The Collection, Utilization and Importance of Angler Human Dimensions Data: A survey of U.S. fisheries management agencies

Transcription

1 The Collection, Utilization and Importance of Angler Human Dimensions Data: A survey of U.S. fisheries management agencies Jody Simoes, Research Assistant Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Michigan State University Frank Lupi, Associate Professor Agricultural Economics Department & Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Michigan State University Dan Hayes, Professor Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Michigan State University Acknowledgements The authors thank the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, the Great Lakes Fishery Trust, the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Fisheries Division. The authors are solely responsible for the contents. DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 1 of 38

2 ABSTRACT In order to document human dimensions data collection and information management within U.S. fisheries management agencies, we conducted telephone interviews with agency contact persons for human dimensions from each State and the District of Columbia (n=57). Ninetyseven percent of respondents reported their agency had collected human dimensions information from anglers. Collectively respondents rated the quality and utilization of angler human dimensions data between fair and good. While most respondents ranked issues such as habitat degradation, access and facilities and declining angler participation as very or extremely important for their state s fishery, the majority of respondents ranked information on angler demographics, angler attitudes and opinions, angler motivations, and general public attitudes and opinions as only moderately important to current fisheries management decision-making. Our findings provide a characterization of the collection and application of human dimensions information to fisheries management, and highlight the diversity of opinions about the role and importance of human dimensions information in fisheries management. 56 DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 2 of 38

3 INTRODUCTION Researchers have used a variety of approaches to assess the management priorities of fisheries management agencies (Voiland 1989; C.E. Adams 1989; Jacobson 1989; Ross and Loomis 1999; Bennett et al. 1978; Mather et al. 1995; Wilde et al 1996; Gabelhouse 2005). Each of these studies also measured the importance of some component of angler human dimensions information to fisheries management goals. These and similar inquiries have provided researchers with an understanding of important fisheries management issues, to the benefit of both parties (Parrish et al. 1995). Our primary objective was to document human dimensions data collection and information management within U.S. fisheries management agencies. Specifically, our objectives were to: assess the reported quality, utilization and importance of human dimensions data and information; characterize the staffing and infrastructure available to support angler human dimensions data collection and utilization; and finally, document contemporary management interests and information needs related to human dimensions. These objectives include updating the Wilde et al. (1996) survey efforts METHODS In order to identify human dimensions contact persons at each agency, we established primary, secondary and tertiary sources: fisheries management agency websites; Human Dimensions of Recreational Fisheries American Fisheries Society Committee list ( August 2007; and finally, a cold call to fisheries management state headquarters, respectively. A scripted introduction paragraph was read to all respondents in DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 3 of 38

4 order to introduce the interviewer, the research project and identify the appropriate human dimensions contact person at each fishery management agency. Once the appropriate respondent was identified, we proceeded with the interview. We employed telephone interview methods to increase our response rate, bring additional qualitative data to our analysis and ensure that questions were answered chronologically, by a single respondent. In order to minimize interviewer-related error and maximize survey reliability and validity, we standardized our interviewing procedures. All of our interviews were conducted by one individual and each question was read to the respondent exactly as it appeared on the survey instrument. We framed our inquiry to include all angler human dimensions data collection efforts at all scales (e.g. local, regional and statewide). Before proceeding with the interview, the researcher began by defining (for the purposes of the study) economic and human dimensions information. Respondents were not probed on their answers and were only asked to expand on comments or statements that were unclear to the interviewer. Respondents offered a wide range of comments when prompted by 7 open-ended questions containing other categories, and at all points throughout the interview. Respondent s comments were never discouraged at any point during the interview. Unscripted conversation did occur, often at the end of the interview, however an effort was made to keep interviewer comments and conversation standardized between surveys. Notes were kept on open ended discussions and the entire interview was audio-taped. In order to examine differences in attitudinal and opinion measures between respondents, we coded survey respondents by job title into one of three broad job categories: Upper Management (e.g. Division Chief; Management Supervisor; Assistant Director); Human DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 4 of 38

