Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Understanding Anglers’ Preferences for Fishing Tournament Characteristics and Policies

  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Saltwater fishing tournaments in the United States are generally not regulated nor are there different fishing regulations for tournament and nontournament anglers. Although much is known about those who participate in fishing tournaments in terms of their fishing motivations, attitudes, and characteristics, much less is known at the angler population level regarding their preferences for tournament opportunities. Using a stated preference choice model with hypothetical scenarios to simulate participation choices and understand preferences, study objectives were to identify angler preferences for various types of tournament fishing “products.” Four tournament policy characteristics were investigated: promotion of catch and release, bait restrictions, whether a percentage of the tournament entrance fee should go to support fishery management activities, and whether a tournament should be a nonprofit or profit-making venture. Three expectation attributes were inserted: tournament size, trip cost per day, and whether a tournament is family friendly. We sent seven different versions of the mail questionnaire to 1,633 anglers. Of 795 returns, 648 were used for estimating conditional logit models. Analysis indicated that a scenario with no management interventions was not most preferred. Anglers most preferred a conservation-oriented option that introduced additional management measures. Overall, scenarios with management interventions were more favored than the status quo situation (with no management interventions). Although respondents showed reluctance to adopt other management-related options, results generally indicated they were increasingly concerned with sustainability of fish stocks and potential conflicts between tournament and nontournament users and preferred tournament products that reflect these concerns.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  • Aas O, Haider W, Hunt L (2000) Angler responses to harvest regulations in Engerdal, Norway: a conjoint based choice modeling approach. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:940–950

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson DK, Ditton RB (2003) Demographics, participation, attitudes, and management preferences of Texas anglers, 2001 (TAMU-WFSC-HD-624). Texas A & M University, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, College Station, TX

  • Antia U, McConney P, Ditton RB (2002) The socio-economic characteristics of tournament anglers in Barbados. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 53:357–366

    Google Scholar 

  • Babbie E (2001) The practice of social research, ninth edition. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, Belmont, CA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bates IJ, Carson RT, Day B, Hanemann M, Hanley N, Hett T, et al. (2002) Economic valuation with stated preference techniques: a manual. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Akiva M, Lerman SR (1985) Discrete choice analysis: theory and application to travel demand. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett J, Adamowicz V (2001) Some fundamentals of environmental choice modeling. In Bennett J, Blamey R (eds.) The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. pp 37–69

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennett JW, Blamey R (2001) The strengths and weaknesses of environmental choice modeling. In Bennett JW, Blamey R (eds.), The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. pp 227–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Boxall P, Adamocwicz WL (2002) Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 23:421–446

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boxall PC, MacNab B (2000) Exploring the preferences of wildlife recreationists for features of boreal forest management: a choice experiment approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:1931–1941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bryan H (1977) Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research 9:174–187

    Google Scholar 

  • Christian RT, Trimm DL (1986) An inventory of Texas saltwater fishing tournaments: spatial, temporal and participation patterns in 1983 (Management Data Series No. 97). Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Coastal Fisheries Branch, Austin, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA (1978) Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditton RB, Anderson DK, Bohnsack BL, Sutton SG (1999a) Texas International Fishing Tournament: participants’ characteristics, participation in fishing, attitudes, expenditures, and economic impacts. (TAMU-WFSC-HD- 621). Texas A & M University, Human Dimensions of Fisheries, College Station, TX

  • Ditton RB, Anderson DK, Thigpen III JF, Bohnsack BL, Sutton SG (1999b) Pirate’s Cove Big Game Tournaments: participants’ characteristics, participation in fishing, attitudes, expenditures, and economic impacts. (TAMU-WFSC-HD-615). Texas A & M University, Human Dimensions of Fisheries, College Station, TX

  • Ditton RB, Loomis DK (1985) 1983 Texas International Fishing Tournament: an analysis of participants’ characteristics, attitudes and expenditures. (TAMU-SG-85-202). Texas A & M University Sea Grant Program, College Station, TX

    Google Scholar 

  • Ditton RB, Loomis DK, Choi S (1992) Recreation specialization: re-conceptualization from social world’s perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 24:33–51

    Google Scholar 

  • Driver BL (1985) Specifying what is produced by management of wildlife by public agencies. Leisure Sciences 7:281–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk JM, Graefe AR, Ditton RB (1989) Patterns of participation and motivation among saltwater tournament anglers. Fisheries 14(4):10–16

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fedler AJ (1998) Applying human dimensions information to recreational fisheries management in the Gulf and Caribbean. Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute 50:1075–1088

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillis KS, Ditton RB (2002) A conjoint analysis of U.S. Atlantic billfish fishery management alternatives. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1218–1228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene WH (2000) Econometric analysis. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, N .J

