The Substitutability of One Type of Fishing for Another

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:536–546, 2005 q Copyright by the American Fisheries Society 2005 DOI: 10.1577/M04-059.1

[Article]

The Substitutability of One Type of Fishing for Another STEPHEN G. SUTTON* School of Tropical Environment Studies and Geography, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland 4811, Australia

ROBERT B. DITTON Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843-2258, USA Abstract.—We investigated the willingness of saltwater anglers in Florida and Texas to substitute other types of fishing for the type of fishing they most preferred. Anglers were asked if there was a suitable substitute for their most preferred species and, if so, what species would provide them with the same satisfaction and enjoyment as their most preferred species at the same cost. Most anglers (86%) reported that other species would provide acceptable substitutes for their preferred species and were able to identify acceptable substitutes from a list of common saltwater species in Texas and Florida. Logistic regression was used to determine the effects of demographic and fishing participation variables on willingness to substitute. Willingness to substitute was positively related to years of education and negatively related to age and the importance placed on trophyseeking experiences. Also, females were more willing to substitute than males. Results suggest that for some species substitution behavior in response to biologically or managerially imposed constraints on fishing activity could result in increased effort for other species in the saltwater fisheries of Texas and Florida.

Many marine recreational fisheries are multispecies in nature; that is, anglers target and harvest more than one species in the same geographic area. However, most recreational fisheries are still managed on a species-by-species basis with little consideration of the complex interrelationships that emerge at both the biological and social levels. As fisheries management moves toward a more holistic, ecosystem-based approach, it is becoming increasingly necessary to understand and incorporate these interrelationships into management (Busch et al. 2003). In multispecies fisheries, an important consideration is the extent to which target-switching behavior occurs (or can occur) and the potential for this to affect management goals set on a species-by-species basis. When faced with new limits on their preferred type of fishing (i.e., for a particular species), anglers may change their behavior by targeting alternative species that provide them with similar benefits. Behavioral shifts are likely to occur when anglers encounter constraints such as newly implemented regulations, declining fish stocks, or reduced access. For example, if new fishing regulations are viewed as constraining anglers’ ability to pursue their pre-

* Corresponding author: [email protected] Received April 13, 2004; accepted October 7, 2004 Published online May 11, 2005

ferred species, they may switch to another species or they may choose another recreation activity altogether. Such behavioral adaptations can result in effort shifts and changes in exploitation rates of species not directly affected by the regulatory change. If these behavioral adaptations are unknown or unanticipated, they can undermine management goals and reduce or negate the expected benefits of fisheries management (Busch et al. 2003). Recreation Substitution The theory of recreation substitution is useful for understanding how anglers’ targeting behavior might change in response to constraints on their preferred type of fishing. Recreation substitution was first described by Hendee and Burdge (1974) as the interchangeability of activities in satisfying participant needs, motives, and preferences. Early substitution research resulted in clusters of activities judged similar by researchers; however, a conceptual link between similarity (as determined by researchers) and substitutability (as determined by participants) was not established (Manfredo and Anderson 1987). Further work by Iso-Ahola (1986) suggested that activity substitution involves a psychological process whereby ‘‘the originally intended activity is no longer possible and therefore must be replaced by another behavior if leisure involvement is to be initiated or contin-

536

SUBSTITUTABILITY OF TYPES OF FISHING

ued.’’ Vaske et al. (1983) demonstrated that recreationists choose substitutes they perceive as similar to the original activity. This definition of substitutability has been expanded further to refer to the interchangeability of recreation experiences ‘‘such that acceptably equivalent outcomes can be achieved by varying the timing, means of access, setting, or activity’’ (Brunson and Shelby 1993: 69). Thus, only when an alternative activity is perceived as satisfying one’s needs and providing outcomes equivalent to the original can it be considered substitutable (IsoAhola 1980). If a replacement does not provide the same benefits as the original, it is a complement or an alternative, but not a substitute (Shelby and Vaske 1991). Shelby and Vaske (1991) suggest that individuals can obtain acceptably equivalent outcomes by modifying their behavior in a number of ways; however, most previous research in this area has focused on activity substitution, whereby the original activity is replaced by an entirely different activity that is viewed as providing similar benefits (Ditton and Sutton 2004). Within the activity of recreational fishing, anglers may be able to find acceptably equivalent outcomes by substituting one type of fishing (i.e., species targeted) for another. However, although most types of recreational fishing appear reasonably similar in terms of equipment and objectives, findings from previous studies indicate that the extent to which anglers are willing to substitute among types of fishing may vary in at least three ways. First, anglers may be willing to substitute certain other species for their most preferred. In a study of shark (Lamniformes and Carcharhiniformes) anglers in the Gulf of Mexico, Fisher and Ditton (1994) found that most (68%) anglers were able to identify several other types of fishing as acceptable substitutes for shark fishing. Substitutes generally involved fishing for other large, challenging game species such as king mackerel Scomberomorus cavalla, dolphinfish Coryphaena hippurus, and cobia Rachycentron canadum. Anglers were generally unwilling to substitute inshore species such as spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus and red drum Sciaenops ocellatus fishing for shark fishing because those inshore species were not considered challenging enough. Second, even if one type of fishing provides the same benefits and fishing experience as another, anglers may not find it an acceptable substitute if cost constraints are perceived. Fishing for billfish (Istiophoridae), for example, was not considered an acceptable substitute by shark anglers because of access and cost

