Advertisement

Urban Ecosystems

, Volume 22, Issue 1, pp 127–135 | Cite as

Predicting development preferences for fishing sites among diverse anglers

  • Rene X. ValdezEmail author
  • Michael D. Drake
  • Conner R. Burke
  • M. Nils Peterson
  • Christopher Serenari
  • Andrew Howell
Article
  • 58 Downloads

Abstract

Shifting demographics among angling communities mean that managers may need different amenities at fishing sites to satisfy new constituents. Anglers approach recreational fishing from diverse demographic and cultural perspectives which influence the sites they access and utilize. Understanding linkages between landscape preferences at fishing sites and demographics in shaping those preferences can improve plans for providing better fishing experiences for diverse constituents. We began addressing this need with a survey of 811 resident anglers in North Carolina. Respondents were asked to state their preference for development at fishing locations, and choose between pictures of streams, rivers, and lakes with and without visible docks and walkways. We used logistic regression analysis to model preference for development in each of the four contexts, with demographics and fishing practices as independent variables. Anglers who stated a preference for developed fishing sites and chose pictures with docks and walkways tended to be non-White minorities, female, older than average, and fish more frequently. Consumptive anglers, however, preferred the less developed site. These results suggest that should the current angling population continue to age and diversify, more individuals will desire development of user amenities at fishing sites. Development of family oriented sites may successfully attract and maintain key groups of anglers and encourage intergenerational transfer of fishing as a cultural practice.

Keywords

Site preference Landscape design Recreational fishing Anglers Visual preference survey 

