Oregon Coastal Community Well-Being Assessment

Identification Information

Citation

Originator: Lindberg, Kreg and Katie Williams

Publish Date: 2019

Online Link: None

BPA Project #:

Contact Information

Agency: Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

Name: Lindsay Aylesworth

Job Position: Marine Reserves Program Leader

Telephone: 541-867-4741

E-Mail Address: lindsay.x.aylesworth@odfw.oregon.gov

Description

Abstract: Oregon’s five marine reserves were designated in 2012 for purposes of conservation and scientific research. They are managed by the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW), which contracted with Oregon State University to conduct a survey of Oregon coast residents as part of ODFW’s marine reserve human dimensions research program. The survey covered level of respondent awareness and recreational utilization of reserves, the perceived effects of current reserves and preferences for modification of reserve spatial area (reduce, expand, or leave unchanged), and the potential effect of change in reserve area on respondent well-being. The survey was conducted in 2017 with a random sample of coast residents, following an extensive questionnaire development process. A total of 1,172 completed questionnaires were received for a response rate of 17%. Data were weighted by geographic area, age, and income to better reflect the coast population. In addition to content directly related to marine reserves, the questionnaire included content on demographic and employment characteristics, environmental worldview, perceived individual and community resilience, and subjective well-being. Several of these variables provide a baseline for monitoring changes that might affect or be affected by the marine reserves. Perceived community resilience was assessed across seven statements. Respondent agreement was strongest with respect to the statement that the community would be able to provide key services, such as police and fire protection, during emergencies. Agreement was least strong with respect to the community being able to develop new industries in response to potential decline in current industries. Similarly, agreement was low regarding the ability to sustain the community in the event of a significant earthquake / tsunami. With respect to perceived individual resilience, the strongest level of agreement was in the broad ability to find a way out of difficult situations. The lowest level of agreement was with the ability to cope with an earthquake and tsunami in the community. Average (mean) subjective well-being was 80 on a life satisfaction scale of 0 for not at all satisfied to 100 for completely satisfied. Across the evaluated aspects of life, satisfaction was greatest with respect to the natural environment in the region and lowest with respect to the respondent’s financial situation. Turning to recreational engagement within the past 10 years in areas that have been designated as marine reserves, participation varied by activity, with 29 percent of respondents reporting they often engage in viewing-oriented activities (e.g., sightseeing, photography, or wildlife viewing), 27 percent reporting they often engage in beach walking or related activities, 17 percent in exploring tide pools, seven percent in recreational fishing, and five percent in other ocean-oriented activities (e.g., swimming, kayaking, or surfing). A coast-wide map of reserve locations and regulations was provided, but unfamiliarity with precise “on the ground” reserve boundaries may affect the above participation estimates. Half (49 percent) of respondents reported they were moderately or extremely aware of marine reserves in Oregon, while 51 percent reported they were not or slightly aware of reserves. Awareness was greatest in the Lincoln City / Neotsu / Gleneden region and lowest in the Cannon Beach / Seaside region. Respondents indicated the perceived effects of the current marine reserves across five categories: commercial / charter fishing, recreational fishing, conservation, community jobs / income, and community character. Many respondents indicated no effect or neutral effect. Other respondents reported a diversity of effects, ranging from very negative to very positive. Across all respondents, the mean effect was noticeably positive for conservation (5.1 on a scale of 1 for very negative, 4 for neutral, and 7 for very positive). The perceived effect of marine reserves was essentially neutral for jobs / income (3.9) and community character (4.1). It was somewhat negative for commercial / charter fishing (3.8) and recreational fishing (3.6). Across communities, the mean perceived effect was most positive in the Lincoln City / Neotsu / Gleneden region and most negative in the region anchored by Coos Bay. Respondents then indicated their preference for modification of marine reserve spatial area (spatial preference), on a scale of 1 for significantly reduced, 3 for left unchanged, and 5 for significantly expanded. Coastwide, the mean was 3.6. Across communities, the mean was highest for the Cannon Beach / Seaside region and lowest for the Brookings region. The goal of this study was not to judge the accuracy or desirability of