Internet Use Among Illinois Hunters: A Ten Year Comparison

Similar documents
2001 Illinois Light Goose Conservation Action Survey Report

Hunter Perceptions of Chronic Wasting Disease in Illinois

Illinois Hunter Harvest Report

Hunters vs. Non-hunters Attitudes Toward Canada Goose Management in Illinois

2012 Emiquon Duck Hunting

Wildlife Ad Awareness & Attitudes Survey 2015

TRENDS IN PARTICIPATION RATES FOR WILDLIFE-ASSOCIATED RECREATION BY RACE/ETHNICITY AND GENDER:

ALABAMA HUNTING SURVEY

Craig Miller a & Jerry Vaske b a Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, Illinois,

Introduction. Forestry, Wildlife and Fisheries Graduate Seminar Demand for Wildlife Hunting in the Southeastern United States

Fishing in Indiana Motivations of Indiana Anglers

DEER HUNT RESULTS ON ALABAMA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS ANNUAL REPORT, CHRISTOPHER W. COOK STUDY LEADER MAY, 2006

AN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY DEER HUNTER OPINION ON EXPANDING ANTLER POINT RESTRICTION (APR) REGULATIONS IN DEER MANAGEMENT ZONES 28, 30, 31, 34 AND 47

AN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY RESIDENT HUNTER OPINION ON CROSSBOW USE

Northwest Parkland-Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G7 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

TRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS. Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN (651)

A SURVEY OF 1997 COLORADO ANGLERS AND THEIR WILLINGNESS TO PAY INCREASED LICENSE FEES

Central Hills Prairie Deer Goal Setting Block G9 Landowner and Hunter Survey Results

Endangered Species in the Big Woods of Arkansas Public Opinion Survey March 2008

Matching respondents over time and assessing non-response bias. Respondents sometimes left age or sex blank (n=52 from 2001 or 2004 and n=39 from

TRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS. Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN (651)

ILLINOIS MUSKIE CREEL PROJECT IMA Release Winner Chad Cain with his 49 7/ lb. Kinkaid Lake Muskie

AP 11.1 Notes WEB.notebook March 25, 2014

make people aware of the department s actions for improving the deer population monitoring system,

Status and Distribution of the Bobcat (Lynx rufus) in Illinois

Hunter and Angler Expenditures, Characteristics, and Economic Effects, North Dakota,

RECRUITMENT HUNTERS A case-study approach to learning more about hunting among Hispanics and improving recruitment and retention of other hunters

The 2001 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in MISSOURI. Prepared by:

Estimating Ridership of Rural Demand-Response Transit Services for the General Public

Full summaries of all proposed rule changes, including DMU boundary descriptions, are included in the additional background material.

The University of Georgia

PATHS TO PARTICIPATION. How to help hunters and target shooters try new shooting sports activities.

Oakmont: Who are we?

TRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS. Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN (651)

HUNTERS OPINIONS ON SHOOTING DEER OVER SUPPLEMENTAL FEED OR CORN

PATHS TO PARTICIPATION. How to help hunters and target shooters try new shooting sports activities.

LAKE ONTARIO FISHING AND FISH CONSUMPTION

PATHS TO PARTICIPATION. How to help hunters and target shooters try new shooting sports activities.

Crossbow Hunting Today

Outdoor Enthusiasts Classification of Animal Species and Estimation of Animal Life Expectancy

1999 On-Board Sacramento Regional Transit District Survey

Small Business Dynamics and Job Creation. Small Business Numbers, Pretty Pictures and Not So Pretty Pictures

Changing of Mortality and Morbidity of Chinese Elderly

Webinar: The Association Between Light Rail Transit, Streetcars and Bus Rapid Transit on Jobs, People and Rents

PATHS TO PARTICIPATION. How to help hunters and target shooters try new shooting sports activities.

PATHS TO PARTICIPATION. How to help hunters and target shooters try new shooting sports activities.

The 2005 Waterfowl Hunting Season in Minnesota: A Study of Hunters Opinions and Activities. White-winged scoter. Final Report

ROLLER DERBY DEMOGRAPHICS:

PATHS TO PARTICIPATION. How to help hunters and target shooters try new shooting sports activities.

2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation

Wildlife in the Classroom

The 2006 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in TEXAS. Prepared by:

ILLINO PRODUCTION NOTE. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Library Large-scale Digitization Project, 2007.

