5 interviewers con-
ducted 703 interviews
1/2 FTE doing creel
survey for entire fishing
season (1 May-15
March, 11.5 months)
Time
About 1 year
Data collection 1 year - data ready
for distribution within 4 months
About 2 years
4 months for surveys (1 May to 31
Aug)
11.5 months
Cost
Estimate of $27,250
Collaboration with 5 state
agencies - $2,000,000
Done in-house
$6,500
Funded with state funds
Comments
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
The 1987-1989
survey is now
available
Have done similar
surveys for the
Pacific Coast
Done by Division of
Health Studies,
Sharon Campoluiu
Follow-up telephone
survey done by
Michigan State
University as part of
a survey class
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (Page of 7)
Title of Survey
Michigan Sport Anglers
Fish Consumption
Survey
1988
New York Statewide
Angler Survey
1988
Risk Perception and
Communication
Regarding Chemically
Contaminated Fish in
Lake Ontario Fisheries
1988-1989
A Study of the
Consumption Patterns of
Great Lakes Salmon and
Trout Anglers
1989
Consumption of
Freshwater Fish by
Maine Anglers
1990
Type of
Survey
Mail survey
and telephone
survey
Mail survey
Mail surveys
and personal
interviews
Mail survey
Mail survey
Contact Address/ Phone No.
Dr. Patrick West
Univ. of Michigan
School of Natural Resources
(313)764-7206
(313)763-2200
Nancy Connelly
Cornell University
NY State College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences, Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY
(607) 255-2830
Dr. Barbara Knuth
Cornell University
Department of Natural
Resources, Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY
(607) 255-0349
Chuck Cox
Ministry of the Environment
Water Res. Branch
Toronto, CANADA
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 nonresponse
bias
1 7,000 mailed out
3 follow-up mailings
200 telephone follow-
ups for nonresponse
bias
10,314 quest, returned
Sample of 188 opinion
leaders, 120 adult and
teenage farm workers,
32 low-income
residents, 70 fishery
professionals.
2,100 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
$38,000
$1 ,500 mailing costs, plus staff
time for processing results
Client confidential
Comments
Fish consumption
assessment was
part of overall study
focused on risk
management and
communication.
Very effective with
proper cover letter,
stamped return
envelope, and multi-
ple choice
questionnaire; also
provide space for
comments, so
anglers may voice
concerns
Revised draft report
available
-------
>
(In
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (Page of 7)
Title of Survey
Risk Perception,
Reproductive Health
Risk, and Consumption
of Contaminated Fish in
a Cohort of New York
State Anglers
1990-1992
Great Lakes Fish
Consumption Advisories:
Angler response to
advisories and
evaluation of
communication
techniques
1990-1992
A Fish Consumption
Survey of the Umatilla,
Nez Perce, Yakama, and
Warm Springs Tribes of
the Columbia River
Basin
1991
Effects of the Health
Advisory and Advisory
Changes on Fishing
Habits and Fish
Consumption in New
York State Sport
Fisheries
1991-1992
Michigan Sport Anglers
Fish Consumption
Survey
1991-1992
Type of
Survey
Mail survey
Mail survey
Personal
Interview
Mail survey
Mail survey
and telephone
survey
Contact Address/ Phone No.
Dr. John Vena
State University of New York,
Buffalo, NY
(716)829-2975
Dr. Barbara Knuth
Cornell University
Department of Natural
Resources, Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY
(607) 255-0349
Mary Lou Soscia
Columbia River Inter-tribal Fish
Commission (CRITFC)
729 NE Oregon St.
Portland, OR 97232
(503) 238-0667
Dr. Barbara Knuth
Cornell University
Department of Natural
Resources, Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY
(607) 255-0349
Dr. Patrick West
Univ. of Michigan
School of Natural Resources
(313)764-7206
(313)763-2200
Level of Effort
30,000 licensed anglers
contacted
8,000 licensed anglers
513 off-site interviews
in fall and winter 1991-
1992
Sample of 2,000
licensed anglers.
2,450 surveys mailed
out 4 waves of mailings
and follow-up phone
calls for nonresponse
bias
Time
2 years
2 years; mail survey conducted
over 3 months
All surveys conducted in November
at central locations on each
reservation; final report produced in
October 1994
2 years; mail survey conducted
over 3 months
18 months
Cost
$157,220
$111,280
Not available
$41,772
$50,000
Comments
Extensive oversight
provided by state
and federal agencies
Fish consumption
assessment was
part of overall
evaluation of health
advisory impacts.
-------
>
(35
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (Page of 7)
Title of Survey
Estimating the
Sportfishing Participating
and Consumption of
Lake Ontario Fish
1991-1993
Demographic Variability
in Seafood Consumption
Rates Among
Recreationa Anglers of
Santa Monica Bay
1991-1992
A Survey of Fish and
Shellfish Consumption
by Residents of the
Greater New Orleans
Area
1992
Angler Attitudes and
Behavior Associated with
Ohio River Advisories
1992-1993
Results of a Survey of
Recreational Marine
Fishermen to Evaluate
an Approach to Collect
Per Person Fish
Consumption
1992
Type of
Survey
Diary survey
and
mail survey
Creel census
Telephone
survey
Mail survey
Personal
interviews,
followed by
telephone
contact
Contact Address/ Phone No.
Nancy Connelly
Cornell University
Department of Natural
Resources, Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY
(607) 255-2830
Jim Allen
Southern California Coastal
Water Research Project
7171 Fenwick Lane
Westminster, CA
92683
(714)894-2222
Ann Anderson
Tulane University
School of Public Health and
Tropical Medicine
1501 Canal St.
New Orleans, LA 701 12
(504) 588-5397
acanders@mailhost.tcs.tulane.
edu
Dr. Barbara Knuth
Cornell University
Department of Natural
Resources, Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY
(607) 255-0349
Robert L. Hiatt
QuanTech
Level of Effort
516 diary participants,
2,500 licensed anglers
for mail survey
1,244 anglers
interviewed at access
points; 1 13 field survey
trips taken
405 interviews
completed out of 587
attempted; up to 4
callbacks before
moving abandoning
number; 10% of each
interviewer's work
verified by callback
5,000 licensed anglers
1959 anglers screened,
1339 interviewed
(Delaware); 3066
anglers screened, 260
interviewed
(Alabama/Mississippi)
Time
2 years
Surveys took place over one year
Interviews conducted in summer;
about one year for entire study
2 years
Data collected over 6 months;
Cost
$83,085
$138,000
$25,000
$130,276
Not available
Comments
Compared results of
diary and mail
approaches. Mail
surveys produced
higher estimates of
angler-days and fish
consumption.
Non-English
speakers were also
interviewed
Consumption
estimates did not
vary with race,
gender, income, or
religion
Telephone followup
to obtain
consumption
estimates for fish in
angler's possession
during field
interviews
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (Page of 7)
Title of Survey
Fishing for Food in San
Francisco Bay
1993
Estimation of Daily Per
Capita Freshwater Fish
Consumption of Alabama
Anglers
1993
Seafood Consumption in
Coastal Louisiana
1993
Hudson River Angler
Survey
1993
Patterns of Harvest and
Consumption of Lake
Champlain Fish
1993-1994
Fish Consumption and
Risk Perception in the
New York/New Jersey
estuary
1994
Type of
Survey
Personal
interviews
Personal
interviews and
logs
Telephone
survey
Personal
Interview
Mail survey
Personal
interview
Contact Address/ Phone No.
Keith Nakatani
Save San Francisco Bay
Association
1736 Franklin St.
Oakland, CA 94612
(510)452-9261
Lynn Sisk
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
(334)271-7700
Lynn Dellenbarger
Louisiana State University
(504) 388-2751
Hudson River Sloop
Clearwater
112 Market St.
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
office@clearwater.org
(914)454-7673
Dr. Barbara Knuth
Cornell University
Department of Natural
Resources, Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY
(607) 255-0349
Joanna Burger
Rutgers University
P.O. Box 1059
Piscataway, NJ 08855
(908)445-4318
burger@biology.rutgers.edu
Level of Effort
Pilot study included 69
initial interviews
supplemented by 3 in-
depth interviews with
ethnic fishers
1 ,586 interviews
1,100 interviews
336 interviews
2,000 licensed anglers
318 interviews
conducted at access
points
Time
Not available
12 months
1 month
4 months
1 year
7 months
Cost
Not available
$110,000
Not available
$22,619
$25,000
$35,000
Comments
Anglers were asked
to keep logs of catch
A "stratified random"
approach was used
to obtain information
with adequate
representation of the
population of interest
Most respondents
ignored fish
advisories in the
area
-------
SUMMARY OF SURVEY METHODS INFORMATION (Page of 7)
Title of Survey
Fishing for Food in San
Francisco Bay
1997
Children's Fishing and
Fish Consumption
Patterns
1995-1997
Type of
Survey
Creel Survey
Mail survey
and diary
Contact Address/ Phone No.
Andrew N. Cohen
Lori Lee
Save San Franciso Bay
Association
1736 Franklin Street, 4th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
(510)452-9261
74212.145@compuserve.com
Dr. Barbara Knuth
Cornell University
Department of Natural
Resources, Fernow Hall
Ithaca, NY
(607) 255-0349
Level of Effort
69 interviews
completed, 65 declined
to participate;
conducted at fishing
piers
123 families; diary
participation by 53
children
Time
12 months
2 years
Cost
Not available
$31,107
Comments
>
CO
-------
APPENDIX B
EXAMPLES OF SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
-------
Telephone Survey
KCA Research, Inc. 1993. Results of a survey of recreational marine fishermen to
evaluate an approach to collect per person fish consumption. Alexandria, Virginia.
Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and
Technology, Standards and Applied Science Division, Washington, DC, under
subcontract to Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, Virginia.
B-1
-------
EPA/DELAMAHE CONSUMPTION SURVEY PHONE QUESTIONNAIRE (9/30/92)
PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF INTERVIEW, RECORD AQE AND SEX OF EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
Introduction
Hello. My name is . One of our field staff members
interviewed you on (date of interview) about your {fishing and/or crabbing),
We are working on a special study for the (Environmental Protection
Agency/State of Delaware) to learn more about what people do with the fish
that they catch.
1. Do you recall speaking with our field staff member on (date of field
interview)?
Yes
NO—TERMINATE
2. Our records indicate that there are (number) persons currently residing in
your household. Is this information correct?
IF NOT, OBTAIN CORRECTED LIST OF HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS' SEX AND AGES
IF PERSON CAUGHT ONLY CRABS, GO TO QUESTION 12
3. Our records also indicate that you (or members of your fishing party)
caught and kept the following fish on that fishing trip.
READ NAMES OF SPECIES AND NUMBERS CAUGHT
Is this information correct?
IF NOT, OBTAIN CORRECTED LIST OF NUMBER AND SPECIES OF FISH
I am going to ask a series of questions to determine the amount, if any, of
the fish you caught on (date of trip) which have been eaten or which will be
eaten by you or other members of your current household,
4. For how many different meals have you or someone in your household already
eaten one or more of the fish which you caught on (date of trip)?
IF NO HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS HAVE EATEN ONE OR MORE OF THE FISH,
GO TO QUESTION 10
5. For the (first, second, etc.) meal, did you or someone in your household
eat some of the (first, second, etc, species)?
Yes 1
No 2 REPEAT QUESTION 5 FOR NEXT SPECIES;
IF LAST SPECIES OF A MEAL, REPEAT QUESTION 5
FOR FIRST SPECIES OF NEXT MEAL;
IF LAST SPECIES OF LAST MEAL,
GO TO QUESTION 10
B-3
-------
6, For the (first, second, etc.) weal, was the skin of the (first, second,
ate. species) removed in preparation for the meal?
Yes 1
No 2
Don't know 3
Refused 4
7, How was the (first, second, etc. species) prepared for that meal? Was it
prepared whole, as in soup; filleted; headed, tailed, and gutted; gutted only;
headed and gutted; or was it prepeared in some other way?
Prepared whole 1
Filleted 2
Headed, tailed, gutted 3
Gutted only 4
Headed and gutted &
Other 6 SPECIFY
Don't know 7
Refused 8
8. For this (first, second, etc.) meal, was the (first, second, etc. species)
fried, baked, broiled, smoked, boiled or stewed, grilled, or prepared in some
other nanner?
Fried 1
Baked 2
Broiled 3
Smoked 4
Boiled/Stewed 5
Other 6 SPECIFY
Don't know 7
Refused 8
GRILLED/BBQ 9
9. The average (first, second, etc, species) in your catch would produce
about (number of ounces based on weight table) of edible neat. How many total
ounces of (first, second, etc. species) would you estimate you ate at the
(first, second, etc.) meal? Please be careful to exclude any fish that were
given away or ktpt by other members of your fishing party.
REPEAT QUESTION 9 FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
REPEAT QUESTION 5 FOR EACH SPECIES
REPEAT QUESTION 5 FOR EACH HEAL
10. Between now and (date of fishing trip + one month), how many additional
meals do you anticipate you or members of your household will eat of the (name
of first, second, etc. species)?
IF NO MORE MEALS OF SPECIES WILL BE EATEN, REPEAT QUESTION 10 FOR NEXT
SPECIES;
IF NO MORE MEALS OF LAST SPECIES WILL BE EATEN, AND NO CRABS WERE
CAUGHT, TERMINATE;
IF NO MORE MEALS OF LAST SPECIES WILL BE EATEN, AND CRABS WERE CAUGHT,
60 TO QUESTION 12
IF MORE MEALS OF AMY SPECIES WILL BE EATEN, 00 TO QUESTION 11
B-4
-------
11. Assuming the total edible portion of a (first, second, etc. species) of
the size you caught would be about (number of ounces), how many additional
ounces would you estimate will be eaten by you between now and (date of
fishing trip + one month}?
REPEAT QUESTION 11 FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
REPEAT QUESTION 10 FOR EACH SPECIES
IF LAST SPECIES AND SLUECRAiS WERE NOT CAUGHT, TERMINATE;
IF LAST SPECIES AND BLUECRABS WERE CAUGHT THEN ASK:
12, Our records indicate that yoy (or members of your party) caught and kept
the following bluecrabs on your trip.
READ TYPES OF CRABS AND NUMBER CAUGHT
Is this information correct?
IF NOT, OBTAIN CORRECTED LIST OF NUMBER AND TYPES OF BLUECHABS
13. For how many different meals have you or someone in your household
already eaten one or more of the crabs which you caught on (date of trip)?
IF NO HOUSEHOLD MEMBERS HAVE EATEN ONE OR MORE OF THE CRABS,
QO TO QUESTION 18
14. For the (first, second, etc.) meal, did you or someone in your household
eat any (first, second, etc, type of crab)?
Yes 1
No 2 REPEAT QUESTION 14 FOR NEXT TYPE OF CRAB;
IF LAST CRAB TYPE OF A MEAL, REPEAT QUESTION
14 FOR FIRST CRAB TYPE OF NEXT MEAL;
IF LAST CRAB TYPE OF LAST MEAL, GO TO
QUESTION 18
15, How were the crabs prepared for the (first, second, etc.) meal? Were
they steamed, boiled, or prepared in some other fashion?
Steamed 1
Boiled 2
Other 3 SPECIFY
Don't Know 4
Refused 5
16. |IF SOFTSHELL CRABS, CODE QUESTION 16 AS '1'; GO TO QUESTION 17(
i vr.:[ ,.___.„-___„ <
Did you eat the 'mustard* of the crab(s)7
Yes 1
No 2
Don't Know 3
Refused 4
B-5
-------
17. How many of the (first, second, etc. type crab) would you estimate you
ate at the first meal? Please be careful to exclude any crabs that were given
away or kept by other members of your crabbing party.
REPEAT QUESTION 17 FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
REPEAT QUESTION 14 FOR EACH CRAB TYPE
REPEAT QUESTION 14 FOR EACH HEAL
18, Between now and (date of trip + one month), how «any additional meals do
yoy anticipate you or nenbers of your household will eat of the (first,
second, etc. type of crab)?
IF NO MORE MEALS OF FIRST TYPE OF CRAB WILL BE EATEN, REPEAT QUESTION 18
FOR NEXT TYPE OF CRAB;
IF NO MORE MEALS OF LAST TYPE OF CRAB WILL BE EATEN, TERMINATE
IF MORE CRAB HEALS WILL BE EATEN, GO TO QUESTION 19
19. How many additional crabs from the catch would you estimate you will eat
between now and (date of trip + one «onth)7
REPEAT QUESTION 19 FOR EACH HOUSEHOLD MEMBER
REPEAT QUESTION 18 FOR EACH TYPE OF CRAB
B-6
-------
Mail Survey
P.C. West, J.M. Fly, R. Marans, F. Larkin, and D. Rosenblatt. 1993. 1991-1992Michigan sport anglers
fish consumption study. Final report to the Michigan Great Lakes Protection Fund and Michigan
Department of Natural Resources. Technical Report No. 6, University of Michigan, School of Natural
Resources Sociology Research Lab, Ann Arbor, MI.
B-7
-------
u c s .g e
ll-
3 «*
o ,K
Jil
5,c u
*« '"* "Si
|,2
2 e >,
-=•1,0
?s
a !s
«) «
" M 13
•s.11
0.
8 11
€> ^ 3
•o ** ss
"> O
s§ °-
D-*£ ^
S. j>
3 c S
* I *
..egg
H o u S
% 1-1
z g «> «•
IMPORTA
The infoi
revise the fi
formulas for
«U "••* V
«2 ^
^ U A
a s £•
••1 J2
o <•-
S o
Q, -
B I t)
U o
2< §
>i W |
Sa • =
fc as i ""
aS S
5S E 1 .S
•< " C
3*5-a
c . u £
< g-s-c
H >• „
Bfi a §^
M^_ i
W3 ^ S
^|:s
sJ:i-£
i;il
DIRECTIO
We woul
the primary
showing ma
'ttfil"2 111
^ssll??i
"S«9ffl — OTJ^^fU
• i** " (t 3 LJ (•* ** r%
l*"Wj *•* o 5 _». M
a • 3- o "** a-
rt X! O '— ' 44 ™
"S^^^w^^ssi
"•Is^iE |*-S £ I
•= S OB"! °"£ a S "S
o2"§i-«l"u"':i«>S.
ol™Se^"'uoo
.gcaos-S*"^
- «i — s -a £ ~- ' w
"Si ai ra ^ O "* Q
«^3 «> '5 '••''.,
w w-^_^a> ^o
.ffBOMc***1^ "d
I|gl§egi_l
S*3S ?L 5^ "O GO 4J **
» >. -^ ,-q .S ,2*JSi •£
SWJ§S'^S o;? °O
t. Q,«tM£;t^. >i -c; j3 u
>, E
-S O
'C. 4l
B "—
3 -«
Sr*
o
K
U
a:
~> a o.
- r. «
B z
t ~
H co O
B-9
-------
*"*
•
c
I
DD
II
D *J
£» no
< ^
e s
SI
-C >
5
<
Hi
IU
<
en
E
5
a
UJ
z
<
I
a
B-10
-------
*
Sfl
gl
A —
a S
<•> of
M <3
*• -9
3
M
•o
o
J_
1. 1
SS £
-S3 ^»
« o
il
CH
g S
o
wi
2 <
0 0.
ra
ID
*•*»
Ml
"%•**
2 K « g.«
! W O "•-
: » < 8 «
o
s
*""
rg
-2 >g
0> «
%-t ™
»~« "C
t
S>*
M
•o
Oi
ci1
I-
!*« §
l|
S 1!
8 8-
JB 0
ig
S s
jpfc* jQ
1) Tl
II
£ «?£
J3 C **
«2 S S
Prior to tts
advisory %
of Public 1
ur>
i
i
c
I
u
%
>.
3
?
>>
*
c
*!
iU
1
*
S 10
-J Ok
55
t
DC
UJ
UJ
OC
<
"«s,
i
2:
o o
x o
- -
(^
•* 3
2 8
5 <»
o *••
II
t>» S
B 1
« a
« S
•o *
* S
«j U
S t.
il
"a
p* ^0
1/3
S *
«jo i
t
tfc
o
%
p C
|M S2S
22
as Q
«» a.
•o 3 *
S> "O "**
"•****
S "« I
If!
sll
4
t.
w >,
ot w
tz. «>
jg TB *-.
* i 1
1 - °
f 1 DI|
*•**;£
c « ^
o c
11
ce
1!
i -,
||
(A
(M
O
t
5
c.
UJ
t
1
"c" 1e
2 «*
C L-
(-» ca
J
J£ »
u
i
£
S
»
S»
t
M
U 1A.
J .
If
— JE
f"
tj >.
j t
Ot ^
* g
l_J >.
B-11
-------
i
|I
ll
i
1.
-
T.
L
, s
!!
2 ,,.4
03 jjejg/ltfJ*
» WM^d
- """"""'££,
5 "J t
« s s
— ^*~ E
o *jou
OS iui»s
ID 1"1
-III:
z « ~* S
itti'Il
TT W9
m 1'XJ'L,
w ,»ijmu5^.
° 1 c
-HI
\
\
\
\J
s,
\
N
s,
s^^
s
V
\
\
s
^
\
\
\
s.
\
\
s
1
X
X.
X
•»»
Is
C-
t-»
1
X
tE
*<
*<
a
i
2f
X
11
O — *M
J
1
X
E/3
u
<
U)
1
lowing information
£
»
j-
«
3
*>
o
&
W5
a!
pC
o
g
o
u
"3.
c
SEVEN DAYS.( Cor
e»
s
a
u
o
X
g
a
U
e
_o
1
>•*,
1
o,
p*
*
O
P
B)
P
Q;
S
o
INSTRUCT
u
-2
£
"c
o
•Q
O
1
C
o
TJ
O
S
£
C
S
"o
w
X
c
e
Q |
" e
ll
c
€2
a
"*
.S
1
S
s
1
i
COLUMN
1
'ab
S
§
.e
1
Q.
.C
. . W
"t 5
COLUMN
appropriate
£
UH
9
«
U
O
s
oo
o
1
1
i
c
l£
O
N
u
"5
c
COLUMN
i
a.
S
Q
UJ
O
O
UJ
1
o
-ii
1
W5
S.
le
2;
2
o
I
oc
to
i
"o
U
&
i
1
*£
IB
1
O
s
-S
3
U
-C
GO
"3
o
09
s>
<&
_o
"S
43
I
a
w
c
o
"O
a
oe
«c
u
s
U
at a restaurant, entei
1
4=
g
u,
B
g
g
,s
u
c
o
Michigan s
a
o
^i
«"
u
s
PI
c
1
e restaurant U Iocs
^
S
f
1
S
o
N
u
JS
1
U
u
93
e
•_£
u
•a,
c
JC
M
»5
S
S
£
u
s
3
jQ
§ si
I 1
o
.5 N
,M *£
-53
C
fd
B
J
•£
"o
S
1
a
§
t/J
JCS
CJJ
a
<*Li
_.
