U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

Survey Responses From Region 5:

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

Survey Responses From Region 5:

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

DONNA L. LYBECKER YBECKER AND DEBORAH J. SHIELDS
Lybecker, Donna L., Shields, Deborah J. 2005. Survey responses from Region 5: Are we achieving the public’s 

objectives for forests and rangelands? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-157. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 32 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 Pacific Southwest (USDA Forest Service Region 5: California and Hawaii) are quite similar to those 

of the rest of the United States, although respondents from the Pacific Southwest show a stronger tendency towards 

allowing access for diverse uses and are slightly less inclined toward informing the public. Nationwide, as in the Pacific 

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 3 (Arizona and New Mexico) RMRS-GTR-156

• 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
Contents

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

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

Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Results for Region 5: Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

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

Objectives Identified as Not Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Objectives Identified as Moderately Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Results for Region 5: Public Lands Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Socially Responsible Individual Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Socially Responsible Management Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Comparison of Region 5 With the Rest of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Objectives Identified as Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Objectives Identified as Not Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Objectives Identified as Moderately Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Public Lands Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Concluding Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Survey Responses From Region 5: 

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

Donna L. Lybecker and Deborah J. Shields

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 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 challenging as 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” (for example, permittees or applicants for 

timber sales or grazing allotments), 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 the Forest Service manages public land. 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 lowered regardless of the quality of their interactions with 

individual Forest Service employees or their experience 

with the agency’s other protocols. Thus, understanding the public’s objectives and comparing them with 

the agency’s objectives can provide useful input to the 

strategic planning process.

This report describes the public’s values, objectives, 

beliefs, and attitudes for and toward the USDA Forest 

Service, with particular focus on Region 5, the Pacific 

Southwest (California and Hawaii). Information on 

the public’s perceptions 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 these objectives, and their attitudes about the 

performance of the agency in fulfilling these objectives. 

This report compares the nation-wide public’s responses 

to those from respondents in Region 5. Results show 

strong parallels between the views of respondents from 

Region 5 and those of respondents from the rest of the 

United States. One difference, however, is that compared 

to public from the rest of the United States, the public 

from Region 5 is less likely to believe that fulfilling the 

goals of the stated objectives are appropriate roles for 

the USDA Forest Service.

This report is organized as follows. First there is a 

brief discussion of the data used in the analysis. The 

following section outlines the methods used to analyze 

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

attitudes regarding forests and rangelands. Next, results for Region 5 are reported. Finally, responses from 

Region 5 are compared with those from the rest of the 

United States.

Data and Methodology____

Data for this report come from the VOBA survey. The 

survey was implemented as a module of the National 

Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). 

This random telephone survey was administered for the 

USDA Forest Service by the University of Tennessee. 

Although random, it is important to note that a telephone 

survey such as the NSRE will not adequately represent 

the views of segments of the population that do not have 

access to or choose not to have telephones. In addition 

to the VOBA questions, respondents were asked about 

their recreational behaviors and basic demographics.

The VOBA part of the survey is comprised of statements to which respondents indicate their level of 

agreement or approval in four areas—values, objectives, 

beliefs, and attitudes—regarding forests and rangelands. 

Respondents indicate their agreement or approval on a 

five-point scale. 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.
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

The VOBA surveys objectives, and related beliefs and 

attitudes; it does not directly ask respondents about their 

opinions of the USDA Forest Service goals, as embodied 

in the Forest Service 2000 Strategic Plan. Likewise, 

the survey does not ask for an individual’s reaction to 

the Chief’s Agenda or Leadership Team priorities. The 

VOBA 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 of the 

focus groups indicated the group’s goals for the management of forests and rangelands, and how they would like 

to see each goal or objective achieved. The objectives 

ranged from the abstract strategic level to the more 

focused or applied means level (figure 1).

The strategic level objectives are abstract, while 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.

The objectives elicited from all the focus groups were 

pooled, duplications eliminated, and overlaps accounted 

for. Five strategic-level objectives were consistently revealed: Access, Preservation/ Conservation, Economic 

Development, Education, and Natural Resource Management. The 30 items in the VOBA objectives scale are 

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. 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 home 

region that are not captured in the existing national 

survey instrument.

The belief and attitude statements tier down directly 

from the 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 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.

The Public Lands Values scale was developed using approximately 200 items that, through a series of 

iterations using both student and adult samples around 

the United States, were reduced to a 25-item scale. 

This scale was designed to focus on values that people 

hold for the environment in general and public lands in 

particular. It has 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 scale can be arranged 

into two categories: Socially Responsible Individual 

Values (SRIV) and Socially Responsible Management 

Values (SRMV).

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, 

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.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 3

written from the perspective of private landowners, 

might say something like, “Coordinating with public 

and private actors 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 does 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.1

Data Collection

The VOBA survey was implemented as a module of the 

NSRE, a survey with a nationwide sample. Of the 7,069 

nationwide respondents, 636 came from Region 5. The 

number of responses in any region is a function of the 

overall VOBA sampling design. The data were collected 

between late 1999 and early 2000. For each State the size 

of the sample was proportional to its population. Due to a 

limited amount of time available for each phone interview, 

participants were 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 636 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 

sample quality.2 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 5 the response numbers for each question 

ranged from 55 to 210. As a result of this smaller sample 

size, there is a slightly greater chance the results do not 

fully reflect the precise traits of the region; however, the 

sample size is still large enough to give a relatively high 

level of confidence in the results.