537

constraints to offshore waters (Fisher and Ditton 1994). Third, there may be no acceptable substitutes for preferred type of fishing in some situations. For example, Shelby and Vaske (1991) found that no other types of fishing activities were considered acceptable substitutes for river salmon fishing in New Zealand. Thus, when evaluating the substitutability of one type of fishing for another, anglers apparently consider the fishing-experience characteristics of the target versus potential substitute species and the costs involved in fishing for each. Consequently, some species are perceived as more acceptable substitutes than others. Variables Affecting Willingness to Substitute Personal characteristics of anglers are also expected to influence willingness to substitute among types of fishing. Previous studies have identified a number of personal variables that influence individuals’ willingness to substitute, including frequency of participation, skill level, and monetary investment (Snow 1980; Vaske and Donnelly 1982). Based on the concept of recreation specialization (Bryan 1977; Ditton et al. 1992; Fisher 1997; Scott and Shafer 2001), we would also expect anglers with well-developed fishing skills, large investments in fishing equipment, and a strong commitment to fishing to be less likely to identify another type of fishing that would provide them with the same satisfaction or enjoyment they receive from their preferred type of fishing. However, this characterization probably applies only to a small group of avid anglers with a strong emotional attachment to fishing. There are many more other anglers with moderate to marginal commitments to fishing for whom a substitution decision might not be difficult. Individuals have various reasons or motivations for participating in recreational fishing. Building on Driver and Knopf’s (1976) concept of ‘‘satisfying experiences desired,’’ Driver and Cooksey (1977) suggest that anglers’ fishing motives are viewed as their ‘‘experience preferences’’ and are believed to reflect their ‘‘preferred psychological outcomes.’’ Their particular patterns of experience preferences are likely to transcend into their behavioral choices (Iso-Ahola 1980) and influence whether they are willing to substitute other types of fishing. Activity-specific motivations include those that are particular to recreational fishing (i.e., the challenge or sport of fishing, the experience of the catch, catching fish to eat, obtaining a trophy fish, etc). Activity-general motivations for fishing, on the other hand, are the same benefits individuals

538

SUTTON AND DITTON

are seeking when they participate in most, if not all other, outdoor activities (i.e., to be outdoors, relaxation, to be with friends, family recreation, etc). The activity-general benefits of fishing are rated highly by anglers (Fedler and Ditton 1994) but are ubiquitous and easily achieved in any type of recreational fishing. Consequently, we would not expect an individual’s decision to substitute another type of fishing to be driven by their inability to achieve these activity-general benefits. Although the challenge and sport aspects of fishing and the experience of catching fish are rated highly overall, many anglers have not yet developed the skills and knowledge to appreciate these benefits on a regular basis. We would expect those who place high importance on activity-specific motivations for fishing to be less willing to substitute another type of fishing activity that would provide them with the same satisfaction and enjoyment they receive from fishing for their preferred species. Willingness to substitute is also likely to be related to anglers’ demographic characteristics. Research has shown that people with different social and economic characteristics are affected differently by constraints on their recreation—namely, that age, education, income, gender, and size and composition of households are significantly related to how constraints influence leisure behavior (Godbey 1985; Searle and Jackson 1985). Therefore, strategies used to negotiate constraints, such as making a substitution decision, are likely to be affected by many of the same characteristics. In this paper, we investigate the substitutability of different types of fishing by questioning anglers about their willingness to substitute alternative species for their most preferred species. Whereas species substitution behavior has been studied previously with anglers targeting a particular species, this topic has not been investigated at the angler population level where anglers have the opportunity to target multiple species and where fisheries management rulemaking is usually made. To better understand the process involved, we also seek to understand the rationales for substitution and identify predictors of willingness to substitute. Methods Two separate sampling frames were used as the basis for contacting anglers in Florida and Texas. In Florida, a random sample of 1,250 individuals was drawn from the list of saltwater fishing license holders for the 1993 fishing license year. In Texas, (where demographic information is collected as

