Goal interference is a cause of perceived conflicts by outdoor recreationists. The goals sought by outdoor recreationists, such as anglers, can be conceptualized as expected utility following an economic research branch and... [ view full abstract ]
Goal interference is a cause of perceived conflicts by outdoor recreationists. The goals sought by outdoor recreationists, such as anglers, can be conceptualized as expected utility following an economic research branch and expected psychological benefits following a social-psychological research tradition. Goal interference can be expected when outdoor experiences affect and reduce desired utility components and constrain the meeting of expected benefits, which is defined as user (dis)satisfaction. Given its recreational nature, recreational fishing experiences involve both catch and non-catch related components, but the relative importance of both for utility and satisfaction is debated. We conduced meta-analyses of revealed and stated preference studies focusing on utility and correlational studies focusing on angler satisfaction. Regarding the utility studies, we reviewed economic-based studies published between 1992 and 2017 that examined anglers’ decisions about where to fish. From 92 unique data sets representing 109 studies and 186 distinct models of angler behaviours, seven key attributes affecting where anglers fish were identified including costs (such as travel costs or licence costs), catch-related fishing quality (in relation to harvest rate, catch rate, or size of captured fish), environmental quality (e.g., fish health, visibility, and aesthetics), facility quality (e.g., boat launch), harvest regulations, congestion, and the fishing destination size (e.g., hectares of lake or km of coastal shoreline). Of these attributes, cost was always negatively related to utility by anglers. Catch-related fishing quality, fishing destination size, facility quality, and environmental quality were also important attributes that positively impacted the perceived utility of anglers. Catch, however, was often more important than these other attributes when importance was measured by economic value for key groups of marine and recreational fish species. The importance of regulations and congestion to anglers varied across the studies and congestion was more important in stated (hypothetical behaviours) than revealed (reported behaviours) preference studies. To study the relevance of satisfaction-surrogates across a large range of contexts, a global meta-analysis on the determinants of angler satisfaction based on aggregated effect size metrics was conducted. Based on data derived from 17 independent studies, it was found that angler satisfaction was a function of both the catch and non-catch components of angling, forming a multi-dimensional experience. Two non-catch components – the possibility to express freedom in site choice and lack of crowding – positively contributed to satisfaction, followed by a range of catch aspects of the fishing experience related to catch rates, harvest rates and the size of fish. In addition, facility quality as well as social aspects and environmental quality contributed to angler satisfaction, but effect sizes were smaller than the above-mentioned components. Our reviews of published studies underscore that angling has both a non-catch and a catch component, but in contrast to motivation studies catch features strongly in both utility and satisfaction. Based on our finding, we predict increasing costs, constrained “freedom” of choice and alteration to expected harvests and catches are bound to lead to goal interference and create conflict with anglers.
Topics: Natural Resource and Conservation Stakeholders: Managing Expectations and Engageme
