Public Preferences for Marine Protected 

Areas Off the U.S. West Coast: The 

Significance of Restrictions and Size 

on Economic Value

K. Wallmo and R. Kosaka

U.S. Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-144

July 2014

Public Preferences for Marine Protected Areas 

Off the U.S. West Coast: The Significance of 

Restrictions and Size on Economic Value

K. Wallmo and R. Kosaka

NOAA Fisheries Office of Science and Technology

NOAA Fisheries Southwest Fisheries Science Center

NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-F/SPO-144

July 2014

U.S. Department of Commerce

Penny S. Pritzker, Secretary 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Kathryn D. Sullivan, Administrator

National Marine Fisheries Service

Eileen Sobeck, Assistant Administrator for Fisheries
ii

Suggested citation: 

Wallmo, K., and R. Kosaka. 2014. Public preferences for marine protected areas off the U.S. 

west coast: the significance of restrictions and size on economic value. U.S. Dep. Commerce, 

NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-144, 96 p. 

A copy of this report may be obtained from:

Office of Science and Technology

NMFS, NOAA

1315 East-West Highway, F/ST5

Silver Spring, MD 20910
iii

Table of Contents

Section I. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

Section II. Methods........................................................................................................................ 3

Section III. Survey Results: Respondent Attitudes and Demographics...................................... 11

Section IV. Survey Results: Choice Experiment and Econometric Model ................................ 15

Section V. Discussion .................................................................................................................. 20

References..................................................................................................................................... 22

Appendix A – Web-based questionnaire ...................................................................................... 25

Appendix B – Survey results by state and region,........................................................................ 42

List of Tables

Table 1. Attributes and levels of experimental design................................................................... 7

Table 2. Choice model results...................................................................................................... 16

Table 3. WTP for Optimal Designation....................................................................................... 17

Table 4. Value of multiple use-type designations........................................................................ 19

List of Figures

Figure 1. Example of choice task question .................................................................................... 8

Figure 2 . Changes in WTP with respect to size .......................................................................... 18
iv
1

Section I. Introduction

In 2000 when President Clinton signed Executive Order 13158 Marine Protected Areas to “help 

protect the significant natural and cultural resources within the marine environment for the 

benefit of present and future generations” (EO 13158, 2000), less than 1% of U.S. territorial 

waters were part of a marine protected area, or MPA (National Marine Protected Areas Center 

2014) (Kelleher 1999). Since that time, the area designated as an MPA has steadily increased, 

more than doubling in 2006 with the establishment of the Northwest Hawaiian Islands Marine 

National Monument and doubling again in 2009 with the addition of three marine monuments in 

remote Pacific waters (National Marine Protected Areas Center 2014). Excluding MPAs 

established for fisheries production1the majority of MPAs in the U.S. have been established to 

protect natural heritage, though most MPAs have multiple conservation objectives. Currently 

approximately 8% of all U.S. territorial waters are designated as a natural or cultural heritage 

MPA (National Marine Protected Areas Center 2014). Nearly all of this area is coastal, with 

only a fraction (~8%) sited one mile or more from shoreline. 

In 2010 the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (Convention on Biological Diversity 

2010)

2

set an unambiguous goal for MPAs in developing Target 11, which states that by 2020 

“10 per cent of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for 

biodiversity and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, 

ecologically representative and well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective 

area-based conservation measures, and integrated into the wider landscape and seascape”

(Convention on Biological Diversity 2010). The CBD was less direct in specifying use regimes 

for MPAs (e.g. resource extraction, no-take, no-access, etc.), though this matters in both an 

ecological and economic context. In the U.S. approximately 82% of the natural heritage and 

cultural heritage MPAs are multiple-use sites (allowing a variety of human activities, including 

resource extraction), while about 15% are no-take reserves (National Marine Protected Areas 

Center 2014).

3

 

The ecological and economic benefits and impacts associated with MPAs will likely vary with 

use regime, the obvious case involving resource extraction. Wallmo and Edwards (2008) 

demonstrate that MPAs can also provide positive or negative economic value to the general 

public depending on the specific use regime, size of the MPA, and latent variables among 

respondents. Given the increasing interest in MPAs as a marine conservation tool, the increasing 

amount of U.S. waters designated as an MPA, and the international target outlined by the CBD 

(Target 11), it is legitimate to inquire about the public’s valuation of MPAs and the appropriate 

mix of protected areas and exploited areas. This research addresses this need by estimating how 

public economic values for MPAs in federal waters off the U.S. west coast change with different 

size and use configurations. 

As a non-market good, the economic value of an MPA is not revealed in market data or by 

household production behavior (e.g., travel costs used as the price of a fishing trip); therefore, 

 

1 The international definition of Marine Protected Area established by the International Union for the Conservation 

of Nature (IUCN) does not include areas regulated and/or established for fisheries management. 

2 The U.S. was not a party to the 2010 Convention on Biological Diversity. 

3 Almost all of the no-take reserve area lies in one marine monument in the western Pacific Ocean.
2

values are typically estimated from data collected from in-person, telephone, mail, or internet 

surveys. This research employs a stated preference choice experiment survey of households in 

California, Oregon, and Washington to quantify public preferences and simulate a suite of 

different MPA designs and their associated values. The research pertains specifically to MPAs 

designated in U.S. federal waters (waters 3 to 200 miles from shore) off the coasts of California, 

Washington, and Oregon West Coast, hereafter referred to as west coast federal waters. All 

permanently protected marine areas located in west coast federal waters prohibit industrial uses 

such as mining, oil and gas extraction, and windmill/turbine construction. 

The results may be useful in helping managers understand public preferences for MPAs, 

particularly as they relate to key, and often contested, issues including: 

 The effect of MPA size on public economic value

 The effect of MPA use regime on public economic value

 Size/use combinations for MPAs that maximize public values

 Preference heterogeneity for MPAs

The remainder of the report is organized as follows: Section II describes the methods used in the 

research, including survey development and implementation and choice model theory and 

estimation. Section III presents results of the general questionnaire and respondent 

demographics. Section IV presents econometric model results and value estimates associated 

with MPAs of different size and use configurations. Section V provides a brief discussion of the 

results and conclusions and recommendations stemming from the research. 
3

Section II. Methods

Overview of Stated Preference Choice Experiments

Stated preference choice experiments (SPCE) are a specific type of non-market valuation 

technique. SPCE are grounded in Lancastrian consumer theory (Lancaster 1966), which specifies 

that utility for a good is a function of the good’s attributes. For environmental applications, the 

good is typically a non-market good (i.e., one not bought or sold in explicit markets) that is 

characterized by a suite of policy-relevant attributes. A range of levels is specified for each 

attribute, and experimental design plans are used to generate different combinations of attribute 

levels to describe each alternative. Including price or cost as one of the attributes allows welfare 

estimates (WTP) to be calculated. As non-market goods are typically unfamiliar to consumers, a 

survey is used to provide basic information about the good in question. Survey respondents are 

then shown one or more choice tasks that contain alternatives (different bundles of attributes and 

levels), and are asked to express their preferences over the different alternatives, e.g. by asking 

for their most and least preferred. For a fully detailed explanation of the SPCE approach see 

Adamowicz et al. (1998). 

Survey Development

This study and questionnaire were based on previous work that estimated marine protected area 

values in the Northeast Region of the U.S. (Wallmo and Edwards 2008). The questionnaire for 

this study was developed between December 2010 and November 2012 when ten focus groups 

and two pilot tests were conducted. Three challenges were identified during this qualitative 

research period. First, the original versions of this survey were focused on different types of 

marine uses. These marine uses included open ocean aquaculture, wave energy development, 

marine ecological reserves, and marine fisheries reserves. However, it became clear after four 

focus groups that these different marine uses were perceived by focus group participants as either 

very positive or negative to the marine environment. Participants generally had strong feelings

against open ocean aquaculture, and generally favorable feelings towards marine ecological and 

fisheries reserves. Perceptions relative to wave energy development were generally neutral. This 

positive or negative bias towards the different types of uses in a discrete choice experiment such 

as this one, is potentially problematic because rather than focusing on the attributes of each of 

these uses (i.e., size or cost), respondents may have strong preferences for or against a use 

regardless of its associated attributes. This makes it difficult to evaluate how sensitive 

respondents are to changes in attribute levels, a primary focus of discrete choice experiments.

After these first four focus groups, the survey questionnaire was revised to focus only on marine 

protected areas and the different types of MPAs that are currently in place on the U.S. west coast. 

Testing of this revised questionnaire in subsequent focus groups highlighted the differing views 

and understandings held by participants relative to MPAs, if they were familiar with them at all. 