part of the licensing system), a stratified design was used to randomly sample approximately equal numbers of male (n 5 988) and female (n 5 1,060) anglers from the list of saltwater fishing stamp holders for the September 1, 1992–August 31, 1993 license year (the expected proportion of female anglers 16 years of age and older in Texas was 33% (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census 1998). A 10-page, self-administered mail questionnaire was used to collect data on anglers’ demographic characteristics, recreational fishing participation and preferences, and willingness to substitute other species for the saltwater species they prefer to catch. Survey procedures followed a slightly modified form of the Dillman (1978) methodology. Envelopes and letterhead from Texas A&M University and the University of Florida were used with the Texas and Florida samples, respectively, in an effort to increase response rates. Accounting for nondeliverable surveys, the overall effective response rate was 55.7% (59.7% for Texas and 50.0% for Florida; total N 5 1,362). This response rate is somewhat below that normally achieved by the Human Dimensions Laboratory at Texas A&M University (Hunt and Ditton 1996), probably because surveys were mailed during the summer when people are away from home or on vacation (Brown et al. 1989). To check for nonresponse bias (Filion 1980; Fisher 1996), 40 nonrespondents were contacted by telephone and administered an abbreviated version of the questionnaire. Nonrespondents were not significantly different from respondents in age, household size, or self-evaluated skill level; however, nonrespondents reported significantly fewer days fishing during the previous 12 months than did respondents. Therefore, the rates of substitution reported here are probably less than what would be observed in the overall angler population because more avid anglers are over-represented in the sample. Anglers’ willingness to substitute different types of fishing (in terms of species targeted) for their most preferred species was determined by asking whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘‘For me, there is no suitable substitute for fishing for my most preferred saltwater fish species.’’ To identify substitutes by species, anglers were asked to identify the saltwater species they most preferred to catch, then asked the following question: ‘‘If you couldn’t go fishing for your preferred species, what type of fishing would give you the same satisfaction or enjoyment you


currently receive from fishing for the species you most prefer at a similar cost (that is, would you substitute it for the one you currently prefer)? (Circle all that apply).’’ Anglers could then identify substitutes (if any) for their most preferred saltwater species from a list of 15 fish species or species groups (judged similar by the researchers in terms of how challenging they were to catch and setting where pursued) commonly targeted by anglers in Texas and Florida (the angler list excluded scientific names): (1) red drum Sciaenops ocellatus; (2) spotted seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus; (3) greater amberjack Seriola dumerili and other jacks Caranax; (4) shark (Lamniformes and Carcharhiniformes); (5) billfish (marlin, sailfish, etc.; Istiophoridae); (6) tarpon Megalops atlanticus, ladyfish Elops saurus, and bonefish Albula vulpes; (7) snook Centropomus; (8) sheepshead Archosargus probatocephalus; (9) other drum (black drum Pogonias cromis, Atlantic croaker Micropogias undulatus, etc.); (10) mackerel Scomberomorus, dolphinfish, and cobia; (11) snapper Lutjanus and groupers Epinephelus and Mycteroperca; (12) flounder Paralichthys; (13) pompano or permit Trachinotus carolinus; (14) triggerfish Balistes; and (15) other trout (sand seatrout Cynoscion arenarius, silver seatrout Cynoscion nothus, etc.). The list included an option for anglers to identify substitute species not listed. Anglers were also asked to indicate which of the listed potential substitutes they had specifically fished for during the previous 12 months. To better understand substitution decision-making, anglers were asked to rate the importance of 11 factors that were expected to influence whether another species would be considered a substitute for their most preferred type of fishing. Significant (a 5 0.05) differences between states in the rating of each factor were tested using a Wilcoxon ranksum test (Siegel and Castellan 1988). Descriptive statistics for species substitution and targeting rates and importance of factors expected to influence substitution decisions were calculated separately for each state. Descriptive statistics for Texas were adjusted using standard stratified estimation formulas to account for the oversampling of females in that state; strata weights were 0.77 for males and 0.33 for males (Scheaffer et al. 1996). Logistic regression (Agresti 1996) was used to model willingness to substitute another species for the angler’s most preferred type of saltwater fishing as a function of a set of demographic and fishing participation and experience preference vari-

539

ables. Experience preference variables were measured using scale items developed and refined by Driver (U.S. Forest Service, unpublished) and Driver and Cooksey (1977) to understand the benefits anglers receive or expect to receive from participation in recreational fishing. Anglers were asked to rate the importance placed on 10 possible reasons for participating in recreational fishing. Each item was measured on a five-point scale with response categories ranging from ‘‘not at all important’’ to ‘‘extremely important.’’ Related items were grouped to measure the importance placed on three separate experience preference domains: (1) challenge seeking, which includes items ‘‘for the experience of the catch,’’ ‘‘to develop my skills,’’ ‘‘for the challenge or sport,’’ and ‘‘to experience adventure and excitement’’; (2) trophy seeking, which includes items ‘‘to win a tournament trophy/prize,’’ ‘‘to obtain a trophy fish,’’ and ‘‘to test my equipment’’; and (3) relaxation seeking, which includes items ‘‘for relaxation,’’ ‘‘to get away from the demands of other people,’’ and ‘‘to get away from the regular routine.’’ Items in each of the three domains were summed to calculate a separate index for each domain. Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients for the three experience preference domains (challenge seeking 5 0.80; trophy seeking 5 0.66; and relaxation seeking 5 0.72) indicated an acceptable level of reliability for each domain. Demographic variables included in the analysis were age, education level, household income, and gender. Participation variables included in the analysis were most preferred saltwater species, importance of fishing as an outdoor activity, selfperceived skill level, replacement value of fishing equipment, days fished in saltwater during the previous 12 months, and overall level of satisfaction with fishing. Separate logistic regression models were fit for the Texas and Florida samples. All independent variables were included in the initial models. Nonsignificant variables (P . 0.05) were deleted and each model was refit so that the final models for each state included only those variables that had a significant effect on willingness to substitute. In Texas, where the sample was stratified by gender, the initial model included all possible two-way interactions involving gender. None of the interactions involving gender were significant, indicating that the effect (or lack of effect) on each independent variable was the same for males and females. Therefore, the gender interaction terms were removed from the model, and subsequent

