The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Research Report: The Economic Impact of Game and Coarse Angling in Scotland

2 Literature Review

2.1 Introduction

There have been four previous studies of the economic impact of angling in Scotland:

• Tourism and Recreation Research Unit of Edinburgh University study of salmon and sea trout angling in Scotland;

• Mackay Consultants study of salmon angling in Scotland;

• Deloitte and Touche study of freshwater fishing in the Tweed catchment; and

• Fisheries Resource Management study of freshwater fisheries in the Western Isles.

2.2 Tourism and Recreation Research Unit (1982)

The survey instruments utilised were a combination of face-to-face interviews and self-completion questionnaires. These two instruments produced 147 observations across three areas (Kyle of Sutherland, the Tay and the Spey). The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAFS) ⁴ provided estimates of rod days obtained via a form sent out by DAFS to the proprietors of fishing along with the salmon and sea trout catch return form. Combining the mean expenditure with the rod days estimates, produced the following expenditure figures for the three study areas ⁵.

The 62,230 salmon and sea trout angler days on the Spey seems high not only in relation to other rivers, but also as a proportion of all rod days in the Highlands (see table 2.2.2 below). For all three areas the implied daily spend is over 200. The rod day estimates were also used to produce a figure for expenditure across the whole of Scotland. The number of regional rod days recorded and extrapolated from the returns is given in Table 2.2.2 below.

The total expenditure on salmon angling in Scotland in 1982 was estimated to be between 50m and 105m with the best estimate being 79m implying an average daily expenditure of 211.

2.3 Mackay Consultants (1989)

In the Scottish context, the study by Mackay Consultants (1989) has been singularly important as a benchmark measure of angler expenditure. This was a wide ranging study that not only sought to establish the pattern and impact of salmon and sea trout angler expenditure, but also the economic importance of netting and the organisation and promotion of salmon and sea trout angling as a tourism asset. Sample data on angler expenditure were obtained through a mixture of on-site surveys, a postal survey (names and addresses provided by hotels and fishery owners) and questionnaires left with tackle shops, hotels proprietors etc. A total of 2,364 responses were received and the calculated average daily expenditure was 124.34 ⁶. This was combined with an estimate of 435,000 total Scottish rod days for 1988. Regionally the best estimate of rod days was distributed as follows ⁷:

These figures are higher than the DAFS estimates used by the Tourism and Recreation Research Unit. On this basis, Mackay estimated the direct expenditure of all salmon anglers in Scotland to be 54 million. As far as substitution is concerned, no distinction was made between the impact of visiting anglers' expenditure and resident Scottish anglers' expenditure. This implies that if salmon angling did not exist, all domestic (and visitor) expenditure will be diverted from Scotland. Mackay assumes a multiplier value of 1.5, and given this, the total expenditure in Scotland derived from salmon angling (the sum of direct, indirect and induced expenditure) was estimated to be 81.12 million.

The Mackay study also generated descriptive sample statistics for the ten case study areas: Lewis and Harris, Thurso, Conon, Orchy, Spey, Dee, Tay, Lomond, Nith and the Tweed. These are presented in Table 2.3.2 below for comparative purposes. The information on rod days for the case study areas was believed to be better than the regional rod days (see above), though the Tweed figure seems relatively low.

The accuracy of the angler days is crucial since this is the scaling factor. The Mackay estimate for angler days on the Spey is very similar to the TRRU study; however it is unlikely that the Spey would have nearly three times the angler days of the River Tweed. The Tweed angler days may have been underestimated or the Spey overestimated or some combination of both. The corresponding daily and total expenditures are given below:

The range of per capita daily expenditure is unexpected. The Tweed is by reputation one of the most expensive fisheries in terms of permit charges and the Western Isles generally cheaper, though there are a few very expensive fisheries on the Isles. Generally, daily spending figures seem relatively low given the level of permit charges and accommodation costs. The daily expenditure figures are less than in the TRRU study, and our own survey work generated larger estimates of daily spending. The Mackay estimates are however based on quite large samples.

In Table 2.3.3 above, the local expenditure adjustment percentage simply reflects recorded expenditure that was not spent in the case study area (principally transport). The multipliers are expenditure multipliers that include indirect and induced effects, and are estimated from primary data from the owner survey and other information on the local economy. There is no detailed explanation of how they were derived. Using the ratio of 24,150 of final expenditure to each full time equivalent job (F.T.E.), it was estimated that 3,360 jobs in Scotland depended on the 81.12m expenditure generated through salmon and sea trout angling. This ratio is based on the relationship between fishery proprietors' revenue and their observed number of employees, with a 20% increase to reflect higher wages outside fishing. The Mackay study does not estimate local income effects.

2.4 Deloitte and Touche (1996)

Deloitte and Touche (1996) adopted a similar approach to Mackay in their assessment of the economic impact of freshwater fishing on the River Tweed main stem and tributaries. In addition to elite interviews and specially commissioned cross tabulations of the United Kingdom Tourism Survey data (UKTS), they also used a range of survey instruments:

• Interviews with local businesses (to establish multiplier effects);

• Interviews with proprietors or others to establish permit sale; and

• Postal survey of anglers to establish angler spending.

They established the number of angler days for four groups of anglers:

• salmon visitors staying in the area;

• salmon fishers on day trips;

• other non-salmon visitors; and

• other day trippers.

