Table 6. Perceived condition of mussel beds.
Results of multinomial logistic regressions assessing the influence of respondent profile on the perceived condition of mussel beds (Q7) and the influence of the different environmental and anthropogenic factors on mussel beds (Q8). Significant differences (p < 0.05) indicated in bold.
| Question & Answers | Respondent profile | Coefficients (p-values) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q7 | |||
| Bad | Visitor/Resident | Resident | 1.338 (0.000) |
| Coastal/Non-coastal | Coastal | 0.379 (0.403) | |
| Good | Resident | 0.506 (0.070) | |
| Coastal | 0.303 (0.271) | ||
| Do not know | Reference | ||
| Statistical fit of the model | Intercept | Final | |
| −2 Log L | 61.284 | 33.535 | |
| Likelihood ratio test (p-value) | 27.749 (0.000) | ||
| Q8 Seaside tourism | |||
| Positive | Gender | Female | 1.235 (0.003) |
| Education | Basic | 1.479 (0.008) | |
| Secondary | 0.080 (0.897) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Age | <40 | 0.596 (0.292) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | 0.038 (0.939) | ||
| Negative | Gender | Female | 0.633 (0.016) |
| Education | Basic | −0.489 (0.145) | |
| Secondary | −0.468 (0.128) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Age | <40 | 0.599 (0.070) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | −0.740 (0.018) | ||
| Not sure | Gender | Female | 0.735 (0.078) |
| Education | Basic | 0.168 (0.755) | |
| Secondary | 0.083 (0.866) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Age | <40 | 0.200 (0.689) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | −0.891 (0.083) | ||
| No impact | Reference | ||
| Statistical fit of the model | Intercept | Final | |
| −2 Log L | 333.855 | 180.517 | |
| Likelihood ratio test (p-value) | 153.338 (0.000) | ||
| Q8 Environmental management | |||
| Positive | Gender | Female | 0.366 (0.267) |
| Negative | Female | 0.463 (0.254) | |
| Not sure | Female | 1.265 (0.005) | |
| No impact | Reference | ||
| Statistical fit of the model | Intercept | Final | |
| −2 Log L | 37.823 | 28.929 | |
| Likelihood ratio test (p-value) | 8.895 (0.031) | ||
| Q8 Mussel harvesting | |||
| Positive | Age | <40 | 0.629 (0.285) |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | 0.366 (0.464) | ||
| Negative | <40 | 0.948 (0.006) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | −0.479 (0.107) | ||
| Not sure | <40 | 1.545 (0.007) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | 0.942 (0.073) | ||
| No impact | Reference | ||
| Statistical fit of the model | Intercept | Final | |
| −2 Log L | 70.365 | 39.313 | |
| Likelihood ratio test (p-value) | 31.052 (0.000) | ||
| Q8 Recreational activities | |||
| Positive | Gender | Female | −0.242 (0.749) |
| Education | Basic | −0.548 (0.559) | |
| Secondary | −0.192 (0.826) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Negative | Gender | Female | 0.65 (0.009) |
| Education | Basic | −0.664 (0.028) | |
| Secondary | −0.573 (0.049) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Not sure | Gender | Female | 0.187 (0.545) |
| Education | Basic | −1.195 (0.005) | |
| Secondary | −0.501 (0.146) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| No impact | Reference | ||
| Statistical fit of the model | Intercept | Final | |
| −2 Log L | 89.406 | 66.307 | |
| Likelihood ratio test (p-value) | 23.099 (0.006) | ||
| Q8 Coastal erosion | |||
| Positive | Gender | Female | 1.044 (0.072) |
| Education | Basic | −0.819 (0.220) | |
| Secondary | −1.850 (0.032) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Age | <40 | 0.474 (0.537) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | 0.703 (0.306) | ||
| Visitor/Resident | Resident | −0.365 (0.512) | |
| Negative | Gender | Female | 0.711 (0.019) |
| Education | Basic | −0.745 (0.049) | |
| Secondary | −0.670 (0.066) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Age | <40 | 1.072 (0.006) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | 0.116 (0.740) | ||
| Visitor/Resident | Resident | −0.763 (0.008) | |
| Q8 Coastal erosion | |||
| Not sure | Gender | Female | 0.532 (0.117) |
| Education | Basic | 0.170 (0.694) | |
| Secondary | 0.242 (0.556) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Age | <40 | 0.712 (0.092) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | −0.730 (0.069) | ||
| Visitor/Resident | Resident | −0.471 (0.147) | |
| No impact | Reference | ||
| Statistical fit of the model | Intercept | Final | |
| −2 Log L | 327.861 | 271.167 | |
| Likelihood ratio test (p-value) | 56.694 (0.000) | ||
| Q8 Local fishing | |||
| Positive | Gender | Female | 0.177 (0.677) |
| Education | Basic | −0.886 (0.102) | |
| Secondary | 0.076 (0.881) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Age | <40 | −0.277 (0.647) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | 0.443 (0.364) | ||
| Negative | Gender | Female | 0.205 (0.428) |
| Education | Basic | −1.153 (0.000) | |
| Secondary | −0.097 (0.751) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Age | <40 | 0.884 (0.003) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | −0.505 (0.132) | ||
| Not sure | Gender | Female | 0.519 (0.096) |
| Education | Basic | −1.308 (0.003) | |
| Secondary | 0.132 (0.710) | ||
| University | Reference | ||
| Age | <40 | 1.045 (0.006) | |
| 40–55 | Reference | ||
| >55 | 0.230 (0.576) | ||
| No impact | Reference | ||
| Statistical fit of the model | Intercept | Final | |
| −2 Log L | 246.591 | 172.139 | |
| Likelihood ratio test (p-value) | 74.452 (0.000) | ||