Search
Close
Search
Advanced Search
Search Menu
AI Discovery Assistant

Abstract

Objective

Different sampling designs can influence survey results and potentially lead to management decisions that are deemed unacceptable by anglers. This study compared survey responses from a random sample of licensed Arkansas anglers with responses from a nonrandom self-selected sample of individuals who voluntarily completed the same survey on the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) social media platforms.

Methods

Both instruments were online surveys, completed by Arkansas resident license holders. The independent variable was the type of sample (i.e., random vs. nonrandom self-selected). We compared angler responses to questions related to angler demographics, fishing behaviors, centrality of fishing, fishing satisfaction, and use of AGFC information resources. The random sample and nonrandom self-selected sample were compared relative to (1) response rates, (2) item nonresponse, and (3) differences in response distributions.

Results

Similar to other recent research, the response rate for the random sample was 13% (n = 1,312). A response rate for the self-selected sample (n = 1,105) could not be calculated because the population of visitors to the AGFC social media platforms could not be determined. The random sample consistently had higher item nonresponse than the self-selected sample. For example, for the nine satisfaction questions, the random sample respondents had 30% missing, whereas the self-selected respondents had 11% missing. The response distribution results indicated that the self-selected respondents were more avid anglers than those in the random sample. For example, the self-selected anglers fished more often (within and among years), fished a greater variety of locations (e.g., out of state), and placed a greater importance on fishing. The self-selected sample was also older, more likely male, and more likely to receive information from all AGFC sources than the random sample. Those in the self-selected sample were generally less satisfied with their fishing experiences in Arkansas (e.g., overall, number of fish caught) than the random sample.

Conclusions

Of the 30 comparisons, the two samples differed statistically on 27 tests (90%). The results highlight important differences between the two methods. Both methods have trade-offs in costs and biases. If the goal of the research is to understand the general angler population, a survey of randomly selected anglers is recommended. On the other hand, if the research focuses on the beliefs and behaviors of avid anglers, the self-selected anglers may be acceptable.

Lay Summary

Human dimensions mail surveys are frequently used by fisheries agencies to better understand their stakeholders. Declines in response rates and increases in mailing costs, however, have led researchers to adopt online surveys. Such online platforms can provide useful information on fishery trends such as trophy fisheries, but the results may not reflect the general population of anglers.

angler surveys, online surveys, random sample, self-selected sample, survey method

INTRODUCTION

Surveys are commonly used for examining topics such as angler demographics (Wallen et al., 2016), angler behavior (Midway et al., 2020), angler satisfaction (Birdsong et al., 2021; Johansen et al., 2022; Vacura et al., 2023), harvest estimates (Carline, 1972; Lennox et al., 2022; Venturelli et al., 2017), and angler support for agency regulations and management (Murphy et al., 2022; Tingley et al., 2019). Not all angler surveys, however, are created equal (Lynch et al., 2021). Among the indicators of a quality survey are a representative sample of the target population (Pollock et al., 1994), high response rate (Anderson et al., 2022), low item nonresponse bias (Dooley & Lindner, 2003), and response distributions that mirror those in the population (Vaske, 2019). This study examined these indicators by comparing survey responses from a random sample of licensed Arkansas anglers with responses from a self-selected nonrandom sample of individuals who voluntarily completed the same survey on the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) social media platforms. The obvious efficiencies in cost, time, and data management with social media data potentially hold promise (Howarth et al., 2024; Salvatori, 2023) but only if such data do not have selection and response bias (Bethlehem, 2008, 2010).

Sample representativeness and response distributions

A representative survey sample accurately reflects the characteristics of a larger population such as all anglers in Arkansas (Vaske, 2019). Sample representativeness can be influenced by how survey participants are selected (e.g., random vs. nonrandom self-selected). In any angler population, some individuals will support a given fishing regulation, others will oppose the rule, and still others will have no opinion on the topic. A random sample is likely to reflect this diversity of perspectives in the population (Howarth et al., 2024). Individuals in a nonrandom self-selected sample, however, sometimes volunteer to participate in the survey (Bethlehem, 2008). Such anglers are already interested in the topic, may hold more extreme views (either positive or negative), and might express their avidity to the activity in a variety of ways. For example, avid anglers might fish more often in a greater diversity of locations, rate fishing higher in importance, and have different attitudes about the managing agency than other anglers.

In a seminal article, Bryan (1977) coined the concept of recreation specialization as one approach for identifying, describing, and planning for subgroups of anglers. He defined specialization as “a continuum of behavior from the general to the particular, reflected by equipment and skills used in the sport and activity setting preferences” (Bryan, 1977, p. 175). At one end of this continuum are novices or infrequent participants who do not consider angling to be a central life interest or show strong preferences for equipment or technique. The other end of this continuum includes more avid anglers who are committed to the given activity and use more sophisticated approaches.

Response rates

A response rate is typically defined as the proportion of completed surveys to the total number of eligible respondents and reflects how successful the researcher was at reaching potential respondents in a sample (Vaske, 2019). A poor response rate may increase the likelihood of introducing nonresponse error (Dooley & Lindner, 2003). When a response rate for a random sample of a population is low, the researcher may not know whether those who completed a questionnaire are similar to those who did not complete a questionnaire. Low response rates may weaken the ability for the sample to be representative of and generalize to the target population.

Two decades ago, Babbie (2003) considered a 50% response rate adequate, a response of at least 60% as good, and a return of 70% as very good. Today, however, response rates have declined substantially, especially for surveys of the general public where the response rate is sometimes in single digits (Dillman et al., 2014). Such declines have been noted for both mail (Stedman et al., 2019; Vaske et al., 2024) and telephone surveys (Curtin et al., 2005; Keeter et al., 2017) and have been one of the reasons that researchers have sought alternative data collection methods (e.g., online platforms, Hunt, 2023). Vaske et al. (2023) evaluated the effects of both selection and response biases on estimates of demographics, wildlife-related recreation, and wildlife value orientations across mail, telephone, and online surveys. Selection bias revealed that the mail survey overestimated males and older respondents. All methods underestimated nonparticipants in fishing. By design, the online panel survey yielded samples that were proportional to U.S. Census data. However, there are still concerns over the use of a nonprobability approach to recruiting panel members (Curtin et al., 2005). There is the potential for systematic differences between panel members and the populations they represent.

Online surveys have differed in terms of sampling procedures (Vaske, 2019). Some studies send URL links to randomly sampled respondents with known email addresses (e.g., licensed anglers); others have relied on individuals volunteering to complete an online survey (i.e., self-selected respondents; Khazaal et al., 2014). Nonrandom self-selected samples have been shown to be about half as accurate as random samples (Mercer & Lau, 2023).

