Development and Validation of a Specialization Index and Testing of Specialization Theory

Abstract

Recreation specialization can be viewed as a continuum of behavior from the general to the particular. Along this continuum, participants can be located into meaningful subgroups based on specific criteria. Previous studies have defined, measured, and segmented specialization groups in a variety of ways. The research reported here builds on the Ditton, Loomis, and Choi reconceptualization of recreation specialization. A specialization index was developed to segment anglers into four groups based on their orientation, experiences, relationships, and commitment. Internal validation analysis supported the use of this specialization index as a tool for angler segmentation. Subsequent hypotheses tested for differences among specialization groups in frequency of participation, importance of activity and nonactivity-specific elements, support for management regulations, and sidebets. Results provide strong support for the conceptual framework developed by Ditton et al. These findings indicate a multidimensional index can be used to segment anglers into discreet, meaningful specialization categories.

Proceedings of the 2003 Northeastern Recreation Research Symposium

“…An understanding of different specialization levels is useful to resource management in that it allows managers to distinguish between different interests and preferences among resources users when making resource allocation decisions. From a 1998 survey of licensed Massachusetts anglers, Salz et al (2001) developed three subgroups of anglers based on their activity orientation, experiences, relationships, and commitment. Results from the 2001 study showed strong support for specialization theory, and suggested that managers consider differences in these three groups when making resource allocation decisions.…”

“…Building on the work of Ditton et al (1992), Salz et al (2001) developed a multi-item specialization index using the social subworlds concept of Unruh (1979). Specifically, the authors used four variables to determine specialization level: orientation, experiences, relationships, and commitment.…”

“…Using the four variables derived from the social subworlds concept to determine specialization level appears to be especially useful, as the limits of using a single variable and the circular reasoning used originally by Bryan (1977) are avoided. Salz et al (2001) tested their specialization index on four statements predicted by specialization theory. Namely, high specialization anglers will 1) place less importance on activity-specific elements of the fishing experience and greater importance on nonactivity-specific elements, 2) have greater support for management tools and regulations, 3) generate a greater value of side-bets, and 4) have a greater frequency of participation than lowspecialization anglers (243).…”

“…A series of two-way ANOVA tests were performed to test the remainder of the hypotheses (Ha2 through Ha7). Using a two-way ANOVA with specialization level and species preference as factors is one technique that differentiates this analysis from previous considerations of the data that looked at either specialization level (Salz et al, 2001) or species preference alone (Ross and Loomis, 2001).…”

“…In that original analysis, the first level of specialization was dropped because of the low number of anglers falling into the category (See Salz et al, 2001 for full description of methods). Likewise, this analysis considers just the upper three levels of specialization-"moderately specialized," "very specialized," and "highly specialized."…”