Chapter 8

Substitution in recreational fishing

Brad Gentner and StePhen Sutton

Abstract

Fisheries managen need to measure participation rates and patterns to under-

stand how anglers will respond to management actions and to changes in the

recreational landscape. Understanding substitution in recreational fishing is an

important component of gauging anglers' behavioural fesponse to these changes'

Substitution has implications for licence sales if anglers switch to different

activities, stock impacts if anglers switch to different species and crowding if

anglers switch locations. In this chapter, current methodologies used by social

psychologists and economists to measure activity substitution, target-species sub-

rtit tion and site substitution are discussed. Each disciplinary approach reviews

several studies that directly or indirectly examined angler substitution giving the

reader the background necessary for more in-depth examination of substitution.

Finally, both disciplinary approaches are compared and contrasted with an eye

towards integrating substitution research across the two disciplines.

Introduction

Recreational fisheries managers and service providers need information on the

factors that influence recreational fishing participation rates and patterns (Aas

et a\.2000; Criddle et at. 2003; Arlinghaus 2006). Without such information,

recreational fisheries managers cannot forecast how policy, environmental or

economic changes will impact anglers, fish stocks, other environmental factors

and the economy. More specifically, it is important for local management to

explore angler substitution decisions in the face of changes in the recreation

landscape including changing policies or changing environmental conditions.

In the face of a changing recreational landscape, an angler may substitute dif-

ferent species, different locations or different activities to maintain the same level

of benefits. For example, establishment of regulations that differentially affect

angler segments may force some anglers into location or activity substitution

decisions (Arlinghaus 2005). Such behavioural adaptations involving substitution

150

Substitution in recreational fishing 151

decisions can undermine management goals or negate the expected benefits ofrecreational fisheries management, especially if these adaptations are unknownor unanticipated (cox and walters 2002).If new fishing regulations for onespecies cause anglers to increase targeting of substitute qp..Lr, unanticipatedchanges in exploitation rates of the substitute species and changes in expindi_ture patterns can occur (Gentner 2004). Likewise, if anglers have substituteactivities that provide them with similar benefits to fishing, activity substitutiondecisions can result in reduced fishing licence sales, reduced rates of fishingparticipation, reduced fishing frequency and reduced levels of angler expendi_tures (Ditton and Sutton 2004). Finaily, changes in the cost of fishing, such asincreasing fuel prices, may cause anglers to substitute lower-cost activities, dis-rupting the economies of coastal communities. Collectively, these are salienttopics for fishing-related service providers, for communities that depend oneconomic activity generated by fishing activity, for fisheries managers wh.o areresponsible for ensuring sustainable exploitation of fisheries and for fisheriesadministrators whose budgets depend on the support of fishing licence revenues.

From an academic perspective, the concept of recreation substitution has beenused to understand how anglers make choices of activities, target species andfishing locations when_faced with changes in the recreation; landscape orchanges specifically with their preferred type of fishing activity. At one point oranother, most anglers experience changes that influence the benefits availablefrom various types offishing, or experience changes that influence their abilityto obtain the benefits they desire. In general, social-psychological and economictheories suggest that, when anglers experience trade-offs, "o^t uint, or changesin the quality of their experience, they will try to select alternatives that mostclosely resemble the original experience they were seeking, thereby enablingthem to maximize the benefits they obtain from participation. For example,when faced with reduced access, increased cost or reduced physical abiliity,anglers may respond by reducing their fishing participation and replacing fish-ing with another activity, such as hunting, that providei them with similar bene_fits. Likewise, when facing changes in fishing for a preferred species or at apreferred location, such as new regulations or declining fish stocks, anglers maychange their behaviour by targeting alternative species or fishing at alternativelocations that provide them with similar benefits (carpenter anj Brock 2004).Finally, substitution may occur if other conditions change such that the individ-ual is able to obtain a greater level of benefits by choosing to target other speciesor participate in activities other than fishine.

Substitution in recreational fishing has blen studied by both social psycholo-gists and economists with somewhat different conceptual development andmethods used within these two disciplines. unfortunately, economic and social-psychological research on substitutability in recreational fishing has been con-ducted largely independently with little cross-discipline integratioi. In ttris chapter,we review the current state of knowledge about substitutability in recreational

,Ii

i , ir . l

i

GEF€b

1s2 Global challenges in recreational fisheries

fishing from both a social-psychological and an economic perspective, and pro-vide some guidance for developing a more integrated approach to future substi-tutability research.

Social-psychological perspective

Social psychologists have studied fishing substitution as part of a larger interest insubstitution in outdoor recreation in general. Most of this research is based on theconceptual framework developed by Hendee and Burdge (1974), who originallydefined substitution as 'an interchangeability among activities in satisfying partic-ipants' motives, needs and preferences' (Shelby and vaske 1991). This definitionhas since been expanded further to refer to the interchangeability of recreationalexperiences 'such that acceptably equivalent outcomes' can be achieved byvarying the timing, means of access, setting, resource or activity (Brunson andShelby 1993). Thus, a replacement activity, setting, resource and so on must beperceived as satisfying one's needs and prbviding similar outcomes to the origi-nal if it is to be considered a substitute (Iso-Ahola 1986). A replacement thatdoes not provide the same benefits as the original is considered to be a comple-ment or an alternative, but not a substitute (Shelby and Vaske 1991).

Social psychologists arq primarily concerned with substitution decisions inresponse to constraints on recreation participation (i.e. factors that interfere withindividuals' ability or desire to participate or their ability to achieve the satisfac-tions or benefits they seek). Substitution decisions that allow anglers to obtainacceptably equivalent outcomes by modifying their behaviour are investigatedas one potential strategy for negotiating leisure constraints.

The multi-dimensional nature of substitutability is illustrated in Figure 8.1.The original typology presented by Shelby and vaske (1991) has been modifiedslightly to incorporate substitution between target species in recreational fisher-ies which Sutton and Ditton (2005) suggest is a 'type of strategic substitution

ResourceSame Different

Same Temporal orstrategic substitute

Resource substitute:-Site-Species

ActiviW substitute Resource andactivity substitute

Activity

Figure 8.1 A typology of substitution alternatives for recreational fishing (Source: Shelby andVaske 1991).

Different

Substitution in recreational fishing 153

whereby the strategy is to substitute one resource (species) for another,. varyingthe timing or means of access to undertake the same activity at the same locationresults in a temporal or strategic substitutg (upper left quadrant of Figure g.1).Participating in the same activity using a different resource (location or targetspecies) results in a resource substitution (upper right quadrant). The two lowerquadrants of Figure 8.1 encompass activity-related substitution decisions. partic-ipating in a different activity at the same location results in an activity substitute(lower left quadrant), whereas participating in a different activity at a differentlocation results in a resource-and-activity substitute (lower right quuOt*ty. Witlinrecreational fisheries, researchers have applied the Brunson and Shelby (1993)framework primarily to studying resource and activity-related substitutes forrecreational fishing.

Activity substitation

The extent to which anglers can replace fishing with another activity thatprovidesthem with the same benefits as fishing is the focus of activity substitutabilityresearch. Researchers have been interested in understanding the proportion ofanglers that have potential subsfitutes for fishing, the activitiei that are substitut-able and the personal and demographic characteristics of anglers that influencetheir willingness and ability to substitute other activities foi fishing. Whereasthese substitution choices would typically (but not necessarily) involve bothresource (i.e. location) and activity substitutes, the primary interest has been inunderstanding the activity-related dimension of these substitution decisions.

Substitution theory suggests that, for an activity to be substitutable for fishing,it must be perceived by the angler as providing the same benefits as fishing (Iso-Ahola 1986). Moreover, the perceived number and quality of available substi-tutes is thought to be inversely correlated with the psychological importanceanglers assign to the various attributes of the fishing experiencl (Manfredo andAnderson 1987). consequently, activities that appear to researchers and manag-ers as being similar to fishing may not necessarily be perceived as substitutes byanglers themselves (vaske et al. 1983).Vaske et al. (r9g3) suggest that directlyquestioning individuals about substitutes is the best way to identify the numberand types of substitutes available. However, Manfredo and Anderson (19g7)suggest that answers to direct questions may not always yield descriptions ofquality substitutes, and that more attention should be devoted to undeistandingthe importance of activity attributes in the substitution decision.

A number of studies have directly questioned anglers as to whether there are'any other outdoor recreation activities that would provide you with the same levelof satisfaction and enjoyment that you receive from fishing'. Ditton and Sutton(2004) reported that 5l%o of the saltwater anglers in Texas und ptotiAu respondedaffrrmatively to that question. Likewise, 60vo of theanglers in a state-wide angler

154 Global challenges in recreational fisheries

Table 8.1 Activities identified as acceptable substitutes for recreational fishing by anglers inTexas and Florida, USA, and Queensland, Australia.

Texas and Florida (USA) Queensland (Australia)

Activity % of Anglers Activity

Camping

Hiking

% of Anglers

Hunting

Golf

Camping

SCUBA

Boating

35,10

1 61 0

I

Sports (including golf (17%), rugby, cricket)

Surfing/waterskiing

Hunting/shooting

Boating

43

3231281 31 3

survey in Queensland, Australia, responded affirmatively to the same question.Common activities listed by the United States andAusftalia samples as acceptablesubstitutes for fishing included camping, hunting, golf and boating (Table 8.1).Additionally, Ditton and Sutton (2004) fourid that female anglers in Texas andFlorida were more likely than male anglers to identify non-challenge-orientedactivities such as swimming (I7%o),hiking (I0Vo) and gardening(S%o) as accept-able substitutes for fishing.

A number of faetors have been identified as important predictors of anglers'willingness or ability to substitute other activities for fishing. Not surprisingly,anglers who are more specialized or committed to fishing are less able to replacefishing with another activity without loss of satisfaction and benefits (Manfredo

and Anderson 1987; Sutton and Ditton 2005; Sutton 2006). For example,Sutton's (2006) survey of Queensland anglers found that only 35Vo of the anglerswho said fishing were their most important outdoor activity also reported tohaving other activities that provide them the same level of satisfaction andenjoyment as fishing. In comparison,80To of the anglers who rated fishing astheir third most important outdoor activity said that other activities could pro-vide them with the benefits they receive from fishing. Committed fishers haveinvested more time, energy and money into fishing and therefore have, to someextent, rejected other activities in favour of fishing. Consequently, it is not sur-prising that committed anglers are less able to replace fishing with anotheractivity because these anglers have become more dependent on fishing to meettheir leisure needs than their less-committed counterparts. As Ditton and Sutton(2004) suggest, further attention to the relationship between commitment andsubstitution has the potential to provide a great deal of information about howand why anglers make activity substitution decisions. Such information can alsobe helpful in solving conflicts between different angler segments because theresulting management measures might have greater impact on committed anglerswho benefit more from their fishing experience than less committed anglers(Arlinghaus 2005).

