U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

Survey Responses From Region 3:

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

Survey Responses From Region 3:

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 3: Are we achieving the public’s objectives for forests and rangelands? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-156. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 27 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 the attitude of respondents from the Southwest (USDA Forest Service Region 3: Arizona and New 

Mexico) is less favorable toward the Forest Service performance concerning the restricting of mineral development on 

forests and grasslands than respondents from the rest of the United States. Nationwide, as in the Southwest, 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 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 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) RMRS-GTR-159

• 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 3: 

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands? 

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

Contents

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

Data and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

VOBA Statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

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

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

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

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

Objectives Identified as Moderately Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Results for Region 3: Public Lands Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Socially Responsible Individual Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Socially Responsible Management Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Comparison of Region 3 With the Rest of United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Public Lands Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 1

Introduction_____________

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is twofold: 

caring for the land and serving people. Because 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, and 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 Forest Service lands should 

be managed, 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 their objectives.

Data and 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 was constructed for each 

focus group. These hierarchies 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 

abstract strategic level to the more focused or applied 

means level (see figure 1).

Within the objectives hierarchy, the strategic level 

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 

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.
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

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 

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 strategiclevel 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 trails.” The corresponding belief question asks whether the respondent believes that providing 

more hiking trails 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 trails.

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

using both student samples 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. Research and testing have shown that responses 

to the Public Lands Values can be arranged into two categories of statements, or factors that have been labeled 

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 that 

are specific to their home region and are not captured in 

the existing national survey instrument.1

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 176 

in Forest Service Region 3. (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 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.2

 In addition 

to the VOBA questions, respondents were asked about 

their recreational behaviors and for 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 sampling design, each item in 

the objectives, beliefs, and attitude scales has fewer than 

the full 176 respondents. It is also important to note that 

Region 3 has a relatively low population compared to the 

more populous East and West Coasts. Thus, these results 

are an indication of a limited public’s values, objectives, 

beliefs, and attitudes, but need to be confirmed by more 

intensive sampling.

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 

1

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

Martin, and M. Haeffle. 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

 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-156. 2005. 3

lead to fewer non-responses and therefore to a better 

sample quality.3 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 3 the response numbers for each question ranged 

from 11 to 71. As a result of this smaller sample size, 

there is a slightly greater chance the results do not fully 

reflect the precise demographics of Region 3, slightly 

lowering the 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. Thus some statements may raise questions concerning the appropriateness of the language for 

private lands. In other words, the language used may 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 3: 

Objectives, Beliefs, and 

Attitudes________________

Results from the Region 3 respondents to the VOBA 

National survey are grouped into the objectives the 

public in Region 3 feels are the most important, not 

important and moderately important. We highlight the 

public’s level of consensus for rating each objective 

within these groups. We also discuss 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 these objectives. A subsequent section presents the Region 3 responses to the 

Public Lands Values Scale. Finally, we compare results 

between Region 3 and the rest of the United States.

Objectives Identified as Important

We designated a mean response of 4.00 or greater (out 

of a possible 5) as indicating an objective is important 

to the respondents in Region 3. Twelve of the original 

30 objectives were thus identified as being important to 

the people of Region 3.

Core Important Objectives

Of the 12 important objectives, four were further 

singled out as “core” important objectives for the public 

in Region 3. These core objectives not only have means 

of 4.00 or higher, but also have low standard deviations 

(s.d. less than 1.00), indicating that the public is generally in agreement that these objectives are important.4

The core objectives are presented in detail in table 1. 

For each of these four 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 3 is the 

conservation and protection of lands that are the source 

of our water resources. This objective has a mean of 4.83 

and further a standard deviation of 0.76, indicating wide 

4

 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.

3

 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-156. 2005.

agreement about the importance of this objective. Protecting watersheds is viewed as an appropriate role for 

the USDA Forest Service (mean=4.38), but with somewhat less consensus (s.d.=1.06). Agency performance in 

fulfilling this objective is rated as somewhat favorable, 

but with still less agreement (mean=3.91, s.d.=1.24). 

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 of responses or scores.

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

����������

�� ���� �� ���������

��������� ��� ����

������ �� ��� ����������

������ ����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ���� ���������

�� �� ����������� ����

��� ��� ���� ������

��������

����������� ���������

���������� ������

��� ��������� �� ���

���� ��� ����������� ��

��� ���� ������ �������

�� ���������� ���� ����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

���������� ��� ���������� ������� ���

���������� ���� ��� ��� ������ �� ���

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

��� ��������� ������

����

�����

���

����

����

��

����

����

��

���������� ��������� �������� ��

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

��� ���������� ���� �������� �����

������������ �� ����������

�������������

����

����

��

����

����

��

����

����

��

���������� ��������� �������� ��

������� ������� ��� ���������� ����

�������� ���� ��������� �� ���������

����� ���������

����

����

��

����

����

��

����

����

��

��������� ��� ������ �� ��� ��������

����� �������� �� ���������� ���

������� ����������

����

����

��

����

����

��

����

����

��

�

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

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

importance of objective belief about the role of the FS agency performance

number of respondents

30

0

5

10

15

20

25

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 sources.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 5

Volunteer Programs—Two types of volunteer programs are core objectives for the residents of Region 3. 

Programs to maintain facilities such as trails and campgrounds are widely agreed to be important (mean=4.39, 

s.d.=0.78). Providing such programs is also seen by 

most of the respondents in the Region as an appropriate role for the Forest Service, but with somewhat less 

agreement (mean=4.17, s.d.=1.07). While the agency 

is viewed as doing a somewhat favorable job, there is 

even less agreement (mean=3.55, s.d. =1.28) about this 

evaluation, as can be seen in the distribution of responses 

shown in figure 3.

Volunteer programs that target the health of forests 

and grasslands, such as tree planting are also important 

to most residents of Region 3 (mean=4.53, s.d.=0.84). 