Most existing research has compared online surveys with traditional mail surveys. Some studies have reported lower response rates from online surveys than from mail surveys (Converse et al., 2008; Lesser et al., 2011; Petchenik & Watermolen, 2011). Other articles, however, have shown higher response rates for online surveys than for mail surveys (Bates, 2001; Im et al., 2005; Kiernan et al., 2005), and still others found similar return rates (Kaplowitz et al., 2004; Loomis & Paterson, 2018; Marshall et al., 2003). Such differences may be due to the methodology, the population, the sample, internet availability, the questionnaire, and topic salience (Dillman et al., 2014; Vaske, 2019). Some researchers (e.g., Anderson et al., 2022; Archer, 2003) have argued that methodological characteristics (e.g., number of contacts, days questionnaire is open, incentives) influence response rates more than questionnaire characteristics (e.g., number of questions, page length of questionnaire). One meta-analysis of 49 surveys found that precontacts, number of contacts, and personalized contacts were associated with higher response rates (Cook et al., 2000), whereas another meta-analysis of 37 studies found that follow-up reminders were less effective in online surveys than in mail surveys (Shih & Fan, 2008). A third meta-analysis of 35 studies (Lozar Manfreda et al., 2008) indicated that response rates to online surveys were 11% lower than those to traditional mail surveys and that such differences between types of surveys increased with more contacts.

Item nonresponse

Beyond response rate, nonresponse error can also affect the quality of survey data (Kiernan et al., 2005; Schaefer & Dillman, 1998). Item nonresponse refers to a situation where an individual responds to some but not all the survey questions (Dooley & Lindner, 2003). A nonresponse on a specific question may occur because the respondent did not know the answer, refused to answer (e.g., sensitive questions), or simply made a mistake (Babbie, 2003). Item nonresponse is defined as the number of items that a respondent did not answer divided by the sum of the number of valid responses (Wolfe et al., 2008). For example, if 20 respondents were asked a survey question (Q1) and only 10 gave a valid response to Q1 and the remaining 10 did not answer, the item nonresponse for Q1 would be 50%.

Survey research has reported inconsistent findings on this issue (Cole, 2005; Im et al., 2005). Some studies (Bates, 2001; Lozar Manfreda & Vehovar, 2002), for example, found that mail surveys have a lower percentage of item nonresponse than online surveys. Online respondents often scan documents rather than reading carefully, which could increase item nonresponse (Lozar Manfreda et al., 2008). Other research, however, has reported no significant differences in item nonresponse between the two survey modes (Kaplowitz et al., 2004; Lesser et al., 2011), better data quality in online surveys (Im et al., 2005; Schaefer & Dillman, 1998), or mixed results, depending on the types of questions that are evaluated.

The study presented here extends this line of research by comparing survey responses from an online random sample of licensed Arkansas anglers with responses from an online nonrandom self-selected sample of individuals who completed the same questionnaire on the AGFC communication platforms. The comparisons included (1) demographics, (2) fishing behavior, (3) importance of fishing, (4) satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas, and (5) use of AGFC information sources. Given that the existing literature has not presented a clear and consistent pattern of relationships for these types of variables, no hypotheses were advanced. The analyses focused on response rates, item nonresponse, and the distributions of responses between the two survey samples.

METHODS

The AGFC conducts resident angler surveys every 5 years to learn more about people who fish in the state. For the 2023 survey, two versions of the survey were distributed. The first was an online Qualtrics survey sent to a random sample of 10,000 resident license holders. Because one-third of Arkansas resident fishing licenses were purchased by females, the sample was stratified by gender (male vs. female). All license holders that were sampled had a valid mailing and email address on file. Each license holder was initially contacted about their selection to participate via a mailed letter that included a link and QR code to access the online survey; two subsequent reminders notifications were sent, one via postcard and one via email. The second Qualtrics survey was distributed across all AGFC communication platforms (e.g., AGFC website, text, and email subscribers to Fisheries Division updates and weekly fishing reports, social media platforms such as Facebook, and in weekly email newsletters), with an open invitation to anyone with an interest in providing feedback (i.e., respondents self-selected to participate). The survey was advertised over 4 weeks. For a self-selected response to be included for analysis, participants were asked to provide their fishing license conservation identification number to ensure that only licensed and resident anglers were included and to identify potential duplicate responses from those in the random license sample; all the conservation identification numbers that were provided were verified prior to the analysis. Both 12-page surveys contained the same set of questions and response categories.

The independent variable was the type of sample (i.e., random vs. nonrandom self-selected). There were five types of dependent variables:

  1. Demographics: Age was coded as a fill-in-the-blank question. Gender was male, female, or prefer not to answer. Education was coded as some high school, high school graduate, some college, college graduate, master’s degree, or doctoral degree.

  2. Behavior: Years fishing in Arkansas was a fill-in-the-blank question. Fished in Arkansas (last 12 months) was coded no or yes. Days fishing on specific resources (i.e., ponds, lakes or reservoirs, large rivers, small rivers, fresh water out of state, saltwater out of state) were fill-in-the-blank questions.

  3. Importance of fishing: Compared with other outdoor recreation activities, fishing is your most important outdoor activity, 2nd most important outdoor activity, 3rd most important outdoor activity, or none of the above.

  4. Satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas: Each of these nine satisfaction variables were coded on a 5-point scale: −2 = extremely dissatisfied, −1 = somewhat dissatisfied, 0 = neither, 1 = somewhat satisfied, 2 = extremely satisfied.

  5. Arkansas Game and Fish Commission information sources used by respondents: Each of these eight questions were coded as no or yes.

Data analysis

In this study, two types of statistics are presented: (1) chi-square (χ2) and (2) t-values. The choice of statistic depended on how the dependent variable was coded. For example, if the dependent variable was dichotomous (e.g., male vs. female) or categorical (education), χ2 was used. If the dependent variable was continuous (e.g., number of days fishing), independent sample t-tests were conducted. If the P-value for a given statistic was ≤0.05, the two samples were considered statistically different. The χ2 and t-values highlight existing differences but do not indicate the strength of the relationship. The latter was shown via two effect size measures: Cramers’s V (or simply V) for χ2 and Cohen’s d (or simply d) for t-values. Following previous research (Vaske, 2019; Vaske et al., 2003), minimal, typical, and substantial relationships were defined as follows: for V: 0.1 = minimal, 0.3 = typical, and 0.5 = substantial; for d: 0.2 = minimal, 0.5 = typical, and 0.8 = substantial.

RESULTS

Response rates

A random sample of 10,000 resident license holders were sent an online survey. After one mailed postcard reminder and an electronic reminder, 1,312 completed surveys were returned (response rate = 13%). A second survey was posted on all AGFC communication platforms (e.g., AGFC website); respondents self-selected to participate. A total of 1,105 completed surveys were received from self-selected participants. Because the population of individuals visiting the various platforms could not be determined, a response rate could not be calculated. With a 13% response rate from the random sample and an unknown response rate from the self-selected participants, neither sampling design fared well on the response rate indicator of data quality.