Thus a second challenge in designing this survey was to clearly communicate the main 

objectives of MPAs in general. The following objectives of MPAs were highlighted: 1) setting 

aside ocean areas to conserve, restore, and understand the natural biodiversity and ecology of an 

area; 2) provide people the opportunity to experience these ocean areas now and into the future; 

3) prevent industrial uses such as oil and gas exploration and drilling within MPA boundaries; 
4

and 4) monitor and limit other uses such as commercial and recreational fishing, recreation and 

nature-based tourism, and scientific research.

A third challenge was to present balanced information on the current state of MPA science 

(based on NRC 2001), the costs and benefits of MPAs, and the current types and sizes of MPAs 

on the west coast. Marine protected areas and their development in California in particular has 

been controversial (e.g. Stokstad 2010, CDFG 2008) and invoked strong feelings from some 

focus group participants. Therefore it was particularly important to present this information in a 

neutral and objective manner. After repeatedly testing this information with different focus 

groups, we felt the information about the current scientific understanding regarding MPAs and 

their benefits (e.g., prevent habitat damage) were adequately balanced with information about the 

current size of MPAs on the west coast and the costs associated with them (e.g., displacement of 

fishing activities).

The qualitative research was also used to test the potential attributes for the choice experiment 

and to refine a range of attribute levels. The attributes of interest were the type of MPA and their 

corresponding size, the total size of MPAs in west coast federal waters (all MPA types 

combined), and a respondent’s willingness to pay for changes to current MPA conditions. Size 

was defined as the proportion of water designated as each type of MPA within west coast federal 

waters off of California, Oregon, and Washington. Types of MPAs included No-access, No-take, 

and Multiple use. This range of MPA types was consistent with the status quo off of the U.S. 

west coast. It was also consistent with the objectives of conserving and restoring natural 

biodiversity and providing people with opportunities to experience these areas. Cost was the 

annual cost to a respondents’ household, each year for three years, when choosing a particular 

scenario. 

A pretest was conducted prior to implementing the final survey using a subset of a web-enabled 

panel (The GfK Group 2013). The pretest was administered to a random sample of 2,308 

households and a total of 1,540 respondents completed the survey. The pretest assessed 

respondents’ comprehension of the survey instrument, obtained an estimate of survey time 

(about 15 minutes), and examined the validity of the experimental design, discussed below. 

Based on the pretest results minor revisions were made to the survey instrument. The second 

pretest investigated the efficiency of a much smaller experimental design. 

The final questionnaire, titled Marine Protected Areas off the U.S. West Coast, consisted of 6 

sections and 55 questions. Sections 1 through 4 and 6 contained 4 to 30 attitudinal or 

informational questions that supported the section topic, including a total of 35 questions 

requiring responses on a Likert scale. Section 5 was the choice experiment. Each section is 

further described below.

 Section 1 introduced marine protected areas as the survey topic and the geographic region 

of focus, west coast federal waters, was shown on a map. Respondents were also asked 

general questions about whether they had ever participated in ocean-related leisure or 

business activities, or had visited an MPA in west coast federal waters.

 Section 2 provided background information about the primary objectives of MPAs . 

These objectives were to set aside areas of the ocean to conserve, restore, and understand 
5

the natural diversity and ecology of an area, and to provide the public with opportunities 

to experience these ocean areas now and into the future. Types of activities that may be 

limited within these areas were also highlighted. These included industrial uses such as 

seabed mining, minerals extraction, and oil and gas exploration. Other uses that might be 

limited within MPAs included fishing activities (commercial or recreational) and naturebased tourism such as scuba diving. Respondents were asked to indicate the importance 

of each of these activities to them.

 Section 3 described the potential benefits and costs of MPAs and how MPAs may vary in 

size. Ecological and biological benefits due to protecting marine biodiversity and habitat 

for future generations were contrasted with social and economic costs related to 

monitoring and regulating these MPAs, and the displacement of scientific, recreational, 

and industrial activities. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of agreement with 

MPA-related assertions such as the role of society in protecting marine life and whether 

businesses should be compensated for lost income.

 Section 4 discussed the specific types and sizes of MPAs currently found in west coast 

federal waters. All permanently protected marine areas located in west coast federal 

waters prohibit industrial uses such as mining, oil and gas extraction, and 

windmill/turbine construction; however, other types of uses may be allowed depending 

on the designation. Currently in west coast federal waters: 

o 2.95% of west coast federal waters are designated as multiple use MPAs, where 

commercial and recreational fishing, tourism, and scientific research activities are 

permitted. 

o 0.05% of west coast federal waters are designated as no-take MPAs, where access 

is allowed but all extractive activities are prohibited.

o None of west coast federal waters are designated as an ecological reserve or 

refuge that prohibits human access.

 Section 5 contained three choice task questions. Each choice task asked respondents to 

consider and choose from three options for permanent MPAs in west coast federal waters. 

Option 1 represented the current size of each of the three types of MPAs, described in the 

previous section. Options 2 and 3 increased the size of at least one type of MPA in west 

coast federal waters. However, a cost to their household would be incurred when 

choosing either Option 2 or 3; Option 1 would not result in a change in cost to their 

household. 

 Section 6 consisted of questions related to a range of ocean and environmental behaviors 

and attitudes. Respondents were asked how often they engaged in different types of 

ocean-related activities, their level of trust in government and non-governmental 

institutions, their agreement with statements that encompassed various environmental 

attitudes, and their household’s current and future employment and financial outlook.

If desired, respondents could revisit previous information or connect to additional information 

about a topic using hyperlinks embedded throughout the survey.
6

Survey Implementation

The survey pretests and main survey periods were administered to a random sample of 

households in California, Oregon, and Washington that were part of a national web-enabled 

panel maintained by The GfK Group (formerly Knowledge Networks). Two pretests were 

conducted. The first was implemented from August 10 to 28, 2012 and used a preliminary 

experimental design. Of the 2,308 households that were randomly sampled, 1,540 surveys were 

completed, a 66.7% survey response rate. The experimental design was then modified for the 

second pretest, implemented from November 2 to 30, 2012. Of the 1,268 households sampled, 

823 surveys were completed, a 64.9% survey response rate. The experimental design from this 

second pretest was used for the main survey periods.

The first survey period began on December 6, 2012. A random sample of 3,389 households on 

the panel who lived in California, Oregon, and Washington were invited to participate in this 

study. Up to two e-mail reminders were sent to non-responders, if necessary. The first reminder 

was sent on day three of the field period and the second on day 14. This first survey period ended 

on December 26, 2012 with 1,971 completed surveys and a survey completion rate of 58.1%. 

The second survey period began on January 23, 2013. A random sample of 1,960 households 

was selected from California, Oregon, and Washington. Similar to the first survey period, e-mail 

reminders were sent to non-responders if necessary. The first reminder was sent on day three of 

the field period, the second on day 14, and a third e-mail reminder on day 21. The second survey 

period ended on February 12, 2013 with 560 completed surveys and a survey completion rate of 

28.5%. The final dataset used for this analysis included observations from the first and second 

main survey periods as well as the second pretest (n=3,354). 

Experimental Design Plan

An experimental design plan was used to create the alternative MPA scenarios that varied in the 

total size of the MPA, the use regime within the MPA, and a cost attribute. Cost was a 6-level 

attribute, and use regime attributes (i.e. the amount of MPA designated as multiple-use, no-take, 

and no-access) were all 5-level attributes. The cost attribute was specified as a payment added to 

the respondent’s Federal tax return every year for the next three years. The payment would be 

used for research, monitoring, and enforcement within the MPA and to help offset costs to 

industries affected by any new restrictions until they can adjust to the changes. The payment 

would be made by all households in California, Oregon, and Washington. This cost attribute is 

similar to payment vehicles used in other stated preference research (Lew et al. 2010, Wallmo 

and Lew 2011). The total size of the MPA was simply the sum of all use regime attributes and 

was not an independent attribute (Table 1). 
7

Table 1. Attributes and levels of experimental design

Attribute Level

Amount of federal waters designated as no-access (no human access 

allowed, waters are ecological reserve or refuge)

0.05% 

1.0% 

2.0% 

3.0% 

5.0% 

Amount of federal waters designated no-take (human access allowed 

but all extractive activities are prohibited)

0.05% 

2.0% 

5.0% 

8.0% 

10.0% 

Amount of federal waters designated multiple use (commercial and 

recreational fishing, tourism, and scientific research activities 

permitted)

2.95% 

5.0% 

8.0% 

10.0% 

15.0% 

Cost (household cost per year for three years)

$10 

$20

$50 

$75

$100

$125

The design plan was computed using the SAS experimental design and choice modeling macros 