X
COLUMN
v&
s£
1
i
b-
o
Rj
J
0
o
ra
c
3
CL
1
JS
2
<
2
ac
o
S
>v
K
[^
U
-o
2
"o
c
LEMEMBER to
OE.
DO
J
RJ
S
o
e
S
u
3
O
S
S
JC
u
6«
5
o
'at
S
U
c
J5
JS
SG
e
u
S
"!<
o
i
«
B
c
l£j
t*
COLUMN
o
i
_
09
JD
O
a
o
jf
I
(A
O
1
f
_-
i
m
V*
(A
1
S
S
D
Q
C
1
13
i
B
1
O,
E
1
£
S
o
OO
COLUMN
1
j-
l»
i
1
a.
o
a
o
3
O
X!
«
O
1
S
_«
S
js
a
*o.
"S3
a>
g
u
S
"o
B
-£
O
2
O
a.
(ABOUT 1
"o
&
o
e
V
^
J3
"I
T3
O
O
U
—
(S
COLUMN
C--
GO
B
1
5
O
JJ
•o
1
S
es
o
fl
i
COLUMN
«"•
"S
(J
E.
•S
JK
t«
-------
X
S>
CN
Q.
O
O
a.
O
A
40
O
ts
2 S
3 ,0
II!
S BLACK
-~
ERIC AN
2
jf
\ NATIVE i
r*
> HISPANIC
«*>
1 WHITi
i OTHER^_
S- J£)
0)
E s
o ra
I 6
.S -5
I S
la
*> o
I £
8 -°
a «
(£1
I***!
"""
.
O 2 w
w 5 8
"
0<
a
S
O
o
o
1 i O
o o o
o o o
o o o
o" iH o*
o
o
o
in
O
o
O
o
o
o
°, o i/s
1A — -H
O
o
o"
CM
n
•Sg
^^ o
a. i. a
_, 0 c
^ S c =
2 JE~ S^-o 6
2 =
3 O C
U 4> ,
£t §5
fc^-2-
E -° = •=
O ^3 »^
S 0 c
»|-p.2 g.-
— , [_ 3
O >•
D> 3
u> (n ^ il
o
o
o
o
o
>
O
c
3 O
I §
I §
a, —
o
o
o
9
o
O)
43
V)
a>
J3
CJ3
g
o
" £ — M
£ a
& v
o
o
§
o
f»
I
o
o
e
I
O
rt
8
.
•O •nb
5
2 O
a. —•
I
'
If -
-------
V,
0
5
o 8
^ <•«
>> o
k-« «_!
»
2 cl
I 8
M,
3 J3
in
•*•*
15
m
—
XI
>. 10
o. >
o to
<0 C
„ 5
Eu
o
g
ra
E
ID
z
m
in
0)
i_
"o
*o
<
o u
t_ <0
<*- u
Q.
O
a >•
< UJ
i
»- £2
a: a:
o »-
O
Z
<
I
o
X
o
O
CO
Q.
B-14
-------
Mail Survey
B.A. Knuth. 1995-1997. Children's fishing and fish consumption patterns. (Mail survey
of children's guardians.) Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Prepared for New York
Great Lakes Protection Fund.
B-15
-------
2
DC
o
C3
CO
LL
Ul ft
: i
o £
Ul
Q^P in
£= s
I i
CO
u
K
3
5 *
N? 1217
BUSINESS REPLY MAIL
FIRST CLASS MAIL PERMIT NO. 878 rtHACA,NY
POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES, 1. KNUTH
PO BOX DH
ITHACA NY 14852-9853
iH.ll.i,,!!,,!,,!,!,,,,)!!,!,,!,!,,!,,,!!,,!,),,!,!
B-17
-------
|s|I
«il 5 w 1*1
I 6 o * & 1 *
a
12
u.
Q
2
EC
1
O 5
< i
B-18
-------
§1 HO LD : N P«
, »» il* tft » Ih* of «r«k«f m-»
Sf
$*«
to
Ei:
2- Ms*»-_ *QHH-j5tB?_^WM_?-2_T^B!ffl3
il) S** o< h» w * varti
i2) ff*» Of h« « sf ?!» ** !t»
Sf
it) t»W Of
M) l»i« at Bt-N er
«t * tlW*
-------
1
i
I o
> >
1O
U>
a- 1
-0 2
» «
I i
«?
ii ! 3
: o> in
i i
UJ
r 5
o»
•t* I
1-S >v
I- f
§1 i
,g i
i s
I S
i 2
I g
IE 0-
09
1
*^ "• S M>
Q| O S §
a * C O
1 « * £
DC Ifl 3 W
.* _^ E
«^
LU
cr
O
£. 2
Q?
to
t~o
P^
IS
Is
B-20
-------
I
§
I
I
I
I
"S •
Ml
O
Ul
in
in
(O
a i
8 8
» 8
8!
o
§
1
s
IS
s
oe M
•§'" S
•s ,{*aj
tlllll
a 111"c
a-§12S §
s i 1 i w *
g> _ S. ^ 2? 2
|i|il|
£ 12 fi •» 2| 5
1L™ g $ 'g
flllll
:i
• ts
:§ :
: a-
-S
P
3 u
IE
Sfi'
*i*«s
Iliiif
t* I S -a
g-^ig O »
ii|«s*
« $"S 1 id fi .1
^illSil
i^-ipl!
flf I i"i
-^ « fi 8 i *
i
i
o
I
>>
.1
,
CO
V)
:§
B-21
-------
5
I
i
"O
I
X
i
B-22
-------
Mail Survey
J. Vena. 1992. Preliminary findings from the New York State Angler Cohort Study.
Perspectives Great Lakes Program 6:1-5.
B-23
-------
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Department of Social and Preventive Medicint:
2211 Main Street Building A
Buffalo, New York J4214
Please fill in the Wanks, check a column (V'j or circle numbers to indicate four answer to each question. Please answer all ques-
tions, even if you are unsure of the exact answer, please give your best answer.
1 How many years have you fished in New York State?
Number ol years
2 Dyring the past year (June 1,1990 to June 1,1991) how many flays did you go fishing in New Yort State waters' Number o( Days
Check hers it you haven't fished since June 1,1990 and skip to Question 5
3 From June 1,1990 to June 1.1391, how many days did you go fishing on each of the following bodies of water in New York State (for those waters
you did not fish in, enter 0.)
a. Lake Erie & all tributaries
(excluding Buffalo River)
b. Buffalo River in Erie County
c Upper Niagara River (above the fills)
d. Lower Niagara River (below the falls)
No. of days No. of days
fishing fishino
e. Lake Ontario and all tributaries
f. Cayuga Greek
g. Canadiee Lake
ft. Canandaigua Lake
i. Keuka Lake
No. of days
fishing
). Indian Lake, New York
k Long Pond, New York
I. Onondagi Lake
m. inland trout streams
n. Other lakes
4 Counting only the legal size edible fish you caught in New York waters between June 1,1990 and June 1,1991, about what percentage were:
A, Released %
B, Eaten by you or your household %
C. Given away (either fresh or processed) %
D. Thrown away or otherwise disposed of %
Total = 100%
The next several questions ask about eating sport listt or game.
A few questions ask about eating sport tislt taken from certain waters.
5 Please check (/) the column that best describes your usual habits of rating sport fish during each o! the four seasons of the past year (.June 1,
1990 to June 1,1991). Only consider fish that were caught in New York waters that you personalty ate.
Average Number of Fish Meats You Me from Fish
Caught in New York Waters, 1990-91 Seasons
Seasons
How
1 or less pr mo 2 per mo
3 pet mo.
1 par week 2 per week 3-4 per week 5 or irmrerweek
June. July, Aug., 1990
Sept., Oct., Nov., 1990
Dec, Jan, Feb. 1991
Mar., Apr. May 1991
" " ' "| ~
6 Please cheek (/) the column that best describes your usual frequency of eating game or fowl over the past year (June 1,1990 to June 1,1991)
Seasons None 1 or less per mo 2 fir mo. 3 per mo. luerweek 2 per week 3-4 per week 5 or more/w»ek
Wild fish-eating duck
Wild dibbling or diving duck
Other wild game birds
Turtle (any species)
Rabbit
Deer
B-25
-------
7aOuring which ol She pasl years haw you eaien any type of fish caught from Lake Ontario and its tributaries, the Lower Niagara Rival, Capp
Creek, at the St. Lawrence River? (Check each year when you ate fish from any ol ihese waters)
'1965 1156 195? 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1863 1964
19S5 1966 1967 19§8 1969 1970 1971 197? 1973 1974
1975 1976 1977 1978 19F9 1980 1981 ' 1982 1983 1984
1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
7bPtease check {/) each column that best describes your usual frequency of eatinfl each of {he kinds of lish caught from Lake Ontario and iis
tributaries, the Lower Niagara River, Cayuga Creek, or the SI. Lawrence River in the past year,
Average Number ol Fish Meals You Ate, June 1990 to June 1991
None 1 or less per mo 2 per ma
3 per mo. 1 pet week 2 pm week 3-4 pet waek S or mora/week
Channel Cattish
Lake Trout
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon over 21 inches
Coho Salmon under 21 inches
Rainbow Trout over 25 inches
Rainbow Trout uraltr 25 incites
Brown Trout over 20 Inches i
Brown Trout under 20 inches
Carp ;
White Perch
Yellow Perch T
?C How do these usual amounts of fish saten compare to the amounts you ate in previous years from these waters?
CO About the same >i) This pass year I ate more than usual ® This past year I ate less than usual
83 During which of the past years have you eaten any type ol fish caught from Lake Erie and its tributaries, the Buffalo River, the Upper Niagara
Rivef, Canadice Lake, Canandaigua Lake, Keuka Lake, Indian Lake, or Long fmttfCheck each year when you ate fish from any of these waters)
C1955 •M956 C 1957 ' -1958 D 1959 O 1960 C 1961 "1962 "M963 C 1964
-,j 1965 U 1966 O 1967 J 1968 O 1969 O 1970 O 1971 _ 1972 ,,. 1973 C 1974
C 1975 '.1976 : 1977 C 1978 O 1979 O 1980 ,..-1981 -J-1982 .71983 C 1984
O 1985 V 1986 .1987 C 1988 C 1989 O 1890 01991
8u Please check (/) each colymn that best describes your usual freqwney of eating each of the kinds of fish caught from Late Erie anil its tributaries,
!h« Buiiilo River, the Upper Niagara River, Canadice Lake, Canandaigua Lake, Keuka Lake, Indian Lakt, or Long Pond In Hie past year.
Average Number of Fish Meals You Me, June 1990 to June 1991
None 1 or less pet mo. 2 oer mo.
3 per mo. 1 per week ? per week 3-4 per week b 3r more/week
Channel Catfish
Late Trout
Chinook Salmon ;
Coho Salmon over 21 inches I
Coho Salmon under 21 inches
Rainbow Trout over 25 Inches [
Rainbow Trout under 25 incnesi
Brown Trout owr 20 inches ]
Brown Trout under 20 inches
Carp ;
'
_^ ^
~xr~rr
J^^
mz
- • —
-
L
--
rrr:]
:::
^ __
Whttt Perch
Yellow Perch j | > |
Wallsye or Plcterel
8 C How do these usual amounts of fish eaten compare to the amounts you ate in previous years from these waters?
i About ihe same ». This past year I ate more than usual 3, This past year I ate less than usual
B-26
-------
9 When you eat sport-caught fish, about what amount (Jo you usually eal at one meal? (check am usual serving size)
t '/j pound (4 02,} ? 'ti pound (8 oz.) .1 % pound (12 oz.) * 1 pound (16 02.)