TRAPPING HARVEST STATISTICS. Division of Fish and Wildlife 500 Lafayette Road, Box 20 Saint Paul, MN (651)

Position of WWF Mongolia Program Office on current situation of Argali hunting and conservation in Mongolia

Fixed Guideway Transit Outcomes on Rents, Jobs, and People and Housing

Charter Boat Fishing in Lake Michigan: 2015 Illinois Reported Harvest

Traffic Safety Barriers to Walking and Bicycling Analysis of CA Add-On Responses to the 2009 NHTS

Angling in Manitoba (2000)

M. Takezawa & Y. Maeno Department of Civil Engineering, College of Science & Technology Nihon University, 1-8 Kandasurugadai Chiyodaku, Tokyo, Japan

The 2006 Economic Benefits of Hunting, Fishing and Wildlife Watching in NORTH CAROLINA. Prepared by:

The Incidence of Daytime Road Hunting During the Dog and No-Dog Deer Seasons in Mississippi: Comparing Recent Data to Historical Data

Mike Murphy Fish and Wildlife Research Institute Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission St Petersburg, FL

The Impact of TennCare: A Survey of Recipients 2006

Guidelines for Providing Access to Public Transportation Stations APPENDIX C TRANSIT STATION ACCESS PLANNING TOOL INSTRUCTIONS

Minnesota Deer Population Goals. East Central Uplands Goal Block

Downtown Tampa Parking User Survey

Final Report, October 19, Socioeconomic characteristics of reef users

Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Fort Collins, CO

JadEco, LLC PO BOX 445 Shannon, IL 61078

Spinning-Wing Decoy Use and Reported Duck Harvest in Illinois: Implications for Adaptive Harvest Management

Nebraska s Population and Economic Trends

Insights into First-Time Fishing License Buyers:

COOPERATIVE EXTENSION Bringing the University to You

Small Game Hunter Lead Shot Study. Executive Summary. A cooperative study conducted by:

THE AP-GfK POLL July, 2016

Charter Boat Fishing in Lake Michigan: 2017 Illinois Reported Harvest

Understanding the Pattern of Work Travel in India using the Census Data

What HQ2 Finalist Cities Think about Amazon Moving to Town. Table of Contents

Results from the 2012 Quail Action Plan Landowner Survey

Texas Housing Markets: Metropolitan vs. Border Communities. September 22, 2014

WATERFOWL HUNTING IN MINNESOTA. A study of people who hunted for waterfowl in Minnesota from 2000 through Final Report

Target Shooting by Hunters and Their Use of Shooting Ranges: 1975, 1991, and 2011

WHERE ARE ARIZONA DEMOGRAPHICS TAKING US? HOW GROWING SLOWER, OLDER AND MORE DIVERSE AFFECTS REAL ESTATE

Public Consultation Document

CRACIUN RESEARCH. June 20, 2011 A M A R K E T R E S E A R C H S T CHA

2018 MINNESOTA PRAIRIE-CHICKEN HARVEST SURVEY

Evaluation of pedestrians speed with investigation of un-marked crossing

Mink. Pelt Production Down 10 Percent

Deer Management Unit 122

Small Game Hunter Lead Shot Study. Appendices. A cooperative study conducted by:

The Impact of TennCare: A Survey of Recipients 2009

WOMEN IN THE NWT - SUMMARY

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion

B839: Black Bear Hunting in Maine: Do Hunter Characteristics Affect Opinions Regarding Hunting Regulations

Brook Trout Angling in Maine2009 Survey Results

Findings of the Alaska Board of Game BOG

021 Deer Management Unit

Summary of Research RESULTS SAFETY TRAINING. Selected Results From a 2006 Survey of Registered Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) Owners in Montana YES 44%

Report to the Benjamin Hair-Just Swim For Life Foundation on JACS4 The Jefferson Area Community Survey

Transcription:

HumanDimensions R e s e a r c h P r o g r a m Internet Use Among Illinois Hunters: A Ten Year Comparison Illinois Natural History Survey Prairie Research Institute University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Federal Aid Project Number W-112-R-20 Job Number 101.1 Supplemental Report Wildlife Restoration Oct. 1, 2010-Sept. 30, 2011 Marc Miller, Director Illinois Department of Natural Resources Paul Vehlow Federal Aid Coordinator John E. Buhnerkempe Chief, Division of Wildlife Resources Craig A. Miller, Ph.D. Program Leader and Principal Investigator Human Dimensions Research Program Illinois Natural History Survey Prepared by Mark G. Alessi and Craig A. Miller, Ph.D. INHS Technical Report 2011 (34) August 29, 2011

Suggested Citation: Alessi, M.G. and C.A. Miller. 2011. Internet Use Among Illinois Hunters: A Ten Year Comparison. Job Completion Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-112-R-20. Human Dimensions Program Report SR-11-01. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL. 13pp.

