Understanding Anglers’ Preferences for Fishing Tournament Characteristics and Policies

Saltwater fishing tournaments in the United States are generally not regulated nor are there different fishing regulations for tournament and nontournament anglers. Although much is known about those who participate in fishing tournaments in terms of their fishing motivations, attitudes, and characteristics, much less is known at the angler population level regarding their preferences for tournament opportunities. Using a stated preference choice model with hypothetical scenarios to simulate participation choices and understand preferences, study objectives were to identify angler preferences for various types of tournament fishing “products.” Four tournament policy characteristics were investigated: promotion of catch and release, bait restrictions, whether a percentage of the tournament entrance fee should go to support fishery management activities, and whether a tournament should be a nonprofit or profit-making venture. Three expectation attributes were inserted: tournament size, trip cost per day, and whether a tournament is family friendly. We sent seven different versions of the mail questionnaire to 1,633 anglers. Of 795 returns, 648 were used for estimating conditional logit models. Analysis indicated that a scenario with no management interventions was not most preferred. Anglers most preferred a conservation-oriented option that introduced additional management measures. Overall, scenarios with management interventions were more favored than the status quo situation (with no management interventions). Although respondents showed reluctance to adopt other management-related options, results generally indicated they were increasingly concerned with sustainability of fish stocks and potential conflicts between tournament and nontournament users and preferred tournament products that reflect these concerns.     

Leverage points to foster human–nature connectedness in cultural landscapes

Calls for a reconnection to nature and the biosphere have been growing louder over the last decades. Cultural landscapes are rapidly changing, posing a threat to ecosystems and biodiversity, but also to human–nature connections. Human–nature connectedness may be a potential lever to shift the unsustainable trajectory that we are currently proceeding, but is also negatively influenced by it. To concretize the call for a reconnection to nature, we used the leverage points perspective on five empirical case studies with focus on human–nature connectedness. Based on the synthesis of our yearlong work, in this perspective paper, we propose four leverage points to foster a sustainability transformation: (1) maintain and enhance the structural diversity of landscapes, (2) maintain and enhance economically and ecologically sustainable small-scale agriculture, (3) strengthen sense of place and (4) strengthen sense of agency in actors. Intervening in these leverage points could be effective to foster human–nature connectedness and ultimately contribute towards a sustainable trajectory. We further argue that the interconnection between leverage points is equally important as their systemic depth.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13280-021-01504-2.     

Participatory scenario planning to facilitate human–wildlife coexistence

Fostering human–wildlife coexistence requires transdisciplinary approaches that integrate multiple sectors, account for complexity and uncertainty, and ensure stakeholder participation. One such approach is participatory scenario planning, but to date, this approach has not been used in human–wildlife contexts. We devised a template for how participatory scenario planning can be applied to identify potential avenues for improving human–wildlife coexistence. We drew on 3 conceptual building blocks, namely the SEEDS framework, the notion of critical uncertainties, and the three-horizons technique. To illustrate the application of the proposed template, we conducted a case study in the Zambezi region of Namibia. We held 5 multistakeholder workshops that involved local people as well as numerous nongovernment and government stakeholders. We identified 14 important wildlife species that generated multiple services and disservices. The subsequent benefits and burdens, in turn, were inequitably distributed among stakeholders. Government actors played particularly influential roles in shaping social-ecological outcomes. We identified 2 critical uncertainties for the future: the nature of governance (fragmented vs. collaborative) and the type of wildlife economy (hunting vs. photography based). Considering these uncertainties resulted in 4 plausible scenarios describing future human–wildlife coexistence. Stakeholders did not agree on a single preferred scenario, but nevertheless agreed on several high-priority strategies. Bridging the remaining gaps among actors will require ongoing deliberation among stakeholders. Navigating the complex challenges posed by living with wildlife requires moving beyond disciplinary approaches. To that end, our template could prove useful in many landscapes around the world.