Providing such programs is seen as an appropriate role 

for the agency but with a similar decline in the level of 

agreement (mean=4.46, s.d.=1.10). Agency performance 

is slightly unfavorable (mean=2.83). The level of consensus for this evaluation is not high (s.d.=1.27). Figure 

4 shows the responses to this objective, and illustrates 

the decreasing consensus from the importance of the 

objective to the evaluation of agency performance.

Information on Economic Benefits—The final core 

objective for Region 3 residents is the provision of information to the public about the economic value received 

from the development of natural resources (mean=4.16, 

s.d.=0.94). Overall the respondents in Region 3 feel that 

providing such information is an important role for the 

agency, although there is little agreement with this general statement (mean=4.08, s.d.=1.32). Agency performance is rated as somewhat unfavorable (mean=2.69), 

number of respondents

importance of objective belief about the role of the FS agency performance

16

0

4

8

10

12

14

1 2 3 4 5

6

2

number of respondents

importance of objective belief about the role of the FS agency performance

0

10

15

20

25

30

1 2 3 4 5

5

Figure 3—Distribution of Objective, Belief and Attitude scores for: Developing volunteer programs to maintain 

trails and facilities on forests and 

grasslands.

Figure 4—Distribution of Objective, 

Belief and Attitude scores for: Developing volunteer programs to 

improve forests and grasslands (for 

example, planting trees or improving 

water quality).
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

but this view is also not universal, as indicated by the 

standard deviation of 1.41. The distribution of responses 

for this objective is shown in figure 5.

Other Important Objectives

Table 2 shows the results for the other eight objectives 

that respondents in Region 3 identified as important. 

These issues, while viewed as important based on means 

over 4.00, do not enjoy as wide agreement as the core 

issues. These means have 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 identified as relatively more 

important fall lower in the table than objectives identified as relatively less important. Each of these objectives 

will be discussed briefly.

Although Region 3 residents report that the development of a national policy to guide resource development 

on public lands is an important objective (mean=4.31), 

agreement on this assessment is not universal (s.d.=1.01). 

It is generally believed by residents in Region 3 that the 

Forest Service would be within its bounds to provide 

such national direction (mean=4.30, s.d.=0.92). Assessment of the agency’s performance is neutral and exhibits 

a lack of consensus (mean=3.00, s.d.=1.15).

Overall, the residents of Region 3 report that allowing 

for diverse uses of forests and grasslands is an important 

objective, although the level of consensus is slightly low 

(mean=4.12, s.d.=1.07). Region 3 residents believe that 

fulfilling this objective is an appropriate role for the 

USDA Forest Service, but again with somewhat low 

agreement (mean=4.00, s.d.=1.15). Agency performance 

in providing for diverse uses is determined by Region 

3 respondents to be somewhat favorable (mean=3.84, 

s.d. =1.00).

While protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitat is 

an important objective for most respondents in Region 3, 

there is some lack of agreement (mean=4.51, s.d.=1.08). 

Respondents do believe that the Forest Service should 

be fulfilling this objective (mean=4.47, s.d.=1.01), and 

agency performance is evaluated as somewhat favorable, but with a great deal of disagreement (mean=3.45, 

s.d.=1.41).

Law enforcement on public lands is important to 

Region 3 residents, although, again, there is a lack of 

agreement (mean=4.0, s.d.=1.08). Overall, respondents 

in Region 3 believe that increasing law enforcement 

is a somewhat appropriate role for the USDA Forest 

Service, but there is considerable disagreement in the 

precise rating (mean=3.59, s.d.=1.26). Finally, agency 

performance is viewed as somewhat favorable, although 

there is a great deal of variation concerning this evaluation (mean=3.82, s.d.=1.33).

Restricting mineral development on forests and grasslands is important to Region 3 residents (mean=4.09). 

Additionally, while the level of agreement is not high 

for this issue, it also is not as low as one might expect 

for such a controversial objective (s.d. =1.11). Respondents believe that the USDA Forest Service is an 

appropriate agency to fulfill this objective, but here we 

see considerable disagreement (mean=3.77, s.d.=1.51). 

The evaluation of the job the agency is doing in fulfilling 

this objective is not favorable (mean=2.45, s.d.=1.15). 

number of respondents

importance of objective belief about the role of the FS agency performance

0

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5

2

6

4

Figure 5—Distribution of Objective, Belief 

and Attitude scores for: Informing the 

public on the economic value received 

by developing natural resources.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 7

Interpretation of this evaluation is difficult since one who 

feels this is an important objective will have different 

criteria for agency performance than does one who feels 

that it is not an important objective.

Preserving the ability to have a “wilderness experience” on forests and grasslands is viewed by Region 3 

respondents as important (mean=4.00), but this objective 

does not enjoy a great deal of consensus (s.d.=1.18). 

Providing such experiences is seen as an appropriate role 

for the Forest Service, but again there is little agreement 

concerning this assessment (mean=4.22, s.d.=1.12). 

Agency performance is rated as favorable, and the level 

of agreement here is high (mean=4.06, s.d.=0.90).

Generally speaking, the residents of Region 3 feel 

that providing information to the public about recreation 

concerns such as trail etiquette and safety is an important 

objective (mean=4.39, s.d.=1.20). These respondents 

also are in relative agreement that it is important for 

the Forest Service to be providing such information 

(mean=4.32, s.d.=0.99). Agency performance is rated 

as favorable, although there is a low level of consensus 

for this assessment (mean=3.44, s.d.=1.31).

Finally, the respondents in Region 3 feel that making 

public land management decisions at the local level is 

an important objective (mean=4.05). Again, there is 

disagreement with this assessment, as indicated by the 

standard deviation of 1.39. Region 3 residents also believe it is appropriate that the Forest Service confine decisions to the local level, and here the level of agreement 

is high (mean=4.17, s.d.=0.98). Agency performance is 

only slightly favorable, but this rating exhibits very little 

consensus (mean=3.06, s.d.=1.48).

����� ���Objectives that Region 3 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 a national policy that guides natural

resource development of all kinds (for example,

specifies levels of extraction, and regulates

environmental impacts).

