Table 2. Spearman correlation coefficients between statements using classification of opinions about nature conservation and tourism development based on the 17 statements (n = 246–264). Statements marked in boldface print were used to create factor variables (> 0.40).


Statement

Communalities

Nature conservation

Tourism development
There are too many conservation areas in the region. 0.68 0.81 0.12
The establishment of conservation areas is important. 0.64 0.79 0.15
The establishment of the conservation areas decreases employment within the region. 0.58 0.76 0.05
By establishing conservation areas, appreciation of the home district has increased. 0.74 0.82 0.24

Increasing nature conservation areas has improved famliarity with nature in the home district.
0.62 0.76 0.22
Landowners should donate valuable areas to conservation for compensation. 0.47 0.66 0.16
The existence of nature conservation areas is important to me, although I do not visit them. 0.65 0.75 0.30
The area's forests are appealing to tourists. 0.51 0.53 0.47
The region succeeds because of tourism. 0.50 0.14 0.70
Tourism in my residential area is a positive proposition. 0.59 0.21 0.74
Income from tourism will stay in the region. 0.54 0.05 0.73

Tourism development can compensate for jobs lost to forest conservation.
0.59 0.52 0.57
The municipality has taken local people into account in tourism development. 0.55 0.16 0.73
Companies have taken local people into account in tourism development. 0.50 0.20 0.68
Visitors to the area are well behaved. 0.47 0.08 0.68
The economic benefits of tourism are greater than the disadvantages. 0.58 0.28 0.71
Tourism development is important for the future. 0.55 0.25 0.70

Contribution to variance: 43.2%
Contribution to variance: 14.2%