Methodology

The objective of this analysis is to determine the 

important and unimportant objectives, the perceived 

appropriateness of roles for the USDA Forest Service, 

the favorable or unfavorable view of the agency’s performance, and the uniformly held socially responsible individual and management values. Descriptive statistics, 

mean, standard deviation, and frequency distribution, 

were calculated for each of the 115 objective, belief, and 

attitude statements. Factor scores (group means) were 

calculated for the values statements and, where appropriate, items were reverse scored (see Appendix).

Results for Region 5: 

Objectives, Beliefs, 

and Attitudes____________

Results from Region 5 respondents to the VOBA national survey are reported first for objectives, the extent 

to which the public believes it is the job of the Forest 

Service to fulfill the objectives (beliefs), and the perception of agency performance in fulfilling these objectives 

(attitudes). These results are grouped as to objectives 

the Region 5 public feels are the most important, not 

important, and moderately important. For each of these 

groups of objectives the level of consensus (or lack 

thereof) among the public is also highlighted.

Results for the values are then divided into Socially 

Responsible Individual Public Lands Values with a 

high level of agreement among Region 5 respondents, 

Socially Responsible Individual Public Lands Values 

with a low level of agreement among respondents, and 

Socially Responsible Management Values.

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 5. Additionally, the objectives determined to be important are divided into core 

important objectives and other important objectives, 

determined by the standard deviation (s.d.) of less 

than 1.00 or greater than or equal to 1.00, respectively. 

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

 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-157. 2005.

Twelve of the original 30 objectives were thus identified as important to the people of Region 5. Six of these 

12 were further specified as “core” objectives, because 

their response ratings had a standard deviation (s.d.) of 

less than 1.00, indicating that the public is generally in 

agreement about the importance of these objectives.3

Core Important Objectives

The six core objectives for the public in Region 5 

are presented in detail in table 1. For each of the six 

core objectives, a histogram 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, and that 

it is an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service. 

However, this consistency does not hold when looking 

at agency performance. None of these objectives show 

a public with a “very favorable” or “favorable” (mean 

above 4.00) view of the performance of the USDA Forest Service.

Watershed protection—The VOBA objective deemed 

the most important by respondents in Region 5 is the 

conservation and protection of lands that are the source 

of our water resources. This objective has a mean of 4.68 

and a standard deviation of 0.85 (table 1; figure 2), which 

shows the distribution of responses. The mean of 4.66 

3

 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.

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

����������

�� ���� �� ���������

��������� ��� ����

������ �� ��� ���������� ������

����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ���� ���������

�� �� ����������� ���� ���

��� ���� ������

��������

����������� ��������� ����������

������

��� ��������� �� ���

���� ��� ����������� ��

��� ���� ������

������� �� ���������� ����

����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

���������� ��� ���������� �������

��� ���������� ���� ��� ��� ������ ��

��� ����� ���������� ���� ��

�������� ������ ��� ��������� ������

����

������

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

��������� ��� ������ �����

���������� �������� �� ������� ���

���������� ���� �� ������� �����

���������� ��� ������� ��� ���������

����

����

��

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ���������� ��� ��������

���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��������� �������� ��

������� ������� ��� ���������� ����

�������� �������� ������ ��

��������� ����� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

��

���������� ��������� �������� ��

�������� ������ ��� ���������� ��

������� ��� ���������� ���� ��������

����� ����������� �� ����������

�������������

����

����

��

����

����

��

����

����

��

�������� ��� ������� ���� �� �������

��� ���������� ���� �� ��������

����������� ��� �������� ��������

����

����

��

����

����

��

����

����

��

�

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

�� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 5

for the corresponding belief statement also indicates that 

the public considers the protection of watersheds to be 

an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service. This 

belief has wide consensus as well, indicated by the standard deviation of 0.77. Agency performance is viewed 

by Region 5 respondents as somewhat favorable, with a 

mean of 3.75. This rating, however, does not exhibit as 

much consensus as the objective and belief (s.d. 1.09).

Recreation concerns—The second-most important 

core objective for the public of Region 5 is the distribution of information about recreation concerns, with a 

mean of 4.65. The standard deviation of 0.74 indicates 

general consensus about the importance of this core 

objective (figure 3). The distribution of this type of information is also viewed as an appropriate role for the 

agency (mean 4.44, s.d. 0.98). Agency performance is 

viewed as somewhat favorable (mean 3.79), but there is 

wide disagreement about this evaluation (s.d. 1.24).

Protecting ecosystems— The mean of 4.61 and standard deviation of 0.77 for protection of ecosystems and 

wildlife habitats reveal not only the importance of this 

objective, but also a high level of consensus among the 

respondents from Region 5 for this evaluation (figure 

4). There is also wide agreement among these respondents that the protection of ecosystems and wildlife 

habitats are an appropriate role for the USDA Forest 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 2—Distribution of Objectives, 

Beliefs, 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.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 3—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores 

for: Informing the public about 

recreation concerns on forests and 

grasslands such as safety, trail etiquette, and respect for wildlife.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

Service (mean 4.74, s.d. 0.67). However, the assessment of agency performance had a mean of only 3.79 

(s.d. 1.02).

