U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

Survey Responses From Region 9:

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

Survey Responses From Region 9:

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

MICHELLE ICHELLE HAEFELE, DEBORAH J. SHIELDS, AND DONNA L. LYBECKER YBECKER 
Haefele, Michelle; Shields, Deborah J.; Lybecker, Donna L. 2005. Survey responses from Region 9: Are we achieving the public’s objectives for forests and rangelands? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-159. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 28 p.

Abstract

The survey on values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes, implemented as a module of the National Survey on Recreation and the Environment, asked over 7,000 respondents nationwide about their values with respect to public lands, 

objectives for the management of these lands, beliefs about the role the USDA Forest Service should play in fulfilling 

those objectives, and attitudes about the job the agency has been doing. This report—one of a series of similar regional 

reports—shows respondents from the East (USDA Forest Service Region 9: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, 

Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin) are somewhat more strongly in favor of preserving the 

natural resources of forests and grasslands through such policies as no timber harvesting or no mining than respondents 

from the rest of the United States, and slightly less inclined toward making the permitting process easier. Nationwide, as 

in the East, the most important objective was conserving and protecting forests and grassland watersheds.

Other reports in the series Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for Forests and 

Rangelands?

• Survey Responses From Region 3 (Arizona and New Mexico) RMRS-GTR-156

• Survey Responses From Region 5 (California and Hawaii) RMRS-GTR-157

• Survey Responses From Region 8 (Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia) 

RMRS-GTR-158

• Survey Responses From the Intermountain West (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New 

Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) RMRS-GTR-160

• Comparison of 2000/2003 Data – Forthcoming

You may order additional copies of this publication by sending your mailing 

information in label form through one of the following media. Please specify the 

publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

Web site http://www.fs.fed.us/rm

Mailing address Publications Distribution

 Rocky Mountain Research Station

 240 West Prospect Road

 Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526
Survey Responses From Region 9: 

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands? 

Michelle Haefele, Deborah J. Shields, and Donna L. Lybecker

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Objectives Hierarchy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

VOBA Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Results for Region 9: Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Objectives Identified as Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Other Important Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Objectives Identified as Not Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Objectives Identified as Moderately Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Results for Region 9: Public Lands Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Socially Responsible Individual Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Socially Responsible Management Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Comparison of Region 9 With the Rest of United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Public Lands Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 1

Introduction_____________

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is twofold: 

caring for the land and serving people. Because personal 

satisfaction is an individual concept with multiple facets, 

providing high quality customer service and achieving 

high levels of customer satisfaction can be as complex 

and challenging tasks as is managing for healthy ecosystems.

A person’s attitudes about the Forest Service are 

often influenced by the nature and outcomes of his or 

her interactions with Forest Service employees. Were 

they polite, knowledgeable, helpful, professional? Was 

the process straightforward, efficient, prompt, and fair? 

Was the desired outcome achieved, such as acquiring a 

fuelwood permit or getting information on day hikes? 

Although traditional customer satisfaction surveys do 

a good job of collecting this type of information, they 

tend to focus on delivery of services to specific classes 

of “users” (permittees, applicants for timber sales or 

grazing allotments, etc.), and are not designed to capture 

the preferences and attitudes of the broader public.

In addition to personal interactions with the Forest 

Service, people’s perceptions of the agency are also 

influenced by their attitudes about how and toward 

what end we manage the land. The agency and various 

segments of the public have both general, and in some 

cases quite detailed, objectives related to the health of 

forests and rangelands, how we should manage those 

lands, and the activities that should be allowed to take 

place on them. If stakeholders observe that an objective 

they deem important is not being fulfilled, their satisfaction with the Forest Service may be lower, regardless 

of the quality of their interactions with individual Forest Service employees or their experience with agency 

protocols. Gaining an understanding of the public’s 

objectives and their consistency with agency objectives, 

or lack thereof, can provide useful input to the strategic 

planning process.

The agency’s goals and objectives are embodied in 

the 2000 Strategic Plan. Information on the public’s 

goals and objectives has been collected through an ongoing survey entitled “The American Public’s Values, 

Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes Regarding Forests 

and Rangelands” (hereafter VOBA). The VOBA survey 

asked respondents about their environmental values as 

they relate to public lands, their objectives for the management of forests and rangelands in general, as well as 

those managed by the Forest Service, their beliefs about 

whether it is the role of the Forest Service to fulfill those 

objectives, and their attitudes about the performance of 

the agency in fulfilling these objectives.1 This report 

describes the public’s values, objectives, beliefs, and 

attitudes for and toward the USDA Forest Service, with 

particular focus on Region 9, the Eastern Region.2

Methodology____________

Objectives Hierarchy

The VOBA survey’s objectives, and related belief 

and attitude statements, do not ask respondents about 

their opinions of the goals in the Forest Service Strategic Plan. Nor do they ask for an individual’s reaction 

to the Chief’s Agenda or Leadership Team priorities. 

Rather, the VOBA survey’s objectives statements were 

developed during a series of 80 focus group meetings 

conducted with members of various stakeholder groups 

as well as individuals throughout the country. As such, 

they represent the main objectives for land management 

as they were presented to us by the public.

An objectives hierarchy constructed for each group 

indicated goals each group or individual had for the management of forests and rangelands, and how they would 

like to see each goal or objective achieved. These objectives ranged from the very abstract strategic level to the 

more focused or applied means level (see figure 1).

Within the Objectives Hierarchy, the strategic level 

objective is an abstract objective. Fundamental level 

objectives represent a context specific application of 

strategic objectives. End- state fundamental objectives 

represent the desired state of the world. Fundamental 

means objectives capture the methods by which the 

desired end-state should be achieved.

VOBA Statements

The objectives elicited from all the focus groups were 

pooled, duplications eliminated, and overlaps reorganized. The 30 remaining items formed the fundamental 

1

 For more detailed information on the survey, see Shields, D., M. Martin, 

W. Martin, and M. Haefele. 2002. Survey Results of the American Public’s 

Values, Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes Regarding Forests and Grasslands. 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-95. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

2

 The Easter Region consists of: CT, DE, IL, IN, IA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, 

MO, NH, NJ, NY, OH, PA, RI, VT, WV, and WI. 
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

objectives that indicate both end-state preferences and 

the means by which they should be achieved. Each correlates to one of the strategic objectives. Five strategic 

level objectives were consistently revealed by the focus 

group participants: Access, Preservation/Conservation, 

Economic Development, Education, and Natural Resource Management.

The belief and attitude statements tier down directly 

from these objectives. For example, an objective might 

be “more hiking days.” The corresponding belief question asks whether the respondent believes that providing 

more hiking days is an appropriate role for the USDA 

Forest Service. The attitude question would then elicit 

input on the respondent’s perception of how well the 

agency is doing at providing hiking days.

The Public Lands Values were developed using approximately 200 items that, through a series of iterations 

using both student and adult samples around the United 

States, were reduced to 25 items. These items were 

designed to focus on values that people hold for the environment in general and public lands in particular. They 

have been tested on four National Forests in Colorado 

(Arapaho, Roosevelt, Pike, and San Isabel) using various 

traditional and non-traditional stakeholder groups. Past 

research and testing have shown that responses to the 

Public Lands Values can be arranged into two categories: 

Socially Responsible Individual Values (SRIV) and Socially Responsible Management Values (SRMV).

The survey utilizes the objectives, beliefs, attitudes, 

and values statements by asking respondents to indicate 

their level of agreement or approval for each. Level of 

agreement or approval is indicated on a scale from one to 

five. The objectives scale items are anchored by 1=not at 

all important and 5=very important. The Value and Belief 

scale items are anchored by 1=strongly disagree and 

5=strongly agree. The Attitude scale items are anchored 

by 1=very unfavorable and 5=very favorable.

The value scale in the VOBA survey differs from other 

value survey instruments in that it focuses on values associated with public lands. It is applicable at multiple 

spatial scales, and in addition to being used in the national VOBA survey, has been applied at the National 

Forest scale. Conversely, objectives may be applicable 

only at the regional or national scale, be location specific, 

or be meaningful at multiple scales. The VOBA survey 

objectives are applicable to the management of forests 

and rangelands at a broad geographic scale. Many of 

the objectives are also meaningful at the regional level. 

However, the public may have additional objectives 

specific to their home region that are not captured in the 

existing national survey instrument.