4.31

����a

36b

4.30

����

20

3.00

����

15

Allowing for diverse uses of forests and grasslands

such as grazing, recreation, and wildlife habitat.

4.12

����

26

4.00

����

25

3.84

����

31

Protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitats. 4.51

����

41

4.47

����

30

3.45

����

31

Increasing law enforcement efforts by public land

agencies on public lands.

4.00

����

18

3.59

����

22

3.82

����

17

Restricting mineral development on forests and

grasslands.

4.09

����

22

3.77

����

22

2.45

����

29

Preserving the ability to have a “wilderness

experience” on forests and grasslands.

4.00

����

27

4.22

����

27

4.06

����

33

Informing the public about recreation concerns on

forests and grasslands such as safety, trail etiquette,

and respect for wildlife).

4.39

����

23

4.32

����

22

3.44

����

27

Making management decisions concerning the use

of forests and grasslands at the local level rather

than at the national level.

4.05

����

19

4.17

����

23

3.06

����

16

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 176 sample since each respondent was asked

only a portion of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

Objectives Identified as Not 

Important

Five objectives in the VOBA questionnaire are not 

important to the majority of respondents in Region 3. 

These objectives have a mean importance rating of less 

than 3.00 (3.00 is the midpoint of the scale, indicating a 

neutral position). While the means for these objectives 

indicate that most respondents did not feel that they 

were important, these objectives also exhibit high standard deviations, indicating that there are supporters as 

well. This is not surprising since these objectives were 

included in the VOBA survey based upon the input of 

focus groups. Some focus groups, who are representative 

of elements within society, revealed strong preferences 

for these objectives. Therefore, it is likely these same 

stakeholder groups showed support for these objectives. 

In other words, while the general public does not feel 

these objectives are important, there is a vocal minority 

that does. These less important objectives are presented 

in table 3.

Motorized recreation is often considered a controversial use of public lands. Results from Region 3 

support this assertion. The respondents of Region 3, 

on the whole, do not find the provision of access for 

motorized vehicles to be very important, but there is 

wide disagreement about this (mean=2.95, s.d.=1.53). 

Most respondents do not believe that the Forest Service 

is the appropriate agency to provide motorized access, 

although again there are some respondents who disagree 

(mean-=2.29, s.d.=1.51). Agency performance is not 

favorable, but again, there is a great deal of disagreement 

about this evaluation (mean=2.40, s.d.=1.55). Figure 6 

shows the distribution of scores.

Many uses of public lands require a permit. Easing 

the permitting process is not regarded as an important 

objective for Region 3 residents, but as with all the 

objectives in this group, the level of agreement about 

this assessment is low (mean=2.86, s.d.=1.35). Region 

3 residents also generally do not feel that it is the role of 

the USDA Forest Service to relax the permit procedures 

(mean=2.76, s.d.=1.20). As with other objectives that 

����� ���Objectives that Region 3 respondents do not 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?

������� ������������

������ ����������

Expanding access for motorized off-highway

vehicles on forests and grasslands (for example,

snowmobiling or 4-wheel driving).

2.95

����a

22b

2.29

����

31

2.40

����

15

Making the permitting process easier for some

established uses of forests and grasslands such as

grazing, logging, mining, and commercial

recreation.

2.86

����

21

2.76

����

17

3.20

����

15

Expanding commercial recreation on forests and

grasslands (for example, ski areas, guide services

and outfitters).

2.85

����

20

2.94

����

32

3.70

����

20

Developing and maintaining continuous trail

systems that cross both public and private land for

motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles and

ATV’s.

2.82

����

22

3.21

����

28

3.04

����

24

Developing new paved roads on forests and

grasslands for access for cars and recreational

vehicles.

2.42

����

19

2.37

����

27

3.04

����

23

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 176 sample since each respondent was asked only a portion

of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 9

are not seen as falling within the purview of the agency, 

interpretation of the agency’s performance can be inconclusive. Here, respondents in Region 3 rate agency 

performance as somewhat favorable (mean=3.20), with 

the usual dissent (s.d.=1.42). 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. Figure 

7 shows the distribution and the diversity in responses 

for this objective.

Expanding commercial recreation on forests and 

grasslands is not important to the majority of respondents in Region 3, but this is not a universal evaluation 

(mean=2.85, s.d.=1.39). Respondents do not feel that 

implementing expanded commercial recreation is an 

appropriate role for the agency (mean=2.94, s.d.=1.41). 

Agency performance is rated as favorable, and there is 

relative agreement about this evaluation (mean=3.70, 

s.d.=0.92). See figure 8 for the distribution of Region 3 

responses for this objective.

Developing and maintaining a continuous system of 

trails (crossing public and private lands) for motorized 

access is not viewed by most Region 3 residents as an 

important objective (mean=2.82). However, as with 

other objectives in this group, the standard deviation 

(1.53) reveals there are those who do view it as important. Providing such a trail system is seen as an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service, but this belief 

does not have wide agreement (mean=3.21, s.d.=1.69). 

Agency performance is viewed as slightly favorable, but 

there is a low level of agreement about this assessment 

(mean=3.04, s.d.=1.40). Figure 9 shows the high level 

of variation in these responses.

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 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

number of respondents

importance of objective belief about the role of the FS agency performance

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 6—Distribution of Objective, Belief 

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

on forests and grasslands.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

number of respondents

importance of objective belief about the role of the FS agency performance

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 7—Distribution of Objective, Belief 

and Attitude scores for: Making the permitting process easier for some established uses of forests and grasslands.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

number of respondents

importance of objective belief about the role of the FS agency performance

1 2 3 4 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

number of respondents

importance of objective belief about the role of the FS agency performance

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 8—Distribution of Objective, Belief and Attitude scores for: Expanding 

commercial recreation on forests and 

grasslands.

Figure 9—Distribution of Objective, Belief 

and Attitude scores for: Developing and 

maintaining continuous trail systems for 

motorized vehicles.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

number of respondents

importance of objective belief about the role of the FS agency performance

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 10—Distribution of Objective, Belief 

and Attitude scores for: Developing new 

paved roads on forests and grasslands 

for access for cars and recreational 

vehicles.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 11

disagreement about this). Region 3 residents see the 

implementation of such restrictions as a somewhat appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean=3.74), 

but the high standard deviation reveals a great deal of 

disagreement about this (1.44). Agency performance is 

slightly unfavorable (mean=2.96, s.d.=1.26).

The forests and grasslands in Region 3 have a number 

of traditional cultural uses by Native Americans and Native Hispanics. Preserving these cultural uses is seen by 

residents in the Region as a somewhat important objective (mean=3.81). This opinion is not shared by all within 

the Region, as can be seen in the large standard deviation 

(1.30). Providing access for such uses is believed to be 

an appropriate role for the Forests Service, but again, this 

belief is not universal (mean=3.65, s.d.=1.50). Agency 

performance is rated favorably according to Region 3 

respondents, and with wide agreement (mean=3.60, 

s.d.=0.91).

Wilderness designation is often a subject on which 

there is little agreement. Region 3 is no exception. While 

generally the residents of the Region do feel that designation of more wilderness is important (mean=3.80), there 

are a variety of responses for this objective (s.d.=1.44). 

Perhaps reflecting knowledge about the actual process 

by which wilderness is designated, Region 3 residents 

do not believe that such designation is the role of the 

USDA Forest Service (mean=2.94). However, this belief 

is not widely shared (s.d.=1.68). Agency performance 

is slightly unfavorable, although, again, this is not a 

universally held evaluation (mean=2.95, s.d.=1.24).

Public land management conflicts often arise due to 

differing priorities. Communities which are 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 3 see the 

provision of resources to dependent communities as a 

somewhat important objective (mean=3.54). But, as 

we often see with this group of objectives, the level of 

agreement is very low (s.d.=1.65). Providing resources 

to dependent communities is seen as a slightly appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service, yet again, 

there is disagreement with this assessment (mean=3.05, 

s.d.=1.33). Agency performance is somewhat favorable 

(mean=3.28, s.d.=1.24).

Public Input and Information

Collaborative management is being applied more and 

more in Federal land management. The Region 3 respondents feel that encouraging such collaboration (table 

4) is a moderately important objective (mean=3.90), 

of Region 3 (mean=2.42). Again, not all agree with this 

assessment (s.d.=1.46). Expanding paved roads is not 

viewed as an appropriate role for the Forest Service by 

most respondents in Region 3 (mean=2.37, s.d.=1.47). 

The Forest Service is seen by many as doing a relatively favorable job of expanding roads (mean=3.04, 

s.d.=1.19). Figure 10 shows the distribution of responses 

for this objective.

Objectives Identified as Moderately 

Important

Table 4 presents the objectives that the people of Region 3 feel are somewhat important, or those for which 

they are more neutral. All of these moderately important 

objectives have means between 3.00 and 4.00. As with 

the less important objectives, they all 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 was developed, it is not surprising 

to find a variety of responses. 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 these groupings, 

the objectives are organized in order of decreasing importance (objectives with higher means first, then those 

with lower means).

Resource Extraction and Use

The preservation of natural resources of forests and 

grasslands through policies that end timber harvesting 

and mining is of moderate importance to the people of 

Region 3 (mean=3.91), although there is some disagreement as can be seen in the standard deviation (1.38). The 

residents of Region 3 do feel that enacting such policies 

is an appropriate role for the Forest Service (mean=4.06, 

s.d.=1.18) and that the agency is doing an adequate job 

(mean=3.42, s.d.=1.36), although there is also some 

disagreement about both of these evaluations.

Restricting timber harvest and grazing is also seen by 

Region 3 residents as moderately important, but there is 

great variety in responses to this objective (mean=3.88, 

s.d.=1.62). This objective, while similar to the previous 

one, is worded without any justification of such a policy, 

which may be the source of the decrease in consensus. 

Respondents in Region 3 may see restrictions on extractive uses of forests and grasslands as justified when 

it is made clear that the purpose is the preservation of 

natural resources (although there is still a good deal of 
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

����� ���Objectives of moderate importance for Region 3.

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?

������� ������������

������ ����������

Preserving the natural resources of forests and

grasslands through such policies as no timber

harvesting or no mining.

3.91

����a

23b

4.06

����

31

3.42

����

26

Restricting timber harvesting and grazing on

forests and grasslands.

3.88

����

24

3.74

����

35

2.96

����

23

Preserving the cultural uses of forests and

grasslands by Native Americans and Native

Hispanics

# such as firewood gathering,

herb/berry/ plant gathering, and ceremonial

access.

3.81

����

31

3.65

����

23

3.60

����

25

Designating more wilderness areas on public land

that stops access for development and motorized

uses.

3.80

����

41

2.94

����

17

2.95

����

21

Resource Extraction and Use

Providing natural resources from forests and

grasslands to support communities dependent on

grazing, mining, or timber harvesting.

3.54

����

26

3.05

����

22

3.28

����

25

Encouraging collaboration between groups in

order to share information concerning uses of

forests and grasslands.

3.90

����

20

4.63

����

24

3.81

����

21

Informing the public on the potential

environmental impacts of all uses associated with

forests and grasslands.

3.90

����

21

4.32

����

25

3.57

����

23

Public Input &

Information

Using public advisory committees to advise on

public land management issues.

3.57

����

23

3.89

����

18

2.82

����

11

Designating some existing recreation trails for

specific uses (for example, creating separate trails

for snowmobiling and cross-country skiing, or for

mountain biking and horseback riding).

3.67

����

27

3.57

����

21

3.17

����

18

Developing and maintaining continuous trail

systems that cross both public and private land for

non-motorized recreation such as hiking or crosscountry skiing.

3.67

����

15

4.36

����

25

3.50

����

R

22 ecreation

Paying an entry fee that goes to support public

land.

3.44

����

18

3.41

����

22

3.45

����

20

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).

3.40

����

15

3.40

����

20

2.95

����

22

Land

Acquisitionw

Increasing the total number of acres in the public

land system.