Item nonresponse

Where possible, a missing data analysis was conducted on the two samples. Because both surveys contained questions with lists of multiple open-ended responses (e.g., days fishing different resources like ponds, large rivers, or small river) or check all that apply responses, it was not always possible to determine whether a nonresponse occurred because the individual intentionally skipped the question or because the response category did not apply to the person. For these types of questions, a missing data analysis could not be conducted. Table 1 displays the percentage of missing responses for each sample on 15 variables. The survey that was sent to the random sample consistently had more missing responses than the survey completed by nonrandom self-selected respondents. In all cases, the differences were statistically significant, F ≥ 44.49, P < 0.001, with an average Cramers’s V = 0.213 (a minimal relationship). For the three demographic questions, the percentage missing responses ranged from 23% to 24% for the random sample to 11% to 12% for the self-selected sample. For years fishing in Arkansas, the percentage of difference was 29% (random sample) to 0% (self-selected sample). For fishing rating compared with other outdoor activities, the percentage of difference was 29% (random sample) and 12% (self-selected sample). For the nine satisfaction items, 30% of the random sample respondents did not answer the questions and 11% of the nonrandom self-selected respondents did not answer the questions.

Table 1.
Open in new tab

Item nonresponse analysis by sample. For these analyses, the values for all variables were coded as a valid response or as missing. Only the values for percentage missing are displayed.

VariableRandom sample % missingSelf-selected sample % missingχ2PV
Demographics
 Age231254.86<0.0010.151
 Gender231256.50<0.0010.151
 Education241160.83<0.0010.156
Years fishing in Arkansas (AR)290519.07<0.0010.395
Fished in Arkansas in last 12 months3044.49<0.0010.110
Fish rating compared to other outdoor recreation activities2912108.23<0.0010.207
Satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas
 Overall satisfaction with fishing in AR3011126.57<0.0010.220
 Enforcement of fishing regulations in AR3011121.56<0.0010.225
 Number of eating-sized fish I catch3011128.38<0.0010.225
 Number of trophy-sized fish I catch3011130.81<0.0010.227
 Average size of the fish I catch3011128.38<0.0010.225
 Number of fish I am allowed to harvest3011127.14<0.0010.224
 Size of the fish I am allowed to harvest3011131.08<0.0010.227
 The quality of fishing access sites in AR3011131.36<0.0010.228
 Information available about fishing in AR3011125.02<0.0010.222
VariableRandom sample % missingSelf-selected sample % missingχ2PV
Demographics
 Age231254.86<0.0010.151
 Gender231256.50<0.0010.151
 Education241160.83<0.0010.156
Years fishing in Arkansas (AR)290519.07<0.0010.395
Fished in Arkansas in last 12 months3044.49<0.0010.110
Fish rating compared to other outdoor recreation activities2912108.23<0.0010.207
Satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas
 Overall satisfaction with fishing in AR3011126.57<0.0010.220
 Enforcement of fishing regulations in AR3011121.56<0.0010.225
 Number of eating-sized fish I catch3011128.38<0.0010.225
 Number of trophy-sized fish I catch3011130.81<0.0010.227
 Average size of the fish I catch3011128.38<0.0010.225
 Number of fish I am allowed to harvest3011127.14<0.0010.224
 Size of the fish I am allowed to harvest3011131.08<0.0010.227
 The quality of fishing access sites in AR3011131.36<0.0010.228
 Information available about fishing in AR3011125.02<0.0010.222
Table 1.
Open in new tab

Item nonresponse analysis by sample. For these analyses, the values for all variables were coded as a valid response or as missing. Only the values for percentage missing are displayed.

VariableRandom sample % missingSelf-selected sample % missingχ2PV
Demographics
 Age231254.86<0.0010.151
 Gender231256.50<0.0010.151
 Education241160.83<0.0010.156
Years fishing in Arkansas (AR)290519.07<0.0010.395
Fished in Arkansas in last 12 months3044.49<0.0010.110
Fish rating compared to other outdoor recreation activities2912108.23<0.0010.207
Satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas
 Overall satisfaction with fishing in AR3011126.57<0.0010.220
 Enforcement of fishing regulations in AR3011121.56<0.0010.225
 Number of eating-sized fish I catch3011128.38<0.0010.225
 Number of trophy-sized fish I catch3011130.81<0.0010.227
 Average size of the fish I catch3011128.38<0.0010.225
 Number of fish I am allowed to harvest3011127.14<0.0010.224
 Size of the fish I am allowed to harvest3011131.08<0.0010.227
 The quality of fishing access sites in AR3011131.36<0.0010.228
 Information available about fishing in AR3011125.02<0.0010.222
VariableRandom sample % missingSelf-selected sample % missingχ2PV
Demographics
 Age231254.86<0.0010.151
 Gender231256.50<0.0010.151
 Education241160.83<0.0010.156
Years fishing in Arkansas (AR)290519.07<0.0010.395
Fished in Arkansas in last 12 months3044.49<0.0010.110
Fish rating compared to other outdoor recreation activities2912108.23<0.0010.207
Satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas
 Overall satisfaction with fishing in AR3011126.57<0.0010.220
 Enforcement of fishing regulations in AR3011121.56<0.0010.225
 Number of eating-sized fish I catch3011128.38<0.0010.225
 Number of trophy-sized fish I catch3011130.81<0.0010.227
 Average size of the fish I catch3011128.38<0.0010.225
 Number of fish I am allowed to harvest3011127.14<0.0010.224
 Size of the fish I am allowed to harvest3011131.08<0.0010.227
 The quality of fishing access sites in AR3011131.36<0.0010.228
 Information available about fishing in AR3011125.02<0.0010.222

Differences in response distributions

The self-selected sample was older than the random sample (49.47 vs. 53.40) and more likely male (65% vs. 93%; Table 2). Both statistical comparisons were significant (P < 0.001), with minimal to typical effect sizes. The two samples did not differ in terms of education, and the percentages were comparable in each of the age categories, χ2 = 7.38, P = 0.194, Cramers’s V = 0.061.

Table 2.
Open in new tab

Demographics of respondents by sample.

VariableRandom sample
(n = 1,312)		Self-selected sample
(n = 1,105)		χ2 or tPV or d
Age (%)57.77<0.0010.167
 16 to 2465
 25 to 34129
 35 to 441815
 45 to 542119
 55 to 642522
 65 to 741724
 75 to 8716
Mean age49.4753.405.75<0.0010.258
Gender (%)260.89<0.0010.329
 Male6593
 Female346
 Prefer not to answer11
Education (%)7.380.1940.061
 Some high school34
 High school graduate2421
 Some college3433
 College graduate2929
 Master’s degree78
 Doctoral degree35
VariableRandom sample
(n = 1,312)		Self-selected sample
(n = 1,105)		χ2 or tPV or d
Age (%)57.77<0.0010.167
 16 to 2465
 25 to 34129
 35 to 441815
 45 to 542119
 55 to 642522
 65 to 741724
 75 to 8716
Mean age49.4753.405.75<0.0010.258
Gender (%)260.89<0.0010.329
 Male6593
 Female346
 Prefer not to answer11
Education (%)7.380.1940.061
 Some high school34
 High school graduate2421
 Some college3433
 College graduate2929
 Master’s degree78
 Doctoral degree35
Table 2.
Open in new tab

Demographics of respondents by sample.