(Kuhfeld 2005). The final design plan attained a 93.24% D-efficiency and allowed restrictions 

that eliminated unrealistic designs. For example, a design that produced a scenario where one 

large MPA with a majority of the area designated as no-access cost less than a smaller, multiple 

use MPA would be considered unrealistic given that the cost attribute was partially used to offset 

losses to industry (see below). The design consisted of 150 alternative scenarios which were 

then paired and blocked into groups of three using the SAS choice efficiency macros. This 

design resulted in 50 different survey versions, with three choice task questions per version and 

two alternatives plus the status quo per question (Figure 1). The versions were randomly 

distributed during three phases (see Survey Implementation) among 6,617 randomly selected 

panel households in California, Oregon, and Washington. 
8

Figure 1. Example of choice task question

MPAs West Coast Federal Waters Option 1

(Current Status) Option 2 Option 3

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated No-Access MPAs 0% 3% 1%

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated No-Take MPAs 0.05% 0.05% 1%

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated Multiple Use MPAs 2.95% 2.95% 4%

Total amount of West Coast Federal 

Waters designated as a Marine 

Protected Area

3% 6% 6%

Cost to your Household

...This cost will be added to your 

household’s Federal Income Tax every 

year for three years

$0 $15 $10

Q6. Which option do you most 

prefer for West Coast Federal 

Waters? (check only one box)

Option 1



Option 2



Option 3



Model Estimation 

Random utility theory provides the modeling framework for this research. The theory specifies 

that utility (

U

) for a good consists of a systematic, known component (

V

) and a random 

component (



). In this case, the good in question is an MPA, and the utility that individual i

receives from MPA alternative a can be expressed as 

Uia Via ia (1)  

where 

Uia

is the unobservable utility that i associates with a, Viais the quantifiable, known 

portion of utility, and 

ia 

is the random, unobservable effects associated with a for individual i. 

Alternative a can be decomposed into its specific attributes of amount of MPA designated as 

multiple-use, no-take, and no-access, and the systematic component of utility 

Via

is then 

Via Xia (2) 
9

where 

Xia

is a vector of attributes and the associated levels for MPA alternative a and β are the 

attribute coefficients. Substituting the expression for 

Via

, the utility function can be expressed as 

Uia Xia ia (3)   

Under the assumption that individuals are utility maximizers, the probability that an individual i

will choose MPA alternative a from a set of C alternatives is equal to the probability that the 

utility derived from a is greater than the utility derived from any other alternative in the choice 

set C, expressed as 

 Pr( ) .

 Pr( )

 Pr( )

(4) Pr( chooses from )

X X j C

V V j C

U U j C

i a C

ia ia ij ij

ia ia ij ij

ia ij

     

     

   

   

 

Assuming a type I extreme value distribution for the error component (a common assumption for 

discrete choice models; Louviere, Hensher, and Swait 2000), (4) is operationalized as 

(5) Pr( chooses ) exp( )/ exp( )

1





J

j

a Xia Xij i   

If choice observations are ordered so that the first n1 individuals chose alternative a, the next n2

individuals chose alternative b, and so on for all j elements of the choice set C, the likelihood 

function for (5) can be written as 

  

 

  







I

i I n

Ji

n

i

n n

i n

i

j

L P P i P

1

1 1 2

1 1

(6) .......

1

1 2

which simplifies to 

(7) ln .

1 1

 



I

i

J

j

f

ij

ij L P

Defining a dummy variable fij, where fij = 1 when alternative j is chosen and fij = 0 otherwise, 

the function can be can be written as 

(8) * ln .

1 1

ij

J

j

ij

I

i

L   f P

 



By replacing the term Pij with (5), the only unknown parameters are the elements of



, which are 

estimated through maximum likelihood techniques. 
10

The conditional logit model above is a popular choice for modeling discrete choice data, and 

when data are rich and disaggregate the model is often robust (in terms of prediction success) to 

the implicit behavioral assumptions arising from the chosen error distribution (Louviere, 

Hensher, and Swait 2000). The model is limited, however, in accommodating preference 

heterogeneity among individuals, leading to alternative specifications such as the random 

parameters logit and latent class logit (Greene and Hensher 2002) to address this need. This 

research adopts the random parameters logit model, as focus groups suggested that preferences 

for MPAs were not homogenous, and in fact could be utility-decreasing for some individuals. 

As in the conditional logit model the unobserved component utility is assumed to be distributed 

as a type I extreme value distribution. However, the random parameters logit model assumes 

that one or more of the attribute parameters are distributed continuously over the population 

instead of being fixed (as in the conditional logit). Thus, the probabilities of selecting an option j

in the RPL model (j) are evaluated over the parameter distributions. They can be expressed as

( ) ( ) ∫ ( ( )) ∑ ( ( )) ( ) 

for all j,k = Options A, B, and C and where Vj is the utility associated with the jth option and f() 

is the probability distribution of the utility parameters . These probabilities are approximated 

through simulation as follows: R draws of  are taken from f(), and the conditional choice 

probabilities are evaluated at each draw. The simulated probability of choosing the jth 

alternative (j

s

) is the mean over the R draws

( ) 

 

 ∑ ( 

( 

 )) ∑ ( 

 

⁄

 

 

( 

 

))

where 

r

is the rth coefficient vector draw from the mixing distribution, f(), assumed to be 

multivariate normal in this application. 

Because each respondent was faced with three choice questions in the survey, the joint 

probability of observing the sequence of choices an individual makes is modeled as the product 

of individual choice probabilities, following Morey, Rowe, and Watson (1993) 

( ) [ ] 

 

 

 

 

 

where j is selected in the first question, k is selected in the second question, and l is selected in 

the third. 
11

Section III. Survey Results: Respondent Attitudes and Demographics

The questionnaire can be grouped into four general themes: uses of the marine environment on 

the west coast (Q1, Q2) and in general (Q7); respondent attitudes towards marine protected areas 

(Q3) and the general environment (Q9); managing the marine environment (Q4, Q5, Q8); 

familiarity with Citizens Advisory Panels (Q6); and respondent characteristics (GfK panel data 

and Q10, Q11, Q12). Responses to each question within these thematic areas are reported at the 

state and region levels in Appendix C. However, because our sampling design does not support 

state level comparisons (i.e. sample sizes in Oregon and Washington were too small), these state 

level responses are provided for informational purposes only. 

The following sections will discuss region level responses. The number of observations per 

question is also reported in Appendix C. Though the total number of completed surveys was 

3,354, the number of responses for any given question varied between 3,274 to 3,3294.

Uses of the marine environment on the west coast and in general

For these questions, respondents were asked whether they interacted with the marine 

environment through their job or recreation, and how important they felt certain marine-based 

activities were. For example, 13% of respondents across the region participated in saltwater 

recreational fishing activities in west coast Federal waters compared to 20% who participated in 

some form of ocean-based recreation (including fishing). A small proportion of respondents 

indicated that they or someone in their family fished commercially in west coast Federal waters 

(1.3%) and less than 1% stated that their own job was directly tied to west coast Federal waters. 

Respondents were asked whether they had visited an MPA in west coast Federal waters. About 

31% stated that they had5and 16% were unsure if they had. Respondents were then asked how 

important the following activities were to west coast Federal waters: commercial fishing, 

recreational fishing, oil and gas development, marine recreation and tourism, and alternative 

energy development. Eighty-three percent of respondents stated that commercial fishing was 

either “extremely” or “somewhat” important compared with 56% when asked about recreational 

fishing. Response levels related to the importance of oil and gas development (57% felt it was 

“extremely” or “somewhat” important) were comparable to those of recreational fishing. 

Response levels related to the importance (“extremely” or “somewhat”) of marine recreation and 

tourism (72%) and alternative energy development (72%) were similar.

Respondents were also asked how frequently they engaged in certain marine-based activities 

such as purchasing seafood or boating activities, in any region including west coast Federal 

waters. Frequency ranged from “at least once a week” to “I participate but not on a regular 

basis”, to “I do not participate in this activity.” For recreational fishing or shellfishing, boating 

and similar activities, water contact sports such as swimming, and viewing ocean 

features/wildlife, participation was 27%, 34%, 44% and 53%, respectively). For seafood 

 

4 The number of respondents who did not answer a particular question, indicated as “Refused” in Appendix C, were 

not included in the summaries provided in this section.

5 This proportion (30%) may seem inconsistent with the 20% of respondents who stated they participated in some 

form of ocean recreation. We suggest that some of the respondents who indicated that they visited a west coast MPA 

did not participate, or perceive that they participated, in an ocean recreation activity.
12

purchases and activities such as sunbathing or tidepooling, respondents participated with some 

frequency during the year. Seventy-three percent of respondents purchased or ate seafood 

“several times a month”, with 66% and 56% participating “several times a year” or “at least once 

a week”, respectively. As for activities such as sunbathing, tidepooling, and camping at the 

seashore, 36% indicated that they participated but “not on a regular basis”, 28% participated 

“several times a year”, and 29% do not participate at all.

