Introduction

Research on shore recreational fishing in ethnically diverse, low-income, and urban communities is lacking (Pulford et al. 2017; Wynveen & Kyle 2014). This gap in scholarship may overlook findings that could drive innovation and inform effective policies to address major socio-ecological challenges. Such research would also advance social and environmental justice. Research on highly diverse populations is essential for enhancing inclusivity and equity (Arlinghaus et al. 2019). Investigating shore recreational fishing along the boundary between urban and rural coastal areas (i.e., within the urban fringe) addresses both the safety of the catch for consumption and the inclusion of a diverse population.

The “urban fringe” describes the boundary between urban and rural environments (Pryor 1968; Theobald 2001). This space has unique environmental, social, and economic issues, such as land use conflicts, loss of agricultural land, environmental degradation, and inadequate infrastructure (Gallent 2006; Simon 2008). This is also a space that is valuable for urban recreational fishers, since it is accessible to urban residents, yet is not as environmental degraded as urban environments (Jindrich 2010). The urban fringe is a liminal space that captures the gradient of water quality from urban to suburban areas (Ignatius & Rasmussen 2016; Moore et al. 2003). Despite the diverse and dense population of the urban fringe (Sharma-Wallace 2016), most research on recreational fishing focuses on rural and suburban areas.

Recreational fishing is an important activity for individuals (Young et al. 2016). Anglers (i.e., recreational fishers) highlight the importance of relaxing, socializing, challenge, and meal-sharing (Cooke et al 2018; Magee et al. 2018; Hunt and Ditton 2001). These benefits are linked to positive outcomes such as personal, societal, and economic growth (Young et al. 2016; Hunt et al. 2013) and influence community and individual well-being (Fenichel et al. 2013). Recreational fishing is also important for underserved urban communities to access healthy foods (Harrison and Loring 2016). Many of these benefits fit into the concept of increasing well-being. Well-being encompasses dimensions such as health, material well-being, meditative absorption, and freedom (Kashdan et al. 2010; Alkire 2002; Nussbaum 2003; Sen 1983). However, recreational fishing has an impact on the environment as well as the individual and can place pressure on and deplete fish stocks. In order to maintain the benefits of recreational fishing while also protecting existing fish stocks or facilitating the transition to new fish stocks, a better understanding of the motivations of anglers is needed.

Several existing studies show a wide variety in motivations of anglers (Dabrowksa et al. 2017; Magee et al. 2018), including “escape” and “affiliation” (Kuehn et al. 2017). One aspect not captured by research solely on fishing motivations is acknowledging the role that the meaning or value of the place where fishing is located may play in the motivations of anglers. Location has an impact on angler satisfaction; for example, contamination negatively affects catching fish for consumption (Burger 2013).

This study describes the benefits of public shore fishing areas in the urban fringe for urban and peri-urban communities, using a qualitative framework, in order to aid recreational fishing management incentives and regulation.

Typically, the value of a place to a respondent is captured using methods from the sense of place literature (Scannell and Gifford 2010). One common way of measuring the sense of place is through a three-part conceptual framework: place attachment, place identity, and place dependence (e.g., Jorgensen & Stedman 2001). This framework for place attachment literature was developed over time (Proshansky et al. 1983; Stokols & Schumaker 1981; Tuan 1977). These three parts measure the strength of attachment of an individual to a place via a quantitative survey that measures respondents’ agreement with statements about how a site reflects an individual’s personal identity (identity), importance to their activities (dependence), and positive emotions (attachment). Although this method may capture a quantitative level of importance of a place to an individual, it does not qualitatively interrogate how or why a site is important to an individual. Even in these early discussions, Stedman (2002) differentiated place attachment from place meaning.

Identifying place meanings through semi-structured interviews and applied thematic analysis is the conceptual framework of this research. Place meaning research provides a lens to capture the individual site and the rationale of the attachment in a qualitative format (Stedman 2002). Place meaning is therefore a valuable theoretical framework to inform coastal and fisheries management.

Place meanings are statements specific to the site and can be captured in different ways, varying from descriptive (e.g., cozy, friendly, or unsafe), to symbolic or interpretive (e.g., adventure or home), to characterization of the place itself (e.g., tourist destination, wilderness, or river) (Lyon 2014; Masterson et al. 2017). These terms may or may not show emotional valence. These terms frequently vary across stakeholders, with different characteristics (Henderson & King 1999) or memories evoking different individual or group-specific meanings (Kyle & Chick 2007). The place meaning framework is also connected to the field of phenomenology (Henderson & King 1999) where studies have often interrogated shared place meanings among communities and differentiated meanings among groups (Manzo 2005). Critically, place meanings can inform coastal management in environmental communities by characterizing the distinct goals and values of a stakeholder’s site (Wynveen and Kyle 2014; Trimbach et al 2022). Place meanings have been studied in different recreational areas, including parks with lakefronts (Smaldone et al. 2008; Smith et al. 2011) and coastal areas (Wynveen and Kyle 2014; Trimbach et al 2022). However, there are significant gaps in our understanding of place meaning particularly among communities in the urban fringe who have less access to natural recreational spaces. This study also contextualized the place meaning question within a larger semi-structured interview, which allowed for contextualization and greater understanding of the place meaning answers. These answers, although specific to Rhode Island, USA, can inform other urban fringe coastal areas as they demonstrate the specific values that anglers place on the site of their activities. Critically, increasing our understanding of the urban/suburban interface, or urban fringe, will facilitate the ability to improve access to scarce coastal resources (Colley et al. 2016; Eriksson et al. 2012).

This manuscript uses the conceptual framework of place meaning in order to provide an opportunity for respondents to express their sense of place. The goals of this paper are as follows: (1) present fishers’ descriptions of their relationship to fishing places, and conceptualizations of place meanings in the urban fringe, (2) identify how this relationship informs their motivation for fishing in this location, and (3) suggest how this data can improve recreational fishing policies and park management priorities.

Background

Providence, Rhode Island is a medium-sized city on the coast of the Northeast in the USA. Orr and West (2002) note, “For decades, Providence was considered an old, gritty, fading industrial city, reputed to be New England’s organized crime capital” (p. 399). Because of the history of industrial pollution and the current port in upper Narragansett Bay, Rhode Island waters operate on a gradient of cleanliness from inside the city via Providence River, to the ocean at the mouth of Narragansett Bay. Because the ocean exchanges the saltwater in the Bay, the water generally becomes cleaner south as it is closer to the mouth of the bay, and is cleanest at the mouth of Narragansett Bay (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, 2017). Although other areas of pollution exist in hotspots inside the city around historical industrial activity, these areas are not on a linear gradient as is found in the water of Narragansett Bay. Just half an hour’s travel by car south of the city, along the bay, are typically affluent, tourist beach towns such as Wickford and Narragansett, Rhode Island. The sites selected in this study, on the urban fringe, are the closest public beaches to Providence with clean enough water in which to safely swim and collect shellfish such as oysters, and therefore provide a draw for city residents. This gradient of water quality from within cities to more sparsely populated areas outside of a city can be found in many other cities situated at the mouth of a river; e.g., Dublin (Peñalver et al. 2021), and therefore, this case study can provide an example for other urban fringe areas.

This study investigates how recreational anglers conceptualize place meanings of public fishing access areas in the coastal urban fringe. This study extends the literature of fishing motivations, place meaning, and the urban fringe through findings from semi-structured interviews of diverse shore recreational fishers at two sites in the urban fringe of Providence, Rhode Island.

Study area: coastal Warwick

The study area for this project is Warwick, Rhode Island (RI) on the east coast of the USA. As a coastal community on the estuary of Narragansett Bay, Warwick is located between the city of Providence where it is unsafe to swim or shellfish, and suburban communities further south in Narragansett Bay (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, 2017), where it is safe to do those activities. Upper to mid- Narragansett Bay is characterized by industrial activities and reduced environmental quality (Fig. 1). Upper Narragansett Bay hosts a major port near Providence and a multiple-use area with high recreational use, commercial fishing vessels, recreational motor boats, and service vessels. Areas in upper Narragansett Bay were converted from industrial zones to residential marinas as wastewater treatment improved water quality (Dalton et al. 2010). There are strong north–south gradients; industrial contaminants (due to human population, industrial activity, and wastewater treatment plants) are greatest in the north part of the bay and are lower in the south part of the bay (see Fig. 1). Both legacy contaminants and new contaminants from personal care products, pharmaceuticals, and industrial chemicals, are more concentrated in the upper bay (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program 2017).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Population density in Rhode Island (2011). Figure by author, data from US Census 2000

Full size image

The area is also characterized by gradients in population. The poverty rate (based on the U.S. population) in Providence is 26.9% and Warwick is 6.7%. Urban residents are therefore more likely to be impoverished in upper Narragansett Bay than in the southern part of Narragansett Bay. See Fig. 1 for the population density per mile in Rhode Island; Warwick (black border) is on the southern edge of urban Providence.

Two sites within coastal Warwick were identified as study sites to represent the urban fringe. The two study sites, Conimicut Point and Rocky Point, (Fig. 1) are popular fishing areas for black sea bass, summer flounder, scup, bluefish, and striped bass in the upper to mid-bay region. These sites have similar water quality (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, 2017) and distance from the urban area (Providence, Rhode Island) but have different types of fishing infrastructure. Both sites have parking onsite and no entrance fee.

Conimicut Point Park (Fig. 2) is a public beach that wraps around a sandbar and has a walking trail, playground, parking, and a field in the middle. The beach is sandy, with shallow topography, and south of the point of the sandbar is conditionally open for shellfishing of clams and oysters in most weather (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, 2017). Conimicut Point Park is an official public access right of way and is located 6.1 miles south of the Providence border.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Google Earth Image of Conimicut Point Park, Warwick, Rhode Island, USA (2020). The image shows a residential area extending into a sandy coastal park on a promontory in the water of Narragansett Bay

Full size image

Rocky Point Park (Fig. 3) is a state park, established in 2014, that includes a few (3–4) small beaches. The majority of the fishing takes place from a rocky shoreline composed of a concrete wall and rip rap. The park is located 7.7 miles south of the Providence border. The park was both an amusement fair, which closed in 1995, and a Native American settlement site. Remnants of the amusement park are visible on the site, including an old pier dock, which was rebuilt the year after data collection. The park includes hiking trails, biking paths, and wide lawns.

Fig. 3
figure 3

Google Earth Image of Rocky Point Park, Warwick, Rhode Island, USA (2020). The image shows a residential area bordered on the east by an oval-shaped coastal park with a rocky shoreline in Narragansett Bay

Full size image

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data on place meanings of coastal recreational anglers because they capture nuances of emotion better than structured survey instruments (Masterson et al. 2017). In-person interviews are a useful method for studying sensitive issues or conflicts (Bernard 2006), and semi-structured interviews are particularly useful for capturing information when only meeting the participants once (Bernard 2006).

Forty-three (43) anglers were interviewed during the summer of 2018 (June through August). The author and two undergraduate research assistants conducted the interviews. Sites were visited at least once a week following different time patterns (morning, afternoon, and evening) to gather a diverse sample of interviewees. Interviews were conducted at different times of day, days of the week, and alternated between sites. The interviews were audio-recorded on site. Participants were selected through intercept interviews (i.e., a purposive sample) on the two study sites. Purposive sampling, which is a common sampling technique in qualitative studies, was used to select respondents that fit the objective of the study (Bernard 2006; Guest et al. 2006). Purposive sampling was used because there is no random sampling frame to select from; respondents had to have participated in a fishing activity and be at the site. On crowded sites, every third person from the left in a group was interviewed (Sánchez-Ayala 2012). This selection strategy is a standard way of reducing the amount of people to interview on a site during a site visit (Bernard 2006). Interviews were conducted in Spanish and English. Spanish was selected as an alternative interview language because when scoping out the sites, Spanish was heard on the site as a predominant language. The research assistants were fluent in Spanish; they were Spanish major undergraduates and heritage Spanish speakers and translated as needed. The interview protocol was back-translated into English (Bernard 2006) and translations were discussed and agreed upon by the two bilingual researchers and the author. The study was restricted to participants who (1) were over the age of 18 and (2) currently or recently fished (they fished that summer or the previous summer) at either Conimicut Point or Rocky Point parks.

After confirming consent, the interview protocol asked respondents about their current place meanings for the study sites. The questions also asked respondents to discuss how their place meanings have changed over time. Academic vocabularies such as “place meaning,” “identity,” “dependence,” and “attachment” were not used, and instead words such as “special,” “important,” and “took the time to get there,” were used so that respondents were more likely to self-define place meanings (Smaldone et al. 2008). Terms such as “special” and “important” are typically used for equivalency to place meaning (Smaldone et al. 2008; Ujang and Zakariya 2015) as they denote that a place is valued and meaningful to the respondent. This method is part of the evolution of the place meaning methodology based on prior research (Davenport and Anderson 2005). The place meanings were captured in a two-step process. In the first step, respondents were asked what the place meant to them or why the place was important to them in 2–3 words. In response to the question, some respondents said more than 2–3 words and those were still used since the respondents were directly describing what was most important or special about the site. In the second step, the rest of the interview protocol was used to illuminate the short place meaning responses and their nuances not captured in the 2–3 word question.

Data analysis

All interviews were transcribed. The Spanish interviews were also translated, with separate transcription and translation documents that were reviewed to ensure translation reliability. The place meanings terms (two to three words) were collected from responses to the question: “If you had to say what this site means to you in two to three words what would they be?” and from the responses to the question, “What is important [or special] to you about this place and why?”.

Using applied thematic analysis, the descriptions (throughout the interview) associated with place meanings were coded iteratively and inductively using words and phrases from the interviewees, then clustered and subgrouped according to, first, the short place meaning responses, and then, inductively over time, generated themes (e.g., Guest et al. 2006) in NVivo 11 by the author. The conceptual framework informed the coding process and analysis by encouraging groupings of place meanings by characteristics of place or respondent. The conceptual framework of well-being was also shown to be helpful. Well-being aspects such as place attachment can relate to positive mental health, while place dependence in terms of activities can relate to positive physical health Table 1.

Table 1 Selection of questions from the semi-structured interview instrument
Full size table

Results

Demographics of respondents

Of the 43 interviews, 30 were conducted at Conimicut Point and 13 interviews were conducted at Rocky Point (Table 2). The interviewee ages ranged between 20 and 79 and had an average age of 47. The majority of the respondents lived in Warwick, Cranston (the town between Warwick and Providence), or Providence; 88% of respondents came from the greater Providence area. Most respondents came to the study site between five times a week to twice a year, and only in the summer. Five of the anglers are also identified as shellfishers. Household sizes varied with 54% of interviewees living in a household with three or more family members, and 14% of interviewees living in a household that included five or more family members. According to their responses, 16% of interviewees had household incomes below the federal poverty level. However, many interviewees (44%) did not want to reveal their household income. The interview length was between eight and 61 min. The shorter interviews were in response to the respondent’s wishes, due to time pressure or disengagement with the protocol instrument.

Table 2 Demographics of interviewees in the study (N = 43)
Full size table

Place meanings and thematic findings

Five major themes (Table 3) comprising the 2–3 word place meanings were derived from the broader interviews: access, pollution, safety, subsistence, and health. Access was an important topic to people. “Access” was a shared place meaning that was the second most commonly stated, behind fish/fishing. One respondent illustrated the importance of access, saying, “Make more access to people, especially poor people like this. We have only one pole.” Access in terms of mobility and disability was also important, as docks and paved areas near the water allow access to people for the activity of fishing. Water quality and pollution were another place meaning that arose, both in relation to the water being cleaner than in urban areas, and the importance of the site looking well-tended. Pollution extent and policy lines (e.g., shellfish openings) were found to impact landscape use (Cooke et al. 2018) as respondents came to the site for the ability to shellfish. The coastal areas studied have less contaminants in the water than coastal areas nearer to the city (Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, 2017), and fishers indeed perceived the areas to be cleaner than areas around the city. Safety and the community that surrounded the sites were also important, with some fishers feeling more socially safe to fish at the site than in the urban area of Providence. Lack of access and water quality was found to be especially important in these urban fringe sites in contrast to crowded and lesser water quality found in the urban area, as one respondent noted, “[I come to the site because of the] water quality. I have this feeling [that] fish I catch are just clean compared to downtown [Providence] water.”

