Transcript (ppt, 159 KB)

Recreation Specialization and Gender: A
Comparison of Massachusetts Freshwater
Anglers
Laura E. Anderson
David K. Loomis
Human Dimensions Research Unit
Department of Natural Resources
Conservation
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Massachusetts 01003
18th Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium
April 10, 2006
Issue

Traditional fisheries management: male and resource oriented



Recent emphasis on using Human Dimensions research



Identify and understand stakeholders
Segment resource users into meaningful groups
Recreation Specialization


Focus on biological and economic goals
Expert-client approach (i.e., “clients”= men)
Segment users by skills, equipment, participation frequency
Women in recreational fishing


A minority in the activity, less studied than men
May experience the activity differently
Recreation Specialization

Defined using social worlds literature (Ditton et al., 1992) :


“a process by which recreation social worlds and subworlds
segment and intersect into new recreation subworlds, and the
subsequent ordered arrangement of these subworlds and their
members along a continuum”
Specialization Index Development (Salz et al., 2001)

Social Subworlds Literature (Unruh, 1979)
• orientation, experiences, relationships, and commitment
Recreation Specialization

Four propositions from Ditton et al. (1992) considered
here:

As specialization increases,
1) participation frequency will likely increase
2) acceptance and support for rules, norms and procedures will
likely increase
3) the value of side-bets will likely increase
4) importance of activity-specific elements will decrease relative
to non activity-specific elements
Gender

Males predominate in recreational fishing


Leisure quantity and quality (Mattingly and Bianchi, 2003)




Contaminated leisure
Interrupted leisure
Impact of children
Gender constraints





In U.S.: 74% male (DOI, 2001, p. 15)
Ethic of care (Jackson and Scott, 1999)
76 cent income gap (U.S. Census, 2005)
Social isolation and skill (Jackson and Henderson, 1995)
Social norms and expectations
Women may be less specialized in recreational fishing
Hypotheses

Specialization distribution:


Fishing frequency:


Ha1: Male anglers will be more highly specialized than female anglers
Ha2: High-specialization and male anglers will have a greater frequency of
participation than will low-specialization and female anglers
Management items:

Ha3: High-specialization and male anglers will have greater support for
various management tools and regulations than will low-specialization and
female anglers
Hypotheses

Side bet items:


Activity-specific elements:


Ha4: High-specialization and male anglers will have generated a greater
value of side-bets than will low-specialization and female anglers
Ha5: High-specialization and male anglers will attach less importance
to activity-specific elements of the fishing experience than will lowspecialization and female anglers
Non activity-specific elements:

Ha6: High-specialization and male anglers will attach more
importance to non activity-specific elements of the fishing experience
than will low-specialization and female anglers
Methods

Data Collection



1998 survey of 2,930 Massachusetts freshwater anglers
mail questionnaire using Salant and Dillman Total Design Method
Specialization Index (Salz et al., 2001)

four specialization levels
Response Rate





N
Initial sample……………………………….. 2,930
Mortality………..……………………………. 344
Effective sample………..………………….. 2,586
Nonresponse………..……………………… 1,175
Useable returned surveys………...…………. 1,411
%
--100.0
45.4
54.6

