State report for Washington from the research project entitled: Understanding People in Places

This report documents the results of a study assessing the attitudes and beliefs of residents living in the state of Washington toward the following: the place where they live and wildlife, including the wildlife near their homes; lethal control of coyotes and black bears; management actions addressing problem deer/elk and the recolonization of Washington by wolves; salmon recovery; and the importance of and willingness to pay for wildlife-related services. Levels of participation in outdoor and wildlife-related recreation as well as beliefs about access to land areas for recreational opportunities were also explored. Findings are part of the larger research program entitled Understanding People in Places, a multi-state study designed to demonstrate the utility of geographically-tied human dimensions information for fish and wildlife management and to introduce and test a spatially-explicit approach to depicting such data. Data were collected using a mail-back survey administered to residents in Washington in the fall of 2009. Sampling was stratified by county to allow for generalizations at the county level in addition to the overall state level. Four thousand, one hundred and eighty-three surveys were returned, resulting in a 31.8% response rate for the mail-back survey. A telephone nonresponse survey was completed, and tests for differences between mail survey respondents and nonrespondents were conducted. Demographic comparisons between respondent data and U.S. census information were additionally conducted to determine if data were representative of the Washington public. Based on these tests and comparisons, data were weighted by gender to adjust for an underrepresentation of females in the sample. For reporting at the aggregate, statewide level, data were also weighted to accurately reflect the true proportions of the population represented by each county.

Key findings include:

• People hold a diversity of wildlife value orientations in Washington.
  
  The four wildlife value orientation types identified through previous research include Utilitarian, Mutualist, Pluralist, and Distanced. Utilitarians believe that wildlife should be used and managed primarily for human benefit and are more likely to prioritize human wellbeing over wildlife in their attitudes and behaviors. They are also more likely to find justification for treatment of wildlife in utilitarian terms and to rate actions (e.g., hunting, lethal removal) that result in death or harm to wildlife as acceptable. Mutualists view wildlife as capable of living in relationships of trust and caring with humans, as if part of an extended family, and as deserving of rights. They are less likely to support actions resulting in death or harm to wildlife and more likely to engage in welfare-enhancing behaviors for individual wildlife (e.g., feeding). Pluralists hold both utilitarian and mutualist wildlife value orientations, and the situation or context determines which orientation plays a role in their thinking. Distanced individuals do not have a well-formed value orientation toward wildlife, and they tend to be less interested in wildlife and wildlife-related issues. They are also more likely than the other value orientation types to express fear, or concern for safety, while in the outdoors due to the possibility of negative encounters with wildlife (e.g., risk of being attacked or contracting a disease). The distribution of these wildlife value orientation types in the state of Washington is as follows: Mutualist (34.9%), Utilitarian (33.3%), Distanced (17.8%), and Pluralist (13.9%). Counties with more than 50% of residents reporting Utilitarian beliefs were located in the eastern portion of the state and in Lewis County in western Washington, while counties with more than 50% of residents reporting Mutualist beliefs were located in the northwest part of the state.
   
• Comparison of results by wildlife value orientation type and by geographic location enhances understanding of public attitudes toward wildlife-related issues in Washington.
  
  Comparisons among the value orientation types on key variables of interest in this study allowed for a more thorough understanding of the diversity of public opinion on wildliferelated issues in Washington. While the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) can target geographic areas (e.g., counties) in its communication and outreach efforts, it is more difficult for the agency to target specific wildlife value orientation types; however, by knowing the composition of wildlife value orientation types within an area, the agency is in a better position to anticipate how people in that area will respond to management decisions, as public attitudes toward wildlife-related issues are often rooted in more fundamental beliefs including wildlife value orientations. As an illustration, Mutualists were generally less accepting than Utilitarians of lethal control of coyotes, black bears, deer, elk, and wolves. Findings as a whole suggest that counties with higher percentages of Mutualists will have greater resistance to more traditional forms of management. Furthermore, we would expect greater stakeholder conflict in places with a greater mix of opposing value orientations (e.g., 50% Utilitarians, 50% Mutualists). By collecting and analyzing data at the county level, including spatial depictions of public attitudes and value orientations, conclusions could be made about where WDFW can anticipate high levels of conflict in the form of mixed public sentiment or resistance to proposed management strategies. These are areas where the agency may consider targeting its outreach and communication initiatives to reduce potential controversy over management decisions. When coupled with biological data (e.g., species distributions), findings offer a useful tool for addressing wildlife-related issues and public education at more local levels.
   
