Resident Perceptions of Distribution, Recognition and Representation Justice Domains of Environmental Policy-Making: The Case of European Ecological Network Natura 2000 in Poland

Figures & data

Table 1. Confirmatory factor analysis, Lipnica.

Factor and corresponding item	x̅	Error	R	C.R
DISTRIBUTION
Benefits from N2000
1. On average, residents benefit from N2000	2.71	1.11	0.75	14.44
3. Benefits from N2000 are distributed according to residents’ needs.	2.52	1.16	0.66	14.81
4. N2000 program will on average leave residents’ better off.	2.72	1.22	0.82	15.86
5 Residents get adequate support for managing N2000	2.47	1.09	0.75	–
Limitations from N2000
8. Residents’ economic activities are restricted because of N2000	3.47	1.30	0.79	15.77
9. Infrastructure development is impeded because of N2000	3.24	1.30	0.88	16.47
10. Opportunities for economic development of this region are limited because of N2000	3.31	1.21	0.78	–
Communication
11. Residents are well informed about N2000]	2.70	1.25	0.69	–
13. Issues related to N2000 are managed in a proper manner	2.72	1.06	0.87	9.14
RECOGNITION
1. The way N2000 is managed corresponds with my perspective	2.35	1.06	0.74	15.23
2. My concerns about N2000 have been recognized in N2000 decision making in this municipality	2.25	1.06	0.73	15.02
3. My views, as a resident, are considered in managing N2000 sites.	2.32	1.13	0.83	15.45
4. My economic needs are recognized through N2000 regulations	2.25	1.05	0.80	16.56
6. As a resident of this municipality, I am equal partner in the implementation of N2000	2.41	1.11	0.70	14.28
8. Residents have been recognized as an equal partner in managing N2000	2.48	1.02	0.74	15.15
9. Residents’ interests are taken into consideration in managing N2000	2.43	1.11	0.70	14.37
10. My voice counts in decision making for N2000	2.07	1.03	0.76	–
REPRESENTATION
1. I can influence decision concerning N2000	2.12	1.11	0.70	14.94
2. I can participate in managing N2000.	2.01	1.07	0.77	15.33
3. I have many opportunities to share my concerns about N2000.	1.98	1.09	0.83	18.69
4. I have equal right to participate in decision making for N2000.	2.07	1.09	0.79	17.65
5. I have multiple opportunities to engage in development of management plans for N2000 sites	1.99	1.00	0.84	18.95
6. I can influence the way N2000 is managed	1.95	1.01	0.80	17.85
7. I have been able to participate in developing regulations for managing N2000	1.92	1.01	0.80	–

Measure of model fit: χ² (df = 239)=503.496, χ²/df = 2.107 p < 0.001, CFI = 0.953, GFI = 0.906, RMSEA = 0.053

Table 2. Construct reliability and validity, Lipnica.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)
Benefits	0.856	0.598	0.402	0.859
Limitations	0.857	0.667	0.030	0.859
Communication	0.762	0.667	0.267	0.803
Recognition	0.913	0.567	0.508	0.916
Representation	0.921	0.625	0.508	0.924

AVE: average variance extracted; CR: construct reliability; MSV: maximum shared variance.

Table 3. Discriminant validity, Lipnica.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Communication	0.667^a	0.187^b	0.016	0.267	0.147
2. Benefits	0.433^c	0.598	0.029	0.401	0.230
3. Limitations	0.127	−0.172	0.667	0.000	0.506
4. Recognition	0.517	0.634	−0.021	0.567	0.508
5. Representation	0.384	0.480	0.713	0.713	0.625

^a The bold diagonal elements are the measures of average variance explained (AVE) for each factor.

^b Above diagonal elements are the squared correlations between factors.

^c Below diagonal elements are the correlations between factors.

Table 4. Confirmatory factor analysis, Karsin.

Factor and corresponding item	x̅	Error	R	C.R
DISTRIBUTION
Benefits from N2000
1. On average, residents benefit from N2000	3.02	1.33	0.77	14.20
2. Benefits from N2000 are equally distributed among residents of this region	2.63	1.20	0.75	13.88
3. Benefits from N2000 are distributed according to residents’ needs.	2.70	1.15	0.82	15.10
4. N2000 program will on average leave residents’ better off.	3.11	1.20	0.76	14.09
5. Residents get adequate support for managing N2000	2.70	1.19	0.70	–
Limitations from N2000
8. Residents’ economic activities are restricted because of N2000	3.21	1.22	0.72	13.07
9. Infrastructure development is impeded because of N2000	3.27	1.31	0.90	13.13
10. Opportunities for economic development of this region are limited because of N2000	3.07	1.20	0.70	–
RECOGNITION
3. My views, as a resident, are considered in managing N2000 sites.	2.46	1.16	0.76	17.91
4. My economic needs are recognized through N2000 regulations.	2.40	1.11	0.71	16.29
7. Potential differences of interests have been promptly acknowledged in managing N2000 sites.	2.62	1.08	0.70	15.90
8. Residents have been recognized as an equal partner in managing N2000.	2.46	1.18	0.82	19.99
9. Residents’ interests are taken into consideration in managing N2000.	2.53	1.16	0.85	21.13
10. My voice counts in decision making for N2000	2.27	1.20	0.84	–
REPRESENTATION
1. I can influence decision concerning N2000	2.10	1.14	0.79	17.26
2. I can participate in managing N2000.	2.09	1.17	0.75	16.26
3. I have many opportunities to share my concerns about N2000.	2.12	1.20	0.82	17.97
4. I have equal right to participate in decision making for N2000.	2.23	1.21	0.89	20.05
5. I have multiple opportunities to engage in development of management plans for N2000 sites.	2.08	1.15	0.77	21.04
6. I can influence the way N2000 is managed	2.08	1.15	0.81	23.63
7. I have been able to participate in developing regulations for managing N2000	2.10	1.16	0.78	14.97

Measure of model fit: χ2 (df = 177)=323.722, χ2/df = 1.829 p < 0.001, GFI = 932, CFI = 0.974, RMSEA = 0.045.