1Q Please indicate how often the following methods are used in your household to prepare and eat any sport-caught fish, (check the column lor each
item that best describes your actions)
fllaays Usually Sometimes Rarely Never
a. Trim belly meal
b. Trim the tat along the back of ttw fish
c. Trim the lat from the sides of the fish
d. Puncture or remove the skin
e. Eat the skin of trie fish
f. Eat whole fish
g. Cut a steak from the fish
h. Fillet the fish
1. Pan fry
|. Deep fry
k. Make fish soups or crtowders
I, Cm the fish
m. Smoke the fish
n.Pickl« the fish
o. Bake or broil the fish
p. Poach or Ml the fish
q. Reuse oil or fat from cooking fish
11 Sport fish in several New York waterways have been found to contain levels of contaminants which may pose health risks to people who eat fish.
The New York Department of Environmental Conservation distributes a health advisory written by the Department of Health which gives advice about
limiting consumption of fish from certain waters of the State.
118 Were you aware of the health advisory before receiving this survey? (check one)
Yes CD No ©f/fno. please go to question IS)
1 Hi Did the following information sources make you aware of the health advisory? (check yes (i> or no )
Yes No Yes No
Newspaper CD @ New York State fisheries agency personnel © ©
Magazine article ® © Warnings posted on waters that I fish ® ©
Fishing Regulations Guide © ® Friends ® ©
Newsletter from fishing club No. I made no changes as a result of the advisories (60 to question 15)
® Yes, What changes have you made? (check all that apply)
© I no longer eat any sport-caught fish
® I eat less fish now than before the advisories
a I eat more fish now because I can choose to keep fish from waters where there are less serious advisories
® i have changed the ways I clean and/or prepare sport-caught fish before eating them.
® I have changed fishing locations because of the advisories.
«i I take fewer fishing trips now because I on choose waters with less serious contaminant problems.
1 I have changed the species I fish for, because of the advisories
B-27
-------
14 For each type of fish, please chert the one circle that describes the change you made in your eating habits because of the advisory.
(check one circle for each type of fish)
Stopped Decreased Increased No Never
Eating Amount Amount Change Ate
Walleye or Pickerel
Channel Catfish
Lake Trout
Chinook Salmon
Cofio Salmon over 21 inches
Rainbow Trout over 25 inches
Brown Trout over 20 inches
Carp
White Perch
Yellow Perch
-'P
CD
CD
-3>
©
@
©
-~E
@
*
@
* | ®
O
iD
d>
US
s»
®
®
®
®
15 What da yoy think the Stale recommends as the maximum number of meals of fish that a person should eat from any water in New York State?
(check one)
Eat no more lish meals than:
None 1 or less/mo. 2-3 /mo, 1/week 2 /week 3-4 /week 5-6/week 1 per day Don't Know
_ o o o o o o c c c
16whal do you think the State recommends as the maximum number of meals of lish that women of ehildbsaring acje and children under 15 should
eat if the fisft have contaminants? {check one)
Eat no more fisft meals limn;
None 1 or less/mo, 2-3/mo, 1/week 2/week 3-4/week 5-6/we«k 1 per day Don't Know
17 Please check the number that corresponds to your agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements:
Strongly Moderately SligMty Slightly Modtraialy Strongly Don't
Agree Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree Know
Eating fish caught from Lake Erie:
-is completely sals for me
-is completely sale for children under 15
-is completely sate for all women ol
chttdbearing age
Eating nth caught (rum Lake Ontario:
•is completely safe for me
-is completely safe for children under 15
-to completely safs for all women of
chUdbaanng age
Eating fish caught from MB Buffalo Rlwr:
-is comptetety safe for me
-is completely sale for children under 1 5
-is completely safe for all women ol
chtfdbearlng age
Eating fish caught Irani the Lower Niagara River
-Is completely safe for me
-is completely sale for children under 15
•is completely safe for all women ol
eMMbearingaga
The health benefits of eating sport-caught
fish are greater than the health risks
®
®
03
<3)
O
0)
®
®
®
03
CD
®
<3>
®
@
CD
9
9
a
9
«
a
»
9
®
®
9
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
«)
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
i)
®
«•
®
®
€s
®
®
®
®
©
®
®
®
®
®
®
®
@
«
®
a>
a
®
@
®
®
18 Please check yes, no or not sure for each statement below:
Yes
I believe eating fish containing chemical contaminants poses some danger to me ®
I believe sating fish containing chemical contaminants poses some danger to my children
No
Nat Sura
B-28
-------
19 In your opinion, now do each ol the following activities or substances rate as risks to health?
Please rate each on a scale of one to eight ranging (ram very safe (1) to very risky (8) (check a rating for eacri risk factor!
Very Safe
Work conditions
Driving a car
Cigarette smoking
Beer
Food additives
Prescription medicines
Air pollution
Tap water
Pesticides
Home activities
Eating New York sport-caught fish
i a
1 ®
s 'J
<£ @
i a
® ®
i *
o> @
V -5
© ©
i '?
•.3
@
3 •
CD
i*
O
*
®
»
®
C*
-f
®
.4
@
;4'
8)
®
8)
'3*
®
CD
Cl-
eg
®
Very Risky
*' ' f: 'f
8) ® IS
•ja' 'J .8'
<& ffi ®
«•• ^. -a
€> (Z> «'
® (? vS1
20 Have you ever been told by a doctor that you had any of the following: (check yes or no and it yes, please give age when diagnosed)
Yes Ma Age Diagnosed Yes No Ag* Diagnosed
Heart attack (myocardial infarction) T- « Colon polyps f S1
Coronary artery bypass or angioplasty CD @ UlcsraBve colitis i ®
High cholesterol (more than 240mg/dl) 5^ cf. Stomach ulcers 1 $
Chronic bronchitis © ® Kidney or bladder disease S ©
Asthma © ® Liver cirrhosis or hepatitis 1 ®
Hay fever or other allergies ' (!) ® Arthritis or Rheumatism T ©
Infertility CO ® Vissctorny (male! 3^ ®
High blood pressure (hypertension) ® ® Tuba) li§ation (tubes tied) (female) 3: ®
Stroke (CVA) © ® Parkinson's Disease i ©
Goiter or thyroid condition CD ® Skin cancer © ® .
Diabetes ® @ Any other cancer I ©
If yes, what kind?
213 Have you ever smoked cigarettes? Yes ® No ® (if no, go to question 22)
21 b H yes, for how many years?
21C Usually, how many cigarettes do/did you smoke per day?
22 What is your race/ethnic group? (check one) ©White ® Hispanic
® African-American © Asian-American or Asian
0 native-American (p Other
23 What is your current marital status? (check one)
<& Never married @ Married S> Divorced/Separated <& Widowed
24 Please Circle the highest grade of scnool you tiave completed.
1 2 3 < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17+
25 Please check your approximate total household income before taxes, in dollars:
$> less than $15,000 ® $15,OOP to $24.999 9 J2S.OOO to $39,999 €) $40,000 or more
26 i' your address on the envelope is not correct, please update if here lor us.
Name
Address
City/Town Zip code.
27 How many years at your current address?_
28 Your Social Security Number (confidential, for study purposes only)
B-29
-------
The last section of the survey asks questions about pregnancy, births and diet during pregnancy
IF FEMALE, ship to question 32, complete shaded questions 32-38
IF MALI AND MARRIED, or living with a female partner, it is important to please ask your wife or partner to complete shaded questions 2948 .
IF MALE AND UNMARRIED (or divorced, separated or widowed) you are finished. Thank you for your cooperation. To return the quastionnaire, mill
it back !o us using the postage paid envelope,
WIFE OH FARTHER: please fill in the blanks, check a circle or circle numbers to indicate your answer to each question. Please answer all questions
(numbers 29 to 38). Even if you are unsure oi the exact answer, please give your best answer.
298 During which of the past years have you eaten any type of fist) caught from Like Ontario and its tributaries, the lower Niagara River, Cayuga
Cfiifc or the St. Lawrence fllw? (Check each year when you ate fish from any of these waters)
1955 . 1956 - 1957 1958 • 1959 ' 1960 '• 1961 r 1962 ," 1963 - 1964
1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 :"; 1974
1975 . , 1976 . 1977 '• 1978 1979 • 1980 • *• 1981 O 1982 : 1983 01984
1985 - . 1986 • 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991
29b Please check (yythe column that best describes your usual frequency of eating each of the kinds o! fish caught from late Ontario and its Iriiiuiar-
its, the Lower Niagara River, Cayuga Creek, or the St. Lawrence River in the past year.
Average Number of Fish Meals You Ate, June 1S9D to Jura 1101
MOM 1 or less par mo, 2 per mo.
3 pet flio.
1 per week 2 per week 3-4 per week 5 or more/waek
Channel Cattish
Lake Trout
Chinook Salmon
Coho Salmon over 21 inches
Coho Salmon under 21 inches
Rainbow Trout over 25 inches
Rainbow Trout under 25 inches
Brown Trout over 20 Inches
Brown Trout under 20 inches
Carp
White Perch
Yellow Pert*
i
29C How do these usual amounts of fish eaten compare to the amounts you ate in previous years from these waters? (check one)
® About Ihe same ® This past year I ale mara Van usual <$ This past year I ate less than usual
29d When you eat sport-caught fish, about what amount do you usually eat at one meal? (check one usual serving size)
® V< pound (4 oz.) a Vs pound (8 PL) © % pound (12 02.) D
Colon polyps
Ulcerative colitis
Stomach uicecs
Kidney or bladder disease
Liver cirrhosis or hepatitis
Arthritis or Rheumatism
Tubal ligation (tubes tied)
Parkinson's Disease
Skin cancer
Any other cancer
W yes, what kind?
a a
® @
0) ©
ffl
-------
313 Haw you ever smoked cigarettes? Yes !
31 b I' yes. lor how many years?
31C Usually, how many cigarettes do/did you smoke per rjay?_
No 3- (if no, go to question 32)
323 Have you ever been pregnant (include live birth, stiH birth, miscarriage, etc.)? (checkyes 01 no)
Yis fit1 No a If yes. what is trie number of pregnancies
32b Do you plan on having children in the next 3 years? /check one) Y«s if No ? Undecided ,f
32C Did you have any children born ilive in the past five years? (since June 1,1986) Yes I No 4 (if no, go to question 38}
For each child born alive anytime since June 1,1986, please provide the following inlormation. Start with your youngest Dhitd.
Child's Name
Firsl Ml Last
1.
2.
3.
4,
5.
Six Dale of Birth Birtri Weight Hospital
(Circle one) mo. day yr. Ibs oz. ol Birth City/State
Ml F
M F
M F
M F
M F
Your name
Your maiden name
Your Social Securnv Number
(confidential, for study purposes only)
33 Please indicate the frequency with which you ate sport-caught fish from New York waters whan you ware p regnant anytime since June 1,1986.
Your Average Number of Sport-Caught Fish Meals Eaten During Pregnancy
NBH» 1 or less perron 2 per mo 3 pet mo. 1 per week Z par watt3-4 per week 5 or mm/meek
During 'pregnancy of child 1
(youngest)
During pregnancy of child 1
(next oldest)
During pregnancy of child 3
(next oldest)
During pregnancy of child 4
(next oldest)
[
,
1 1
During pregnancy of child S
34 What were your smoking habits while you were pregnant with you youngesl child? (check one)
ffi I smoked more than usual © I smoked the same amount as usual
<3> I smoked less than usual ® I stopped smoking $• I never smoked ciflarettes
35 What was your usual intake of the following beverages over the past year (June 1,1990 to June 1,1991)
Check the column that gives your usual Iroquency ol consumption
Never or less 1-3 2-4 5-6 1 2-3 4-5 6+
than ance/montti per mo perweeti per week per day 2 per day per day per day
Caffeinated beverages
(such as coffee, tea,
soft drinks)
Beer
Wine
Han) liquor
(such as gin, vodka)
— ~i — i r '~n
I
...._. ^
i
I
I
B-31
-------
36 About how much alcohol did you dfinK while you were pregnant with your yoiingasl child? (check one)
•;!• I drank more alcohol than usual
•i 1 drank less alcohol than usual
•I' I drank (he same amount as usual
* 1 stopped drinking alcohol
I never drink alcohol
37 Please indicate how frequently you ate the following foods whits you were pregnant with your youngest child.
Your Average Number ot Meals Eaten During Pregnancy
None ' 1 or less per mo. 2 per ma, S fir mo. 1 (Mr wttt 2 per week 3-4 p»r weik S or mote/week
Store bought iish (fresh or froi,}
Tuna or other canned fish
Fish from restaurant
Sport fisfi not caught in N.Y.
Wild duck
Turtle (any species)
38 Please check the cirele that best describes your husband's or partner's usual frequency of eating fish over the past year (June 1.1990 to Jyne 1,
1991) that were caught tor sport in N«w York waters,
Average Number of Sport-caught Fish Meals Eaten June 1990 to June 1991
None lor less per mo 2 perns. 3 per mo. 1 per week 2 per week 3-4|MrM*k 5 or more/weak
Your husband's or ~
partner's frequency ®@8>®cS*®®
Thank you for your cooperation. Your contribution will be important to the success of this study.
To return the questionnaire mail it back to us using the postage paid envelope (provided).
UNIVERSITY AT BUFFALO
STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
Department of Social and Preventive Medicine
2211 Main Street, Building A
Buffalo, New York 14214
B-32
-------
Diary
B.A. Knuth. 1995-1997. Children's fishing and fish consumption patterns. (Diary for
children.) Cornell University, Ithaca, New York. Prepared for New York Great Lakes
Protection Fund.
B-33
-------
B-35
-------
Dear Diary Keeper:
Thanks for keeping this diary of the days you go fishing and the fish
meals you eat. Please start keeping your diary on July 1. The first half
of the diary has pages for your fishing trips. The second half begins with
a yellow page and has charts for recording your fish meals. Directions
are at the beginning of each section.
Remember we will be calling you on the telephone every few weeks
to see how you are doing.
Thanks for helping with this important project!
Barbara A. Knuth
Associate Professor
Printed an meycM paper
B-36
-------
FISHING DAYS
Directions:
1. Fill out one chart for each day you go fishing.
2. Write down the date and the name of the lake, pond, stream, or river where
you went fishing. Also write down the closest city or town to where you went
fishing. See the example at the bottom of this page.
3. Circle all the types of people you went fishing with. A youth group might be a
SAREP club, a 4-H club, Scouts, or a church group.
4. If you caught fish that day, write down what kind of fish you caught and how
many of each kind. Use 1 line for each kind of fish. Some kinds of fish you
might catch would be sunfish, bass, yellow perch, or trout. Look at the pictures
on the next page to help you decide what kind of fish you have. If you don't
know what kind of fish it was, just write DONT KNOW. In the Box under the
question "Did you eat any of these fish?", write "yes" if you ate any of these
fish, and "no* if you didn't. Then in the last space write the names of anyone
else In your family who ate these fish.
5. In the example below, the diary keeper went fishing on July 10 to Lake Ontario
near Rochester with his family. He caught one trout but did not eat it. He also
caught 2 yellow perch. He and his mom ate the yellow perch.
What lake or stream
Date:~3"Oy «D did you fish? i-&Ht OwW;o
Nearesl City or Town: ^.oches^er
Who dWjgoujjo flshing with? (Circle tire right people.)
(EAMJLY"^) FRIENDS SAREP OR OTHER BY
YOUTH GROUP MYSELF
Kind of Fish
Caught
(Species)
~^VaUT
Ve.U«xo PercK
How many
did you catch?
A.
a
DM you eat any
of these fish?
(yes or no)
<*>o
yes
Writs the names of anyone else
In vour family who ate these fish
MOH^
B-37
-------
COMMON FISH OF NIW YORK STATE
Carp
B-38
-------
[NOTE: Multiple pages included in survey booklet to provide space for 26 fishing days]
FISHING DAYS
What lake or steam
Dale: did you fish?
Nearest City or Town:
Who did you go fishing with? (Circle the right people.)
FAMILY FRIENDS SAREP OR OTHER BY
YOUTH GROUP MYSELF
Kind of Fish
Caught
(Species)
How many
did you catch1?
Did you eat any
of these fish?
(yes or no)
Write the names of anyone else
in your family who ate these fish
What lake or stream
Date: did you fish?
Nearest City or Town:
Who did you go fishing with? (Circle the right people.)
FAMILY FRIENDS SAREP OR OTHER BY
YOUTH GROUP MYSELF
KM of Fish
Caught
(Species)
How many
did you catch?
Did you eat any
of these fish?
(yes or no)
Write the names of anyone else
in your family who ate these fish
B-39
-------
FISH MEALS
Directions:
1. Fill out one chart for each fish meal you eat. Fish meals include any fish you
eat at home, in restaurants, out camping or on picnics, or at a friend's house.
It does not include meals of shellfish, like lobster, shrimp, or clams.
2, For each meal, write down the date and the kind of fish you ate. Some kinds
of fish might be: tunafish, trout, or perch. Sometimes you might not know what
kind of fish it is, like in fish sticks or fish sandwiches from Burger King, so you
can write "fish sticks" or "fish from Burger King."
3. Answer all the questions about the fish meal by circling your answer. Look at
the picture on the other page to see if you ate more, less, or the same amount
of fish as is in the picture. If the fish was caught on a fishing trip, circle
"FISHING TRIP* and write down the name of the lake or stream where the fish
was caught.
4. Circle your answers to the questions about how the fish was prepared and
cooked.
5. In the example below, the diary keeper ate fish sticks for dinner on July 9, Her
meal size was smaller than the meal in the picture. The fish sticks came from
the grocery store. The fish sticks were baked in the oven and there was no
skin on the fish when it was cooked.
Date: Tu\y
rand of Rsh Eaten (Species):
Did you eat (circle one):
^ESS) SAME MORE
fish than in the picture?
Where did the fish come from:
RESTAURANT
FISHING
TRIP
What lake or stream?
Was the fish cooked with
the skin on?
YES (NO*) DONT KNOW
How was the fish cooked?
PAN
FRIED
DEEP
FRIED
GRILLEDA CAME.
( BROILED, ] IN A
iBAKEDy CAN
SOME DONT
OTHER KNOW
WAY
B-40
-------
B-41
-------
[NOTE: Multiple pages included in survey booklet to provide space for 48 fish meals]
FISH MEALS
Date: Kind of Fish Eaten (Species):
Did you sat (circle one):
LESS SAME MORE
fish than in the picture?
Was the fish cooked with
the skin on?
YES NO DONTKNOW
Where did the fish come from:
GROCERY RESTAURANT FISHING
STORE TRIP
How was the Mi cooked?
PAN DEEP GRILLED, CAME
FRIED FRIED BROILED, IN A
OR BAKED CAN
~~* What lake or stream?
SOME DON'T
OTHER KNOW
WAY
Date: Kind of Fish Eaten (Species):
Did you eat (circle one):
LESS SAME MORE
fish than in the picture?
Was the fish cooked with
the skin on?
YES NO DONTKNOW
Where did the fish come from:
GROCERY RESTAURANT FISHING
STORE TRIP
How was the fish cooked?
PAN DEEP GRILLED, CAME
FRIED FRIED BROILED, IN A
OR BAKED CAN
"""* What lake or stream?
SOME DON'T
OTHER KNOW
WAY
Date: Kind of Fish Eaten (Species):
Did you eat (circle one):
LESS SAME MORE
fish than in the picture?
Was the fish cooked with
the skin on?
YES NO DONTKNOW
Where did the fish come from:
GROCERY RESTAURANT FISHING
STORE TRIP
How was the fish cooked?
PAN DEEP GRILLED, CAME
FRIED FRIED BROILED, IN A
OR BAKED CAN
"~* What lake or stream?
SOME DON'T
OTHER KNOW
WAY
B-42
-------
Diary
T.L. Brown and N.A. Connelly. 1991-1993. Estimating the sportfishingparticipation
and consumption of Lake Ontario fish. Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
B-43
-------
B-45
-------
Dear Angler:
Thank you for volunteering to keep this diary of your fishing trips and flsh
consumption in 1992. The diary is divided into 3 sections for:
t) any fishing trips you take to Lake Ontario and tts tributaries up to the first
barrier impassable to fish,
2) any fishing trips you take to other New York State waters, and
3) any type of fish that you eat from any source.
Directions for filling out each section are given at the beginning of each section. M you have
any questions don't hesitate to write us a note or give us a call (call collect if you wish); our
address and telephone numbers are listed below. Remember we will be contacting you by
telephone several times during the year to collect information you have recorded in the diary
and at the and of the year we will send you an envelope so that you can return the diary to
us.
Thanks again and get started right away recording your activities. (Don't forget to
write in flsh meals you may have eaten between Jan, 1 and now.)
Tommy I/ Brown
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
1 22B Femow Hall
Ithaca, NY 1 4853
(607) 255-7695
Nancy A. Connelly
Department of Natural Resources
Cornell University
1 26 Femow Htll
Ithaca, NY 1 4853
(607) 255-2830
Printed on recycled p«p*r
B-46
-------
FISHING TRIPS TO LAKE ONTARIO OR ITS TRIBUTARIES
1. Trips that should be recorded in this section Include trips to Lake Ontario or any of
its tributaries up to the first barrier impassable to fish (e.g., dams or high waterfalls).
Some major tributaries are the Salmon River, the Black River, and the Lower
Niagara River.
2, Fill out a separate entry for each day that you fish,
3. Record information on your share of the expenditures for that day. Likely
expenditures might include bait, tackle, food, lodging, gas and oil, boat rental,
charter fees, etc. Divide your share of expenditures into those made en-route to
the fishing site and those made at the fishing location.
4. Record each fish that you personally caught. Do not record information about fish
caught by other members of your party. Record the species and approximate
length of the fish caught, then mark the box that bast describes what you did with
the fish. "Kept, eaten" refers to fish you caught that were eaten either by you or
members of your household. A fish that was kept but not eaten might have been
mounted, used for fertilizer or otherwise disposed of on land. Released fish were
put back into the water. Fish "given away" includes any fish you gave to another
person not in your household, no matter what they did with it. If you caught more
than 10 fish in one day, continue recording the day's catch on the next entry.
5. See the example entry beiow if you have any further questions.
Example:
Dtt«; t/lS/^2
En-route 1
Species
Caught
C<*w So.lmttit
S4e.«Jh«*J
Water Boc
Expenditures: $ l<
ly: SoJmen Rif««- Countv: Oswo.