• Washington residents have a multitude of views related to nature. However, residents primarily perceive nature as being accessible/inviting and in need of protection. Findings provide information useful in gauging people’s thoughts on how the natural world, including wildlife, should be managed.
  
  Washington residents overwhelmingly found nature to be accessible/inviting (94.4%) and in need of protection (88.1%). Many residents also believed nature was limited/scarce (74.3%), fragile (60.5%), and unpredictable/chaotic (50.4%). Mutualists had the largest percentages of individuals viewing nature as fragile, limited/scarce, and in need of protection. These results regarding residents’ perceptions of nature suggest that, of the value orientation types, Mutualists are more likely to prefer less intrusive management responses in their area. Residents in some counties (e.g., Garfield and Clark Counties) were more likely to view nature as durable and unlimited/abundant than fragile and limited/scarce, indicating that residents in these counties are more likely to support traditional, invasive management actions (e.g., lethal control) than residents in other counties.
   
• Residents primarily perceive the area near their homes to be safe, beautiful/attractive, and unique.
  
  Residents largely considered the area near their homes to be beautiful/attractive (92.8%), safe (91.7%), and unique (63.3%), which suggests that Washington residents feel connected to the area near their homes. Residents with such beliefs may be more likely to participate in outdoor activities near their place of residence and to want their area managed in such a way that maintains the status quo. Distanced individuals and Utilitarians were more likely than other value orientation types to view the area near their homes as beautiful/attractive and safe. Distanced individuals were also more likely than the other wildlife value orientation types to consider the area near their homes as unique. Franklin County was the only county in which residents perceived the area near their homes to be common/generic rather than unique, and, while still constituting a majority, had the lowest percentage of people believing the area near their homes was beautiful/attractive.
   
• Rates of participation in outdoor activities are high in Washington.
  
  The majority (81.6%) of Washington residents reported frequent participation in outdoor recreation near their homes. Many residents indicated that they participate in outdoor activities mainly for exercise (67.4%), while some were routinely required to be outside for their job (14.3%). Still others avoided participation in outdoor activities near where they live due to a fear of being harmed by wildlife (6.1%) or a fear of strangers (7.2%). Participation rates did not vary across the value orientation types (i.e., >80% of each value orientation type reported that they often participate). Although a relatively small proportion of Washington's residents indicated a fear of strangers or a fear of being harmed by wildlife as limiting factors in their participation in outdoor activities, there was some variation across the counties. For instance, Yakima County had almost 14% of residents indicating that a fear of strangers limited their participation, and Wahkiakum and Lincoln Counties had nearly 16% of their residents expressing a fear of being harmed by wildlife in the context of outdoor recreation.
   
• Residents primarily participate in outdoor activities near their homes during the summer.
  
  Residents predominately spent time outside in the summer (89.2%), followed by participation in the spring (63.1%), fall (58.8%), and winter (22.1%) months. Less than six percent of residents indicated they did not participate at all in activities near their homes. Pluralists and Utilitarians, who often engage in activities like hunting and fishing, were more likely to participate in outdoor activities during the fall and winter than the other value orientation types. Except for during the summer when there were no reported differences among the value orientation types, Distanced individuals had the lowest rates of participation in each season. All counties in Washington had a majority of residents participating in outdoor activities in the summer, spring, and fall. In addition, Ferry County had a majority of residents indicating they participated in outdoor activities during the winter months. The largest percentage of people indicating they did not participate in outdoor activities near their homes during any season was found in Grant County (15.9%).
   
• The most popular outdoor activities near the home among Washington residents include walking/hiking/running and gardening. Wildlife-viewing was the most popular activity of the three types of wildlife-related participation (i.e., wildlife-viewing, hunting, fishing).
  