540

SUTTON AND DITTON

TABLE 1.—Percent of Florida anglers who would substitute other species for the one they most prefer to catch (Sub) and percent who fished for each potential substitute during the previous 12 months (Fish). The standard error for each estimate is less than 5 percentage points, except where otherwise indicated. Preferred species (sample size) Dolphinfish (52)

Grouper (82)

Red drum (56)

Substitute species

Sub (%)

Fish (%)

Sub (%)

Fish (%)

Sub (%)

Fish (%)

Red drum Spotted seatrout Amberjack, other jacks Shark Billfish Tarpon, ladyfish, bonefish Snook Sheepshead Other drum Mackerel, dolphinfish, cobia Snapper, grouper Flounder Pompano, permit Triggerfish Other seatrout Other species

31a 19a 15 19a 54a 29a 44a 6 4 56 83a 27a 14 2 10 17

13 12 15 6 37a 12 29 4 4 73a 58a 6 8 2 2 13

57 48a 28 22 24 20 60 33 16 56a 51a 38 29 12 23 12

35 34 15 20 12 7 33 21 7 35 70 20 11 7 12 4

75a 13 9 2 13 41a 39a 41a 41a 64a 66a 18 13 32a 11

59a 7 5 0 7 27a 32a 38a 36a 32a 45a 5 5 29a 13

a b

5 , SE , 7. 7 , SE , 10.

analyses of the Texas data were performed on unweighted data. Results A total of 59 species were listed using common names in response to the question asking anglers to identify the species of saltwater fish they most prefer to catch. In Texas, 4 species (spotted sea trout, red drum, flounder, and snapper) made up 88% of responses. In Florida, six species (dolphinfish, grouper, red drum, snapper, snook, and spotted sea trout) made up 78% of responses. The remaining 52 species were each listed by less than 3% of respondents in each state. Most (86%) anglers reported that there was another type of fishing that could be substituted for fishing for their most preferred species. Rates of acceptance of various substitute species by preferred species are presented in Tables 1 and 2. As expected, type of fishing identified as acceptable substitutes were generally similar to the angler’s preferred type in terms of challenge and setting characteristics. For example, most red drum anglers in Florida (75%) and Texas (78%) were willing to substitute spotted seatrout fishing for red drum fishing; however, only about 13% of red drum anglers in each state were willing to substitute tarpon, bonefish, or ladyfish for red drum. Similarly, anglers who preferred offshore species such as dolphinfish were more likely to identify other offshore species such as snapper or grouper

(83%) or billfish (54%) rather than inshore species like red drum (31%) or spotted sea trout (19%) as suitable substitutes. In most cases, the percentage of anglers who currently target the potential substitute species was lower than the percentage who reported that the species would be an acceptable substitute (Tables 1, 2), indicating potential for effort shifts between target species. For example, 84% of spotted seatrout anglers in Florida reported that red drum would be an acceptable substitute; however, only 57% of spotted sea trout anglers targeted red drum over the previous 12 months. Likewise, in Texas 75% of red drum anglers said that flounder would be an acceptable substitute, but only 57% reported having targeted this species. When asked to rate the importance of several factors in determining if another type of fishing was a good substitute for their preferred fishing, the factors rated most often as very or extremely important were ‘‘having access to that type of fishing’’ (56% Texas; 47% Florida), ‘‘the substitute species being good to eat’’ (52% Texas; 45% Florida), ‘‘having the right kind of fishing tackle’’ (48% Texas; 38% Florida), and ‘‘being able to fish in the same or similar settings’’ (47% Texas; 40% Florida; Table 3). Factors rated most often as either not at all important or slightly important were ‘‘knowing other people who fish for the substitute species’’ (56% Texas; 60% Florida), ‘‘strictness of bag and possession limits’’ (46% Texas; 50% Flor-

541


TABLE 1.—Extended.

Preferred species (sample size) Snook (78)

Snapper (29)

Spotted seatrout (61)

Other (102)

Substitute species

Sub (%)

Fish (%)

Sub (%)

Fish (%)

Sub (%)

Fish (%)

Sub (%)

Fish (%)

Red drum Spotted seatrout Amberjack, other jacks Shark Billfish Tarpon, ladyfish, bonefish Snook Sheepshead Other drum Mackerel, dolphinfish, cobia Snapper, grouper Flounder Pompano, permit Triggerfish Other seatrout Other species

