Environment and Regional Cohesion in the Enlarged European Union – Differences in Public Opinion - Landscape Modelling: Geographical Space, Transformation and Future Scenarios - page 50

Table 4.4 Three rotated components of public opinion on orientations of regional and cohesion
policies 4

Component 1
Innovation

Component 2
We l fare

Component 3
Infrastructure Indicators

(1) Research and innovation (Q6C) mean = 0.847 − 0.252 − 0.180

38.4%

(2) Support for small businesses (Q6F)
mean

0.845 0.371 0.016

= 59.8%

(3) Environment and risk prevention (Q6E)
mean

0.730 0.199 0.451

= 77.3%

(4) Transport - rails, roads and airports (Q6A)
mean

− 0.176 0.042 0.925

= 53.6%

(5) Information, communication technologies
(Q6D) mean

0.268 0.264 0.601

= 30.7%

(6) Energy, sustainable infrastructure (Q6B)
mean

0.593 0.021 0.525

= 48.8%

(7) Decisions EU projects in MS and regions
(Q7) mean

0.069 0.745 0.044

= 67.0%

(8) Employment training (Q6G) mean = 0.519 0.698 0.154

61.1%

(9) Involvement of local BA and TU (Q8)
mean = 74.3%

− 0.091 0.690 0.089

(10) Education, health and social infrastructure
(Q6H); mean = 82.0%

0.156 0.670 0.542

importance of national and regional decision-making. The highest loading has a
positive opinion on the right to decide about strategies and projects of EU regional
policies in Member States and regions (loading 0.745). The second highest load-
ing has the priority of employment training (0.698). A similar loading has also the
positive opinion on the obligation of Member States and regions to involve local
business associations and trade unions in considering equal opportunities and the
institutional environment (0.690). The last significant loading on this component is
the priority of education, health and social infrastructure (0.670). It is important to
note that the four opinion variables also have high mean levels. Especially the mean
of the priority of education, health and social infrastructure is very high (82%).
This implies that this opinion orientation represents very significant perceptions of
current regional and cohesion policies.
The third component is labelled infrastructure because it tends to represent opin-
ion on priorities of various sorts of technical and social infrastructural policies. The
highest loading on the dimension has the priority of better transport facilities ranging
from railways and roads to airports (loading 0.925). The other loadings are lower:
the priorities of information and communication technologies (0.601), education,
health and social infrastructure (0.542), and energy infrastructure and sustainable
energy supply (0.525). It is clear that this component also represents in an implicit
way opinions on EU policy-making concerned with transportation, communication
and social affairs (Molle, 2007).