  Participation in walking/hiking/running (82.2%) and gardening (80.7%) were the top most frequently-reported outdoor activities near the home for Washington residents. Of the three main wildlife-related activities, wildlife-viewing was most frequently reported (40.4%), followed by fishing (28.4%) and hunting (11.2%). Although the top two most popular activities were the same across value orientation types, the third most popular activity was biking for Distanced individuals, feeding wild birds for Mutualists, and fishing for Utilitarians and Pluralists. Variation was also found across counties. For example, residents in Benton (39.1%), King (44.6%), and Snohomish Counties (34.5%) indicated biking as their third most popular activity, whereas a similar percentage of Adams County residents (42.2%) indicated they participated in fishing near their homes (the third most popular activity).
   
• Residents in certain counties want more access to land areas near their homes for outdoor recreation. Findings help in identifying areas that could be targeted for purposes of providing greater access in the future (e.g., by working with private landowners or through partnerships with other agencies and organizations).
  
  Approximately 42% of Washington residents wanted more access to land areas near their homes in which to participate in outdoor activities. Of the value orientation types, Pluralists were most likely and Distanced individuals were least likely to want more access to land areas near their homes. Five counties (Cowlitz, Lewis, Pacific, Pierce, and Skagit) had more than 50% of residents indicating they wanted more access to land areas, suggesting that these may be areas WDFW could target for greater access provision in the future.
   
• Residents are generally not willing to pay a fee for more access to land areas near their homes for outdoor recreation.
  
  At the state-wide level, Washington residents were not willing to pay a fee for access to more land areas near their homes; however, there was some variation across the value orientation types and counties. For example, Mutualists were the most willing of the value orientation types to pay for more access (41.1%), whereas Utilitarians were the least likely to want to contribute funds for this purpose (24.5%). The largest percentages of people who were willing to pay a fee for more access to land areas near their homes were found in Cowlitz and Pierce Counties (>40%).
   
• Limited access to land areas is not the primary factor limiting participation in outdoor activities near the homes of residents.
  
  Washington residents, as a whole, disagreed that limited access was the primary reason they did not participate in outdoor activities near their homes; however, Pluralists were more likely than the other value orientation types to indicate that limited access was the primary factor limiting their participation (22.0%). In addition, some counties had relatively higher percentages of people who agreed that limited access was the main reason for why they did not participate in outdoor activities. The largest percentage of residents feeling this way was found in Cowlitz County (31.0%).
   
• Residents in some counties believe that WDFW should work with private landowners to provide more access to land areas near their homes.
  
  Approximately 41% of Washington residents agreed that WDFW should work with private landowners to provide more access to land areas near their homes. Although it may not be feasible to target specific population segments based on their value orientations in WDFW’s efforts to secure more land access for residents, it is worth noting that Pluralists were more accepting than the other value orientation types of WDFW working with private landowners for this purpose. This could indicate that access to local lands is most important to this segment of the Washington population. Support for WDFW working with private landowners to improve access was additionally important to a majority of residents in seven counties (Asotin, Columbia, Cowlitz, Franklin, Lewis, Pacific, and Skagit).
   
• Washington residents believe climate change is currently affecting the area near their homes. Results have implications for communicating with the public about climate change issues in that they serve to highlight areas where certain beliefs about climate change impacts (or the lack thereof) are prevalent.
  
  Over 50% of all residents indicated that climate change is currently affecting the area near their homes. Some residents were neutral (12.9%), and others disagreed (33.5%) that climate change was having any localized impacts. Utilitarians were the only value orientation type with a majority of people believing that climate change was not currently affecting the area near their homes, and only two counties (Garfield and Lincoln Counties) had more than 50% of residents disagreeing that climate change was currently having an impact in their area.
   
• Residents consider wildlife near their homes as enjoyable to have around and a valuable recreational opportunity.
  
  Many residents indicated that they consider the wildlife near their homes as enjoyable to have around (86.4%) and as a valuable opportunity for recreation (57.4%); however, some residents felt that the wildlife in their area were dangerous (18.7%) and a nuisance (23.5%). Twenty-four percent of all residents indicated they rarely observe wildlife near their homes. Mutualists and Pluralists were more likely than the other value orientation types to indicate that wildlife are enjoyable to have near their homes. Distanced individuals were less likely than the other types to believe that wildlife in their area provide valuable opportunities for recreation. Columbia, Pacific, and Lincoln Counties had the highest percentages of residents indicating that local wildlife serve as an important source of outdoor recreation (>80%).
   