VariableRandom sample
(n = 1,312)		Self-selected sample
(n = 1,105)		χ2 or tPV or d
Age (%)57.77<0.0010.167
 16 to 2465
 25 to 34129
 35 to 441815
 45 to 542119
 55 to 642522
 65 to 741724
 75 to 8716
Mean age49.4753.405.75<0.0010.258
Gender (%)260.89<0.0010.329
 Male6593
 Female346
 Prefer not to answer11
Education (%)7.380.1940.061
 Some high school34
 High school graduate2421
 Some college3433
 College graduate2929
 Master’s degree78
 Doctoral degree35
VariableRandom sample
(n = 1,312)		Self-selected sample
(n = 1,105)		χ2 or tPV or d
Age (%)57.77<0.0010.167
 16 to 2465
 25 to 34129
 35 to 441815
 45 to 542119
 55 to 642522
 65 to 741724
 75 to 8716
Mean age49.4753.405.75<0.0010.258
Gender (%)260.89<0.0010.329
 Male6593
 Female346
 Prefer not to answer11
Education (%)7.380.1940.061
 Some high school34
 High school graduate2421
 Some college3433
 College graduate2929
 Master’s degree78
 Doctoral degree35

On average, the nonrandom self-selected sample had fished more years in Arkansas than the random sample (30.61 vs. 28.45, respectively, t = 2.31, P = 0.010, Table 3). The effect size, however, was less than minimal (Cohen’s d = 0.102). The self-selected sample was also more likely to have fished in Arkansas during the prior 12 months than the random sample (97% vs. 87%). The value for χ2 (77.20) was statistically significant at P < 0.001, but the effect size was less than minimal (i.e., V = 0.182). The self-selected sample consistently fished more frequently on ponds, lakes or reservoirs, large rivers, small rivers, freshwater out of state, and saltwater out of state than the random sample (Table 4). All six differences were statistically significant (P < 0.001). Two of the effect sizes were typical (i.e., 0.539 and 0.570); the remaining d values were typical or less. Nearly two thirds (64%) of the nonrandom self-selected sample considered fishing their most important outdoor activity versus 41% of the random sample (Table 5). The difference between these two distributions was statistically significant, χ2 = 162.47, P < 0.001, and the effect size was typical (i.e., V = 0.286).

Table 3.
Open in new tab

Fishing participation in Arkansas by sample.

VariableRandom sampleSelf-selected sampleχ2/tPV or d
Years fishing in Arkansas68.54<0.0010.182
 1 to 21220
 3 to 575
 6 to 1094
 11 to 201310
 21 to 301511
 31 to 503030
 51 to 761420
Mean years fishing a28.4530.612.310.0100.102
Fished in Arkansas
(last 12 months)		77.20<0.0010.182
 No133
 Yes8797
VariableRandom sampleSelf-selected sampleχ2/tPV or d
Years fishing in Arkansas68.54<0.0010.182
 1 to 21220
 3 to 575
 6 to 1094
 11 to 201310
 21 to 301511
 31 to 503030
 51 to 761420
Mean years fishing a28.4530.612.310.0100.102
Fished in Arkansas
(last 12 months)		77.20<0.0010.182
 No133
 Yes8797

aYears fishing was a fill-in-the-blank question.

Table 3.
Open in new tab

Fishing participation in Arkansas by sample.

VariableRandom sampleSelf-selected sampleχ2/tPV or d
Years fishing in Arkansas68.54<0.0010.182
 1 to 21220
 3 to 575
 6 to 1094
 11 to 201310
 21 to 301511
 31 to 503030
 51 to 761420
Mean years fishing a28.4530.612.310.0100.102
Fished in Arkansas
(last 12 months)		77.20<0.0010.182
 No133
 Yes8797
VariableRandom sampleSelf-selected sampleχ2/tPV or d
Years fishing in Arkansas68.54<0.0010.182
 1 to 21220
 3 to 575
 6 to 1094
 11 to 201310
 21 to 301511
 31 to 503030
 51 to 761420
Mean years fishing a28.4530.612.310.0100.102
Fished in Arkansas
(last 12 months)		77.20<0.0010.182
 No133
 Yes8797

aYears fishing was a fill-in-the-blank question.

Table 4.
Open in new tab

Days fishing different resources in Arkansas during the last 12 months by sample. The items were fill-in-the-blank questions.

In last 12 months, days spent fishing in Arkansas onRandom sampleSelf-selected sampletPd
Ponds5.869.764.44<0.0010.184
Lakes or reservoirs11.8731.8412.50<0.0010.539
Large rivers3.378.886.00<0.0010.570
Small rivers5.5711.326.67<0.0010.283
Freshwater out of state1.053.748.09<0.0010.351
Saltwater out of state0.350.733.63<0.0010.154
In last 12 months, days spent fishing in Arkansas onRandom sampleSelf-selected sampletPd
Ponds5.869.764.44<0.0010.184
Lakes or reservoirs11.8731.8412.50<0.0010.539
Large rivers3.378.886.00<0.0010.570
Small rivers5.5711.326.67<0.0010.283
Freshwater out of state1.053.748.09<0.0010.351
Saltwater out of state0.350.733.63<0.0010.154
Table 4.
Open in new tab

Days fishing different resources in Arkansas during the last 12 months by sample. The items were fill-in-the-blank questions.

In last 12 months, days spent fishing in Arkansas onRandom sampleSelf-selected sampletPd
Ponds5.869.764.44<0.0010.184
Lakes or reservoirs11.8731.8412.50<0.0010.539
Large rivers3.378.886.00<0.0010.570
Small rivers5.5711.326.67<0.0010.283
Freshwater out of state1.053.748.09<0.0010.351
Saltwater out of state0.350.733.63<0.0010.154
In last 12 months, days spent fishing in Arkansas onRandom sampleSelf-selected sampletPd
Ponds5.869.764.44<0.0010.184
Lakes or reservoirs11.8731.8412.50<0.0010.539
Large rivers3.378.886.00<0.0010.570
Small rivers5.5711.326.67<0.0010.283
Freshwater out of state1.053.748.09<0.0010.351
Saltwater out of state0.350.733.63<0.0010.154
Table 5.
Open in new tab

Fish rating versus other outdoor recreation activities (χ2 = 162.47, P < 0.001, Cramers’s V = 0.286.)

