The Recreational value of Atlantic salmon angling under different fishing regulations

Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L., stocks worldwide have dwindled, and stricter recreational fishing regulations have been implemented. This study estimates the recreational value of salmon fishing under different regulatory schemes and identifies factors explaining changes in net economic value of sport fishing. A Contingent Valuation mail survey in the Verdal River, Norway, asked anglers their willingness-to- pay for increased fishing expenditures or willingness- to- accept compensation in reduced fishing expenditures, to estimate recreational value. The average annual recreational value per angler decreased under stricter regulations from about €420 (in 2007– 2009) to €280 (2010– 2012) to €180 for the future scenario (2013– 2015). Although an overall net decline in recreational value was found with stricter regulations, anglers have heterogeneous preferences. Anglers with non- catch motives or high place attachment have higher recreational value with stricter regulations than others. If stricter regulations remain over time, younger, less consumptive- oriented anglers would probably dominate the fishery.

general scale after 2009 due to new spawning escapement goals demanding more fish and a general decline in returns from the ocean.
Such changes in any fishery typically impact harvest levels, angler participation , their satisfaction (Oh et al., 2005) and recreational value (Layman et al., 1996;Stoll & Ditton, 2006). Anglers accordingly need to adapt to such new measures, which ultimately impact their recreational value from fishing. For some anglers, new regulation scenarios potentially increase their recreational value, while it decreases the recreational value for other anglers. Information about changes in anglers' recreational value of fishing under different fishing regulations is important when considering policy changes and management actions (Prayaga, Rolfe, & Stoeckl, 2010). To assess how anglers value marginal changes in recreational angling, economically | 363 STENSLAND ET AL. stated preference (SP) methods like contingent valuation (CV) are often used (Navrud, 2001). CV uses surveys with a constructed hypothetical market containing policy-relevant scenarios (Mitchell & Carson, 1989).
The main objectives of this study were to determine the recreational value of salmon fishing, evaluate how it has changed and will change with different regulations, and identify the factors explaining these changes in net economic value of sport fishing. This was achieved by conducting a CV survey asking anglers to value the their recreational experience in the Verdal River in Norway between 2007 and 2012 when regulations changed, and then asked them to value a new regulation scenario to be implemented in the following seasons implying a longer fishing season but a stricter harvest quota.
This study combines both willingness-to-pay (WTP) and willingness-to-accept (WTA) questions to estimate the net economic loss or gain in recreational value due to stricter regulations of Atlantic salmon sport fishing. It adds to the paucity of CV literature that applies WTA questions.

| SALMON ANG LING IN NORWAY
Salmon angling in Norway is a private property right and belongs to the property owning land adjacent to the river (Stensland, 2010).
Landowners are typically small scale, with parts of their income from their farm and/or forest. Landowners can choose to rent out fishing on their property by selling permits to anglers, usually averaging €20-70/angler/day. Some landowners also offer accommodation, meal services and guiding on their property. The fishing right is managed on an individual property basis, although landowners could choose to collaborate with other landowners to offer longer fishing stretches to the anglers. The fish stocks on the other hand are co-managed by a landowner organisation (where all landowners are members) within the framework set by the central government (Stensland, 2010).
However, with dwindling catches in the last 10-15 years and stricter regulations (quotas, shortened seasons, closed rivers) after 2009, the number of active anglers in Norwegian rivers has declined. Stensland et al. (2015) found that salmon anglers in Norway on av-

| Study area -The Verdal River Fishery
The Trondheim Fjord region of mid-Norway has six major rivers and around 30 middle and small-sized salmon streams, making it a very important region for wild Atlantic salmon. The Orkla, Gaula, Stjørdal and Verdal rivers are the top four salmon rivers in the Trondheim

| Data collection and survey design
As in most Norwegian rivers, the Verdal River has no central register of anglers since fishing permits are sold by multiple landowners who do not necessarily keep a complete customer contact list. To contact anglers, a list of 643 unique anglers was compiled based on: (i) anglers registered on the mandatory catch report website available for the period 2008-2012 (only catches need to be reported; zero catch anglers are not registered here) (n = 390); (ii) mandatory disinfectant certificates (n = 60); (iii) landowners (n = 75); and (iv) fishing permit paper copies for 2012 from VJFF, which administers fishing for many landowners (n = 118). (Note: contact information for all anglers on the list could not be found). People below 16 years of age were excluded. The final valid sample consisted of 432 anglers with correct contact information in terms of e-mail (n = 291) or postal address (n = 141). The mail survey followed the recommendations of Dillman, Smyth and Christians (2009, pp. 65-150), and was sent out with a pre-notice letter/e-mail, main send-out and three reminders during the spring/summer 2013. Thus, the questions related to their angling in 2012 or earlier. A total of 214 responses were received, giving an overall response rate of 49.5%. The sample ideally represented anglers in the Verdal River. However, sample selection bias cannot be ruled out as anglers who stopped fishing in the river prior to the survey might have been harder to contact. Thus, the results should be interpreted with this in mind.