-------
[NOTE: Multiple pages included in survey booklet to provide space for 22 fishing trips]
FISHING TRIPS TO LAKE ONTARIO OR ITS TRIBUTARIES
Date:
En-route t
Specie*
Caught
Water Boc
Expenditures: $
ly: County:
At-srte Expenditures: $
Length
In Inches
Dispensation (check one)
Kept, Eaten
Kept, Not Eaten
Released
Given Away
Date:
En-route i
Species
Caught
Water Boc
Expenditures: S
ly: County:
At-slte Expenditures: $
Length
In Inches
Dispensation (check one)
Kept, Eaten
Kept, Not Eaten
Released
Given Away
B-48
-------
FISHING TRIPS TO OTHER NEW YORK STATE WATERS
1. Trips that should be recorded In this section include trips to waters In New York State
other than Lake Ontario or its tributaries up to the first barrier impassable to fish.
2, Less detailed information is needed in this section than in the Lake Ontario section,
3. Use 1 line to record information for each day that you fish,
4, Record information on your share of the expenditures for that day, Ukely expenditures
might Include bait, tackle, food, lodging, gas and oil, boat rental, charter fees, etc.
Divide your share of expenditures into those made en-route to the fishing site and
those made at the fishing location.
5, Record the total number of fish that you personally caught. This should include any
fish that you caught regardless of whether you kept ft, released it, or gave it away. Do
not record information about fish caught by other members of your party.
6, See the example entry below if you have any further questions.
Date
"7/H
Water Body
Gayt*g
-------
[NOTE: Another page included in survey booklet to provide additional space]
FISHING TRIPS TO OTHER NEW YORK STATE WATERS
Date
Water Body
County
Number of
Fish Caught
En-route
Expenditures
At-site
Expenditures
B-50
-------
.
i*^'
About 1/2 Pound Fish Stea*
A b o u L i /
sh Fillet
B-51
-------
FISH CONSUMPTION
1. Fish meals include meats of sport-caught fish (regardless of who caught the fish), fish
bought In restaurants or stores, fish eaten at friend's houses or at work. It does not
include meals of shellfish, such as lobster, shrimp, scallops, or clams.
2. Record Information for every fish meal that you eat. Do not record Information for fish
meals that other members of your household ate, but that you did not eat. (For
example, do not record Sally's school lunch of fish sticks.)
3. Record each meal on a separate line. If you don't know the answer to one of the
questions asked, write "DK" In the answer space.
4. Record the species of fish eaten and the approximate size of the meal you ate. Refer
to the portion sizes (about 1/2 pound) pictured on the opposite page. Was your
portion size less, more, or about the same as the portions shown?
5. Record If the fish was sport-caught or if it came from another source, such as canned,
frozen from the store, or from a restaurant
6. Indicate how many other household members ate the meal with you. Their portion
size is not important. It may have been more or less than yours.
7. Record If the skin was removed from the fish before cooking, if the fat was trimmed
before cooking, and how the meal was cooked.
8. See the example entries below if you have any further questions.
Examples:
Date
l/IO
i/ia
»/IS
Sped**
E*t*n
Houidoc-k
Rc.ir.bmj (ro^rl1
OK.
Your
Meal Size
!
!
X
X
i
X
Method
Sport-
GBught
X
Oilier
X
X
Number of
Other
Household
Members
Eating
Fish Meal
3
1
o
Preparation
Skin
On?
Yes
X
No
*
X
Fat
Trimmed?
Yes
DK
X
D*
No
Cooking Method
Pan Fried
X
I
1
X
i
GrlH or Broil
i
X
B-52
-------
FISH CONSUMPTION
[NOTE; One page each provided to record meals for the months of January-December]
JANUARY
Dale
Specie*
Eaten
Your
Meal Size
r
i
i
Method
Sport-
caughl
Other
Number of
Other
Household
Members
Eating
FishMsal
Preparation
Skin
On?
Yoe
No
Fat
Trimmed?
*
No
Cooking Method
Pan Fried
£
I
Grill or Broil
i
B-53
-------
Personal Interview
CRITFC. 1994. A Fish Consumption Survey of the Umatilla, NezPerce, Yakama, and Warm Springs
Tribles of the Columbia River Basin. Technical Report 94-3. Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission, Portland, OR.
B-55
-------
I
to
W
.CO
"3
|
w
>
£
5
f
2
o
O
CO
CD
CO
O
o
a
rof
i
o
*
1
cc
UJ
UJ
>
±> 0
B-57
-------
« g £""2
o»cB .2 «
^^ CJ CD
a:
tit
m
2
ai
oc
o
i
01
a
w
CO
yz v*
o CD CD =i
°^"S §
£« = 8
o z to >,
"» 3
.2 §
I-
C ai
o 3
O 2
_ o
•go:
(0 <0
£ c
l
». «
o c
> o
SO
O
o
o>
c o-g a
« CO 3
og|f
tli
sis§
« ^ c o
ills-
S S o *°
£'J5-D£
T" 02 _. OT
t^~l
oj as
-------
CM
CM
•§
i Pi
H|
Hi
>»5 c
ili
5 « o
JgcS
c a
i^f
•g jat
£ «= S
48 a»l>
•§s^
fiA-2
*ri
^1,.,, flj Q
IS «
1_ *J g
s «•§
lkM>
s
I
1
o
3
15
o
o
o
CD
X)
I
TJ
_o
1
o
o
2
<
ai
Q
1
cr
u.
O
CO
•*
0)
OBJ
to
B-59
-------
cc
01
m
ID
cc
<
o
I
O
m
«
1
C
-i i
< i
o i
01 £
cc *
ff |
=3 1
0 ?
3C |
«* 1
? 1
111
M
S
Z
£
ID
f^
O3
O>
O
-
~
«
;
**
"e*
1
Q.
8
o.
a.
a
s
$
O
e
o
£
*
>
§.
1
in
O
o
B-60
-------
cc
UJ
CD
UJ
cc
O
I
O
u
i
a
z
O
I
o
o
uf
CC
i
a
I Sr
o 1
Js
. °=
j£ i i
S «- 01
C
e
c
«?
a
Q
0
Q
Q.
E
c
O
}l
everages
GO
•o
«
•Q
O
I
Q-
s " s
«? d. S
«s
• 5
< jjJ
o .
c o
32
52
-------
C3J O f- CM
o> o
I-CM JK.
to
ra
-
CD
O
(0
O
to
ID
O
>»
•§
g,su§elSE£
** O O O = CD C ==
CO
CO
,0
o
CD
CO
C
o
"S
sz O
"o
Cfl
CO
CD
E
CO
CO
w
a>
ra
•>
co
CD
I
•
-------
y- CM CO
EC
UJ
CO
5
13
Z
UJ
CC
<
o
LU
a
S3
m
I
6
x:
CO
I
3
o
a
CD
**
c
£
<-.
3
o
€,
3
CD
CD
at
a
<0
e s
CD
OB
£
CD
CO
O
CD
OJ
CO
I
CO
Ul
o
Z
O
CO -a I
CD g i
>, |
* I
O CB
•S, £
.
as
•RO
s
RE
Ol^
CD
09
~o
c
to
9
i
IU
0
g
O
O
d
z
8 r i
CM
to
CD
S
illl
pii
s
Ill
CO •»-;
O> v.
o
o>
B-63
-------
CE
111
m
5
3
z
Ul
cc
X4*
i
UJ
3
a
•e
CD
TJ
8
Q.
CO
CD
QC
%***
1
i
a
"O
CO
c
56
c
o
m
Cfl
o>
UJ
"O
a
o
S.
m
_
5 -
1 E
- Q.
8 m
o "5
I i
It ypo ui noil
(circle Yes If commonly eaten)
,-
en
.
i-
CO
ir-
1
Salmon and Steelhead
CM
O
Z
CM
*
O
CM
"
O
CM
*
O
Z
CM
O
z
CM
*
O
Z
la"
CM E
c
Is
co CO
•*- CM
m _
CD O
> Z
^- CM
m
$ Z
*- CM
*
58 o
UJ *•»
>. Z
r- CM
1 5
>• jig
T- CM
fg r>
QJ W
> Z
»" CM
S 0
> Z
CM
O
Z
"5 •«-
? j
c *o
Q. J»
1
T-
>~
T-
1
T-
1
Resident Trout
CM
0
CM
O
Z
CM
O
CM
O
*~
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
Z
CO
f- CM
w n
Cfl K*
>- Z
T~ OJ
S o
> 2
T- CM
2 o
>_ z
i- CM
S 0
>- 2
•»- CM
S o
>• Z
»• CM
i o
>- z
CM
O
Z
0)
CD >•
E
CO
i- CM
I z
i- CM
0 0
>- Z
t- CM
» 0
S* ^*
>- Z
•>- CM
S 0
CD \J
?- ^
i- CM
i o
>• z
f- CM
* *
w _
m \j
> 2
CM
O
1 j
03 «D
*•* Nun-
€
T- CM
* 0
i- eg
CD C
> z
T- CM
S n
CD *-J
>. z
i- CM
S 0
^_
T- CM
i o
>• z
•»- CM
i 0
>. z
CM
O
Z
1 «
o >
3
CO
T- CM
1 §.
T- CM
S 0
CD *"/
>- z
T- CM
*> «
CD O
> Z
•»- CM
m O
>" Z
T- CM
*
°J «
CD O
T- CM
« ri
CD ^
> z
CM
*
O
Z
T"
& «
fl> ^
= ^"
1
CO
B-64
-------
a:
w
CO
UJ
flC
ui
3
a
if
11
HI
li*"^
P
m
: COl
B
Si I
N;
IP
fe
; JFJSi
i^s&
•
«
I (CONTINUED)
to
v. C
c a
*5 ^
oo
o>
c
o
03
0)
o>
o
tu
"O
eo
O
jj
S
CO
ts
JS
i
5 ...
si
= 6
5*
3»«
S§
& |
e>
. z
*- CM
i o
>- z
T- CM
1 i
*• CM
i o
>- z
t- CM
*" *
w _
ID "
>• z
•«- CM
S 0
> Z
CM
*
O
•g ;
? «
1 £
5"
i- CM
S o
> Z
i- CM
g 0
T- CM
1 3.
i- CM
§ 0
>- z
T- CM
• *
w _
fO w
>. z
T- CM
W 0
® W
> Z
CM
*
*
O
Js §
o >*
CO
*- CM
« _.
- Z
•r- CM
«g Q
- z
t- CM
g 0
>• z
•»- CM
S o
f~ z
r- CM
* *
S o
CD v
>- z
T- CM
1 2
CM
O
o>
I *
CO
t-
eo
o>
T~
1
•r-
m
^
i
>-
^
i
^~
-i-
m
{£
CM
O
CM
O
CM
O
Z
CM
5
z
CM
O
z
CM
O
,- «
1 i
T- CM
eo ._
CD "
> z
T- CM
55 o
CD «'
> z
i- CM
- Z
v CM
S 0
>• z
T- CM
g 0
> Z
CM
T- CM
i 0
>- z
T- CM
8 o
>. z
T- CM
» 0
Cy *^
>- z
f- CM
S 0
>- Z
T- CM
S 0
>- z
t- CM
W o
(D UP
> z
w
B-65
-------
(T
111
CD
HI
DC
O
I
o
v_
o
c
o
15
O>
"5 .
"CD
T- C
Si
J= E
s«
11
ID Q}
|ts
If
— .g
5 8
8^"
o g
O Q.
g Q.
lid
^> c 2
^* O I-
II
o £}
•§18
o y
5 "o
t!
J-.
1
0
5
c
8
°:S
£ £
(0 CO
3
2
i|
S E
^.o
l§
cog
8"5
§|
Sfe
-c
b
|I
CD
2 ®
«1
1°
o
s
^
o
w
CM
JQ
A 0
1 O
T-CM
CO _
1
Q.
CO
CM
0
A 0
i Q
t-CM
tn _
1
Q.