FIGURES AND TABLES Figure 1. Age distribution of respondents to the 2000-2001 and 2010-2011 Illinois Hunter Harvest Survey... 3 Figure 2. Age distribution of hunters who did and did not purchase their license online during the 2010-2011 season... 5 Page Table 1. Age distribution of hunters in Illinois, by year... 9 Table 2. Relationship between age and online license purchases during the 2010-2011 hunting seasons in Illinois... 10 Table 3. Home computer ownership by age among Illinois hunters during the 2010-2011 hunting seasons... 11 Table 4. Proportion of hunters by age who selected to receive information from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources... 12 Table 5. Annual household income and online purchase of licenses during the 2010-2011 Hunting seasons in Illinois... 13

INTERNET USE AMONG ILLINOIS HUNTERS: A TEN- YEAR COMPARISON JOB COMPLETION REPORT WILDLIFE HARVEST AND HUMAN DIMENSIONS RESEARCH PROGRAM STATE OF ILLINOIS PROJECT NUMBER: W-112-R-20 STUDY 101 JOB NO. 101.1 Prepared by Mark G. Alessi and Craig A. Miller, Ph.D. Illinois Natural History Survey Champaign, IL August 29, 2011 Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-112-R-20 Illinois Department of Natural Resources Marc Miller, Director Illinois Department of Natural Resources John E. Buhnerkempe, Chief Division of Wildlife Equal opportunity to participate in programs of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and those funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies is available to all individuals regardless of race, sex, national origin, disability, age, religion or other non-merit factors. If you believe you have been discriminated against, contact the funding source s civil rights office and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, IDNR, One Natural Resources Way, Springfield, IL 62702-1271; 217/785-0067; TTY 217/782-9175.

2 Abstract Technological advances have permitted outdoor enthusiasts the ability to use the internet to access information provided by state wildlife agencies. Using the 2010-2011 Illinois Hunter Harvest Survey, we investigated age distribution and incomes of hunters purchasing licenses on the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) website, differences in mean age and age distribution compared to a 2001 dataset, and hunters attitudes toward various methods of receiving hunting information. Mean hunter age in 2010-2011 was 49 years old, significantly higher than the mean age of hunters (46 years old) reported in the 2000-2001 Illinois Hunter Harvest Survey. A minority (18%) of 2010 hunters purchased their license through the IDNR website, and the majority (72%) of those hunters were 32-66 years of age. Younger ( 31 years of age) hunters were more likely to support receiving information from IDNR via technological means (e.g., text or email messages) than older hunters. A significant, positive relationship did exist between household incomes and purchasing licenses through the Internet. Comparative data suggest the mean age and age distribution of hunters is becoming skewed towards older hunters at a faster rate than young hunters are entering the population in Illinois, and the proportion of the hunting population that utilizes the internet to purchase their license remains small. Thus, it is important to continue to allow hunters the option of purchasing their licenses through traditional methods. Methods See Miller et al. (2001) for methods on 2000-2001 survey design, and see Alessi et al. (2011) for methods on 2010-2011 survey design. We conducted Chi-square tests and determined

Percent 3 statistical significance given p.05. We included effect sizes to measure the strength of association between the independent and dependent variables. Results Relationship between Age and Use of Internet Previous research on Illinois hunters use of the Internet showed that hunters visiting the IDNR website were younger than those who did not visit the website (Miller 2003). The relationship between use of the website and age was similar during 2010-11, but the actual distribution of hunters has changed over the intervening ten years (Figure 1, Table 1); the proportion of hunters in the 32-49 years of age category had decreased 10% as the 50-66 years of age category increased 10%, and the differences were significant (χ 2 = 58.176, df = 3, p <.001). Moreover, mean age for hunters (n = 2,132) from the 2000-2001 study was 46 years of age; ten years later (2010-2011 season, n = 1,587) hunters were significantly older (mean = 49 years of age, t = -4.967, df = 3,717, p <.001). 45% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 39% 39% 29% 29% 19% 18% 14% 15% 1-31 32-49 50-66 67 Age 2000-2001 2010-2011 Figure 1. Age distribution of respondents to the 2000-2001 (n=2,132) and 2010-2011 (n=1,587) Illinois Hunter Harvest Survey.