Compared with other outdoor activities (such as hunting, camping, golfing, etc.), fishing is yourRandom sample (%)Self-selected sample (%)
Most important outdoor activity4164
2nd most important outdoor activity3530
3rd most important outdoor activity185
None of the above61
Compared with other outdoor activities (such as hunting, camping, golfing, etc.), fishing is yourRandom sample (%)Self-selected sample (%)
Most important outdoor activity4164
2nd most important outdoor activity3530
3rd most important outdoor activity185
None of the above61
Table 5.
Open in new tab

Fish rating versus other outdoor recreation activities (χ2 = 162.47, P < 0.001, Cramers’s V = 0.286.)

Compared with other outdoor activities (such as hunting, camping, golfing, etc.), fishing is yourRandom sample (%)Self-selected sample (%)
Most important outdoor activity4164
2nd most important outdoor activity3530
3rd most important outdoor activity185
None of the above61
Compared with other outdoor activities (such as hunting, camping, golfing, etc.), fishing is yourRandom sample (%)Self-selected sample (%)
Most important outdoor activity4164
2nd most important outdoor activity3530
3rd most important outdoor activity185
None of the above61

The respondents rated their satisfaction with nine aspects of fishing in Arkansas (e.g., overall, size of the fish caught, number of fish caught). The two samples differed on seven of the nine comparisons (Table 6). Anglers in the self-selected sample consistently reported lower satisfaction. For example, anglers from the random resident license sample were somewhat satisfied with the overall fishing conditions in Arkansas (M = 1.23), whereas those in the self-selected sample had a lower average (M = 0.92). That difference was statistically significant (t = 7.18, P < 0.001), with an effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.327) between minimal and typical. A similar pattern emerged for the differences between the two groups (M = 1.03 vs. M = 0.68) for enforcement of fishing regulations in Arkansas (t = 7.40, P < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.338). Although statistical differences were observed in five other comparisons, the effect sizes were minimal. Self-selected sample respondents were more likely to use all eight of the AGFC sources of information than the random sample (Table 7). All differences were significant, and effect sizes ranged from minimal to typical.

Table 6.
Open in new tab

Satisfaction with fishing activities in Arkansas by sample. The variables were coded on a 5-point scale: –2 = extremely dissatisfied, –1 = somewhat dissatisfied, 0 = neither, 1 = somewhat satisfied, and 2 = extremely satisfied.

VariableRandom sampleSelf-selected sampletPd
Overall satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas1.230.927.18<0.0010.327
Enforcement of fishing regulations in Arkansas1.030.687.40<0.0010.338
Number of eating-sized fish I catch0.740.750.390.7640.014
Number of trophy-sized fish I catch0.15−0.034.20<0.0010.192
Average size of the fish I catch0.630.473.70<0.0010.169
Number of fish I am allowed to harvest0.940.812.800.0050.129
Size of the fish I am allowed to harvest0.780.760.290.7760.013
The quality of fishing access sites in Arkansas0.810.594.16<0.0010.190
Current information available about fishing in Arkansas0.960.803.55<0.0010.163
VariableRandom sampleSelf-selected sampletPd
Overall satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas1.230.927.18<0.0010.327
Enforcement of fishing regulations in Arkansas1.030.687.40<0.0010.338
Number of eating-sized fish I catch0.740.750.390.7640.014
Number of trophy-sized fish I catch0.15−0.034.20<0.0010.192
Average size of the fish I catch0.630.473.70<0.0010.169
Number of fish I am allowed to harvest0.940.812.800.0050.129
Size of the fish I am allowed to harvest0.780.760.290.7760.013
The quality of fishing access sites in Arkansas0.810.594.16<0.0010.190
Current information available about fishing in Arkansas0.960.803.55<0.0010.163
Table 6.
Open in new tab

Satisfaction with fishing activities in Arkansas by sample. The variables were coded on a 5-point scale: –2 = extremely dissatisfied, –1 = somewhat dissatisfied, 0 = neither, 1 = somewhat satisfied, and 2 = extremely satisfied.

VariableRandom sampleSelf-selected sampletPd
Overall satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas1.230.927.18<0.0010.327
Enforcement of fishing regulations in Arkansas1.030.687.40<0.0010.338
Number of eating-sized fish I catch0.740.750.390.7640.014
Number of trophy-sized fish I catch0.15−0.034.20<0.0010.192
Average size of the fish I catch0.630.473.70<0.0010.169
Number of fish I am allowed to harvest0.940.812.800.0050.129
Size of the fish I am allowed to harvest0.780.760.290.7760.013
The quality of fishing access sites in Arkansas0.810.594.16<0.0010.190
Current information available about fishing in Arkansas0.960.803.55<0.0010.163
VariableRandom sampleSelf-selected sampletPd
Overall satisfaction with fishing in Arkansas1.230.927.18<0.0010.327
Enforcement of fishing regulations in Arkansas1.030.687.40<0.0010.338
Number of eating-sized fish I catch0.740.750.390.7640.014
Number of trophy-sized fish I catch0.15−0.034.20<0.0010.192
Average size of the fish I catch0.630.473.70<0.0010.169
Number of fish I am allowed to harvest0.940.812.800.0050.129
Size of the fish I am allowed to harvest0.780.760.290.7760.013
The quality of fishing access sites in Arkansas0.810.594.16<0.0010.190
Current information available about fishing in Arkansas0.960.803.55<0.0010.163
Table 7.
Open in new tab

Information sources used by sample. The variables were coded as “No” (0) or “Yes.”

AFGC sources for information currently receive information fromRandom sample (% “Yes”)Self-selected sample (% “Yes”)χ2PV
The Arkansas Wildlife magazine122465.41<0.0010.164
Arkansas Wildlife email newsletter930191.30<0.0010.278
Arkansas Wildlife podcast1754.68<0.0010.147
AGFC weekly fishing report1550350.83<0.0010.377
Fisheries Division emails61232.93<0.0010.117
AGFC Facebook page2043147.63<0.0010.246
Other AGFC social media61548.77<0.0010.143
AGFC YouTube page3936.65<0.0010.125
AFGC sources for information currently receive information fromRandom sample (% “Yes”)Self-selected sample (% “Yes”)χ2PV
The Arkansas Wildlife magazine122465.41<0.0010.164
Arkansas Wildlife email newsletter930191.30<0.0010.278
Arkansas Wildlife podcast1754.68<0.0010.147
AGFC weekly fishing report1550350.83<0.0010.377
Fisheries Division emails61232.93<0.0010.117
AGFC Facebook page2043147.63<0.0010.246
Other AGFC social media61548.77<0.0010.143
AGFC YouTube page3936.65<0.0010.125
Table 7.
Open in new tab

Information sources used by sample. The variables were coded as “No” (0) or “Yes.”