Substitution in recreational fishing 155

Demographic characteristics of anglers have also been found to influence theability to substitute other activities for fishing. For example, Ditton and Sutton(2004) found that anglers in Texas and Florida who were younger, more edu-cated or male were more willing to substitute other activities for fishing thanindividuals who were older, less educated, or female. Demographic variables arethought to affect substitutability by influencing the fishing constraints that leadto substitution decisions experience by individuals. Previous work with a rangeof leisure activities (including fishing [Sutton 2007]) has shown that demographicvariables such as age, education, income, and size and composition of house-holds are significantly related to the level and types of constraints experienced.Because constraints on leisure activities appear to be somewhat population-dependent, the effects of demographic variables on willingness to substitute willprobably vary across angler populations and sub-populations.

Activity substitutability is a viable way by which individuals negotiate con-straints on their participation in leisure activities. The few studies that have beenconducted on activity substitutability in recreational fishing suggest that a sub-stantial number of anglers may be able to replace fishing with another activitywithout much loss of satisfaction or benefit. The implications of these findingsforrecreational fisheries managers and service providers are clear: ifconstraintsinterfere with anglers' ability to get the benefits they desire from fishing, manypeople are likely to drop out of fishing in favour of other activities where theyperceive fewer constraints. Moreover, if new (i.e. less committed) anglers per-ceive constraints, these individuals may drop out of fishing and take up otheractivities before they have the opportunity to develop the attachment to fishingthat provides them with the motivation to negotiate constraints and continue theirparticipation. Collectively, these results point to a strong need for a better under-standing of constraints on fishing activity and other factors that might causeanglers to quit fishing in favour of other activities.

Species substitution

When anglers are faced with constraints that reduce the benefits or satisfactionsthey receive from fishing for their preferred species (e.g. new size or bag limits,reduced fish populations, reduced access), anglers may be able to alter theirbehaviour to obtain acceptably equivalent outcomes by targeting alternativespecies. In a study of shark anglers in the Gulf of Mexico (USA), Fisher andDitton (1994) found that 68Vo were able to identify acceptable substitutes forshark fishing. Likewise, in a more general study of saltwater anglers in Texasand Florida, 86Vo of anglers reported that there was another species that couldbe substituted for their preferred species (Sutton and Ditton 2005).

In both studies described above, species identified as acceptable substitutes were'similar

in terms of the challenge and setting characteristics of the original species.

156 Global challenges in recreational fisheries

For example, shark anglers identified substitutes that involved frshing offshorefor other large challenging game species such as king mackerel (Scamberomorus

cavalla), and dolphin fish(Coryphaena spp.) (Fisher and Ditton 1994); likewise,most inshore anglers were able to substitute among similar inshore species likered drum (Sciaenops ocellatus) and spotted seatrout (Cynoscion nebulosus).lnboth studies, fishing for species that did not have similar challenge and settingcharacteristics was generally not seen as an acceptable substitute; shark anglerswere generally unwilling to substitute inshore species such as red drum andspotted seatrout for sharks (Fisher and Ditton 1994), and anglers who preferred

inshore species generally did not see offshore species as potential substitutes(Sutton and Ditton 2005). To further explore anglers' perceptions of substitutespecies, Sutton and Ditton (2005) asked anglers in Texas and Florida to rate theimportance of several factors in determining if another species was an acceptablesubstitute. Factors rated as most important were 'having access to that type offishing', 'the substitute species being good to eat', 'having the right kind of fish-ing tackle', and 'being able to fish in the same or similar settings'.

Although fishing for one species may appear to provide the same benefits andfishing experiences as another, anglers may not find it an acceptable substituteif they have developed a high level of emotional attachment to a particular spe-cies [e.g. highly specialized carp, Cyprinus carpio L., anglers in some CentralEuropean countries (see Arlinghaus in press)l or if other variables are perceivedas constraints. In particular, the cost of fishing for the substitute species must beconsidered. In Fisher and Ditton's (1994) study of shark fishers, fishing for someoffshore species such as billfish was not considered an acceptable substitute forshark fishing because of access and cost constraints associated with this type offishing. Likewise, in a study of salmon fishing in New Zealand, Shelby and Vaske(1991) found that no other species were acceptable substitutes for river salmonfishing. These results suggest that some fisheries may be unique, with few othertypes of fishing or fishing locations offering acceptable substitutes (Arlinghaus

in press), even when apparently similar fishing experiences are available.Results from the few studies that have investigated species substitutability

suggest that target-switching is indeed a viable means for many anglers to nego-tiate constraints on their prefened type of fishing, although the extent to whichtarget switching is likely to occur will probably vary across fisheries. Target-switching behaviour could have serious management implications in multi-speciesfisheries. An important finding of the Sutton and Ditton (2005) study was thatthe percentage of anglers who reported currently targeting potential substitutespecies was generally lower than the percentage who believed each species to bea substitute for their preferred species. This 'latent effort' for potential substitutespecies indicates potential for effort shifts between target species in response toconstraints that affect one type of fishing but not another. Such effort shiftscould affect management goals if these goals are set on a species-by-species orfishery-by-fishery-specific basis without consideration of the inter-relationshipsbetween biological and sociological variables (Sutton and Ditton 2005), or without

Substitution in recreational fishing 157

considering the potential regional movements shifts that might occur after regu-latory or other changes in fishing quality at a particular fishery (cox and walters240D.