Volunteer programs—The development of two 

types of volunteer programs is also highly important 

to the respondents from Region 5. The first of these, 

developing volunteer programs to improve the heath 

of forests and grasslands, has a mean of 4.56 and a 

standard deviation of 0.93. This indicates wide agreement that these programs are important. The Region 5 

respondents also see the development of these volunteer 

programs as an appropriate role for the agency (mean 

4.51) and the standard deviation of 0.91 reveals greater 

agreement concerning appropriateness of the agency 

role than with the objective itself. Finally, this objective 

has the lowest performance evaluation of the six core 

objectives—although the evaluation is still somewhat 

favorable (mean 3.56). This evaluation has a high standard deviation (1.23) indicating that the respondents’ 

attitudes vary widely. Figure 5 shows that the majority 

of respondents from Region 5 view agency performance 

as adequate, although nearly 69% (the percentage of 

respondents answering 4 or less) feel that the agency 

could be doing a better job.

The development of volunteer programs to maintain 

trails and facilities within forests and grasslands is also 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 4—Distribution of Objectives, 

Beliefs, and Attitude scores for: 

Protecting ecosystems and wildlife 

habitats.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 5—Distribution of Objectives, 

Beliefs, and Attitude scores for: 

Developing volunteer programs 

to improve forests and grasslands 

(for example, planting trees, or 

improving water quality).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 7

evaluated to be highly important for the respondents of 

Region 5 (figure 6). The mean of 4.24 and the standard 

deviation of 0.97 reveal agreement on the importance 

of developing such volunteer program. Development of 

these programs is also seen as an appropriate role for 

the USDA Forest Service (mean 4.40, s.d. 0.87). Finally, 

as with the development of other volunteer programs, 

agency performance is somewhat favorable (mean 3.68), 

although the high standard deviation (1.28) indicates the 

respondents’ attitudes vary greatly.

Diverse uses—Most respondents in Region 5 rate allowing for diverse uses as a core objective (mean 4.03, 

s.d. 0.98). As with the other core objectives, respondents 

see this as an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean 4.07), but there is some disagreement about 

this assessment (s.d. 1.21). This may indicate that some 

respondents would prefer to see the agency limit uses 

allowed within forests and grasslands. Agency performance is viewed by Region 5 respondents as somewhat 

favorable, with a mean of 3.66, but the standard deviation 

(1.08) indicates some dissenting voices. Figure 7 shows 

that while the majority of respondents view the objective as important and its fulfillment as an appropriate 

role for the agency, more than 74% (the percentage of 

respondents answering 4 or less) felt the agency could 

be doing a better job.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 6—Distribution of Objectives, 

Beliefs, and Attitude scores for: 

Developing volunteer programs 

to maintain trails and facilities 

on forests and grasslands (for 

example, trail maintenance or 

campground maintenance).

Figure 7—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores 

for: Allowing for diverse uses of 

forests and grasslands such as 

grazing, recreation, and wildlife 

habitat.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

Other Important Objectives

Table 2 shows the distribution of scores for the other 

objectives respondents in Region 5 felt were important. 

These six objectives are viewed as important, based on 

means over 4.00, but their standard deviations are greater 

than or equal to 1.00, indicating a greater diversity of 

responses. The objectives in table 2 are arranged by 

standard deviation: lowest standard deviation (higher 

consensus) to highest standard deviation (less consensus). As a result, some objectives identified as relatively 

more important are lower in the table than some objectives identified as relatively less important. Each of these 

objectives will be discussed briefly.

Preserving the wilderness experience—Preserving 

the ability to have a ‘wilderness’ experience has a mean 

of 4.26 and a standard deviation of 1.00, indicating some 

consensus for the evaluation, although less than for the 

core objectives. The public in Region 5 sees this as an 

appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean 

4.32), but there are some dissenting voices as indicated 

by the standard deviation (1.02). Agency performance is 

seen as somewhat favorable (mean 3.86), but again there 

is some disagreement (s.d. 1.17). (See figure 8.)

Informing the public—Informing the public on potential environmental impacts is also important to the 

people of Region 5 (mean 4.24), although there is a lack 

of consistency in this evaluation (s.d. 1.10). Informing 

the public of potential environmental impacts is seen 

as an appropriate role for the agency (mean 4.51), and 

there is wide agreement about this assessment (s.d. 0.89). 

Agency performance is seen as somewhat favorable 

(mean 3.22), although the high standard deviation (1.37) 

again indicates substantial disagreement. The histogram 

(figure 9) shows the familiar correspondence between 

the importance of the objective and the appropriateness 

of the agency’s role, along with the more widely spread 

evaluation of agency performance.

National policy on resource development—Developing a national policy that guides natural resource development of all kinds is another important objective (figure 

10) for the respondents from Region 5 (mean 4.26), but 

the standard deviation of 1.12 indicates respondents 

are not all in agreement. Most respondents feel that the 

Table 2--Other important objectives for Region 5 respondents.

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 ability to have a ‘wilderness’

experience on forests and grasslands.

4.26

����a

109b

4.32

����

122

3.86

����

114

Informing the public on the potential

environmental impacts of all uses associated with

forests and grasslands.

4.24

����

87

4.51

����

91

3.22

����

82

Developing a national policy that guides natural

resource development of all kinds (for example,

specifies levels of extraction, and regulates

environmental impacts).