Data Collection

The survey was implemented as a module of the 

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 

(NSRE) with a sample size of 7,069 nationwide and 

3,203 in Forest Service Region 9. (The number of responses in any Forest Service Region is a function of the 

overall VOBA sampling design.) For each State the size 

of the sample was a proportional to its population. The 

data were collected between late 1999 and early 2000. 

The NSRE is a random telephone survey administered 

for the Forest Service by the University of Tennessee.3

In addition to the VOBA questions, respondents were 

asked about their recreational behaviors and about basic 

demographic information. Due to a limited amount of 

time available for each phone interview, each individual 

was asked to respond to only a portion of the full set of 

VOBA questions. Each respondent was asked about one 

fundamental objective from each of the five strategic 

level objective categories. Due to this split sampling design, each of items in the objectives, beliefs and attitude 

scales has fewer than the full 3,203 respondents.

The overall goal of this split sampling design was 

to control interview time with respondents, yet collect 

analytically valuable information. This not only lowers 

costs, but also reduces respondent burden, which should 

lead to fewer non-responses and therefore to a better 

Strategic Objectives

Overarching Goals Derived From Held Values

Fundamental End-State Objectives

Situation-Specific Goals Related to the Desired 

State of the World

Fundamental Means Objectives

Situation-Specific Goals Related to the Means of 

Achieving the Desired End-State

Figure 1—Objectives Hierarchy.

3

 One drawback of a telephone survey such as the NSRE is that it will not 

adequately represent the views of segments of the population who do not 

have access to or who choose not to have telephones. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 3

sample quality.4 To ensure high confidence levels, the 

full national survey was designed so that there was a 

minimum of 700 responses for each question. This design generates response numbers for each question that 

are adequate to support multivariate statistical analysis, 

and provides a high level of confidence in the results. In 

Region 9 the response numbers for each question ranged 

from 302 to 1,054. As a result of this smaller sample size 

for Region 9, there is a somewhat greater chance the results do not fully reflect the precise demographics of the 

Region; however, the sample size is still large enough to 

give a relatively high level of confidence in the results.

Finally, it is important to note that the wording of the 

statements within the VOBA was designed with public 

lands in mind. Because of this, there are statements that 

may raise questions concerning the appropriateness 

of the language for private lands. In other words, the 

language used many not be applicable to some types 

of private land use concerns, making it less appropriate 

to draw overarching conclusions about general land 

management. For example, the objective, “Developing 

and maintaining continuous trail systems that cross 

both public and private land for motorized vehicles 

such as snowmobiles or ATVs,” is written with public 

land managers in mind. A similar objective, written 

from the perspective of private landowners, might say 

something like, “Coordinating with public and private 

actors in order to support and maintain continuous trail 

systems that cross both public and private land for motorized vehicles.” Although the wording for many of the 

objectives do not present this concern, it is necessary to 

remain aware that respondents may be thinking solely 

of public lands instead of both public and private lands 

when responding to some of the objectives.

Results for Region 9: 

Objectives, Beliefs, and 

Attitudes________________

The results from the Region 9 respondents to the 

VOBA national survey are broken down into the set of 

objectives the public feels are the most important, not 

important, and moderately important. We examine the 

public’s level of consensus for rating each objective 

within these groups, the extent to which the public feels 

that it is the job of the Forest Service to fulfill the objective, and examine the perception of agency performance 

in fulfilling it. A subsequent section presents the Region 

9 responses to the Public Lands Values Scale. Region 9 

respondents are also compared with those from the rest 

of the United States.

Objectives Identified as Important

For this report, a mean response of 4.00 or greater 

(out of a possible 5) indicates an objective is important 

to the respondents in Region 9. Thus, 14 of the original 

30 objectives have been identified as being important to 

the people of Region 9.

Core Important Objectives

Of the 14 important objectives, 5 have been further 

singled out as “core” objectives for the public in Region 

9 (table 1). These core important objectives exhibit very 

high means (4.00 or greater), and in addition have low 

standard deviations (s.d.) (less than 1.00), indicating that 

the public is generally in agreement that these objectives 

are important.5 For each of these five objectives we have 

included a histogram that compares the distribution 

of responses for the importance of the objective, the 

agency role, and customer satisfaction. In each case 

there is agreement that the objective is important. There 

is less agreement that the USDA Forest Service is the 

appropriate party to fulfill the objective, although the 

means do indicate that the majority believe this to be so. 

There is less agreement still about the evaluation of the 

agency’s performance in fulfilling the objective. Two of 

the objectives in this group rate agency performance as 

favorable; two rate it as less than favorable.

Watershed protection—The VOBA objective deemed 

the most important by respondents in Region 9 is the 

conservation and protection of lands that are the source 

of our water resources. This objective has a mean of 4.76 

and further a standard deviation of 0.67, indicating wide 

agreement about the importance of this objective. Protect5

 General agreement about the importance of these objectives is revealed 

with the standard deviation. The standard deviation is defined as the average amount by which scores in a distribution differ from the mean; it offers 

an indication of the spread of the data. For example, when looking at the 

importance of a given objective, the standard deviation reveals how tightly 

all the responses are clustered around the mean score for the stated objective. 

This helps to reveal if there are extreme responses or if most respondents 

agreed on their rating.

4

 For more information on split sampling designs, see for example, Raghunathan, T.E. and Grizzle, J.E. 1995. “A Split Questionnaire Survey Design,” 

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90: 54-63.
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

ing watersheds is viewed as an appropriate role for the 

USDA Forest Service (mean=4.65), but with slightly less 

consensus (s.d.=.77). Agency performance in fulfilling 

this objective is rated as somewhat favorable, but with still 

less agreement (mean=3.86, s.d.=1.04). This decreasing 

consensus from the importance of the objective to the 

evaluation of agency performance can be seen in figure 

2, which shows the distribution responses or scores.

Programs—Region 9 respondents see the development 

of volunteer programs to improve forests and grasslands 

as the second core objective (mean=4.53). A low standard 

deviation (0.85) is an indication of a high level of agreement about the importance of this objective. Respondents 

in Region 9 also see the development of such volunteer 

programs as an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service, also with a high degree of consensus (mean=4.57, 

s.d.=0.84). Agency performance is seen as somewhat favorable, but with less agreement (mean=3.71, s.d.=1.19). 

See figure 3 for the results of this objective.

Protecting ecosystems—The respondents in Region 

9 feel that protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitat 

is also a core objective (figure 4). This objective has a 

mean importance of 4.60, with a standard deviation of 

0.87, indicating wide agreement about the importance 

of such protection. The provision of protection for ecosystems is seen as an appropriate role for the agency 

and again, this is also widely agreed upon (mean=4.65, 

s.d.=0.77). Agency performance is viewed by Region 9 

residents as somewhat favorable, but with less agreement 

(mean=3.91, s.d.=1.08).

Informing the public—Two objectives on providing 

public information are core to the residents of Region 

9. The first is informing the public about recreation concerns (figure 5). This objective has a mean of 4.52 and 

a standard deviation of 0.92, indicating wide agreement 

about the importance of such information. Respondents 

in Region 9 also feel that it is appropriate for the USDA 

Forest Service to provide this information (mean=4.58, 

����� ������� ��������� ���������� ��� ������ ��

���������

�� ���� �� ���������

��������� ��� ����

������ �� ��� ����������

������ ����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ����

��������� �� ��

����������� ���� ���

��� ���� ������

��������

����������� ���������

���������� ������

��� ��������� �� ���

���� ��� ����������� ��

��� ���� ������

������� �� ���������� ����

����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

���������� ��� ���������� �������

��� ���������� ���� ��� ��� ������ ��

��� ����� ���������� ���� �� ��������

������ ��� ��������� ������

����

�����

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��������� �������� ��

������� ������� ��� ���������� ����

�������� �������� ������ ��

��������� ����� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ���������� ��� ��������

���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

��������� ��� ������ �����

���������� �������� �� ������� ���

���������� ���� �� ������� �����

���������� ��� ������� ��� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

��������� ��� ������ �� ��� ���������

������������� ������� �� ��� ����

���������� ���� ������� ���

�����������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

�������� ��������� � ������ ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ��� ������ ����� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ������ ����� ���� ���������� ��� �����

���� � ������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1-not at all important, 5=very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5-strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1=not at all important, 5= very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1=not at all important, 5= very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

600

100

200

300

400

500

0

1 2 3 4 5 

Figure 2—Distribution of Objective, Belief, 

and Attitude scores for: Conserving and 

protecting forests and grasslands that are 

the source of our water resources, such as 

streams, lakes, and watershed areas.