| Survey questions
In the survey questionnaire (see Appendix S1), questions were adapted from other studies on recreational fishing. Most questions were answered on a seven-point scale with only endpoints given verbal labels. First, respondents were asked questions about their experience with salmon angling in Norway and other countries. The second part consisted of specific questions about their salmon angling in the Verdal River. Questions about fishing motivation were from Beardmore et al. (2013), and place attachment statements from Williams and Vaske (2003).
In parts three and four, respondents were informed about the status of salmon and sea trout stocks, regulations and management.
Questions asked were about preferences of specified fishing regulations, satisfaction with the 2013 fishing regulations, attitudes towards keeping one big salmon as a part of the quota and releasing one big salmon as part of the quota, and statements about C&R of fish in the Verdal River (Skullerud & Stensland, 2013). Part five contained questions about management actions and future fish stock trends.
In part six, respondents were asked to value their recreational Four questions were formulated to determine the initial recreational value of salmon fishing in the Verdal River, and how it is affected by regulations. First, the respondents were asked to state their Verdal River fishing expenditures during the last season they fished there. Second, respondents were asked to state the maximum increase in these annual expenditures they would accept before stopping fishing in this river: "Consider what it was worth to you to be able to fish the Verdal River the last season you fished there.
What is the largest increase in your annual expenses for fishing the Verdal River that year, you could accept before you would have stopped fishing there?" This question was asked to determine the anglers' initial recreational value of salmon fishing in their last season on the Verdal River (see also Toivonen et al., 2004). Respondents could choose from a list of amounts from NOK 0 to NOK 18,000 in a payment card (PC). A "don't know" option was also provided to the respondents (Johnston et al., 2017). A PC was used instead of a dichotomous choice (DC) format (i.e. asking the anglers to say "yes" or "no" to paying pre-specified amounts), as DC requires larger samples than was possible from the relatively small population of anglers on the Verdal River (Boyle, 2017).
To evaluate how the recreational value changed with different regulations, a policy-relevant regulation scenario was introduced to the respondents. Note that it was not possible to differentiate the effect of regulations from effect of stock decline. Stock decline causes stricter fishing regulations, while the stricter regulations will in time yield stock increase. A quota regulation sets a limit how much fish that can be caught and is such a stronger catch constraint than stock decline that would allow status quo effort and total catch if not combined by restrictions.
The new regulation implied that the fishing season would span 10 June -31 July, with a quota of two salmon per angler annually.
This would be implemented from 2013 to 2016, and the regulation was similar to the one for the upcoming 2013 season. This regulation scenario extended the length of the season by 3 weeks, although reduced the annual salmon quota from three to two fish. Some anglers might have obtained higher recreational value with this regulation scenario, while it might have reduced the recreational value for other anglers. Therefore, the respondents were asked whether the coming seasons in the Verdal River with new regulations were worth more or less than their last fishing season: "Consider your expenses the last season you fished the Verdal River (cf. question 32). If the season length is June 10-July 31, and the annual quota is 2 fish per angler for 2013-2016: Will fishing the Verdal River one of these coming seasons be worth more, the same or less to you than the expenses you had the last season you fished there?" The anglers who obtained increased recreational value with the regulation scenario were asked their WTP in terms of the increased annual expenditures they were willing to pay to get the regulations: Consider what it is worth to you to be able to fish the Verdal River with a season length June 10-July 31, and an annual quota of 2 fish per angler.

River (cf. question 32). What is the largest increase in your annual ex-
penses for fishing the Verdal River you can accept before you would have stopped fishing there?".
A WTA question in terms of their willingness-to-accept compensation in terms of reduced annual fishing expenditures was asked of anglers who experienced lower recreational value with the new regulations: "Consider what it is worth to you to be able to fish the Verdal River with a season length 10 June-31 July, and an annual quota of 2 fish per angler. Compared to the expenses you had the last season you fished the Verdal River (cf. question 32). What is the smallest reduction in your annual expenses for fishing the Verdal River you can accept and still fish there?" The same PC as described above was used for both WTP and WTA questions.
Although theoretically correct, WTA questions are usually avoided in CV surveys due to empirical difficulties, such as respondents protesting about the question about required compensation because they do not feel they have the property right to the resource in question and can demand compensation, or they are offended by being "bribed" by monetary compensation (Arrow et al., 1993). Thus, there are few CV studies that ask respondents for their WTA compensation. Guidance in stated preference methods (Johnston et al., 2017 recommendation # 7) states: "However, WTP estimation should not always be considered the default, and WTA estimation should be applied when it is appropriate and feasible".
In this study, the regulatory change implied property rights and respondents logical reference conditions all point in the direction of WTA being the appropriate welfare measure for anglers experiencing a welfare loss due to the new regulation. For anglers that experienced a welfare gain by the new regulations, the appropriate way to measure this is still by a WTP question. As the conditions for a successful application of WTA were considered to be fulfilled, the CV question could be differentiated and tailored to these two groups of anglers.
Respondents not willing to accept any changes (positive or negative) in their annual expenses for fishing in the Verdal River were asked why. Different reply options were offered. If a respondent chose "The season should not be extended before the number of spawners has increased" or "I don't believe the fishing in the Verdal River will be as good as it used to be," the angler was identified as a "protest zero" respondent. Questions regarding socio-economic characteristics were asked at the end of the survey, as recommended by Johnston et al., (2017).

| Data analyses and variables
Interval censored regressions (Cameron & Huppert, 1989) were used to determine the expected mean of the anglers' recreational value last season and with different fishing regulations. The expected mean is given by: In addition, interval censored regressions were used to evaluate how relevant exogenous variables explain the variation in recreational values (Wooldridge, 2013). As this was a split-sample survey asking some respondents a WTP question and others a WTA question, a logit model was also used to evaluate how angler and socioeconomic characteristics explained whether they preferred the regulation scenario or not. Zero-responses were not included in the regression analyses for WTP, WTA and initial recreational value with the regulation scenario. This was because it is not possible to distinguish true zero respondents for WTP, WTA, and missing values.
Overall, 4% of the sample was identified as protest zeroes. Protest zeroes were excluded from the analysis.
Because of linearity concerns, binary variables of statements believed, through theory and reasoning, to be important in explaining the variation in the recreational values were generated. A 7-point scale was used for most statement. The binary variables were coded as 1 if the respondents chose 5 or higher on the scale, and 0 otherwise. Table 1 gives a description of the variables used in the analyses.

| Sample characteristics
Ninety-four percent of the respondents were males ( Table 2). The aver-

| Initial recreational value
The expected mean recreational value of the last fishing season in the Verdal River was NOK 3911 (Table 3)

| Recreational value in the new regulation scenario
The majority (64%) considered the upcoming seasons with the new regulation scenario to be worth the same or more as their last fishing season in the Verdal River and was asked the WTP question (Table 3). Thirty-two per cent of the respondents did not know whether the upcoming seasons were worth less, the same or more as their last season. Mean annual WTP to get the regulation scenario was NOK 3821 per angler (Table 3) A t-test of mean difference showed WTP to be significantly (at the 5% level) higher than WTA. The overall mean annual recreational value with the regulation scenario was NOK 2598 per angler. When calculating this value, WTP values were positive, while WTA values were negative. The mean annual recreational value with the regulation scenario of NOK 2598 was significantly lower than the initial annual recreational value per angler of 3911 NOK.

| Regression model of initial recreational value
The recreational value decreased with the total number of fishing days in all salmon rivers they fished, being female, and higher importance of catching fish to generate a supply in the freezer (Table 4).
Initial recreational value increased with increasing number of years the respondents have fished in the Verdal River, increased fishing expenditures, having last fished the Verdal River during 2007-2009, increased number of released fish in the Verdal River, agreeing that they should release their catch, and agreeing that the Verdal River is the best salmon river for them.

| Regression models for recreational value with regulation scenario
The net income elasticity of WTP after the regulation scenario was 0.4 (model 1,