4.26

����

113

4.16

����

79

3.36

����

95

Using public advisory committees to advise on

public land management issues.

4.02

����

87

3.90

����

70

3.29

����

49

Encouraging collaboration between groups in

order to share information concerning uses of

forests and grasslands.

4.21

����

97

4.23

����

83

3.28

����

72

Preserving the natural resources of forests and

grasslands through such policies as no timber

harvesting or no mining.

4.09

����

101

4.17

����

109

3.57

����

90

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 636 sample since each respondent was asked only a portion

of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 9

Figure 10—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores 

for: Developing a national policy 

that guides natural resource development of all kinds (for example, 

specifies levels of extraction, and 

regulates environmental impacts). 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

number of respondents

0

1 2 3 4 5

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

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

number of respondents

0

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 8—Distribution of Objectives, 

Beliefs, and Attitude scores for: 

Preserving the ability to have a 

“wilderness experience” on forests 

and grasslands.

Figure 9—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores 

for: Informing the public on the 

potential environmental impacts 

of all uses associated with forests 

and grasslands.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

development of these programs is an appropriate role 

for the USDA Forest Service (mean 4.16, s.d. 1.19), 

and agency performance is seen as somewhat favorable 

(mean 3.36), although the standard deviation (1.29) 

again indicates a high level of disagreement.

Public advisory committees—Using public advisory 

committees to advise on public land management issues 

is important to the public from Region 5. The mean for 

this objective is 4.02, although the standard deviation 

(1.14) indicates some members do not hold this view. 

Respondents feel that the development of public advisory committees is a somewhat appropriate role for the 

agency (mean 3.90, s.d. 1.05). Agency performance on 

informing the public about these economic values is 

seen as favorable (mean 3.29), but again a high standard deviation (1.12) shows that this evaluation is not 

universal. Figure 11 shows the distribution of responses, 

illustrating the large percentage (63%) of respondents 

from Region 5 that view agency performance as neutral 

or unfavorable.

Encouraging collaboration—Encouraging collaboration between groups in order to share information 

concerning uses of forests and grasslands had a mean 

of 4.21. As with many of these important objectives, 

the somewhat high standard deviation (1.15) indicates 

that a number of respondents do not see this issue of 

encouraging collaboration as important. Responses from 

Region 5 reveal that the public views the encouragement 

of collaboration as an appropriate role for the agency 

(mean 4.23, s.d. 1.05). Finally, the USDA Forest Service 

is seen as doing a somewhat adequate job of encouraging 

collaboration (mean 3.28), but again there is less than 

full consensus (s.d. 1.21). The histogram (figure 12) 

reveals that while the majority of the respondents view 

the objective as important and its fulfillment as an appropriate role for the agency, the distribution of opinions 

about agency performance is spread more evenly across 

the range of attitudes.

Preserving Forests and Grasslands through such policies as no timber harvesting or no mining—Although 

this objective has a mean of 4.09, the high standard deviation (1.36) may indicate there are also those in Region 

5 who do not favor the elimination of timber harvesting 

or mining. The development of such national policies 

is seen as an appropriate role for the agency, although 

again a high level of disagreement exists (mean 4.17, 

s.d. 1.26). Likewise, agency performance is somewhat 

favorable (mean 3.57), but there is a low level of consensus on this performance (s.d. 1.15). Figure 13 illustrates the lack of consensus in the evaluation of agency 

performance, and shows that while most respondents 

agree that this objective is important and an appropriate 

role for the USDA Forest Service, there are also a good 

many that do not.

Objectives Identified as 

Not Important

Five objectives in the VOBA were identified as not 

important by the people of Region 5. While these objectives have a mean importance of less than 3.00 (3.00 is 

the midpoint of the scale, indicating a neutral position), 

all exhibit high standard deviations, indicating that 

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

number of respondents

0

5

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 11—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores 

for: Using public advisory committees to advise on public land 

management issues.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 11

some respondents believe they are important. Divergent 

evaluations are not surprising since these objectives were 

included in the VOBA survey based upon the input of 

focus groups, some of which were comprised of specific 

stakeholder groups that may have had strong preferences 

for these objectives. In other words, while the general 

public does not feel that these objectives are important, 

there is a vocal minority that does. These less important 

objectives are presented in table 3.

Expanding off-highway motorized access—Although 

expanding motorized access is not important to most of 

the people of Region 5, there is little consensus for this 

objective (mean 2.24, s.d. 1.41), indicating there is a 

constituency for whom such access is important. Overall, 

the public does not see the provision of such access as 

an appropriate role for the Forest Service (mean 2.37), 

although, again, the high standard deviation (1.45) indicates that there are many who do. Agency performance 

on the provision of off-highway motorized access is 

seen as slightly unfavorable (mean 2.97), but again this 

evaluation is not universal (s.d. 1.41). Figure 14 shows 

the distribution of these responses.

Developing paved roads—Developing new paved 

roads is also unimportant to most of the people of Region 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 12—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores 

for: Encouraging collaboration 

between groups in order to share 

information concerning uses of 

forests and grasslands.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 13—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores 

for: Preserving the natural resources of forests and grasslands 

though such policies as no timber 

harvesting or no mining.
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

����� ���Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores for: ���������� ���� ��� ������ � �����������

�� ��� ���� �� ����������

����������

�� ���� ��

���������

��������� ��� ����

������ �� ��� ����������

������ ����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ����

��������� �� ��

����������� ���� ���

��� ���� ������

��������

����������� ���������

���������� ������

��� ��������� ��

��� ���� ���

����������� �� ���

���� ������

������� �� ����������

���� ����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

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

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

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

����

�����

���

����

����

���

����

����

��

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

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

���������

����

����

��

����

����

��

����

����

��

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

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

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

�����������

����

����

���

����

����

��

����

����

��

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

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

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

�����

����

����

���

����

����

��

����

����

��

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

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

��������� �� ������������

����

����

��

����

����

���

����

����

��

�

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

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 14—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude 

scores for: Expanding access for 

motorized off-highway vehicles 

on forests and grasslands (for example, snowmobiling or 4-wheel 

driving).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 13

5 (mean 2.32), but with evidence that there are also some 

for whom it is important (s.d. 1.32). Likewise, development of paved roads is not seen by most in Region 5 

to be an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service 

(mean 2.45), but there is a great deal of disagreement 

(s.d. 1.50). Finally, the USDA Forest Service is seen 

as doing a somewhat favorable job in developing new 

paved roads (mean 3.23), but as with the mean for the 

importance of this objective and for the belief about 

the role of the agency, there is little consensus for this 

evaluation (s.d. 1.24) (figure 15).

Easing the permitting process—Making the permitting process easier for some established uses (figure 16) 

is not viewed by most within the Region 5 public as an 

important objective (mean 2.42), but the high standard 

deviation (1.39) indicates some groups do view this as 

important. Making the permitting process easier is not 

seen as an appropriate role for the agency (mean 2.58). 

This assessment is not universally agreed upon, however, 

as indicated by a standard deviation of 1.36. The public 

in Region 5 views the performance of the Forest Service 

in easing the permitting process for some established 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 15—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores 

for: Developing new paved roads 

on forests and grasslands for 

access for cars and recreational 

vehicles.

Figure 16—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, 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.
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

uses as somewhat favorable (mean 3.12), although there 

is some disagreement (s.d. 1.35).

Developing trail systems—The issue of developing 

and maintaining continuous trail systems that cross both 

public and private land for motorized vehicles such as 

snowmobiles or ATVs (figure 17) has a mean distribution of only 2.56, but the high standard deviation for 

this objective (1.41) indicates some groups may view 

this as an important objective. Likewise, developing and 

maintaining continuous trail systems is seen by most in 

Region 5 as a less than appropriate role for the USDA 

Forest Service (mean 2.74), but again there is little 

consensus (s.d. 1.36). Agency performance on the development and maintenance of continuous trail systems 

is seen as slightly favorable (mean 3.08), but, as with 

the other responses for this objective, this evaluation is 

not universal (s.d. 1.32).

Expanding commercial recreation—The issue of expanding commercial recreation on forests and grasslands 

(for example, ski areas, guide services, or outfitters) 

is not viewed as important by the respondents from 

Region 5 (mean 2.74), but the high standard deviation 

(1.35) again shows that there are also some for whom it 

is important. Expanding commercial recreation is often 

seen as a less than appropriate role for the USDA Forest 

Service (mean 2.67), although again, there is a lack of 

agreement (s.d. 1.40). Agency performance is slightly 

favorable (mean 3.19), but the standard deviation is 

1.26, indicating that not all respondents agree. Figure 

18 illustrates these evaluations.

Figure 17—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, 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.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 18—Distribution of Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitude scores 

for: Expanding commercial recreation on forests and grasslands 

(for example, ski areas, guide 

services, or outfitters).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 15

Objectives Identified as 

Moderately Important

Table 4 presents the objectives the respondents from 

Region 5 feel are somewhat important, or those for 

which they are more neutral. Each objective within this 

set has a mean between 3.00 and 4.00. As with the less 

important objectives, all have relatively high standard 

deviations, indicating that while most people do not feel 

strongly about them, a few do. Results for this group 

of objectives have been organized by issue in table 4 

(for example, objectives which deal either directly or 

indirectly with resource extraction are grouped together) 

to facilitate a discussion of related issues. Within these 

groupings, the objectives are organized in order of decreasing importance (those with higher means are listed 

first, then those with lower means).

Resource extraction and use—The first two objectives concerning resource extraction and use that are of 

moderate importance for the respondents from Region 

5 deal with restriction of activities. For the restriction 

of mineral development on forests and grasslands, the 

distribution mean is 3.99 and the standard deviation is 

1.20, showing a lack of consensus in the evaluation. 

The implementation of such restrictions are seen as a 

somewhat appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service 

(mean 3.81), although the high standard deviation (1.48) 

indicates many among the public disagree. Finally, the 

agency is doing a less than adequate job restricting 

timber harvesting and grazing, but again there is little 

consensus with this evaluation (mean 2.87, s.d. 1.34).

The restriction of timber harvesting and grazing on 

forests and grasslands (mean 3.83) also shows disagreement among the respondents from Region 5, as seen by 

the high standard deviation (1.33). The public of Region 

5 feels that this type of restriction is an appropriate role 

for the USDA Forest Service (mean 4.26), although 

this is not a universally held evaluation (s.d. 1.48). Additionally, the respondents from Region 5 are favorable 

toward agency performance concerning the restriction 

of timber harvesting and grazing, although again with 

some disagreement (mean 3.20, s.d. 1.20).

