An Importance–Satisfaction Analysis of Trout License Holders in Georgia

Abstract

As anglers become increasingly diverse, fisheries managers are challenged to find ways to satisfy users with divergent preferences while conserving a limited resource on a limited budget. With this management challenge in mind, this study combines previous angler specialization research with an importance-satisfaction analysis (ISA) to aid fisheries managers in better understanding users with divergent preferences. An ISA involves asking stakeholders to simultaneously evaluate the importance of salient attributes of their fishing experience and their satisfaction with those attributes, which allows for graphical depiction of each attribute in one of four quadrants with managerial implications: Concentrate Here, Keep up the Good Work, Possible Overkill, and Low Priority. The data were collected via a mail-administered survey that was sent to 4,000 licensed trout anglers who were residents of Georgia. The anglers were asked to evaluate 10 catch and 7 noncatch attributes as well as answer questions that were used to measure levels of angler specialization. A K-means cluster analysis was used to segment the 469 respondents into three groups based on their specialization level. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine whether anglers' preferences differed by level of specialization. The results revealed that specialization groups differed in the level of importance that they placed on 6 catch and 4 noncatch attributes and in their levels of satisfaction with 5 catch and 2 noncatch attributes. There were also differences among the groups in quadrant placement for both catch and noncatch attributes. The respondents agreed that habitat improvement initiatives, adding new fishable water, and clear signage of regulations were of relatively high importance, with habitat improvement initiatives as the only attribute to fall in the Concentrate Here quadrant for all three clusters. The average responses for importance and satisfaction were highest for the most specialized group and lowest for the least specialized group. Combining segmenting techniques, like cluster analysis with ISA, offers fisheries managers the opportunity to gauge different user groups' perceptions of salient fishery attributes.

Perceived Constraints and Negotiations to Trout Fishing in Georgia Based on Angler Specialization Level

“…The least specialized cluster reported a lack of fishing partners as a constraint often faced when attempting to trout fish in Georgia. A related study found this same least specialized group of anglers reported trout fishing attributes specifically related to catching trout (e.g., number of trout caught, size of trout caught, catching wild trout, catching stocked trout) as less important than attributes not related to catch, such as clean bathrooms and campgrounds at access points, habitat improvement initiatives, and distance to the trout stream from home (TenHarmsel et al 2019). Another potentially important factor for this least specialized group of anglers is the social aspect of trout fishing.…”

“…Contact information for resident trout anglers with a 2015 trout license was obtained from the GA DNR license database. Sample members ( n = 4,000) were selected from the GA DNR license database by proportionate random sampling based on license type (see TenHarmsel et al 2019 for more details on the proportionate random sampling procedure). The sample was comprised of both lifetime license holders and anglers who must repurchase their licenses every 1–3 years.…”

“…Trout angler survey.-The data used in this analysis were collected from a 2017 statewide survey of Georgia resident trout license holders as described in TenHarmsel et al (2019). Contact information for resident trout anglers with a 2015 trout license was obtained from the GA DNR license database.…”

“…With these differences in mind, Fisher's (1996) test for nonresponse bias was conducted where response was a binary yes/no dependent variable and the demographic variables of age and gender were set as independent variables to see if age and gender had a significant relationship with response. We did not include license type because of the complications associated with the lifetime licenses in Georgia (see TenHarmsel et al 2019 for a more detailed discussion).…”

“…Previous research has provided evidence against the “average angler” assumption, suggesting instead that anglers may be heterogeneous with differing objectives, and they can be divided into homogeneous subgroups (McFadden 1969; Bryan 1976; Hutt and Bettoli 2007; Beardmore et al 2011). Angler specialization (a three‐dimensional construct that divides anglers into subgroups based upon their level of angling behavior, cognition, and commitment) has been used to capture the diversity among anglers and to group anglers by varying behaviors, motivations, and preferences toward recreational fishing (Bryan 1977; Ditton et al 1992; McIntyre and Pigram 1992; Scott and Shafer 2001; McFarlane 2004; Beardmore et al 2013; Sutton and Oh 2015; TenHarmsel et al 2019). Perceived constraints and negotiation strategies may differ based on the angler’s level of commitment to the activity, which is often used, in part, to measure angler specialization (Sutton 2007; Lyu and Oh 2014).…”