Polyserial correlation Rho | Phi coefficient | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Description of the variables | Quantitative standardized | Value | pvalue | Dichotomous | Value | pvalue4 | Source |
1. Area of the municipality (km2) | Yes | 0.343 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.273 | <0.01 | A |
2. Human population in the municipality in 2006 (persons) | Yes | −0.430 | <0.01 | No 1 | 0.129 | 0.153 | B |
3. Male population in the municipality in 2006 (persons) | Yes | −0.427 | <0.01 | No 1 | 0.129 | 0.153 | B |
4. Female population in the municipality in 2006 (persons) | Yes | −0.432 | <0.01 | No 1 | 0.129 | 0.153 | B |
5. Area of water areas in the municipality (km2) | Yes | 0.023 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.173 | 0.074 | C |
6. Area of rivers in the municipality (km2) | Yes | 0.456 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.429 | <0.01 | C |
7. Area of water areas and rivers in the municipality (km2) | Yes | 0.263 | <0.01 | No 2 | 0.429 | <0.01 | C |
8. Area of roads in the municipality (km2) | Yes | 0.256 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.175 | 0.066 | C |
9. Proportion of water areas in the municipality (%) | Yes | 0.010 | <0.01 | No 1 | 0.111 | 0.248 | *(C) |
10. Proportion of rivers in the municipality (%) | No 1 | 0.398 | 0.283 | Yes | 0.242 | 0.01 | *(C) |
11. Proportion of water areas and rivers in the municipality (%) | Yes | 0.208 | <0.01 | No 1 | 0.058 | 0.543 | *(C) |
12. Proportion of roads in the municipality (%) | No 1 | −0.078 | 0.235 | No 1 | 0.097 | 0.301 | *(C) |
13. Number of hunting estates in the municipality | Yes | 0.615 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.443 | <0.01 | D |
14. Mean number of hunting seasons in which the hunting estates of the municipality have been inspected (max. 10 seasons) | Yes | 0.593 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.416 | <0.01 | D |
15. Number of hunting events taking place in the municipality per hunting season 2006-07 | Yes | 0.512 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.415 | <0.01 | D |
16. Number of sampled red deer in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 – proxy of red deer relative abundance | Yes | 0.408 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.333 | <0.01 | D |
17. Number of “TB-positive” red deer in the municipality in the hunting season 2006-07 | Yes | 0.588 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.435 | <0.01 | D |
18. Number of sampled wild boar in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 – proxy of wild boar relative abundance | Yes | 0.344 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.374 | <0.01 | D |
19. Number of “TB-positive” wild boar in the municipality in the hunting season 2006-07 | Yes | 0.554 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.406 | <0.01 | D |
20. Apparent TB prevalence in red deer in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 (number of “TB-positive” animals/number of sampled animals) | Yes | 0.559 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.404 | <0.01 | *(D) |
21. Apparent TB prevalence in wild boar in the municipality in the hunting season 2006–07 (number of “TB-positive” animals/number of sampled animals) | Yes | 0.568 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.406 | <0.01 | *(D) |
22. Number of bovine farms in the municipality in 2006 | Yes | 0.667 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.433 | <0.01 | D |
23. Mean of the years in which the bovine farms of the municipality have been submitted to the sanitary plan (max. 6 years) | Yes | 0.663 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.441 | <0.01 | D |
24. Number of sampled cattle in the cattle farms included in the sanitary plan in 2006 | Yes | 0.666 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.569 | <0.01 | D |
25. Number of bTB-positive cattle in the cattle farms included in the sanitary plan in 2006 | Yes | 0.501 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.583 | <0.01 | D |
26. Number of cattle farms with at least one bTB-positive animal in 2006 | Yes | 0.678 | <0.01 | No 2 | 0.583 | <0.01 | D |
27. Number of cattle farms with at least one bTB-positive animal relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) | Yes | 0.521 | <0.01 | No 2 | 0.583 | <0.01 | *(D) |
28. Apparent TB prevalence in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 (number of “TB-positive” animals/number of sampled animals) | Yes | 0.237 | <0.01 | No 2 | 0.583 | <0.01 | *(D) |
29. Number of cattle farms becoming positive from 2005 to 2006 | Yes | 0.597 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.504 | <0.01 | *(D) |
30. Proportion of cattle farms becoming positive from 2005 to 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in both years (%) | Yes | 0.523 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.391 | <0.01 | *(D) |
31. Number of cattle farms becoming negative from 2005 to 2006 | Yes | 0.414 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.504 | <0.01 | *(D) |
32. Proportion of cattle farms becoming negative from 2005 to 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in both years (%) | Yes | 0.244 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.391 | <0.01 | *(D) |
33. Increment in the number of cattle farms becoming positive from 2005 to 2006 (number of farms becoming positive – number of farms becoming negative) | Yes | −0.081 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.434 | <0.01 | *(D) |
34. Number of farms devoted to bullfighting cattle in 2006 | Yes | 0.158 | <0.01 | No 1 | 0.019 | 0.842 | D |
35. Proportion of farms devoted to bullfighting cattle in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) | Yes | −0.027 | <0.01 | No 1 | 0.019 | 0.842 | *(D) |
36. Number of cattle farms classified as extensive beef breeding farms in 2006 | Yes | 0.656 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.562 | <0.01 | D |
37. Proportion of cattle farms classified as extensive beef breeding farms in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) | Yes | 0.605 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.466 | <0.01 | *(D) |
38. Sum of animal entry movements in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 | Yes | 0.459 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.425 | <0.01 | D |
39. Number of animals moved in the animal entry movements in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 | Yes | 0.503 | <0.01 | No 2 | 0.425 | <0.01 | D |
40. Mean of animals moved in the animal entry movements in the cattle farms of the municipality in 2006 | Yes | 0.255 | <0.01 | No 2 | 0.425 | <0.01 | *(D) |
41. Number of cattle farms that also host goats in 2006 | Yes | 0.446 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.344 | <0.01 | D |
42. Number of cattle farms that also host sheep in 2006 | Yes | 0.620 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.412 | <0.01 | D |
43. Number of cattle farms that also host pigs in 2006 | No 3 | 0.508 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.319 | <0.01 | D |
44. Number of cattle farms that also host goats and pigs in 2006 | No 3 | 0.363 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.234 | 0.017 | D |
45. Number of cattle farms that also host sheep and pigs in 2006 | No 3 | 0.454 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.243 | 0.016 | D |
46. Proportion of cattle farms that also host goats in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) | Yes | 0.265 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.344 | 0.001 | *(D) |
47. Proportion of cattle farms that also host sheep in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) | Yes | 0.236 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.412 | <0.01 | *(D) |
48. Proportion of cattle farms that also host pigs in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) | Yes | 0.127 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.319 | <0.01 | *(D) |
49. Proportion of cattle farms that also host goats and pigs in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) | Yes | 0.371 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.234 | 0.017 | *(D) |
50. Proportion of cattle farms that also host sheep and pigs in 2006 relative to the total number of sampled farms in 2006 (%) | Yes | 0.052 | <0.01 | Yes | 0.243 | 0.016 | *(D) |