5 Dimensions Staff (e.g. Human Dimensions Biologist; Responsive Management; Economist); and, finally, Biologists (e.g. Fisheries Biologist, Biology Specialist, Research Specialist). All data was entered using a double key data entry method RESULTS Respondent Population We conducted interviews with 57 respondents. Fifteen respondents were identified through our primary resource; 13 through our secondary resource and the remainder, 29, were identified through our tertiary resource. In three separate cases we had inaccurate respondent contact information, and in one case, repeated attempts to reach a respondent did not produce an interview (unreturned phone call). Following our survey protocol we converted these three potential nonresponse cases into interviews by utilizing our secondary and tertiary resources to identify human dimensions contact persons. In a very limited number of cases, respondents were unable to answer interview questions, reporting that either their program had either not collected angler economic or human dimensions information or that they simply did not know the answer to a particular question. Using our survey protocol, we found 6 states maintained separate marine and inland staff responsible for angler human dimensions information. For these 6 states, attitudinal and opinion data were weighted to correct for unequal sampling rates. Approximately one-third of our respondents were coded as Upper Management; 18% were coded as Human Dimensions Staff, and 48% were coded as Biologists (Table 1). 126 DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 5 of 38

6 127 Table 1. Survey respondent job categories N % Upper Management (e.g. chief, supervisor, director) Human Dimensions Staff Biologists (e.g. fisheries biologists, biology specialist, researcher) TOTAL N = Agency Human Dimensions Data Collection Ninety-seven percent of respondents reported that their fisheries management agency had collected human dimensions information from anglers, and 84% of our respondents reported that their agency had specifically collected economic information from anglers. Ninety-one percent of respondents reported that their agency had collected angler human dimensions data in the previous 5 years. Seventy-one percent of our respondents reported that their agency had conducted angler human dimensions surveys in 2006 or 2007, and most respondents reported planned collections for 2007 or 2008 (80%). Respondent s reported that their agency had been collecting angler human dimensions information for as many as 76 years, to as few as 4 years, with a median of 27 years collecting angler human dimensions information (mean = 30 years). The year of the most recent data collection ranged from with a median of 0 years and a mean of 1.6 years since the last collection (Table 2). Check to make sure percentages are of respondents- or are they percentage of states. Respondents reported that human dimensions staff were available in 18 different State fisheries programs to collect and/or analyze angler human dimensions data, 9 States had an economist on staff for the collection and/or analysis of economic or socioeconomic data. Respondents from 10 States reported their agency had a special division, section or department devoted to the collection and analysis of socioeconomic, economic or human dimensions angler information. DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 6 of 38

7 Table 2. Respondent s reporting of human dimensions data collection efforts: collection of angler economic information (yes/no); collection of angler human dimensions information (yes/no); earliest angler human dimensions data collection effort (year); most recent data collection (year); next planed data collection (year). Fisheries management agencies with special staffing for angler human dimensions data collection and analysis: States with human dimensions staffing (yes/no); States with economist on staff (yes/no); special section, division or department dedicated to collecting and analyzing human dimensions data (yes/no). Question/Item All States Collected angler economic information (% States yes) 88% Collected angler human dimensions information (% States yes) 100% Program involvement in the collection of human dimensions data (median years) 27 yrs Most recent collection of human dimensions survey data (median years) 0 yrs Next collection of human dimensions data scheduled (median years) 1 yrs Human dimensions personnel on staff (# of states yes) 18 Economists on staff (# of states yes) 9 Section, division or department devoted to human dimensions data collection and 10 analysis (# of states yes) Respondent Experience Collectively, we found respondent s experience working on human dimensions research with their respective agency to be 10 years with a range from 0 to 34 years (mean = 12 years). Biologists reported having the least experience working on human dimensions research at their current agency, with a median of 7 years experience, human dimensions staff reported a median of 12 years experience and upper management reported a median of 15.5 years experience (Table 3) Data Quality and Utilization Collectively, respondents rated the overall quality of human dimensions data collected by their agency as very close to Good at (2.9) on a 1-4 scale: [Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), Excellent (4)] (Table 3). Seventy-four percent of respondents rated the quality of human DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 7 of 38

8 dimensions data collected by their fisheries management agency as excellent or good, with 18% rating data quality as fair, and 4% rating it as poor. Taking a closer look at our respondent s ratings, human dimensions staff rated the quality of human dimensions information higher than both biologists and upper management (3.3) compared to (2.8) for both biologists and upper management. Forty percent of human dimensions respondents rated data quality as excellent compared with 11% and 12% of upper management and biologists, respectively. Collectively, respondents rated the utilization of human dimensions collected by their fisheries management agency as also close to Good (2.7) on a 1 4 scale: [Poor (1), Fair (2), Good (3), Excellent (4)] (Table 3). Sixty-one percent of respondents rated data utilization as excellent or good, with 30% rating data utilization as fair, and 4% rating it as poor. Taking a closer look at our respondent s ratings, human dimensions staff also rate the utilization of human dimensions data by their respective agency slightly higher than both biologists and upper management (2.9) compared to (2.7) for both biologists and upper management. The percentage of respondents rating data utilization as excellent was similar across all job categories, (11%). Two respondents made statements that indicated a disappointment with the application and utilization of human dimensions data collected by their agency We just haven t been as aggressive in applying the knowledge that we gain from the surveys as we should. We re hoping to ratchet that up and do more outreach I think we could do a better job. I think we all recognize that we need more of it DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 8 of 38

