This file was created by scanning the printed publication.
Errors identified by the software have been corrected;
however, some errors may remain.
Focused Recreation Use in Riparian Ecosystems:
A Taxonomy of User Types 1
Jean C. Behrens-Tepper, Joseph T. O'Leary, Douglas C. Andersen 2
Abstract.--Using data from the 1980 National Survey of
Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation, this
paper examines Indiana anglers by amount of participation at
rivers and streams, sociodemographic background and conservation activity involvement. Each of these factors appears
to facilitate identification of different user types that
should be considered in managing and planning riparian
environments.
INTRODUCTION
participants in recreation activities into more
homogeneous subgroups (Bryan 1977, 1979; Romsa
and Girling 1976; O'Leary and Pate 1978; Stebbins
1982; Wellman et al. 1982).
Riparian ecosystems in Indiana and the midwest are critical habitats for recreation and
wildlife now and in the future. In the most
recent Indiana Outdoor Recreation Plan (IDNR
1984), rivers and streams are identified as a
major statewide issue and priority in terms of
developing opportunities and access, restoring
the riparian corridor, and confronting the
problem of water quality. Action must consider
the types of users of these environments. By
identifying subgroups of recreation participants
with high commitment to the riparian resource,
management agencies may be better able to elicit
support and to minimize conflict through interaction with these clients.
Bryan (1977,1979) noted that definite levels
of specialization are found within any recreation
activity. He noted that a continuum of behaviors
can be found that can be differentiated by equipment, skills and setting preferences. Developing
the notion of "leisure social worlds", Bryan
suggested that the most specialized individuals
form a peer group network with fellow specialists. In addition, this group was hypothesized
to have the strongest commitments toward conservation and how the process should be directed.
Wellman et al. (1982) further developed this
notion by suggesting that small groups of highly
committed and expert people emerge who tend to
set the standards for attitudes and behavior in
an activity.
Using data from the 1980 National Fishing
and Hunting Survey this study examines the degree
of focused (specialized) use of riparian ecosystems by persons involved in sport fishing in
the state of Indiana. Particular attention is
paid to identifying variables that can be used to
develop a taxonomy of user types.
The concept is interesting for riparian
management and planning. The classification
scheme is straightforward and makes intuitive
sense. The notion of people starting some
activity at a given level of involvement and
progressing to greater levels of commitment and
discrimination is familiar, and its application
to recreation seems reasonable. The scheme
presents those who would use it with an easily
understood construct on which people are arrayed
from low to high, rather than being classified
according to complex, empirically derived scales
with nuances in scale labelling and interpretation. The designation of participants types also
has substantive support from the recreation
behavior literature that has recently argued for
a movement away from the more traditional activity
vs. activity comparison to a consideration of
groups of actors operating along a continuum
of involvement (Vaske et al. 1982). Without
this understanding of structure and process,
inappropriate resolution techniques for conflict
and management strategies are likely to be
adopted by resource agencies.
RELATED RESEARCH
Recreation specialization (or what we have
called focused use) 1s a concept that has
recently been advanced as a way of disaggregating
1
Paper presented at the Interagency North
American Conference on Riparian Ecosystems and
Their Management, University of Arizona, Tucson,
April 16-18, 1985.
2 Jean C. Behrens-Tepper, Graduate Research
Assistant; Joseph T. O'Leary, Associate Professor
of Forest Recreation; and Douglas C. Andersen,
Assistant Professor of Wildlife Ecology are all
in the Dept. of Forestry & Natural Resources,
Purdue University, W. Lafayette, IN 47907.
This research supported through the Purdue
University Water Resources Research Center
(USGS- Grant Agreement No. 14-08-001-G905).
216
RESULTS
Recent research has attempted to provide
empirical support for Bryan's ideas about activity specialization. Graefe (1980) demonstrated
that annual frequency of angling participation
was a useful surrrogate measure for angling
specialization.
Katz (1981), testing Bryan's
resource setting dependency proposition, found
that environmental concerns increased with higher
fly fishing participation levels in Pennsylvania
anglers. Kauffman (1984) reached similar conclusions from a study of canoeists. The findings of
a study by McGurrin (1984) indicated that highly
specialized Maryland trout fishermen exhibited
greater commitment to the sport, had more
specific quality requirements, and had greater
interest in conservation of the resource than
less specialized anglers.
A frequency analysis of the responses to
questions about type of freshwater used indicated
that 44% of the Indiana angler population had
fished in rivers or streams in 1980. Further
analysis revealed two distinct subgroups: those
anglers that did at least some river and stream
fishing and those that did most of their fishing
in this type of water. These subgroups comprised
29% and 15% of the total angler population,
respectively.
Crosstabulation of the sociodemographic
variables of those individuals who had or had not
engaged in river and stream fishing indicated
statistically significant gender and age differences between the two groups. The results of the
age analysis are the more interesting (Table 1)
because they appear to conflict with Bryan 1 s
proposition of advanced years being related to
increased specialization level and resource
setting preference.
Sufficient evidence exists to warrant
additional investigation of the specialization
concept.
From this discussion, this paper
examines two key questions.
First, can we
identify variables that are appropriate for
classifying different users? Second, can this
classification be developed from an extensive set
not specifically designed for specialization
study?
Table 1.--Age of respondent by participation in
river and stream fishing.
(Associations
were statistically significant at a = 0.01)
River & Stream Fishing
METHODS
...!&L
The source of data for this study was the
1980 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and
Wildlife-Associated Recreation, conducted by the
U.S. Bureau of Census (USBC), for the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
The survey was conducted in two phases. The
initial screening phase, conducted primarily by
phone, sought to identify households in which at
least one member, 6 years or older, engaged in
wildlife-associated sport or recreation. The
followup phase consisted of detailed, personal
interviews with all actual users of the wildlife
resource, 16 years and older, in selected households with participants. The followup Hunting
and Fishing Questionnaire, File FH-3, yielded
over 35,000 records of individual sportsmen
nationwide, with 5676 characters of information
for each respondent. Of 771 Indiana sportsmen
selected for detailed interviewing, roughly 680
interviews were completed.
