Tourism and fishing

ABSTRACT

Recreational fishing is a major tourism activity and is integral to the “Blue economy”. Despite having high rates of participation and it being an important economic activity, especially in coastal, lacustrine and riverine areas, there is relatively little research on its various tourism dimensions, including its role in branding and marketing. This paper provides an introductory context for the first special issue on tourism and fishing in a tourism and hospitality journal. The introduction defines the subject area and highlights the main research themes, including the growing awareness of recreational fishing’s impacts on the environment as well as the increasingly contested relationship with commercial fishing. Areas for future research are identified with the need for students of tourism and hospitality to address the subject becoming of increasing importance given not only its economic significance but the growing threats of climate and environmental change and overfishing on the world’s oceans and wild fish stocks.

KEYWORDS:

• Blue Economy
• Blue Growth
• marine ecosystem services
• marine tourism
• Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

Fishing is a major recreation and tourism activity and is an integral part of the “Blue economy”. Recreational fishing is defined as fishing by those who do not rely on fishing to supply a necessary part of their diet or income (Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations (FAO, 2012)), although in some cases fishing may have a dual role of providing recreation and tourism opportunities as well as fish for eating (FAO, 2012; Hall, 2013; Mozumder et al., 2018; Pawson et al., 2008). Hyder et al. (2017) adopted the International Council for Exploration of the Sea Working Group on Recreational Fisheries Surveys (ICES WGRFS) definition of Marine Recreational Fisheries as “the capture or attempted capture of living aquatic resources mainly for leisure and/or personal consumption. This covers active fishing methods including line, spear, and hand – gathering and passive fishing methods including nets, traps, pots, and set–lines” (Hyder et al., 2017, p. 11). However, ICES WGRFS did not specifically include tourist fishing.

Significance

The FAO (2018) estimate that participation in recreational fishing is, on average, undertaken by 6.7 percent of national populations globally, but varies this figure substantially and is directly related to economic, cultural and societal-level developments affecting resources, time, and socialisation into recreational fishing (Arlinghaus et al., 2021). In Europe it has been estimated that nine million people, or 1.6% of the population, participate in marine recreational fishing, spending almost six billion euro a year, and fishing for around 77 million days each year (Hyder et al., 2017). Although, unlike subsistence fishing, securing food is not a primary purpose of recreational fishing. Recreational fishing includes both ocean and coastal activities as well as inland fishing on lakes and rivers, where it can be extremely important for tourism (Hall & Härkönen, 2006). The recreational inland fisheries catch may be more than four percent of the total reported globally and is therefore significant from an environmental perspective as well as potential competition with commercial and subsistence fishing. Contestation between commercial, recreational and subsistence fishing is a growing issue both environmentally and economically (Arlinghaus et al., 2021; Milligan et al., 2020; Silver, 2014; Suryanata & Umemoto, 2003; Voyer & van Leeuwen, 2019), including for indigenous peoples (Lee et al., 2019; Suryanata & Umemoto, 2003) and is part of the wider interest in the political ecology of tourism and recreation’s interaction with the political ecology of natural resources (Bennett, 2019). Numerous studies, for example, have highlighted how commercial aquaculture and fishing may harvest seafood at the expense of artisanal and recreational fishing and other marine recreational values (Chung et al., 2015; Outeiro & Villasante, 2013; Ruiz-Frau et al., 2013; Thurber et al., 2014). Interestingly, such impacts are not just in terms of the capacity to catch fish but also with respect to visual amenity and the recreational and touristic experience (Aanesen et al., 2019; Arlinghaus, 2005; Arlinghaus & Cooke, 2009). As Garcia Rodrigues et al. (2017, p. 19) observe in relation to cultural ecosystem services (CES)

Provisioning ecosystem services related to commercial fisheries, aquaculture, and abiotic outputs … are identified as occurring at the expense of marine and coastal CES. These trade-offs are noticeable when such activities compete for space with maritime recreational uses and when they are perceived to degrade seascapes. In fact, the use of maritime space for aquaculture … production implies building and assembling infrastructure that can alter the perceived visual, peaceful and remoteness qualities of seascapes, from natural to more industrial environments.

Despite recreational fishing often being portrayed as being more positive than commercial fishing for the environment (Cooke & Cowx, 2004, 2006; Cowx et al., 2010), especially trawling (Althaus et al., 2009), all global fish stocks are increasingly coming under pressure from overfishing, climate change, ocean acidification, pollution, marine debris and habitat loss (Davis & Kidd, 2012; FAO, 2018; Giron-Nava et al., 2021; Ihde et al., 2011; Jackson et al., 2001; Lemasson et al., 2017; Rosseau et al., 2019; Tickler et al., 2018; van Putten et al., 2017), while in some locations recreational fishers also find it increasingly difficult to gain access to fishing locations (Arlinghaus & Cooke, 2009). Additional, pressures are also emerging in terms of growing concerns with biocentric values and animal welfare (Wadiwel, 2019). However, as Arlinghaus et al. (2021, p. 58) observe in their international review, “while a pro fish welfare discourse can be traced to almost all developed countries … this does not mean the recreational activity is threatened or welfare-oriented regulations are widely implemented, with a few exceptions in selected countries. Public surveys conducted in mainly developed countries around the world instead reveal that people generally view recreational fisheries as an acceptable pastime”.