45b 24b 48b 10a 17a 21b 41b 17a 7 72b 52b 35b 21b 17a 17a 10a

24b 17 31b 21b 14a 21b 31b 10a 7 55b 76b 17a 7 17a 14a 7

81 55a 27 18 21 36

67 59a 28 14 13 29

84

57a

26 15 51a 68 39a 26 9 21 13

24 13 40a 59a 33 17 5 14 12

30a 16 13 13 59a 41a 28a 43a 54a 57a 23 10 39a 13

16 13 3 7 41a 30a 13 36a 31a 31a 11 2 28a 8

47 37 19 23 29 28 37 29 20 48 59 38 28 20 19 13

42 42 24 22 15 19 24 23 16 42 51 32 19 13 17 13

ida), and ‘‘being able to catch enough to suit me’’ (44% Texas; 40% Florida). Four of 13 variables tested had a significant effect on anglers’ willingness to substitute other species for their most preferred species; however, results differed somewhat between states. In Florida, years of education had a positive effect and age had a negative effect on willingness to substitute (Table 4). In Texas, age and importance placed on

trophy seeking experiences had a negative effect on willingness to substitute, and females were more likely than males to report acceptable substitutes for their most preferred species (Table 5). Discussion A strong majority of anglers in Texas and Florida were willing to substitute other similar types of fishing for their most preferred type, indicating

TABLE 2.—Percent of Texas anglers who would substitute other species for the one they most prefer to catch (Sub) and percent who fished for each potential substitute during the previous 12 months (Fish). The standard error for each estimate is less than 5 percentage points, except where otherwise indicated. Preferred species (sample size)

Substitute species Red drum Spotted seatrout Amberjack, other jacks Shark Billfish Tarpon, ladyfish, bonefish Snook Sheepshead Other drum Mackerel, dolphinfish, cobia Snapper or grouper Flounder Pompano, permit Triggerfish Other seatrout Other species a b

5 , SE , 7. 7 , SE , 10.

Flounder (122)

Red drum (281)

Snapper (37)

Spotted seatrout (284)

Other (101)

Sub (%) Fish (%)

Sub (%) Fish (%)

Sub (%) Fish (%)

Sub (%) Fish (%)

Sub (%) Fish (%)

77 63 20 15 15 16 12 32 41a 25 46a

66 52 3 2 0 0 1 14 28 10 19

15 3 58a 11

3 0 34 2

78 19 21 15 14 10 28 49 21 33 75 10 5 53 10

64 8 11 2 3 0 17 38 12 16 57 1 1 34 6

73b 66b 38b 25b 25b 20a 9 12a 32b 50b 36b 75b 20a 13a 54b 11

61 46 23 9 2 0 0 16 28 39 47 47 5 5 34 4

90

79

12 19 8 13 9 18 45 23 31 83 8 3 53 7

5 12 2 3 0 12 31 10 16 62 0 1 42 4

65 41 26 33 33 27 13 25 41 41 46 56 12 11 46 17

63 37 19 22 12 3 1 14 37 34 34 36 4 7 27 12

542

SUTTON AND DITTON

TABLE 3.—Importance placed by Texas (TX) and Florida (FL) anglers on factors influencing substitution of other types of fishing for the most preferred type of saltwater fishing, where importance categories are 1 5 not at all important, 2 5 slightly important, 3 5 important, 4 5 very important, 5 5 extremely important. The number of responses by question and state (N) are in parentheses. Percent by importance category Factor

State and (N)

1

2

3

4

5

FL (436) TX (782) FL (438) TX (795) FL (438) TX (801) FL (440) TX (792) FL (437) TX (793) FL (435) TX (795) FL (439) TX (794) FL (436) TX (793) FL (434) TX (795) FL (436) TX (797) FL (437) TX (792)

16 21 13 13 7 8 11 10 34 31 7 5 17 16 26 22 12 9 9 5 16 12

20 23 20 19 12 12 15 20 26 24 9 8 23 28 24 24 14 12 14 12 23 20

41 37 41 34 41 33 43 33 27 26 37 31 38 28 24 27 29 27 39 34 36 30

15 13 18 25 28 33 24 28 11 14 30 36 13 20 14 13 26 26 25 32 17 23

8 6 8 9 12 14 7 9 2 5 17 20 9 8 12 14 19 26 13 17 8 15

Amount of fishing pressure on the substitute speciesa Being able to use the same fishing methods/techniques Being able to fish in the same or similar settings The challenge of catching the substitute species Knowing other people who fish for the substitute species Having access to that type of fishinga Being able to catch enough to suit me Strictness of bag and possession limits The substitute species being good to eata Having the right kind of fishing tacklea The expense of fishing for the substitute speciesa a

Indicates a significant difference in distribution of responses between states (P , 0.004 for all).

