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 8,261 individuals. The response rate was 28 percent for a total of 2,323 individual responses. Results are reported as the frequency that Puget Sound residents engaged in cultural traditions or activities over the past year.
About 75 percent of survey participants gave their cross-streets, which allowed mapping of human wellbeing metrics at a fine scale. The map above shows the location of each individual respondent. Hot Spot Analysis (Getis-Ord Gi* statistic) was used to visualize clusters of responses that were significantly higher (red, hot spots) and lower (blue, cold spots) relative to those around them.
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 Pierce and Kitsap counties tended to agree more with statements on environmental governance relative to those around them (red, hot spots in map above). Respondents from Mason, Snohomish, and Clallam counties tended to agree less with statements on environmental governance (blue, cold spots) than those around them.
A regression model that explains the demographic predictors of good governance perceptions was only able to describe 4 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, female, urban, and had higher incomes. These results match some of the evidence that rural and poorer populations feel more marginalized by policy decisions made in urban centers. These results also likely 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.
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.