~
_l!Q_
16-25 years
26-35
36-45
46-55
56-65
GTE 66
54%
52
50
62
76
46%
48
51
38
29
24
% Total Population
56
44
71
Continuing the analysis of factors affecting
resource setting preference, the annual frequency
of participation (high, medium, or low classification of days afield) was found to be significantly related to riparian resource dependency
(level of river and stream concentration) (Table
2).
Bryan's contention that increased angler
specialization implies a shift from consumption
to preservation was supported by 2 of 4 measures
used. A significantly higher percentage of those
Indiana anglers who do fish in rivers and streams
read outdoor magazines, and read these magazines
more frequently than those who do not use this
resource setting. However, there was no
After selecting the Indiana respondents from
the data base, the ·analysis used only those cases
where the respondent had done freshwater fishing
in riveTS and streams (File FH3, Item I2930B3) in
1980.
Table 2.--Frequency of angling participation by
level of river and stream concentration.
(Associations were statistically significant
at a. = 0.01)
The USBC procedure for inflation of the
weighted sample results to independent estimates
of the entire population was not used.
Frequency of
Partici)2ation
Computations were performed on the Purdue
University CDC 6500 Computer using the SPSS data
analysis system. SPSS subprograms for frequencies and crosstabulations were run in order to
determine the distribution of days spent fishing
and to test the strength of relationships under
consideration.
Lo (1-7 days)
Med (8-30)
Hi (GTE 31)
% Total Population
217
River & Stream Fishing
None
Some
Most
69%
57
45
18%
30
36
13%
14
19
56
29
15
significant difference between these two user
groups in percentages of individuals who paid
dues to local or national conservation
organizations. Interestingly, a significantly
higher percentage of river and stream anglers
also participated in hunting in 1980. River and
stream anglers comprised 50% of those Indiana
anglers who hunt and 40% of the 1980 Indiana
hunter population.
LITERATURE CITED
Bryan, H. 1977. Leisure value systems and
recreational specialization: the case of
trout fishermen. J. Leisure Res. 9(3):174-187.
1979. Conflict in the great outdoors.
Sociological Studies No. 4, 98 p. Bureau of
Pub. Admin., Univ. of Alabama, University, AL.
Graefe, A.R. 1980. The relationship between
level of participation and selected aspects
of specialization in recreational fishing.
Ph.D. Dissertation, 155 p. Texas A&M Univ.,
College Station, TX.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The results indicate the presence of several
different angler subgroups focused on use of the
riparian environment in Indiana. We have been
able to identify a few variables that will facilitate discrimination of these groups.
Katz, M. 1981. An assessment of intra-group
differences in conservation attitudes and
environmentalism as a function of activity
involvement among fly fisherman. Ph.D.
Dissertation, 277 p. Pennsylvania State
Univ., University Park, PA.
The large percentage of anglers reporting
river and stream fishing was unanticipated as the
State of Indiana has recently acknowledged problems encountered by recreationists seeking access
to these areas. We speculate that as these
problems are alleviated the percent of anglers
using this resource setting would increase. In
addition, the intent of urban communities to
develop the river corridor as an economic and
recreational partnership should also precipitate
greater pressure on the riparian ecosystem.
Kauffman, R.B.
1984.
The relationship between
activity specialization and resource related
attitudes and expected rewards for canoeists.
Ph.D. Dissertation, 133 p. Univ. of
Maryland, College Park, MD.
McGurrin, J.M. 1984. Angler specialization in
Maryland trout fisherman. M.S. Thesis, 60 p.
Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD.
These observations imply a ne.ed for flexibility in management strategies for riparian
resource allocation in order to accommodate the
variability exhibited by resource users. The
ability to identify intra-state subgroups of
users exhibiting different characteristics also
points out the need to more carefully explore the
data being provided in large national surveys.
It might also be useful to examine the relationship between anglers and the high concentration of these people in the hunting
population. To the extent subgroups within the
angler population are apparent, does this
contribute to identifying subgroups in other
activities like hunting?
0 1 Leary, J.T. and G. Pate.
1978. An examination
of frequency of participation in water-based
activities by recreation consumers in
Indiana. Tech. Rpt. No. 114, 18 p. Water
Resources Research Center, Purdue Univ., W.
Lafayette, IN.
Romsa, G. and S. Girling. 1976. The identification of outdoor recreation market segments on
the basis of frequency of participation. J.
Leisure Res. 8(4):247-255.
State of Indiana, Department of Natural
Resources. 1984. Outdoor Recreation Plan,
95 p. Indianapolis, IN.
The human dimensions of fish and wildlife
management will increasingly be the foundation
upon which planning and policy must be based, no
longer on habitat and species questions alone.
Unless we incorporate human dimension information
as it relates to the riparian environment in our
decision-making processes, our solutions will
ultimately fail.
Stebbins, R.A. 1982. Serious leisure: a
conceptual statement. Pacific Sociological
Review 25(2):251-272.
Vaske, J., M.P. Donnelly, T.A. Heberlein, and B.
Shelby. 1982. Differences in reported
satisfaction ratings by consumptive and on
consumptive recreationists. J. Leisure Res.
14(3):195-206.
Wellman, J., J.W. Roggenbuck, and A.C. Smith.
1982. Recreation specialization and norms of
depreciative behavior among canoeists. J.
Leisure Res. 14(4):323-340.
218