TABLE 4.—Results of the logistic regression analysis to test for significant effects on whether other fish species can substitute for the saltwater species most preferred by Florida anglers. Only significant variables have been included in the final model. Nonsignificant variables excluded from the final model include household income (df 5 1, x2 5 1.81, P 5 0.18), importance of fishing as an outdoor activity (df 5 1, x2 5 0.08, P 5 0.78), self-perceived skill level (df 5 1, x2 5 0.94, P 5 0.33), replacement value of fishing equipment (df 5 1, x2 5 0.50, P 5 0.48), days of saltwater fishing in last 12 months (df 5 1, x2 5 0.47, P 5 0.49), overall satisfaction with recreational fishing (df 5 1, x2 5 0.08, P 5 0.77), most preferred saltwater species (df 5 7, x2 5 3.2, P 5 0.87), challenge-seeking experience preference (df 5 1, x2 5 0.01, P 5 0.90), relaxation-seeking experience preference (df 5 1, x2 5 1.4, P 5 0.23), trophy-seeking experience preference, (df 5 1, x2 5 0.85, P 5 0.35), and gender (df 5 1, x2 5 0.44, P 5 0.51). Model x2 5 15.7, P 5 0.0004, concordance 5 64.5%; N 5 393 (no substitute species 5 66, substitute species 5 327). Parameter

df

Estimate

SE

x2

P

Intercept Age Education

1 1 1

1.27 20.04 0.14

0.96 0.01 0.06

1.75 9.23 6.00

0.19 0.002 0.01

that substitutability is a viable means for anglers to negotiate constraints on their fishing activity. This suggests that the potential for target-switching behavior among saltwater anglers in Texas and Florida is high. Consequently, constraints such as new regulations, stock collapse, etc., that inhibit fishing for one species can result in increased fishing pressure on certain other species. Study results provide managers with some deductive understanding of species substitutability and its rationale that will allow them to anticipate what species might be targeted as replacements for others and the extent to which effort shifts might occur. Results also point to the need for a more holistic approach to recreational fisheries management, one that considers interrelationships among biological and sociological variables (Busch et al. 2003). In the case of multispecies saltwater fisheries in Texas and Florida, failure to understand the relationship between the targeting behavior of anglers and biological or managerial constraints imposed on fishing activity could jeopardize single-species management strategies if the distribution of fishing effort across species changes unexpectedly. Shelby and Vaske (1991) discussed two particular types of substitution decisions that are rele-

543


TABLE 5.—Results of the logistic regression analysis to test for significant effects on whether other fish species can substitute for the saltwater species most preferred by Texas anglers. Only significant variables have been included in the final model. Nonsignificant variables excluded from the final model include household income (df 5 1, x2 5 0.32, P 5 0.57), importance of fishing as an outdoor activity (df 5 1, x2 5 0.72, P 5 0.39), self-perceived skill level (df 5 1, x2 5 0.27, P 5 0.60), replacement value of fishing equipment (df 5 1, x2 5 1.8, P 5 0.18), days of saltwater fishing in last 12 months (df 5 1, x2 5 0.42, P 5 0.52), overall satisfaction with recreational fishing (df 5 1, x2 5 0.91, P 5 0.34), most preferred saltwater species (df 5 6, x2 5 5.3, P 5 0.50), challenge-seeking experience preference (df 5 1, x2 5 0.22, P 5 0.63), relaxation-seeking experience preference (df 5 1, x2 5 0.81, P 5 0.37), and years of education (df 5 1, x2 5 1.8, P 5 0.18). Model x2 5 45.9, P , 0.0001, concordance 5 69.3%; N 5 705 (no substitute species 5 99, substitute species 5 606). Parameter Intercept Age Gender (/ versus ?) Trophy-seeking experience preference

df

Estimate

SE

x2

P

1 1 1 1

5.43 20.05 20.57 20.15

0.60 0.01 0.23 0.04

81.9 27.3 6.2 14.7

,0.001 ,0.001 0.013 0.001

vant to understanding the substitution decision we investigated: (1) resource substitution (i.e., the same activity is undertaken at a different location), and (2) strategic substitution (i.e., a different means is found to access the same activity at the same location). Previous studies have found resource substitution to be a viable means for anglers to negotiate constraints on their fishing activity. For example, salmon anglers in New Zealand were willing to substitute selected alternative rivers for their most preferred river but were unwilling to substitute lakes or other species (Shelby and Vaske 1991), and 95% of Metolius River (Oregon) fly anglers indicated they would substitute different locations for fly fishing (Manfredo and Anderson 1987). In multispecies marine fisheries, anglers may have resource substitution options that do not require a shift in their fishing location, as demonstrated in our study showing a willingness by anglers to substitute certain species (i.e., fishery resources) to obtain acceptably equivalent outcomes at the same location. Thus, it would appear that willingness to substitute among species permits a type of strategic substitution whereby the strategy is to substitute one resource (species) for another. If these observations are verified elsewhere, this variant of resource–strategic substitution needs to be incorporated into the substitution typology described by Shelby and Vaske (1991). Variables Affecting Willingness to Substitute Three (age, education level, and gender) of the four variables found to influence willingness to substitute species were demographic in nature. We expected that demographic variables would influence willingness to substitute because previous re-