Table 5. Construct reliability and validity, Karsin.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)
Benefits	0.873	0.579	0.518	0.877
Limitations	0.821	0.608	0.032	0.864
Recognition	0.904	0.612	0.681	0.912
Representation	0.927	0.645	0.681	0.932

AVE: average variance extracted; CR: construct reliability: MSV: maximum shared variance.

Discriminant validity concerns:

The square root of the AVE for REP is less than the absolute value of the correlations with another factor;

The square root of the AVE for REC is less than the absolute value of the correlations with another factor;

the AVE for REP is less than the MSV;

the AVE for REC is less than the MSV.

Table 6. Discriminant validity, Karsin.

	1	2	3	4
1. Limitations	0.608^a	0.031^b	0.004	0.001
2. Benefits	−0.178^c	0.579	0.518	0.316
3. Recognition-	−0.065	0.720	0.612	0.681
4. Representation	−0.029	0.563	0.825	0.645

^a The bold diagonal elements are the measures of average variance explained (AVE) for each factor.

^b Above diagonal elements are the squared correlations between factors.

^c Below diagonal elements are the correlations between factors.

Table 7. Confirmatory factor analysis, Chojnice.

Factor and corresponding item	Mean	Error	R	C.R
DISTRIBUTION
Benefits from N2000
2. Benefits from N2000 are equally distributed among residents of this region	2.86	1.13	0.75	13.53
3. Benefits from N2000 are distributed according to residents’ needs.	2.90	1.04	0.85	–
Compensation
5. Residents get adequate support for managing N2000	2.83	1.06	0.69	13.67
6. Residents who experience burdens due to N2000 are fairly compensated.	2.85	1.09	0.74	14.39
7. Financial compensations for N2000 are fairly distributed among residents.	2.75	1.01	0.73	–
Communication
12. It is easy to access information about N2000.	3.04	1.24	0.64	11,61
13. Issues related to N2000 are managed in a proper manner.	2.96	0.97	0.87	–
RECOGNITION
2. My concerns about N2000 have been recognized in N2000 decision making in this municipality.	2.63	1.07	0.68	–
3. My views, as a resident, are considered in managing N2000 sites.	2.58	1.06	0.68	17.55
5. Residents’ knowledge about this local nature has been used to designate N2000 sites.	2.83	1.06	0.72	14.86
6. As a resident, I am equal partner in the implementation of N2000.	2.35	1.17	0.72	14.78
7. Potential differences of interests have been promptly acknowledged in managing N2000 sites.	2.74	1.00	0.72	14.91
8. Residents have been recognized as an equal partner in managing N2000.	2.69	1.11	0.76	15.18
9. Residents’ interests are taken into consideration in managing N2000.	2.79	1.07	0.74	14.98
10. My voice counts in decision makinf for N2000.	2.42	1.15	0.74	15.29
REPRESENTATION
2. I can participate in managing N2000.	2.14	1.10	0.72	15.25
3. I have many opportunities to share my concerns about N2000.	2.05	1.07	0.76	15.98
4. I have equal right to participate in decision making for N2000.	2.31	1.10	0.79	16.51
5. Residents are given multiple opportunities to engage in development of management plans for N2000 sites.	2.10	1.06	0.85	17.70
6. I can influence the way N2000 is managed.	2.16	1.06	0.84	17.61
7. I have been able to participate in developing regulations for managing N2000	2.17	1.07	0.81	17.00
10. Procedures for N2000 enable me to engage in decision making	2.56	1.04	0.68	–

Measure of model fit: χ2 (df = 191)=422.235, χ2/df = 2.,211,  p < 0.001, GFI= 0,935; CFI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.048.

Table 8. Construct reliability and validity, Chojnice.

	CR	AVE	MSV	MaxR(H)
Compensation	0.764	0.519	0.423	0.423
Benefits	0.785	0.647	0.383	0.800
Communication	0.736	0.588	0.423	0.797
Recognition	0.897	0.521	0.483	0.898
Representation	0.916	0.611	0.483	0.923

AVE: Average variance extracted; CR: Construct reliability: MSV: Maximum shared variance.

Table 9. Discriminant validity, Chojnice.

	1	2	3	4	5
1. Compensation	0.519^a	0.383^b	0.422	0.173	0.173
2. Benefits	0.619^c	0.647	0.306	0.256	0.128
3. Communication	0.650	0.553	0.588	0.310	0.111
4. Recognition	0.594	0.506	0.557	0.521	0.483
5. Representation	0.417	0.358	0.334	0.695	0.611

^a The bold diagonal elements are the measures of average variance explained (AVE) for each factor.

^b Above diagonal elements are the squared correlations between factors.

^c Below diagonal elements are the correlations between factors.