Site sabstitution

site substitution is the replacement of one fishing site by another. whereas sitesubstitution has received considerable attention from an economic perspective(see the section on 'Economic Perspective' below) only a few studies haveinvestigated site substitution from a social-psychological perspective. Ditton et al.(1975) found that anglers on Great Bay were not likely to fish when they.visitedLake Michigan despite the close proximity of the two resources. In a study ofsalmon fishing in New zealand, Shelby and vaske (1991) found that few salmonanglers were willing to substitute other nearby salmon rivers for their preferredsalmon river. Reasons most commonly cited by anglers for not perceiving otherrivers as acceptable substitutes included the travel distance, costs assbciatedwith fishing there and perceptions of lower fish populations and poorer fishingconditions (Shelby and vaske 1991). These results suggesr that some anglersassociate fishing with certain resources, and consequently, they may not per-ceive other sites as substitutes for their preferred site ev. en though other sitesmay share apparently similar characteristics (Shelby and Vaske l99I).

conversely, when Manfredo and Anderson (19s7) asked Metolius River flyfishers what they would do if the river was no longer available for fly fishing,95Vo reported that they would continue to fly fish but at a different location (5vosaid they would choose a different activity). Moreover, two-thirds of respond-ents indicated that their chosen replacement was 'as good' or 'almost as good'as their Metolius opportunity (Manfredo and Anderson 1987), suggesting thatsite substitution can be an important option for anglers constrained from fishingat their preferred site, and that site substitution may be a more attractive optionthan activity substitution. Collectively, the results of the few studies examiningsubstitutability among fishing sites suggest that the attractiveness of site substi-tution options will depend on the psychological attachment to the original site,perceptions about the similarity of potential substitute sites and the range ofother substitution options (e.g. activity or species substitution options) available.However, considerable work remains in understanding the variables affectingthe willingness of anglers to substitute among sites.

Economic perspectiye

Economists have studied substitutability primarily as a by-product of obtainingbetter measures of demand and the net benefits, or welfare, obtained by individ-uals from participation in fishing (Mcconnell et al. 1994; Hicks er aI. 1999:

1s8 Global challenges in recreational fisheries

Gentner and Lowther 2002; Massey et a1.2006). The major assumption underly-ing the economic approach to studying substitution is that individuals makechoices that maximize utility or benefit; hence, the economic and sociallsy-chological approach rests on similar assumptions. However, methods employedto study substitution largely differ between the social-psychological and eco-nomic research tradition and, as will be shown later, economist focus on maxi-mizing utiligy and are less focused on looking at perfect substitutes. Within thecontext of leisure activity choices, an economist assumes that individuals maxi-mize their utility, or benefit, by choosing levels of consumption of all the goodsthat they consume, with angling being one good among many leisure activities.Likewise, within the narrower context of recreational fishing, it is assumed thatanglers will make choices of locations to fish or.species to target based on wherethey expect to receive the greatest utility. Substitution occurs when consumersmove away from the consumption of one good to another, and can be driven bya number of endogenous or exogenous factors.

From this theoretical perspective, fishing for one species versus fishing foranother versus participating in some other non-fishing activity are seen as sepa-rate goods with different attributes that can be evaluated in substitution deci-sions. For example, tightening a regulation for one species might reduce itsbenefit compared with fishing for some other species or compared with partici-pating in some other activity. whether the individual chooses to switch toanother species or changes activities altogether depends on which choice resultsin the greatest utility to the angler. consequently, whereas social psychologiststend to see a distinction between different types of substitution, like activitysubstitution versus species substitution, economists view all types of substitu-tion as more or less the same, at least from a theoretical and modelling stand-point. Economists measure the acceptability of substitutes by measuring the loss(or gain) in welfare resulting from the substitution decision. The acceptability ofvarious substitutes can also be estimated prior to any expected change in the rel-ative benefits of various choices by looking at the marginal rate of substitution(MRS). MRS defines the substitutability of activities or species by comparinghow many units of the substitute would be necessary to leave the angler ai wettoff after the loss of one unit of the preferred activity or species. This allows therelative ranking of the universe of all substitutes, not in terms of monetary units,but in terms of the relative acceptability of the substitute to the angler.

Economic tools

Economic theory broadly characterizes economic agents into producers andconsumers. The focus here is on consumers of recreational fishing and more gen-erally consumers of recreation. Consumers choose a bundle of goods to consnme,based on their preferences, to maximize their utility, or benefit, constrained by

Substitution in recreational fishing 159

Golfing trips

Figure 8,2 Indifference curves and the marginal rate of substitution between fishing and golfingtrips.

their income. The very heart of consumer theory is tracing consumer preferencesfor goods, not in monetary terms, but in terms of the relative substitutability ofall goods in the consumption bundle. Take, for instance, the two-good examplein Figure 8.2. To simplify this discussion it is assumed that there are only tworecreational activities, fishing and golfing, and there is only one species of fishavailable. In the figure, each indifference curve, labelled Ut, U'and U3, repre-sents all the possible combinations of fishing and golfing lhat produce the sameutility level to an individual angler in each curve; The slope of any of thesecurves at any point is the MRS which measures the substitutability of fishing forgolfing. In Figure 8.2, the point selected has a slope of 1.5, which means thisangler would rather have 1.5 fishing trips than one golfing trip. For a given pricefor fishing and a given price for golfing, a consumer will pick the combinationof fishing and golfing that maximizes their utility, given that the combinationdoes not exceed their budget. It is this budget constraint that determines the mixof fishing and golfing and it is the indifference curve that traces a consumer'spreference for each. As you change the price for fishing while holding the priceof golfing constant, the economist can trace out an individual's demand curvewhere each budget constraint intersects an indifference curve.

In Figure 8.3, we have the standard demand and supply curves for fishing. Thederivation ofthe supply curve will not be discussed here because it is not neces-sary for understanding substitution decisions. With only the demand and supplycurves, the total benefit to society of the current level of fishing activity can bedetermined by the size of the shaded triangle ABC in Figure 8.3. Economists callthis area many things including welfare, benefits or willingness to pay for fishing.For this discussion, the term welfare will be used. Many changes in the recrea-tional landscape can impact the shape and location of the demand curve for fish-ing. Increases in the price of fuel cause anglers to substitute away from fishing,because their budget constraint changes where it contacts the indifference curve.

o'-o,E.o[!