search has shown that both leisure constraints and substitution behavior vary across demographic categories (Godbey 1985; Searle and Jackson 1985; Jackson 1988; Shaw 1994). Individuals who are more constrained in leisure are expected to be more easily displaced (and therefore more willing to make a substitution decision) when they are unable to negotiate their constraints to participation or unable to achieve the desired benefits from their participation (Fedler and Ditton 2001). Level of household income was the only demographic variable tested that did not affect willingness to substitute; however, this was expected because our substitution question specified that the cost of fishing for the substitute species should be the same as the cost of fishing for the original. Normally, we would not expect human dimensions variables to vary by state or political boundaries, but in this case there were differences between Florida and Texas anglers in the variables that influenced willingness to substitute. There are a number of differences between the fisheries in Florida and Texas that may account for this. First, species preferences in Florida appear to be more diverse than in Texas (six species were cited regularly by Florida anglers as their most preferred compared with four species in Texas). Second, because Florida has nearly three times as many saltwater anglers as Texas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census 2002), there is probably much more fishing pressure on each species. Consequently, Florida anglers have a greater need to be flexible in terms of types of fishing pursued and a wider range of acceptable substitute species to choose from. Regardless of the reason for the difference between these states, this result is important because it indicates that

544

SUTTON AND DITTON

factors that drive willingness to substitute and associated target-switching behavior can vary across angler populations and fisheries. As expected, the only activity-general experience-preference variable tested (relaxation seeking) did not play a role in substitution decisionmaking. Likewise, challenge seeking was not a predictor of willingness to substitute (probably because challenge seeking can be found in all types of fishing). Anglers do not make a substitution decision for generic reasons but rather for activityspecific reasons such as the trophy seeking experience preference. Texas anglers interested in catching a trophy fish were less likely to be willing to make a substitution decision to fish for another type of fish where their knowledge and experience might be limited. Several indicators of angler commitment and specialization level (importance of fishing vis-a` vis other outdoor recreation activities, self-perceived skill level, investment in fishing equipment, and frequency of fishing over the previous 12 months; Ditton et al. 1992) were notably not significant predictors of willingness to substitute another type of fishing. This indicates that willingness to substitute other types of fishing is not a behavior unique to the small group of most committed anglers but rather is generic to the vast cross section of anglers, regardless of their particular species preference, making this matter potentially even more problematic for fishery managers trying to manage for substitution behavior. Future Research In our research, substitutability was assessed by direct questioning of anglers regarding their perceptions of similar types of fishing and the criteria they use to define other activities as similar (Vaske et al. 1983). However, answers to such direct questions may not always yield quality substitutes because other variables may intervene between the intended hypothetical choices of anglers and their actual substitution behavior (Manfredo and Anderson 1987; Brunson and Shelby 1993). Future research should locate individuals who have actually substituted another type of fishing for their most preferred type and probe whether they are actually enjoying ‘‘acceptably equivalent outcomes’’ (Brunson and Shelby 1993). In addition to substituting one type of fishing for another when constrained, anglers also have the option of making activity substitutions (a new activity is pursued in the original setting), resource substitutions (substitution of one saltwater fishing

location along the coast for another), temporal substitutions (fishing in the same setting but at a different time), and resource–activity substitutions (a different recreation activity besides fishing is pursued in a different setting; Shelby and Vaske 1991). Some of these substitution behaviors could have serious management consequences. For example, if anglers are constrained from fishing at their preferred location, they may make a resource substitution and fish at a different location. Because all fishing locations are not seen as equivalent by anglers (Shelby and Vaske 1991), this could result in increased fishing pressure or crowding at some other locations. On the other hand, if equivalent alternative locations are not available or viewed as acceptable, anglers may be willing to substitute another recreational activity for fishing, which could result in a reduced angler clientele base, reduced fishing license sales, and reduced financial support for management. To better understand the importance of each substitution alternative (Shelby and Vaske 1991) and the tradeoffs anglers are willing to make when constrained, future substitution research should make use of stated preference choice modeling techniques (Louviere 1988). Using hypothetical scenarios, choice models for management regulations have been used to understand the complexity of individuals’ preferences (Aas et al. 2000; Gillis and Ditton 2002) and, thus, should prove useful for understanding all of the various options of substitution choice behavior and in an integrated fashion. Substitution research began in the 1970s out of concern that a rapidly increasing demand for outdoor recreation would soon exceed the supply of available resources, forcing people to consider substitute activities. This has come to pass in fishery management, particularly in multiple-use marine fisheries where many species are now overfished and total allowable catch is heavily regulated. As anglers encounter increasing constraints on their fishing activity, managers will need a better understanding of anglers’ behavioral responses and their implications for fisheries management. Acknowledgments We thank Joe O’Hop of the Florida Department of Natural Resources and Robin Riechers of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department for providing the angler samples. We thank D. J. Clark for his diligence in completing the mail survey and Steve Holland for his assistance with survey logistics in Florida. We also thank the Associate Editor and