AFGC sources for information currently receive information fromRandom sample (% “Yes”)Self-selected sample (% “Yes”)χ2PV
The Arkansas Wildlife magazine122465.41<0.0010.164
Arkansas Wildlife email newsletter930191.30<0.0010.278
Arkansas Wildlife podcast1754.68<0.0010.147
AGFC weekly fishing report1550350.83<0.0010.377
Fisheries Division emails61232.93<0.0010.117
AGFC Facebook page2043147.63<0.0010.246
Other AGFC social media61548.77<0.0010.143
AGFC YouTube page3936.65<0.0010.125
AFGC sources for information currently receive information fromRandom sample (% “Yes”)Self-selected sample (% “Yes”)χ2PV
The Arkansas Wildlife magazine122465.41<0.0010.164
Arkansas Wildlife email newsletter930191.30<0.0010.278
Arkansas Wildlife podcast1754.68<0.0010.147
AGFC weekly fishing report1550350.83<0.0010.377
Fisheries Division emails61232.93<0.0010.117
AGFC Facebook page2043147.63<0.0010.246
Other AGFC social media61548.77<0.0010.143
AGFC YouTube page3936.65<0.0010.125

DISCUSSION

This study compared survey responses from a random sample of licensed Arkansas anglers with responses from a nonrandom self-selected sample of individuals who completed the same questionnaire on the AGFC webpage and other social media platforms. Both samples completed the questionnaire online. Following previous research (e.g., Barrios et al., 2011; Kelfve et al., 2020; Weigold et al., 2013; Yetter & Capaccioli, 2010), we compared the two online surveys with respect to sample representativeness, response rates, item nonresponse, and differences in response distributions.

One third of the population of Arkansas anglers is female. The survey findings from the random sample mirrored this percentage at 34%, whereas only 6% of the nonrandom self-selected sample was female. For the self-selected respondents, a response rate could not be calculated because the population of visitors to the social media platforms could not be determined. If future survey research continues to use self-selected respondents, tracking software may be necessary to gauge the population parameters of the internet visitors. The results indicated that the response rate for the random sample was only 13%. Although low, this is consistent with recent meta analyses of response rates for surveys in natural resource settings (Stedman et al., 2019; Vaske et al., 2024). The AGFC random sample survey used one mailed postcard reminder and one electronic reminder. Future angler surveys should consider additional follow-up reminders to increase response rates. Alternatively, Anderson et al. (2022) found that the inclusion of a small financial incentive (US$2 in cash) was more effective at increasing response rate and less expensive than sending additional mailings.

The random sample consistently had higher item nonresponse rates than the self-selected sample. The differences were most pronounced for the nine satisfaction items with fishing in Arkansas, where 30% of random sample respondents did not answer the questions and only 11% of the self-selected individuals did not answer the questions. The magnitude of these differences may have partially occurred because the self-selected respondents tended to be more avid anglers than those in the random sample. For example, anglers in the self-selected sample (1) were more likely to have fished in Arkansas in the last 12 months; (2) had fished more years in Arkansas; (3) fished ponds, lakes and reservoirs, large rivers, and small rivers more often; (4) fished freshwater out of state and saltwater out of state more frequently; and (5) considered fishing their most important outdoor activity. As noted in the introduction, these differences are indicators of specialization that suggests that avid recreationists’ behavior differs from those who are less attached to the sport (Bryan, 1977; Donnelly et al., 1986; Needham et al., 2013).

In addition to these avidity differences, the nonrandom self-selected anglers differed on other important variables (e.g., demographics, satisfaction). For example, the self-selected sample tended to be older, more likely male, and more likely to receive information from all AGFC sources than the random sample of licensed Arkansas anglers. Those in the self-selected sample were also generally less satisfied with their fishing experiences in Arkansas (e.g., overall, size of the fish caught, number of fish caught) than the random sample. Reasons that underlie the lower satisfaction ratings are not evident from the data. Perhaps more avid/specialized anglers are more demanding in their requirements for a successful fishing experience. Avid anglers who are dissatisfied with their fishing experiences may also use social media to encourage other anglers to complete the survey. Future research should explore this issue in more detail.

Management implications

Of the 30 empirical comparisons in this article, the two samples differed statistically on 27 tests (90%). If the goal of a research project is to understand the beliefs and attitudes of specialized anglers such as the nonrandom self-selected sample examined here, survey data from an agency webpage or social media may be appropriate. An agency might even suggest types of anglers who should complete the survey (e.g., people who fish a particular stream frequently). On the other hand, if the goal of the research is to understand the general population of Arkansas anglers, random sampling techniques should be used.

DATA AVAILABILITY

The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission does not allow research data to be shared.

ETHICS STATEMENT

This project was conducted through the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. As such, no Institutional Review Board or Human Subjects approval was required.

FUNDING

This research was partially funded by Federal Aid in Sport Fish Restoration (Grant number: F24AF02588).

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the respondents for completing the survey.

REFERENCES

Anderson
,
L.
,
Jans
,
M.
,
Lee
,
A.
,
Doyle
,
C.
,
Driscoll
,
H.
, &
Hilger
,
J.
 (
2022
).
Effects of survey response mode, purported topic, and incentives on response rates in human dimensions of fisheries and wildlife research
.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife
,
27
,
201
–
219
.
10.1080/10871209.2021.1907633

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Archer
,
T. M.
(
2003
).
Web-based surveys
.
Journal of Extension
,
41
,
Article 4TOT6
. https://archives.joe.org/joe/2003august/tt6.php

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 

Babbie
,
E. R.
(
2003
).
The practice of social research
(10th ed.).
Thomson/Wadsworth
.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 

Barrios
,
M.
,
Villarroya
,
A.
,
Borrego
,
A.
, &
Olle
,
C.
 (
2011
).
Response rates and data quality in web and mail surveys administered to PhD holders
.
Social Science Computer Review
,
29
,
208
–
211
.
10.1177/0894439310368031

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Bates
,
N.
(
2001, August 5–9
).
Internet versus mail as a data collection methodology from a high coverage population.
 
Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Berlin, Germany
. http://www.asasrms.org/Proceedings/y2001/Proceed/00311.pdf

Bethlehem
,
J.
(
2008
).
How accurate are self-selection web surveys?
 