Table 3 Thematic findings with illustrative quotes
Full size table

The use of the site for harvesting was also evident in place meanings for subsistence, with respondents discussing not only the fish they caught but also how important it was to share those fish with friends and family (Harrison and Loring 2016). The ability to harvest both shellfish and fish at one of the sites was also important to respondents, with one noting, “Basically we go all day. We’ll do one [i.e. fishing] if it’s high tide and then at low tide we’ll go quahogging [shellfishing].”

Targeted catch species included sea robin (Prionotus evolans), porgy/scup (Stenotomus chrysops), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), summer flounder or fluke (Paralichthys dentatus), and bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) as well as quahog or hard-shell clam (Mercenaria mercenaria). The fish species are abundant in Narragansett Bay, and easy to catch with worm bait as a shore fisher. Bluefish was the only targeted stock that is considered overfished (NOAA Fisheries 2023). The shellfish are also abundant in the area and an iconic regional species (McManus et al 2020). Some respondents expressed preference for certain species due to taste or ability to be used in family or heritage recipes; for example, one respondent felt that porgy/scup did not freeze well and did not taste as good as striped bass or summer flounder.

The importance of the site for mental and physical health was also clear, with the site being an especially important space for respondents with mental and physical health challenges. One respondent highlighted the importance of fishing and experiencing the site to learn healthy coping mechanisms for mental health challenges, saying, “[My son with autism is] having a tough time in school with just even teachers. I take him fishing every morning. Before school, it helps him in school.” Mental and physical health benefits, which are aspects of well-being, are more extensively discussed in the next section along with other themes.

The most common place meanings (Fig. 4), relating to fish, access, water quality, beauty, and relaxation, demonstrate the importance of the area for anglers for well-being, connection to others, and health. These fishing access points and waterfront parks provide much-needed mental and physical health, and a healthy activity outlet for anglers, some of whom were unemployed or coping with PTSD. It is difficult to distinguish the benefits of the place itself vs. the benefits found entirely from the activities (e.g., the practice of fishing). This is why many place meanings found in this study overlap with the motivation literature for recreational fishing (see discussion). However, the five themes obtained from the interviews demonstrate core aspects that should be considered when designing a public access site, or when adapting it to threats such as climate change and human.

Fig. 4
figure 4

Place meanings of shore recreational anglers

Full size image

This study was not able to directly compare place meanings of differentiated communities or groups; however, by studying respondents in the urban fringe, the values of coastal areas by a user group that is not often included were captured. As the place meanings demonstrated, the coastal areas are not just valuable as a park, but serve to strengthen family and community bonds, connect individuals to their heritage, and can connect to sites outside the project area, for example, churches or seafood festivals. The place meanings demonstrated that the sites were valuable to the respondents. By studying the importance of coastal sites such as these to underserved communities in terms of open space recreational areas (Kato-Huerta and Geneletti 2023), coastal managers can more confidently provide additional services such as fishing docks or restrooms where they would be useful (Hoffimann et al. 2017). Place meanings found such as “kid-friendly,” “multi-use,” “welcoming,” “benches,” and “parking” demonstrate that these attributes should also be included when designing access points. In the next section, these thematic findings will be explored in terms of types of place meanings, relationship to well-being, and connections to fishing motivations and coastal management.

Discussion

The urban fringe supports a confluence of users with specific needs, especially access, and safety

The urban fringe was found to support a confluence of different users, from transient urban residents, to contemporary residential users, to historical and traditional users (Geake 2011) such as Native tribal members (Harrison and Loring 2016). The findings demonstrate that anglers in the urban fringe have some similar concerns as urban and suburban anglers (Pulford et al. 2017; Martin et al. 2017). However, urban anglers have limited access to clean fishing areas with good perceived water quality. Based on the place meanings, physical and social safety was important to respondents in order to stay healthy, and harvesting food (Cooke et al 2018) and sharing it with the community was important to people. Many of the place meanings related to personal health and connections to place, oneself, and others, which were all enriched at the site. Clear connections were formed between activity and physical accessibility for different activities, such as grilling with friends or being able to push a wheelchair from a parking lot onto the beach.