CD
JD
CM
TJ
A 0
Is
T-CM
CO
n water?
•o
1
ci
d
CM
0>
A 0
i°
i a
T-CM
CO _
^
CP.
b
a.
1
T3
CD
E
TJ
CM
.t •
A 0
i C
T-CM
§0
CD
CD
CM
d
A O
! 0
T-CM
|0
CD
1
^
CM
A 0
\s
T-CM
So
. smoked?
CD
CM
_.
A 0
i O
T-CM
|0
1
•DC
if'O
CM
.
A 0
!°
i a
T-CM
Is
1
£
a
CD
.
CM
^
A 0
! o
t O
T-CM
So
c
8.
Is
fe8
a <»
0.0
•0 CO
ffl£)
So
So
. ^
CM
_j
A 0
lo
1 03
T-CM
|0
canned?
jy
B-66
-------
cc
111
co
tn
1
>»». z co 5
j= ,9 ~ a 2
€
CO
o
>•
£
e>
CO
CD
CD
£
g-
CD
O
O
>.
c
g
T- CM
, a>
>_
CM
eo >-
<
o
°
x*
O
g
I
CD
B-67
-------
cc
LU
CD
5
01
o I
ii E
LU w
S 3
5
CO
C
m
CD
Q.
UI
E
cc
LU
O
z
3
S
x
o
cc
2
03
LU
CO
*c
usf
.'iO*!
i«l
m
.-..i.j™J •.-,
lof
Ssil
ssstf
femi
Ipa
H
lie
p
IF
si
III
"•fef:
5§
s
4
iPi
m
I
*
1
.
1
*
1
1
I
I
^
tn
«_ c
66
c
o
m
CO
O)
O)
III
•o
CO
CD
X
s
CO
2
E
5 ~
a 5
c i
D °"
s
«3
a>
= c
» o
L E
5 |
D O
a*
~ §
x>
o
'o
,
co
CD
T—
*
m
T-
*
CD
>*
«-
1
1—
CO
*^^
^"
*:
CD
>•
TJ
CO
CD
"co
«Zr
CO
o
"co
CO
OJ
o
z
CM
*
o
CM
"
O
•z.
CM
*
O
"
CM
*
O
CM
*
O
"co*
CM E
*T£
• o
O -K
zl
c
^2
• o
• o>
« CO
T- CM
S o
> z
f- CM
CD 0
>- Z
f- . CM
CD 0
>- Z
i- CM
S 0
>• Z
f- CM
S 0
CD ^~^
V* Z
f- CM
i 0
> z
CM
.
O
"5 T-
LU
*» *
S «
Q. ^
1
T- CM
W „
CD CJ
>- Z
T- CM
CD 0
>• Z
T- CM
w _
ft) \Jt
>. Z
i- CM
CD O
>• Z
i- CM
S 0
>2T
T- CM
S o
>- Z
CM
.
O
z
O T"
J— *
CD CO
T3 ^
CO -*"
CD
Z
T- CM
g 0
>• Z
•»- CM
m
m %J
> Z
»- CM
S 0
ffi u
>- Z
•«- CM
S O
*^» "y
T- CM
§ 0
> z
CM
.
O
,_
•
*
« 1
1 *
CO
T- CM
m i~i
Qj *--
>_ z
•r- CM
§ 0
> Z
T- CM
S 0
> Z
f- CM
S 0
>- Z
i- CM
S 0
V Z
T- CM
CO
ffi %*«
> z
CM
.
0
^_
•
f
£ CO
^
>. z
i- CM
- Z
T- CM
§ 0
> z
•«- CM
S 0
CT\ ?J
> Z
•«- CM
CO
tfj €J
V 7*
T- CM
S O
>• Z
CM
«
O
Z
1-
•
c
§ «
I *
CO
•r- CM
-
W _
o> o
>- Z
•r- CM
jo J
ID O
> z
T- CM
CD O
> Z
T- CM
§ 0
>- z
•«- CM
g 0
v,. >ryt
•r- CM
CO
ID >»*
> z
CM
.
O
z
T—
•
1 1
1
CM
B-68
-------
OC
UJ
CD
2
UJ
gc
<
O
g
UJ
3
a
•JU •
}..'«"
*§•
ii
PS
l*»i
|l
H
x|5!«!J?;
ill
8
^Ox>
M^Jfs:
R
m
*^J3M
HI
*
j
•
•
i
«
o
UJ
z
F
O
Q
%»•*»
<*
56
en
c
O
m
CO
CO
o
Ul
T3
CO
CD
y
g
CO
**
QZ
5 -
o c
3 0
E 6
f a.
D „
3> «
2 a
i
JC
_2
2
O
0>
Q.
^_
T- CM
1 i
T- CM
CO *
CD O
> Z
•»- CM
• »
CO O
>- z
f- CM
m O
> Z
i- CM
& n
m U
>- Z
T- CM
« «
CD O
> "Z.
CM
.
•
O
Z
c
to
*p co
CO <£
cf
i- CM
- z
T- CM
i 0
>- z
t- CM
* *
1 I
T- Ol
*
S 0
> z
T- CM
*
1 £
•r- CM
« 0
%D «
> z
CM
*
«
O
z
„
w
s §
"o ^*
CO
T- CM
OT
^ I
•«— CM
OT _"
CD *-
>- z
T~ CM
• «
1 £
^ 01
§ 0
> Z
i- CM
1 £
•^- CM
«* «
CO O
>- Z
CM
*
*
O
Z
*~
•
9
m
It *
CO
T-
»
o>
CD
T.
CO
H}
,_
*
CO
T-
co
>.
T-
•
—
1
•r-
1
C"
JS
o
CO
tr
Ul
i i-
15
CM
*
O
z
CM
O
Z
CM
•
O
CM
O
z
CM
1
CM
O
T- CM
to _
^3 ^
>- Z
T- CM
1 £
•r- CM
* •
g Q
> Z
*- CM
CD 0
>• z
T- CM
S o
>• Z
•r- CM
JO _
ID "
> z
CM
t- CM
S o
> Z
•»- CM
S 0
CD *•"*
>• z
f- CM
• *
§ 0
> z
•»- CM
i o
>- z
i- CM
* •
^
§ 0
>• Z
t- CM
S 0
>• Z
TO
B-69
-------
DC
til
03
2
in
tr
w €
w **
D ®
a £
§
o
XJ
ID
CD
CO
a
a? c
CBW
as a
t. at
ID C
E »
"
Z
O
g
U!
CO
g
CD
I
ID
CM
O
CM
O
O-
TJ
O
TJ
CD
s co
O a
H 2
i? "5
_ ^
w I
D)
i
xt
s
o
Xt
TJ
ss
to
0)
s o
I £_
CD V*
XI <0
m
to
CD
O
"O
CO
CD o
k f
g 2
i |
CO
til
o
Z CD
O 3
g D- fe
5 >
HI S CD
es r; a
& 1 SL
C CD
TO CO «£
.. ^ S
CD *^
^ i
S
x>
g
(0
i -
IL O
XI
as
.a
CO
£
I
t
w
o
2
TJ
in
i
o
c
CD
i 5
LL CM
> >
O
I
I
e-
2
€
I
I
T3
CD
CD
I
S
I
a.
3
i: I
o
CD
CO
CO
|
ra
•f—
B-70
-------
DC
UJ
CD
UJ
c
o
fe
UJ
O
i
03
O
cn
CO
CO W CO
B-71
-------
DC
III
QQ
2
Ul
£
<
o
E
LU
D
O
-------
Creel Survey
San Diego County Department of Health Services. 1990. San Diego Bay Health Risk
Study: An evaluation of the potential risk to human health from fish caught and consumed
in San Diego Bay. Prepared for The Port of San Diego, San Diego, CA.
B-73
-------
ANGLER SURVEY QUE8TIOHNAIR1?
Tine .
Data
Day M T W Th F Sa Su
Site Glorietta Bay Coronado Ferry Landing Shelter Is.
Harbor Is* Spanish Landing Embarcadero Park Sweetwater Port Dist
Chula Vista Bayside Park 6 Street Pier
Location Center East West North South End Front
Mode Pier Shore Boat other
Interview? Y H Language barrier
Planning District 113456789
Previous Interview? Y N
Hay I ask your ethnicity? Caucasian Negro Filipino Vietnamese
Am. Indian Hispanic Chinese
May I ask you age? ,
Sex M F
What country were you born in? US Philippines Vietnam China
Mexico
What city do you live in? San Diego National city Chula vista
Coronado Spring Valley Imperial Bch.
La Mesa Lemon Grove 11 Cajon
Zip Code
Are currently employed? Y It
What is your occupation?
How many years did you go to school? i 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17+
To the nearest half hour, what time did you arrive?
How aany people did you come here with today?
How many are fishing?
May I Measure your fish? Y If Nothing caught Mot available
What will you do with these fish? Eat Throw back Use for bait
Give away Undecided
Bow many adults will eat these fish? ^_^
B-75
-------
ANQLSR SURVEY QtTB§f XOMHJUCRl
How many children less than 1 yr. old will eat these fish?
How Many children between the ages 115 will eat these fish?
How many children between the ages S ft 10 will eat these fish?
How many pregnant/lactating women will eat these fish?
la this your 1st or 2nd tine fishing here? 3rd 4th H
How many times a month do you fish here?
How many times a year do you fish here?
Do you remember the last time you fished here?
How many days ago was that?
To the nearest half hour, how many hours did you fish then?
Do you remember the lest tine you fished here, caught something,
and ate it?
How many days ago was that? Do not eat fish
What kind of fish was It?
Do you fish year-round? Y N
Were you fishing for any particular kind of fish today? ¥ H
What kind of fish do you generally fish for? none
Have you ever bought fish at the market? Y H
How many times a month do you buy fish?
I* there a particular kind of fish that you buy? If H
B-76
-------
ANGLER SURVEY QUB0TIOHNAIRB
Species
f
f
f
t
t
t
f
f
e
No. Length (cm)
,
,
J
... .)
j
J
»
J
1
1
Mill
eat?
, ,
( ,
f J
r )
f i
t i
f i
C )
t ,
( > ( i
(
t
f
f
c
J
,
1
,
1
( ,
f i
( )
r )
f »
Parts Prep,
consumed* method**
( >
( J
( j
( »
( 5
f ,
( )
< )
( )
t »
( )
C )
( ,
f »
( )
C »
( 1
f
f
I
(
t
t
(
t
(
t
,
f
(
f
f
)
\
1
)
)
)
>
)
)
)
>
)
)
1
}
)
)
>
* 1* Entire 2. Muacle 3. Skin 4. Liver S. Broth 6. Other
** 1. Raw 2. Boll 3. Bake 4. Wry S. Snoke 6. BBQ 7. Steam 8. Broil
s. Stir-Fry
B-77
-------
Creel Survey
Fishery Information Management Systems, Inc., and Department of Fisheries and Allied
Aquacultures, Auburn University. 1994. Estimation of daily per capita freshwater fish
consumption of Alabama anglers. Prepared for Alabama Department of Environmental
Management, Montgomery, Alabama.
B-79
-------
State-Will* rr«Ehw«t«r
Wimh Consumption Surra; (Interview
I tun conducting a fresh water fi«h consumption survey in the State of Alabama. May I
tak* « fmw minutes of your time to ask some questions about your fishing trip and
measure the fiah that you have kept?
and lo
Motth
ri«b
P«¥
Year.
System „
Interview i
Tin
Related Question*
1. Have you kept any fi*h that you have caught today?
{OKI. »*<_-:
¥es Ho
2ft. Do you eat fish that you catch from this location?
