Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Predicting development preferences for fishing sites among diverse anglers

  • Published:
Urban Ecosystems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

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

References

  • Allen SM, Hawkins AJ (1999) Maternal gatekeeping: Mothers' beliefs and behaviors that inhibit greater father involvement in family work. J Marriage Fam 61:199–212

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus R (2006) Overcoming human obstacles to conservation of recreational fishery resources, with emphasis on Central Europe. Environ Conserv 33:46–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus R, Mehner T, Cow IG (2002) Reconciling traditional inland fisheries management and sustainability in industrialized countries, with emphasis on Europe. Fish Fish 3:261–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arlinghaus R, Tillner R, Bork M (2015) Explaining participation rates in recreational fishing across industrialised countries. Fish Manag Ecol 22:45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 23:177–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Bengston DN, Schermann M, Moua M, Lee TT (2008) Listening to neglected voices: Hmong and public lands in Minnesota and Wisconsin. Soc Nat Resour 21:876–890

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bergstrom JC, Cordell HK, Ashley GA, Watson AE (1990) Economic impacts of recreational spending on rural areas: a case study. Econ Dev Q 4:29–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blahna DJ (1992) Comparing the preferences of black, Asian, Hispanic, and white fishermen at Moraine Hills State Park, Illinois In Symposium on Social Aspects 42

  • 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 90:2680–2689

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buijs AE, Elands BH, Langers F (2009) No wilderness for immigrants: cultural differences in images of nature and landscape preferences. Landsc Urban Plan 91:113–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 19:427

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Byrnes JP, Miller DC, Schafer WD (1999) Gender differences in risk taking: a meta-analysis. Psychol Bull 125:367–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell MB (1989) Fishing lore: the construction of the “sportsman”. Ann Tour Res 16:76–88

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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, 2088

  • Dearden P (1984) Factors influencing landscape preferences: an empirical investigation. Landscape Plan 11:293–306

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dillman DA, Smyth JD, Christian LM (2014) Internet, phone, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: the tailored design method. John Wiley & Sons

  • 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 Station

  • Ditton RB, Loomis DK, Choi S (1992) Recreation specialization: re-conceptualization from a social worlds perspective. J Leis Res 24:33–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dustin D, McAvoy L, Rankin JS (1991) Land ethics in a culturally diverse society. Trends 28:25–27

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmendorf WF, Willits FK, Sasidharan V (2005) Urban park and forest participation and landscape preference: a review of the relevant literature. J Arboric 31:311–316

    Google Scholar 

  • Fedler AJ, Ditton RB (1994) Understanding angler motivations in fisheries management. Fisheries 19:6–13

  • 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 80–124

  • Floyd M (1999) Race, ethnicity and use of the National Park System. Social Science Research Review 1:1–24

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 61:1135–1150

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton DC, Manfredo MJ, Lipscomb J (1996) Wildlife value orientations: a conceptual and measurement approach. Hum Dimens Wildl 1:24–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gobster PH (2002) Managing urban parks for a racially and ethnically diverse clientele. Leis Sci 24:143–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen HP, Peterson MN, Jensen C (2012) Demographic transition among hunters: a temporal analysis of hunter recruitment dedication and motives in Denmark. Wildl Res 39:446–451

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 106:118–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howley P, Donoghue CO, Hynes S (2012) Exploring public preferences for traditional farming landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 104:66–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt LM (2005) Recreational fishing site choice models: insights and future opportunities. Hum Dimens Wildl 10:153–172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt KM, Ditton RB (1997) The social context of site selection for freshwater fishing. N Am J Fish Manag 17:331–338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt KM, Ditton RB (2002) Freshwater fishing participation patterns of racial and ethnic groups in Texas. N Am J Fish Manag 22:52–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt KM, Floyd MF, Ditton RB (2007) African-American and Anglo anglers' attitudes toward the catch-related aspects of fishing. Hum Dimens Wildl 12:227–239

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. Paul

  • Hutt CP, Neal JW (2010) Arkansas urban resident fishing site preferences, catch related attitudes, and satisfaction. Hum Dimens Wildl 15:90–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson CY, Bowker JM, Cordell HK (2001) Outdoor recreation constraints: an examination of race, gender, and Rural Dwelling. South Rural Sociol 17:111–133

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalton G (1983) Compensating for missing survey data. Research Report Series, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI

  • Kaplan R (1985) The analysis of perception via preference: a strategy for studying how the environment is experienced. Landscape Plan 12:161–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan R, Talbot JF (1988) Ethnicity and preference for natural settings: a review and recent findings. Landsc Urban Plan 15:107–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 43:147–181

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kuehn D, Luzadis V, Brincka M (2013) An analysis of the factors influencing fishing participation by resident anglers. Hum Dimens Wildl 18:322–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 48:245–263

    Google Scholar 

  • Manning RE, Krymkowski DH (2014) Standards of quality for parks and protected areas. Int J Sociol 40:11–29

  • Peterson MN, Thurmond B, Mchale M, Rodriguez S, Bondell HD, Cook M (2012) Predicting native plant landscaping preferences in urban areas. Sustain Cities Soc 5:70–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.C

  • Radonski GC (1984) Opportunities for urban fishing. In: Allen J (ed) Urban fishing symposium proceedings. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, pp 1–8

  • 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 25–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Stodolska M, Shinew KJ, Floyd MF, Walker GJ (2013) Race, ethnicity, and leisure: perspectives on research, theory, and practice. Human Kinetics, Champaign

    Google Scholar 

  • Toth JF, Brown RB (1997) Racial and gender meanings of why people participate in recreational fishing. Leis Sci 119:129–146

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

  • 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 Recreation

  • 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 Recreation

  • 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 Recreation

  • Van den Berg AE, Koole SL (2006) New wilderness in the Netherlands: an investigation of visual preferences for nature development landscapes. Landsc Urban Plan 78:362–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 18:141–157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaske JJ, Donnelly MP (1999) A value-attitude-behavior model predicting wildland preservation voting intentions. Soc Nat Resour 12:523–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Washburne RF (1978) Black under-participation in wildland recreation: Alternative explanations. Leis Sci 1:175–189

  • 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 100–113

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 39:126–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Biology Program, North Carolina State University, Campus Box 7646, Raleigh, NC, 27695, USA

    Rene X. Valdez, Michael D. Drake, Conner R. Burke, M. Nils Peterson & Andrew Howell

  2. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, VA, USA

    Rene X. Valdez

  3. Environmental Studies Program, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, USA

    Michael D. Drake

  4. Department of Biology, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA

    Christopher Serenari

Authors
  1. Rene X. Valdez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael D. Drake
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Conner R. Burke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. Nils Peterson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Christopher Serenari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Andrew Howell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Rene X. Valdez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Valdez, R.X., Drake, M.D., Burke, C.R. et al. Predicting development preferences for fishing sites among diverse anglers. Urban Ecosyst 22, 127–135 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0800-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0800-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation