FLOOD09697 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

it increased the supply of recreation. Consequently, in order to have the interaction lerms affect the de- pendent variable consislently, this adjustmenl was made.29 The perceived cost of a proposal in addition had its values reversed so that a higher number indi. cated lower cost. Since all the perceived judgments were five point scales running from one to six, a scale value could be reversed by subtracting from six. Doing this and subtracting three is equivalenl to sub- tracting the score of the perceived judgment from three. The first interaction term, the effectiveness ac- ceptance function (X6XI2) is indicated (e.g., 5.25) to be the most infiuential on public evaluation of flood control proposals. The two variables are probably better measured than most others, both because of the relatively high reliability and internal consistency of the CONCL scale, "Perception of Need for Improved Flood Control in a Local Area," and because the con- cept of flood control has a comparatively stable and consistent.defmition. CONCL is interacted with "Per- ceived Effectiveness of a Proposal." Therefore, the ef- fect of this factor is probably less undervalued than some others. The other problems dealing with mea. surement which have been mentioned do not appear to apply as strongly in this case as in most cases. The second interaction term is the aesthetic ac- ceptance function X7X13' The scale measured "At. titude Toward the Effect of Man .Made Objects Upon Beauty of Nature," MANL. The basic idea needing to be measured, however, was the importance of aesthetics in a flood control proposal. The MANL variable does not measure this specific important as- pect, although it does measure an aestlletically related attitude, and the Iwo seem to be correlaled. The third interaction term X8X 14 is the recrea- tion acceptance function RECL, "Outdoor Recreation Orientation.1I This does not have the measurement difficul1ies of the aesthetic term, but the coefficient (e.g., 5.25) is only about half that of the aesthetics ac. ceptance function. An interpretation of this result could be that a large part of Ihe recreational enjoy- ment associated with flood control relates to the beauty of the surroundings in which recreation occurs; and, since the aesthetics acceptance function is more directly related to this aspecl of recreation, that term absorbed much of the variance that would otherwise be included in the recreation term. Some support for this inlerpretation is found in a regression run where each of the terms in Equa- tion 5.24 is added until the total equation is specified. 29The revised decision agency evaluation which is used as an input to the Type IV interaction term has the neutral point already adjusted to zero in the model. Before any other variables were added, in other words, in relation to the total variance of the dependent vari. able, the mean square30 indicated for the recreation acceptance funclion term was nearl{ equal to that for the aesthetics acceplance function. 1 But with the aesthetics acceptance function in the model, the mean square of the recreation acceptance function dropped considerably.32 The correlation between the recrea~ lion and aesthetics terms was established by multi. collinearity analysis (Equation 5.24) as being 0.2988. The correlation bel ween recreation and ecology terms was measured as 0.3453, the highest of any bivariate relationships among the terms in the model. Although the significance of the recreation acceptance function was second lowest of all the terms in the equation, it is recommended that this term be included in future analyses. Two of the three flood control methods, chan. nelization and retention basins, used in the calibration have a mjaor effect on recreation, the first negative and the other positive; and in both cases aesthetic as~ pects are a principal pari of the recreation effected. Channels detract from scenic surroundings in back yards and reservoirs provide parks. The beauty of the locality may affect the choice of a location for water- oriented recreation. Perhaps with data on recreation activities without a strong aesthetic aspect, the co~ efficient of the recreation acceptance function will be increased. Ecology is the focus of the fourth acceptance function included in Equation 5.24, Term 9. This term worked fairly well. The ECOL or "Ecological Orientation Scale" does not appear to have serious problems although it is likely not unidimensional. As with recreation, the coefficient of the ecological ac~ ceptance function term might be substantially larger if the aesthelics term were absent. For many laymen, the mosl meaningful aspect of ecology might be the visual part primarily since this is what is most appar- 30The mean square is the sum of squares divided by the degrees offreedom. For an individual independent term in re- regression analysis, the degree of freedom is one; and the sum of squares is the total of the squared deviations of the mea~ sured from the predicted values of the dependent variable. Initially, the mean of the dependent variable is used as the best prediction; and all the variance in the dependent variable is unaccounted for. Consequently, the greater the mean square at that time, the greater the ability of that independent vari- able to alone explain the vaIiation in the dependent variable. 3lThe mean square with no independent variables in the model was 58.46 for the term for aesthetics and 53.71 for the recreation term. 32Upon addition of the aesthetics term to the model the mean square of the recreation acceptance function, which was not in the model at that time, reduced from 29.064 to 8.146. The reason it can drop is that the part of the vari- ance of the dependent variable not explained by the model to that point is used in the calibration. 76