Laserfiche WebLink
<br />---,--- <br /> <br />Table 5.6. Variable list for the population evaluation equation (Equations Va and Vb.) <br /> <br />Dependent Variable DefInition <br />POPEVE Evaluation of Flood Control ProDosal <br /> Scheduled Possib Ie Score <br />Independent Variables De fmition Item # Rangea <br />XI Number of Types of Groups with Whom They (5-A) o to 4 <br /> Discussed Flooding Prob lems (KTYPE) <br />X2 Proximity of Flooding Experience to Present (8) o to 3 <br /> Residence (KLOSF) <br />X3 Proportion of Single Unit Structures in a Block (135) o to I <br /> (KSINUN) <br />X4 Willingness to Follow Government Agencies (App. B) o to 16 <br /> (AGENL4) Recommendations or Advice <br />Xs Knowledge of Local Flood Control Proposals (5) o to 4 <br /> (KNOWL) <br />X6 Perception of Need for Improved Flood Con- (59) o to 32 <br /> trol in the Local Area (CONCL-8) <br />X7. Attitude Toward the Effect of Man-Made Objects (App. B) o to 16 <br /> Upon the Beauty of Nature (MANL-4) <br />Xg Outdoor Recreation Orientation (RECL-6) (App. B) o to 24 <br />X9 Ecological Orientation (ECO LL-8) (App. B) o to 32 <br />X10 Willingness to Pay for Government Expenditures (App. B) o to 24 <br /> (P A YL-6) <br />Xli Willingness to Follow Experts Recommendations (App. B) o to 24 <br /> or Advice (EXPTL-6) <br />Xl2 Perceived Effectiveness of a Proposal (IREFF) (95.c, -2 to +2 <br /> 97-C, 98-C) <br />X13 Perceived Aesthetic Effect of a Proposal (95-E, -2 to +2 <br /> (IRAES) 97-E,98-E) <br />XI4 Perceived Recreational Effect of a Proposal (95-D, -2 to +2 <br /> (IRREC) 97-D,98-D) <br />XIS Perceived Ecological Effect of a Proposal (95-F, -2 to +2 <br /> (IRECO) 97-F,98-F) <br />XI6 Perceived Cost of a Proposal (IRCOS) (95-B, -2 to +2 <br /> 97-B,98-B) <br />X17 Evaluation by Government Decision Agency of -2 to +2 <br /> a Proposal (!DAGEN) <br />apor a definition of the meaning of the scores, refer to Appendix A. <br /> <br />ards. Early regression attempls not using Ihis model <br />but with the same data, had extremely poor success.20 <br /> <br />An effect of measurement error21 is to weaken real <br />relationships; consequently, the appearance of expect- <br />ed relationships despile measurement problems indi- <br />cates the plausibility of the underlying construct. The <br />direction of the relationships in Equation 5.24 with <br />the dependent variables are as hypothesized. <br /> <br />2O<yhe use of perceived judgments by each respondent <br />of proposal characteristics (Appendix B) was required to achieve <br />the r2 of Equation 5.24. The lack of relation ships for predicting <br />perceived characteristics of proposed flood control projects <br />from measured physical and social factors is probably the <br />most serious deficiency of the model for practical application. <br />It should be possible to construct such equations in a similar <br />way to that used repeatedly in the model. <br /> <br />21 <br />A recently developed method of measurement ap- <br />pears to be similar and more effective for this type of applica- <br />tion (Hamblin, 1971; 1974; Stevens, 1966). <br /> <br />72 <br />