Respondent attitudes towards MPAs and the environment in general

Questions in this section were focused on gaining an understanding of respondents’ attitudes 

related to marine protected areas and general attitudes towards the environment. Regarding 

MPAs, respondents were generally supportive of establishing and maintaining MPAs but were 

mixed when it came to paying higher prices for seafood or compensating industry as a result of 

MPA development. For these questions, five response categories were presented ranging from 

“strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. There was strong agreement among respondents that 

MPAs should exist even if they never see or use them (52% “strongly” agreed) and that society 

had a responsibility to protect ocean life and habitats (51% “strongly” agreed). There was 

disagreement or ambivalence with the statement that MPAs were not necessary because marine 

biodiversity and habitats were in good shape (33% “strongly” and 30% “somewhat” disagreed; 

28% neither agreed nor disagreed). This indicates that respondents were not sure whether 

biodiversity and habitats were in good shape. Regarding whether industries should be 

compensated for losses related to MPA development, most respondents neither agreed nor 

disagreed (36%) but generally disagreed with this statement (43% “somewhat” and “strongly” 

disagreed). Respondents were more mixed when it came to their willingness to pay higher prices 

for seafood in order to establish MPAs. Most indicated their willingness to pay higher prices 

(44% “strongly” and “somewhat” agreed), but a fair proportion did not have an opinion (30% 

neither agreed nor disagreed). 

Other questions in this section focused on general attitudes towards the environment. The fifteen 

statements in this section were based on Dunlap et al.’s (2000) New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) 

scale, a method to measure general environmental views. Respondents were asked to indicate 

their agreement with each of the fifteen statements, from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. 

Generally, these questions had the highest rates of nonresponse: between 1.5% and 2.4% of 

respondents did not answer these questions. Some of the responses are discussed here. The full 

suite of responses can be found in Appendix C. 

Generally, respondents indicated that humans were negatively impacting the environment, were 

mixed as to whether earth’s resources were finite, and believed that an “ecological catastrophe” 

could occur if “things continue as-is”. That is, there was general agreement that humans were 

“severely abusing the environment” (69% “strongly” and “somewhat” agreeing) and 62% 

“strongly” or “somewhat” agreed that the earth had “limited room and resources”. Fifty-eight 

percent “strongly” and “somewhat” believed that an “ecological catastrophe” would occur “if 

things continue on their present course”. When it came to human ingenuity and whether this 

would “ensure that we do not make the earth unlivable”, 33% respondents neither agreed nor 

disagreed, while comparable numbers “somewhat” agreed or disagreed (25% and 25%, 

respectively). Fifty-eight percent of respondent “strongly” and “somewhat” disagreed with the 

statement that nature is “strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations”. 
13

Given the responses to these statements, our respondents generally appear to have a less-thanoptimistic environmental outlook. 

Managing the marine environment

Questions in this section of the survey focused on human impacts on the marine environment and 

how much various governmental and non-governmental entities are trusted. Regarding the 

former, respondents were asked how much they agreed with statements related to human uses 

and impacts. Response categories ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. Sixtyseven percent of respondents disagreed “strongly” and “somewhat” with the statement that none 

of the marine environment should be restricted. This indicates some acceptance for placing some 

restrictions on how the marine environment can be used. A similar sentiment was indicated by 

29% of respondents who “somewhat” agreed that some areas of west coast Federal waters 

“should prohibit all human activities (no-access)”. Other respondents “strongly” agreed with this 

statement (22%) or neither agreed nor disagreed (24%). 

Regarding whether fishing gear should be allowed within marine protected area boundaries “as 

long as the fishing gear does not damage marine habitat”, 42% of respondents “somewhat” 

agreed with this statement. Respondents who “strongly” agreed (20%) or neither agreed nor 

disagreed (22%) were comparable in proportion. Seventeen percent of respondents disagreed 

either “strongly” or “somewhat” with this statement. When asked to indicate their agreement 

with the statement, “Temporary protected areas that are focused on rebuilding fish and shellfish 

populations provide enough protection for marine life,” most respondents either “somewhat” 

agreed (32%) or neither agreed nor disagreed (28%).

Respondents were also asked to indicate how much they trusted the following entities: federal, 

state, and local governments; academic scientists; scientists in private consulting firms; and 

citizen advisory panels. The response categories ranged from “trust completely” to “don’t trust at 

all” and “I am unsure”. Most respondents “somewhat” trusted each of the following entities: 

federal, state, and local governments (45%, 49%, and 41%, respectively); scientists in academia 

and in private consulting firms (54% and 39%, respectively); and citizen advisory panels (50%). 

A small proportion of respondents trusted any one of these entities “completely”, from 2.4% 

relative to state governments to 19% relative to academic scientists. “Somewhat” distrusting 

these entities also varied widely, from 13% relative to academic scientists to 33% relative to 

local governments or scientists in private consulting firms. The federal government had the 

highest proportion of respondents not trusting them at all with 15% of respondents indicating 

this. Local (14%) and state (12%) governments followed closely, as did scientists from private 

consulting firms (13%). 

Respondent characteristics

Respondent demographic characteristics were provided by the GfK Group and were as follows. 

The average age was 51 years old with 8 – 20% of respondents falling in each of the following 

age categories: 18-24 years, 25-34 years, 35-44 years, 45-54 years, 55-64 years, 65-74 years, and 

75 and over. Most respondents had completed a bachelor’s degree or higher (44%) or some 

college (40%), and their ethnicity/race was “White, non-Hispanic” (69%). Females comprised 

the majority of respondents (60%). The annual household income distribution of respondents 
14

was as follows: $24,999 or less was associated with 19% of respondents; $25,000-$49,999 was 

associated with 25%; $50,000-$99,999 was associated with 35%; and $100,000 or more was 

associated with 21%.6

Finally, respondents were asked about their employment level and household finances. Twenty 

percent of respondents reported that they or someone in their household had been unemployed at 

some point within the last 12 months. Most respondents stated that their current financial 

situation was “just about the same” as it was a year ago (49%) and would be “just about the 

same” a year from now (43%). Thirty-five percent reported that their household’s finances were 

currently “worse off” compared to a year ago, but stated that their finances would be “better off” 

(25%) a year from now, though some stated their finances would be “worse off” (21%).

 

6

In comparison, the unweighted data for California, Oregon, and Washington from the December 2012 Current 

Population Survey (CPS; U.S. Census Bureau et al. 2012) showed the following demographic characteristics: 

average age was 46 years old and females comprised 51% of the region’s population. Educational attainment was as 

follows: 19% in the region completed less than a high school degree; 23% completed a high school degree; 28% 

completed an Associate’s degree or some college; and 30% population completed a Bachelor’s degree or higher. 

The race and ethnicity of the region was: 51% were “White, non-Hispanic”; 5% were “Black, non-Hispanic”; 11% 

were “Other, non-Hispanic”; 30% were “Hispanic”; and 3% were “2 or more races, non-Hispanic”. The annual 

household income distribution of the region was: 30% of households earned $24,999 or less; 23% earned $25,000-

$49,999; 26% earned $50,000-$99,999; and 21% earned $100,000 or more. When comparing our unweighted 

respondent characteristics with the unweighted CPS data (one sample t-test and chi-square goodness of fit test), the 

null hypothesis that the datasets come from the same population is rejected at a statistically significant level for 

mean age and educational attainment (p<0.0001) and race/ethnicity (p<0.05). Gender and household income 

characteristics were not statistically significant (p = 0.06).
15

Section IV. Survey Results: Choice Experiment and Econometric Model

The survey dataset contains 3354 observations. In the survey each respondent faced three 

separate choice tasks, resulting in 10062 choice task questions (3 x 3354). Less than 1% (52) of 

respondents left all three choice task questions blank; these respondents were removed from the 

dataset for the model estimation. The majority of respondents were able to make a choice among 

the three alternatives presented in each choice task, as item non-response to the first, second, 

and third choice tasks was 2.5%, 2.5%, and 3.3%, respectively. The status quo alternative was 

selected by 39.8%, 39.5%, and 41.0% of respondents in the first, second, and third choice task, 

respectively. The split between choosing alternative 2 or alternative 3 was 31.7/26, 28.3/29.5, 

and 29.6/26 for the first, second, and third choice tasks, respectively. Respondents also varied 

their choices in most cases, as only 9.6% of respondents chose the status quo in all three choice 

tasks, 2% always chose alternative 2, and 1.7% always chose alternative 3. 

The econometric model allows for diminishing marginal utility for each size/use combination by 

specifying a quadratic functional form where X1 represents the percentage of federal waters 

designated as no-access, X2 is the percentage of federal waters designated as no-take, X3 is the 

percentage of federal waters designated as multiple use, X4 is the cost associated with the MPA, 

and ε is the error term. 

(12) V = β1X1 + β2X1

2

+ β3X2 + β4X2

2 + β5X3 + β6X32

+ β7X4 + ε

As described in the Methods, a random parameters model is specified to allow for heterogeneity 

among respondents, and all parameters with the exception of cost were modeled as random. 