Figure 3—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and 

Attitude scores for: Developing volunteer 

programs to improve forests and grasslands 

(for example, planting trees, or improving 

water quality).

Figure 4—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and 

Attitude scores for: Protecting ecosystems 

and wildlife habitats.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

s.d.=0.81), and that the agency is doing a somewhat 

favorable job (mean= 3.88, s.d.=1.14).

Region 9 respondents also feel that it is important to 

provide information about the environmental impacts of 

uses of forests and grasslands (figure 6). This objective 

has a mean importance of 4.42, and a standard deviation 

of 0.99. Respondents in Region 9 see this as an appropriate role for the Forest Service (mean=4.46, s.d.=0.91) 

and see the performance of the agency as somewhat 

favorable (mean=3.44, s.d.1.23).

Other Important Objectives

Table 2 shows the results for the other objectives 

that respondents in Region 9 identified as important. 

Although these issues had means over 4.00, the means 

had higher standard deviations, indicating more diverse 

responses from the public. The objectives in table 2 are 

ordered from those with the lowest standard deviation 

(higher consensus) to those with higher standard deviations (less consensus). As a result, some objectives 

Figure 5—Distribution of Objective, Belief, 

and Attitude scores for: Informing the public 

about recreation concerns on forests and 

grasslands such as safety, trail etiquette, 

and respect for wildlife.

number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1=not at all important, 5= very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

1 2 3 4 5

400

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1=not at all important, 5= very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

1 2 3 4 5

350

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Figure 6—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and 

Attitude scores for: Informing the public on 

the potential environmental impacts of all 

uses associated with forests and grasslands.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 7

identified as relatively more important fall lower in 

the table than objectives identified as relatively less 

important. In the following section, each of these objectives will be discussed briefly.

Respondents in Region 9 feel that development of 

volunteer programs to maintain facilities (trail and 

campground maintenance) are important (mean=4.13), 

but there is not a high degree of consensus (s.d.=1.05). 

Residents of Region 9 also feel that development of 

such programs is an appropriate role for the agency, 

although again there is a lack of consensus (mean=4.19, 

s.d.=1.06). The performance of the USDA Forest Service in fulfilling this objective is somewhat favorable 

(mean=3.69). Again, consensus is limited (s.d.=1.11).

Encouraging collaboration among groups to share 

information is seen by Region 9 residents as an important objective, although consensus for the assessment 

is somewhat low (mean=4.23, s.d.=1.08). Respondents 

feel that the Forest Service is the appropriate entity to 

fulfill this objective (mean=4.25, s.d.=1.02). Agency 

Table 2--Other objectives that Region 9 respondents view as important.

OBJECTIVE

Is this an

important

objective for you?

������ �� ���

����������

������ ����������

Do you believe that

fulfilling this

objective is an

appropriate role for

the USDA Forest

Service?

����������� ���������

���������� ������

How favorably do

you view the

performance of the

USDA Forest

Service in fulfilling

this objective?

������� ������������

������ ����������

Developing volunteer programs to maintain

trails and facilities on forests and grasslands

(for example, trail maintenance, or

campground maintenance).

4.13

�����

445b

4.19

����

495

3.69

����

367

Encouraging collaboration between groups in

order to share information concerning uses of

forests and grasslands.

4.23

����

423

4.25

����

444

3.59

����

358

Developing a national policy that guides

natural resource development of all kinds (for

example, specifies levels of extraction, and

regulates environmental impacts).

4.32

����

553

4.20

����

447

3.38

����

402

Preserving the ability to have a “wilderness”

experience on forests and grasslands.

4.29

����

536

4.28

����

538

3.84

����

559

Preserving the natural resources of forests and

grasslands through such policies as no timber

harvesting or no mining.

4.25

����

586

4.24

����

561

3.57

����

487

Allowing for diverse uses of forests and

grasslands such as grazing, recreation, and

wildlife habitat.

4.05

����

444

4.04

����

407

3.69

����

347

Informing the public on the economic value

received by developing our natural resources.

4.08

����

450

4.02

����

426

3.24

����

393

Restricting timber harvesting and grazing on

forests and grasslands.

4.01

����

478

3.99

����

464

3.33

����

359

Restricting mineral development on forests

and grasslands.

4.07

����

456

4.04

����

480

3.40

����

335

a Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 3203 sample since each respondent was asked

only a portion of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

performance is somewhat favorable (mean=3.59) and, 

as reported with other objectives, consensus drops off 

in the evaluation (s.d.=1.15).

The third important objective for the residents of 

Region 9 is the development of a national policy to 

guide natural resource development. This objective has 

a mean of 4.32, and a standard deviation of 1.09. Overall, residents in Region 9 report that the Forest Service 

should be developing such a policy, but there is some 

disagreement in responses (mean=4.20, s.d.=1.12). 

Agency performance is somewhat favorable, although 

there is great disagreement in responses (mean=3.38, 

s.d.=1.25).

Region 9 respondents see the opportunity to have a 

“wilderness” experience on forests and grasslands as an 

important objective (mean=4.29). However, again there 

is not universal agreement on the rating (s.d.=1.11). 

These respondents do see the provision of such experiences as a role for the agency, and there is more agreement for this response (mean=4.28, s.d.=1.04). Finally, 

most respondents in Region 9 agree that the USDA 

Forest Service is doing a somewhat favorable job in 

fulfilling this objective (mean=3.84, s.d.=0.99).

The preservation of natural resources through limiting or eliminating policies such as timber harvesting 

or mining is an important objective for respondents in 

Region 9 (mean=4.25). As can be expected with this 

type of issue, there is some disagreement in assessment 

(s.d.=1.12). The fulfillment of this objective is viewed 

as an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service 

(mean=4.24, s.d.=1.14). The performance of the Forest 

Service is generally seen as somewhat favorable, but 

there is a high level of disagreement concerning this 

evaluation (mean=3.57, s.d.=1.22).

Another objective that Region 9 residents feel is 

important is allowing for diverse uses of forests and 

grasslands. This objective has a mean importance of 

4.05, with a standard deviation of 1.12, indicating some 

disagreement about its importance. Respondents also 

feel that the Forest Service should be fulfilling this objective, although there is some disagreement about this 

evaluation (mean=4.04, s.d.=1.13).

Informing the public on the economic value received 

from developing natural resources is an important objective for Region 9 residents, but there is low agreement 

for this opinion (mean=4.08, s.d.=1.19). Respondents 

believe that fulfilling this objective is an appropriate role 

for the agency, but again agreement is low (mean=4.02, 

s.d.=1.22). The performance of the USDA Forest Service is generally viewed as slightly favorable, although 

again, this is not universal agreement concerning this 

(mean=3.24, s.d.=1.26).

Restricting extractive uses of forests and grasslands 

(timber harvesting and grazing, and mineral development) is important for Region 9 residents. However, 

as one might expect with extractive use objectives, the 

level of consensus about these objectives is quite low. 

Restricting timber harvesting and grazing has a mean 

importance of 4.01, but a standard deviation of 1.20. 

Fulfilling this objective is believed by Region 9 respondents to be a somewhat appropriate role for the Forest 

Service, but again there is low agreement (mean=3.99, 

s.d.=1.26). The performance of the Forest Service in 

fulfilling this objective is rated somewhat favorable by 

Region 9 respondents, but consensus is low (mean=3.33, 

s.d.=1.26). Restricting mineral development is seen by 

many Region 9 respondents as an important objective, 

but there is a high degree of disagreement for this assessment (mean=4.07, s.d.=1.24). The fulfillment of this 

objective is seen as an appropriate role for the USDA 

Forest Service, but again, there is a clear lack of consensus (mean=4.04, s.d.=1.28). Agency performance 

is somewhat favorable according to Region 9 respondents, but there are many who disagree (mean=3.40, 

s.d.=1.32).

Objectives Identified as 

Not Important

Although five objectives in the VOBA questionnaire 

were evaluated as not important to the majority of people 

in Region 9 (mean importance rating of less than 3.00, 

with 3.00 the midpoint of the scale, indicating a neutral 

position) the high standard deviations indicate there are 

supporters as well (table 3). This is not surprising since 

these objectives were included in the VOBA survey 

based upon the input of focus groups, some of which 

must have included stakeholders with strong preferences 

for these objectives.

Expanding commercial recreation—Expanding 

commercial recreation on forests and grasslands is not 

important to the majority of respondents in Region 9 

(figure 7), but there is some disagreement about this assessment (mean=2.88, s.d.=1.30). Respondents do feel 

that expanding commercial recreation is a somewhat 

appropriate role for the agency (mean=3.13, s.d.=1.29). 