9 Table 3. Respondent s reported years working on human dimensions research at their current agency and ratings of the utilization and overall quality of human dimensions data collected by their agency. Data quality and data utilization ratings on a 4 point scale [1=Poor; 2= Fair; 3=Good; 4=Excellent] Question/Item Respondent s work on human dimensions research with current agency (median years) Agency human dimensions data utilization (mean rating) Overall human dimensions data quality (mean rating) All States Biologists Respondents reported on the ways in which human dimensions data were utilized by their agency selecting all that applied from a list of response categories (Table 4). The majority of respondents reported that human dimensions data were used in the design of fishery regulations (89%); local resource management plans (84%); state-wide resource management plans (82%); and angler educational and outreach programs and materials (69%). Human Dimensions Upper Management Table 4. Respondent s reporting of human dimensions data utilization. Respondents selected all that applied from a list of 4 response categories. Nineteen respondents offered other ways in which human dimensions data was utilized by their agency. N All States The design of fishery regulations Local resource management plans State-wide strategic resource management plans Development of angler educational, outreach programs & materials Other When asked if there were other ways in which angler human dimensions data were utilized by the state agency, nineteen respondents offered additional comments with several dominant themes emerging (Table 5). The majority of respondents added that angler human dimensions data were utilized in: the development of resource management plans (9 DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 9 of 38

10 respondents), developing regulations (6 respondents); informing legislature / program validation (6 respondents), and public relations / public outreach (5 respondents) Table 5. Respondent s reporting of human dimensions data utilization. Nineteen respondents offered other ways in which human dimensions data was utilized by their agency. The dominant themes are presented in this table. Frequency Extensiveness Resource management plans 14 9 Informing legislature / program validation 8 6 Developing regulations 7 6 Public relations / public outreach 9 5 Angler motivations /angler behavior / angler profiling 7 5 Economic information, impacts and valuation 6 4 Marketing to anglers / recruitment retention 5 4 Evaluating programs and services 3 3 Fiscal Justification (state and federal funding) State Fisheries Issues Respondents used a 5 point Likert-type scale, [Not important at all (1), Slightly Important (2), Moderately Important (3), Very Important (4), Extremely Important (5)] to rate the importance of four potential issues facing their State s fishery (Table 6). Collectively, the most important issue facing fisheries management agencies was Habitat Degradation (4.7), followed by Access and Facilities (4.1), Declining Angler Participation (4.0), and finally State Budget Shortfalls (3.8) DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 10 of 38

11 Table 6. Respondent s ratings of issues facing their State s fishery. Respondents rated 4 response categories independently. Ratings are on a 5 point scale [1=Not important at all; 2= Slightly important; 3=Moderately important; 4=Very important; 5=Extremely important]. Thirty respondents offered other issues facing their agency. * α <.10 N Upper Human All Biologists Management Dimensions States Habitat degradation Access and facilities Declining angler * 4 participation State budget shortages * Other 30 One hundred percent of our respondents rated habitat degradation (invasive species, drought, pollution, development) to be a very or extremely important issue facing their state (Figure 1). The mean rating of habitat degradation by each job category (upper management, human dimensions staff and biologists) was (4.7). Eighty-two percent of our respondents rated access and facilities issues as a very or extremely important issue facing their State. Upper management respondents ranked this issue higher (4.3) than both human dimensions staff (3.9) and biologists (4.0). Eighty-eight percent of upper management respondents and 82% of biologists rated access and facilities issues as very or extremely important, compared with 66% of human dimensions staff. Sixty-nine percent of our respondents rated declining angler participation as a very or extremely important issue facing their State. Both human dimensions and upper management staff rated declining angler participation as very important (4.2) while biologist s rate declining angler participation as moderately important at (3.7). Seventy-seven percent of upper management and 70% of human dimensions staff rated declining angler participation as very or extremely important, compared with 62% of biologists. DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 11 of 38

