Table 1. Frequency of independent variables for Hypotheses H1a–H1d.

Frequency Percent
H1a: vertical
cities 6 14.29
county 5 11.90
watershed 9 21.43
state 2 4.76
nation 7 16.67
tribal 1 2.38
unknown 2 4.76
missing 10 23.81

H1b: horizontal
downstream 20 47.62
upstream 10 23.81
tribal 1 2.38
unsure 3 7.14
missing 8 19.05

H1c (i): environmental values
pro-environmental 20 47.62
dominant social paradigm 9 21.43
missing 13 30.95

H1c (ii): science attitudes
weakly positivist 6 14.29
strongly positivist 23 54.76
missing 13 30.95

H1c (iii): scientist attitudes
nonadvocate 13 30.95
advocate 17 40.48
missing 12 28.57

H1c (iv): political ideology
Liberal 19 45.24
Conservative 7 16.67
missing 16 38.10

H1c (v): barriers
trust 2 4.76
resolution process 3 7.14
management 1 2.38
legislation 5 11.90
information 7 16.67
values 11 26.19
missing 13 30.95

H1d: expertise
nonscientist 17 40.48
scientist 11 26.19
missing 14 33.33

Note: Schneider et al. (2003) relate vertical position to levels of government, horizontal position to geographic jurisdiction, expertise position to scientific training, and ideological position to views underlying issue positions. Vertical, horizontal, and expertise codes were coded by researchers using definitions derived from these criteria. The worldview component draws from previously validated survey questions. These include scales developed to assess 3a) environmental values (Dunlap et al. 2000), 3b) science attitudes, 3c) the role of scientists in policy formation (Steel et al. 2004), 3d) political ideology (General Social Survey 2006), and 3e) perceptions of dominant barriers to achieving the VRBP’s objectives (Marshall et al. 2007).