Category:
Published: June 30, 2023
Pages: 144
Author(s): Trimbach, D.J., Nelson, B., Pritchard, F., Chang, M., Gutierrez, N., Niggemann, R., Gerdes, G.
Executive Summary
This report outlines the processes, lessons learned, and results from a collaborative multi-year (2021-2023) project focused on inclusively engaging Puget Sound residents in order to enhance the Human Wellbeing (HWB) Vital Signs (VS). This project included establishing new sustainable community partnerships, co-creating knowledge with community partners, and capturing lessons learned to further this community-based monitoring work for the Puget Sound Partnership and its ecosystem recovery network. A community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach was conducted to co-develop and co-implement this project with the Asia Pacific Cultural Center (APCC) and Empowering People in Communities (EPIC), two Tacoma, WA-based community organizations. This approach included the co-creation of facilitated dialogues (community workshops) (combined n=218) and implementation of an optional Human Wellbeing Vital Signs Survey (2020 version; Appendix E) (combined n=126). While project results can be combined, this project was co-designed through a CBPR approach that was highly community-dependent. As such, the project was intentionally designed to be two separate, yet complementary and simultaneous, projects. This intentional design choice is illustrated in this report, as the report contains two community-specific reports with shared high level sections, including a shared executive summary, background, conclusions and recommendations, and appendices.
While complementary, both projects included distinct communities. One project emphasized Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) residents of Puget Sound and was co-created with Faaluaina (Lua) Pritchard (Executive Director) of APCC. The second project emphasized Black and African American residents of Puget Sound with an emphasis on the Hilltop neighborhood in Tacoma and was co-created with Brendan Nelson, (Executive Director) of EPIC (Mr. Nelson was also affiliated with the Peace Community Center, where 2/3 of the workshops were physically held). The latter project shifted overtime from Black and African American residents to broader Hilltop residents.
Overall, the facilitated dialogues demonstrated that the HWB VS were relevant and resonated among participating community members. This was reflected in the workshop responses, that were abductively coded to the established Vital Signs1 (Table 1) and coded to highlight emergent community dimensions of health/wellbeing2 (Table 2). Variations did emerge among the different participating communities. Cultural Wellbeing, Sense of Place, Outdoor Activity, and Good Governance, among others, were commonly referenced themes among participating Hilltop residents, demonstrating the linkages between nature, cultural or recreational practices (including those associated with family, place-based community, and spiritual/religious-based community), and peoples’ connections, psychological benefits, and life satisfaction, derived from the natural environment (Table 2). Hilltop residents also emphasized Good Governance; however, governance or governing institutions were largely framed negatively or as neglectful, highlighting locally perceived environmental injustice.
Table 1. Human Wellbeing Vital Signs
| Healthy Human Population | Vibrant Human Quality of Life |
|---|---|
| Air Quality | Cultural Wellbeing |
| Drinking Water | Economic Vitality |
| Local Foods | Good Governance |
| Outdoor Activity | Sense of Place |
| Shellfish Beds | Sound Stewardship |
Table 2. Community Dimensions of Health and Wellbeing
| Asian American & Pacific Islander Residents' Health (n=166) | Hilltop Residents' Wellbeing (n=52) |
|---|---|
| Physical Health | Accessibility |
| Plants and Trees | Equity |
| Place and Landscape | Physical Health |
| Fish and Wildlife | Place and Landscape |
| Environmental Condition | Plants and Trees |
Cultural Wellbeing and Sense of Place were also common themes among participating AAPI community members; however, some additional referenced themes were also quite salient, notably Local Foods, Air Quality, and Water Quality3 (Table 1). Overall, when responses were combined, all already established HWB VS were reflected during the facilitated dialogues. AAPI communities referenced all HWB VS, while Hilltop residents referenced all except Shellfish Beds.
New Community Dimensions of human health/wellbeing also emerged during the workshops (Table 2). For example, Accessibility, Equity, and Physical Health were salient referenced themes among participating Hilltop residents, while Physical Health, Plants and Trees, and Place and Landscape were common referenced themes among participating AAPI community members. Participating community members also demonstrated climate change impacts on human health/wellbeing and identified places (mostly local) that contributed to their health/wellbeing. The workshop findings demonstrated that while the current iteration of the HWB VS appear to reflect diverse communities’ relationships with and contributions from Puget Sound’s natural environment, the region’s diverse communities also contain a multitude of alternative Community Dimensions of human health/wellbeing. This latter finding warrants more exploration within the Puget Sound Partnership’s monitoring community, including through the potential inclusion of new indicators and also furthers calls for the greater inclusion of more communities within Puget Sound recovery.
Table 3. Human Wellbeing Survey Results Summary
| Asian American & Pacific Islander Residents' Human Wellbeing Survey Results (n=76) | Hilltop Residents' Human Wellbeing Survey Results (n=50) |
|---|---|
| Good Governance: 5.19 on a 1-7 scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). On average, participants largely responded between "somewhat agree" and "agree." | Good Governance: 3.51 on a 1-7 scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). On average, participants largely responded between "somewhat disagree" and "neutral." |
| Local Foods: 1.41 on a 1-5 scale (never to frequently). On average, participants largely responded between "never" and "rarely" (1-2 times a season). | Local Foods: 1.39 on a 1-5 scale (never to frequently). On average, participants largely responded between "never" and "rarely" (1-2 times a season). |
| Sound Stewardship: 2.95 on a 1-7 scale (never to frequently). On average, participants largely responded between "rarely" (1-4 times a year) and "occasionally" (once a month). | Sound Stewardship: 2.53 on a 1-7 scale (never to frequently). On average, participants largely responded between "rarely" (1-4 times a year) and "occasionally" (once a month). |
| Cultural Wellbeing: 3.66 on a 1-5 scale (dissatisfied to satisfied). On average, participants largely scored between "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" and "somewhat satisfied." | Cultural Wellbeing: 3.29 on a 1-5 scale (dissatisfied to satisfied). On average, participants largely scored between "neither satisfied nor dissatisfied" and "somewhat satisfied." |
Sense of Place: 5.58 on a 1-7 scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). On average, participants largely scored between "somewhat agree" and "agree."
| Sense of Place: 5.05 on a 1-7 scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). On average, participants largely scored between "somewhat agree" and "agree.
|
Outdoor Activity
| Outdoor Activity
|
Table 4. Regional & Latinx Human Wellbeing Vital Signs Survey Results
| Regional & Latinx Human Wellbeing Survey Results (2018-2022)6 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vital Sign | 2018 | 2020 | 2022 | Latinx |
| Good Governance | 4.13 | 4.18 | 4.05 | 4.81 |
| Local Foods | 1.58 | 1.43 | 1.42 | 1.84 |
| Sound Stewardship | 3.47 | 3.14 | 3.36 | 2.95 |
| Cultural Wellbeing | Not Applicable due to survey modifications between 2018 and 2020 | 3.64 | 3.81 | 3.73 |
Sense of Place
| 5.66
| 5.57
| 5.49
| 5.02
|
Outdoor Activity
|
|
|
|
|
Overall, the self-selected survey respondents demonstrated similar patterns of human wellbeing as it related to the health of Puget Sound (Table 3). Both sets of community members had similar average responses to most Vital Sign questions. For example, participants from both groups had similar average responses to Local Foods (1.41, 1.39), Sense of Place (5.19, 5.05), and Cultural Wellbeing (3.66 , 3.29). While largely similar, some stark differences did emerge, notably for Good Governance (5.19 and 3.51) and Life Satisfaction (4.47 and 3.67). Both groups also share similar average responses with those Puget Sound residents who completed the regional and/or Latinx Human Wellbeing Surveys (Table 4). For example, both respondent groups shared similar average responses for Local Foods, Sense of Place, and Cultural Wellbeing when compared to the results of other Human Wellbeing Surveys (Table 4). Both respondent groups also shared similar Outdoor Activity responses with Latinx respondents (e.g., use of paved trails or paths and picnic/bbq). Both survey respondent groups did have some variation in comparison to the other surveys. For example, both groups shared similar average responses for Sound Stewardship, which was lower than regional average responses. Also, AAPI respondents had higher average responses for Good Governance than the findings demonstrated by other surveys, while Hilltop respondents had a lower Good Governance response average than all of the other surveys (including AAPI survey). The survey responses also helped further confirm and support some of the referenced themes and Community Dimensions from the facilitated dialogues. For example, Hilltop respondents frequently discussed Accessibility, Equity, and Safety (less than the former), often through an environmental (in)justice lens, demonstrating perhaps why Good Governance was rated lower among respondent groups when compared to the findings of all other surveys (including AAPI residents). All detailed findings and corresponding data visualizations are outlined per participating community and can be found in the community-based reports of this document.
Notes:
- For more information related to the coded responses linked to the Vital Signs or Community Dimensions of health/wellbeing, see Appendix B.
- Participating collaborators and communities selected different words when discussing human wellbeing. During the AAPI workshops, health was used to frame the discussions, while during the Hilltop workshops, wellbeing was used to frame the discussions. This was an intentional decision and reflected the CBPR approach, which emphasizes close collaboration and knowledge co-production.
- The Human Wellbeing Vital Signs include Drinking Water and the biophysical Vital Signs of Freshwater and Marine Water Quality. Given that many community members mentioned “water” in various forms, these three Vital Signs have been merged into one (Water Quality) in this report.
- Outdoor recreation activities are solely those that took place during the Fall and Spring months.
- Note that translations of “work” in natural environments may have varied contributing to alternative interpretations of the question.
- All data stems from the 2018, 2020, Latinx 2021, and 2022 Human Wellbeing Surveys (Fleming and others 2018; Fleming and others 2021; Justiniano 2021; Harrington and others 2023).
Suggested citation
Trimbach, D.J., Nelson, B., Pritchard, F., Chang, M., Gutierrez, N., Niggemann, R., Gerdes, G. 2023. Enhancing the Human Wellbeing Vital Signs through Inclusive Engagement Report. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Olympia, Washington.