4 An analysis of the 2010-2011 Illinois Hunter Harvest dataset showed 18% of hunting licenses and/or habitat stamps were purchased online during the 2010-2011 season through the IDNR website, compared to 7% who used the IDNR website to purchase a hunting license in 2000-2001 (Miller 2003). A significantly higher proportion of hunters in the 1-31 (22%) and 32-49 (34%) age category purchased their license online than those who did not purchase online (1-31: 17%, 32-49: 28%), and a higher proportion (17%) of hunters older than 66 years of age did not purchase their license online when compared to the same cohort of hunters (6%) who did purchase online (χ 2 = 24.441, df = 3, p <.001). Of those who purchased their licenses on the Internet, 72% were between the ages of 32 and 66 years of age (Figure 2, Table 2), and 50-66 year old hunters purchased more licenses online than any other age group. When mean age of internet purchasers was compared to that of other methods, Internet purchasers were significantly younger (mean=45 years of age) than non-internet purchasers (mean=50 years of age, t = 4.25, df = 1,585, p <.001). Hunters in the 2010-2011 Survey were also queried as to whether they have a computer in their residence (77% said Yes). Older hunters ( 67 years of age) were less likely to have a computer in their residence than younger hunters (Table 3), and of the hunters that did have a computer, 71% of these hunters were between the ages of 32 and 66 years of age. Seventy-five percent of all hunters surveyed had internet access at home, and 98% of hunters with a computer at home also had access to the Internet. In comparison to the general Illinois population, 74% of households had Internet access at home during 2009 (U.S. Census Bureau 2009).

Percent 5 45% 40% 35% 34% 38% 39% 30% 28% 25% 22% 20% 17% 17% Internet Purchase 15% Non-Internet Purchase 10% 5% 0% 6% 1-31 32-49 50-66 67 Age Figure 2. Age distribution of hunters who did (n=265) and did not (n=1,332) purchase their license online during the 2010-2011 season. Hunters from the 2010-2011 Hunter Harvest Survey were asked to indicate how they would like to receive certain information from IDNR. Overall, the majority of hunters (regardless of age) preferred to receive season date information via paper copy of the hunting digest (73%) and on the IDNR website (68%). Most hunters also preferred to receive hunting application reminders on a postcard in the mail (73%), and receive hunter harvest information on the IDNR website (68%). Although other possibilities were preferred less, age distribution of potential participants varied greatly and differences were significant for 11 of the 14 different possibilities (Table 4). Younger hunters were more likely to agree to receiving information through computers or text messages than older hunters. The older generation ( 67 years of age) indicated a preference for the more traditional methods (mail and digest).

6 Influence of Income on Online Purchasing of Hunting Licenses Past research suggested a positive relationship between annual income levels and use of the Internet (Miller 2003). A similar relationship exists in this current study; hunters with higher household incomes were more likely to purchase their license online (Table 5, χ 2 = 77.375, df = 6, p <.001). For example, 13% of hunters who responded to the 2010-2011 Illinois Hunter Harvest Survey had annual household incomes of less than $20,000, and only 4% of hunters in this category purchased their license online this past year; thus a 9% departure from their expected representation. Thirty-one percent of hunters who earned between $100,000-150,000 purchased their licenses online during the 2010-2011 seasons. Conclusions State wildlife agencies have perceived an increased need to offer stakeholders the ability to view information and purchase licenses through the Internet. Despite a 157% (7% in 2000 to 18% in 2010) increase in the proportion of hunters who purchase their licenses online in the past 10 years in Illinois, the overall proportion of hunters who purchase their licenses online remains small. Thus, the majority of hunters in Illinois are not utilizing the Internet to purchase their license, and it is important that managers continue to offer these stakeholders the ability to purchase their licenses at retail stores in Illinois. Additionally, it is important that the persons selling the licenses are knowledgeable on what hunters need in order to hunt in Illinois. Although this is not an exhaustive list, we propose various hypotheses as to why the majority of hunters are not buying their licenses online. First, the relative lack of recruitment of young, technologically-savvy hunters is apparent, and the majority (68%) of the hunter population is comprised of men between the ages of 32-66