Agency performance is rated as somewhat favorable, and 

there is more agreement about this evaluation than for 

the role of the agency or the importance of the objective 

(mean=3.31, s.d.=1.12).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 9

����� ������������� ���� ������ � ����������� �� ��� ���� �� ����������

���������

�� ���� �� ���������

��������� ��� ����

������ �� ��� ����������

������ ����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ���� ���������

�� �� ����������� ����

��� ��� ���� ������

��������

����������� ���������

���������� ������

��� ��������� �� ���

���� ��� �����������

�� ��� ���� ������

������� �� ���������� ����

����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

��������� ���������� ���������� �� ������� ���

���������� ���� �������� ��� ������ ����� ���������

������������

����

�����

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

������ ��� ���������� ������� ������ ��� ����

����������� ���� �� ������� ��� ���������� ���� ��

�������� �������� ������� ��� ����������

�����������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� ����� ����� �� ������� ���

���������� ��� ������ ��� ���� ��� ������������

���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

��������� ������ ��� ��������� �����������

�������� �� ������� ��� ���������� ���� ��������

������������ �� ������� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� ����������� ���������� �����

������� ���� ����� ���� ������ ��� ������� ���� ���

��������� �������� ���� �� ����������� �� �����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

�������� ��������� � ������ ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ��� ������ ����� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ������ ����� ���� ���������� ��� ����� ���� � �������

�� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������ number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1=not at all important, 5= very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

1 2 3 4 5

250

0

50

100

150

200

Figure 7—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude scores for: Expanding 

commercial recreation on forests and 

grasslands (for example, ski areas, guide 

services, or outfitters).
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

Easing the Permitting Process—Many uses of public 

lands require a permit. Easing the permitting process 

is not regarded as an important objective for Region 

9 residents (figure 8), although this assessment is not 

universally agreed upon (mean=2.60, s.d.=1.34). Region 9 residents also do not feel that it is the role of the 

USDA Forest Service to relax the permit procedures 

(mean=2.59). Yet again there is some disagreement 

about this evaluation (s.d.=1.38). As with other objectives that are not seen as falling within the purview of 

the agency, interpretation of the agency’s performance 

can be inconclusive. Here, respondents in Region 9 rate 

agency performance as less than favorable (mean=2.93), 

with the usual dissent (s.d.=1.26). It should be noted that 

the criteria used for this evaluation will differ depending 

on whether a respondent finds the objective important or 

feels that it is the role of the agency to fulfill it.

Expanding paved roads—Motorized access often 

requires paved roads. In spite of this, expanding the number of paved roads on forests and grasslands is not important to the residents of Region 9 (mean=2.36). However, 

as indicated by the standard deviation (s.d.=1.34) there 

are some who disagree (figure 9). Expanding paved 

roads is not viewed as an appropriate role for the Forest 

number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1=not at all important, 5= very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

1 2 3 4 5

140

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1=not at all important, 5= very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

1 2 3 4 5

200

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

20

Figure 9—Distribution of Objective, Belief, 

and Attitude scores for: Developing new 

paved roads on forests and grasslands 

for access for cars and recreational vehicles.

Figure 8—Distribution of Objective, Belief, 

and Attitude scores for: Making the permitting process easier for some established 

uses of forests and grasslands such as 

grazing, logging, mining, and commercial 

recreation.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 11

Service by most respondents in Region 9 (mean=2.39, 

s.d.=1.39). The Forest Service is seen by most as doing 

a somewhat favorable job of expanding roads, although, 

again, there is dissent with this evaluation (mean=3.12, 

s.d.=1.24).

Access for motorized vehicles—Motorized recreation 

is often a controversial use of public lands. The results 

from Region 9 support this assertion (figure 10). The 

respondents of Region 9, on the whole, do not find the 

provision of access for motorized vehicles to be very 

important (mean=2.22), but there is wide disagreement 

(s.d.=1.41). Most respondents do not believe that the 

Forest Service is the appropriate agency to provide 

motorized access, although again there are a number 

or respondents who disagree (mean-=2.41, s.d.=1.38). 

Overall, agency performance is not favorable, but again, 

there is a great deal of disagreement about this evaluation 

(mean=2.91, s.d.=1.26).

Developing trail systems—Developing and maintaining a continuous system of trails (crossing public 

and private lands) for motorized access is not viewed 

by most Region 9 residents as an important objective 

(mean=2.71). However, as the standard deviation reveals 

(1.45), there are those who do view it as important (figure 11). Providing such a trail system is also not seen 

as an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service, but 

number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1=not at all important, 5= very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

1 2 3 4 5

250

0

50

100

150

200

number of respondents

Importance of the objective (1=not at all important, 5= very important)

Belief about the role of the Forest Service (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree)

Agency performance (1=very unfavorable, 5=very favorable)

1 2 3 4 5

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

0

20

Figure 11—Distribution of Objective, Belief, 

and Attitude scores for: Developing and 

maintaining continuous trail systems that 

cross both public and private land for 

motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles 

or ATVs.

Figure 10—Distribution of Objective, Belief, 

and Attitude scores for: Expanding access for motorized off-highway vehicles 

on forests and grasslands (for example, 

snowmobiling or 4-wheel driving).
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

this belief does not have wide agreement (mean=2.88, 

s.d.=1.42). Agency performance is viewed by many, but 

certainly not all, as somewhat favorable (mean=3.23, 

s.d.=1.13).

Objectives Identified as 

Moderately Important

Table 4 presents the objectives that the respondents 

within Region 9 feel are somewhat important, or those 

for which they are more neutral. These objectives all 

have means between 3.00 and 4.00. As with the less important objectives, all of these also have higher standard 

deviations, indicating that while most people do not feel 

strongly about them, a few do. Again, given how the set 

of objectives were developed, this split in opinions is not 

surprising. Results for this group of objectives have been 

organized in table 4 to facilitate a discussion of related 

issues. For example, objectives that deal either directly or 

indirectly with resource extraction are grouped together. 

Within each grouping the objectives are organized in 

order of decreasing importance (objectives with higher 

means are listed first, then those with lower means).

Natural resource management—Public input into 

forest and grassland management decisions is always 

important to some stakeholders. The form for this input 

can influence how participation takes place, and how 

people feel about the process. Many people have advocated using public advisory committees to inform land 

management decision makers, and to provide input into 

management decisions. In general, the people of Region 

9 find the use of such committees to be somewhat important, but there is substantial variation in assessments for 

this objective (mean=3.85, s.d.=1.14). Using such committees is believed by Region 9 residents to be an appropriate role for the agency, although there are some who 

do not agree with this evaluation (mean=3.89, s.d.=1.12). 

The performance of the USDA Forest Service is viewed 

as somewhat favorable (mean=3.32, s.d.=1.25).

Issues about natural resource management often 

arise when local interests are different from national or 

regional interest. Making management decisions locally 

as opposed to nationally is seen by Region 9 residents 

as a somewhat important objective, but there is an apparent lack of consensus for this opinion (mean=3.90, 

s.d.=1.19). Beliefs about the role the USDA Forest 

Service should play in fulfilling this objective vary, but 

overall people see this as an appropriate role for the 

agency (mean=3.86, s.d.=1.23). Agency performance is 

viewed as somewhat favorable, with a level of agreement 

similar to that of the objective’s importance and the role 

the agency should play (mean=3.40, s.d.=1.22).

Increasing the total acreage in the public lands system 

is also of moderate importance to the respondents in 

Region 9, but as with the other objectives in this group, 

there is not a great deal of consensus (mean=3.84, 

s.d.=1.25). For many, although not all in Region 9, 

increasing the total acreage in the public land system 

is seen as an appropriate role for the Forest Service 

(mean=3.93, s.d.=1.27). Region 9 respondents view 

agency performance as somewhat favorable (mean 3.44, 

s.d.=1.13).

Respondents in Region 9 see increasing law enforcement on public lands as a somewhat important objective, but with a low level of consensus (mean=3.83, 

s.d.=1.27). The fulfillment of this objective is believed 

by most respondents to be an appropriate role for the 

USDA Forest Service, and the level of agreement is 

higher (mean=4.06, s.d.=1.13). Agency performance is 

rated as somewhat favorable (mean=3.66, s.d.=1.17).