• Residents experience a variety of wildlife-related problems near their homes. Deer, raccoons, and coyotes are among the top most frequently-cited wildlife involved in problem incidents. Certain areas in the state are more likely to experience wildliferelated problems â€" these human-wildlife conflict â€�"hotspots” are areas that WDFW may want to target in future management and public outreach efforts aimed at reducing the occurrence of conflict incidents.
  
  Approximately 30% of residents reported that they had experienced problems with wildlife over the past year. Incidents most commonly-reported on the survey included wildlife-caused damage to landscaping and agriculture; wildlife getting into residential gardens and pet food; and threats or attacks on domestic animals, including pets and chickens. Some people also wrote on the survey that although wildlife may cause problems, they are a part of life and are still enjoyable to have around. Still others mentioned that they have taken personal measures to alleviate wildlife-related problems and/or that humans have contributed to these problems by moving into wildlife habitat. Deer were cited as the cause of problems by the highest percentage of residents (48.7% of those who indicated a particular wildlife-caused problem), followed by raccoons (22.4%) and coyotes (15.9%). Utilitarians were more likely than the other value orientation types to report having personally experienced problems with wildlife (35.0%) or that their neighbors had experienced such problems (35.4%). A majority of residents in Ferry, Jefferson, Pend Oreille, San Juan, and Stevens Counties (between 50.4% and 53.6% of residents) indicated that they have experienced wildlife-related problems near their homes, whereas only 5.3% of Franklin County residents reported a problem.
   
• Elk cause localized problems for residents in some counties.
  
  Only about 6% of residents statewide reported having experienced a problem with elk in the last year; however, approximately 38% of residents in Wahkiakum County indicated elk had caused problems near their homes during that same timeframe. Additionally, Garfield and Cowlitz Counties had nearly 25% of residents reporting elk-related problems in their area. Understanding the severity and types of species-specific problems at the county level can help WDFW to target localized areas where agency action (e.g., public education campaigns to address certain types of conflicts, wildlife population control) may be necessary.
   
• Lethal control of coyotes and black bears is more acceptable to residents when used to address more severe incidents of human-wildlife conflict and less acceptable in relatively benign incidents of human-wildlife conflict.
  
  Compared to nuisance situations or instances where an animal is seen near the home, Washington residents found lethal removal of coyotes and black bears more acceptable when applied to address attacks on pets and humans or to prevent potential disease transmission. Consensus among residents over the acceptability of lethal removal was lowest for nuisance interactions (e.g., the animal is getting into trash or pet food), suggesting that the use of lethal control in this scenario is likely to be highly contentious. Mutualists were generally less accepting than the other value orientation types of lethal control of coyotes and black bears. San Juan and Jefferson Counties, which also had a majority of Mutualists, had the lowest percentages of residents who were accepting of lethal removal of these species in nuisance situations (only Pacific County had a lower percentage of residents for the nuisance black bear scenario). These areas represent �"hotspots” in Washington where human-wildlife conflict is likely to elevate social conflict if traditional management techniques are used.
   
• Washington residents are more accepting of preventative measures than lethal control or damage compensation schemes for addressing problem deer or elk.
  
  Most Washington residents found it unacceptable to capture and lethally remove a problem deer or elk (54.9%) or to compensate landowners for damage (greater than $10,000) caused by deer or elk (58.9%). In contrast, a vast majority of residents indicated that it was acceptable for WDFW to use devices designed to scare deer or elk away (80.8%) or to require landowners to accept at least half of the responsibility for addressing problem animals (74.4%). Some residents were also accepting of WDFW contributing funds to a landowner cost-share program to build fences around property that has been damaged by deer or elk (44.5%). Mutualists were less accepting than the other value orientation types of lethal control for addressing deer/elk-related problems. Four counties (i.e., King, Kitsap, Benton, and Spokane Counties) had more than 80% of residents who indicated that it was acceptable for WDFW to require landowners to accept 50% of responsibility for handling these kinds of issues, whereas a majority of residents in one county (Garfield County) found this requirement unacceptable.
   