7 years of age. Therefore, hunters who were hunting before licenses were made available online may have continued to purchase their licenses through the traditional methods. Next, some hunters may have continued to purchase their licenses and permits at dealers because those licenses and permits are more durable than those printed online. Additionally, the convenience fee associated with purchasing a license online could be significant enough to deter hunters from purchasing their license online, although the advantage of purchasing online allows you to print more than one license in the event of a lost or misplaced license. Lastly, some hunters may have attempted to print their licenses online previously, but they may have been deterred due to the perceived difficulty. These possibilities, among others, need to be investigated in order to determine why hunters are not purchasing their licenses online. It is important to recognize that even though the majority of each cohort of hunters may have preferred different methods to receive hunting information, the proportion of each cohort of hunters is represented differently in the age distribution. Therefore, continuing and even expanding a multifaceted, but simple, approach to license purchasing and customer service in Illinois is vital to hunter retention and recruitment.

8 References Alessi, M.G., L.K. Campbell, and C.A. Miller. 2011. Results of the 2010-2011 Illinois Hunter Harvest Survey. Job Completion Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-112-R- 20. Human Dimensions Research Program Report HR-11-01/INHS Technical Report (27). Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL. 71pp. Miller, C.A. 2003. Use of the Internet Among Illinois Hunters: Defining the Market. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8:307-308., W.L. Anderson, L.K. Campbell, and J.A. Yeagle. 2001. Results of the 2000-2001 Illinois Hunter Harvest Survey. Job Completion Report, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration W-112-R-10. Wildlife Harvest and Human Dimensions Research Program Report. Illinois Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL. 61pp. U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Current Population Survey Internet and Computer Use Supplement Public Use File.

Table 1. Age distribution of hunters in Illinois, by year. Year Age 2000-2001 2010-2011 χ 2 p V 1-31 18.8% 17.6% 58.176 <.001.125 32-49 39.1 28.8 50-66 28.7 38.9 > 66 13.5 14.7 9

10 Table 2. Relationship between age and online license purchases during the 2010-2011 hunting seasons in Illinois. Age of Hunters Purchase license online? 31 32-49 50-66 67 χ 2 p V Yes 20.8% 19.9% 16.3% 6.4% 24.441 <.001.124 No 79.2 80.1 83.7 93.6

11 Table 3. Home computer ownership by age among Illinois hunters during the 2010-2011 hunting seasons. Age of Hunters Home computer? 31 32-49 50-66 67 χ 2 p V Yes 89.1% 87.8% 75.7% 48.2% 160.566 <.001.321 No 10.9 12.2 24.3 51.8

12 Table 4. Proportion of hunters by age who selected to receive information from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Age of Hunter 31 32-49 50-66 67 χ 2 p V Season Date Information On IDNR website 76% 1 80% 65% 36% 108.658 <.001.287 E-mail 47 49 40 26 27.030 <.001.146 Text messages 24 14 7 4 48.460 <.001.203 Facebook, My Space, or Twitter 25 14 5 2 74.287 <.001.252 Paper copy of Digest 77 73 71 74 3.869.276.054 Postcard in mail 57 57 56 67 6.704.082.072 Hunting Application Reminders On IDNR website 66 69 52 26 87.121 <.001.263 E-mail 62 59 43 29 61.063 <.001.219 Text messages 28 18 10 5 51.427 <.001.210 Facebook, My Space, or Twitter 25 14 5 5 68.624 <.001.243 Postcard in mail 74 73 72 79 3.457.326.050 Hunter Harvest Info. On IDNR website 72 80 65 38 95.095 <.001.269 Facebook, My Space, or Twitter 18 11 4 3 47.943 <.001.205 E-mail 46 44 33 29 22.010 <.001.133 1 Percentages are of respondents who selected Yes.

Table 5. Annual household income and online purchase of licenses during the 2010-2011 hunting seasons in Illinois. Annual Household Income (in thousands) Internet Purchase? < $20 $20- $40 $40- $60 $60- $80 $80- $100 $100- $150 > $150 χ 2 p V Yes 3.5% 7.3% 21.3% 23.7% 18.9% 31.4% 26.0% 77.375 <.001.24 No 96.5 92.7 78.7 76.3 81.1 68.6 74.0 13