The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

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

5 Angler Activity and Expenditure

5.1 Angler Days

From the fisheries database, the distribution of angler days across regions and fishery types in Scotland is given in Table 5.1.1. It is estimated that there is a total of 1.4m angler days annually in Scotland. The three most important regions are Highlands, the North East and Central Scotland. The region receiving the greatest angler effort is Central Scotland, in part due to the amount of rainbow trout angling in this region. If rainbow trout days are removed from the table, the central region is still the third most important angling region (behind the Highlands and the North East). The Highlands and the North East have over 70% of the total salmon and sea trout angler days (381,000 angler days). If salmon and sea trout angler days are removed, the North East and the Highlands are, respectively, the second and third most important fishing regions.

Across Scotland, in terms of angler effort, salmon and sea trout angling is the most important type of angling and is the largest fishery in Dumfries and Galloway, the Borders, Highland and the North East.

There are five cells in the above table with very low or zero angler days. It is known that angling for these species does occur in these regions because, with the exception of coarse angling in Orkney and Shetland, returns were obtained from anglers for these species in these regions (see Table 3.2.1). However the number of returns was very small and the local fishing organisations were unable to estimate separate angler days for these species. On the advice of these organisations, we have recorded less than 100 days (<100) and any known minimal activity has been subsumed into the brown trout totals.

The relatively low numbers of coarse fishing days in the Borders is surprising (especially since Grayling, for the purposes of this study is included in the coarse fish category). Anecdote suggests that one there should be more days in this particular region/fishery combination. One particular angling club, which did not respond to the owner survey was reputed to be responsible for over 100 coarse angler days. Additional research did not produce sufficient evidence for this to be changed, prior to the calculation of economic impacts. Updating at some future date may be possible if further evidence is forthcoming.

Of the 1,386,043 angler days, 773,208 (56%) were made by locals. Table 5.1.2 provides a breakdown of local angler days by region and fishery type. The last column records the percentage of total angler days in each region fished by locals. It can be seen that anglers resident in the Central Region fish 81% of all angler days in the Central Region. This contrasts with the Borders and Highlands where local residents, respectively fish only 24% and 27% of angler days.

The last row in Table 5.1.2 records the percentage of total angler days for each species fished by local anglers. Local anglers fish only 39% of all salmon and sea trout angler days, whereas local anglers fish 67% of all rainbow trout days and 70% of all brown trout angler days.

Of the 1,386,043 angler days, only 242,979 (18%) were made Scottish visiting anglers. Table 5.1.3 provides further information on the angler days of Scottish anglers visiting other regions. The Highland region has the highest percentage of days fished by Scottish visiting anglers (24%). With respect to fishing type, 23% of rainbow trout angler days were fished by Scottish visiting anglers, compared with only 14% of salmon angler days.

Of the total 1,386,043 angler days, 369,855 (27%) were made by anglers from outside Scotland. Table 5.1.4 provides further information on angler days by non-Scottish visiting anglers. There are significant differences between regions in the relative importance of these anglers. In the Central region only 7% of all angler days are fished by visitors to Scotland, compared with 60% in the Borders and 50% in the Highland region. With respect to types of fishing, it is clear that salmon and sea trout angling attracts a greater proportion of anglers from outside Scotland. Indeed, non-Scottish visiting anglers are responsible for nearly a half of all salmon and sea trout angler effort.

5.2 Angler Expenditure Per Day

The estimates of angler expenditure include the expenditure by anglers on behalf of others. Therefore if an angler is paying for a spouse or offspring this is included. The independent expenditure of a non-angler accompanying an angler is not included. Thus, the expenditure by a spouse say buying a valuable antique while their partner is on a fishing trip is explicitly discounted in this study.

