How involvement drives decision rules behind stated preferences for recreational-fisheries management.

This paper connects the concept of involvement with recreational fishing and decision rules, namely regret-minimizing vs. utility-maximizing when making choices related to the activity. We hypothesized that people who are more involved show regret-minimizing rather than utility-maximizing behavior. In support, we found that behavioral commitment, measured as avidity in fishing, and psychological involvement (measured by centrality of angling in the lifestyle of the respondent) was significantly related to the decision rule, correlating with regret-minimizing behavior, while skill, specific attitudes toward the catch and place attachment were unrelated to the decision rules that respondents followed. In our sample, regret-minimizers were dominant and preferred more restrictive harvest policies (i.e., lower daily bag limits or harvest slots over minimum-size limits). Welfare estimates of policy changes were sensitive to the decision rule and were substantially lower when assuming regret minimizing behavior than when assuming utility maximization. We conclude that regret-minimizing behavior may be a characteristic of more involved anglers, with relevant implications for welfare estimation and derivation of policy advice. • The random regret minimization model is applied to the recreational fishing context. • We conceptually and empirically connect involvement and regret minimization. • More involved anglers are more likely to be regret minimizers compared to utility maximizers. • Regret minimizing is associated with more conservation-oriented behavior. • Large difference in welfare changes between utility maximizers and regret minimizers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]