3.38

����

29

3.86

����

21

3.38

����

13

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 176 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.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 13

although there is some disagreement about this 

assessment (s.d.=1.17). These respondents agree that 

the Forest Service should be encouraging collaboration 

(mean=4.63, s.d.=0.71), and the agency is generally 

perceived as performing adequately in fulfilling this 

objective (mean=3.81, s.d.=1.08).

Dissatisfaction over management of public lands 

often stems from the environmental impacts that occur 

with certain uses. Informing the public on the environmental impacts associated with uses of forests and 

grasslands is moderately important to the majority of 

respondents in Region 3. However there is also a great 

deal of dissent from this opinion (mean=3.90, s.d.=1.48). 

Region 3 residents agree that providing the public with 

this information is an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean=4.32, s.d.=0.99). The Forest Service 

is seen as doing a good job providing this information, 

although the level of agreement is low for this evaluation 

(mean=3.57, s.d.=1.38).

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. 

In the same spirit as collaboration, many people have 

advocated using public advisory committees to inform 

land management decision makers and to provide input 

into management decisions. Generally speaking, the 

people of Region 3 find the use of such committees to 

be somewhat important, but there a variety of opinions 

on this issue (mean=3.57, s.d.=1.31). Using advisory 

committees is believed by Region 3 residents to be an appropriate role for the agency, although there is disagreement about this too (mean=3.89, s.d.=1.23). Finally, the 

performance of the USDA Forest Service is viewed as 

slightly unfavorable (mean=2.82, s.d.=1.25).

Recreation

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 3 respondents, although there is some disagreement with this evaluation (mean=3.67, s.d.=1.33). 

Creating such designations for trails is believed by Region 3 residents to be an appropriate role for the Forest 

Service (mean=3.57). However, this belief is not shared 

by all respondents (s.d.=1.29). Most respondents agree 

that agency performance is slightly favorable for this 

objective (mean=3.17, s.d.=0.99).

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 3 (mean=3.67). That opinion is not 

shared by all respondents, as can be seen in the high standard deviation (1.35). It is an interesting comparison to 

note that the residents of Region 3 do not find the development of a similar trail system for motorized recreation 

to be important (see table 3 above). The USDA Forest 

Service is seen as an appropriate agency to fulfill this 

objective, although there is some dissention with this assessment (mean=4.36, s.d.=1.19). Agency performance 

is evaluated as favorable (mean=3.50, s.d.=1.19).

Many public land recreation opportunities are available only to fee-paying users. This has been 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 3 feel is somewhat important 

(mean=3.44). However, the high standard deviation reveals that this objective has very little consensus (1.34). 

Although not everyone agrees, generally speaking, 

implementing an entry fee is believed to be an appropriate role for the agency (mean=3.41, s.d.=1.40). The 

USDA Forest Service is seen as doing a favorable job 

(mean=3.45, s.d.=1.15).

Land Acquisition

Allowing public land managers to trade public lands 

for private lands is a somewhat important objective for 

Region 3 residents, but this objective is far from universally supported (mean=3.40, s.d.=1.64). The USDA 

Forest Service is viewed as the appropriate agency to 

fulfill this objective (mean=3.40), although again there 

is not universal agreement (s.d.=1.10). Agency performance is not viewed favorably, with a mean of 2.95 and 

standard deviation of 1.17.

A similar objective to trading public lands for private 

is the objective of increasing the total acreage in the 

public lands system. The people of Region 3 find this 

to be a somewhat important objective, but as with the 

other objectives in this group, there is not a great deal 

of consensus for this evaluation (mean=3.38, s.d.=1.32). 

Increasing the total acreage in the public land system 

is seen as an appropriate role for the Forest Service, 

but again there is a lack of consensus (mean=3.86, 

s.d.=1.24). Generally Region 3 respondents view agency 

performance as favorable, but there are diverse opinions 

on this issue (mean 3.38, s.d.=1.45).
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

Results for Region 3: Public 

Lands Values____________

Previous research using the Public Lands Values 

Scale has shown that these items consistently fall into 

two categories. The first, containing items that deal with 

individual actions or values, we have labeled as Socially 

Responsible Individual Values (tables 5 and 6). For the 

Socially Responsible Individual Values, a higher mean 

indicates a higher level of environmental orientation. 

The second category contains items that deal with how 

public lands should be managed. These are called the 

Socially Responsible Management Values (table 7). The 

Socially Responsible Management Values statements are 

worded so that a higher value indicates that 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 3, but for many of the values statements, the 

standard deviation indicates that the level of agreement 

is low.

Socially Responsible Individual Values with a High 

Degree of Consensus

When those Socially Responsible Individual Values 

for which there is a higher degree of agreement (standard deviation of 1.00 or less) are placed in order of 

increasing standard deviation, the order of agreement 

is not analogously decreasing (table 5). Nonetheless, 

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 the values statements that have lower 

consensus among the respondents. These again nearly 

always exhibit the characteristic that higher levels of 

environmental orientation also correspond to higher consensus (even among these values with low consensus).

Figure 11 shows the distribution of responses to the 

statement “I would be willing to pay $5 more each time I 

use public lands for recreational purposes.” While many 

respondents agree with this statement (mean=3.22), 

the high standard deviation indicates that there is a 

great deal of disagreement (s.d.=1.52). Examination of 

figure 11 reveals there are nearly as many respondents 

who do not agree with the statement, as there are those 

that do agree. Additionally, there are a great number 

of respondents who are at best neutral. Since fees are 

often a reality in order to provide such recreation opportunities, it is important to be aware that while most 

support them, such policies will also most likely meet 

with considerable resistance.

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

����� ������������

������

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

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

�����

���

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

����

��

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

��� ���������� �����������

����

����

��

�

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

���� � ������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 15

����� ���Socially responsible individual public lands values for Region 3 with a low level of agreement

among respondents.

Values

����������� ��������� ���������� ������ Mean

Future generations should be just as important as the current one in the decisions about public lands.