Model results are presented in Table 2. 

Results show that all of the size/use attributes in the utility function are highly significant (p < 

0.01). The positive and significant attribute parameter signs on each linear attribute (except cost) 

imply that designating federal waters as no-access, no-take and multiple use MPAs is utility 

increasing, though diminishing marginal utility is shown via the negative and significant sign on 

each non-linear attribute parameter. The cost parameter is negative and significant (p < 0.01), as 

expected. The standard deviations for each parameter, also presented in Table 2, suggest that for 

the linear attributes - % of no-access federal waters, % of no-take federal waters, and % of 

multiple use federal waters - there is significant heterogeneity among respondents (p < 0.01). 

However, the insignificance of the standard deviation parameters for the non-linear size/use 

attributes suggests that preferences are homogenous for diminishing marginal utility. This result 

is intuitive and aligns with feedback received during qualitative research, where focus group 

participants appeared to be generally concerned with setting aside too much of west coast federal 

waters as an MPA but had varied preferences with respect to different MPA use regimes.
16

Table 2. Choice model results

Attribute Parameter estimate Z statistic

Random parameters

No-access** .57632 11.41

No-access^2** -.11720 -11.58

No-take** .15999 6.26

No-take^2** -.01625 -6.29

Multiple use** .17295 6.38

Multiple use^2** -.01051 -6.59

Non-random parameters

Cost** -.02295 -32.56

Standard deviation parameters

No-access** .66837 19.37

No-access^2 .00164 0.16

No-take** .32913 22.25

No-take^2 .00222 1.05

Multiple use** .25310 17.06

Multiple use^2 .00029 0.27

**parameters significant at p < 0.01

Optimal Size and Willingness-to-Pay

The magnitudes of the linear parameters suggest that preferences are strongest for designating 

federal waters as no-access; however, because the model specification suggests (significant)

concavity for each size/use combination the optimal (maximum) size for federal waters 

designated for each use type is calculated by solving the first order conditions for a specific use 

type, holding the other two use types constant. This results in the following optimal 

designations: 

2.5% of federal waters designated as no-access 

4.9% of federal waters designated as no-take

8.2% of federal waters designated as multiple use 

The economic value (willingness-to-pay, or WTP) of designating different MPA configurations 

(i.e. designating federal waters as MPAs with different use regimes) is calculated using the 

standard formula for estimating compensating variation (Hanemann 1984; Hanley, Mourato, and 

Wright 2001) 
17





















 





i

i

i

i

p

i i

V

V

CV WTP 0

1

exp

exp

ln 1(13) 



where 

0

Vi

is the utility derived from the initial state, the status quo, and 

1

Vi

is the utility 

associated with an alternative state. Using this formula the values for a variety of MPA 

designations can be calculated. Table 3 shows the value of the optimal designation of each use 

type (all else constant) and the standard Krinsky-Robb 95% confidence intervals. Values are 

expressed as household7 WTP per year for three years. 

Table 3. WTP for Optimal Designation

2.5% No-access

(other use types at 

status quo level)

4.9% No-take

(other use types at 

status quo level)

8.2% Multiple use

(other use types at 

status quo level)

WTP $30.86 $16.81 $12.75

(95% Confidence Interval) (24.73 – 37.00) (10.90 – 22.73) (7.63 – 17.86)

Though the optimal no-access designation yields the highest WTP, the value of this use type 

decreases sharply over a smaller range than no-take and multiple use designations, as shown 

below in Figure 2. 

 

7 Note that the sample for this study was drawn only from households in California, Washington, and Oregon. 
18

Figure 2 . Changes in WTP with respect to size

Assuming that an MPA is designated as a single-use type, several key points emerge from Figure 

2: 

 Designating more than approximately 4.8% of federal waters as no-access yields 

disutility (negative economic value). The same is true for any amount of no-take over 

9.75% and multiple use over 13.5%. 

 MPAs whose size is less than about 4.2% of federal waters will yield the highest value 

designated as no-access.

 MPAs between about 4.2% and 7.5% of federal waters will yield the highest value if 

designated as no-take.

 MPAs larger than about 7.5% will yield the highest value if designated as multiple use. 

-1

4

9

14

19

24

29

34

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0 9.5 10.0 10.5 11.0 11.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5

WTP (USD) per household/year for three years

% of federal waters in use designation

 No-Access No-Take Multiple Use

no-take and multiple use at status quo

no-access and multiple use at status quo

no-access and no-take at status quo
19

When considering an MPA of mixed use-types, increasing the amount of federal waters in each 

use type to their maximum amounts shown in Table 3 – for a total of 15.6% of federal waters -

provides the largest welfare gain, at approximately $60.42 per household per year for three years. 

Other combinations will yield lower but still positive economic value to the public. For 

example, a large reserve whose total size is 20% of federal waters is valued at $9.87 per 

household per year for three years when the use-type is split evenly between no-take and 

multiple use. However, moving just 1% of waters from a no-take to a no-access designation

increases the value to $36.36. Acknowledging that policy and politics will generally influence 

both the size and use-type of MPAs, the value (and 95% confidence interval) of mixed use-type 

MPAs of three different total sizes – 5%, 10%, and 15% of federal waters – are shown in Table 4

for illustrative purposes. Values are expressed in household WTP per year for three years. 

Table 4. Value of multiple use-type designations

Total size

(% of federal 

waters)

No-access

(% of federal 

waters)

No-take

(% of federal 

waters)

Multiple use

(% of federal 

waters)

Value

5%

3 1 1 26.13 (16.00 – 32.25)

2 2 1 29.40 (21.92 – 36.86)

1 1 3 26.16 (22.80 – 29.52)

10%

3 4 3 45.82 (38.64 – 53.02)

2 3 5 51.98 (46.59 – 57.37)

1 5 4 41.39 (35.93 – 46.84)

15%

3 10 2 22.94 (13.49 – 32.39)

2 3 10 55.29 (49.45 – 61.15)

1 7 7 45.82 (39.83 – 51.81)
20

Section V. Discussion

The model results suggest that the CBD target of setting aside 10% of coastal and marine waters 

as protected areas is palatable from the west coast public viewpoint, as the mixed-use 

designation that yields the highest value is 15.6% of west coast Federal waters. Results from the 

attitudinal questions also support the establishment of MPAs in west coast Federal waters. For 

example, over 70% of respondents agreed that ocean life and habitats should be protected in their 

natural state and 67% disagreed with the statement that none of the marine environment should 

be restricted. Further, nearly three-quarters of respondents felt that MPAs should exist even if 

the respondents would never see or use the area. 

 

Results also demonstrate that the use-type within the protected area matters significantly, as 

disutility stems from setting aside ~ 5% of waters as a no-access reserve but not from no-take or 

multiple use designations. Again this is supported from the attitudinal questions, as nearly half 

of respondents agreed that some areas of west coast Federal waters should prohibit all human 

activities, though the amount was not specified in this question. While any specific protected 

area designation can be evaluated using the choice model results, a few broad-level key findings 

may help inform on CBD and other target-setting policies: 

 The west coast public is generally supportive of the notion of marine protected areas.

 To generate high economic value designate small no-access protected areas, as costs are 

likely to be smaller for smaller areas.

o In small sizes no-access is very valuable – designating 2.5% of federal waters as 

no-access yields more value than a 5% designation of no-take or multiple use. 

 Moderately sized MPAs ranging from ~5% to 7.5% of federal waters should be in a notake designation.

 To establish larger MPAs designate the areas as multiple use. 

o For any area larger than ~9.75% of federal waters only a multiple use designation 

will be utility enhancing. 

It must be stressed that the values generated here are not net of the administrative and 

opportunity costs associated with designation, which would largely depend on the geographical 

location(s) of the protected area. When asked about some of the likely opportunity costs 

associated with establishing MPAs (e.g. restricted commercial fishing, energy development) over 

70% of respondents felt that marine recreation and tourism and alternative energy development 

were important for west coast Federal waters, and over 80% of respondents felt that commercial 

fishing was important. Interestingly less than 30% of respondents felt that business and industry 

should be compensated for losses due to MPA restrictions. 

It should also be stressed that the choice model results demonstrated heterogeneity among 

preferences for the linear attributes indicating use-type. This suggests that for some respondents 

certain MPA designations may be welfare-decreasing, which ultimately implies winners and 

losers from different policies. While distributional effects are an important political question, 

they are beyond the scope of this analysis. Future work could be undertaken to determine 

demographic and other characteristics of those who do and do not benefit from a specific MPA 

designation. In their analysis of MPAs in northeastern Federal waters, Wallmo and Edwards 

(2008) found similar preference heterogeneity using a latent class modeling approach – an 
21

approach that could be undertaken with this data as well, the peculiarities noted by the above 

authors not withstanding. In addition, state-level models could be estimated, as California has a 

fairly aggressive approach to establishing MPAs within state waters and this may differentiate 

public attitudes and support for MPAs in California as compared to the Oregon and Washington 

public. 
22

References

Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and J. Swait. 1998. Introduction to attribute-based stated choice 

methods. Report to the Damage Assessment Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, Department of Commerce, Silver Spring, MD.

California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG). 2008. California Marine Life Protection Act: 

master plan for marine protected areas. Revised draft, January 2008. Available at: 

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/mlpa/pdfs/revisedmp0108.pdf, accessed 1/23/14.

Convention on Biological Diversity 2010. Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011-2020, including 

Aichi Biodiversity Targets. Available at: http://www.cbd.int/2010-target/goals-targets.shtml, 

accessed 3/31/14

Executive Order 13158 Marine Protected Areas. 2000. Federal Register 65 (105). 

The GfK Group. 2013. KnowledgePanel Design Summary. Available at: 

http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/knpanel/docs/knowledgePanel(R)-design-summarydescription.pdf, accessed 1/23/14. 

Greene, W., and D. Hensher. 2002. A Latent Class Model for Discrete Choice Analysis: 

Contrasts with Mixed Logit. Working Paper ITS-WP-02-08, Institute of Transport Studies, 

Sydney, Australia. 

Hanemann, M. 1984. Welfare evaluation in contingent valuation experiments with discrete 

responses. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 66:332-341. 

Hanley, N., Mourato, S., and R.E. Wright. 2001. Choice modelling approaches: a superior 

alternative for environmental evaluation? Journal of Economic Surveys,15(3): 435-462.

Kelleher, G. 1999. Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas. International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, Gland, Switzerland and Cambridge, U.K.

Khufeld, W. 2005. Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, 

Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques. SAS Institute, Carey, North Carolina.

Lancaster, K.J. 1966. A new approach to consumer theory. The Journal of Political Economy, 

74(2): 132-157.

Lew, D.K., Layton, D.F., and R.D. Rowe. 2010. Valuing enhancements to endangered species 

protection under alternative baseline futures: the case of the Steller sea lion. Marine Resource 

Economics, 25: 133-154.

National Marine Protected Areas Center, NOAA. Marine Protected Areas: conserving our 

oceans one place at a time. Available at: 

http://marineprotectedareas.noaa.gov/pdf/fac/mpas_of_united_states_conserving_oceans_1113.p

df, accessed 3/31/14
23

Louviere, J., Hensher, D., and Swait, J. 2000. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and 

Application. Cambridge University Press, UK.

Morey, E.R., R.D. Rowe, and M. Watson. 1993. A repeated nested logit model of Atlantic 

salmon fishing. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 75: 578-92.

National Research Council. (NRC). 2001. Marine Protected Areas: Tools for Sustaining Ocean 

Ecosystems. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.

Stokstad, E. 2010. Science meets politics off California’s coast. Science, 327(5973): 1574-1575. 

U.S. Census Bureau and U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2012. Current Population Survey, 

December 2012. Available at: http://thedataweb.rm.census.gov/ftp/cps_ftp.html#cpsbasic, 

accessed 5/28/14.

Wallmo, K., and Edwards, S. 2008. Estimating nonmarket values for marine protected areas: a 

latent class modeling approach. Marine Resource Economics 23:301-323. 

Wallmo, K. and D. Lew. 2011. Valuing improvements to threatened and endangered marine 

species: an application of stated preference choice experiments. Journal of Environmental 

Management, 92(7): 1793-1801.
24

Appendices to:

Public preferences for marine protected areas off the U.S. west coast: the significance of 

restrictions and size on economic value. 

Appendix A: The web-based questionnaire

Appendix B: Survey results by state and region
25

Appendix A – Web-based questionnaire

Marine Protected Areas off the U.S. West Coast

The National Marine Fisheries Service is sponsoring a survey to understand public opinion about 

marine protected areas in federal waters off the coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington. 

 By marine protected areas we mean designated areas of the ocean where different types 

of activities such as fishing or boating, are monitored or prohibited. These marine 

protected areas are similar to designated areas on land such as national and state parks.

 By federal waters we mean non-coastal waters that typically extend 3 to 200 miles from 

the shoreline. For this survey we will refer to this ocean area as West Coast Federal 

Waters. 

Your opinions are important! The best way for policymakers and ocean resource managers to understand the variety of viewpoints people have 

about ocean management is for you to complete this survey.

 

The survey is confidential and anonymous, and should take about 20 minutes to complete. Thank you very much for your participation.
26

Section 1: Introduction 

This survey is about marine protected areas in West Coast Federal Waters. Below is a map that 

shows West Coast Federal Waters (3-200 miles from the shoreline) in relation to state waters 

(shoreline to 3 miles).
27

In the following pages of the survey you will be provided with a description of marine protected 

areas and their main objectives, and some reasons why people may want larger or smaller marine 

protected areas. This information is intended to describe marine protected areas at a broad, 

general level, and is not intended to provide an in-depth analysis of the costs or benefits of 

marine protected areas. 

Before we begin, we would like to ask you a few questions about your use of West Coast Federal 

Waters. 

Q1. Please answer the following questions by checking the appropriate box. 

Yes No I am 

unsure

a. Do you go saltwater fishing for fun or food in West 

Coast Federal Waters?   

b. Do you or does anyone in your family fish 

commercially in West Coast Federal Waters?   

c. Is your job directly tied to West Coast Federal Waters

(fishing, defense, shipping, marina, etc.)?

  

d. Do you participate in recreational or leisure activities 

in West Coast Federal Waters?   

e. Are you currently a member of any type of 

organization involved with marine-based activities in 

West Coast Federal Waters?

  

f. Have you ever visited a marine protected area in West 

Coast Federal Waters?   

Section 2: What are Marine Protected Areas? 

Marine Protected Areas, or MPAs, are similar to areas of land designated as state or national 

parks. The main objectives of MPAs are to:

 Set aside areas of the ocean to conserve, restore, and understand the natural biodiversity 

and ecology of the area. Natural biodiversity usually includes the fish and shellfish 

populations, the marine mammals that live or migrate through the MPA boundaries, and 

the seafloor habitat that these fish and marine mammals rely on for food, shelter, or 

reproduction.

 Provide people the opportunity to experience these areas of the ocean now and into the 

future. 
28

For some MPAs, the boundaries are marked with buoys or shore-based signs. In other cases, 

MPA information and maps are available from government websites, and it is the responsibility 

of the individual to determine if they are in a MPA. Within the boundaries of a MPA, certain 

activities that may damage the marine environment are restricted or limited. 

 Industrial uses (seabed mining, oil and gas exploration or drilling, windmill or turbine 

construction, minerals extraction) are prohibited within MPA boundaries. 

 Other uses such as commercial and recreational fishing, recreation and nature-based 

tourism (such as scuba, snorkeling, whale watching), and scientific research may be 

allowed but are monitored and limited.

Generally when areas of West Coast Federal Waters are designated as MPAs they are permanent 

designations. 

Q2. Please indicate how important you believe each of the following activities are for West 

Coast Federal Waters by checking the appropriate box. 

Extremely

Important

Somewhat

Important

Slightly

Important

Not 

Important 

at all

I am 

unsure

a. Commercial fishing     

b. Recreational fishing     

c. Oil and gas development     

d. Marine-based recreation and 

tourism (whale watching, scuba, 

snorkeling)

    

Alternative energy development 

(windmills, turbines)     

Section 3: Marine Protected Area Size – Large or Small?
29

The appropriate size for a marine protected area is a difficult and controversial question for 

policymakers. Economic and social impacts are usually considered alongside the ecological and 

biological benefits of designating an area as an MPA. 

 Some people may prefer large MPAs because they feel that designating larger areas will 

increase monitoring in these areas, prohibit industrial uses (seabed mining, oil and gas 

exploration or drilling, windmill or turbine construction, minerals extraction), and 

regulate other activities such as commercial and recreational fishing, nature-based 

recreation and tourism, and scientific research, if they damage the marine environment. 

In addition, some people may prefer large MPAs because they feel that larger MPAs will 

better protect marine biodiversity and habitat. 

 In contrast, some people may prefer small MPAs, or no MPAs at all, because they feel 

the social and economic costs are too high. For example, MPAs can be expensive to 

designate, monitor and regulate. This cost may be passed on to the general public in the 

form of taxes, higher prices for fishing or boating licenses, or higher prices for seafood. 

In addition, the industrial uses that are prohibited within MPAs may lead to a loss of jobs 

related to these industries. Some people may also feel that the regulation of activities 

such as fishing, nature-based recreation and tourism, and scientific research is a cost that 

will limit their own or others enjoyment and use of the marine environment. 

Q3. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by 

checking the appropriate box. 
30

Strongly 

Agree

Some

what 

Agree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. I like knowing that a portion of 

West Coast Federal Waters is 

protected as an MPA even if I never 

see or use it.