There is some evidence of considerable expenditure by anglers' companions, particularly salmon and sea trout anglers and some studies have made allowances for this expenditure. ¹¹ On the other hand, casual observations suggest that coarse anglers are less likely to have high spending non-angler companions. In the survey design stages ways were sought of capturing these effects. Unfortunately given the other priorities, the inclusion of this element produced unwieldy questionnaires. If this study was restricted to salmon angling, there may have been a stronger imperative to include non-angling expenditure at the expense of other elements. As a consequence, the economic importance of salon and sea trout angling may be underestimated.

The angler database provides estimates of the mean expenditure per angler day for each of the region/fishery combinations. These are presented in Table 5.2.1 below.

As expected, salmon angling attracts the highest spending per day, both generally (134.83) and across every region, except Dumfries and Galloway. On average, the Highlands is the most expensive region (140.04); though, rainbow trout in Dumfries and Galloway and coarse angling in the North East are marginally more expensive than in the Highlands.

It was also possible to estimate average daily expenditure for local anglers (from within the fishery region), Scottish visitor (from Scotland but out-with the fishery region) and non-Scottish visitor (other parts of the UK plus overseas). These are presented in Tables 5.2.2 to 5.2.4, below. The general pattern of the Highlands being the most expensive region, and salmon and sea trout being the most expensive type of fishing is replicated through these three tables.

5.3 Angler Expenditure

Estimates of angler expenditure per day (Tables 5.2.1 to 5.2.4) were scaled using the information on angler days (Table 5.1.1 to 5.1.4) to produce estimates of total angler expenditure. The results are presented in Table 5.3.1 to 5.3.4.

Anglers spend a total of 113million on angling in Scotland, with salmon and sea trout anglers accounting for over 65% (73m) of this total. It is worth noting that the comparable figure for salmon spending estimated by McKay Consultants was 54m.

Whilst in terms of angler days, rainbow trout angling in Central Scotland attracts the largest number of angler days, salmon and sea trout in the Highlands and the North East are much more significant in terms of expenditure.

Anglers fishing within their own region spent 36.8m and were responsible for (33%) of the 113m total. Table 5.3.2 below provides a breakdown of local angler spending by region and fishery type. The last column records the percentage of total regional expenditure made by local anglers. It can be seen that 69% of angler expenditure in the Central region is made by anglers from that region. This contrasts with the Borders and Highlands where local residents are responsible for only 8% and 17% of angler expenditure.

The last row in Table 5.3.2 records the percentage of total expenditure for each species made by local anglers. Local anglers make only 23% of salmon and sea trout angler expenditure, whereas local anglers make 56% of rainbow trout and 46% of brown trout angler expenditure.

Scottish visiting anglers spent a relatively modest 16.8m (15%) of the 113m total expenditure. Table 5.3.3 below provides further information on the expenditure by Scottish visiting anglers. The Western Isles is the region with the greatest proportion (37%) of its expenditure accounted for by such anglers. This is surprising since only 13% of the Western Isles angler days are by Scottish anglers visiting (see table 5.1.3). The relative costs of travelling to the Western Isles from within Scotland may be an explanatory factor.

Anglers from outside Scotland spent 59.9m (52%) of the 113m total expenditure. Table 5.3.4 below provides further information on the expenditure by non Scottish visiting anglers.

There are notable differences between regions in the relative importance of these anglers. In the Central region only 11% of angler expenditure is made by visitors to Scotland, compared with 82% in the Borders and 69% in the Highland region. With respect to types of fishing, anglers visiting Scotland made 66% of all expenditure on salmon and sea trout angling.

