Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House

Spending Support—Environmental Protection
Increase resource protection through visible ranger patrols
.71
3.82
.94
within the Scenic Area
Replace an aging patrol boat
3.39
.87
Support completion of ongoing stream, waterfowl,
4.40
.72
wildlife, and lake restoration projects
(Continued on next page)
Downloaded by [University of Southern Queensland] at 10:50 09 October 2014 

---

January 25, 2003
12:16
LSC
TJ668-03
42
G. T. Kyle et al.
TABLE 2 Items Used to Measure Study Indices (Continued)
Reliability
Standard
Dimension and individual items
coefficient
Mean
deviation
Develop additional onsite protection (e.g., fencing, trail
4.00
1.06
definition, boardwalks) at South Tufa to provide a
greater level of protection to tufa formations
Implement a user-impact monitoring program for
3.62
.90
recreational and other area uses
Spending Support—Environmental Education
Reinstate funding for Scenic Area interpretive and
.71
3.93
.80
environmental education programs
Design and install interpretive exhibits along Lee Vining
3.67
.92
Creek Trail, Panum Crater, and other recreational sites
Develop interpretive media, highlighting restoration of
3.65
.90
creeks and waterfowl habitat that includes video,
exhibits, and environmental education curricula
Responses for the fee attitude and place attachment items were 1 (strongly disagree) through 5
(strongly agree).
Responses for the spending support items were 1 (strongly oppose) through 5 (strongly support).
1
=
Items were reverse coded.
5
=
strongly support. The indices measuring spending support for Facility and Services
and Environmental Protection each consisted of four items and produced reliability co-
efficients of .64 and .71, respectively. Finally, the index measuring spending support for
Environmental Education consisted of three items and produced a reliability coefficient
of .71.