perceptions or preferences, but rather to understand the diversity of perspectives across respondents – and to understand factors that might explain this diversity, especially regarding spatial preference. One such factor is environmental worldview, which was measured using level of agreement with 10 statements, with five reflecting anthropocentric (human-focused) conservation and the other five reflecting connectedness to nature. Cluster analysis was used to group respondents based on their responses. The Moderate group had mid-range levels of agreement across both sets of statements (anthropocentrism and connectedness to nature). The High A - Low C group was relatively high in anthropocentrism and low in connectedness to nature, while the Low A - High C group had the reverse pattern. The High A - High C group was high in both anthropocentrism and connectedness to nature, while the Low A - Low C group was low in both. A bivariate analysis indicated that environmental worldview predicts spatial preference, with respondents high in anthropocentrism and low in connectedness to nature being more likely than others to prefer a reduction in marine reserve area. Conversely, respondents low in anthropocentrism and high in connectedness to nature were more likely to prefer an expansion. Multivariate analyses were used to expand this evaluation to include (a) recreational use of areas that have been designated marine reserves and (b) employment in commercial fishing (regardless of whether that fishing was affected by marine reserves). In the path model of perceived effect and spatial preference, environmental worldview was a statistically significant predictor of spatial preference and of the perceived effects of current marine reserves, which was modeled as a precursor to spatial preference. Respondents who frequently engaged in coast-oriented recreation (e.g., sightseeing and beach walking) were more likely than others to report positive perceived effects of current marine reserves and were more likely to prefer expansion in marine reserves. Frequent engagement in recreational fishing (including shellfish) was not a statistically significant direct predictor of spatial preference. However, it was negatively correlated with perceived effect, and thus was indirectly negatively correlated with spatial preference. The same pattern was found for employment in the commercial fishing sector. This potentially suggests that those engaged in recreational fishing and those employed in the fishing sector are neutral with respect to the concept of marine reserves, but their spatial preferences are more negative than those of others due to negative perceived effects of reserves. Frequency of engagement in other ocean recreation (e.g., swimming, kayaking, or surfing) was not a statistically significant predictor of either perceived effect or spatial preference. Lastly, choice experiment and subjective well-being models were estimated. In the choice experiment, respondents indicated their choice across the current situation and two potential “change” options, with the options including possible changes in marine reserve area, forest reserve area, annual household cost, and change in regional fishing and timber jobs. With respect to preference for marine reserve changes, the perceived effect of current reserves was a statistically significant predictor; respondents who evaluated current reserves as having positive effects were more likely to favor an increase in reserves, while those who evaluated current reserves as having negative effects were more likely to favor a reduction in reserves. In turn, environmental worldview, recreational use of areas that have been designated as marine reserves, and employment in commercial fishing were statistically significant predictors of perceived effects, with patterns similar to those in the path model. For example, respondents in the high in anthropocentrism and low in connectedness to nature group were more likely to perceive the effect of current marine reserves as negative, as were respondents employed in commercial fishing and respondents who frequently have engaged in recreational fishing in areas that have been designated as marine reserves. Respondents predicted how their well-being would be affected by each of the two “change” options used in the choice experiment. Patterns were similar to those in the choice experiment model. For example, the effect of a potential expansion (or reduction) in marine reserve area depended on respondent evaluation of the effects of current reserves. In turn, that evaluation depended on environmental worldview, recreational use of areas that have been designated as marine reserves, and employment in the fishing sector.

Purpose:

Time Period of Content:

Geographic Extent: Oregon

Status: Final

Use Constraints: Prepared for Oregon Dept. Fish and Wildlife by Oregon State University Cascades

Format: PDF

Data Quality Information

Lineage-Source:

Data Information

No data information was supplied.

Entity and Attribute Information

Attributes Description: Field attribute information is available in the attached file(s).

Is a physical copy maintained for reference at Headquarters? Unknown