References

  1. Allen SM, Hawkins AJ (1999) Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers' beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. J Marriage Fam 61:199–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arlinghaus R (2006) Overcoming human obstacles to conservation of recreational fishery resources, with emphasis on Central Europe. Environ Conserv 33:46–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arlinghaus R, Mehner T, Cow IG (2002) Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish Fish 3:261–316CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arlinghaus R, Tillner R, Bork M (2015) Explaining participation rates in recreational fishing across industrialised countries. Fish Manag Ecol 22:45–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arlinghaus R, Cooke SJ, Sutton SG, Danylchuk AJ, Potts W, Freire KMF, Alós J, da Silva ET, Cowx IG, van Anrooy R (2016) Recommendations for the future of recreational fisheries to prepare the social-ecological system to cope with change. Fish Manag Ecol 23:177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Balsman DM, Shoup DE (2008) Opportunities for urban fishing: developing urban fishing programs to recruit and retain urban anglers. In: American fisheries society symposium, vol 67, pp 31–40Google Scholar
  7. Bengston DN, Schermann M, Moua M, Lee TT (2008) Listening to neglected voices: Hmong and public lands in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Soc Nat Resour 21:876–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bergstrom JC, Cordell HK, Ashley GA, Watson AE (1990) Economic impacts of recreational spending on rural areas: a case study. Econ Dev Q 4:29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blahna DJ (1992) Comparing the preferences of black, Asian, Hispanic, and white fishermen at Moraine Hills State Park, Illinois In Symposium on Social Aspects 42Google Scholar
  10. Buijs AE (2009) Public support for river restoration. A mixed-method study into local residents' support for and framing of river management and ecological restoration in the Dutch floodplains. J Environ Manag 90:2680–2689CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buijs AE, Elands BH, Langers F (2009) No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan 91:113–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burger J, Stephens WL, Boring CS Kuklinski M, Gibbons JW, Gochfeld M (1999) Factors in exposure assessment: ethnic and socioeconomic differences in fishing and consumption of fish caught along the Savannah River. Risk Anal 19:427PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD (1999) Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 125:367–383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Campbell MB (1989) Fishing lore: the construction of the “sportsman”. Ann Tour Res 16:76–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carolina Demography University of North Carolina (2014) 2013 County Population Estimates: Race & Ethnicity Retrieved from http://demography.cpc.unc.edu/2014/06/30/2013-county-population-estimates-race-ethnicity/. Accessed 15 Nov 2016
  16. Dann SL, Alvarado A, Palmer D, Schroeder B, Stephens M (2008) Angler participation, recruitment, and retention in Michigan, 1995–2004: using data-mining techniques for customer relationship management. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Research Report, 2088Google Scholar
  17. Dearden P (1984) Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation. Landscape Plan 11:293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  19. Ditton RB, Hunt KM (1996) Demographics, participation, attitudes, management preferences, and trip expenditures of Texas anglers. Human Dimensions Fisheries Research Laboratory Report # HD-605. Texas A&M University, College StationGoogle Scholar
  20. Ditton RB, Loomis DK, Choi S (1992) Recreation specialization: re-conceptualization from a social worlds perspective. J Leis Res 24:33–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dustin D, McAvoy L, Rankin JS (1991) Land ethics in a culturally diverse society. Trends 28:25–27Google Scholar
  22. Elmendorf WF, Willits FK, Sasidharan V (2005) Urban park and forest participation and landscape preference: a review of the relevant literature. J Arboric 31:311–316Google Scholar
  23. Fedler AJ, Ditton RB (1994) Understanding angler motivations in fisheries management. Fisheries 19:6–13Google Scholar
  24. Fedler AJ, Ditton RB, Duda M (1998) Factors influencing recreational fishing and boating participation. Strategic Plan for the National Outreach and Communication Program. Washington, DC, US Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service 80–124Google Scholar
  25. Floyd M (1999) Race, ethnicity and use of the National Park System. Social Science Research Review 1:1–24Google Scholar
  26. Franzini L, Caughy M, Spears W, Esquer MEF (2005) Neighborhood economic conditions, social processes, and self-rated health in low-income neighborhoods in Texas: a multilevel latent variables model. Soc Sci Med 61:1135–1150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum Dimens Wildl 1:24–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gobster PH (2002) Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leis Sci 24:143–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hansen HP, Peterson MN, Jensen C (2012) Demographic transition among hunters: a temporal analysis of hunter recruitment dedication and motives in Denmark. Wildl Res 39:446–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hayes MC, Peterson MN, Heinen-Kay JL, Langerhans RB (2015) Tourism-related drivers of support for protection of fisheries resources on Andros Island, the Bahamas. Ocean Coastal Manag 106:118–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Howley P, Donoghue CO, Hynes S (2012) Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 104:66–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hunt LM (2005) Recreational fishing site choice models: insights and future opportunities. Hum Dimens Wildl 10:153–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hunt KM, Ditton RB (1997) The social context of site selection for freshwater fishing. N Am J Fish Manag 17:331–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hunt KM, Ditton RB (2002) Freshwater fishing participation patterns of racial and ethnic groups in Texas. N Am J Fish Manag 22:52–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Hunt KM, Floyd MF, Ditton RB (2007) African-American and Anglo anglers' attitudes toward the catch-related aspects of fishing. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:227–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Hutchison R (1993) Hmong leisure and recreation activity. In: Gobster PJ (ed) Managing urban and high-use recreation settings. General Technical Report NC-163. USDA Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  37. Hutt CP, Neal JW (2010) Arkansas urban resident fishing site preferences, catch related attitudes, and satisfaction. Hum Dimens Wildl 15:90–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Johnson CY, Bowker JM, Cordell HK (2001) Outdoor recreation constraints: an examination of race, gender, and Rural Dwelling. South Rural Sociol 17:111–133Google Scholar
  39. Kalton G (1983) Compensating for missing survey data. Research Report Series, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIGoogle Scholar
  40. Kaplan R (1985) The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Plan 12:161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Kaplan R, Talbot JF (1988) Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: a review and recent findings. Landsc Urban Plan 15:107–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kearney AR, Bradley GA (2011) The effects of viewer attributes on preference for forest scenes: contributions of attitudes, knowledge, demographic factors, and stakeholder group membership. Environ Behav 43:147–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kuehn D, Luzadis V, Brincka M (2013) An analysis of the factors influencing fishing participation by resident anglers. Hum Dimens Wildl 18:322–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lee KJ, Scott D, Floyd MF, Edwards MB (2016) Social stratification in fishing participation in the United States: a multiple hierarchy stratification perspective. J Leis Res 48:245–263Google Scholar
  45. Manning RE, Krymkowski DH (2014) Standards of quality for parks and protected areas. Int J Sociol 40:11–29Google Scholar
  46. Peterson MN, Thurmond B, Mchale M, Rodriguez S, Bondell HD, Cook M (2012) Predicting native plant landscaping preferences in urban areas. Sustain Cities Soc 5:70–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pullis G (2000) Participation, and expenditure patterns of African-American, Hispanic, and women hunters and anglers. Addendum to the 1996 national survey of fishing, hunting, and wildlife-associated recreation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report 96–96 Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
  48. Radonski GC (1984) Opportunities for urban fishing. In: Allen J (ed) Urban fishing symposium proceedings. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  49. Sharp R, Wollscheid KU (2009) An overview of recreational hunting in North America, Europe and Australia. In: Dickson B, Hutton J, Adams WA (eds) Recreational hunting, conservation and rural livelihoods: science and practice. John Wiley & Sons, UK, pp 25–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Stodolska M, Shinew KJ, Floyd MF, Walker GJ (2013) Race, ethnicity, and leisure: perspectives on research, theory, and practice. Human Kinetics, ChampaignGoogle Scholar
  51. Toth JF, Brown RB (1997) Racial and gender meanings of why people participate in recreational fishing. Leis Sci 119:129–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. U.S. Census Bureau (2011) Census 2010 and 2000 interactive map, demographics, statistics, quick facts. North Carolina. Retrieved October 12, 2015, http://censusviewer.com/state/NC
  53. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau (2001) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated RecreationGoogle Scholar
  54. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau (2011) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated RecreationGoogle Scholar
  55. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau (2016) National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated RecreationGoogle Scholar
  56. Van den Berg AE, Koole SL (2006) New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 78:362–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Van den Berg AE, Vlek CA, Coeterier JF (1998) Group differences in the aesthetic evaluation of nature development plans: a multilevel approach. J Environ Psychol 18:141–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc Nat Resour 12:523–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Washburne RF (1978) Black under-participation in wildland recreation: Alternative explanations. Leis Sci 1:175–189Google Scholar
  60. West PC, Fly JM, Larkin F, Marans RW (1992) Minority anglers and toxic fish consumption evidence from a statewide survey of Michigan. In: Bryant B, Mohal P (eds) Race and the incidence of environmental hazards: a time for disclosure. Westview Press, Boulder, pp 100–113Google Scholar
  61. Xiao X, Perry E, Manning R, Krymkowski D, Valliere W, Reigner N (2017) Effects of transportation on racial/ethnic diversity of National Park Visitors. Leis Sci 39:126–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology ProgramNorth Carolina State UniversityRaleighUSA
  2. 2.Virginia Department of Game and Inland FisheriesRichmondUSA
  3. 3.Environmental Studies ProgramUniversity of Colorado BoulderBoulderUSA
  4. 4.Department of BiologyTexas State UniversitySan MarcosUSA

Personalised recommendations