Sample
Methods
N
%
Useable returned surveys………...……………….. 1,411
Total females……….……………………………… 151
Total males………………………………………. 1,238
54.6
10.7
87.7
Selected females and males and
specialization level indicated
(level 2, 3, or 4)…………………………………… 281
Females………………................136
Males………………....................145
19.9
Data
Analysis
 Chi
square test for differences in specialization level distribution
between male and female anglers
 Two way ANOVA using “gender” and “specialization level” as
factors
 0.10 level of significance (Gregoire and Driver, 1987)
Hypotheses Testing: Ha1
Comparison of Male and Female Anglers
by Specialization Level
Percent of
Respondents
50
X2 = 0.020
40
30
Men
Women
20
10
0
Low
Medium
High
Specialization Level
Hypotheses Testing: Ha 2
Frequency of Participation
Level of specialization
Items
Low
Medium
High
F
27.20
33.62
26.87
50.75
2.333
23.476
Years fishing…….………………...21.92
Days fishing..……………………...15.07
p
0.099
0.000
Gender
Items
Men
Years fishing…….………………... 29.245
Days fishing..……………………... 36.450
Women
20.395
21.101
F
15.644
7.501
p
0.000
0.007
Hypotheses Testing: Ha3
Management Items
Level of specialization
Items
Low
Medium
High
F
p
Minimum size limit………………... 4.028
4.026 4.589 5.329
0.005
_______________________________________________________________
Maximum size……………………... 3.467
3.650 3.839 2.005
0.137
Creel limit………………………….. 4.143
4.198 4.500 1.860
0.158
Slot limit…………………………… 3.235
3.241 3.527 1.314
0.271
Stock native fish…………………… 4.243
4.302 4.455 1.481
0.229
Mandatory catch and release……… 3.124
3.284 3.429 0.813
0.445
Prohibit use of certain gear ……….. 3.621
3.573 3.786 0.589
0.556
No stocking allowed……………….. 3.724
3.629 3.821 0.470
0.625
Stock non-native fish……………… 2.933
3.017 3.109 0.537
0.585
Voluntary catch and release ………. 4.028
4.077 4.125 0.247
0.781
Restricted fishing area…………….. 3.394
3.422 3.304 0.151
0.860
Hypotheses Testing: Ha3
Management Items
Gender
Items
Men
Women
F
p
Restricted fishing area……………………3.135
3.628
9.308 0.003
___________________________________________________________
Mandatory catch and release …………... 3.358 3.142
1.408 0.236
Creel limit………………………………. 4.277 4.161
1.286 0.258
Prohibit use of certain gear…………….. 3.550 3.685
1.030 0.311
Stock non-native fish…………………… 3.048 2.938
0.010 0.920
Stock native fish………………………... 4.320 4.267
0.031 0.861
Minimum size limit…………………….. 4.176 4.100
0.116 0.734
Voluntary catch and release …………… 4.047 4.087
0.161 0.689
No stocking allowed……………………. 3.705 3.673
0.003 0.958
Maximum size………………………….. 3.604 3.624
0.053 0.818
Slot limit………………………………... 3.295 3.293
0.167 0.683
Hypotheses Testing: Ha 4
Side Bet Items
Level of specialization
Items
Low
Medium High
F
p
Replace reels……………….……...103.98
252.92 380.37
10.958 0.000
Replace rods ……………………...103.29
312.24 488.61
10.560 0.000
Replace tackle……………………..117.28
333.55 510.28
9.612 0.000
________________________________________________________________
Replace electronic equipment…….. 233.12 592.22 710.50
1.310 0.276
Gender
Items
Men
Replace reels……………….……… 251.03
Replace tackle………………………307.93
Replace rods ……………………….272.79
Replace electronic equipment………567.95
Women
181.28
255.66
257.42
490.95
F
2.423
0.379
0.089
0.000
p
0.121
0.538
0.766
0.992
Hypotheses Testing: Ha5
Activity-specific Items
Level of specialization
Items
Low Medium High
F
p
For the sport of fishing, not
to obtain food to eat …………….. 3.443
3.763
4.250
6.555
0.002
For the experience of the catch……. 3.491
3.821
4.196
6.180
0.002
A fishing trip can be successful
even if no fish are caught………... 3.785
3.803
4.196
3.746
0.025**
_______________________________________________________________
I’m just as happy if I release
the fish I catch…………………… 4.085
4.128
4.446
2.032
0.133
I’m just as happy if I don’t keep
the fish I catch……………………4.009
4.162
4.339
1.768
0.173
When I go fishing, I’m just as
happy if I don’t catch a fish …….. 3.105
3.197
3.375
2.040
0.132
To obtain fish for eating,
and not for sport………………….1.651
1.500
1.643
0.738
0.479
Hypotheses Testing: Ha5
Activity-specific Items
Gender
Items
Men
When I go fishing, I’m just as
happy if I don’t catch a fish …………. 2.987
A fishing trip can be successful
even if no fish are caught ……………. 3.667
For the experience of the catch…………. 3.933
Women
F
p
3.430
11.733
0.001
4.053
3.523
6.544
3.844
0.011**
0.051
_____________________________________________________________________________________
To obtain fish for eating,
and not for sport ……………………...1.517
For the sport of fishing, not
to obtain food to eat …………………. 3.833
I’m just as happy if I don’t
keep the fish I catch ………………… 4.181
I’m just as happy if I release
the fish I catch ………………………. 4.159
1.596
1.488
0.224
3.556
0.952
0.330
4.080
0.849
0.358
4.182
0.054
0.816
Hypotheses Testing: Ha6
Non Activity-specific Items
Level of specialization
Items
Low Medium High
To experience adventure
and excitement …………………. 3.509
3.890 4.071
To be close to the water …………... 3.606
3.718 4.107
To experience natural
surroundings ……………………. 4.271
4.248 4.589
To experience new and
different things …………………. 3.019
3.119 3.491
F
p
5.617
3.845
0.004
0.023
3.223
0.041
4.081
0.018
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
To be outdoors…………………….. 4.280
For family recreation………………. 3.654
To get away from the
demands of other people ………... 3.676
To be with friends…………………. 3.374
To get away from the
regular routine ………………….. 3.915
For relaxation……………………… 4.385
4.222
3.362
4.536
3.286
1.871
1.280
0.156
0.280
3.504
3.241
3.946
3.564
1.703
1.210
0.184
0.300
3.941
4.314
4.145
4.464
0.715
0.504
0.490
0.605
Hypotheses Testing: Ha6
Non Activity-specific Items
Gender
Items
Men
Women
F
p
For family recreation…………………… 3.197 3.700
6.070 0.014
To experience new and
different things ………………………. 3.014 3.227
4.312 0.039
____________________________________________________________
To be close to the water ………………... 3.649 3.800
1.846 0.175
To be with friends………………………. 3.230 3.400
1.710 0.192
To experience natural surroundings …… 4.219 4.380
1.445 0.230
To get away from the
demands of other people …………….. 3.534 3.722
1.018 0.314
To get away from the regular routine ….. 3.860 4.033
0.968 0.326
For relaxation…………………………... 4.280 4.369
0.653 0.420
To be outdoors………………………….. 4.219 4.356
0.322 0.571
To experience adventure
and excitement ………………………. 3.780 3.715
0.277 0.599
Discussion and Conclusions

Women comprise a small percentage of Massachusetts
freshwater anglers




Recreation specialization somewhat supported




10% of survey sample
Social norms and expectations?
Other constraints (leisure quantity and quality, ethic of care)
Propositions strongly supported in Salz et al. (2001)
Limitations of smaller sample size; reduced power
Means generally varied in expected direction
Men rated more highly on Specialization Index than
women

However, few differences found on items tested
Discussion and Conclusions

Differences found between female and male anglers:

As expected:
 Participation Frequency




Men fished an average of 15 days more per year than women
Men fished an average of 9 years longer than women
Men considered experience of catch more important
Not as expected:
 Women placed less importance on catching fish than men
 Family recreation and experiencing new and different
things more important to women
 Women more supportive of restricted fishing area
Conclusions


Men rated more highly on Specialization Index than
women,
…yet women varied little in motivations, management
support, and side-bets compared to men

Clear difference in participation
frequency and years of participation

Exploratory analysis suggests more study
of gender and specialization needed