6

MRS = 6/4 = 1.5 fishingtrips for every golf trip

Global challenges in recreational fisheries

Supply

# of fishing trips

Figure 8.3 Demand, supply and welfare.

Regulations change consumer's preferences for. fishing, which, in turn, changethe shaire of the indifference curves. Increases in fishing participation from otheranglers may create crowding, which may lower the utility some consumersreceive from fishing. Other changes in the recreational landscape have similareffects. All of these changes induce substitution away from fishing and changethe shape or position of the demand curve. when the shape of the demand curvechanges or shifts inwards or outwards, the size of the triangle ABC changes.Take, for example, a policy that reduces harvest for the only fish available in thissimplistic example. This reduction reduces the relative attractiveness of fishingto golfing, causing the consumer to prefer more golfing and less fishing after thepolicy than before. This change in preferences shifts the demand curve inward,moving demand from D' to D" in Figure 8.4. Now the size of the welfare trian-gle has shrunk to AEF, thereby showing a loss in welfare. This welfare measure,while measuring the loss to society from the policy, also measures the accepta-bility, in monetary terms, of substituting fishing for golfing.

In practice, economists do not have the luxury of starting with individualconsumer preferences to construct indifference curves, income constraints andindividual demand curves. Instead, economists begin by observing transactions inthe market to construct demand curves. Substitution can be estimated from thesedemand curves using various techniques. Analysis of substitution, while possiblewith these models, has not been the focus. To add complexity, fishing frips are notgoods traded in the market, and so an economist cannot simply examine salesreceipts. As a result, economists use non-market valuation techniques to constructdemand curves and study angler preferences. Within the class of non-market valu-ation techniques there are two basic measurement tools - revealed preference (Rp)tools and stated preference (SP) tools. RP data are derived from observing choicesmade by consumers in the marketplace whereas the collection of SP data involvespresenting hypothetical market transactions to consumers using a survey.

lI

i ISubstitution in recreational fishing 161

# of fishing trips

Figure 8.4 A welfare loss from tightening a harvest restriction.

Site choice models have emerged as the model of choice when examiningdemand for recreational fishing trips. Hunt (2005) gives an overview of the his-tory and the current state of the art in site choice models, including a comprehen-sive bibliography. Typically, RP data consists of cross-sectional data collectedfrom anglers on site after the completion of a fishing trip. As a result, site choicemodels are rarely used to examine activity substitution or'species substitutionbut are suited for examining site substitution decisions (McConnell et aI. 1994;Hicks er al. 1999; Hunt 2005). To examine activity substitution or species sub-stitution using RP data, it would be necessary to collect data on all recreationalchoices made over a period of time - data that are not typically collected. Analternative to expensive and time-consuming panel data collections is the collec-tion of SP data.

One type of SP data well suited to the examination of substitution is the statedpreference choice experiment (SPCE). SPCE's present anglers with a series ofhypothetical trips that have been decomposed into a group of attributes describ-ing the fishing trip and asks anglers to pick their preferred trip. Variation in tripattributes is controlled though an experimental design that allows the impor-tance of the individual attributes to the overall trip choice to be estimated throughstatistical modelling. A good primer on SPCEs is the Louvrere et al. (2000)

book. SPCEs have the following advantages RP panel data. First, as the researchercontrols the variation in an SPCE, efforts can be focused on species of concern.With panel surveys, the researcher does not know a priori if there will be enough'variation in species targeted or regulations to be able to estimate substitution.I ack of variation in regulation is often cited as a problem when analyzing poli-cies with RP data (Gentner 2004; Hunt 2005). Panel surveys also place a largerecord-keeping burden on the participant, making it difficult and expensive torecruit panel members and keep those participants involved in a long-term and

r{so@

i.t

m6"=

o)

_o€=o)o

ooA)

o

o

6'aEo)ooo'0)

(rr

sd

6'

5'

o6@

0,

o

0)

=3.-

::))o

c)x'

='o)

:3

3AoN

U'

oo)

oo

oX

o

;+

d@

-{ao

6'

N

CD

m

(/)

d

A'

o

md=

ll)

(oo

o0to

o(n

o-t9loxo

=c

d

0)

o

m s z z o x n 6 )E = . r f ; e . F * 1 ? € a E Pf i H q * : H R f i - ; = F f f Em i € g $ i ; d g E

6 9 o r o q a* ' a g €

5 ' a€A r o ) r c D" . d $ f i !

. . r . r : l , l( o c t t @ N ) a

s s s s s

. ll 6

( t A @ol or l\)- ; 3 E s . 1 " ! o - , b . f

l o r N @ c r @ ( ' r A ( ' | { 5: . 1 $ j - ( o ! S r ( O r o ( O c ){ s o o N )A O I J A @

@ @ @ @ @

o ) ( ' r O ) O O )90 9 !o !o :.t( o o ) o o N )@ o ( o r o

L L * * L Lo ) N l ! A @ N{ a 1 9 ( ' r { N- \ i r r - o r - - - oO ( ' r ( O l u O - . 1' - l { { @ r . s

Substitution in recreational fishing 163

burdensome survey. Finally, panels require a longer time horizon than SPCEs,requiring much more forethought by managers when making and analyzingpolicies.