Forests and grasslands have many cultural uses by 

Native Americans and Hispanics, and the preservation 

of these uses is seen as somewhat important by Region 

5 respondents (mean 3.66). This opinion is not shared 

by all within the Region, as can be seen in the high 

standard deviation (1.39). Preserving such cultural uses 

is viewed as a somewhat important role for the USDA 

Forest Service (mean 3.41), but here again there is a 

lack of consensus for the evaluation (s.d. 1.40). Agency 

performance is somewhat favorable (mean 3.53), and 

there is more consensus with agency performance than 

with importance of the objective or appropriateness of 

the task for the Forest Service (s.d. 1.07).

Wilderness designation is often met with some controversy, and responses from Region 5 demonstrate this 

potential. While the mean for this objective indicates 

that most people feel it is somewhat important (3.58), 

the high standard deviation (1.47) also shows a high 

level of disagreement. The designation of wilderness is 

seen as an appropriate role for the agency (mean 3.69) 

although again this is not a universal opinion (s.d. 1.43). 

In this case the high standard deviation may actually 

reflect the knowledge that Congress, not the USDA 

Forest Service, is the body responsible for officially 

designating wilderness. The USDA Forest Service performance is viewed as somewhat favorable, but again 

there is a lack of consistency with this evaluation (mean 

3.51, s.d. 1.11).

Many communities are dependent upon public forests and grasslands for their economic bases. Providing 

natural resources to these communities is a somewhat 

important objective for the people of Region 5 (mean 

3.21). The importance of this objective is not universally 

agreed upon, however, as seen by the high standard deviation (1.35). The people of Region 5 see the agency 

role of providing natural resources to dependent communities as somewhat appropriate (mean 3.02), but 

again there is little consensus (s.d. 1.44). Finally, agency 

performance in providing these natural resources is rated 

as somewhat favorable (mean 3.31), although there is 

disagreement (s.d. 1.19).

Public relations and management—Region 5 respondents feel that informing the public on the economic 

value received by developing our natural resources is a 

moderately important objective (mean 3.94). However, 

there is some disagreement with this assessment (s.d. 

1.34). Many of these respondents feel that the Forest 

Service should be informing the public on economic 

values (mean 3.54), although not all respondents agreed 

with this (s.d. 1.38). Agency performance is somewhat 

favorable (mean 3.08), but again with a lack of consensus 

for this evaluation (s.d. 1.29).

Making management decisions at the local level 

rather than at the national level is always important to 

at least some stakeholders. The people of Region 5 find 

the making of management decisions concerning the 

use of forests and grasslands at the local level a moderately important objective (mean 3.78, s.d. 1.16). Local 
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

Table 4--Objectives of moderate importance for Region 5 respondents.

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?

������� ������������

������ ����������

Restricting mineral development on forests and

grasslands.

3.99

������

88 b

3.81

����

102

2.87

����

67

Restricting timber harvesting and grazing on

forests and grasslands.

3.83

����

94

4.26

����

91

3.20

����

79

Preserving the cultural uses of forests and

grasslands by Native Americans and Native

Hispanics

# such as firewood gathering,

herb/berry/plant gathering, and ceremonial

uses.

3.66

����

129

3.41

����

107

3.53

����

83

Designating more wilderness areas on public

land that stops access for development and

motorized uses.

3.58

����

77

3.69

����

102

3.51

����

75

Resource Extraction and Use

Providing natural resources from forests and

grasslands to support communities dependent

on grazing, mining, or timber harvesting.

3.21

����

89

3.02

����

82

3.31

����

89

Informing the public on the economic value

received by developing our natural resources.

3.94

����

99

3.54

����

96

3.08

����

77

Public Relations

&

Management Making management decisions concerning the

use of forests and grasslands at the local level

rather than at the national level.

3.78

����

73

3.74

����

90

3.18

����

68

Developing and maintaining continuous trail

systems that cross both public and private land

for non-motorized recreation such as hiking or

cross-country skiing.

3.82

����

100

3.72

����

83

3.48

����

61

Increasing law enforcement efforts by public

land agencies on public lands.

3.73

����

79

3.90

����

92

3.69

����

68

Designating some existing trails for specific use

(for example, creating separate trails for

snowmobiling and cross-country skiing or for

mountain biking and horseback riding.)

3.51

����

88

3.78

����

88

3.48

����

85

Recreation

Paying an entry fee that goes to support public

land

3.38

����

79

3.71

����

89

3.57

����

76

Increasing the total number of acres in the

public land system.

3.69

����

68

4.09

����

70

3.29

����

68

Land Acquisition

Allowing public land mangers to trade public

lands for private lands (for example, to

eliminate private property within public land

boundaries, or to acquire unique areas of land).

3.26

����

68

3.43

����

74

3.02

����

55

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 636 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-157. 2005. 17

decision-making is viewed by Region 5 residents to be an 

appropriate role for the agency, although there is a lack 

of consensus (mean 3.74, s.d. 1.31). The performance of 

the USDA Forest Service is viewed somewhat favorably 

(mean 3.18, s.d. 1.23).

