Influence of advanced notice record cards on waterfowl hunting participation and harvest distributions

References

• Beaman, J. (2002). Comment on “Digit preference in reported harvest among Illinois waterfowl hunters” by Craig A. Miller and William L. Anderson. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7, 67–72. doi:10.1080/108712002753574792
   Google Scholar
• Beaman, J., Vaske, J. J., Donnelly, M. P., & Manfredo, M. J. (1997). Individual versus aggregate measures of digit preference. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 2, 71–80. doi:10.1080/10871209709359088
   Google Scholar
• Beaman, J., Vaske, J. J., & Grenier, M. (1998). A prototype model for estimating and correcting bias in digit preference/number preference. Tourism Analysis, 2(2), 77–90.
   Google Scholar
• Beaman, J., Vaske, J. J., & Miller, C. A. (2005a). Cognitive processes in hunters’ recall of participation and harvest estimates. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69, 967–975. doi:10.2193/0022-541X(2005)069[0967:CPIHRO]2.0.CO;2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaman, J., Vaske, J. J., & Miller, C. A. (2005b). Hunting activity record-cards and the accuracy of survey estimates. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 10, 285–292. doi:10.1080/10871200500292876
   Google Scholar
• Brown, G. W., & Tukey, J. W. (1946). Distributions of sample means. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 17(1), 1–12. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177731017
   Google Scholar
• Burton, S., & Blair, E. (1991). Task conditions, response formulation processes and response accuracy for behavioral frequency questions in surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 50–79. doi:10.1086/269241
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chase, D. R., & Harada, M. (1984). Response error in self-reported recreation participation. Journal of Leisure Research, 16, 322–329. doi:10.1080/00222216.1984.11969603
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chu, A., Eisenhower, D., Hay, M., Morganstein, D., Neter, J., & Waksberg, J. (1992). Measuring the recall error in self-reported fishing and hunting activities. Journal of Official Statistics, 8(1), 19–39.
   Google Scholar
• Connelly, N. A., & Brown, T. L. (1992). Item response bias in angler expenditures. Journal of Leisure Research, 24, 288–294. doi:10.1080/00222216.1992.11969894
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Foss, S. G., Korshunov, D., & Zachary, S. (2011). An introduction to heavy-tailed and subexponential distributions. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Hiett, R. L., & Worrall, J. W. (1977). Marine recreational fishermen’s ability to estimate catch and to recall catch and effort over time (Research Report HSR-RR-77/13-cd). McLean, VA: Human Sciences Research.
   Google Scholar
• HoggStuart, R., & Klugman, A. (1983). On the estimation of long tailed skewed distributions with actuarial applications. Journal of Econometrics, 23(1), 91–102. doi:10.1016/0304-4076(83)90077-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huan, T. C., Beaman, J., Chang, L. H., & Hsu, S. Y. (2008). Robust and alternative estimators for ‘‘better’’ estimates for expenditures and other ‘‘long tail’’ distributions. Tourism Management, 29, 795–806. doi:10.1016/j.tourman.2007.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hultsman, W. Z., Hultsman, J. T., & Black, D. R. (1989). “Response peaks” as a component of measurement error: Assessment implications for self-reported data in leisure research. Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 310–315. doi:10.1080/00222216.1989.11969807
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., & Bradburn, N. M. (1990). Reports of elapsed time: Bounding and rounding processes in estimation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 16, 196–213.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kreuter, M. W., Hovmand, P., Pfeiffer, D. J., Fairchild, M., Rath, S., Balaji Golla, B., & Casey, C. (2004). The “long tail” and public health: New thinking for addressing health disparities. American Journal of Public Health, 104, 2271–2278. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302039
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. A., & Anderson, W. L. (2002). Digit preference in reported harvest among Illinois waterfowl hunters. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 7, 55–65. doi:10.1080/108712002753574783
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. A., & Campbell, L. K., & Yeagle. J. A. (2000). Results of the 1999 Illinois waterfowl hunter harvest survey. Job completion report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-112-R-9. Human Dimensions Program Report HR-00-02. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Miller, C. A., Stephenson, A. L., & Williams, B. D. (2015). Reported harvest and days afield among waterfowl hunters: Do pre-season contacts make a difference? Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 20, 182–184. doi:10.1080/10871209.2014.971473
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moyer, L. M., & Geissler, P. H. (1984). Improving stability of annual state waterfowl harvest estimates in highly-skewed data. American Statistical Association. Proceedings of the Section on Survey Research Methods (pp. 467–471), Philadelphia, PA.
   Google Scholar
• Moyer, L. M., & Geissler, P. H. (1991). Accommodating outliers in wildlife surveys. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 19, 267–270.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reed, S. K. (1996). Cognition. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
   Google Scholar
• Schmidt, J. I., & Chapin, F. S. (2014). Relationship of community characteristics to harvest reporting: Comparative study of household surveys and harvest tickets in Alaska. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 19, 334–346. doi:10.1080/10871209.2014.917219
   Google Scholar
• Sudman, S., Bradburn, N. M., & Schwarz., N. (1996). Thinking about answers: The application of cognitive processes to survey methodology. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
   Google Scholar
• Tarrant, M. A., & Manfredo, M. J. (1993). Digit preference, recall bias, and nonresponse bias in self reports of angling participation. Leisure Sciences, 15, 231–238. doi:10.1080/01490409309513202
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. (2016). Adaptive harvest management: 2017 hunting season (p. 70). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Interior.
   Google Scholar
• Vaske, J. J. (2008). Survey research and analysis: Applications in parks, recreation and human dimensions. (p. 658). State College, PA: Venture Publishing Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Vaske, J. J., & Beaman, J. (2006). Lessons learned in detecting and correcting response heaping: Conceptual, methodological and empirical observations. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 11, 285–296. doi:10.1080/10871200600803234
   Google Scholar
• Vaske, J. J., Beaman, J., Manfredo, M. J., Covey, D., & Knox, R. (1996). Response strategy, recall frame, and digit preference in self-reports of angling participation. Human Dimensions of Wildlife, 1, 54–68. doi:10.1080/10871209609359078
   Google Scholar
• Vaske, J. J., Huan, T. C., & Beaman, J. (2003). The use of multiples in anglers’ recall of participation and harvest estimates: Some results and implications. Leisure Sciences, 25, 399–410. doi:10.1080/714044498
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar