0
Dr. Adam Brown, Head of Research Brigid Bell, Dr Samantha Hook, Researchers Substance, Canada House, 3 Chepstow St, Manchester, M1 5FW www.substance.net [email protected]
Environment Agency East Anglia
Angling in the Fens Survey Substance.
November 2020
1
Table of contents
Table of contents .................................................................................................................. 1 List of figures ........................................................................................................................ 2 List of tables .......................................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 4 2 Methods ......................................................................................................................... 6 3 Results ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 Profile of respondents ............................................................................................. 7 3.1.1 Demographic profile.................................................................................................... 7 3.1.2 Home location ............................................................................................................ 9 3.1.3 Angling experience and fishing in the Fens ............................................................... 10
3.2 Fishing trip details ................................................................................................. 13 3.2.1 Fishing location......................................................................................................... 13 3.2.2 Species targeted during fishing trip ........................................................................... 14
3.3 Expenditure........................................................................................................... 14 3.3.1 Overall expenditure................................................................................................... 15 3.3.2 Comparison of tourist and local/day visitor anglers .................................................... 16 3.3.3 Self-reflective expenditure comparison...................................................................... 18 3.3.4 Paid accommodation in the last 12 months ............................................................... 18
4 Discussion ................................................................................................................... 20
2
List of figures
Figure 1. Map of research area ............................................................................................. 4 Figure 2. The distribution of the age of the respondents ........................................................ 7 Figure 3. The distribution of the gender of the respondents................................................... 8 Figure 4. The distribution of the income of the respondents .................................................. 8 Figure 5. The distribution of the race/ethnicity of the respondents ......................................... 9 Figure 6. Responses of those considered to be disabled or have a long-term medical condition
.................................................................................................................................. 9 Figure 7. The locations of the respondent’s home location in comparison to the Fens area of
specific interest. ....................................................................................................... 10 Figure 8. The number of days respondents had been angling ............................................. 11 Figure 9. The number of days the respondents had been angling in the Fens area ............ 11 Figure 10. Comparison of competitive and pleasure angling by respondents ...................... 12 Figure 11. The responses for the most important feature for fishing in the Fenlands ........... 13 Figure 12. The different locations of fishing in the Fenlands ................................................ 14 Figure 13. Self-reflective expenditure comparison ............................................................... 18 Figure 14. The number of individuals that stayed in accommodation overnight ................... 19
3
List of tables
Table 1. Home region of respondents ................................................................................... 9 Table 2. The different types of fishing respondents took part in, in the Fens ....................... 11 Table 3. The responses for the most important feature for fishing in the Fenlands .............. 12 Table 4. The quality of fishing in the Fens ........................................................................... 13 Table 5. The species targeted by anglers ............................................................................ 14 Table 6. Total and Average Expenditure by respondents .................................................... 15 Table 7. Expenditure by Category ....................................................................................... 16 Table 8. Capital expenditure for trip spent elsewhere .......................................................... 16 Table 9. Day Spending excluding major items..................................................................... 16 Table 10. Comparison of average spend between local and tourist anglers ........................ 17 Table 11. Total and average spending by tourist and local anglers on equipment bought for
the trip but bought elsewhere .................................................................................. 17 Table 12. Total and average spending by tourist and local anglers excluding major items .. 17
4
1 Introduction
The Research
Substance conducted survey work for the Environment Agency in East Anglia to understand
more about the patterns of behaviour of anglers in a defined area of the Fens as well as to
estimate average spending per angler.
The aims of the project were:
To conduct research with anglers fishing in the Fens area to ascertain the value of
spending they make relating to fishing in the area.
This research involved:
• A review of available data
• Design and set up of an online survey for anglers
• Design of questions for interviews with businesses
• Analysis of data
• A short report of findings
The project ran from October 2019 to March 2020.
The specific area of research is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Map of research area
Results and findings, with a discussion are provided in this report.
Background
Angling makes a significant contribution to the environment and the economy in the UK. It is
estimated to involve around 900,000 people fishing in freshwater in England and Wales, and
5
around 750,000 who fish in the sea in every year in the UK. Freshwater angling in England
contributed £1.46bn to the economy in 2015, and supported 27,000 full-time equivalent jobs
in 2015.
Angling has many other benefits relating to physical health and well-being. The National
Angling Survey in 2018 found that more than 70% of respondents said angling helped to keep
them healthy, with 25% saying it was their main way of being active. 70% of respondents also
indicated that without angling, they would visit rural areas less often, which highlights the
importance of developing angling in these areas.
The National Angling Strategy 2019-2024 encourages angling organisations, the EA, local
authorities and angling businesses to develop more local places for people to fish and promote
participation to realise some of the social and economic benefits. Better information provision,
promoting awareness of angling opportunities and encouraging new audiences to take up
angling can help achieve this. The strategy also highlights the benefits of developing angling
tourism, particularly for rural and coastal communities and encourages angling trades, other
providers such as food and accommodation and local authorities and tourism agencies to work
more closely together1.
East Anglia is a region of eastern England comprising coastal and inland counties, including
the Fenlands. The Fenlands is approximately 3, 900 km2 of low-lying terrain covering parts of
Lincolnshire, Cambridgeshire, Norfolk, and a small area of Suffolk. This Fenlands has an
abundance of freshwater lakes, canals, and rivers, making it the ideal place for recreational
fishing for both local and tourist anglers. The behaviour of anglers and the potential impact of
recreational angling in the area is not known, however it is thought to provide significant value
to the local economy.
1 Brown, A (2019) Fishing for Good: The National Angling Strategy 2019-2024, The Environment Agency. See: www.substance.net/nationalanglingstrategy
Winter sixteen foot pike fishing
6
2 Methods
Substance had intended to review available licence data about anglers in the Fens but this
was not possible due to data protection issues.
Substance designed a survey which included:
• Details on angler participation.
• Details on visits to the Fens.
• A breakdown of spending relating to ‘most recent trip’ across a range of angling-
specific and non-angling categories.
• Opinions about angling in the Fens.
• Demographic details.
The survey was established on the Smart Survey platform and a unique link was created for
distribution to anglers. The business card advertisement for the survey is below:
All respondent recruitment was undertaken by the EA who distributed both electronic and print
materials to anglers to encourage them to complete the survey. The survey period was
November 2019 to February 2020. A target of 100 anglers completing the survey was set.
Substance also provided a semi-structured interview guide for the EA to undertake some
qualitative research with local businesses. The conduct and write up of these was to have
been undertaken by the EA, but this work was prevented by the Corona virus outbreak.
Substance downloaded survey responses and produced analysis of survey responses. This
report provides findings from the survey analysis.
7
3 Results
In total 249 clicked through to the survey. Of these:
• 121 people completed the survey.
• 128 people dropped out, predominantly very early in the survey (suggesting it was not
relevant to them).
The results are presented for all 121 completed surveys.
3.1 Profile of respondents
3.1.1 Demographic profile
Most respondents (57%) were aged 35-54, with another 21% between 55 and 64.
Figure 2. The distribution of the age of the respondents
98% of respondents were male, reflecting the profile often seen in angling surveys of this kind.
2%
1%
8%
31%
26%
21%
9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
17-18
19-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65 or over
Age
8
Figure 3. The distribution of the gender of the respondents
40% of respondents earned between £20,001 and £40,000 per year.
Figure 4. The distribution of the income of the respondents
Respondents were overwhelmingly ‘White British’.
2%
98%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Female
Male
Gender
11%
40%
27%
7%
4%
12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
£0 - £20,000
£20,001 - £40,000
£40,001 - £60,000
£60,000 - £100,000
£100,001 - £200,000
Prefer not to say
Income
9
Figure 5. The distribution of the race/ethnicity of the respondents
88% of respondents did not consider themselves to have a disability or long-term medical
condition.
Figure 6. Responses of those considered to be disabled or have a long-term medical condition
3.1.2 Home location
Most respondents, 77%, lived in East Anglia, with another 10% in East Midlands. Eighteen
respondents lived in the specific area of the Fens which was the focus of the research (Table
1 and Figure 7).
Table 1. Home region of respondents
Region Count %
East Midlands 12 10%
East of England 93 77%
98%
1%
1%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
White or White British
Mixed Heritage
Prefer not to say
Race/Ethnicity
11%
88%
2%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Prefer not to say
Disability Status
10
London 4 3%
North East 1 1%
North West 1 1%
South East 2 2%
South West 1 1%
West Midlands 5 4%
Yorkshire and the Humber 2 2%
Figure 7. The locations of the respondent’s home location in comparison to the Fens area of
specific interest.
3.1.3 Angling experience and fishing in the Fens
89% of respondents had been angling on more than 20 days over the past 12 months, with 17% angling on more than 100 days. This shows a high level of avidity and is unlikely to be reflective of the general angling population.
11
Figure 8. The number of days respondents had been angling
In the last 12 months, 79% of respondents had been fishing on the Fens on between one and 50 occasions, with 3% going more than 100 times.
Figure 9. The number of days the respondents had been angling in the Fens area
Pleasure fishing was the most frequent type of fishing undertaken in the Fens in the past 12 months, with 65% of respondents indicating they had done this (Table 2). The least frequent types of fishing were team fishing (commercial carp, 6%), major national competition fishing (2%), open match fishing (commercial carp, 9%), and predator competition fishing (6%) in the preceding 12 months. Table 2. The different types of fishing respondents took part in, in the Fens
Response Count % Yes No Yes No
Team Fishing (natural venue) 49 72 40% 60% Major National Competition – natural venue (Angling Trust affiliated) 29 92 24% 76% Open match fishing – natural venue 56 65 46% 54% Team Fishing (commercial carp) 7 114 6% 94%
21%
27%
31%
17%
2%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1-10 days
11-20 days
21-50 days
51-100 days
101-200 days
200+ days
21%
27%
31%
17%
2%
1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
1-10 days
11-20 days
21-50 days
51-100 days
101-200 days
200+ days
12
Major National Competition – Commercial carp (Angling Trust affiliated) 2 119 2% 98% Open match fishing – Commercial carp 11 110 9% 91% Pleasure fishing 79 42 65% 35% Predator pleasure 47 74 39% 61% Predator competition 7 114 6% 94% Specimen lake 15 106 12% 88% Specimen natural venue 15 106 12% 88% Other 10 111 8% 92%
Overall, respondents fished in the Fens for pleasure more often that for competitive reasons (Figure 10), with an average response of 32% pleasure fishing in the last 12 months, compared with 19% fishing for competition.
Figure 10. Comparison of competitive and pleasure angling by respondents
Anglers valued the ‘general quality of the fishing’ most about fishing in the Fens (43% selected this as ‘number 1 most important’), with an additional 23% selecting this feature as second or third most important aspect (Table 3; Figure 11). ‘Good value for money’ was selected least often (21% selected this as 1st, 2nd or 3rd most important). Table 3. The responses for the most important feature for fishing in the Fenlands
Response Count % 1 2 3 1 2 3
Quality of fishing – General 52 20 7 43% 17% 6% Quality of fishing species specific, please specify 16 28 4 13% 23% 3% Quality of competition venue 5 17 14 4% 14% 12% Size of competition 9 7 20 7% 6% 17% Location 12 9 15 10% 7% 12% Good access (fishing and parking) 3 12 15 2% 10% 12% Good value for money 8 7 10 7% 6% 8% Space away from other anglers 11 15 18 9% 12% 15% Other 5 6 18 4% 5% 15%
19%
32%
8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Competitive
Pleasure
Other
13
Figure 11. The responses for the most important feature for fishing in the Fenlands
69% of respondents rated fishing in the Fens as good (34%) or excellent (35%), with 20% stating they felt fishing in the Fens was poor and in need of improvement (Table 4). Table 4. The quality of fishing in the Fens
Response Count % 1 Not suitable for angling 0 0% 2 Poor in need of improvement 24 20% 3 Suitable for my needs 14 12% 4 Good, it’s why I come here 41 34% 5 Excellent, the best of its kind 42 35%
3.2 Fishing trip details
Respondents were asked to provide details about their current or most recent trip. The results
in sections 3.2 and 3.3 are provided about that ‘most recent’ or ‘current’ trip unless otherwise
stated.
3.2.1 Fishing location
Almost three quarters of respondents (71%) had been fishing on that day or most recently in two locations: Twenty Foot Drain, Forty Foot Drain, Sixteen Foot and Old Nene (Figure 12). This may be because these were venues where the EA undertook most recruitment activities.
43%
13%
4%
7%
10%
2%
7%
9%
4%
17%
23%
14%
6%
7%
10%
6%
12%
5%
6%
3%
12%
17%
12%
12%
8%
15%
15%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Quality of fishing – General
Quality of fishing species specific, please specify
Quality of competition venue
Size of competition
Location
Good access (fishing and parking)
Good value for money
Space away from other anglers
Other
1 (most important) 2 3
14
Figure 12. The different locations of fishing in the Fenlands
3.2.2 Species targeted during fishing trip
The most popular target species on that day trip was roach (60%), with carp being the least targeted at just 2% (Table 5). This may be affected by the seasonality of the data collection period and/or the locations where most respondents were fishing. Table 5. The species targeted by anglers
Species Count %
Roach 73 60%
Bream 37 31%
Pike 41 34%
Zander 26 21%
Perch 48 40%
Carp 3 2%
Other 22 18%
3.3 Expenditure
Respondents were asked to provide details about their expenditure on their current or most
recent day angling in the Fens area described. Respondents were asked to provide
information only relating to expenditure for that trip and if they had accommodation, only for
2%
2%
1%
1%
1%
6%
1%
1%
2%
1%
1%
1%
1%
41%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
1%
30%
3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%
Club lake
Commercial carp lake
Ely ouse
Factory bank, Ramsey
Great Ouse
High Lode – Factory Bank
Hobole
Land drain on Floodferry Benwick
Middle Level
North Level Drain
Northe level
Old Bedford at welney
Old Bedford River
Old Nene
Old West River
River Cam and Lark. Burwell Lode
Specimen carp lake
Syndicate lake
The Bower, Kings Dyke, Whittlesey Dyke
The Delph
Twenty Foot Drain, Forty Foot Drain, Sixteen Foot
Well creek
15
the nights before and after the day’s fishing. Results are presented as overall expenditure for
all anglers by expenditure category, average expenditure for all anglers by expenditure
category and then are split between those who stayed overnight (‘tourist’ anglers) and those
that did not (‘local/day visit’ anglers).
3.3.1 Overall expenditure
The expenditure by all respondents is shown in Table 6 below, with a summary by expenditure category in Table 6. The total spend recorded by 121 respondents is £13,145.50, averaging £108.64 per angler surveyed. The biggest category of expenditure is major items, with £4,902 spent by all anglers on
equipment bought in the specified Fens area for that day/trip, averaging £40.51 per angler.
This is followed by fishing items (such as permits and bait) at an average of £39.90 per angler;
travel (all of which was fuel for private cars) at £14.98 per angler; and accommodation and
food (£13.25 per angler). In each category, a large number of individuals did not spend
anything and averages are provided of all respondents. Table 6. Total and Average Expenditure by respondents
Expenditure Category / Item Total
Spend
Average
spend
Travel
Fuel for your own private vehicle - only include that spent to go angling on
this trip
£1,812.00 £14.98
Public transport £0.00 £0.00
Car parking fees £0.00 £0.00
Other transport cost £0.00 £0.00
Sub total – Travel £1,812.00 £14.98
Accommodation and Food
Accommodation - only for the night(s) before and after days spent fishing £623.71 £5.15
Food costs not included in accommodation costs £979.29 £8.09
Sub total - Accommodation and Food £1,603.00 £13.25
Fishing Items
Permits £393.50 £3.25
Boat fees £0.00 £0.00
Bait £1,752.00 £14.48
Terminal Tackle £1,483.00 £12.26
Match Entry Fees £912.00 £7.53
Other £288.00 £2.38
Sub total – Fishing Items £4,828.50 £39.90
Fishing - Major Items bought for this trip in the area
Rods £2,146.00 £17.74
Reels £221.00 £1.83
Nets £344.00 £2.84
Fishing clothing £1,931.00 £15.96
Other major items £260.00 £2.15
16
Sub total – Major Items £4,902.00 £40.51
Total £13,145.50 £108.64
Table 7. Expenditure by Category
Expenditure category Total spend
(aggregate)
Average spend
per angler
Accommodation £623.71 £5.15
Travel £1,812.00 £14.98
Food £979.29 £8.09
Fishing related costs £4,828.50 £39.90
Fishing equipment bought during the trip £4,902.00 £40.51
Total £13,145.50 £108.64