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanemann WM (1984) Welfare evaluations in contingent valuation experiments with discrete responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66:332–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Mourato S, Wright RE (2001) Choice modeling approaches: a superior alternative for environmental valuation? Journal of Economic Surveys 15(3):435–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright R, Adamowicz V (1998) Using choice experiments to value the environment. Environmental and Resource Economics 11:413–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley N, Wright R, Alvarez-Farizo B (2006) Estimating the economic value of improvements in river ecology using choice experiments: an application to the water framework directive. Journal of Environmental Management 78(2):183–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hausman J, McFadden D (1984) Specification tests for the multinomial logit model. Econometrica 52:1219–1240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hensher DA (1994) Stated preference analysis of travel choices: the state of practice. Transportation 21:107–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes TP, Adamowicz V (2003) Attribute-based methods. In Champ PA, Boyle KJ, Brown TC (eds.) A primer on nonmarket valuation. Kluwer Academic, Boston, MA. pp 171–220

    Google Scholar 

  • Hunt LM, Haider W, Bottan B (2005). Accounting for varying setting preferences among moose hunters. Leisure Sciences 27:297–314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacob GR, Schreyer R (1981) Conflict in outdoor recreation: a theoretical perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 12:368–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaoru Y (1995) Measuring marine recreation benefits of water quality improvements by the nested random utility model. Resource and Energy Economics 17:119–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis DK, Ditton RB (1987) Analysis of motive and participation differences between saltwater sport and tournament fishermen. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 7:482–487

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loomis DK, Ditton RB (1993) Distributive justice in fisheries management. Fisheries 18:14–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ (1988a) Conjoint analysis modeling of stated preference: A review of theory, methods, recent developments and external validity. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy 22: 93–119

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ (1988b) Analyzing individual decision-making: metric conjoint analysis. Sage University Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences No. 67. Sage, Newbury Park, CA

  • Louviere JJ (2000) Why stated preference discrete choice modeling is NOT conjoint analysis (and what SPDCM is?). Memetrics White Paper

  • Louviere JJ (2001) Choice experiments: An overview of concepts and issues. In Bennett JW, Blamey R (eds.) The choice modeling approach to environmental valuation. Edward Elgar, Northampton, MA. pp 13–36

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Hensher D, Swait J (2000) Stated choice methods: analysis and application. Cambridge University Press, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Louviere JJ, Timmermans H (1990) Stated preference and choice models applied to recreation research: a review. Leisure Sciences 12:9–32

    Google Scholar 

  • McFadden D (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In Zarembka P (eds.) Frontiers in econometrics. Academic, New York, NY. pp 105–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrison M, Bennett JW, Blamey R (1999) Valuing improved wetland quality using choice modeling. Water Resources Research 35(9):2805–2814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen LA (1985) Philosophies for managing competitive fishing. Fisheries 10(3):5–7

    Google Scholar 

  • Oh C, Ditton RB, Gentner B, Riechers R (2005) A stated discrete choice approach to understanding angler preferences and tradeoffs for management options. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 10(3):173–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh C, Ditton RB (2006) Using recreation specialization to understand multi-attribute management preferences. Leisure Sciences 28:369–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmied RL (1994) A history and overview of fishing tournaments (Special Report No. 46). In Proceedings of the Workshop on Saltwater Tournaments. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Washington, DC. pp 1–8

  • Thailing CE, Ditton RB, Anderson DK, Murray TJ, Kirkley JE, and J. Lucy (2001) The 2000 Virginia Beach Red, White, and Blue Fishing Tournament: participants’ characteristics, attitudes, expenditures, and economic impacts (Virginia Marine Resource Report No. 2001-9, VSG-01-88). College of William and Mary, Virginia Institute of Marine Science. Gloucester Point, VA

  • Train KE (1998) Recreation demand models with taste differences over people. Land Economics 74:230–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams T (1984) Fishing to win. Audubon 86(3):82–95

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Funding support for this research, which came from the TPWD Coastal Fisheries Division and the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, was much appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Parks, Recreation, and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, 29634-0735, USA

    Chi-Ok Oh

  2. Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A & M University, College Station, TX, 77843-2258, USA

    Robert B. Ditton

  3. Coastal Fisheries Division, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, 4200 Smith School Road, Austin, TX, 78744, USA

    Robin Riechers

Authors
  1. Chi-Ok Oh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Robert B. Ditton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robin Riechers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chi-Ok Oh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Oh, CO., Ditton, R.B. & Riechers, R. Understanding Anglers’ Preferences for Fishing Tournament Characteristics and Policies. Environmental Management 40, 123–133 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0010-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0010-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation