Good governance measures the various dimensions by which the general public is satisfied with the process of managing Puget Sound environments. 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.
Oregon State University Human Dimensions Lab
The Good Governance index is an average of general Puget Sound public responses to 7 different questions:
Data are collected every 2 years via paper survey to a random sample of Puget Sound households. The population chosen for this survey was a clustered random sample of Puget Sound residents, with an initial sample of 9,000. Due to undeliverable addresses, the total sample reached was less than 9,000. In 2020, the response rate was 25 percent for a total of 1,843 respondents.
Also appended is a 2021 purposive sample of 180 Latinx respondents who were selected using a variety of techniques, including:
This one-time survey was conducted to approach Latinx respondents in diverse, potentially more culturally-appropriate ways, to determine if the Latinx respondents to our general public survey significantly differ from the overall Latinx population of Puget Sound (e.g., do Latinx respondents to our biennial random sample survey represent a biased group of Latinx?). To answer this question we compared the responses to the purposive sample to 1) all non-Latinx respondents in the general public survey and 2) only Latinx respondents to the general public survey.
Governance refers to the way in which decions are made - the decision making process. This indicator is specificaly individual perceptions of the decision making process for Puget Sound environmental issues. As such, it is a subjective measure.
While on average, all counties reported a "neutral" or "somewhat agree" perception of Puget Sound natural resource governance, respondents from Snohomish county tended to disagree more with statements on environmental governance.
Responses to each individual question were highly correlated and the distribution of responses fell along a normal curve, meaning that the way people answered any one question about governance was very similar to the way they answered other questions about governance.
A regression model that explains the demographic predictors of good governance perceptions was only able to describe one percent of the variation in responses. As such, it is likely that response variance is due more to individual experiences, personality traits, values and attitudes. That said, according to the model, those who were more likely (even if slightly) to perceive good governance were newer to the region and held more liberal political idealogies. These results reflect the current trend of identity politics. We must be careful to not read too much into these predictor variables as, again, they only describe a small portion of the variance in responses.
This is the second iteration of collecting these data. We do not anticipate significant differences to appear until several years of monitoring.
The Puget Sound Partnership believes in the transparency and accessibility of the data used to address progress measures. 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.