12 Sixty percent of our respondents rated state budget shortages as a very or extremely important issue facing their state. Upper management and biologist respondents rated State budget shortages (3.9) and (4.0), respectively, while human dimensions staff rated state budget shortages at (3.3). 66% of upper management and 73% of biologists State budget shortages as very or extremely important, compared with 30% human dimensions respondents. 233 Table 7. Respondent s ratings of issues facing their fishery management agencies. Respondents rated 4 response categories independently. Ratings are on a 5 point scale [1=Not important at all; 2= Slightly important; 3=Moderately important; 4=Very important; 5=Extremely important]. Thirty respondents offered other issues facing their agency. Six dominant themes are presented. Frequency Extensiveness Budget issues, program funding, State funding, 7 6 Water quality / water shortage / habitat degradation 7 6 Public education / public awareness 6 5 Staffing shortages / inability to hire staff 6 5 Invasive species / non-native species / illegal introductions 5 4 Hatchery stocking / disease effects on stocking 4 4 Recruitment and retention 4 4 Angler experience / quality fishing 3 3 Threatened and Endangered Species 3 3 Fish Disease / aquatic health 5 4 Impacts of commercial fishing on resource 1 1 Fish Passage, dams 1 1 Anadromous species 2 2 Angler Education 1 1 Restoring native fish Regulation of Tournaments 1 1 Privatization When asked if there were other important issues facing their State s fishery, 30 respondents offered additional comments with several dominant themes emerging: budget issues DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 12 of 38

13 / program funding / State funding (6 respondents); staffing shortages / in ability to hire staff (5 respondents); water quality / water shortage / habitat degradation (6 respondents); public education / public awareness (5 respondents); (Table 7) The Importance of Human Dimensions Information Respondents used a 5 point Likert-type scale, [Not important at all (1), Slightly Important (2), Moderately Important (3), Very Important (4), Extremely Important (5)] to rate the importance of eight different human dimensions information items to their fisheries management decision making. Collectively, the most important human dimensions information item to decision making was Angler Support for Management Regulations (4.1), followed by Angler Satisfactions (3.9); Angler Attitudes and Opinions (3.9); Species-Specific Angler Market Information (3.7); Economics of Recreational Fishing (3.6); Angler Motivations (3.3); General Public Attitudes and Opinions (3.2) and finally, Demographic Characteristics of Anglers (3.1). One of the eight human dimensions information items rated by our respondents, species-specific market information, had a mean importance score significantly different from those reported by Wilde et al. (1996). We report our national mean importance ratings as well as the means reported by Wilde et al. (1996) in Table 8. We also report our national mean important ratings along with the means reported by each job category (Biologists, Human Dimensions, Upper Management) in Table DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 13 of 38

14 261 Table 8. Respondent s mean ratings of the importance of human dimensions information items to fishery management decision making. Ratings are on a 5 point scale [1=Not important at all; 2= Slightly important; 3=Moderately important; 4=Very important; 5=Extremely important]. Our national mean importance ratings are presented along with the mean reported by Wilde et al. (1996). ** α < Angler support for management regulations Angler Satisfactions Angler attitudes and opinions Species-specific angler market information 3.7** 3.1 Economics of recreational fishing Angler motivations General public attitudes and opinions Demographic characteristics of anglers Table 9. Respondent s mean ratings of the importance of human dimensions information items to fishery management decision making. Ratings are on a 5 point scale [1=Not important at all; 2= Slightly important; 3=Moderately important; 4=Very important; 5=Extremely important]. Our national mean important ratings are presented along with the means reported by each job category [Biologists, Human Dimensions, Upper Management]. * α <.10 All States Biologists Human Dimensions Upper Management Angler support for management regulations Angler satisfaction * 3.9 Angler attitudes and opinions Species-specific market information Economics of recreational fishing * 3.4 Angler motivations Public attitudes and opinions Demographic characteristics of anglers Angler Support for Management Regulations The collective mean rating for the importance of angler support for management regulations was 4.1. Eighty-four percent of our respondents rated angler support for management regulations as very or extremely important to fisheries management decision DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 14 of 38

15 making. Both upper management and human dimensions staff rated this item higher (4.2) than biologists (4.0). One-hundred percent of human dimensions staff rated angler support for management regulations as very or extremely important, compared with 89% of upper management and 74% of biologists. Consequently, 26% of biologists rated this information item as moderately important or slightly important, compared with 10% of upper management and 0% of human dimensions staff Angler Satisfaction The collective mean rating for the importance of angler satisfaction was 3.9. Seventyseven percent of our respondents rated angler satisfaction as very or extremely important to fisheries management decision making. Human dimensions staff rated this item significantly higher (4.3) than both upper management (3.9) and biologists (3.8). Ninety percent of human dimensions staff rated angler satisfaction as very or extremely important, with 84% of upper management and 67% of biologists rating angler satisfaction as very or extremely important. Consequently, 33% of biologists rated angler satisfaction of moderate or lesser importance, compared with only 10% of human dimensions staff and 16% of upper management Angler Motivations The collective mean rating for the importance of angler motivations was 3.3. Thirtyeight percent of our respondents reported angler motivations as very or extremely important to fisheries management decision making. Upper management staff rated this item higher (3.5) than human dimension staff (3.1) and biologists (3.3). Forty-seven percent of upper management respondents rated angler motivations as very or extremely important, compared with 37% of DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 15 of 38