Many public land recreation opportunities are available only to fee-paying users, a source of some controversy in recent years. Paying an entry fee that goes 

to support public land is an objective that residents in 

Region 9 feel is somewhat important (mean=3.56), but 

this objective has very little consensus as can be seen 

in the high standard deviation (1.29). Implementing an 

entry fee is believed to be an appropriate role for the 

agency, although, again, there is disagreement with 

this assessment (mean=3.63, s.d.=1.28). Overall, the 

USDA Forest Service is seen as doing a favorable job, 

but there is not universal agreement for this (mean=3.42, 

s.d.=1.22).

Allowing public land managers to trade public lands 

for private lands is a somewhat important objective for 

Region 9 residents, but this objective is far from universally supported (mean=3.07, s.d.=1.35). The USDA 

Forest Service is viewed by many within Region 9 as 

the appropriate agency to fulfill this objective, but there 

are also many who responded differently (mean=3.25, 

s.d.=1.41). Agency performance is viewed favorably, 

with a mean of 3.16 and standard deviation of 1.19.

Access—Wilderness designation is often a subject on 

which there is little agreement. Region 9 is no exception. 

While the residents do feel that designation of more 

wilderness is important (mean=3.98), there is also some 

disagreement (s.d.=1.21). Many Region 9 residents do 

believe that such designation is the role of the USDA 

Forest Service (mean=3.77), but this belief is not widely 

shared (s.d.=1.35). Agency performance is somewhat 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 13

����� ������������� �� �������� ���������� ��� ������ ��

���������

�� ���� ��

���������

��������� ���

����

������ �� ���

����������

������ ����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ���� ���������

�� �� ����������� ����

��� ��� ������ ��������

����������� ���������

���������� ������

��� ��������� �� ���

���� ��� ����������� ��

��� ���� ������ �������

�� ���������� ����

����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

����� ������ �������� ���������� ��

������ �� ������ ���� ����������

�������

����

�����

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

������ ���������� ���������

���������� ��� ��� �� ������� ���

���������� �� ��� ����� ����� ������ ����

�� ��� �������� ������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� ����� ������ �� ����� ��

��� ������ ���� �������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� ����������� ������� ��

������ ���� �������� �� ������ ������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

������ �� ����� ��� ���� ���� �� �������

������ �����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

�����

�

����

����

�

�

�

�

������

�������� ������ ���� �������� �� �����

������ ����� ��� ������� ����� ����

�������� �� ��������� ������� ��������

������ ������ ���� ����������� �� ��

������� ������ ����� �� ������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����������� ���� ���������� ����� ��

������ ���� ���� ����� ������ ���

����������� ��� ��������� �����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� ����������� ����������

����� ������� ���� ����� ���� ������ ���

������� ���� ��� �������������

���������� ���� �� ������ �� ������

������� �������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

������

����������� ���� �������� ����������

������ ��� �������� ���� ���� ��������

�������� �������� ������ ���

������������ ��� ������������� �������

�� ��� �������� ������ ��� ���������

��������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�������

����

��

��

����

�

����

�

���������� ��� �������� ���� �� �������

��� ���������� �� ������ ���������

��� ������ ���������

� ���� �� ���� ����

���������� ���������������� ����������

��� ���������� �����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

favorable, but there is a low level of consensus for this 

assessment (mean=3.28, s.d.=1.25).

Developing and maintaining a continuous trail system 

that crosses both private and public land for non-motorized recreation is a somewhat important objective for 

the residents of Region 9 (mean=3.85). This opinion is 

not shared by all respondents as can be seen in the high 

standard deviation (1.22). It is interesting to note that 

the residents of Region 9 do not find the development 

of a similar trail system for motorized recreation to be 

important (see above). The USDA Forest Service is seen 

as a somewhat appropriate agency to fulfill this objective, although there is some disagreement (mean=3.79, 

s.d.=1.27). Agency performance is evaluated as somewhat favorable (mean=3.62, s.d.=1.17).

Conflicts between incompatible recreation uses are 

often an issue on public lands, including those in the National Forest System. One solution would be to designate 

some trails for specific uses; for example separate trails 

for cross-country skiing and snowmobiling. Designating 

such specific use trails is seen as somewhat important to 

the Region 9 respondents, but there is some disagreement 

(mean=3.74, s.d.=1.24). Creating such designations for 

trails is believed by Region 9 residents to be an appropriate role for the Forest Service (mean=4.00), although 

this belief is not shared by all respondents (s.d.=1.16). 

Agency performance is generally viewed as somewhat 

favorable, although this is not a universal assessment 

(mean=3.64, s.d.=1.14).

Preservation and Conservation

The forests and grasslands in Region 9 have a number of traditional cultural uses by Native Americans. 

Preserving these cultural uses is seen by residents in the 

Region as a somewhat important objective (mean=3.79). 

This opinion is not shared by all within the Region, as 

can be seen in the large standard deviation (1.27). Providing access for such uses is believed to be a somewhat 

appropriate role for the Forests Service, but again, this 

belief is not universal (mean=3.21, s.d.=1.28). Agency 

performance is rated favorably according to Region 9 

respondents, but not necessarily with wide agreement 

(mean=3.33, s.d.=1.24).

Economic Development

Public land management conflicts often arise due 

to differing priorities. Communities adjacent to public 

lands often see these lands as the source of their livelihood, while those more distant prefer that other uses be 

emphasized. The residents in Region 9 see the provision 

of resources to dependent communities as a somewhat 

important objective (mean=3.51). But, as we often see 

with this group of objectives, agreement on this point is 

very low (s.d.=1.33). Providing resources to dependent 

communities is seen as a somewhat appropriate role for 

the USDA Forest Service, but again, there is low agreement (mean=3.21, s.d.=1.38). Agency performance is 

somewhat favorable (mean=3.35, s.d.=1.14).

Results for Region 9: 

Public Lands Values______

Previous research using the Public Lands Values Scale 

has shown that these items consistently fall into two categories, individual values and management values. The 

first category we have labeled as Socially Responsible 

Individual Values (tables 5 and 6). For these value statements, a higher mean indicates a higher level of environmental orientation. The second category contains items 

that deal with the way in which public lands should be 

ECO

N

O

MIC

DEVEL

OPMENT Providing natural resources from forests

and grasslands to support communities

depending on grazing, mining, or

timber harvesting.

3.51

����

440

3.21

����

432

3.35

����

431

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 3203 sample since each respondent was asked only a portion

of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations. # The term “Native Hispanic” was used in the survey to differentiate Hispanics born in the US from those who moved to the US. This term was changed to

“traditional groups” in the 2003 survey.

Table 4--Continued.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 15

managed, called the Socially Responsible Management 

Values (table 7). These value statements are worded so 

that a higher value indicates relatively more importance 

is placed upon human uses of, or commodity production 

from, forests and grasslands.

Socially Responsible 

Individual Values

The responses to the Socially Responsible Individual 

Values will be further broken into two groups; those for 

which there is a high degree of consensus and those for 

which the level of agreement is lower (based upon the 

standard deviation). Most of the means for the values 

indicate an environmental orientation in the people of 

Region 9, but for many of the values statements, the 

standard deviation indicates a low level of agreement.

Socially Responsible Individual Values With a 

High Degree of Consensus

When Socially Responsible Individual Values for 

which there is a higher degree of agreement (standard 

deviation less than 1.00) are placed in order of increasing 

standard deviation, the order of agreement is almost 

analogously decreasing (table 5). In other words, the 

values statements with higher means (indicating a more 

environmental value orientation) are also those with 

higher levels of consensus.

Socially Responsible Individual Values With a Low 

Degree of Consensus

Table 6 shows that values statements with a lower 

consensus among the respondents again nearly always 

exhibit the characteristic that higher levels of environmental orientation also correspond to higher consensus 

(even among these values with low consensus).

Socially Responsible 

Management Values

None of the Socially Responsible Management Values 

presented in table 7 show a high level of consensus. As 

the previous section demonstrates, most people believe 

in protecting the environment, but disagreement arises 

about the appropriate methods to achieve such protection. The differences in responses to this set of values 

����� ����������� ����������� ���������� ������ ����� ������ ��� ������ � ���� � ���� ������ �� ���������

����� ������������

������

����������� ��������� ���������� ������

� �� ���� ����� ��� �������� ������� ���� �� � ����� ��� �� ��� �����

����

���� �

��� �

������ ������ �� ���� ��������� ����� ��� ��� ������ ����� ��� ����� ����

����

���

������ ��� ����� ������ ����� ��� �������� ���� �� ���� �� ��� �������� �� �����

�����������

����

����

���

������������� ������ �� ���������� �� ��� �������� ��������� �� �����

������������� ��� ���������� �����������

����

����

���

������ ����������� ������ �� �� ��������� �� ��� ������� ��� �� ��� ��������� �����

������� ����������

����

����

���

��������� ������ �� ���������� �� ��� ������������� ������������ �� ��� ��������

���� ���������

����

����

���

� �� ������� �� ���� �������� ���������� ��� ��� ���� �� ������� ���� ���������� ����

����

���

�

�������� ��������� � ������ ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ��� ������ ����� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ������ ����� ���� ���������� ��� �����

���� � ������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

Table 6--Socially responsible individual public lands values for Region 9 with a low degree of consensus

among respondents.

VALUES

����������� ��������� ���������� ������

Donating time or money to worthy causes is important to me.

4.16

���� a

766 b

Natural resources must be preserved even if people must do without some products. 4.19

����

844

I am willing to stop buying products from companies that pollute the environment even

though it might be inconvenient.

4.00

����

764

People should urge their friends to limit their use of products made from scarce resources. 4.14

����

822

Forests have a right to exist for their own sake, regardless of human concerns and uses. 4.16

����

805

Wildlife, plants, and humans have equal rights to live and grow. 4.22

����

783

I have often thought that if we could just get by with a little less there would be more left

for future generations.

4.04

����

725

I would be willing to sign a petition for an environmental cause. 3.92

����

716

The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much since I feel it’s somewhat overrated. c 2.79

����

761

I would be willing to pay five dollars more each time I use public lands for recreational

purposes (for example, hiking, camping, hunting).

3.58

����

920

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 3203 sample since each respondent was asked

only a portion of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations. c This value statement has been reverse scored to make the responses consistent with the other statements. For a more complete

discussion of reverse scoring, please refer to the appendix.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 17

are the basis for the disagreement we see in some of 

the objectives. Histograms are presented for each of the 

eight Socially Responsible Management Values (figures 

12 through 19).

Comparison of Region 9 

With the Rest of the

United States____________

This final section compares the VOBA results for 

Region 9 with the results for the rest of the United 

States. Tables 8 through 11 present the objectives, beliefs 

about the role of the agency, and customer satisfaction. 

These are arranged in a manner similar to the previous 

sections (Core Important Objectives, Other Important 

Objectives, Unimportant Objectives, and Objectives of 

Moderate Importance). Table 12 contains comparisons 

of the Public Lands Values between Region 9 and the rest 

of the United States. This table is divided into Socially 

Responsible Individual Values and Socially Responsible 

Management Values. Discussion will focus on those objectives and values where evaluations show statistically 

significant differences.

Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes

Table 8 reveals that Region 9 does not differ from 

the rest of the United States regarding the importance 

of any of the core important objectives, or the attitudes 

about the performance of the USDA Forest Service in 

fulfilling them. However, Region 9 respondents believe 

more strongly than does the rest of the country that the 

Forest Service should play a role in fulfilling two of these 

objectives: Conserving and protecting watersheds, and 

protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitats.

����� ����������� ����������� ���������� ������ ��� ������ ����� �� ������ ��

������

����������� ��������� ���������� ������

� ����� ���� ��� ������ ���� �������� ��� ����� �� �������� ��� �� ���������� �������

��������� ���� ����� ���������

����

���� �

��� �

��� ���������� ��� ������ ������ �� ����� ����� ���� �������� ��������� �� � ������

������������ ��������

����

����

���

��� ������� ���������� ������ ��������� ��� ���������� ��� ������� �� ������ ����� ��

����������

����

����

���

��� �������� �� ������� ��������� ������ �� ����� ������ �� �������� �������� ����

����

���

��� ���� ��������� ���� ��� ��� ������ ����� �� ��������� ���� ��� ������ ��� ����� ������� ����

����

����

��� ���� ������ ��� ����������� ��������� ����� �� �� �� ��� ��� ���� �� ��� ������ �� ��

���� ���

����

����

���

��� ������� ��� �� ������� ������ �� ��� �������� ���� ��� ������ �� ������� ����

����

����

�� ������ �������� ������� ���� ����� �� ���� ��� ����� �� � ���� ������ �����

�����������

����

����

���

�

�������� ��������� � ������ ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ��� ������ ����� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ������ ����� ���� ���������� ��� �����

���� � ������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

number of resopndents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

400

450

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

300

200

100

0

600

500

400

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 14—Distribution of responses to: “The 

Federal government should subsidize the 

development and leasing of public lands to 

companies.”

Figure 12—Distribution of responses to: “I 

think that the public land managers are 

doing an adequate job of protecting natural 

resources from being over used.”

Figure 13—Distribution of responses to: “The 

government has better places to spend 

money than devoting resources to a strong 

conservation program.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 19 number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Figure 17—Distribution of responses to: “The 

main reason for maintaining resources 

today is so we can use them in the future 

if we need to.”

Figure 16—Distribution of responses to: 

“The most important role for the public 

lands is providing jobs and income for 

local people.”

Figure 15—Distribution of responses to: “The 

decision to develop resources should be 

based mostly on economic grounds.”
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

Table 9 reveals that Region 9 respondents place a 

greater importance on both the development of a national natural resource policy and the preservation of 

natural resources through restriction of extractive uses 

than does the rest of the United States. The standard 

deviations for both of these objectives are also lower 

for Region 9 than for the rest of the country. Region 9 

respondents also believe more strongly than the rest of 

the United States that the USDA Forest Service should 

be the agency to reduce the levels of extractive uses, 

and that the Forest Service should specifically restrict 

mineral development.

As seen in table 10, although respondents from both 

Region 9 and the rest of the United States believe that 

easing the permitting process is unimportant, Region 9 

respondents find this objective to be even less important than does the rest of the United States. Region 9 

respondents also believe that expanding commercial 

recreation is an appropriate role for the USDA Forest 

Service, while respondents from the rest of the United 

States do not.

Of the 11 moderately important objectives in table 

11, 3 show differences between the responses from 

Region 9 and those of the rest of the country. Region 

Figure 18—Distribution of responses to: “The 

primary use of forests should be for products that are useful to humans.”

Figure 19—Distribution of responses to: 

“We should actively harvest more trees to 

meet the needs of a much larger human 

population.”

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

400
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 21

Table 8--Comparison of core important objectives, beliefs, and attitudes – Region 9 and the rest of the United States.

Is this an important objective

for you?

(1=not at all important,

5=very important)

Do you believe that fulfilling

this objective is an

appropriate role for the

USDA Forest Service?

(1=strongly disagree,

5=strongly agree)

How favorably do you view

the performance of the

USDA Forest Service in

fulfilling this objective?

(1=very unfavorably,

5=very favorably)

OBJECTIVE Region 9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.-

R9/rest

US

Region

9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.-

R9/rest

US

Region

9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.

-R9/rest

US

Conserving and protecting forests and

grasslands that are the source of our water

resources, such as streams, lakes, and

watershed areas.

4.76

����a

530b

4.69

����

797

4.65

����

579

4.56

����

827

*

3.86

����

449

3.82

����

745

Developing volunteer programs to improve

forests and grasslands (for example, planting

trees, or improving water quality).

4.53

����

545

4.54

����

750

4.57

����

565

4.47

����

759

3.71

����

401

3.72

����

554

Protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitats. 4.60

����

642

4.52

����

880

4.65

����

534

4.49

����

788

**

3.91

����

550

3.81

����

708

Informing the public about recreation

concerns on forests and grasslands such as

safety, trail etiquette, and respect for

wildlife.

4.52

����

490

4.56

����

677

4.58

����

466

4.48

����

688

3.88

����

523

3.86

����

727

Informing the public on the potential

environmental impacts of all uses associated

with forests and grasslands.

4.42

����

499

4.36

����

673

4.46

����

451

4.43

����

684

3.44

����

410

3.39

����

603

a Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 3203 sample since each respondent was asked

only a portion of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.

*, **, *** Differences between the means are statistically significant at � = 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.

9 respondents place greater importance on designating 

more wilderness areas, on continuous trail systems for 

non-motorized recreation, and on increasing the total 

number of acres in the public lands system. Additionally, 

for each of these objectives Region 9 respondents are 

more inclined to believe that the USDA Forest Service 

is the appropriate entity to fulfill these objectives.