three anonymous reviewers for their extremely helpful comments. This research was supported by a grant (NA47FF0015) from the Marine Fisheries Initiative administered by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Fisheries, Southeast Region; additional funding support was provided by the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. References Aas, O., W. Haider, and L. Hunt. 2000. Angler responses to harvest regulations in Engerdal, Norway: a conjoint based choice modeling approach. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 20:940–950. Agresti, A. 1996. An introduction to categorical data analysis. Wiley, New York. Brown, T. L., D. J. Decker, and N. A. Connelly. 1989. Response to mail surveys on resource-based recreation topics: a behavioral model and an empirical analysis. Leisure Sciences 11:99–110. Brunson, M. W., and B. Shelby. 1993. Recreation substitutability: a research agenda. Leisure Sciences 15: 67–74. Busch, W. D. N., B. L. Brown, and G. F. Mayer, editors. 2003. Strategic guidance for implementing an ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management. NOAA Fisheries, Silver Spring, Maryland. Available: http:// www. vcu. edu / mafac / MAFACp Strtgcp Gdnce. pdf. (February 2004). Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and recreational specialization: the case of trout fishermen. Journal of Leisure Research 9:174–187. Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. Wiley, New York. Ditton, R. B., and S. G. Sutton. 2004. Substitutability in recreational fishing. Human Dimensions of Wildlife 9:87–102. Ditton, R. B., D. K. Loomis, and S. Choi. 1992. Recreation specialization: re-conceptualization from a social worlds perspective. Journal of Leisure Research 24:33–51. Driver, B. L., and R. W. Cooksey. 1977. Preferred psychological outcomes of recreational fishing. Pages 27–40 in R. A. Barhnart and T. D. Roelofs, editors. Catch-and-release fishing as a management tool: a national sportfishing symposium proceedings. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. Driver, B. L., and R. Knopf. 1976. Temporary escape: one product of sport fishery management. Fisheries 1(2):21–29. Fedler, A. J., and R. B. Ditton. 1994. Understanding angler motivations in fisheries management. Fisheries 19(4):6–13. Fedler, A. J., and R. B. Ditton. 2001. Dropping out and dropping in a study of factors for changing recreational fishing participation. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 21:283–292. Filion, F. L. 1980. Human surveys in wildlife management. Pages 441–453 in S. D. Schemnitz, editor. Wildlife management techniques manual, 4th edition. The Wildlife Society, Washington, D.C.

545

Fisher, M. R. 1996. Estimating the effect of nonresponse bias in angler surveys. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:118–126. Fisher, M. R. 1997. Segmentation of the angler population by catch preference, participation, and experience: a management-oriented application of recreation specialization. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:1–10. Fisher, M. R., and R. B. Ditton. 1994. A social and economic characterization of the U.S. Gulf of Mexico recreational shark fishery. Marine Fisheries Review 55(3):21–27. Gillis, K. S., and R. B. Ditton. 2002. A conjoint analysis of U.S. Atlantic billfish fishery management alternatives. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:1218–1228. Godbey, G. 1985. Nonuse of public leisure services: a model. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration 3:1–12. Hendee, J. C., and R. J. Burdge. 1974. The substitutability concept: implications for recreation research and management. Journal of Leisure Research 6: 155–162. Hunt, K. M., and R. B. Ditton. 1996. Using survey research in fisheries management: The 1994 Texas statewide angler survey. Pages 236–244 in L. E. Miranda and D. R. DeVries, editors. Multidimensional approaches to reservoir fisheries management. American Fisheries Society, Symposium 16, Bethesda, Maryland. Iso-Ahola, S. E. 1980. The social psychology of leisure and recreation. William C. Brown, Dubuque, Iowa. Iso-Ahola, S. E. 1986. A theory of substitutability of leisure behavior. Leisure Sciences 8:367–389. Jackson, E. L. 1988. Leisure constraints: a survey of past research. Journal of Leisure Research 10:203– 215. Louviere, J. J. 1988. Analyzing individual decisionmaking: metric conjoint analysis. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, California. Manfredo, M. J., and D. Anderson. 1987. The influence of activity importance and similarity on perception of recreation substitutes. Leisure Sciences 9:77–86. Scheaffer, R. L., W. Mendenhall, and R. L. Ott. 1996. Elementary survey sampling, 5th edition. Duxbury Press, Belmont, Massachusetts. Scott, D., and C. S. Shafer. 2001. Recreational specialization: a critical look at the construct. Journal of Leisure Research 33:319–343. Searle, M. S., and E. L. Jackson. 1985. Socioeconomic variations in perceived barriers to recreation participation among would-be participants. Leisure Sciences 7:227–249. Shaw, S. M. 1994. Gender, leisure, and constraint: towards a framework for the analysis of women’s leisure. Journal of Leisure Research 26:8–22. Shelby, B., and J. J. Vaske. 1991. Resource and activity substitutes for recreational salmon fishing in New Zealand. Leisure Sciences 13:21–32. Siegel, S., and N. J. Castellan. 1988. Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edition. McGraw Hill, New York.

546

SUTTON AND DITTON

Snow, R. 1980. A structural analysis of recreation activity substitution. Doctoral dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1998. 1996 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation: Texas. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2002. 2001 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation.

U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Vaske, J. J., and M. P. Donnelly. 1982. Predicting attractive resource choices. Pages 85–88 in Forest and river recreation: research update. University of Minnesota Agricultural Station, Miscellaneous Publication 18, St. Paul. Vaske, J. J., M. P. Donnelly, and D. L. Tweed. 1983. Recreationist-defined versus researcher-defined similarity judgments in substitutability research. Journal of Leisure Research 15:251–262.