| Logit-model for WTP versus WTA
In the logit model (  tions. This implies that the average angler does not exist (Shafer, 1969), and that a change in fishing regulations will affect angler groups differently depending on the regulations and actual fishery (Layman et al., 1996;Stensland et al., 2017;Stoll & Ditton, 2006). value for fishermen as the number of possible angling days would decrease. A lower harvest quota would limit angling participation by consumption-oriented salmon anglers , and thus lower their recreational value per angling day. Anglers are a diverse group, hence factors impacting participation work on a constraint-facilitator continuum (Kuehn et al., 2013;Raymore, 2002). A factor such as stricter quotas would be a constraint to some anglers, whereas for conservation minded, less harvestoriented, and more C&R prone anglers, a lowered quota could be viewed as a sign of responsible fishery management and facilitate participation, as Stensland et al. (2017) showed for salmon anglers in Norway, and indicated here.
With these restrictions, imposed recreational fisheries could see a change in the composition of the angler population with more consumption-oriented anglers leaving the fishery (Øian et al., 2017) or adjusting their behaviour through various substitution strategies (Shelby & Vaske, 1991;Stensland et al., 2017). Angler behaviour and preferences will also depend on available substitution sites and activities (Shelby & Vaske, 1991), commitment to angling and place attachment (Beardmore et al., 2013).
For the Verdal river, the number of anglers, angler days and per day also correspond well with recreation value estimates from other salmon rivers in Norway, although they are somewhat lower than in one of the very best salmon rivers -Gaula River -but higher than in acidified salmon and sea trout rivers even with the stricter fishing regulations in Verdal river (Navrud, 2001).
Anglers who scored high on experiencing nature mastered angling-related challenges and outwitted difficult fish scored higher recreational value with the regulation scenario. This is reasonable as the regulation scenario entails a longer season, which means the anglers have more time to practice and master angling-related challenges and outwit difficult fish.
The results also show that place attachment is important in explaining variations in anglers' recreational value, both for the angling they have undertaken, and for their stated change in recreational value with stricter fishing regulations. The recreational value was higher among anglers who (strongly) agreed that Verdal River is the best salmon fishing river for their type of fishing. In addition, the recreational value of the fishing they had undertaken increased with the number of seasons in the Verdal River. If an angler has spent multiple seasons at a specific river, one would expect that place attachment could explain their returns to the same river. Place attachment to a site evolves over time and depends on spending time at the site (Hailu et al., 2005). WTP for the regulation scenario increased if the anglers felt attached to the Verdal River, and anglers with high place identity thus have higher recreational value. Correspondingly, WTP decreased if anglers agreed that other rivers were perfect substitutes (i.e. provided the same satisfaction) for the Verdal River.
Overall, recreational value increases with place attachment, and these anglers are less likely to leave the river if new and stricter management regulations are imposed. For some, quitting salmon angling and doing another activity might be an alternative or perfect substitute for going to another salmon river (Stensland et al., 2015).
The results above are also in accordance with previous studies that showed anglers to score such non-catch-related motives higher than catch-related motives as reasons for going fishing; although catch was important for satisfaction with the trip (Beardmore et al., 2011).
With regards to catch motives, the results showed that both consumptive orientation and C&R attitudes/behaviour affect the anglers' recreational value. Consumptive anglers had lower recreational value both with their initial and the new regulation scenario, probably as a result of fewer salmon to harvest in the latter. The recreational value was higher for anglers agreeing with or doing C&R.
This seems reasonable as C&R is often part of a strict management scheme, and accepting C&R means that theses anglers probably see the current and future management regimes as relatively less restrictive than anglers not doing and/or not accepting C&R. In a discrete choice experiment, Ropars-Collet and Le Goffe (2020) found great heterogeneity in anglers' valuation of mandatory C&R, where 25% of the binary attribute was on the positive side. On the other hand, Olaussen (2016) found that mandatory C&R can reduce anglers' utility by up to 80%.

| Implications for management
Do stricter regulations harm all angler groups? That probably depends on the restrictions imposed. The tested scenario was a mixture of reduced season and stricter quotas, and no attempt was made to differentiate between the two. Irrespective, the scenario reduced the overall welfare of salmon anglers in the Verdal River.
Both the consumptive anglers and the C&R anglers were likely affected by the scenario, but the latter group less so. They are more likely to adapt, keep on fishing in the river, and not leave for other (nearby) rivers with higher quotas . Some groups of anglers would, however, benefit from the changes, typically the "elite/C&R anglers" in Øian et al., (2017), while others like the "folkfishing/harvesters" face reduced recreational value and would be the ones that leave the river. If stricter regulations remain over time, one would likely see an initial conflict (Øian et al., 2017) followed by a permanent transformation of the angler population to being younger, less harvest-oriented, do more of C&R and fly fishing (Stensland et al., 2015). To what extent this has happened in the Verdal River is not known as there are no data on, for example, age and psychographics of the angler population after this 2013-study.
Catch reports do, however, give some support for the assumption as angler behaviour has changed. C&R has grown from 33-42% of total catch for 2010-2012 to 61-66% for the 2018-2020 seasons. For the latter period, 70-78% of the salmon was caught on fly, while for the first period, no such numbers exist.

| Further research
Overall, this Contingent Valuation (CV) study showed that both the WTA and WTP questions can be successfully applied in a CV survey of anglers to estimate the recreational value of fisheries under different regulatory regimes. The split-sample approach of WTP and WTA to assess changes in the value of recreational activities caused by external factors should be further explored in CV studies. The study also finds that both fishing motivations and place attachment are useful in explaining anglers' recreational value of salmon fishing.
Thus, the study demonstrated that including socio-psychological statements in a CV survey can be useful. However, more research is needed to understand the importance of social-psychology variables in CV studies.

ACK N OWLED G EM ENTS
We thank Verdal Hunting and Fishing Association (VJFF) and landowners of the Verdal River for providing contact information to anglers and Knut Fossgard for helping out with data collection. This study is part of the project SALMONCHANGE and was supported by the Research Council of Norway under grant number 208056.

DATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T
The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy or ethical restrictions.