Respondents were also asked to itemise expenditure that they had made on fishing equipment specifically for the trip in question but spent outside of the area. This was a large amount – almost equal to all other expenditure – but will have little or no economic impact locally. It may have impact elsewhere in the economy (although some of this may be overseas) and may include items that people bought elsewhere but happened to be using on that day. Table 8. Capital expenditure for trip spent elsewhere
Expenditure category Total spend
(aggregate)
Average
spend per angler
Rods £5,320.00 £47.93
Reels £875.00 £7.23
Nets £200.00 £1.80
Fishing clothing £1,200.00 £9.92
Other major items £2,952.00 £26.59
Total £10,547.00 £87.17
For all major items, even if they were bought for a specific trip or day fishing, will almost certainly be used on other trips. As such in calculating the economic impact of angling days, it is more accurate to account for expenditure per day angling without including any major items. If this is applied to the total spending in the area by all respondents (Table 9):
• The total spend by all respondents is £8,243.50
• The average per angler spent in the area is £68.13 Table 9. Day Spending excluding major items
Expenditure (ex capital) Total Spend Average spend
Travel £1,812.00 £14.98
Accommodation and Food £1,603.00 £13.25
Fishing Items £4,828.50 £39.90
Total £8,243.50 £68.13
3.3.2 Comparison of tourist and local/day visitor anglers
Ten individuals had overnight stays, meeting the accepted definition of ‘tourist’2; and all others travelled within the same day to fish. A comparison of expenditure between ‘tourist’ anglers and local/day visitor anglers is shown in Table 10.
2 https://www.visitbritain.org/introduction-tourism
17
Tourist anglers spent, on average, more than double what local/day visitor anglers spent - £228 to £98 per trip. Visiting anglers spent on average £62.40 per trip on accommodation, whereas local angler spending was, by definition, zero. However, visitors also spent a lot more than local anglers on food (£33.90 compared to £5.76), travel (£41 to £12.63) and other fishing related costs (£81.00 compared to £36.20). However, perhaps as expected, local anglers were likely to spend more than visitors on equipment in the area - £43.21 on average compared to £10.50; and tourist anglers spent more on equipment bought elsewhere for the trip than local anglers (£133 to £83, Table 11). When all major items are excluded (Table 12):
• The average spend per tourist angler is £218.30
• The average spend per local/day visitor angler is £54.59 This suggests that with regard to local expenditure on the day, excluding major items, is four times that for tourist anglers than it is for local anglers. It should be noted that the number of tourist angler respondents was low –10 individuals – and these figures could easily be affected disproportionately by a small number of respondents. As such, all comparisons should be treated with a lot of caution. Table 10. Comparison of average spend between local and tourist anglers
Expenditure
category
Tourist Angler -
Total Spending
Tourist Angler -
Average
Spending
Local angler -
Total
Spending
Local angler -
Average
spending
Accommodation £624.00 £62.40 £0.00 £0.00
Travel £410.00 £41.00 £1,402.00 £12.63
Food £339.00 £33.90 £640.00 £5.76
Fishing related
costs
£810.00 £81.00 £4,018.50 £36.20
Fishing equipment
bought during the
trip
£105.00 £10.50 £4,797.00 £43.21
Total £2,288.00 £228.00 £10,857.50 £97.81
Table 11. Total and average spending by tourist and local anglers on equipment bought for the
trip but bought elsewhere
Expenditure
category
Tourist Angler -
Total Spending
Tourist Angler -
Average
Spending
Local angler -
Total Spending
Local angler -
Average
spending
Fishing
equipment
bought for the trip
from elsewhere
£1,330.00 £133.00 £9,217.00 £83.04
Table 12. Total and average spending by tourist and local anglers excluding major items Tourist Angler -
Total Spending
Tourist Angler -
Average
Spending
Local angler - Total
Spending
Local angler -
Average spending
Total £2,183.00 £218.30 £6,060.50 £54.59
18
3.3.3 Self-reflective expenditure comparison
As a sense check/ground truthing exercise, respondents were asked to comment on whether their expenditure on the day concerned was above average, below average or about the same as usual for a day’s angling in this area. 57% of all respondents said that it was average expenditure (Figure 13). 24% said that expenditure was a little or a lot below average and 13% said that it was a little or a lot above average.