Salmon visitors were initially estimated through a top down analysis of UK Tourism Statistics. Of the 300,000 domestic tourist trips to the Borders Region 3% to 3.5% had coarse/game fishing as the main purpose. After various adjustments, this group were estimated to account for 36,036 angler days. This was consistent with an analysis of the room stock in the area. Interviews with proprietors indicated that a further 5,400 salmon rod days would be taken by day fishers (4,500 of which are non-local day trips). This suggests a total of around 41,500 angler days. A bottom up analysis of beats and occupancy levels conducted in cooperation with James Leeming, the main Tweed letting agent suggested 39,500 salmon and sea trout rod days. It is reassuring that these figures are so similar and the figure of 40,000 salmon and sea trout angler days seems an appropriate estimate of the number of days at the river bank. This differs substantially from the Mackay estimate of 19,400 angler days and is not easily explained by structural change in fishing activity in the seven years between the publication of the two reports.

With respect to daily expenditure, Deloitte and Touche estimate 187 for visitors and 81 for day trips. Both these estimates are substantially larger than the 34 estimated by the Mackay study (see Table 2.3.3).

When non-fishing companions are included and allowance made for non-fishing days by visitors, total expenditure is estimated to be 11.26m. Deloitte and Touche estimated that 8.4m of this (73%) is retained in the first round of expenditure. Most of this will be value added (wages to ghillies, hotel and restaurant workers), but some will be locally purchased inputs. 5.5m (65%) is retained in the next round. This is quite a high retention rate, given prevailing tax rates, and the small proportion of goods and services that will originate within the Borders area. Subsequent rounds are assumed to retain 25%, producing further total retention of 1.4m. The sum of retained expenditure is thus 15.3m. Given the original direct expenditure of 11.36m this implies an (expenditure) multiplier of 1.35. The authors suggest that this implies an output multiplier of 0.34, but do not explain the logic of this.

The total 'economic impact' is stated as 15.3m. This is simply total expenditure on all goods (final and intermediate) and is not synonymous with local output or local income (i.e. value added). Employment is estimated by assuming full costs of employment of 29,025 and dividing the 15.3m turnover/expenditure by this figure. Thus, 520 jobs are estimated to be dependent on salmon and sea trout angling. If employment estimates are to be based on the wage costs per FTE, then arguably one should divide the wage bill, by 29,025.

2.5 Fisheries Resources Management (FRM) (2000)

In a study for the Western Isles Fisheries Trust, FRM estimated the economic contribution of recreational freshwater fisheries to the Western Isles. This is an extensive and very detailed study that examines many dimensions of freshwater fisheries in the Western Isles. FRM used a variety of survey instruments:

• McPherson Research conducted a survey of 2004 face-to-face interviews with visitors between May and October 1999. This survey included a specific subset of questions related to angling;

• 2,000 self-completion questionnaires were distributed to anglers at designated points of exit; 320 were returned. In addition 35 face-to-face interviews were conducted using a scripted version of the self-completion questionnaire;

• A stratified telephone survey of 782 household on the Western Isles;

• A survey of all known clubs and proprietors on the Western Isles. Of the 32 known 21 responded; and

• Additional survey work on three case study areas; the Kildonan catchment, the River Creed and the Valtos peninsula.

This study is interesting because it used the number of visiting anglers as the scaling factor, since this control total was available from the McPherson study. In this report, the implied total salmon angler days (by visitors and residents) are over 40,000.

There are some problems in reconciling this 40,000 with other information. First, both the DAFS estimate of 3,200 days for the Western Isles and the Mackay estimate of 2400 salmon and sea trout angler days for Lewis and Harris are of completely different orders of magnitude. Second, the study's own survey of owners found that whilst there are 22,000 salmon and sea trout rod days, only 22% were taken up. This implies a total of 4,620 rod days; much closer to the DAFS and MacKay estimates. Third, the official salmon and sea trout catch for the Western Isles for the year 1998 was 3,763 fish. The FRM study reports a catch of 0.56 salmon and sea trout per day. This suggests about 6,700 salmon and sea trout angler days. Fourth, the FRM survey of owners estimates a total catch of 3,563 salmon and sea trout and combining this with the catch per day of 0.56 would produce 6,400 days. In contrast, combining the 40,000 estimated angler days with the catch rate of 0.56, suggests anglers in the Western Isles would be catching 22,400 salmon and sea trout. This is much more than the Spey or the Tweed.

In estimating multiplier effects and employment dependency, the FRM study adopted a slightly different approach from both Mackay Consultants and Deloitte and Touch. Their expenditure multiplier was a Type I multiplier (induced effects ignored) derived by other research workers from input output analysis of the Western Isles. Their expenditure multiplier was 1.14. Employment was derived from known relationships between the value of output and the amount of labour required to produce it across various sectors in the Western Isles. These employment coefficients were applied only to the first round expenditure, and not the total expenditure.

2.6 Concluding Remarks

In general there are some problems in reconciling the previous studies of the economic impact of angling in Scotland. The Mackay and TRRU estimates of angler days are very similar, although there are substantial differences between them in the average daily spend. The Deloitte and Touche study of the River Tweed generated an estimate of Tweed angler days that differed substantially from the MacKay estimate, but was more credible and their estimate of daily spending was a quite different order of magnitude from the Mackay study. Finally it seems that FRM study of the Western Isles may have over estimated the number of angler days. Overall, our knowledge of the economic impact of angling is patchy and a little confused.

« Previous | Contents | Next »