16 biologists and 20% of human dimensions staff. Consequently, 52% of upper management respondents rated angler motivations as moderately important or less, compared to 80% of human dimensions staff and 63% of biologists Angler Attitudes and Opinions The collective mean rating for the importance of angler attitudes and opinions was 3.9. Sixty-eight percent of respondents rated angler attitudes and opinions as very or extremely important to fisheries management decision making. Human dimensions staff rated this item higher (4.0) than both biologists and upper management (3.8). Ninety-percent of human dimensions staff rated angler attitudes and opinions as very or extremely important, with 63% of both biologists and upper management rating angler attitudes and opinions as very or extremely important. None of our human dimensions respondents rated angler attitudes and opinions as moderately important, compared with 37% percent of upper management and 33% of biologists. None of our upper management respondents rated angler attitudes and opinions as slightly important, compared with 10% of human dimensions staff and 3% of biologists Species Specific Angler Market Information The collective mean rating for the importance of species-specific market information was 3.7. Sixty three percent of our respondents rated species-specific market information as very or extremely important to fisheries management decision making. Human dimensions staff rated this item higher (3.8) than both biologists (3.7) and upper management (3.6). Sixty-three percent of upper management respondent s rated species specific market information as very or extremely important, compared with 60% of human dimensions staff and 63% of biologists. DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 16 of 38

17 Forty percent of human dimensions staff rated this information item as moderately or slightly important, compared with 37% of upper management respondents and 37% of biologists and (Figure 11) Economic Information The collective mean rating for the importance of economics of recreational fishing information was 3.6. Fifty-nine percent of respondents rated economic information as very or extremely important to fisheries management decision making. Human dimensions staff rated this item significantly higher (4.1) than both biologists (3.6) and upper management (3.4). Eighty percent of human dimension staff rated economic information as very or extremely important, compared with 53% of upper management and 56% of biologists. Twenty percent of human dimensions staff found economic information to be of moderate importance or less, with 44 % of biologists and 47% upper management rating this information item as moderately or slightly important (Figure 13) General Public Attitudes and Opinions Our national mean rating for the importance of general public attitudes and opinions was 3.2. Thirty-five percent of our respondents found general public attitudes and opinions to be very or extremely important to fisheries management decision making. Upper management respondents rated this item higher (3.3) than both human dimensions staff and biologists (3.2). Forty-two percent of upper management rated general public attitudes and opinions to be very or extremely important, compared with 40% of human dimensions staff and 30% of biologists. Sixty six percent of biologists found general public attitudes and opinions to be moderately or DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 17 of 38

18 slightly important, compared with 60% of human dimensions staff and 58% of upper management respondents. Four percent of biologists rated general public attitudes and opinions as not important at all compared with 0% human dimensions staff and upper management respondents Demographic Information Our national mean rating for the importance of demographic information was 3.1. Fortyone percent of our respondents rated demographic information as very or extremely important to fisheries management decision making. Upper management rated this item higher (3.3) than both biologists (3.1) and human dimensions staff (3.0). Less than half, (47%), of the upper management respondents reported demographic information as very or extremely important, with 40% of human dimensions staff and 37% of biologists reporting demographic information as very or extremely important to management decisions. Sixty three percent of biologists reported demographic information to be of moderate importance or less, compared with 60% of human dimensions staff, and 52% of upper management Partnerships The fifth and final section of the survey contained 4 questions about partnerships leveraged by the fisheries management agency (Table 9). Our respondents were read a list of response categories and asked which entities they partnered with to: 1) communicate with anglers; 2) develop fishing programs, activities and services; 3) gather economic; and, 4) gather human dimensions data. Respondents were given the opportunity to add entities they felt had not been covered by the question response categories (Table 10). DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 18 of 38