Public Lands Values

Table 12 reveals six values (three from the Socially 

Responsible Individual Values and three from the Socially Responsible Management Values) where responses 

from Region 9 are significantly different from those 

from the rest of the United States. For nearly all of the 

Socially Responsible Individual Values, the means for 

Region 9 are higher and the standard deviations are lower 

than for the rest of the United States, whether the differences are statistically significant or not. This suggests 

that there is a higher level of environmental orientation 

for Region 9 than within the rest of the United States. 

For nearly all of the Socially Responsible Management 

Values, the means and standard deviations are also 

lower for Region 9 than for the rest of the country. This 

indicates that respondents from the rest of the United 

States put greater value on the extraction and use of 

natural resources than do the respondents from Region 

9. Thus, there is a greater ecocentric orientation among 

the respondents from Region 9 than for the rest of the 

United States.
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

Table 9--Comparison of other important objectives, beliefs, and attitudes – Region 9 and the rest of the United States.

Is this an important objective

for you?

(1=not at all important,

5=very important)

Do you believe that fulfilling

this objective is an

appropriate role for the

USDA Forest Service?

(1=strongly disagree,

5=strongly agree)

How favorably do you view

the performance of the

USDA Forest Service in

fulfilling this objective?

(1=very unfavorably,

5=very favorably)

OBJECTIVE Region 9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.-

R9/rest

US

Region

9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.-

R9/rest

US

Region

9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.

-R9/rest

US

Developing volunteer programs to maintain

trails and facilities on forests and grasslands

(for example, trail maintenance, or

campground maintenance).

4.13

����a

445b

4.17

����

662

4.19

����

495

4.20

����

670

3.69

����

367

3.73

����

590

Encouraging collaboration between groups

in order to share information concerning

uses of forests and grasslands.

4.23

����

423

4.20

����

643

4.25

����

444

4.16

����

623

3.59

����

358

3.54

����

543

Developing a national policy that guides

natural resource development of all kinds

(for example, specifies levels of extraction,

and regulates environmental impacts).

4.32

����

553

4.16

����

742

*

4.20

����

447

4.12

����

661

3.38

����

402

3.47

����

591

Preserving the ability to have a “wilderness”

experience on forests and grasslands.

4.29

����

536

4.17

����

805

4.28

����

538

4.18

����

821

3.84

����

559

3.88

����

842

Preserving the natural resources of forests

and grasslands through such policies as no

timber harvesting or no mining.

4.25

����

586

4.07

����

773

**

4.24

����

561

4.05

����

782

**

3.57

����

487

3.62

����

682

Allowing for diverse uses of forests and

grasslands such as grazing, recreation, and

wildlife habitat.

4.05

����

444

4.05

����

686

4.04

����

407

4.06

����

552

3.69

����

347

3.66

����

502

Informing the public on the economic value

received by developing our natural

resources.

4.08

����

450

3.97

����

662

4.02

����

426

3.97

����

645

3.24

����

393

3.18

����

593

Restricting timber harvesting and grazing on

forests and grasslands.

4.01

����

478

3.91

����

664

3.99

����

464

3.90

����

607

3.33

����

359

3.28

����

587

Restricting mineral development on forests

and grasslands.

4.07

����

456

3.94

����

636

4.04

����

480

3.86

����

643

*

3.40

����

335

3.23

����

593

a Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 3203 sample since each respondent was asked

only a portion of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.

*, **, *** Differences between the means are statistically significant at � = 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 23

Table 10--Comparison of unimportant objectives, beliefs, and attitudes – Region 9 and the rest of the United States.

Is this an important objective

for you?

(1=not at all important,

5=very important)

Do you believe that fulfilling

this objective is an

appropriate role for the

USDA Forest Service?

(1=strongly disagree,

5=strongly agree)

How favorably do you view

the performance of the

USDA Forest Service in

fulfilling this objective?

(1=very unfavorably,

5=very favorably)

OBJECTIVE Region 9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.-

R9/rest

US

Region

9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.-

R9/rest

US

Region

9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.

-R9/rest

US

Expanding commercial recreation on forests

and grasslands (for example, ski areas, guide

services, outfitters).

2.88

����a

440b

2.86

����

637

3.13

����

543

2.94

����

755

*

3.31

����

388

3.41

����

500

Making the permitting process easier for

some established uses of forests and

grasslands such as grazing, logging, mining,

and commercial recreation.

2.60

����

425

2.83

����

639

**

2.59

����

438

2.70

����

696

2.93

����

306

2.98

����

461

Developing new paved roads on forests and

grasslands for access for cars and

recreational vehicles.

2.36

����

457

2.40

����

653

2.39

����

494

2.51

����

639

3.12

����

360

3.14

����

564

Expanding access for motorized offhighway vehicles on forests and grasslands

(for example, snowmobiling or 4-wheel

driving).

2.22

����

469

2.30

����

660

2.41

����

524

2.43

����

748

2.91

����

363

2.98

����

463

Developing and maintaining continuous trail

systems that cross both public and private

land for motorized vehicles such as

snowmobiles or ATVs.

2.71

����

512

2.82

����

770

2.88

����

446

2.76

����

677

3.23

����

400

3.18

����

537

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 3203 sample since each respondent was asked

only a portion of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.

*, **, *** Differences between the means are statistically significant at � = 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

Table 11--Comparison of moderately important objectives, beliefs, and attitudes – Region 9 and the rest of the United

States.

Is this an important objective

for you?

(1=not at all important,

5=very important)

Do you believe that fulfilling

this objective is an

appropriate role for the

USDA Forest Service?

(1=strongly disagree,

5=strongly agree)

How favorably do you view

the performance of the

USDA Forest Service in

fulfilling this objective?

(1=very unfavorably,

5=very favorably)

OBJECTIVE Region 9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.-

R9/rest

US

Region

9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.-

R9/rest

US

Region

9

Rest of

US

Sig.diff.

-R9/rest

US

Using public advisory committees to advise

on public land management issues.

3.85

����a

409b

3.84

����

561

3.89

����

400

3.87

����

527

3.32

����

312

3.32

����

408

Making management decisions concerning

the use of forests and grasslands at the local

level rather than at the national level.

3.90

����

370

4.03

����

547

3.86

����

453

3.99

����

650

3.40

����

328

3.40

����

477

Designating more wilderness areas on public

land that stops access for development and

motorized uses.

3.98

����

451

3.75

����

624

**

3.77

����

413

3.59

����

678

*

3.28

����

329

3.29

����

572

Developing and maintaining continuous trail

systems that cross both public and private

land for non-motorized recreation such as

hiking or cross-country skiing.

3.85

����

454

3.64

����

679

**

3.79

����

475

3.59

����

650

*

3.62

����

392

3.57

����

528

Designating some existing recreation trails

for specific uses (for example, creating

separate trails for snowmobiling and crosscountry skiing, or for mountain biking and

horseback riding).

3.74

����

489

3.63

����

631

4.00

����

456

3.87

����

625

3.64

����

389

3.53

����

575

Increasing the total number of acres in the

public land system.

3.84

����

411

3.55

����

554

***

3.93

����

380

3.75

����

573

*

3.44

����

302

3.38

����

507

Increasing law enforcement efforts by public

land agencies on public lands.

3.83

����

400

3.92

����

562

4.06

����

383

3.99

����

591

3.66

����

331

3.64

����

461

Preserving the cultural uses of forests and

grasslands by Native Americans and Native

Hispanics such as fire wood gathering,

herb/berry/plant gathering, and ceremonial

uses.

3.79

����

554

3.78

����

800

3.71

����

625

3.61

����

838

3.33

����

401

3.44

����

619

Paying an entry fee that goes to support

public land.

3.56

����

400

3.63

����

535

3.63

����

378

3.66

����

598

3.42

����

319

3.57

����

496

Providing natural resources from forests and

grasslands to support communities

depending on grazing, mining, or timber

harvesting.

3.51

����

440

3.57

����

666

3.21

����

432

3.28

����

644

3.35

����

431

3.35

����

613

Allowing public land managers to trade

public lands for private lands (for example,

to eliminate private property within public

land boundaries, or to acquire unique areas

of land).

3.07

����

338

3.13

����

500

3.25

����

372

3.19

����

494

3.16

����

334

3.14

����

461

a Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 3203 sample since each respondent was asked only a portion

of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.

*, **, *** Differences between the means are statistically significant at � = 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 25

Table 12--Comparison of socially responsible individual values - Region 9 and the rest of the United States.

