Public Perceptions of
Endangered Species Protection
A Comparative Study of Collaborative Approaches
to ESA Compliance and Salmon Recovery in the
Methow Valley and Walla Walla River Basin
of Washington State
Study Conducted by:
Division of Governmental Studies and Services
Department of Political Science and Criminal Justice Program
WSU Extension
Washington State University
Study Commissioned and Funded by:
Office of Law Enforcement
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
“NOAA Fisheries”
U.S. Department of Commerce
Study Goals
Determine if Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving
(COPPS) is a viable approach for addressing ESA and natural resource
protection issues.
Can Federal and State resource regulatory agencies collaborate
effectively with each other and the public to achieve successful
outcomes for resource protection?
Can collaborative approaches achieve resource protection goals?
Are collaborative approaches capable of providing both short
term and long term resource protection benefits?
Can non-traditional resource protection efforts be measured
accurately and effectively?
Projects Studied
Methow River
Walla Walla
River
Comparison of Issues
Methow
•
“Threatened” Listing
• Bull Trout (1998)
•
“Endangered” Listings
• Steelhead (1997)
• Chinook (1999)
•
•
•
•
Fish Screens
Flow Regimes
Passage
Federal Nexus Present
Walla Walla
•
“Threatened” Listings
• Bull Trout (1998)
• Steelhead (1999)
•
•
•
•
Fish Screens
Flow Regimes
Passage
Federal Nexus Present
Study Focus
•
Are Collaborative Approaches to Resource Protection Effective?
• Evaluate public perceptions of collaborative problem solving
for natural resource issues
• What lessons can be learned from collaborative attempts in
the Methow Valley and Walla Walla Basin?
• How can these results be used to enhance natural resource
protection efforts?
Study Methodologies
Surveys:
Written Instruments – Congruent Questions
WDFW and NMFSMethow 19, Walla Walla 11
1800 Randomly Selected Citizens Each
Methow 800+, Walla Walla 900+
Key Actor Interviews:
Methow 20+, Walla Walla 20+
“Snowball” Interview Process
Typical Reported
Perceptions
•
Walla Walla: “The Salmon Recovery
Effort is fine as long as society as a
whole is willing to pay for the costs
associated with whatever fixes are
determined necessary.”
•
Methow: “Stuff the salmon up your
ass. Ag comes first.”
Important Factors
•
•
•
•
Area Specific Conditions
Community Character
Agency Characteristics
 Reputation
 Entrepreneurial Leadership
Process Issues
 Consistency
 Inclusivity
Area Specific Issues
Methow
Walla Walla
Opportunity for
Creative
Compromise
Yes, constrained by Yes
Endangered Listing
Sensitivity to Values
Some
High
Firm Deadlines
Yes
No
Educational
Outreach
Limited, Poor
Extensive
Attention to Social &
Political Realities
Little to None
Extensive
Entrepreneurial
Leadership
Weak
Strong
Community Character
•
•
Methow
 Low overall Social Capital
 High in a few Enclaves
Walla Walla
 High overall Social Capital
 High in multiple Enclaves
Agency Characteristics:
Reputation -- Methow
Agency
Prior to Effort
During Effort
WDFW
•Moderate Trust
•Strong, generally positive
•Same, but NMFS in
(Secondary)
NMFS
(Primary)
community relations
•Strong reputation for
working w/communities
•Low trust – Mistrust
•Weak, negative community
relations
•Strong reputation for
“command and control”
approach, not working
w/communities
driver’s seat
•No benefit – Credit by
association
•Mistrust magnified by
mixed messages and
dominant signaling
•Command and control
preferred strategy
Agency Characteristics:
Reputation – Walla Walla
Agency
Prior to Effort
During Effort
WDFW
•Moderate Trust
•Strong, generally positive
•Moves to high trust
•Clear, consistent signal
community relations
•Strong reputation for
working w/communities
favoring collaboration
•Entrepreneurial leadership
•Low trust – Mistrust –
•Recedes into background,
Methow example injects fear
•Weak, but Not negative
community relations
•C-and C reputation same
as Methow
yet still positive bump to
moderate level of trust
•Benefit – Credit by
Association
(Primary)
NMFS
(Secondary)
Agency Characteristics:
Entrepreneurial Leadership
•
Methow
--Lack of/weak
--Several people from NMFS are “face” of agencies
--Lack of clear commitment by leaders to collaborative, win-win
solutions
--Primary message is one of coercion (“you’re going to do this no
matter what”) and threats (to viability of livelihoods)
--Behavior reflects little to no interest in crafting trust-based
relationships
•
Walla Walla
--Strong
--One key leader from WDFW is “face” of agencies
--Displays clear commitment to collaborative, win-win solutions
--Behavior exhibits strong commitment to crafting trust-based
relationships
Process Issues
•
•
•
•
No Formal Rules in Either Case
Both Processes Inclusive
Number of Screens ≈ Success
Breakdown in Methow
Quantitative Findings – Part 1
• Demographic Factors Functionally Equal
• Gender
• Age
• Education
• Family Income
• Occupation
Quantitative Findings – Part 1
• Demographic Factors Functionally Equal
• Gender
• Age
• Education
• Family Income
• Occupation
Quantitative Findings – Part 1
• Demographic Factors Functionally Equal
• Gender
• Age
• Education
• Family Income
• Occupation
Quantitative Findings – Part 1
• Demographic Factors Functionally Equal
• Gender
• Age
• Education
• Family Income
• Occupation
Quantitative Findings – Part 1
• Demographic Factors Functionally Equal
• Gender
• Age
• Education
• Family Income
• Occupation
Quantitative Findings – Part 2
•
Environmental & Political Values
•
•
•
•
Environmental Attitudes
Fiscal Policy Orientation
Social Policy Orientation
Partisan Affiliation
Environmental Attitudes
•
In Response To Four Attitude Statements Using...
• Dunlap “Environmental Paradigm” Scale
 “Plants and animals are primarily for human use”
 “Mankind was created to rule over nature”
 “Humans have an ethical obligation to protect
plants and animals”
 “The Earth should have far fewer people on it”
Fiscal and Social Policy Orientation
Partisan Affiliation
General Outlook On Life:
A Critical Difference?
•
How would you describe your general outlook on life with
regards to people being trustworthy and honest?
Quantitative Findings – Part 3
•
Key Survey Elements
•
•
•
•
Levels of Trust
Support for ESA
Good Faith Bargaining
Achieving Acceptable Outcomes
Comparison of Trust Levels
• How much trust do you have in the information
provided by the major actors involved in the process
of developing an agreement for salmon recovery
under the ESA?
Support For ESA
• How has your observation of the collaborative
process regarding salmon recovery affected your
support for the ESA?
Methow
Walla Walla
3.1%
10.3%
Level of support DID NOT CHANGE
24.3%
56.0%
Made me LESS supportive of ESA
72.6%
33.6%
Made me MORE supportive of ESA
Good Faith Bargaining
• What is your impression of the “Good Faith*
Bargaining” exhibited by the major actors involved in
the salmon recovery process?
Acceptable Outcomes
• Does A Collaborative Process for Salmon
Recovery Lead to Outcomes Acceptable to All
Parties?
Methow
Walla Walla
HAS NOT WORKED ~ SHOULD NOT WORK
66.0%
24.3%
HAS NOT WORKED ~ MIGHT WORK
21.6%
22.4%
HAS WORKED ~ UNLIKELY TO WORK
3.6%
10.4%
HAS WORKED ~ SHOULD WORK
8.8%
42.9%
Principal Observations
• Methow Valley





Collaborative approach had minimal success
Very little public support generated for ESA
Issue became highly polarized politically
Low social capital (trust) a negative factor
Compliance achieved, but at high social cost
Principal Observations
• Walla Walla River Basin





Collaborative approach had major success
Significant public support generated for ESA
Issue never became polarized locally
High social capital (trust) a positive factor
Compliance achieved on major scale
Lessons Learned
Creating a Bargaining Space
The B(W)ATNA Equation
•
Agency Approach –
Influence on Others’ Willingness to Collaborate
BATNA = Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement
Bargaining
Space
No Enforcement
Threat
No Alternatives to
Enforcement
Principal Findings
• Collaborative approaches, including COPPS derivatives, can be
successful in providing resource protection.
• Success is generally dependent upon several key factors
 Initial approach and timing is vital
 Policy and process must be consistent
 Collaboration must occur among major actors
 Long term success is dependent upon short term approach
 Social capital (trust) may be of critical importance
• Roles for Extension Professionals/Educators
•
•
•
•
Process Expert
Advisor to Convener/Group
Subject Matter Expertise
Training/Education
Leadership Skills for the 21st Century
~ Meeting the Challenge ~
Mission Statement
“The Natural Resources Leadership Academy will serve as a forum through
which participants may acquire the knowledge, skills, and tools necessary to
develop effective citizen-to-government relationships based upon respect,
trust, and inclusivity to foster broadly supported and effective natural
resource stewardship.”
Program Objective
Provide State-of-the-Art Training …

Resource Regulatory Professionals

Community Oriented Approaches

Interest Based Problem Solving

Collaborative Partnerships

Build Trust and Respect
Program Emphasis
Four Basic Curriculum Categories

Leadership

Stewardship

Problem Solving

Communication
Contact Information:
Michael J. Gaffney, J.D., Acting Director
Division of Governmental Studies and Services,
Washington State University
PO Box 4870
Pullman, WA 99164-4870
(509) 335-3329 mjgaffney@wsu.edu