Fishing, ecosystem services, the Blue economy and the SDGs

Fishing and aquaculture are human activities that have a significant role in the long-term conservation and sustainable use of the world’s oceans and their resources and are therefore integral to the achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) (FAO, 2018). To highlight this, 2022 was declared the UN International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture. Artisanal fisheries and aquaculture are estimated by the FAO (2018) to account for 90% of the world fisheries workforce and play a crucial role in meeting the SDGs, particularly as part of so-called “blue economy” and “blue growth” strategies that seek to maximize marine (ocean, inland water and wetland) ecosystem goods and services (Cohen et al., 2019), while also providing SDG related social, economic and environmental benefits (Burgess et al., 2018).

Marine ecosystem services have been estimated to provide more than 60 percent of the economic value of the global biosphere (Martínez et al., 2007). A significant proportion of cultural ecosystem services, the ecosystem contribution to the non-material benefits that arise from human-ecosystem relationships (Chan et al., 2012a, 2012b), can be attributed to tourism and recreation (Chung et al., 2015; Fletcher et al., 2014; Garcia Rodrigues et al., 2017; Milcu et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016). For example, the global non-market use value of inland recreational fisheries was estimated by the FAO (2018) to be USD 65 billion to USD 79 billion. In a report for the European Parliament Hyder et al. (2017) reported that the total economic impact of European marine recreational fishing was 10.5 billion euro, comprised of 5.1 (direct), 2.3 (indirect) and 3.2 (induced) billion euro expenditure and which supported 99,000 jobs, accounted from 57,000, 18,000 and 24,000 jobs from direct, indirect and induced expenditure, respectively. European marine recreational fishing participation rates and expenditure show lower levels of participation than Oceania and the United States, and lower expenditure than in the United States, but have higher participation and expenditure than South America and Africa (Hyder et al., 2018). The impact of recreational fishing in Europe varied substantially between fish stocks and was estimated to representing 2-72% of total catch. Sea bass, salmon and pollack recreational catches were estimated to represent 30–40% of the total stock catch, cod and mackerel were less than 21%, and eel catches were between 13-72% of landings (Hyder et al., 2017).

In Europe recreational sea fishing is estimated to account for €5.9 billion annual expenditure with Norway and Iceland having the highest rates of participation in recreational sea fishing (Hyder et al., 2018). Herfaut et al. (2013) estimated that the expenditure of the approximately 2.5 million recreational fishers in France was between 1200 and 2000 million euros a year. In addition to contributing to economies and general well-being, recreational and tourism fisheries may also be a driver for improved habitat and ecosystem conservation. Nevertheless, despite the importance of fishing, and recreational fishing in particular, for tourism given the number of participants and its economic and cultural significance there is relatively little written on the relationship in comparison to other specific forms of special interest tourism. One noteworthy study is that of García-de-la-Fuente et al. (2020) in Spain who compared the economic contribution of marine recreational and commercial fishing to the regional economy of Asturias. They found that although household final consumption by households of fish and sea products from commercial fishing was similar to the final consumption of resident recreational fishers in 2010, commercial fishing supported more gross value added and employment than recreational fishing. Furthermore, their expenditure served to stimulate different parts of the economy, with recreational fishing expenditure being strongly linked to retail, manufacturing and hotels/restaurants, even though the contribution of tourism to recreational fishing in the region was underestimated, and that of commercial fishing being retained within the fishing sector and, to a lesser extent, contributing to manufacturing (García-de-la-Fuente et al., 2020).

Emerging literatures and significant challenges for sustainable tourism and recreational fishing

Because of the fishing histories of many coastal communities, heritage tourism and place promotion are often strongly connected to the local fishery or even particular species, types of fishing or products (Lloret & Font, 2013; Uddin et al., 2021). This relationship can be expressed in events and festivals, restaurant menus and even destination branding (Gillespie & Hall, 2019; Morales-Nin et al., 2013; Rusher, 2003), although it is interesting to note that despite the growth of interest in local foods in tourism and hospitality (Gössling & Hall, 2022; Hall & Gössling, 2013) local fish are often left off the restaurant menu (Gómez & Maynou, 2021; Lowitt et al., 2013, 2019; Nelson et al., 2013). In the Nordic context fishing tourism, for example, is particularly significant in many coastal and lake destinations, as well as many river systems (Pokki et al., 2020; Solstrand, 2013; Toivonen et al., 2004). In the international literature there is growing research on participation (Arlinghaus et al., 2015; Arlinghaus et al., 2021; Gordoa et al., 2019; Griffiths et al., 2017; Morales-Nin et al., 2015; Ünal et al., 2012); economic contribution (Armstrong et al., 2013; Blicharska & Rönnbäck, 2018; Borch et al., 2011; Cisneros-Montemayor & Sumaila, 2010; García-de-la-Fuente et al., 2020; Herfaut et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2017; Prayaga et al., 2010; Radford et al., 2009; Ünal et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2020); behaviour (Arlinghaus et al., 2021; Ferter et al., 2013; Mcclellan Press et al., 2016; Morales-Nin et al., 2015; van Putten et al., 2017); angler habitat management and environmental preferences (Aanesen et al., 2018; Arlinghaus & Mehner, 2003; Lam-González et al., 2021); satisfaction (Lam-González et al., 2021); health and wellbeing (Griffiths et al., 2017); and response to environmental change, including climate change (van Putten et al., 2017). Nevertheless, many gaps remain.