Activity substitution

While research on activity substitution is needed, to our knowledge, no work has

been done specifically looking at activity substitution. Historically, detailed dataon the recreational consumption bundle purchased is not collected with enoughspecificity over a long enough time series to estimate substitution acrosd differentactivities. Most SPCE surveys do allow the angler to choose not to take a trip, asseen in Oh et al. (2005), but what the angler would choose to do insteatl is notasked. Future SPCEs should include a follow-up question(s) to delve furtherinto this topic.

Species substitation

This section will focus on a study conducted in the south-eastern US in 2003and is an extension of a paper published by one of the present author (Gentner

2004). This effort focused on four species or species groups: groupers (Epinephe-

lus and Mycteropercd spp.), red snapper (Lutianus campechanus), king mack-erel, and dolphin fish. Table 8.2 displays the model output from a simulated twofish reduction in the red snapper bag limit, which is a 507o reduction from thecurrent bag limit. From Table 8.2, this reduction reduces red snapper effort by5.2%o.Where does this reduction in effort go? Intuitively, most anglers, particu-

larly those heavily invested in fishing, will not quit fishing but will switch toanother species in the face of tightening regulations. This model allows thissubstitution to be quantified. From this analysis,I.IVo of grouper trips wouldalso be lost, but king mackerel effort would rise by 1.87o and dolphin effort wouldnse 2.5Vo. After accounting for substitution, onTy t.9%o would quit fishing alto-gether. Interestingly, a reduction in the red snapper bag limit reduces grouper

trips, indicating that red snapper and grouper are complements. That is, redsnapper anglers also fish for grouper on the same trip and vice versa. Such arelationship between red snapper fishing and grouper fishing had been suspectedbut had not been quantified.

With these forecasted shifts in effort, fishery biologists can determine if thechange in red snapper bag limit will achieve the desire reduction in red snappermortality and if another stock might be imperiled because of substitution intoother fisheries. Also, through the forecasted effort shifts, it is possible to examineeconomic impacts more directly. These additional data allow for a more accurateestimate of economic impacts because, in this case, incorporating substitutionhas the effect of ameliorating estimated economic inpacts; about 30Vo of the

164 Global challenges in recreational fisheries

decreased expenditures for red snapper and grouper fishing are offset by increasedexpenditures for king mackerel and dolphin fishing. If desired, price elasticitiesof substitution could also be calculated across the different species to supportthe creation of multi-species bioeconomic or computable general equilibriummodels, with incorporation in to ecosystem models discussed below.

Site substitation

Site substitution is probably the most well-studied area of substitution in econom-ics; see Hunt (2005) for a list of papers using RP site choice modelling techniques.while not usually the focus of these papers, site substitution can be estimatedfrom their results. Aas et aI. (2000) examined site substitution under privateownership in the face of increased harvest regulations using an SPCE. Aas et aI.(2000) divide a hypothetical brown trout (Salmo trutta) and European grayling(Thymallus thymallus) river in Norway into three sections with varying regula-tion profiles: status quo with regard to regulations and two sections whose regu-lations are allowed to vary. Under the status quo, anglers face no gear restrictions,face a25-cm minimum size limit and face no bag limit. In the first example, inboth varying sections, one and two, average catch rates goes up by one fish,average size goes up by 10 cm and both have no gear restrictions. Section onehas an increased minimum size limit to 35 cm and a 5 frsh/day bag limit, whilesection two has the same minimum size as the status quo (25 cm) and only allowsthe retention of two fish per day. In this scenario, there is substitution away fromboth the status quo section (IT7oloss) and section two (l3%o loss) towards sectionone (increasing30Vo). Aas et al. (2000) found that, by segmenting anglers intofly-only anglers, general or mixed-gear anglers, and non-fly angler, the substitu-tion patterns differed, showing segmentation matters.

Caulkins et al. (1986) use a site choice RP model to examine substitution whenwater quality conditions change on a body of water. While this paper is prima-rily a comparison of two different RP methods, they show that a one unit increasein water quality at Shadow Lake in Wisconsin will increase effort at that lake byl2vo, showing that anglers will substitute towards higher water quality. whilenot explicitly discussed, carpenter and Brock (2004) incorporate substitution intheir ecosystem model of hypothetical lake region. This is a good example ofhow substitution plays a holistic role in the management of fish stocks and otherecosystem variables. Carpenter and Brock (2004) develop a stylized model thatpredicts effort shifts across the landscape based on stock abundance at differentlakes and based on travel distance to those lakes. They show that, when regula-tions are uniform at all lakes, anglers will fish down the stocks at lakes closestto home and then substitute to more distant lakes as catch quality declines. Thisis a growing area for research in substitution, as substitution is the key that linksthe human element of ecosystems to changes in those ecosystems.

Substitution in recreational fishing 165

Towards an integration of disciplines

It is clear from the preceding sections that there are disciplinary differences thathave hindered social psychologists and economists from working more closelytogether towards a comprehensive understanding of substitution in recreationalfishing. The primary difference seems to be that social psychologists and econo-mists define the concept of substitution somewhat differently. Social psycholo-gists define substitution in terms of the interchangeability of experiences thatprovide 'acceptably equivalent outcomes' in the face of constraints on an angler'spreferred fishing experience. Under this conceptualization of substitution, behav-iour shifts that do not result in 'acceptably equivalent outcomes' (as perceivedby the individual making the choice) are not considered substitution..Withinsubstitution research, social psychologists have largely ignored other choicesthat anglers might make in response to changing circumstances that result innon-equivalent outcomes. For example, in investigating species substitution, thesocial psychologist would ask anglers to identify other species that would providethem with the 'same satisfaction and enjoyment' as fishing for their preferfed spe-cies, and use the resulting data to make predictions about the potential for effortshifts in response to constraints on anglers' preferred fishing type (Sutton andDitton 2005). However, anglers could also respond to new constraints by choosingother species or activities that do not provide the same satisfaction and edoyment.These experiences would be considered to be compliments or alternatives, butnot substitutes (Shelby and Vaske 1991).