4.52

����a

61b

I am willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of slowing down pollution.

4.15

����

40

Consumers should be interested in the environmental consequences of the products they purchase.

4.15

����

39

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

4.17

����

42

People can think public lands are valuable even if they never go there themselves.

4.31

����

51

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

be inconvenient.

3.98

����

43

People should be more concerned about how our public lands are used.

4.16

����

37

The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much since I feel it’s somewhat overrated. c 3.84

����

45

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

generations.

3.80

����

49

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

3.63

����

43

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

3.71

����

58

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

3.90

����

49

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

3.22

����

59

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

3.45

����

47 a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 176 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.
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

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

������

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

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

����������

����

�����

���

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

����

��

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

���� ����� ���������

����

����

��

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

����

��

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

����

��

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

������������ ��������

����

����

��

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

����

��

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

���

����

����

��

�

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

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

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 11—Distribution of responses to: “I 

would be willing to pay five dollars more 

each time I used public lands for recreational purposes.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 17

Socially Responsible Management 

Values

The results for the Socially Responsible Management 

Values (table 7) have not been separated by level of consensus, as none of them show a high level of consensus. 

They are presented in the table in order of decreasing 

consensus. As the previous section demonstrates, most 

people believe in protecting the environment. Disagreement arises about the appropriate methods to achieve 

such protection. The differences in responses to this set of 

values are the basis for the disagreement we see in some 

of the objectives. Histograms are presented for the distribution of responses for each of the Socially Responsible 

Management Values (figures 12 through 19), but only the 

first two are discussed because of their direct relevance to 

land management and customer satisfaction.

It is interesting to note the low level of agreement 

with the statement “The Federal government should 

subsidize the development and leasing of public lands 

to companies.” Also of interest is the relatively high 

consensus on this opinion among responses from the 

public in Region 3. This response is, while not statistically significant, different from the rest of the United 

States, where there is a higher level of agreement and a 

lower level of consensus. Figure 12 shows the distribution of responses to this statement.

There is wide disagreement about the statement “I 

think the public land managers are doing an adequate 

job of protecting natural resources from being over 

used” (figure 13). This value statement may in part explain the overall low means for attitudes about agency 

performance on specific issues. Here we see that the 

overall assessment of public land managers is neutral. 

Generally people neither agree nor disagree with the 

statement (mean=3.04). However, when asked about 

the performance of a specific agency (the USDA Forest 

Service) in fulfilling a specific objective, most people 

have stronger opinions, and these have been revealed in 

the attitude statements discussed in previous sections.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

number of respondents

1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 12—Distribution of responses to: 

“The Federal government should subsidize the development and leasing of 

public lands to companies.”

Figure 13—Distribution of responses to: “I 

think that the public land managers are 

doing an adequate job of protecting natural resources from being overused.”
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

0

5

10

15

20

25

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 14—Distribution of responses to: 

“I think that the primary use of forests 

should be for products that are useful 

to humans.”

0

5

10

15

20

25

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 15—Distribution of responses to: 

“The most important role for the public 

lands is providing jobs and income for 

local people.”

Figure 16—Distribution of responses to: 

“The decision to develop resources 

should be based mostly on economic 

grounds.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 19

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

2

4

6

8

12

14

16

18

20

number of respondents

10

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 17—Distribution of responses to: 

“The government has better places to 

spend money than devoting resources 

to a strong conservation program.”

Figure 18—Distribution of responses to: 

“We should actively harvest more trees 

to meet the needs of a much larger human population.”

Figure 19—Distribution of responses 

to: “The main reason for maintaining 

resources today is so we can develop 

them in the future if we need to.”
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

Comparison of Region 3 

With the Rest of the United 

States__________________

This final section compares the VOBA results for 

Region 3 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 3 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 statistically significant 

differences exist.

Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes

Table 8 reveals that Region 3 does not differ from 

the rest of the United States regarding the importance 

of any of the core important objectives, or the beliefs 

about the role of the USDA Forest Service in fulfilling 

them. However, they do differ in their evaluation of the 

performance of the agency in fulfilling two of these objectives: developing volunteer programs to improve the 

land, and informing the public on the economic value 

from developing resources. For both of these objectives 

the evaluation given by Region 3 respondents is less 

favorable than that given by the rest of the country.

As seen in table 9, Region 3 and the rest of the United 

States also agree on their ratings of other objectives 

deemed to be important. Additionally, there are no differences between Region 3 and the rest of the United 

States in beliefs about the agency’s role for these objectives. However, as with the core objectives, Region 

3 residents rate agency performance less favorably for 

protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitat than do respondents from the rest of the United States. Region 3 

residents’ evaluation of agency performance is also less 

favorable for the restricting of mineral development on 

forests and grasslands. For this objective, respondents 

from Region 3 evaluated the agency’s performance to 

be less than favorable, while the rest of the country finds 

it favorable.

����� ���Comparison of objectives, beliefs and attitudes – Region 3 and the rest of the United States.

CORE OBJECTIVES

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?

������� ������������

������ ����������

OBJECTIVE Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US

Conserving and protecting forests

and grasslands that are the source of

our water resources, such as

streams, lakes, and watershed areas.

4.83

�����

29b

4.71

����

1298

4.38

����

42

4.60

����

1364

3.91

����

23

3.83

����

1171

Developing volunteer programs to

maintain trails and facilities on

forests and grasslands (for example,

trail maintenance or campground

maintenance).

4.39

����

23

4.15

����

1084

4.17

����

29

4.20

����

1136

3.55

����

20

3.72

����

937

Developing volunteer programs to

improve forests and grasslands (for

example, tree planting or improving

water quality).

4.53

����

36

4.54

����

1259

4.46

����

28

4.51

����

1296

2.83

����

23

3.74

����

932

***

Informing the public on the

economic value received by

developing our natural resources.

4.16

����

25

4.02

����

1087

4.08

����

24

3.99

����

1047

2.69

����

26

3.22

����

960

*

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 176 sample since each respondent was asked only a portion

of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.