VALUES

����������� ��������� ���������� ������ Region 9

Rest

of US

Significant

difference between

Region 9 and the rest

of the US

I am glad there are national forests even if I never get to see

them.

4.77

���� a

835 b

4.72

����

1214

People should be more concerned about how our public

lands are used.

4.69

����

776

4.64

����

1040

People can think public lands are valuable even if they do

not actually go there themselves.

4.66

����

734

4.59

����

1089

Manufacturers should be encouraged to use recycled

materials in their manufacturing and processing operations.

4.63

����a

849b

4.66

����

1149

Future generations should be as important as the current

one in the decisions about natural resources.

4.63

����

892

4.55

����

1214

**

Consumers should be interested in the environmental

consequences of the products they purchase.

4.52

����

777

4.46

����

1075

I am willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of

slowing down pollution.

4.35

����

765

4.37

����

1069

Donating time or money to worthy causes is important to

me.

4.16

����

766

4.20

����

1065

Natural resources must be preserved even if people must do

without some products.

4.19

����

844

4.02

����

1171

***

I am willing to stop buying products from companies that

pollute the environment even though it might be

inconvenient.

4.00

����

764

3.92

����

1102

People should urge their friends to limit their use of

products made from scarce resources.

4.14

����

822

4.12

����

1210

Forests have a right to exist for their own sake, regardless

of human concerns and uses.

4.16

����

805

4.08

����

1147

Wildlife, plants, and humans have equal rights to live and

grow.

4.22

����

783

4.09

����

1018

**

I have often thought that if we could just get by with a little

less there would be more left for future generations.

4.04

����

725

4.04

����

1027

I would be willing to sign a petition for an environmental

cause.

3.92

����

716

3.86

����

1066

The whole pollution issue has upset me, since I feel it’s not

overrated. c

2.79

����

761

2.71

����

1090

I would be willing to pay five dollars more each time I use

public lands for recreational purposes (for example, hiking,

3.58

����

920

3.48

����

1291
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

�������� ���������

� ����� ���� ��� ������ ���� �������� ��� ����� �� ��������

��� �� ���������� ������� ��������� ���� ����� ���������

����

�����

����

����

����

����

��� ���������� ��� ������ ������ �� ����� ����� ����

�������� ��������� �� � ������ ������������ ��������

����

����

���

����

����

����

��� ������� ���������� ������ ��������� ��� ����������

��� ������� �� ������ ����� �� ����������

����

����

���

����

����

����

��

��� �������� �� ������� ��������� ������ �� ����� ������

�� �������� ��������

����

����

���

����

����

����

��� ���� ��������� ���� ��� ��� ������ ����� �� ���������

���� ��� ������ ��� ����� �������

����

����

����

����

����

����

���

��� ���� ������ ��� ����������� ��������� ����� �� �� ��

��� ��� ���� �� ��� ������ �� �� ���� ���

����

����

���

����

����

����

��� ������� ��� �� ������� ������ �� ��� �������� ���� ���

������ �� �������

����

����

����

����

����

����

���

�� ������ �������� ������� ���� ����� �� ���� ��� ����� ��

� ���� ������ ����� �����������

����

����

���

����

����

����

�

�������� ��������� � ������ ���� ��� ���� ���� ���� ��� ������ ����� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ��� ���� ���� ������ ����� ���� ���������� ��� �����

���� � ������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������ � ���� ������ ��������� ��� ���� ������� ������ �� ���� ��� ��������� ���������� ���� ��� ����� ����������� ��� � �������� ����������

�� ������� �������� ������ ����� �� ��� ���������

�� ��� ��� ����������� ������� ��� ����� ��� ������������� ����������� �� � � ����� ����� ��� ����� ������������� ����� �� � �������

Table 12--Continued.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005. 27

Survey Design and 

Implementation

The design of the VOBA survey began with focus 

groups and interviews. Between September 1999 and 

June 2000 over 80 focus groups and individual interviews were conducted across the lower 48 states. These 

interviews concentrated on 3 topics; 1) issues related 

to the use of public lands in general and forests and 

rangelands in particular, 2) the objectives (or goals) of 

the group (or individual) regarding the use, management, 

and conservation of the forests and rangelands, and 3) 

the role of the Forest Service in the use, management, 

and conservation of the forests and rangelands.

Based upon the results of the focus groups and interviews, an objectives hierarchy was constructed for each 

group of stakeholders. These hierarchies indicate what 

each group or individual was attempting to achieve, and 

how they would achieve each goal or objective. These 

objectives ranged from the abstract strategic level to the 

more focused or specific means level. The means level 

objectives are at the bottom of the hierarchy, while the 

strategic objective is at the top. Fundamental objectives between the means level and the strategic-level 

completed the hierarchies. Therefore, the strategic level 

objective is an abstract objective that can be achieved 

by more specific fundamental level objectives, which 

are in turn achieved by means level objectives. (See 

figure 1.)

Each of the objectives hierarchies was confirmed with 

its respective group so as to ensure that it accurately reflected their goals and objectives. A combined objectives 

hierarchy was then constructed that included all the objectives stated by each group or individual interviewed. 

The result was a hierarchy that covered five strategiclevel objectives related to access, preservation/conservation, commodity development, education, and natural 

resource management. These 5 strategic level objectives 

were supported by 30 fundamental objectives.

The 30 fundamental-level objectives were used to 

develop 30 objectives statements that were used in the 

National Survey of Recreation and the Environment 

(NSRE). The NSRE is a national survey administered 

via telephone interviews. The 30 objectives statements 

were divided into 5 groups based upon the strategic level 

objectives the focus groups had identified. During the 

telephone interviews, each respondent was asked one 

statement from each of the five strategic-level groups 

to obtain a statistically valid sample for each statement 

and for each strategic-level group.

As noted above, the survey of the American public’s 

values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes was conducted 

as a module within the NSRE. Questions about respondents’ recreation behavior comprise the bulk of the 

interview. However, the results presented here are based 

solely on the questions in the VOBA Module of the survey and the demographic questions. Participants were 

asked to respond to the VOBA questions using a fivepoint scale. The objectives questions are anchored with 

1=not at all important to 5=very important. Beliefs are 

anchored with 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree 

and attitudes are anchored with 1=very unfavorable to 

5=very favorable. Each of these three scales consists of 

30 items. The 25 items in the ‘values’ scale are anchored 

with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly agree.

Reverse Scoring

When the VOBA survey was designed, care was 

taken to avoid the appearance of an instrument that was 

biased toward or against a specific position. To do this 

the “direction” of the scale varied. For example, for one 

item in a “strongly agree” response might indicate a 

conservation/preservation orientation, while for another 

item the same response might indicate a development 

orientation. While this is useful to increase the acceptance of the instrument and subsequent response rates, it 

creates problems when items with the opposite direction 

are grouped.

To compare two or more items that have the opposite 

direction, it is necessary to make the items move in the 

same direction. To illustrate this we will use an example. 

Suppose we want to examine the overall preference 

for sweets as indicated by the preference for ice cream 

and pie. We have two scale items. For each, 1 indicates 

“strongly disagree” and 5 indicates “strongly agree” as in 

Appendix
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-159. 2005.

the Public Lands Values scale. To avoid the appearance 

of bias toward or against sweets, the two items move 

in opposite directions: “I like ice cream” and “I don’t 

like pie.” Clearly a person who likes all sweets will answer 5 to the first item and 1 to the second. Conversely, 

someone who does not like sweets will answer 1 to the 

first and 5 to the second. If these items were grouped, 

it would be more useful for research if the two items 

were scored to indicate preference for sweets either 

with a higher response for both items (or lower, either 

way would work). So, to re-score, we choose one of the 

items—in this example we’ll choose the second—and 

reverse the scoring. Thus an answer of 5 to “I don’t 

like pie” becomes a 1 (and we can reword the item as 

“I like pie”). An answer of 4 becomes 2, 3 remains the 

same (neutral), 2 becomes 4, and 1 becomes 5. This in 

effect creates a new item that corresponds in direction 

to “I like ice cream.” Now we have an indication of each 

respondent’s preference for sweets. Higher numbers for 

each item indicate a higher preference for sweets, while 

lower numbers indicate lower preference. A similar rescoring was done for certain items in the VOBA in order 

to more accurately characterize overall preferences for 

item groups.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs 

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability, 

political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases 

apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact 

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 

326 W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-

9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT RMRS-GTR-159

SEPTEMBER 2005