View in Vital Signs- Vibrant Human Quality of Life
- Good Governance
- Indicator
- Good Governance Index
- Vital Sign Indicator
- Index Value (index value)
- /
-
No targets are currently set for this indicator.
-
Kelly Biedenweg
- Contributing Partners
- Last Updated
- 08/04/2025 7:04 PM
The Good Governance Index tells us how Puget Sound residents perceive the way decisions are made regarding management of the natural environment. Components of the Index offer insights for improving our overall decision-making processes, strengthening communication strategies, and strengthening the engagement of our partners and community.
Mean Good Governance response on a seven-point scale (where 1 is strongly disagree and 7 is strongly agree).
Good Governance tells us whether people agree with how the environment around them is managed and whether they feel heard in decision-making. It is an indicator of wellbeing as it contributes to people's sense of satisfaction and control over the fate of their resources. It is also fundamental in contributing to people's support for current and future restoration actions.
- We measure Good Governance by asking survey respondents to rate their agreement or disagreement with statements about the governance of natural resources.
- 4.19 was the average response in 2024, which equates to a “neutral” response on a seven-point scale. This is consistent with responses since 2018.
- Respondents do not feel strongly in agreement or disagreement about how the environment around them is managed nor whether they feel heard in decision making.
- Monitoring Program
- Data Source
Oregon State University Human Dimensions Lab
Data are collected every two years via paper survey and online response option to a random sample of Puget Sound households. The population is a clustered random sample of Puget Sound residents across 12 counties, with an initial sample of 9,000. Due to undeliverable addresses, the total sample reached is always less than 9,000.
- In 2024, the response rate was 23% for a total of 1,968 responses.
- In 2022, the response rate was 20.8%, with a total of 1,271 responses.
- In 2020, the response rate was 25% for a total of 1,843 respondents.
- In 2018, the first iteration of the survey, the response rate was 28% for a total of 2,323 individual responses.
The Good Governance Indicator is based on a single question in the survey that asks respondents to rate their level of agreement (from strongly agree to strongly disagree) with the status of seven characteristics of good governance. Responses to these options are combined to form an index.
For more information on the survey, see Appendix A. Detailed Methodology and Appendix B. 2024 Survey Instrument in the 2024 Summary Report.
- Critical Definitions
Governance refers to the way in which decisions are made - the decision making process. This indicator is specifically individual perceptions of the decision making process for Puget Sound environmental issues. As such, it is a subjective measure.
 |
The question is asked at a Puget Sound scale, yet analysis of an open-ended question on the 2020 survey identified that respondents are considering different entities when providing their responses. The most frequently mentioned sources for governance assessments were state (WADNR, WADFW, WA Department of Ecology, in respective order) and federal (EPA, BLM) as well as county and city groups.
Environmental management in the Puget Sound has been fairly consistent since decades before monitoring governance attitudes. There is neither broad discontent nor majority satisfaction with the overall governance landscape. There are many reasons we might not see shifts in this time period. First, comparative to other places in the globe, the Puget Sound region has maintained its natural aesthetics, while also prioritizing investment in environmental health. As such, there have not been significant daily experiences of environmental decline for most people. Second, if governance attitudes were to shift based on political priorities rather than environmental experiences, we might still see the average maintained even though individuals shift in their levels of satisfaction. For example, some people prefer to decrease funding for environmental planning and activities, while others would be disappointed to experience decreases in funding.
-
We did not measure any differences across the general population between 2018 and 2024. This lack of change is expected, as we don’t anticipate measuring large changes in human attitudes until several years of monitoring and large ecological or social influencing events. Although published in 2025, this survey was conducted in fall 2024 before changes in the federal and state administrations.
Bordas, A., A. Kuberski, K. Harrington, and K. Biedenweg. 2025. Human Wellbeing Vital Signs Survey 2024 Summary: A report on subjective human wellbeing indicators. prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership
Harrington, K., B. Leach, Z. Antenucci, and K. Biedenweg. 2023. Human Wellbeing Vital Signs Survey 2022 Summary: A report on subjective human wellbeing indicators prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership.
Justiniano, I., C. Avendano, C. Lozano and K. Biedenweg. 2021. Vital Signs Latinx Survey. Report to Puget Sound Partnership.
Fleming, W., H. Kehoe-Thommen, B. Katz, J. Hart and K. Biedenweg. 2021. Vital Signs Survey Summary 2020: A report on subjective human wellbeing. Report to the Puget Sound Partnership.
Fleming, W. and K. Biedenweg. 2019. Visualizing Human Wellbeing in the Puget Sound (Vital Signs Survey Summary 2018). Report to the Puget Sound Partnership.
Human Wellbeing Vital Signs Interactive Web-interface (2018, 2020)
The Puget Sound Partnership believes in the transparency and accessibility of the data used to address indicators. These data are provided by contributing partners to the Partnership and are made publicly available through the Puget Sound Info site. These data are available on an "as is" basis and the Partnership is not responsible for any errors, omissions, or inaccuracies. Please acknowledge the monitoring program and data source when using these data and obtain permission from the Vital Sign Indicator Reporter to use these data in a publication.
- HWB Survey Data and Codebook
- Uploaded On
- 07/29/2025
- File Type
- Excel (XLSX)
- Description
- Raw data and codebooks for HWB data 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 iterations
- Reporting Instructions
No Subcategories for this Indicator.