The economic perspective is broader: substitution is any behaviour change inresponse to changing circumstances under the assumption that anglers makechoices to maximize their utility or benefits obtained from participation in lei-sure activities. Thus, even if the behavioural shift results in substantially differ-ent outcomes obtaining the same or lower utility, it would still be consideredsubstitution if it is a utility maximizing choice. Such behavioural shifts would notbe accounted for under the 'traditional' social-psychological approach to study-ing substitution, which depends largely on identifying 'acceptably equivalentoutcomes'. Economists view substitutes on a continuum from non-substitutes toperfect substitutes and can estimate the extent to which choices along the con-tinuum provide a similar level of benefits as the original through the marginalrate of substitution and through examining changes in angler welfare. Moreover,economists focus more broadly on substitution resulting from any number ofexogenous or endogenous changes in the market for recreational activities.Economists measure the loss in satisfaction when moving from perfect substi-tutes to less-than-perfect substitutes in terms of the willingness to accept a lowerlevel ofutility from changes in the preferred activity. In the case study presentedearlier, the policy generates a loss of $L32.28 per trip (Table 8.2). That is, everyangler would feel a loss if the opportunity to catch and keep four red snapper wasno longer available. To an economist, this loss is a measure of the 'acceptability'

166 Global challenges in recreational fisheries

of the substitute to the angler, and is useful for making predictions aboutbehavioural shifts. However, economists view all behaviour through an angler'suqility function, and cognition cannot be captured as an argument in the utilityfunction.

On the other hand, social psychologist can focus on the angler's cognition orperceived constraints when making substitution decisions. Consequently, eco-nomic studies generally do not reveal whether anglers who experience suchwelfare losses would still perceive the experience as providing outcomes thatare 'acceptably equivalent' to the original. If anglers did perceive acceptablyequivalent outcomes, then such behavioural shifts would be considered substitu-tion by social psychologists as well. However, anglers who suffered a welfareloss and did not perceive the choice as providing acceptably equivalent outcomeswould not be considered by the social psychologist as having made a substitutiondecision even though this behavioural shift may be a valid way of responding tothe newly imposed regulation. The red snapper species substitution exampleindicates that anglers will compensate for changes in the red snapper bag limit bytargeting king mackerel or dolphin, and provides valuable quantitative estimatesof effort shifts across these species. Linking behavioural adaptations to likelybiological impacts is a major advantage of the economic approach when prop-erly coupled with a biological model of the species target. Carpenter and Brock(2004) take this approach one step further, linking location substitution with anecosystem model. However, these results cannot tell us why anglers choosethese substitutes, the extent to which these substitutes are perceived by anglersas being equivalent to the original or the extent to which species or locations notincluded in the models might also be substitutes. Social psychologists, however,can better explain the internal, more subtle predictors of substitution that are noteasily captured by a SP modelling approach. Hence, we view social-psycholog-ical and economic approaches as complementary, each fulfiIling a different rolefor the researcher and the manager.

If the social-psychological definition of substitution was adapted to includesubstitute activities, species or locations that offer a less than acceptably equiva-lent experience but ones the angler would undertake, the definitions of socialpsychologists and economists would merge into a common framework that onlydiffers in the way substitution is measured. Clearly, cognition and perceptionhave a place alongside quantifying behavioural shifts and associated economicand biologic impacts stemming from substitution. The SPCE outlined in thecase study above provides a vehicle for bridging the gap between the social-psychological and economic approaches to studying substitution and providesthe link to couple social and natural sciences. In addition, hypothetical choicemodels have also been used to understand angler choices of management regu-lations (Aas et al. 2000; Gillis and Ditton 2002; Oh et aI. 2005).Incorporatingcognitive and perceptual variables into the design and execution of economicchoice surveys would lead to a more integrated understanding of substitution

Substitution in recreational fishing 167

decision making, thereby developing a more comprehensive understanding ofspecies substitution versus activity substitution versus location substitution inresponse to changes in the- social, ecological and managerial landscape ofrecre-ational fishing.

Conclusions

This chapter has outlined the concepts of substitutability in recreational fisheriesas investigated and applied by fisheries social psychologists and economists.Results of the studies reviewed in the previous sections clearly show that substi-tution choices by recreational fishers have the potential to affect managementgoals, the benefits obtained by individuals from their participation in recrea-tional fishing and fishing participation rates and patterns. compared with otherrecreational fisheries management issues, substitution has received relativelylittle attention from researchers and managers. There is a clear need for moretheoretical and applied research into substitution decision making and the out-comes of substitution behaviour aimed at providing quality information in sup-port of recreational fisheries management. The separate approaches to studyingsubstitutability used by social psychologists and economists should be viewedas complimentary, with each discipline bringing imporrant conceptual andempirical elements to the table. By working together in a more integrated fash_ion, social psychologist and economist can improve the analysis of angler sub-stitution, across activities, sites and species.

References

Aas, o., Haider, w. and Hunt, L. (2000) Angler responses to harvest regulations inEngerdal, Norway: a conjoint based choice modelling approach. North AmericanJournal of Fisheries Management 20:940-950.

Arlinghaus, R. (2005) A conceptual framework to identify and understand conflicts inrecreational fisheries systems, with implications for sustainable manage ment. AquaticResources, Culture and Development l(2): 145-174.