19 Table 10. Respondent s reporting of partnerships leveraged to conduct four tasks: communicating with anglers; developing fishing programs, activities and services; collecting angler economic data; and collecting angler human dimensions data. Colleges/ Universities Recreational Business Clubs, organizations, foundations Consulting Firms Communicating with anglers 63% 68% 90% 32% Developing programs, activities and services 47% 74% 88% 21% Collecting economic data 61% 26% 26% 46% Collecting human dimensions data 65% 23% 35% 53% Table 11. Respondent s reporting of other agency partnerships to conduct four tasks: communicating with anglers; developing fishing programs, activities and services; collecting economic data; and collecting angler human dimensions data. Communicating with anglers Develop fishing programs, activities and services Frequency Extensiveness Frequency Extensiveness Federal Agencies State Agencies Media Agency / Internal Mulit-state organizations / Quazi governmental organizations Recreational Industry, recreational shows Conservation groups / Sportsman s groups / NGO's Public / Community Organizations / Local Governments DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 19 of 38

20 Table 11. Respondents reporting of other agency partnerships to conduct four conduct tasks: communicating with anglers; developing fishing programs, activities and services and collecting economic data and human dimensions data. Collect Economic Data Collect Human Dimensions Data Frequency Extensiveness Frequency Extensiveness Federal Agencies State Agencies Media 0 0 Agency / Internal Mulit-state organizations / quazi governmental organizations Recreational Industry, recreational shows 0 0 Conservation groups / Sportsman s groups / NGO's 0 0 Public / community organizations/ local governments and councils DISCUSSION Agency Human Dimensions Data Collection Wilde et al. (1996) hypothesized that as human dimensions information became more important to fisheries management activities, there would be a corresponding increase in the frequency of surveys conducted by management agencies. We asked respondents several questions to ascertain the frequency of angler surveys being conducted by their agency. When asked how many years their agency had been involved in the collection of human dimensions data, 20 respondents gave indistinct timeframes often coupled with comments about the irregularity of their human dimension surveys efforts I couldn t tell you the exact date. (20 respondents made similar comments) DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 20 of 38

21 Additionally, many respondents were unable to tell us when the next planned collection of human dimensions data would occur, or gave vague answers: Unknown (9 respondents made similar comments) An important indicator of an agency s commitment to human dimensions may be measured by the allocation of positions and the level and degree of specialization required by human dimensions contacts Wilde et. al. (1996). Gabelhouse (2005) surveyed 41 U.S. inland fisheries programs and found that twelve states had dedicated personnel to planning and human dimensions for fisheries, accounting for 0.3% of inland fisheries programs employees nationwide. Respondents from our study reported that human dimensions staff were available in 18 different State inland fisheries programs to collect and/or analyze angler human dimensions data, with 9 States employing an economist for the collection and/or analysis of economic or socioeconomic data. Additionally, respondents from 10 states reported their agency had a special division, section or department dedicated to the collection and or analysis of human dimensions data Respondent Experience and Staffing Wilde et al. (1996) predicted that with increased importance given to human dimensions information, there would be a corresponding increase in trained human dimensions personnel within fisheries management agencies. We did not collect information on respondent s DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 21 of 38

22 education or training, and we also suspect that a diversity of backgrounds is represented, with some respondents obtaining formal training and education in the social sciences. Collectively, we found respondent s median experience working on human dimensions research with their respective agency to be 10 years with a range from zero to 34 years (mean = 12 years). This is up from the 8 years of median respondent experience reported by Wilde et al. (1996), indicating that the collective experience of human dimensions staff may be growing. When asked about the availability of agency staff to collect and analyze human dimensions data or the presence of special units devoted to working on the collection and analysis of human dimensions related information, several respondents commented on the lack of qualified staff or the lack of staff specifically dedicated to conducting human dimensions data collection and analysis. Ditton (2004), reported that human dimension information may not be readily integrated into fishery decision making because most fishery managers have natural science backgrounds. The following comments were made in direct response to our interview questions: I m a fisheries biologist, we re all fisheries biologists. A lot of us have had statistics classes, but there s no specific training, there s no survey person. (7 respondents made similar comments) You re talking to the one and only, but I m not expressly charged with that as my only duty. (5 respondents made similar comments) 421 DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 22 of 38

23 These comments others pertaining to staffing shortages and inadequate staffing and program funds elsewhere in the interview, may suggest continuing human dimensions staffing and programming challenges Data Quality and Utilization Collectively, data quality and data utilization were rated close to Good on a 1-4 scale. Seventy four percent of respondents rated data quality as excellent or good, while only 61% rated data utilization as excellent or good. Taking a closer look at our respondents, 40% percent of human dimensions staff rated data quality as excellent, compared with 11% of upper management and 12% of biologists. However, a lower and equal percentage (11%) biologists, human dimensions and upper management staff rated data utilization as excellent. Three respondents commented on the lack of application and utilization of angler human dimensions data, their comments follow: as far as the final decisions, when they weigh everything, I don t know how they weight what they consider when they consider what group gets certain regulations or when we have to cut down fishing mortality. I m not sure how that plays in We just haven t been as aggressive in applying the knowledge that we gain from the surveys as we should I think we could do a better job. I think we all recognize that we need more of it but again, we re on a fixed budget we work strictly on the hunting fishing license and boating registration, we don t get general revenue money so, a lot of times we can t do all the things we DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 23 of 38