Research is also urgently needed on the trade-offs and equity issues that exist in the development of recreational and tourism fishing opportunities, particularly when substituting natural capital with non-natural capital (Aanesen & Armstrong, 2019). For example, Garcia Rodrigues et al. (2017, p. 21) observe that “building a harbour in a sensitive coastal area may increase recreation and leisure for tourists who can afford renting boats, while lowering the benefits that the local population receive from ecosystem services such as mitigation of extreme events, lifecycle maintenance (habitat for fish larvae) for seafood provisioning, or recreation and leisure for those who do not own boats”. Indeed, Cohen et al. (2019) argue that “market based trajectories of change put forward as part of the Blue Economy pose risks to the benefits that [small scale fisheries] provide to society”, including in relation to the tourism and recreational values of marine ecosystem services (Betcherman & Marschke, 2016; Lowe & Tejada, 2019; Segi, 2014). Recreational and tourism marine fishing can have a range of impacts on the environment, especially in coastal areas and estuaries (Becker et al., 2013; Bell et al., 2002; Bellefleur et al., 2009; Capizzano et al., 2016; Carapetis et al., 2014; Coleman et al., 2004; Davenport & Davenport, 2006; Diogo & Pereira, 2014; Font & Lloret, 2014; Franson et al., 2003; Gallagher et al., 2017; Hardiman & Burgin, 2010; Haviland-Howell et al., 2007; Hunt et al., 2011; Lewin et al., 2006; Lyle & Tracey, 2016; Mcclellan Press et al., 2016; Muoneke & Childress, 1994; O’Toole et al., 2009; Robbins et al., 2013; Wells et al., 1998), as well as in freshwater fisheries (Bell et al., 1985; O’Toole et al., 2009; Pierce et al., 1993; Raison et al., 2014; Williams & Moss, 2001).

There is also growing interest in the contribution of recreational and tourism fishing to biological invasion by exotic species as a result of the enhanced mobility that tourism provides for pests, weeds and diseases (Brine et al., 2013; Fowler et al., 2016; Goodwin et al., 2004; Haska et al., 2012; Johnson et al., 2006; Kilian et al., 2012; Ros et al., 2013), as well as the effects of the direct introduction of exotic fish species, such as salmon and trout, for sport and recreational fishing (Cucherousset & Olden, 2011; Hall, 2015). However, as Hyder et al. (2017), point out in their assessment of European recreational marine fisheries,

the level of impact as well as the associated effects are often unknown. The separation of marine recreational fisheries induced impacts from other sources of anthropogenic impacts is difficult. This needs disaggregation into industrial and/or user groups to develop meaningful policies. Impacts originating from marine recreational fisheries are still largely unstudied. (Hyder et al., 2017, p. 13)

Conclusions

This special issue of the Scandinavian Journal of Hospitality and Tourism on fishing and tourism helps celebrates the 2022 International Year of Artisanal Fisheries and Aquaculture. In addition to this introduction, the six papers provide substantial insights into the importance of fish, fisheries, and related products for tourism. Andersson’s (2021) work on Swedish inshore commercial fisheries illustrates the increasing importance of tourism for traditional fisheries, while innovation is also a significant theme in Merkel et al.’s (2021) study of seaweed as a marine resource in the Nordic context. Stensland et al. (2021) in Trysil, Norway, and Lam-González et al. (2021) in the Canary Islands (Spain) and Cape Verde both examine issues of fisher destination loyalty, while the latter also discusses issues of destination image, satisfaction, and expenditure in fishing tourism. Pokki et al. (2020) takes a more segmented approach in their examination of fishing site preferences of Finnish recreational fishers. The final paper by Wheeller and Hall (2021) is a personal commentary and reflection on the role of fish and fishing in tourism both directly and as a wider metaphor for society’s and tourism’s relationship with nature and the environment and, as such, provides an apt conclusion to the challenge of trying to develop new understandings of, and strategies to better value the relationships between tourism and fish as government, industry and communities seek to respond to the challenges of the SDGs, the need for food security, and the global environmental crisis (Hall, 2019, 2020).

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).