Arlinghaus, R. (2006) Understanding recreational angling participation in Germany:preparing for demographic change. Human Dimensions of witdtife rl:229-240.

Arlinghaus, R. Voluntary catch-and-release can generate conflict within the recreationalangling community: a qualitative case study of specialised carp, Cyprinus carpio (L.),angling in Germany. Fisheries Management and Ecology (in press).

Brunson, M.W. and Shelby, B. (1993) Recreation substitutability: a research agenda.Leisure Sciences 15: 67--74.

carpenter, S.R. and Brock, w.A. (2004) spatial complexity, resilience and policy diver-sity: fishing on lake-rich landscapes. Ecology and society 9(r): g. Available online at:http ://www.ecologyandsociety. org/volg/iss 1 /art8/

168 Global challenges in recreational fisheries

Caulkins, P.P., Bishop, R.C. and Bouwes, N.W. Sr. (1986) The travel cost model for lakerecreation: a comparison of two methods for incorporating site quality and substitu-tion effects. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 68(2):291-297.

Criddle, K.R., Herrmann, M., Lee, T.S. and Hamel, C. (2003) Participation decisions,angler welfare, and the regional economic impact of sportfishing. Marine ResourceEconomics 18:.291-312.

Cox, S.P. and Walters, C.J. (2002) Maintaining quality in recreational fisheries: howsuccess breeds failure in the management of open-access fisheries. In: T.J. Pitcher andC. Hollingworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, Economic, and SocialEvaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 107-119.

Ditton, R.B. and Sutton, S.G. (2004) Substitutability in recreational fishing. HumanDimensions of Wildlifu 9 : 87 -L02.

Ditton, R.B., Goodale, P.K. and Johnsen, P.K. (19?5) A cluster analysis of activity, fre-quency,.and environment variables to identify water-based recreation type,s. Journalof Leisure Research 7 : 282-295.

Fisher, M.R. and Ditton, R.B. (1994) A social and economic characterization of the USGulf of Mexico recreational shark fishery. Marine Fisheries Review 55(3):2I-27 .

Gentner, B. (2004) Examining target species substitution in the face of changing recrea-tional fishing policies. In:. Proceedings of the Twelfth Biennial Conference of theInternational Institite of Fisheries Economics and Trade,2G-30 July 20A4, p. 12.Tokyo, Iapan: What are Responsible Fisheries? Compiled by Ann L. Shriver, Interna-tional Institute of Fisheries Economics and Trade. Corvallis, OR.

Gentner, B. and Lowther, A. (2002) Evaluating Marine Sport Fisheries in the USA. In:T.J. Pitcher and C.E. Hollingsworth (Eds) Recreational Fisheries: Ecological, andEconomic, and Social Evaluation. Blackwell Science, Oxford, pp. 186-206.

Gillis, K.S. and Ditton, R.B. (2002) A conjoint analysis of US Atlantic billfish fisherymanagement alternatives. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 22:r2r8-t228.

Hendee, J.C. and Burdge, R.J. (1974) The substitutability concept: implications forrecreation research and management. Journal of Leisure Research 6: 155-162.

Hicks, R., Steinback, S., Gautam, A. and Thunberg, E. (1999) Volume II: The EconomicValue of New England and Mid-Atlantic Sportfishing in 1994. NOAA Tech MemoNo. NMFS-F/SPO-38. Available online at: http://www.st.nmfs.gov/st1/econ/pubs.html (last accessed 2 November 2006) p.52.

Hunt, L.M. (2005) Recreational fishing site choice models: insights and future opportu-nities. Human Dimensions of Wildlife L0: 153-172.

Iso-Ahola, S.E. (1986)Atheory ofsubstitutability ofleisurebehavior. Leisure Sciences8: 367-389.

Louviere, J.J., Henshet D.A. and Swait, J.D. (2000) Stated Choice Methods: Analysisand Application. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 402.

Manfredo, M.J. andAnderson, D. (1987) The influence of activity importance and simi-larity on perception of recreation substitutes. Leisure S cienc e s 9: 7'7 -86.

Massey, M., Newbold, S. and Gentner, B. (2006) Valuing water quality changes using abioeconomic model of a coastal recreational fisherv. Journal of Erwironmental Eco-nomics and Management 52:482-5W.

in

Substitution in recreational fishing 169

McConnell, K.E., Strand, I.E. Jr., Valdes, S,K. and Weninger, Q.R. (199a) The EconomicValue of Mid and South Atlantic Sportfishing. Volume 2: Report on CooperativeAgreement #CR81 1043 01 0 between the University of Maryland, the EnvironmentalProtection Agency, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Oceanicand Atmospheric Administration, p. 134.

Oh, C., Ditton, R.B., Gentner, B. and Riechers, R. 2005. A stated discrete choiceapproach to understanding angler preferences for management options. HumanDimensions ofwildlift 10: 173-186.

Shelby, B. and Vaske, J.J. (1991) Resource and activity substitutes for recreationalsalmon fishing in New 7,ealand. lzisure Sciences 13:21-32.

Sutton, S.G. (2006) An Assessment of the Social Characteristics of Queensland's Recre-ational Fishers. CRC Reef Research Centre Technical Report No. 65. CRC ReefResearch Centre, Townsville, p. 150.

Sutton, S.G: (2007) Constraints on recreational fishing participation in Queensland,Australia. Fisheries 32:. 73-83.

Sutton, S.G. and Ditton, R.B. (2005) The substitutability of one type of fishing foranother. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25: 536-546.

Vaske, J.J., Donnelly, M.P. andTweed, D.L. (1983) Recreationistdefined versus researcherdefined similarity judgments in substitutability research. Journql of Leisure Research15:251-262.