Statistics Netherlands
.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 

Bethlehem
,
J.
(
2010
).
Selection bias in web surveys
.
International Statistical Review
,
78
,
161
–
188
.
10.1111/j.1751-5823.2010.00112.x

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Birdsong
,
M.
,
Hunt
,
L. M.
, &
Arlinghaus
,
R.
 (
2021
).
Recreational angler satisfaction: What drives it
?
Fish and Fisheries
,
22
,
682
–
706
.
10.1111/faf.12545

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Bryan
,
H.
(
1977
).
Leisure value systems and recreation specialization: The case of trout fishermen
.
Journal of Leisure Research
,
9
,
174
–
187
.
10.1080/00222216.1977.11970328

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Carline
,
R. F.
(
1972
).
Biased harvest estimates from a postal survey of a sport fishery
.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
,
101
,
262
–
266
.
10.1577/1548-8659(1972)101<262:BHEFAP>2.0.CO;2

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Cole
,
S. T.
(
2005
).
Comparing mail and web-based survey distribution methods: Results of surveys to leisure travel retailers
.
Journal of Travel Research
,
43
,
422
–
430
.
10.1177/0047287505274655

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Converse
,
P. D.
,
Wolfe
,
E. W.
,
Huang
,
X.
, &
Oswald
,
F. L.
 (
2008
).
Response rates for mixed-mode surveys using mail and e-mail/web
.
The American Journal of Evaluation
,
29
,
99
–
107
.
10.1177/1098214007313228

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Cook
,
C.
,
Heath
,
F.
, &
Thompson
,
R. L.
 (
2000
).
A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or internet-based surveys
.
Educational and Psychological Measurement
,
60
,
821
–
836
.
10.1177/00131640021970934

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Curtin
,
R.
,
Presser
,
S.
, &
Singer
,
E.
 (
2005
).
Changes in telephone survey nonresponse over the past quarter century
.
Public Opinion Quarterly
,
69
,
87
–
98
.
10.1093/poq/nfi002

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Dillman
,
D. A.
,
Smyth
,
J. D.
, &
Christian
,
L. M.
 (
2014
).
Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method
.
John Wiley and Sons
.

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Donnelly
,
M. P.
,
Vaske
,
J. J.
, &
Graefe
,
A. R.
 (
1986
).
Degree and range of recreation specialization: Toward a typology of boating related activities
.
Journal of Leisure Research
,
18
,
81
–
95
.
10.1080/00222216.1986.11969648

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Dooley
,
L. M.
, &
Lindner
,
J. R.
 (
2003
).
The handling of nonresponse error
.
Human Resource Development Quarterly
,
14
,
99
–
110
.
10.1002/hrdq.1052

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Howarth
,
A.
,
Cooke
,
S. J.
,
Nguyen
,
V. M.
, &
Hunt
,
L. M.
 (
2024
).
Non-probabilistic surveys and sampling in the human dimensions of fisheries
.
Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries
,
34
,
597
–
622
.
10.1007/s11160-023-09831-1

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Hunt
,
L. M.
(
2023
). Actively encouraging online responses to a mixed-mode mail and web survey: A case of nudging anglers in Ontario, Canada.  
Human Dimensions of Wildlife
,
29
, 121–128.
10.1080/10871209.2023.2206169

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Im
,
E.
,
Cheeb
,
W.
,
Bender
,
M.
,
Cheng
,
C.
,
Tsai
,
H.
,
Kang
,
N. M.
, &
Lee
,
H.
 (
2005
).
The psychometric properties of pen-and-pencil and internet versions of the midlife women’s symptom index (MSI)
.
International Journal of Nursing Studies
,
42
,
167
–
177
.
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2004.06.005

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 

Johansen
,
K.
,
Olsen
,
E. M.
,
Haraldstad
,
T.
,
Arlinghaus
,
R.
, &
Höglund
,
E.
 (
2022
).
Digital data help explain drivers of angler satisfaction: An example from southern Norway
.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
,
42
,
1165
–
1172
.
10.1002/nafm.10810

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Kaplowitz
,
M. D.
,
Hadlock
,
T. D.
, &
Levine
,
R.
 (
2004
).
A comparison of web and mail survey response rates
.
Public Opinion Quarterly
,
68
,
94
–
101
.
10.1093/poq/nfh006

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Keeter
,
S.
,
Hatley
,
N.
,
Kennedy
,
C.
, &
Lau
,
A.
 (
2017
).
What low response rates mean for telephone surveys
.
Pew Research Center
.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 

Kelfve
,
S.
,
Kivi
,
M.
,
Johansson
,
B.
, &
Lindwall
,
M.
 (
2020
).
Going web or staying paper? The use of web-surveys among older people
.
BMC Medical Research Methodology
,
20
, Article
252
.
10.1186/s12874-020-01138-0

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 

Khazaal
,
Y.
,
van Singer
,
M.
,
Chatton
,
A.
,
Achab
,
S.
,
Zullino
,
D.
,
Rothen
,
S.
,
Khan
,
R.
,
Billieux
,
J.
, &
Thorens
,
G.
 (
2014
).
Does self-selection affect samples’ representativeness in online surveys? An investigation in online video game research
.
Journal of Medical Internet Research
,
16
, Article
e164
.
10.2196/jmir.2759

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 

Kiernan
,
N. E.
,
Kiernan
,
M.
,
Oyler
,
M. A.
, &
Gilles
,
C.
 (
2005
).
Is a web survey as effective as a mail survey? A field experiment among computer users
.
The American Journal of Evaluation
,
26
,
245
–
252
.
10.1177/1098214005275826

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Lennox
,
R. J.
,
Sbragaglia
,
V.
,
Vollset
,
K. W.
,
Sortland
,
L. K.
,
McClenachan
,
L.
,
Jarić
,
I.
,
Guckian
,
M. L.
,
Ferter
,
K.
,
Danylchuk
,
A. J.
,
Cooke
,
S. J.
,
Arlinghaus
, &
Twardek
,
W. M.
 (
2022
).
Digital fisheries data in the internet age: Emerging tools for research and monitoring using online data in recreational fisheries
.
Fish and Fisheries
,
23
,
926
–
940
.
10.1111/faf.12663

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Lesser
,
V. M.
,
Yang
,
D.
, &
Newton
,
L.
 (
2011
).
Assessing hunters’ opinions based on a mail and a mixed-mode survey
.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife
,
16
,
164
–
173
.
10.1080/10871209.2011.542554

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Loomis
,
D. K.
, &
Paterson
,
S.
 (
2018
).
A comparison of data collection methods: Mail versus online surveys
.
Journal of Leisure Research
,
14
,
133
–
149.
10.1080/00222216.2018.1494418

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Lozar Manfreda
,
K.
,
Bosnjak
,
M.
,
Berzelak
,
J.
,
Haas
,
I.
, &
Vehovar
,
V.
 (
2008
).
Web surveys versus other survey modes—A meta-analysis comparing response rates
.
International Journal of Market Research
,
50
,
79
–
104
.
10.1177/147078530805000107

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Lozar Manfreda
,
K.
, &
Vehovar
,
V.
 (
2002
).
Do mail and web surveys provide same results? In A. Ferligov & A. Mrvar (Eds.), Development in social science methodology (Metodoloski zvezki 18, pp. 149–169). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 http://dk.fdv.uni-lj.si/metodoloskizvezki/mz18/cont18.htm