Figure 13. Self-reflective expenditure comparison
Although tourist anglers on average spent more than local anglers, they were more likely to say this was average for fishing in the area (70% said this, whereas only 55% of local anglers said it was average). However, it was also the case that more tourists stated they had spent above average (20%) compared with the locals (11%); and whereas 10% of tourists stated they had spent a below average, 25% of local anglers said that they spent below average. As noted above, given the low numbers of tourist angler surveyed, these figures could be affected significantly by a small number of respondents.
3.3.4 Paid accommodation in the last 12 months
In total, 88% of respondents had not stayed overnight in paid accommodation in the past 12 months to fish in the Fenlands, other than the trip day in question. This reflects the fact that the majority were local anglers.
3%
10%
57%
14%
10%
6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
A lot above average expenditure
A little above average expenditure
Average expenditure
A little below average expenditure
A lot below average expenditure
N/A
19
88%
12%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
No
Yes
Figure 14. The number of individuals that stayed in accommodation overnight
20
4 Discussion
The principal aims of this research was to ascertain the amount spent by anglers in a specific
geographical area of the Fens.
This task was approached by using an online survey. Respondents were recruited to it by the
EA in the area by distributing the survey link and printed business cards. As such it was a
heavily self-selected survey and all results need to be considered within that context.
Nonetheless, 121 anglers responded to the survey, providing detailed expenditure about their
current or most recent trip to the area and that data has value of itself. Whilst it had been
hoped to use data about anglers in the area to assess bias in the sample achieved, this was
not possible. Respondents included 10 ‘tourist’ anglers who had an overnight stay.
Respondents were overwhelmingly male, White British and keen anglers, which is typical of
self selected angler surveys of this kind.
Overall anglers rated the general quality of the fishing highest, although value for money
scored reasonably low.
From data collected, excluding expenditure on major items:
• The total spend by all respondents is £8,243.50
• The average per angler spent in the area is £68.13
• The average spend per tourist angler is £218.30
• The average spend per local/day visitor angler is £54.59 Expenditure varied significantly between anglers, but also between tourist and visiting anglers. Tourists spent on average £218.30 per trip and visitors spent £54.59. This reflects some findings in other work. For example:
• Research by the Environment Agency into the vale of freshwater angling said that
anglers spent on average £47.50 per trip.
• In Sea Angling 20123, it was estimated that sea anglers spent on average £45.93 per
day, excluding major items.
• As with this data, in Sea Angling 2012, spending by visitors was much higher – trip
spending in case study sites where there was a lot of tourism and overnight stays was
much higher than non-tourism locations.
• In the Sea Angling Diary 2016 and 2017 economic impact study, it was estimated that
per trip expenditure ranged from £77 (2016) to £86 (2017)4.
As such, despite the self-selected nature of this survey, the findings generated suggest that expenditure reflects levels in previous angler surveys.
What these results cannot identify is the economic impact of angling in this area or the Fens
(or East Anglia) more broadly. To do that would require a much larger sample size which was
3 Armstong, M et al (2013) Sea Angling 2012 4 Hyder K., Brown A., Armstrong M., Bell B., Bradley, K., Couce E., Gibson I., Hardman F., Harrison J., Haves V., Hook S., Kroese J., Mellor G., MacLeod E., Muench A., Radford Z., Townhill B., (2020). Participation, catches and economic impact of sea anglers resident in the UK in 2016 & 2017. Final report of the Sea Angling 2016 and 2017 project. Cefas, Lowestoft. 175pp, p13.
21
representative of all anglers in the area and accurate data on the total population of both local
and tourist anglers who fish in the area. That could be a focus for further and future research.
Next Steps
In terms of developing economic benefit from angling in the area, it is self evident that getting
more anglers to fish will result in greater spending. However, this research suggests that
generating greater levels of angling tourism to the area will have a bigger effect than increasing
the number of local anglers. That is not to diminish the importance of increasing local angler
numbers, which will have other important socio-economic benefits; but it does suggest where
efforts should be targeted if increasing the levels of spending by anglers is the primary
concern.
Some of the results suggest some other actions that could be taken. For example, the amount
spent on capital items to facilitate fishing on the particular trips in question were significant.
Even though these items would be used on other occasions, capital expenditure made within
the Fens area was £13,145.50 from all respondents – an average of £108.64 per angler,
£228.00 for visitors and £97.81 for locals. Assisting local fishing equipment suppliers to
develop their offer and presence might help secure and even grow this expenditure when
much of the tackle trade is now through major online retailers.