• The re-establishment of wolves on their own in the state of Washington is generally acceptable to residents; however, certain areas of the state are less supportive of having wolves return. Wolf recolonization in these areas is likely to be controversial, posing challenges for wolf recovery in the future.
  
  Washington residents generally found it acceptable for wolves to recolonize the state on their own (74.5%). Once wolves have become established in the state, residents also found it acceptable for WDFW to assist with recovery by moving wolves from one area in Washington where they have become established on their own to another part of the state to help build wolf populations (73.7%). Utilitarians and Pluralists were less accepting than the other value orientation types of such recovery efforts. A significant amount of variability was also noted across counties, highlighting the importance of relying on county-level data to understand public response to wildlife-related issues such as wolf management. As an example, King, San Juan, and Snohomish Counties had over 80% of residents indicating that wolves should be allowed to recolonize Washington on their own, while approximately 32% of residents from two counties (Asotin and Garfield Counties) found this to be acceptable. In general, residents in western Washington were more accepting than residents in eastern Washington of having WDFW assist with wolf recovery once wolves have become established in the state on their own.
   
• Residents, particularly those living in the eastern half of Washington, are by and large accepting of wolf control measures that limit wolf populations.
  
  Washington residents were generally accepting of the following: lethal removal of wolves that cause loss of livestock (65.9%); limiting the number of wolves in certain areas if they are causing localized declines in deer or elk (69.8%); and a hunting season on wolves once they have exceeded WDFW recovery goals (63.5%). Utilitarians and Pluralists were more accepting than the other value orientation types of these control measures. Residents of counties in the most eastern portion of Washington were more likely than residents in the northwestern region of the state to find it acceptable for WDFW to limit wolf numbers if causing localized declines in deer and elk and to support a recreational hunt of wolves once wolves have reached a certain population size.
   
• Residents are less accepting of landowner compensation schemes compared to other possible management strategies for addressing potential wolf-related livestock losses.
  
  Approximately 45% of Washington residents found it acceptable to compensate landowners for loss of livestock caused by wolves. When asked more specifically whether it was acceptable to use certain sources of funds for compensation programs, residents were more supportive of using dollars from the sale of hunting and fishing licenses (46.1%) as opposed to state tax revenue (40.3%) for this purpose. Among the value orientation types, Distanced individuals were the least accepting of compensation schemes and Mutualists were more accepting of using hunting/fishing license funds to support compensation programs. Residents of many counties in eastern Washington (except Douglas County) were more likely than residents in the northwest portion of the state to rate landowner compensation for loss of livestock due to wolves as an acceptable WDFW strategy.
   
• Wild salmon and salmon recovery efforts are important to Washington residents.
  
  A large majority of residents believed salmon are important to local economies (84.1%) and are important to the quality of life in Washington (78.1%). There was also a high level of support for WDFW continuing its salmon recovery efforts (91.6%). There was less support for WDFW focusing more of its attention on the introduction of hatchery-raised salmon to enhance fishing opportunities (56.2%). At the statewide level, approximately 8% of residents indicated their support for salmon recovery efforts has decreased over the last five years, whereas 45.8% reported increased support and 46.3% indicated their support of salmon recovery has remained the same in the 5-year period. While the value orientation types did not differ much with regard to their beliefs about the importance of salmon in Washington, Utilitarians and Pluralists, who are generally more likely to engage in activities like hunting and fishing, were more supportive than the other value orientation types of WDFW focusing more of its efforts on the introduction of hatchery-raised salmon to enhance fishing opportunities. At the county level, at least 76% of residents in each county indicated that their support of salmon recovery has either remained the same or increased over the last five years.
   
• Residents generally believe that current population levels for coyotes, black bears, deer, elk, and cougars in Washington are acceptable; however, many would like to see an increase in deer and elk numbers in the state. Areas where a significant proportion of the public would like to see a decrease in predator populations are places where predator conservation initiatives are likely to generate controversy in the future.
  