Unique place meanings of recreational shore fishing in the urban fringe

All three types of place meanings—adjectives, nouns, and characterizations—were expressed by respondents (Fig. 4). To contrast the place meanings found in this study with those from more suburban/rural/ touristic areas, some place meanings were the same as those found in other studies and some place meanings were different. In Smith et al. (2011), place meanings in a study for a lakeshore by residents/owners were related to management outcomes; however, their findings did not directly correspond to the place meanings found in this study and focused on interpretations of responses rather than the responses themselves. Wynveen and Kyle (2014) identified the place meaning themes of a coastal marine setting (Great Barrier Reef), which were similar to the place meanings found in this study, perhaps because of similar recreational use. However, diversity of wildlife, curiosity, and exploration were not found to be common place meanings in this study, perhaps because respondents felt that place meanings such as “relaxation,” “calm,” or “family” were more significant as repeat visitors than exploration of a new place. This study in Rhode Island interviewed respondents who were mainly repeat visitors to the sites due to 88% of respondents being residents of the greater Providence area. Smaldone et al (2008) found that repeat visitors to national parks were more likely than first-time visitors to report the following place meanings: outdoor recreation, solitude, social ties, special moments, and time or tradition. Respondents in this study alluded to the place meanings referenced by repeat visitors in the Smaldone et al. (2008) study in the longer interviews (see Table 3), although they were not as clearly referenced in the 2–3 word responses (Fig. 4). Wynveen and Kyle (2014) and Smith et al. (2011) discussed economic meaning, solitude, and contrast to everyday settings; these topics were not found as frequent place meanings in this study. Smaldone et al. (2008), in a study of visitors and locals in Grand Teton National Park and Jackson Hole, Wyoming, found place meanings related to physical setting, outdoor recreation, emotional connections, wildlife, escape, social aspects, special moments, and the undeveloped nature of the site, respectively, to be most common among participants. Based on contrasting the results of this study with other studies, this study found that the place meanings/benefits depend on the individual’s environmental context, and some place meanings eclipse others.

Place meanings as contextual spatial aspects of fishing motivations, with a focus on well-being

As noted previously, the place meanings that arose relate to fishing motivation literature. Fishing motivations such as access (Dabrowksa et al. 2017) socialization (Magee et al. 2018), “escape” (Kuehn et al. 2017), and cleanliness (Burger 2013) mirrored place meanings that were found on the sites. There has been much literature on the motivations and benefits of recreational activities, including fishing; however, the studies have not undergone much validity and reliability testing and have not connected to the site-specific characteristics of the place itself (Griffiths et al 2017). The place itself serves as a confluence of several motivations/meanings, and was especially important from a spatial aspect within the wider environment, as evidenced by “access” being the second most common place meaning, behind “fish/fishing.”

In the fishing management literature, fishing site preferences have been analyzed in terms of many differing attributes of these two sites, including boat launch presence, site size, and water quality, in a quantitative review of studies, which found that those aspects positively impacted motivation to fish in that location (Hunt et al 2019). Hunt et al. found that aspects related to catch (including fish species types), positive environmental quality, destination size, and facility quality had a positive effect on the use of a site, while cost, regulations, and congestion had a negative effect on the use of a site by anglers. Many of these attributes arose also as terms discussed as place meanings by respondents in this study.