Recreation—The development of continuous trail 

systems, crossing both public and private land, for nonmotorized access is seen as somewhat important (mean 

3.82, s.d. 1.24). This may indicate that while many 

people would like to have access to this type of system, 

there are also many respondents (potentially affected 

landowners) who would see it as an infringement of 

property rights. Interestingly, the residents of Region 5 

do not find the development of a similar trail system for 

motorized recreation to be important (see “Objectives 

Identified as Not Important by Respondents in Region 

5”). The development of a system of private/public nonmotorized access is viewed as a somewhat appropriate 

role for the agency (mean 3.72), however again with a 

level of disagreement (s.d. 1.25). Agency performance is 

evaluated as somewhat favorable, but, as with the other 

aspects of this objective, this evaluation is not universally 

held (mean 3.48, s.d. 1.07).

Law enforcement on public lands is moderately 

important to Region 5 residents, although some lack of 

agreement exists (mean 3.73, s.d. 1.29). Respondents in 

Region 5 believe that increasing law enforcement is a 

somewhat appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service, 

but again there is considerable disagreement with the 

evaluation (mean 3.90, s.d. 1.24). Agency performance 

is viewed as favorable by many Region 5 residents, but 

again there is a lack of consensus for this evaluation 

(mean 3.69, s.d. 1.14).

Conflicts between incompatible recreation uses are 

often an issue on public lands, including those in the 

National Forest System. One solution to this type of 

conflict is to designate some trails for specific uses (for 

example separate trails for cross-country skiing and 

snowmobiling). When asked about designating trails 

for specific uses, respondents from Region 5 reported 

that it is somewhat important, with some disagreement 

(mean 3.51, s.d. 1.30). Region 5 residents believe creating such designations for trails is an appropriate role for 

the Forest Service (mean 3.78, s.d. 1.17) and gave the 

agency a somewhat favorable performance evaluation 

(mean 3.48, s.d. 1.14).

Most respondents in Region 5 feel that it is somewhat 

important to pay an entry fee to support public lands 

(mean 3.38), but as can be expected, there is a lack of 

consensus on this objective (s.d. 1.43). The people of 

Region 5 feel this would be an appropriate role for the 

agency, but again, there is disagreement (mean 3.71, 

1.27). Finally, agency performance is seen as adequate, 

although there is a lack of consensus (mean 3.57, s.d. 

1.30).

Land acquisition—Increasing the total number of 

acres in the public land system is seen by respondents 

from Region 5 as a somewhat important objective (mean 

3.69). This is revealed as a potentially contentious issue 

due to the evident lack of consensus (s.d. 1.42). The 

people of Region 5 see adding to the public domain as 

a highly appropriate role for the agency (mean 4.09), 

but lack of agreement about this assessment (s.d. 1.27) 

may indicate differences in knowledge about who would 

actually have the authority to acquire additional public 

lands. Overall, respondents from Region 5 gave the 

Forest Service a somewhat adequate rating (mean 3.29), 

although not everyone agrees (s.d. 1.37).

Finally, although allowing public land managers to 

trade public lands for private lands is a somewhat important objective for Region 5 residents, this objective 

is far from universally supported (mean 3.26, s.d. 1.40). 

The USDA Forest Service is generally viewed as an appropriate agency to fulfill this objective, although not all 

groups view it as such (mean 3.43, s.d. 1.36). Agency 

performance is seen as somewhat favorable, with a mean 

of 3.02 and standard deviation of 1.18.

Results for Region 5: 

Public Lands Values______

Previous research using the Public Lands Values 

Scale has shown that these items consistently fall into 

two categories. The first category, which deals with 

individual actions or values, has been labeled Socially 

Responsible Individual Values (tables 5 and 6). For 

these values, a higher mean indicates a higher level of 

environmental orientation. The second category, which 

deals with how public lands should be managed, has 

been labeled Socially Responsible Management Values 

(table 7). These 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.
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

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

����� ������������

������

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

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

���������� �����������

����

������

�����

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

����

���

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

����

���

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

����

���

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

����

���

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

����

���

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

����

���

�

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

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

Socially Responsible Individual 

Values

Most of the means for the values in tables 5 and 6 

indicate an environmental orientation in the people of 

Region 5. For many of the values statements, however, 

the standard deviation indicates a low level of agreement. Therefore, responses to the Socially Responsible 

Individual Values are 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).

Socially Responsible Individual Values With a 

High Degree of Consensus

It is interesting to note (table 5) that when Socially 

Responsible Individual Values with a higher degree of 

agreement (standard deviation of 1.00 or less) are placed 

in order of increasing standard deviation, the general 

order of the mean scores decreases. In other words, the 

values statements with higher means (indicating more 

environmentally oriented values) are also those with 

higher levels of consensus.

Socially Responsible Individual Values With a Low 

Degree of Consensus

Table 6 shows the values statements with 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 19 shows the 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 3.47), there is a 

noticeable amount of disagreement indicated by the high 

standard deviation (1.53). The figure shows that there 

is an identifiable minority who clearly disagrees. Since 

fees are often a reality in order to provide such recreation 

opportunities, it is important to be aware that although 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 19

Table 6--Socially responsible individual public lands values for Region 5 with a low level of agreement

among respondents.

Values

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

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

be inconvenient.

4.10

���� a

147 b

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

4.42

����

137

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

4.30

����

175

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

4.06

����

171

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

generations.