  Over 50% of residents indicated a preference for populations of coyotes, black bears, and cougars to remain at their current levels in Washington. While nearly half of all residents were also accepting of current population sizes for deer and elk, a large percentage expressed a desire for increased numbers of these species (47.7% for elk; 40.9% for deer). Utilitarians were more likely than the other value orientation types to prefer a decrease in predator populations, whereas Mutualists were more likely to want an increase in these populations. Compared to the other value orientation types, Pluralists were most likely to desire an increase in deer and elk numbers. Preferred population levels for coyotes, black bears, deer, elk, and cougars did not drastically differ across the counties, suggesting that local population levels for these five species are acceptable.
   
• A number of different wildlife-related services are important to Washington residents and many residents believe WDFW is responsible for providing such services. Findings offer ideas that could inform possible future directions for WDFW and/or public outreach aimed at clarifying, and in some cases raising awareness of, the agency’s role.
  
  Residents were asked to consider a variety of �"example services” that WDFW could provide, some of which are currently offered by the agency and others that would require new activities or partnerships with other organizations to offer in the future. On average, all wildlife-related services included on the survey were evaluated by residents as being of moderate or higher importance. The majority of residents also felt that each of these services should be WDFW’s responsibility to provide. The service with the highest importance rating was protection and recovery of threatened or endangered species, and approximately 88% of residents believed WDFW has the responsibility to provide this service. Utilitarians and Pluralists were most likely to assign importance to hunting and fishing opportunities, whereas Mutualists were most likely to rate the following two services as important: protection and recovery of threatened or endangered species and programs that help local governments plan for protection of open space and wildlife populations in urban areas. Variation existed across the counties as well. Garfield County residents, for example, assigned the lowest ratings of importance (slight to moderate, on average) out of any of the counties for more than half of the services included on the survey. Approximately 8% of residents wrote in additional �"other” services that were important to them, including law enforcement and access to land areas (the top two most often cited �"other” services).
   
• Residents are generally not willing to pay for wildlife-related services. However, certain segments of the public indicated a higher willingness to pay for particular services. These are groups that WDFW may consider targeting in the future to help generate additional funds to support its programs.
  
  Among the eight example services included on the survey, residents were most willing to pay for protection and recovery of endangered or threatened species and outdoor educational programs that connect youth/family to nature. Less than 50% of residents were willing to pay for any of the other services included on the survey. Mutualists were more likely than the other value orientation types to indicate a willingness to pay for all services except two (hunting and fishing opportunities and response to complaints about wildlife in urban areas). A number of differences were noted across counties, with some services more likely than others to have a majority of residents who were willing to pay for it. As an example, residents from nineteen counties were willing to pay for hunting and fishing opportunities and residents from seventeen counties indicated they were willing to pay for outdoor educational programs to connect youth/families to nature, while residents in only four counties indicated a willingness to pay for the service incentives to private landowners who restore wildlife habitat.
   
• Many residents indicate past participation in wildlife-related recreation activities (i.e., hunting, fishing, wildlife viewing). Furthermore, future interest in these activities exceeds current rates of participation. Findings highlight particular segments of the population that may be considered by WDFW as possible targets for future recruitment efforts.
  
  Residents’ interest in future participation in wildlife-related recreation activities, including hunting, fishing, and wildlife viewing, exceeds current participation rates (defined by participation in the last 12 months). Overall, current levels of participation were highest for wildlife viewing. Mutualists were more likely than the other value orientation types to report participation in this activity, while Utilitarians and Pluralists were most likely to have participated in hunting and to indicate a future interest in this activity. This trend was true for fishing as well, although overall percentages were higher for fishing than for hunting across all value orientation types. Current participation rates for wildlife-related recreation varied considerably across the counties. Reported participation levels for hunting and fishing were lower, for example, in counties near the Seattle metropolitan area. Some counties, such as Adams and Klickitat, had higher latent demand for hunting (i.e., higher percentages of residents indicating they do not currently participate, but have an interest in future participation) than other counties. More generally, at the statewide level, latent demand was further defined by sociodemographic characteristics, with women more likely than other population subgroups to indicate they do not currently participate in hunting, but have a future interest in doing so.

This summary serves only to give a very high-level overview of findings. Comparisons and differences among counties have been minimized for the sake of providing a sense of general conclusions. Detailed information, available for comparison by county, wildlife value orientation type, demographic characteristics, and participation in wildlife-related recreation is provided in the corresponding project report.