    

b. MPAs are not needed in West 

Coast Federal Waters because marine 

biodiversity and habitats are in good 

shape.

    

c. I would be willing to pay higher 

prices for products like seafood to 

establish MPAS in West Coast 

Federal Waters.

    

d. Our society has a duty to protect 

marine life and habitats in a natural 

state.

    

e. Industries and businesses should be 

compensated for lost income due to 

restrictions put in place for MPAs. 

    

Marine Protected Area Size – What Scientists Believe

In 2001 a group of marine scientists from universities around the world assembled to summarize 

what was known about the design of marine protected areas in the U.S. and other countries. The 

group reported that no two places are alike, but in general:

 Between 10% and 40% of a marine ecosystem might be needed to preserve all of the 

species of marine life in their natural habitats.

 Even so, marine protected areas that cover relatively small areas still offer some 

protection for marine life and habitat. 
31

Section 4: Current Status of Marine Protected Areas in West Coast Federal Waters

Within the boundaries of all permanent marine protected areas in West Coast Federal Waters 

industrial uses are prohibited. These industrial uses include seabed mining, oil and gas 

exploration or drilling, windmill or turbine construction, minerals extraction. However, other 

kinds of activities may be allowed, depending on the type of MPA. Below is a description of 

three main types of permanent MPAs and the percentage of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated to each type. 

Multiple Use MPAs

 Multiple Use MPAs allow commercial and recreational fishing, nature-based recreation 

and tourism, and scientific research activities within their boundaries as long as they do 

not destroy marine biodiversity or habitat. All activities are monitored. About 2.95% of 

West Coast Federal Waters are permanently protected as a Multiple Use MPA.

No-Take MPAs

 No-Take MPAs allow human access and activities that do not extract or harvest any 

marine resources. All activities are monitored. About 0.05% of West Coast Federal 

Waters are permanently protected as No-Take MPAs. 

No-Access MPAs

 No-Access MPAs are closed to all human access except for limited monitoring, and are 

used to prevent potential ecological disturbance and as a refuge for marine wildlife. 0%

of West Coast Federal Waters are permanently protected as No-Access MPAs. 

Q4. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by 

checking the appropriate box. 

Strongly 

Agree

Some

what 

Agree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. Fishing should be allowed

within MPAs as long as the fishing 

gear does not damage habitat.

    

b. Some parts of West Coast 

Federal Waters should prohibit all 

human activities within their 

boundaries (no-access). 

    

Other Closed Areas in West Coast Federal Waters
32

In addition to the permanent marine protected areas in West Coast Federal Waters, there are 

other types of closed areas in West Coast Federal Waters that are temporarily closed to some or 

all types of fishing. These areas are focused on rebuilding fish or shellfish populations that have 

been overfished and are in need of protection. 

Currently about 7% of West Coast Federal Waters are closed for rebuilding fish or shellfish 

populations. This amount can vary throughout the year, and the area boundaries can change 

depending on the status of fish and shellfish populations.

Unlike permanent MPAs, these temporary closed areas can be reopened when scientists and 

policymakers decide that these fish and shellfish populations are large enough to withstand 

fishing pressure.

Q5. Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the following statements by 

checking the appropriate box. 

Strongly 

Agree

Some

what 

Agree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. The marine environment is a

public resource and none of it 

should be restricted.

    

b. Temporary protected areas that 

are focused on rebuilding fish and 

shellfish populations provide 

enough protection for marine life 

in West Coast Federal Waters.

    
33

Section 5: Your Preferences for Different Sized Marine Protected Areas

In this section we ask you to assume that you are part of a Citizens Advisory Panel, or 

CAP. CAPs are often used when policymakers need public input on specific topics, and the 

input is intended to represent a variety of citizens’ attitudes and opinions. Most CAP

members do not have in-depth scientific or technical knowledge of the specific topic they 

are being asked to provide input on. 

Q6. Please answer the following question by checking the appropriate box. 

Yes No I am 

unsure

a. Have you ever participated in a Citizens Advisory Panel?   

As a member of this CAP you will be shown a series of questions that ask you to compare 

three options for permanent MPAs in West Coast Federal Waters and choose the option 

you most prefer and the option you least prefer.

 Option 1 always represents the Current Status of No-Access MPAs, No-Take MPAs, 

and Multiple Use MPAs in West Coast Federal Waters.

 Option 2 and Option 3 increase the amount of at least one type of MPA in West 

Coast Federal Waters.

o By choosing Option 2 or Option 3 there is an added cost to your household. This 

cost would come through a payment added to your Federal tax return every year 

for the next three years. The payment would be used for research, monitoring, and 

enforcement within MPAs and to help offset costs to industries affected by any 

new restrictions until they can adjust to the changes.

Please note that larger MPAs may not always cost the most, and smaller MPAs may not always 

cost the least. Cost can depend on many factors, including the location of the MPA, the types of 

industries that may be affected, and regulations within the MPA. 

For hypothetical questions like these, studies have shown that many people say they 

are willing to pay more for establishing MPAs than they actually would pay out of 

their pockets. We believe this happens because people do not really consider how 

big an impact an extra cost actually has to their family’s budget when answering 

these types of questions. It is easy to be generous when you do not really need to 

open your wallet.

To avoid this, as you consider each question, please imagine your household actually 

paying the cost of the option you select out of your household’s budget.
34

The following table shows three options for permanent MPAs in West Coast Federal Waters. 

Please look at the information contained in each option and answer the questions at the bottom of 

the table. 

If you allow your cursor to hover over the blue texts, a box will appear that gives you more 

information about different types of MPAs.

MPAs West Coast Federal Waters Option 1

(Current Status) Option 2 Option 3

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated No-Access MPAs 0%

Experimental 

Design Levels 

used to populate 

options

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated No-Take MPAs 0.05%

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated Multiple Use MPAs 2.95%

Total amount of West Coast Federal 

Waters designated as a Marine Protected 

Area

3%

Cost to your Household

This cost will be added to your 

household’s Federal Income Tax every 

year for three years

$0

Q6b. Which option do you most prefer for 

West Coast Federal Waters? (check only 

one box)

Option 1



Option 2



Option 3



Q6c. Which option do you least prefer for 

West Coast Federal Waters? (check only 

one box)

Option 1



Option 2



Option 3


35

Q6d. Why did you choose Option 1 as the option that you most prefer? (check all that apply)

 The amount of permanent MPAs currently in West Coast Federal Waters is enough

 The annual costs of Options 2 and 3 are too expensive 

 MPAs place too many restrictions on industries and recreational activities

 I do not feel it is my responsibility to pay for preserving the marine environment

 I don’t trust the government to run the program

 I should not have to pay more taxes for any reason

 I need more information to make a choice

 There are other temporary closed areas that offer protection in West Coast Federal 

Waters

 I am too unsure about how I feel about MPAs

 I do not think MPAs will be effective or accomplish their goals

 More research needs to be done before I would pay for MPAs

 Other (please explain) ______________________________________

The next question is similar to the previous one. Please look at the information contained in each 

option and answer the question at the bottom of the table. 

.
36

MPAs West Coast Federal Waters Option 1

(Current Status) Option 2 Option 3

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated No-Access MPAs 

0%

Experimental 

Design Levels 

used to populate 

options

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated No-Take MPAs 0.05%

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated Multiple Use MPAs 2.95%

Total amount of West Coast Federal 

Waters designated as a Marine Protected 

Area

3%

Cost to your Household

This cost will be added to your 

household’s Federal Income Tax every 

year for three years

$0

Q6e. Which option do you most prefer for 

West Coast Federal Waters? (check only 

one box)

Option 1



Option 2



Option 3



Q6f. Which option do you least prefer for 

West Coast Federal Waters? (check only 

one box)

Option 1



Option 2



Option 3


37

The next question is similar to the previous one. Please look at the information contained in each 

option and answer the question at the bottom of the table. 

MPAs West Coast Federal Waters Option 1

(Current Status) Option 2 Option 3

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated No-Access MPAs 

0%

Experimental 

Design Levels 

used to populate 

options

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated No-Take MPAs 0.05%

% of West Coast Federal Waters 

designated Multiple Use MPAs 2.95%

Total amount of West Coast Federal 

Waters designated as a Marine Protected 

Area

3%

Cost to your Household

This cost will be added to your 

household’s Federal Income Tax every 

year for three years

$0

Q6e. Which option do you most prefer for 

West Coast Federal Waters? (check only 

one box)

Option 1



Option 2



Option 3



Q6f. Which option do you least prefer for 

West Coast Federal Waters? (check only 

one box)

Option 1



Option 2



Option 3


38

Section 6: Attitudes Toward the Environment

In this section, we would like to ask a few questions about your attitudes toward the ocean and 

the environment in general. 

Q7. In general, how frequently do you participate in the following activities? 

At 

least 

once a 

day

At 

least 

once a 

week

At least

once a 

month

At 

least 

once a 

year

I do not 

participate 

in this 

activity

a. Purchase or eat seafood at restaurants, 

grocery stores, or at home     

b. View ocean features (such as waves) or 

wildlife (such as seabirds or dolphins)     

c. Recreational fishing or shellfishing in 

ocean or coastal waters     

d. Boating, kayaking, canoeing, or other 

boating activities in ocean or coastal 

waters

    

e. Swimming, surfing, scuba diving, or 

other water contact activities in ocean or 

coastal waters

    

f. Other activities such as sunbathing, 

tidepooling, camping, bonfires, horseback 

riding, etc., in view of the ocean or coast

    
39

Q8. How much do you trust each of the following to effectively manage ocean uses and 

activities in West Coast Federal Waters? 

Trust 

completely

Trust 

somewhat

Distrust 

somewhat

Don’t 

trust at 

all

I am 

unsure

a. Federal agencies, including 

scientists and policymakers     

b. State agencies, including 

scientists and policymakers     

c. Local governments     

d. Academic scientists such as those 

in universities or private consulting 

firms

    

e. Citizen advisory panels made up 

of local interests such as business 

and environmental interests

    
40

Q9. Below are statements about the relationship between humans and the environment. For 

each statement, please indicate how much you agree or disagree by checking the appropriate box.

Strongly 

Agree

Some

what

Agree

Neither 

Agree nor 

Disagree

Somewhat 

Disagree

Strongly

Disagree

a. We are approaching the limit of the 

number of people the earth can support     

b. Humans have the right to modify the 

natural environment to suit their needs.     

c. When humans interfere with nature it 

often produces disastrous consequences     

d. Human ingenuity will insure that we 

do not make the earth unlivable     

e. Humans are severely abusing the 

environment     

f. The earth has plenty of natural 

resources if we just learn how to develop 

them

    

g. Plants and animals have as much right 

as humans to exist     

h. The balance of nature is strong 

enough to cope with the impacts of 

modern industrial nations

    

i. Despite our special abilities humans 

are still subject to the laws of nature     

j. The so-called “ecological crisis” 

facing humankind has been greatly 

exaggerated

    

k. The earth is like a spaceship with 

limited room and resources     

l. Humans were meant to rule over the 

rest of nature     

m. The balance of nature is very delicate 

and easily upset     

n. Humans will eventually learn enough 

about how nature works to be able to 

control it

    

o. If things continue on their present 

course, we will soon experience a major 

ecological catastrophe

    

In these last three questions, we would like to ask you how the current state of the U.S. economy 

may be affecting you and your household. 
41

Q10. Have you or someone in your household been jobless at some point in the last 12 

months?

 Yes

 No

 I don’t know

Q11. Do you think that you and your household are better off, just about the same, or worse off 

financially than you were a year ago?

 We are better off

 We are just about the same

 We are worse off

Q12. Looking ahead to a year from now, do you think that you and your household will be 

financially better off, just about the same, or worse off financially?

 We will be better off

 We will be just about the same

 We will be worse off
42

Appendix B – Survey results by state and region8,9

1A. Uses of the marine environment – West Coast (Q1, Q2)

 

8 The sampling design for this study does not support state level comparisons for Oregon and Washington because 

the sample sizes for these states were too small. The state level responses are provided here for illustrative purposes 

only. 

9 There were 3,354 possible respondents in this data collection. The number of respondents included in each graph is 

indicated (e.g., “n=3329”). This number excludes those who did not respond to a particular question.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No I am unsure Yes No I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Do you go saltwater fishing for food or fun in West Coast Federal Waters?
43

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No I am unsure Yes No I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Do you or does someone in your family fish commercially in West Coast Federal Waters?
44

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No I am unsure Yes No I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Is your job directly tied to West Coast Federal Waters?
45

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No I am unsure Yes No I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Do you participate in recreational activities in West Coast Federal Waters?
46

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No I am unsure Yes No I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Are you currently a member of a marine-based organization in West Coast Federal Waters?
47

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No I am unsure Yes No I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Have you ever visited an MPA in West Coast Federal Waters?
48

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Extremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsureExtremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Importance to West Coast Federal Waters: commercial fishing
49

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Extremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsureExtremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Importance to West Coast Federal Waters: recreational fishing
50

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Extremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsureExtremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Importance to West Coast Federal Waters: oil and gas development
51

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Extremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsureExtremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Importance to West Coast Federal Waters: marine recreation and tourism
52

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Extremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsureExtremely Important Somewhat Important Slightly Important Not Important at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

Importance to West Coast Federal Waters: alternative energy development
53

1B. Uses of the marine environment – General marine environment (Q7)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

At least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activityAt least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activity

W A OR

CA Total 

How frequently do you: purchase or eat seafood?
54

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

At least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activityAt least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activity

W A OR

CA Total 

How frequently do you: view ocean features or wildlife?
55

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

At least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activityAt least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activity

W A OR

CA Total 

How frequently do you: go recreational fishing or shellfishing in ocean/coastal waters?
56

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

At least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activityAt least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activity

W A OR

CA Total 

How frequently do you: go boating/kayaking/canoeing/etc. in ocean/coastal waters?
57

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

At least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activityAt least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activity

W A OR

CA Total 

How frequently do you: swim/surf/dive/other water contact in ocean/coastal waters?
58

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

At least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activityAt least once a week Several times a month Several times a year I participate but not on a regular basis I do not participate in this activity

W A OR

CA Total 

How frequently do you: do other ocean/coastal activities like sunbathing/tidepooling/etc.?
59

2A. Respondent attitudes – Marine protected areas (Q3)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

I like knowing that a portion of WC Federal Waters is protected even if I never see/use it.
60

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

MPAs are not needed in WC Fed Waters because biodiversity/habitats are in good shape.
61

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

I would pay higher prices for products like seafood to establish MPAs in WC Fed Waters.
62

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Our society has a duty to protect marine life and habitats in a natural state.
63

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Industries and businesses should be compensated for lost income due to MPA restrictions.
64

2B. Respondent attitudes – General environment, New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) (Q9)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.
65

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.
66

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.
67

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Human ingenuity will insure that we do not make the earth unlivable.
68

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Humans are severely abusing the environment.
69

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.
70

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.
71

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations.
72

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature.
73

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

The so-called 'ecological crisis' facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.
74

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

The earth is like a spaceship with limited room and resources.
75

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.
76

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.
77

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it.
78

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

If things continue as-is we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe.
79

3. Managing the marine environment (Q4, Q5, Q8)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Fishing should be allowed within MPAs as long as the gear does not damage habitat.
80

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Some parts of WC Federal Waters should prohibit all human activities (no-access).
81

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

The marine environment is a public resource and none of it should be restricted.
82

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree Strongly Agree Somewhat Agree Neither Agree nor Disagree Somewhat Disagree Strongly Disagree

W A OR

CA Total 

Temporary protected areas for rebuilding fish/shellfish provide enough protection.
83

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

How much do you trust: Federal agencies including scientists and policymakers.
84

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

How much to you trust: State agencies including scientists and policymakers.
85

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

How much do you trust: Local governments.
86

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

How much do you trust: academic scientists such as those in universities.
87

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

How much do you trust: scientists in private consulting firms.
88

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure Trust completely Trust somewhat Distrust somewhat Don't trust at all I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

How much do you trust: citizen advisory panels.
89

4. Respondent characteristics (GfK panel data and Q10, Q11, Q12)

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+ 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-74 75+

W A OR

CA Total 

Age categories
90

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Less than high school High school Some college Bachelor's degree or higher Less than high school High school Some college Bachelor's degree or higher

W A OR

CA Total 

Education categories
91

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

White, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Other, Non-Hispanic Hispanic 2+ Races, Non-HispanicWhite, Non-Hispanic Black, Non-Hispanic Other, Non-Hispanic Hispanic 2+ Races, Non-Hispanic

W A OR

CA Total 

Race and ethnicity
92

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Male Female Male Female

W A OR

CA Total 

Gender
93

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more Less than $25,000 $25,000 to $49,999 $50,000 to $74,999 $75,000 to $99,999 $100,000 to $124,999 $125,000 to $149,999 $150,000 or more

W A OR

CA Total 

Income categories
94

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

Yes No I don't know Yes No I don't know

W A OR

CA Total 

Have you or someone in your household been jobless at some point in the last 12 months?
95

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

We are better off We are just about the sameWe are worse off I am unsure We are better off We are just about the sameWe are worse off I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

You and your household's finances compared to a year ago.
96

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

20

40

60

80

100

We will be better off We will be just about the same We will be worse off I am unsure We will be better off We will be just about the same We will be worse off I am unsure

W A OR

CA Total 

You and your household's finances a year from now.