¥*•
IF HO TO #1
&
YES TO f2
00 TO QUESTION NUMBER
No : then
2B. why?
2C. and what do you do with them?
Have you caught enough fish today for a family meal?
Mo i then
3B. How many mire fiah like the ones you've
caught do you need to make a meal?
3C. Hill you freeze these fish until you
have caught enough to make a meal?
Yes wo
GO TO QUESTION NUMBER 3E
3D. Will you eat these fiah today?
aM)
res
Wo *
3E. When do you think that you
trill cat those fiah?
fCodes.
GO TO XEXT QOKSTIOH
4A. Sow many other people will eaC these fimh with you7
4B. How will thm*m fimh bm eooJeatf?
(Code:
Bow away mauls have you eaten ov»r tA* p««t month with fimh yoa'v« caught
here?
|5B.| Hov many meals have you eaten over the past month vith fimh you've caught
I ' in other lakes or zivmTm la A2ai>ama? ______
5C. Hov many meals have you eaten over the past month with fimh you've caught
in fmna ponds in AlaJbama? ______
B-81
-------
Moruh ___ flay r*ar _______ Systtm ________________________ InUrvif* t
These next few questions are about the way you prepare and cook your fish and how
important they are to you.
6 A. Do you clean your own fish?
res Wo
6B. Who does? _ (Codes
7. A serving of fish consists of approximately 4 ounces. This would be about the
size of the palm of your hand. How many servings of fish do you usually aat
par meal?
Short Form Ends Here (with species information)
8. How important to your family meals are the fish that you catch here or In
othmr Alabama lakes And rivers? Arm thty:
(l)not important (2) somewhat important (3) import ant (4) very important. ?
9, Are the fish you catch Acre or la other Alabama Lakes mad Rivers important
in reducing your family food expenses? Are they:
(l)not important (2)somewhat important (3)impart ant (4)very important ?
10, What will you mat today tor your next family meal (main course) if you don't eat
fish caught here?
(Code: ;
11. Have you ever heard of m health advisory warning against consuming fish caught
here? Tfea So
12. Bo you know of any place in Alabama where a health advisory warning against
consuming fimh has been Issued? res Wo
If yes, waere
13, Would you eat fiah from this location if thmrm was
a health advisory warning against consuming fimh
caught Aere? res So
14. Who do you f**l mhould Jbe r»»ponmihlm tor the protection of Alabama's water
resources?
(Codes }
B-82
-------
MauH Oaf Vtar Syium _ baenitw l_
There are mmny hazards or risfcs in our daily lives. These next few faestions will A«lp
us determine the angling publics' views concerning the risA* associated vita tne fish
tnat you cmtch and eat for yowr family meals.
Out of all your daily activities, wnat is nose dangerous to you? _
(Code t __ _ ^
please respond to the following statements, on a seal* of 1 to 5, J meaning tnat you
strongly disagree, J meaning undecided and 5 meaning tftat you strongly agree.
15. Public agencies nave exaggerated the risk SD B. S. & SA
of eating fish caught, in Alabama lakes C rivers. 12345
16. Adequate information is available about tte safety 1 2 3 4 5
of eating fish from Alabama lakes fi rivers.
17. People need to worry about chemicals in the fish
they eat from Alabama lajces and river*. 12345
16. Larger fish are more hazardous to mat than small ones. 12345
19. Bottom- feeding fisA like Catfish and Bullheads are 12345
more haxardoum to eat than other fish like Crappie i
Bream,
20, Host of Alabama's LmJeem and Rivers are free of pollution, 1 2 3 4 S
21 . State agencies need to take a more aggressive approach to
protect Alabama's lakes and rivers. 1 2 3 4 5
22. What time did you begin fishing today
23. Sow many other people are fishing with you today?
24. Race: «
_ fS^ Afro-American _ (B} Bi.mpanie~Ameri.cea
_ f*j Aaian-Anwriean _ (*) JTatiwe-Anerican
____ (C) Suro-Aaerican
25. Ages and Body weignt of Anglers: i,,,,,, ,„ »„
Ages
_ < 20 _ ?Q-29 _ 30-39 _ 40-49 _ 50-55 _ > 60
Do you mind it I ask you how much you and your fishing companions weigra?
* *
u r
26. What State _ , County _ , and Town _ do you live in?
27. Hov much mommy did you spend on today's fishing trip am
Gas: $ _ food C Drinks: $ _ Salt* $ _
28. Would you please tell me vhieh one of theme categories your yearly family
income falls in, _
B-83
-------
MtmsH Day liar.
&***"*.
Interview i
Alabaaa State-Wide Freshwater
Fish Conauaptdon Survey (RiLrvetrt Sheet)
All fish ar* to tie identified, measured, and weighed. Ask the angler Co indicate which
fish will t>« consumed thm next time fish are eaten for a family meal.
Species
Number
Length (cm)
Weight (grams)
To be Consumed
Tea We
Cleaning
Method
B-84
-------
Creel Survey
B. Barclay. 1993. Hudson River angler survey: A report on the adherence to fish
consumption health advisories among Hudson River anglers. Hudson River Sloop
Clearwater, Inc., Poughkeepsie, New York.
B-85
-------
-------
QUESTIONNAIRE - HUDSON RIVER fryia^ER SURVEY
Interviewers
Date: / / Day of week:
mo. day yr.
Time Started: Tiae Ended:
Site:
Sex of person being interviewed: M F
1) I am taking a survey of fishing activity along the Hudson
River and New York Harbor, sponsored by the Clearwater
Foundation. Could I ask you some questions?
Yes
HO - CTHian piRsoB »iro TERMINATE
2) Have you already been interviewed by Clearwater about
recreational fishing?
Yes (END INTERVIEW)
HO
3) What types of fish are you trying to catch here today?
4) What fishing or crabbing equipment are you using today?
(READ MJ, CHOICES)
hook and line
trap
net
other?
5) Have you caught anything here today, and if so, what?
Type of fish Number caught
B-87
-------
6) How many times have you fished or crabbed on the Hudson River
in the last seven days (that is from until
today)?
7} How many times have you fished or crabbed on the Hudson River
in the last month (that is from ___ until today)?
8) What is the main reason you fish or crab?
9) What other reasons do you fish or crab?
(RECORD IN ORDER GIVEN)
10) We would like to know what you do with the fish or crabs that
you catch. Do you do any of the following with your catch
often, sometimes, rarely or never?
(READ FROM LIST BELOW, CHICK EACH APPLICABLE ANSWER)
Often Sometimes Rarely.
Eat;
Toss back;
Use for fertilizer;
Use for bait;
Throw- in trash;
Give away;
B-88
-------
If you ever give -them away, what do the people you give
then to do with them?
Eat;
Fertilizer;
Bait;
Other? . , (what)
Don't know;
Sell; Often Sometimes Rarely Never
If you ever do sell them, what do the people you sell
them to do with them?
Eat;
Fertilize
Bait;
Other? (what)
Don't know;
Anything else; (what)
11) What do you think most people here do with their catch?
(RECORD IN ORDER GIVEN)
(IF RESPONDENT DOES jfgj? EAT CATCH, CONTINUE. IF THEY DO EAT
CATCH, SKIP TO QUESTION 17)
12) Have you ever eaten fish or crabs from here in the past?
yes (SKIP TO QUESTION 14}
no
13) Why don't you eat your catch?
(SKIP TO QUESTION 21)
B-89
-------
14) What kind of fish or crab did you eat?
(RECORD ALL ANSWERS GIVEN)
15) How often during the fishing season did you used to eat these
fish or crabs? (READ ALL CHOICES)
4 or more times a week
2 or 3 times a week
once a week
2 to 3 times a month
once a month
less than once a month
16) Why did you stop eating them?
(SKIP TO QUESTION 21)
(RESUME QUESTIONS HERE IF RESPONDENT DOBS EAT THEIR CATCH)
17) How many times in the last week (that is from
until today) did you eat fish or crab from the Hudson River?
NO. Of meals (EMPHASIZE MO. OF MEALS, MOU FISH)
18) MOW many times in the last month (that is from until
today) did you eat fish or crabs from the Hudson River?
NO. Of meals (EMPHASIZE I OF MEALS, KQ3? FISH)
B-90
-------
19) Who besides yourself eats the fish or crabs you catch from
this area? (FOR EACH PERSON LISTED, RECORD THE FOLLOWING)
-Relation to respondent,
-Age,
-What kind of fish or crab they eat?
-Whether they eat more, the same, or less fish or crab
than respondent.
pej.atj.on Age type of fish/crab amount faore. same. lessV
20) I am going to read you a series of cleaning and cooking
methods for fish and crabs. Could you please respond if
you Always, Sometimes or Never use each of these methods:
(READ EACH, RECORD APPROPRIATE RESPONSE)
Method Always Sometimes Never
Eat whole fish or crab
Puncture or remove skin
Fillet the fish
Trim off belly meat
Trim off the strip of fat
along the back of fish
Pan fry or deep fry
Hake soup or chowder
Bake, barbecue or poach
Reuse oil or fat from cooking
B-91
-------
(RESUME QUESTIONING HIRE WITH ALL RESPONDENTS)
21) Are there any" fish or crab that people catch here, that are
not safe to eat?
yes
no (SKIf TO QUESTION 27)
no opinion/don't know (SKIP TO QUESTION 27)
22) «hat fish or crabs that people catch here are not safe to
eat?
23) Is it the whole fish or crab that is not safe to eat, or
just parts of them?
24) Why are they not safe to eat?
25) What would happen if you ate them?
26) If you ate these fish or crabs and had no reaction witnin a
day or two, would that nean the fish or crab are safe to
eat?
yes ,
no
don't know
27) How can you tell if the fish or crabs caught here, or their
parts, are safe to eat?
B-92
-------
28) Is there any way to make the fish or crab that are caught
here safer to eat after they have been caught?
no
If yes, what are they;
29) For the fish or crab voucatchhere, would you say that
eating then;
(READ Mill CHOICES}
poses no risk at all
poses a slight risk
poses a serious risk
30) Would you say the water here is: {READ ALL CHOICES)
not at all polluted
slightly polluted
quite polluted
31) (IF RESPONDENT BELIEVES WATER IS MORE POLLUTED THAN FISH) If
the water is slightly/quite polluted, why does eating the
fish pose no risk/a slight risk?
B-93
-------
8
32) Please answer yes, no or don't know for each of the following
questions;
don't
yes no know
Do you think that the fish you catch here are
contaminated?
Do you believe that eating fish caught at this
site would pose a risk to your health?
Would you like more information about the
potential risks from eating fish that are
contaminated?
Would you like store information about how you
can control the risks from eating contaminated
fish?
33) Do you happen to know if there are any official health
warnings about eating fish that are caught here?
yes
no (Slit TO QUESTION 40)
don't know (SKIP TO QroSTION 40)
34) What warnings are you aware of?
3S) How did you originally learn about them?
B-94
-------
10
40} What age group are you in? (READ)
under 10 40 - 44
10 - 14 45 - 49
15 - 19 50 - 54
20 - 24 55 - 59
25 - 29 60 or up
30 - 34
35 - 39 ,
41) What is your race or ethnic background?
42) In what range is your total yearly household income, before
taxes? (READ CHOICES)
less than $10,000
$10,000 - $29,999
$30,000 - $49,999
$50,000 - $69,999
$70,000 - $89,999
$90,000 or over
43) What is the number of people in your household?
Thank you very much for your time and cooperation.
CLEARHATER 2991
B-95
------- |