24 want to do, and sometimes those surveys are easier to cut than people or equipment. But we fight for them a lot...so I think our agency s doing a good job, but we can do better Respondents reported on the ways in which that human dimensions data were utilized, selecting all that applied from a list of response categories (Table 4) and were asked if there were other ways in which angler human dimensions data were utilized. Nineteen respondents offered additional comments with several dominant themes emerging. Each of the four original response categories was reiterated, with several other dominant themes also emerging (Table 5). The majority of the comments offered by respondents could be grouped into one of two broad categories: fiscal justification / outreach [i.e. public outreach; informing legislature; communicating economic impacts; other fiscal justification] and to a lesser extent recruitment and retention [i.e. angler marketing; angler motivations]. These results suggest that angler human dimensions data are predominately utilized in communicating the mission of fisheries management agencies and the economic and other societal benefits of angling activities. These findings are not surprising given that previous surveys of fisheries management agencies have shown that at least 23 states received funds from state public tax revenues, 14 of which received line item funds that legislators vote on annually or biannually; 5 a dedicated proportion of state sales tax, 2 received a dedicated proportion of state income tax, and 6 listed other state tax revenues (Ross and Loomis 1999) Fisheries Issues One hundred percent of our respondents rated habitat degradation (invasive species, drought, pollution, development) to be very or extremely important issue facing their fishery, DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 24 of 38

25 making it the most important issue rated by respondents. The effects of water and land use patterns on the quality of fisheries resources was found to be very or extremely important by 79% by the heads of freshwater fisheries agencies surveyed in 1999, and 77% of respondents reported spending more time on habitat related issues than they had 10 years prior (Ross and Loomis 1999). Additionally, when asked about other issues facing their state, six different respondents reiterated issues related to habitat degradation (water pollution, water shortage, water quality), discussed below. These findings seem to support the claim that habitat deterioration is consistently among the most important issues facing fisheries agencies nationwide (Ross and Loomis 1999) Although the USFWS National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation has reported national declines in angler participation (U.S. Department of Interior 2006), only sixty-nine percent of our respondents rated declining angler participation as very or extremely important issue facing their state. Biologists rated this item significantly lower than Human Dimensions staff and Upper Management staff, with only 62% of biologists rating angler participation as very or extremely important, compared to 77% of upper management and 70% of human dimensions staff. The variability in our respondent s ratings and opinions likely reflect the local conditions and differing perceptions of the root causes behind declines in angler participation. Four respondents reiterated issues related to angler recruitment and retention when asked about other issues facing their state and eight respondents offered comments in addition to their numerical rating of declining angler participation (the majority reflected severe or moderate declining angler participation numbers): We haven't experienced a decline. DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 25 of 38

26 becoming important We are not really experiencing a decline yet. We are kind of leveling out, but I guess compared to our population growth it is in decline, so I m going to day very important We re losing a lot of anglers. We ve really taken a hit That s the number 1 issue on our plate right now When asked if there were other important issues facing their state s fishery, 30 respondents offered additional comments with several dominant themes emerging. Each of the four original response categories was reiterated, with several other dominant themes also emerging (see Table 7). The majority of comments offered by respondents could be grouped into one of three broad categories: fiscal issues / outreach [e.g. staffing shortages, budget and program funding, public outreach and education]; aquatic health [e.g. water quality, invasive species, non-native species, fish disease and hatchery issues, fish passage] and to a lesser extent recruitment and retention [quality of fishing, recruitment and retention, angler education]. Six respondents specifically raised concerns about fish diseases and their effect of fish diseases on hatchery production. Nationally, more than half of total state budgets for fisheries management are directed toward hatchery production and stocking and the analysis of put and take regulations (hatchery and stocking programs alone require an average of 33% of all fisheries expenditures) (Ross and Loomis 1999). These stocking activities resulted in an estimated 1.7 DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 26 of 38

