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%
|