*, **, *** mean differences are statistically significant at α= 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 21

Table 10 shows that only one objective determined 

by the respondents in Region 3 to be unimportant 

shows a significant difference with the rest of the 

United States. Although both respondents from Region 

3 and those from the rest of the United States find 

the expansion of off-highway motorized access to be 

unimportant, the public in Region 3 determined it to 

be more important than did those from the rest of the 

United States.

As revealed in table 11, a few items in the group 

of moderately important objectives show differences 

between the responses from Region 3 and those of the 

rest of the country. Respondents within Region 3 believe 

informing the public on the potential environmental 

impacts of uses of public lands to be less important than 

do respondents within the rest of the United States. However, Region 3’s higher standard deviation shows that 

there are more diverse responses within Region 3 than 

within the rest of the United States. Region 3 respondents 

also have differing beliefs about the role of the USDA 

Forest Service for three of these objectives. Residents 

in Region 3 feel that designating more wilderness is 

not an appropriate role for the agency, while residents 

from the rest of the United States feel that it is a somewhat appropriate role. However, Region 3 views both 

encouraging collaboration and developing a continuous 

non-motorized trail system as more appropriate roles for 

the agency than does the rest of the United States. There 

are no differences between Region 3 and the rest of the 

United States for the evaluation of the performance of 

����� ���Comparison of objectives, beliefs and attitudes – Region 3 and the rest of the United States.

IMPORTANT OBJECTIVES

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?

������� ������������

������ ����������

OBJECTIVE Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US

Developing a national policy that

guides natural resource

development of all kinds (for

example, specifies levels of

extraction and regulates

environmental impacts).

4.31

�����

36b

4.22

����

1259

4.30

����

20

4.15

����

1088

3.00

����

15

3.44

����

978

Allowing for diverse uses of forests

and grasslands such as grazing,

recreation, and wildlife habitat.

4.12

����

26

4.05

����

1104

4.00

����

25

4.05

����

934

3.84

����

31

3.67

����

818

Protecting ecosystems and wildlife

habitats.

4.51

����

41

4.55

����

1481

4.47

����

30

4.56

����

1292

3.45

����

31

3.87

����

1227

*

Increasing law enforcement efforts

by public land agencies on public

lands.

4.00

����

18

3.88

����

944

3.59

����

22

4.03

����

952

3.82

����

17

3.64

����

775

Restricting mineral development on

forests and grasslands.

4.09

����

22

3.99

����

1070

3.77

����

22

3.94

����

1101

2.45

����

29

3.32

����

899

***

Preserving the ability to have a

wilderness experience on forests

and grasslands.

4.00

����

27

4.22

����

1314

4.22

����

27

4.22

����

1332

4.06

����

33

3.86

����

1368

Informing the public about

recreation concerns on forests and

grasslands such as safety, trail

etiquette, and respect for wildlife.

4.39

����

23

4.55

����

1144

4.32

����

22

4.52

����

1132

3.44

����

27

3.88

����

1223

Making management decisions

concerning the use of forests and

grasslands at the local level rather

than at the national level.

4.05

����

19

3.98

����

898

4.17

����

23

3.93

����

1080

3.06

����

16

3.41

����

789

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 176 sample since each respondent was asked only a portion

of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.

*, **, *** mean differences are statistically significant at α= 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

the USDA Forest Service in fulfilling these moderately 

important objectives.

Public Lands Values

For Socially Responsible Individual Values with 

statistically significant differences (table 12), the means 

for Region 3 are lower than for the rest of the United 

States. This suggests that there is a lower level of environmental orientation within Region 3 than for the rest 

of the United States. Additionally, for the one Socially 

Responsible Management Value statement where Region 

3 shows a significant difference, the response from this 

Region is lower than from the rest of the country. These 

statements are worded so that a higher response indicates 

that a respondent values the extraction and use of natural 

resources more highly. So, while Region 3 respondents 

exhibit a lower level of environmental orientation on 

the Individual Values, they also exhibit a lower preference for human-centered uses of forests and grasslands 

when responding to the Management Values (although 

this is demonstrated by only one statistically different 

statement). While there is not a statistically significant 

difference, Region 3 residents are strongly of the opinion 

that the United States government should not subsidize 

the development of public lands.

����� ����Comparison of objectives, beliefs and attitudes – Region 3 and the rest of the United States.

UNIMPORTANT OBJECTIVES

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?

������� ������������

������ ����������

OBJECTIVE Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US

Expanding access for motorized

off-highway vehicles on forests and

grasslands (for example,

snowmobiling or 4-wheel driving).

2.95

�����

22b

2.26

����

1107

* 2.29

����

31

2.42

����

1241

2.40

����

15

2.96

����

811

Making the permitting process

easier for some established uses of

forests and grasslands such as

grazing, logging, mining, and

commercial recreation.

2.86

����

21

2.74

����

1043

2.76

����

17

2.66

����

1117

3.20

����

15

2.96

����

752

Expanding commercial recreation

on forests and grasslands (for

example, ski areas, guide services,

or outfitters).

2.85

����

20

2.87

����

1057

2.94

����

32

3.02

����

1266

3.70

����

20

3.36

����

868

Developing and maintaining

continuous trail systems that cross

both public and private land for

motorized vehicles such as

snowmobiles or ATVs.

2.82

����

22

2.78

����

1260

3.21

����

28

2.80

����

1095

3.04

����

24

3.20

����

913

Developing new paved roads on

forests and grasslands for access for

cars and recreational vehicles.

2.42

����

19

2.39

����

1091

2.37

����

27

2.46

����

1106

3.04

����

23

3.13

����

901 a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 176 sample since each respondent was asked only a portion

of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.

*, **, *** mean differences are statistically significant at α= 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 23

����� ����Comparison of objectives, beliefs and attitudes – Region 3 and the rest of the United States.

OBJECTIVES OF MODERATE IMPORTANCE

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?

������� ������������

������ ����������

OBJECTIVE Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US Region 3 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R3/rest

US

Preserving the natural resources of

forests and grasslands through such

policies as no timber harvesting or

no mining.