Lynch
,
A. J.
,
Sievert
,
N. A.
,
Embke
,
H. S.
,
Myers
,
B. J. E.
,
Feiner
,
Z. S.
,
Hoogakker
,
F.
,
Knoche
,
S.
,
Krogman
,
R. M.
,
Midway
,
S. R.
,
Nieman
,
C. L.
,
Paukert
,
C. P.
,
Pope
,
K. L.
,
Rogers
,
M. W.
,
Wszola
,
L. S.
, &
Beard
,
T. D.
, Jr. (
2021
).
The U.S. inland creel and angler survey catalog (CreelCat): Development, applications, and opportunities
.
Fisheries
,
46
,
574
–
583
.
10.1002/fsh.10671

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Marshall
,
A. L.
,
Leslie
,
E. R.
,
Bauman
,
A. E.
,
Marcus
,
B. H.
, &
Owen
,
N.
 (
2003
).
Print versus website physical activity programs. A randomized trial
.
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
,
25
,
88
–
94
.
10.1016/S0749-3797(03)00111-9

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 

Mercer
,
A.
, &
Lau
,
A. (
2023)
. Comparing two types of online survey sample: Opt-in samples are about half as accurate as probability-based samples. Pew Research Center. https://pewrsr.ch/462mgi9

Midway
,
S. R.
,
Adriance
,
J.
,
Banks
,
P.
,
Haukebo
,
S.
, &
Caffey
,
R.
 (
2020
).
Electronic self-reporting: Angler attitudes and behaviors in the recreational Red Snapper fishery
.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
,
40
,
1119
–
1132
.
10.1002/nafm.10472

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Murphy
,
R.
, Jr.,
Scyphers
,
S.
,
Gray
,
S.
, &
Grabowski
,
J. H.
 (
2022
).
Diversity in motivations and behavioral response to regulations in the Striped Bass commercial fishery
.
Fisheries
,
47
,
10
–
17
.
10.1002/fsh.10678

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Needham
,
M. D.
,
Scott
,
D.
, &
Vaske
,
J. J.
 (
2013
).
Recreation specialization and related concepts in leisure research: Introduction to the special issue
.
Leisure Sciences
,
35
,
199
–
202
.
10.1080/01490400.2013.780457

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Petchenik
,
J.
, &
Watermolen
,
D. J.
 (
2011
).
A cautionary note on using the internet to survey recent hunter education graduates
.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife
,
16
,
216
–
218
.
10.1080/10871209.2011.563434

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Pollock
,
K. H.
,
Jones
,
C. M.
, &
Brown
,
T. L.
 (
1994
).
Angler survey methods and their applications in fisheries management
(Special Publication 25).
American Fisheries Society
.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 

Salvatori
,
H.
 
(2023, July 05)
.
Advantages and disadvantages of online surveys. Cvent Blog.
 https://www.cvent.com/en/blog/events/advantages-disadvantages-online-surveys

Schaefer
,
D. R.
, &
Dillman
,
D. A.
 (
1998
).
Development of a standard e-mail methodology: Results of an experiment
.
Public Opinion Quarterly
,
62
,
378
–
397
.
10.1086/297851

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Shih
,
T.
, &
Fan
,
X.
 (
2008
).
Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A fan meta-analysis
.
Field Methods
,
20
, Article
249
.
10.1177/1525822X08317085

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Stedman
,
R. C.
,
Connelly
,
N. A.
,
Heberlein
,
T. A.
,
Decker
,
D. J.
, &
Allred
,
S. B.
 (
2019
).
The end of the (research) world as we know it? Understanding and coping with declining response rates to mail surveys
.
Society & Natural Resources
,
32
,
1139
–
1154
.
10.1080/08941920.2019.1587127

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Tingley
,
R. W.
, III,
Paukert
,
C. P.
,
Sass
,
G. G.
,
Jacobson
,
P. C.
,
Hansen
,
G. J. A.
,
Lynch
,
A. J.
, &
Shannon
,
P. D.
 (
2019
).
Adapting to climate change: Guidance for the management of inland glacial lake fisheries
.
Lake Reserve Management
,
35
,
435
–
452
.
10.1080/10402381.2019.1678535

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Vacura
,
K.
,
Camp
,
E.
, &
Venturelli
,
P.
 (
2023
).
What makes anglers happy: A sentiment analysis of Walleye angler forums in the United States
.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society
,
152
,
749
–
751
.
10.1002/tafs.10436

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Vaske
,
J. J.
(
2019
).
Survey research and analysis
(2nd ed.).
Sagamore-Venture Publishing
.

Google Scholar

OpenURL Placeholder Text

 

Vaske
,
J. J.
,
Don Carlos
,
A. W.
,
Manfredo
,
M. J.
, &
Teel
,
T. W.
 (
2023
).
Evaluating alternative survey methodologies in human dimensions of wildlife research
.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife
,
28
,
320
–
334
.
10.1080/10871209.2022.2057622

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Vaske
,
J. J.
,
Miller
,
C. A.
,
Williams
,
B. D.
, &
Walberg
,
E.
 (
2024
).
Declining hunter and trapper mail survey response rates between 1976 and 2020 in Illinois
.
Human Dimensions of Wildlife
,
63
,
5521
–
5545
.
10.1080/10871209.2024.2354419

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Venturelli
,
P. A.
,
Hyder
,
K.
, &
Slov
,
C.
 (
2017
).
Angler apps as a source of recreational fishing data: Opportunities, challenges and proposed standards
.
Fish and Fisheries
,
18
,
578
–
595
.
10.1111/faf.12189

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Wallen
,
K. E.
,
Landon
,
A. C.
,
Kyle
,
G. T.
,
Schuett
,
M. A.
,
Leitz
,
J.
, &
Kurzawski
,
K.
 (
2016
).
Mode effect and response rate issues in mixed-mode survey research: Implications for recreational fisheries management
.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management
,
36
,
852
–
863
.
10.1080/02755947.2016.1165764

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Weigold
,
A.
,
Weigold
,
I. K.
, &
Russell
,
E. J.
 (
2013
).
Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and internet data collection methods
.
Psychological Methods
,
18
,
53
–
70
.
10.1037/a0031607

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 

Wolfe
,
E. W.
,
Converse
,
P. D.
, &
Oswald
,
F. L.
 (
2008
).
Item-level nonresponse rates in an attitudinal survey of teachers delivered via mail and web
.
Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
,
14
,
35
–
66
.
10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01430.x

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS

 

Yetter
,
G.
, &
Capaccioli
,
K.
 (
2010
).
Differences in responses to web and paper surveys among school professionals
.
Behavior Research Methods
,
42
,
266
–
272
.
10.3758/BRM.42.1.266

Google Scholar

Crossref
Search ADS
PubMed

 

Author notes

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

© The Author(s) 2025. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of American Fisheries Society.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Issue Section:
Article
Download all slides