Growing attractiveness of recreational angling has increased the need for reinforced regulatory measures. Successful implementation of such measures is driven by the use of relevant ecological knowledge toward biological conservation but is also dependent on support from anglers' community. This study aims to identify which regulatory measures are most favoured by recreational anglers. One source of information regarding such preferences is the recent empirical literature that has applied the choice experiment method to examine fishermen's valuation of change in fishing conditions, including the imposition of specific technical-biological measures. We collated the results of 21 studies, and make use of meta-regressions to assess how different regulatory instruments explain the variation in the marginal willingness to pay estimates for one additional fishing trip and recreational angler's welfare. We also examine the potential effects of the context of the studies from which data are taken. Results suggest that anglers tend to perceive higher expected benefit from fishing experience taking place in sites where fish catch and harvest regulation are applied. However, they continue to avoid “fishing sites” where size limits are more restrictive, or where limits on numbers of fish caught are strengthened. The significance of these results for future research is discussed.