Harrison and Loring (2016) found that urban fishers in Alaska relied on fishing for mainly for healthy eating (i.e., to “fill the freezer” (p. 5)) and to a lesser extent for each respondent, the recreational benefits, including socialization. Motivations of catching fish and socialization were also important to the respondents in this study, although the nutritional value of the fish for the diets of anglers in the urban fringe was not clearly differentiated from the importance of the activity of recreational fishing within the place meaning, “fish/fishing.” Respondents may have been embarrassed to state that they relied on recreational fishing at the sites for food security, although the proportion of respondents under the federal poverty line and the theme “subsistence” derived from the more extended interviews indicates that at least a few respondents did so. Future place meaning studies should elucidate the difference in place meanings related to “fish” for consumption/subsistence/food security motivations vs. recreational benefits.

Another overarching theme found in the place meanings was the motivation towards well-being, which was also found in Griffiths et al. 2017. Place meanings described by respondents directly related to aspects of human well-being, which encompass a variety of dimensions (e.g., health, material well-being, freedom) (Alkire 2002; Nussbaum 2003; Sen 1983). For example, many place meanings included dimensions of health, such as walking or spending time outdoors (physical health) or relaxing (mental health) (Alkire 2002). Meditative absorption has been proven to be good for well-being (Kashdan et al. 2010). Meaning-making is an important aspect of mental health; deciding on what makes one’s life meaningful allows for identity, pride, connection, morality, and other important aspects of well-being (Alkire 2002; Manzo 2005). Some of the place meanings that related to well-being: “relax” (mental health), “friends” (social), and “family” (social). Other place meanings such as “beauty” or “welcoming” are indirectly related to well-being by increasing positive emotions (Dalton & Thompson 2013). Fishing on the site allowed respondents to connect with their senses, play, and have a sense of control over their environment, which are all aspects of well-being (Nussbaum 2003). Mobility has also been interrogated as an aspect of well-being in terms of fishing (Griffiths et al 2017). Finally, the study area provided psychological, social, and physical resources of the site that helped respondents meet challenges in terms of food, outdoor activity despite disability, loneliness, PTSD, and others.

In this study, place meanings demonstrate aspects of well-being. The interrogation of the gaps in the place attachment literature resulted in an interesting relationship between the theoretical aspects of well-being and the theoretical aspects of place meaning. As Manzo (2005), and Davenport et al. (2010) found, multiple aspects of a place can contribute to well-being, as indicated by place meanings. It is recommended that this relationship be explored further; rather than only using place attachment to measure well-being (Quinn et al. 2019); and understand how the levels of well-being, before and after place attachment to a site, relate to post-site experience levels of well-being in terms of place meanings.

These findings can also be connected to the person-place-process understanding of defining place attachment (Scannell & Gifford 2010) (i.e., personal identity – place use history – fishing or shellfishing. The scales that are traditionally used to denote agreement or disagreement with sentences to measure place identity or place dependence (Scannell & Gifford 2013) would have missed many of the nuances that people feel during place attachment and place meaning formation of shore fishing in the urban fringe. The quantitative scales (Scannell & Gifford 2013) would have missed the use of the site to heal from or cope with life difficulties, such as impoverished nutritional options, lack of exercise, anxiety, trauma, loneliness, and others. The place meanings were directly related to valued aspects of people’s lives, such as their children or their heritage, rather than reflexive understandings of their emotional valence that had not been previously or comparatively measured on other sites or with other cultural groups (Davenport and Anderson 2005). Future studies could use place meanings to indicate well-being attributes and to map these attributes by area in a state, for example, by using popular fishing sites, income levels, and economic access. Place meanings continue to provide an important aspect to the place attachment literature through their grounded theory nature (Manzo 2005).

Implications for coastal and fisheries management

Target species, including sea robin (Triglidae spp.), scup (Stenotomus chrysops), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and fluke (Paralichthys dentatus), are not stocks that are overfished; however, bluefish (Pomatomus saltatrix) is an overfished stock (NOAA Fisheries 2023). Fisheries resources can be managed to ensure recreational fishing for stocks that are less pressured (Cooke et al 2018) (i.e., porgy/scup and summer flounder), while protecting more pressured stocks, such as striped bass and bluefish, which are currently overfished. Teaching respondents how to prepare and cook less well-known fish species (e.g., sea robin), or increase other types of harvesting activity (e.g., shellfishing), can maintain necessary mental and physical health benefits of fishing while protecting declining fisheries (Davis et al 2023; Wyke 2024).