5.4 Displacement and Substitution Possibilities

If a fishery ceased to exist, then theoretically all angler expenditure could be lost to a region. Thus, for example the Highland region could lose 35.4m if salmon angling ceased (See Table 5.3.1). But this loss would only occur in the event that all anglers fished or otherwise diverted expenditure outside the region. This is not likely and some researchers therefore expediently assume that whereas visitors have better substitutes outside the region, residents have better substitutes within it. Thus, 100% of resident expenditure is simply 'displaced' within, and the region loses only the expenditure of visiting anglers. In other words, only visitor spending is relevant, the rest is displacement. On this basis, in the case of salmon angling in the Highland region, 5.3m of local spending would be displaced (see Table 5.3.2). The region would lose a total of 30.1m, comprising 3.7m of Scottish visiting angler expenditure (see Table 5.3.3) plus 26.4m of expenditures by non Scottish visiting anglers (see Table 5.3.4).

In addition to separately estimating local and visitor spending, the study also analysed anglers' actual substitution possibilities, irrespective of where they came from. Anglers were asked to indicate their preferred option in the event of a fishery type in a region ceasing to exist. For example, some overseas anglers may still visit the region, whereas some locals may decide to fish another region. Depending on angler responses, estimates were made of the expenditure change associated with the fishery ceasing to exist.

In effect, there were five possible scenarios about displacement and associated with each an estimate of regional expenditure supported by a particular type of fishery. The first scenario assumes that all expenditure is lost (i.e. zero displacement). The second assumes that only visitor spending is lost. The other three scenarios were based around anglers' stated reaction to a fishery type ceasing to exist. The angler questionnaires presented anglers with four options. These are given below (1) - (4). It was necessary to make an assumption about the expenditure switch of those anglers who selected response (4) below. In fact, three assumptions were made, listed i), ii) and iii) below, and based on each assumption, the three further displacement estimates were produced.

For each region/fishery combination, different estimates were made of the regional expenditure lost, depending on alternative displacement scenarios. Only two of the five displacement estimates are reported here. These two are the zero displacement scenario and displacement based on the anglers' stated response (1) to (4), where assumption (ii) is made for those (relatively few) anglers choosing not to fish. The rest of the displacement estimates are given in the Technical Report.

Table 5.4.1 presents the displacement factor based on anglers' stated reaction for each of the region/fishery combinations. This is the percentage of the total angler expenditure that would be lost to a region if a fishery type ceased to exist.

There is significant variation is the reaction of anglers. The Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland retain a greater proportion of their angler spending. This is probably because resident anglers would simply switch species rather than incurring the travel costs associated with fishing on the mainland. There also exists the strong possibility that a relatively higher proportion of visiting anglers incur the relatively higher costs in fishing these islands because their visit is essentially multipurpose (e.g. visiting relatives, staying with friends). These visitors are more likely to continue to visit even if their preferred fishing were not available. Anglers in Central Scotland also seem to have good substitution possibilities within their region. Salmon anglers appear to be the most loyal to their sport with on average 60% of expenditure being diverted outside the region.

The displacement factors in Table 5.4.1 are used to produce estimates of the expenditure lost to each region. From Table 5.4.2 below it can be seen that, if salmon and sea trout angling ceased, 20.7m of expenditure would be lost in the Highland region (compared with 35.4m with zero displacement and 30.1m if only local expenditure is displaced).

Unfortunately, the angler questionnaires could not accommodate questions about angler alternatives if a type of angling ceased throughout Scotland, or indeed if all forms of angling ceased in Scotland. It is thus important to realise that each cell in the Table 5.4.2 reflects the regional expenditure that would be lost, in circumstances where other types of angling are still available in the region, and the first choice type of angling is still available in other Scottish regions.

Strictly, the loss to Scotland as a whole from the collapse of a type of angling throughout Scotland cannot be obtained by aggregating the losses to the individual regions (or to fishing types) as reflected in Table 5.4.2. This is because the substitution possibilities increase as the area becomes larger. The questionnaire could not ask anglers about these particular substitution possibilities. In effect, the aggregation of the individual cells could provide an approximation to the upper limit on the expenditure loss to Scotland. This approximation is closer to the true loss the greater is the proportion of anglers normally transferring within Scotland, who would transfer outside, in the event of a complete Scottish collapse.

« Previous | Contents | Next »