To support the wider development of both resident and visitor angling in the area, further work
is needed.
Good Practice Review
Generally, a review of good practice in developing visitor and local angling would be advisable.
This would be low cost to do and could inform ongoing discussions as well as the more detailed
work described below. A number of examples of good practice in developing participation,
maximising social and economic benefit and angling tourism are highlighted in the National
Angling Strategy.
Visiting Anglers
Other studies5 suggest that a number of things can be done to encourage more anglers to visit
an area. In broad brush terms, this includes:
• Raising awareness of angling on offer in the area.
• Developing better, online, information about where to fish in the area, which should
include what fishing and species are available where, buying permits.
• Linking fishing provision with other services including both angling (tackle, bait,
guides) and other (food, accommodation and travel).
However, to do this requires specific knowledge about what potential visitors need and local
conditions. As such, developing angling tourism needs to be underpinned by further research.
This should include:
5 Brown, A. and Haves, V. (2019) The Development of Angling on the Lower Bann: Final Report, Substance. Brown, A. (2012) Assynt Angling Research: Final Report. Part of the Social and Community Benefits of Angling Research, Substance; see also: www.assyntanglinginfo.org.uk . Brown, A et al (2013), The Eden Rivers Angler Survey.
22
• A larger survey of existing visiting anglers, to get a representative sample and more
reliable results. These could be recruited at angling venues but also, potentially,
through a survey of licence holders (see non-visitor anglers below). This would provide
better economic data but also explore the potential for increasing impact from existing
visitor anglers and should include:
▪ Expenditure patterns, including the potential for increasing local spend
(such as more accommodation, accommodation packages, tackle and
bait supplies etc.)
▪ Behavioural patterns, including repeat trips, length of stay, types of
fishing
▪ The potential for increased length of trips or increased number of trips
▪ Barriers to, and encouraging, more trips
▪ Angling trips within broader family and friendship contexts.
• A survey of non-visitor anglers. This could be conducted with Fishing Licence holders
within specific drive time of the Fenland area, and/or Substance’s database of 25,000
anglers, and ascertain the potential for increasing visitor numbers. It would ask non-
visiting anglers:
o Awareness and knowledge of fishing in the area.
o Potential for attracting new visitor anglers.
o What would encourage or facilitate new visitors in terms of fishing on offer,
information provision and ancillary services.
• Qualitative research with stakeholders, businesses, tourism agencies, local
authorities to explore how angling does contribute to local economies and how this
could be increased. Substance has undertaken similar work in several areas in the UK
(Northern Ireland, North West Scotland and the Eden River).
• Consultation with local fisheries and clubs about the capacity available and support
required to increase visitor numbers.
• A review of good practice elsewhere and development of an action plan.
Local Angling Development
Developing angling participation within the Fens (i.e. with local anglers) could benefit from
some of the recommendations within the National Angling Strategy6. This emphasises the
need to raise awareness amongst lapsed and non-anglers about what angling has to offer
(well being, physical health and accessing the natural environment); the local opportunities
there are to do this, such as providing information on where to fish and how to fish, with links
to clubs and fisheries; and the wider development of partnerships to promote engagement,
such as with schools and youth organisations, river and fish trusts and environmental and
volunteering agencies.
However, work in this area should also be underpinned by more insight research. This could
include:
• Further survey work with local anglers. This should explore their patterns of
participation (where they fish, how often and how this changes through the year); their
experience of angling in the area and what might encourage them to go more often;
the social benefits they get from participation; and how angling could be improved in
the area.
6 Brown, A (2019) Fishing for Good: The National Angling Strategy 2019-2024, The Environment Agency. See: www.substance.net/nationalanglingstrategy
23
• Research with lapsed anglers in the area to ascertain what might encourage them to
return to angling.
• ‘Market testing’ new approaches to increasing awareness of angling opportunities for
new audiences – such as new online information and promotional materials focused
on young people and females.
• Qualitative research with local angling organisations – fisheries, clubs and
tackle/trade – and other agencies – river trusts, environmental organisations and
voluntary bodies – to explore how greater cooperation could be achieved to promote
angling participation.
To help facilitate ongoing development, it might be advisable to establish a local angling
development steering group to bring people together and implement a development plan.
People fishing at Twenty foot drain
