In 2014-15, a study was conducted on the outdoor recreation activities of Washington households on the Outer Coast of Washington. The primary focus was on the entire Outer Coast of Washington to support the State’s Marine Spatial Planning Initiative and on the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary (OCNMS) to support their socioeconomics action plan. Socioeconomic profiles were created for the entire study area and for OCNMS. For OCNMS, socioeconomic profiles were created for sanctuary waters, sanctuary waters with a two kilometer buffer along the coast, and a small section of the Port Angeles waterfront around the sanctuary office and visitor center.
The survey was conducted using a probability based online survey. A representative sample of Washington households resulted in 5,538 responses over two waves of surveys. The results are published in four volumes.
Volume 1 focuses on socioeconomic profiles, including demographic profiles of users (e.g. age, gender, race/ethnicity, marital status, education level, household size, housing type, employment status, household income and place of residence, (e.g. zip code and county); uses (activity participation rates, person-trips and person-days by activity type), and expenditures per person-trip, per person-day, and total expenditures by expenditure category.
Volume 2 includes information on total annual expenditures by spending category and the associated economic impacts/contributions to the local economy in terms of total output/sales, value-added (regional; gross product), income and the number of jobs, including multiplierimpacts.
In Volume 3 users rated 25 natural resource attributes, facilities and services as to both their importance and satisfaction of their recreational experience. The analytical framework is called importance-satisfaction or importance-performance analysis. The analysis maps each item into four-quadrants based on “relative importance” and “relative satisfaction” of each item. The four quadrants are labelled “Concentrate here (relatively high in importance and relatively low in satisfaction); “Keep up the Good Work” (relatively high in importance and relatively high in satisfaction); “Low Priority” (relatively low in importance and relatively low in satisfaction); and “Possible Overkill” (relatively low in importance and relatively high in satisfaction).
Volume 4 provides all the details on the methods of estimation used in Volumes 1-3 and is primarily for those who provided peer review and for audiences that would like to replicate the study in the future.