The positive place meanings demonstrated that a welcoming, safe, and calm area will draw vulnerable communities, including children, sick, elderly, and disabled users. The place meanings demonstrate that the urban fringe provides important health benefits to users (Cooke et al. 2018). The users of the place discussed in the open-ended interview had some preferences. To maintain these areas for non-residents, such as urban anglers, resident-only parking passes should continue to be avoided. To manage the areas for physically disabled anglers, fishing areas should continue to be accessible with parking or drop-offs close to the water. To maintain extraction rights, which are one of the most important place meanings to study participants (“fishing”), the fishery should continue to be managed over time to be sustainable and accessible for all users and have a clear warning about resources that are unsafe to eat (Teo et al. 2019). Since several respondents are concerned about water pollution of urban areas, fish consumption advisories that show that the fish are safe to eat in these two sites are necessary, and in languages and disseminated to immigrant and non-English speaking communities; for example, through posted signage on the site (LePrevost et al 2013). The local Department of Marine Fisheries demonstrates interest in this topic through posted signage in multiple languages at areas where it is currently unsafe to eat fish caught at those sites, and through expressed interest to the author of where to best site new docks for fishing access (Rhode Island Department of Marine Fisheries 2019).

Effective public fishing access points can be rare in the urban fringe. This study initially planned to interview respondents from four sites in a north–south gradient in the urban fringe; however, the two sites closest to the urban areas had few anglers and did not have any respondents who were willing to be interviewed. Despite being visited several times at different times of day in good weather, the site closest to the urban area in the urban fringe (north most potential site) did not have any shore fishers, and the next site, which was next-closest to the urban area (second north most potential site) had less than ten anglers, mainly non-English speaking, who did not want to be interviewed, and the access to the site was submerged during variable times and days of the week. The next closest site to the urban area (third northmost potential site, Fig. 2), Contimicut Point, was the northmost site to allow shellfishing, an indication of good water quality. These findings further inform management decisions regarding public water access in the urban fringe.

Limitations and future directions

This study included several limitations. Study participants may have preferred other languages; only Spanish and English were offered. 21% of the respondents spoke a language other than English or Spanish at home. Other languages identified in the area are Hmong, Vietnamese, Portuguese, Spanish, Cambodian, and Laotian (Rhode Island Department of Marine Fisheries 2019). Another limitation is that ethnicity and race were conflated to give interviewees the opportunity to self-identify as broadly as possible. Recent studies (Braveman and Dominguez 2021) recommend scholars to move away from the term “race” and use the term ethnicity instead, so future studies may only use ethnicity as identification. The number of site visits in total, including visits where no people were interviewed, and other aspects of the interviews were not recorded because they did not seem salient at the time. If this study was to be done again, dates and time of all site visits would be documented. Future studies could describe different user groups, such as place meanings in the urban fringe for indigenous users, in more detail. Further research should explore these initial findings in other geographic areas.

Conclusion

This study underscores the importance of considering anglers’ sense of place in landscape planning and ecosystem recovery efforts. It suggests that understanding that anglers in the urban fringe have an attachment to coastal landscapes and their responses to changes in these environments is crucial for effective coastal planning. By incorporating concepts like the sense of place and place meaning, planners can better engage communities and address their place-based relationships (Masterson et al 2017; Trimbach et al 2022). This research finds that anglers in the urban fringe exhibit strong coastal place meanings, indicating attachment towards these coastal areas, and that the urban fringe provides key benefits to anglers that impact their well-being. These benefits are limited in urban spaces, making accessible waterfront parks in the urban fringe even more important. Qualitative investigations of place meanings provide rich information in terms of respondents’ views, motivations, and values. When managing these areas under changes such as fishery stock decline, aiding or preserving positive place meanings will allow urban residents to preserve connections that impact their well-being (Devine-Wright 2013). These understandings help identify what aspects of recreational areas in the coastal urban fringe are meaningful to anglers, inform the literature on conceptualizations of coastal spaces, and inform policymakers of the attributes of coastal spaces that need protection or restoration in the urban fringe.