3.91

�����

23b

4.15

����

1336

4.06

����

31

4.13

����

1312

3.42

����

26

3.60

����

1143

Restricting timber harvesting and

grazing on forests and grasslands.

3.88

����

24

3.96

����

1118

3.74

����

35

3.95

����

1036

2.96

����

23

3.31

����

923

Preserving the cultural uses of

forests and grasslands by Native

Americans and Native Hispanics

such as firewood gathering,

her/berry/plant gathering, and

ceremonial access.

3.81

����

31

3.78

����

1323

3.65

����

23

3.65

����

1440

3.60

����

25

3.39

����

995

Designating more wilderness areas

on public land that stops access for

development and motorized uses.

3.80

����

41

3.85

����

1034

2.94

����

17

3.67

����

1074

* 2.95

����

21

3.30

����

880

Providing natural resources from

forests and grasslands to support

communities dependent on grazing,

mining, or timber harvesting.

3.54

����

26

3.55

����

1080

3.05

����

22

3.26

����

1054

3.28

����

25

3.35

����

1019

Encouraging collaboration between

groups in order to share information

concerning uses of forests and

grasslands.

3.90

����

20

4.22

����

1046

4.63

����

24

4.19

����

1043

* 3.81

����

21

3.56

����

880

Using public advisory committees

to advise on public land

management issues.

3.57

����

23

3.85

����

947

3.89

����

18

3.88

����

909

2.82

����

11

3.33

����

709

Informing the public on the

potential environmental impacts of

all uses associated with forests and

grasslands.

3.90

����

21

4.40

����

1151

* 4.32

����

25

4.45

����

1110

3.57

����

23

3.41

����

990

Designating some existing

recreation trails for specific use (for

example, creating separate trails for

snowmobiling and cross-country

skiing or for mountain biking and

horseback riding).

3.67

����

27

3.68

����

1093

3.57

����

21

3.93

����

1060

3.17

����

18

3.58

����

946

Developing and maintaining

continuous trail systems that cross

both public and private land for

non-motorized recreation such as

hiking or cross-country skiing.

3.67

����

15

3.72

����

1118

4.36

����

25

3.66

����

1100

** 3.50

����

22

3.59

����

898

Paying an entry fee that goes to

support public land.

3.44

�����

18b

3.60

����

917

3.41

����

22

3.65

����

954

3.45

����

20

3.51

����

795

Allowing public land managers to

trade public land for private lands

(for example to eliminate private

property within public land

boundaries or to acquire unique

areas of land).

3.40

����

15

3.10

����

823

3.40

����

20

3.21

����

846

2.95

����

22

3.15

����

773

Increasing the total number of acres

in the public land system.

3.38

����

29

3.68

����

936

3.86

����

21

3.82

����

932

3.38

����

13

3.41

����

796 a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 176 sample since each respondent was asked only a portion of the 115 VOBA

questions due to time limitations.

*, **, *** mean differences are statistically significant at α= 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

����� ����Comparison of values - Region 3 and the rest of the United States.

SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL VALUES

VALUES ����������� ��������� ���������� ������ Region 3 Rest of US

Significant difference

between Region 3 and the

rest of the US

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

see them.

4.69

�����

52b

4.75

����

1997

Donating time or money to worthy causes is important to

me.

4.17

����

53

4.19

����

1778

Manufacturers should be encouraged to use recycled

materials in their manufacturing and processing

operations.

4.63

����

40

4.65

����

1958

Future generations should be just as important as the

current one in the decisions about public lands.

4.52

����

61

4.59

����

2045

I am willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of

slowing down pollution.

4.15

����

40

4.37

����

1794

Consumers should be interested in the environmental

consequences of the products they purchase.

4.15

����

39

4.49

����

1813

*

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

of human concerns and uses.

4.17

����

42

4.11

����

1910

People can think public lands are valuable even if they do

not actually go there themselves.

4.31

����

51

4.63

����

1772

**

I am willing to stop buying products from companies that

pollute the environment even though it might be

inconvenient.

3.98

����

43

3.96

����

1823

People should be concerned about how our public lands

are used.

4.16

����

37

4.67

����

1779

***

The whole pollution issue has never upset me, I feel it’s

somewhat overrated. c

3.84

����

45

3.74

����

1806

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

little less there would be more left for future generations.

3.80

����

49

4.05

����

1703

People should urge their friends to limit their use of

products made from scarce resources.

3.63

����

43

4.14

����

1989

**

Natural resources must be preserved even if people must

do without some products.

3.71

����

58

4.10

����

1957

*

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

grow.

3.90

����

49

4.15

����

1752

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

public lands for recreational purposes (for example, hiking,

camping, hunting).

3.22

�����

59b

3.53

����

2152

I would be willing to sign a petition for an environmental

cause.

3.45

����

47

3.89

����

1735

*
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 25

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

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

����������� ����������

������� ������ � ���

��� ���� �� ��� ��

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

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

����

����

��

����

����

����

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

��� ������ �� �������

����

����

��

����

����

����

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

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

����� ���������

����

����

��

����

����

����

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

������ �� �������� ��������

����

����

��

����

����

����

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

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

����

����

��

����

����

����

�

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

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

��������

����

����

��

����

����

����

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

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

����

����

��

����

����

����

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

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

����

����

��

����

����

����

�

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

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

�� ��� ��� ���� ����������� ��� ������������� ����������� �� α� ����� ����� ��� ����� ������������� ����� �� � �������
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005.

Appendix

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 

efforts concentrated on three 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 specific or applied 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 the group’s 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 strategic level 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. Although questions about 

respondents’ recreation behavior comprise the bulk of 

the interview, 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 five-point 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 3 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 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 opposite 

directions, it is necessary to make all the items move in 

the same direction. For 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 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 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-156. 2005. 27

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 are grouped, it would be more useful to a research if the two items are 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. So, 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, and lower numbers indicate lower preference. 

A similar re-scoring was done for certain items in the 

VOBA 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-156

SEPTEMBER 2005