27 billion fish being stocked in 2004 alone, largely accomplished by state fisheries management agencies (Halverson 2008). Another dominant theme raised by respondents was public education / public awareness. Arlinghaus et al. (2006) linked habitat degradation to inadequate communication of the social and economic importance of recreational fisheries to non-fishery stakeholders and the public, recommending programs to increase the awareness of the social and economic importance of recreational fishing. Ross and Loomis (1999) found that developing public education programs was very or extremely important to 63% of the heads of freshwater management agencies they surveyed, and 89% of respondents reported spending more time on public education programs than they had 10 years ago (Ross and Loomis 1999) Mather s (1995) survey of fisheries agency administrators found that three issues played a particularly large role in the allocation of staff time in western states: hydropower licensing; instream flow; and non-game, threatened, or endangered species. One of our respondents specifically indicated fish passage as an issue facing their state, and 3 respondents reported issues related to threatened and endangered species The Importance of Human Dimensions Information Items Wilde et al. (1996) maintained that respondents may attach greater importance to more traditional human dimensions information items specifically: angler support for regulations; angler motivations; and, angler satisfaction. We examine these three information items in the following sections. Angler Support for Management Regulations DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 27 of 38

28 Our national mean rating for the importance of angler support for management regulations was 4.1. This mean rating is down from the mean rating of 4.2 reported by Wilde et al. (1996). Seventy six percent of the heads of fisheries management agencies surveyed by Ross and Loomis (1999) ranked the importance of gaining angler acceptance of regulations as very or extremely important management activity. Eighty-four percent of our respondents rated this information item very or extremely important to fisheries management decision making, compared with 82% reported in There were differences in the percentages of respondents rating this information item very important vs. extremely important- with 16% fewer respondents rating this information item as extremely important in 2007, and consequently 16% more rating this information item very important in None of our respondents rated this information item as not important at all and 16% of respondents rated this information item slightly or moderately important, compared with 18% in 1996 (Figure 2). The following comments were also made in direct response to this interview question: When a management regulation is being proposed that does not have popular support we often find it mired in debate or even in the courts, I would say for that reason that angler support is very important. -Respondent, Human Dimensions Staff We are putting lots of money and effort into [angler support for management regulations] right now. -Respondent, Upper Management Angler Satisfaction DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 28 of 38

29 Our national mean rating for the importance of angler satisfaction was 3.9. This is the same mean rating as reported by Wilde et al. (1996). Seventy-seven percent of our respondents reported angler satisfaction as very or extremely important, compared with 72% reported in None of our respondents rated this information item as not important at all, compared with 1.7% in Twenty three percent of our respondents reported angler satisfaction as slightly or moderately important, compared with 25% in 1996 (Figure 4) Angler Motivations Our national mean rating for the importance of angler motivations was 3.3. This mean rating is down slightly from the mean rating of 3.4 reported by Wilde et al. (1996). Thirty-eight percent of our respondents reported angler motivations as very or extremely important, compared with 46% reported in Over half (52%) of our respondents rated angler motivations moderately important, compared to 37% reported by Wilde et al. None of our respondents rated angler motivations as not important at all (compared to 2% for 1996) and 10% of our respondents rated angler motivations slightly important (down from 15% for 1996) (Figure 6) Angler Attitudes and Opinions Our national mean rating for the importance of angler attitudes and opinions was 3.9. This mean rating is down from the mean rating of 4.1 reported by Wilde et al. (1996). Sixtyeight percent of respondents rated angler attitudes and opinions as very or extremely important, compared with 81% in Thirty two percent of respondents rated angler attitudes and opinions as slightly or moderately important, up from 19 % reported in 1996 (Figure 8). The following comment was also made in direct response to this interview question: DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 29 of 38

30 There is always someone who is not happy so we try to stick with the science. -Respondent, Biologist Species Specific Angler Market Information Our national mean rating for the importance of species-specific market information was 3.7. This mean rating is up significantly from the mean rating of 3.1 reported by Wilde et al. (1996). Though respondents viewed market information as relatively unimportant in their survey, Wilde et al. (1996) predicted that this tool would become important in recruitment and service delivery. Sixty three percent of our respondents rated species-specific market information as very or extremely important compared with 41% reported by Wilde et al. (1996). Thirty percent of respondents reported species-specific market angler information to be moderately important, compared with 32% in None of our respondents rated this information item as not important at all, compared to 13% in Finally, 7% of our respondents rated species specific market information as slightly important, compared with 14% in 1996 (Figure 10). While probably a more recent trend, these results may suggest that agencies are more inclined to manage toward a specific fishery or a specific angler market, than toward attitudes, opinions, and preferences While not representative of a trend toward a greater emphasis on species-specific market information, one respondent offered these comments in direct response to this question: 604 DRAFT Sept 2008: National HD Survey Page 30 of 38