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. 

We measure Good Governance by asking respondents to rate their agreement or disagreement with statements about the governance of natural resources on a seven-point Likert scale. Chart shows 2024 survey results. *Percentages less than 3% are not labeled.

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.  

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)