4.12

����

137

The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much since I feel it’s somewhat overrated. c 3.00

����

162

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

3.97

����

152

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

4.06

����

133

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

4.18

����

150

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

example, hiking, camping, hunting).

3.47

����

156 a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 636 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.

most people support them, such policies will most likely 

be met with some level of resistance.

Socially Responsible Management 

Values

The results for the Socially Responsible Management Values (table 7) are presented in order from higher 

agreement to lower agreement. As the previous section 

demonstrates, although 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 likely the basis 

for disagreement noted in some of the aforementioned 

objectives. Histograms are presented for each Socially 

Responsible Management Values, but only the first is 

discussed because of its direct relevance to customer 

satisfaction.

It is interesting to note the low level of agreement 

with the statement “The government has better places 

to spend money than devoting resources to a strong 

conservation program.” Furthermore, although there 

is a relatively high level of disagreement among the 

respondents in Region 5 regarding this statement, there 

is more agreement for this statement than any of the 

other Socially Responsible Management Public Lands 

Values. Figure 20 shows the distribution of responses to 

this statement. Figures 21 through 27 show distribution 

of responses to the other seven “Management Values” 

statements.
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

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

������

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

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

������������ ��������

����

������

�����

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

���� ����� ���������

����

����

���

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

����������

����

����

���

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

����

���

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

����

���

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

����

���

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

���

����

����

���

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

����

���

�

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

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

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 19—Distribution of responses 

to: “I would be willing to pay five 

dollars more each time I use public 

lands for recreational purposes 

(for example, hiking, camping, 

hunting).”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

6

number of respondents

0

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 20—Distribution of responses 

to: “The government has better 

places to spend money than devoting resources to a strong conservation program.”

Figure 21—Distribution of responses 

to: “I think that the public land 

managers are doing an adequate 

job of protecting natural resources 

from being overused.”
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 24—Distribution of responses to: 

“The most important role for the public 

lands is providing jobs and income for 

local people.”

Figure 22—Distribution of responses to: 

“The Federal government should subsidize the development and leasing of 

public lands to companies.”

Figure 23—Distribution of responses to: 

“The decision to develop resources 

should be based mostly on economic 

grounds.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 23

Figure 25—Distribution of responses to: 

“The primary use of forests should 

be for products that are useful to humans.”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 27—Distribution of responses to: 

“We should actively harvest more trees 

to meet the needs of a much larger human population.

Figure 26—Distribution of responses 

to: “The main reason for maintaining 

resources today is so we can use them 

in the future if we need to.”
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

Comparison of Region 5 

With the Rest of the 

United States____________

The final section of this report compares the VOBA 

results for Region 5 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 into the same groups 

as in the sections above (Core Important Objectives, 

Other Important Objectives, Unimportant Objectives, 

and Objectives of Moderate Importance). Tables 12 and 

13 contain the comparison for the Public Lands Values. 

These are arranged into Socially Responsible Individual 

Values and Socially Responsible Management Values. 

Discussion focuses on those objectives and values with 

statistically significant differences.

Objectives Identified as Important

Core Important Objectives

Region 5 does not significantly differ from the rest 

of the United States regarding the importance for any of 

the core objectives. Region 5 does believe more strongly, 

however, that protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitats 

is an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service than 

does the rest of the United States (mean for Region 5, 

4.74, for the rest of the United States, 4.54). There is 

substantial agreement about this evaluation within both 

Region 5 and the rest of the United States, although Region 5 does show greater agreement (standard deviation 

for Region 5, 0.67, for the rest of the United States 0.90). 

Table 8 shows the variation between Region 5 and the 

rest of the United States for the core objectives.

Other Important Objectives

Within the category of other important objectives, 

evaluations of the respondents from Region 5 match 

Table 8--Comparison of core important objectives, beliefs, and attitudes between Region 5 and the rest of

the United States.

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

5

Rest of

US

Sig. diff

–R5/rest

US Region 5 Rest of US

Sig. diff

-R5/rest

US Region 5 Rest of US

Sig. diff -

R5/ rest

US

Conserving and protecting forests

and grasslands that are the source

of our water resources, such as

streams, lakes, and watershed

areas.

4.68

�����

95b

4.72

����

1232

4.66

����

120

4.59

����

1286

3.75

����

113

3.84

����

1081

Informing the public about

recreation concerns on forests and

grasslands such as safety, trail

etiquette, and respect for wildlife.

4.65

����

89

4.53

����

1078

4.44

����

106

4.52

����

1048

3.79

����

111

3.88

����

1139

Protecting ecosystems and wildlife

habitats.

4.61

����

132

4.55

����

1390

4.74

����

112

4.54

����

1210

**

3.79

����

110

3.86

����

1148

Developing volunteer programs to

improve forests and grasslands (for

example, planting trees, or

improving water quality).

4.56

����

118

4.54

����

1177

4.51

����

102

4.51

����

1222

3.56

����

77

3.73

����

878

Developing volunteer programs to

maintain trails and facilities on

forests and grasslands (for

example, trail maintenance or

campground maintenance).

4.24

����

85

4.15

����

1022

4.40

����

91

4.18

����

1074

3.68

����

80

3.72

����

877

Allowing for diverse uses of

forests and grasslands such as

grazing, recreation, and wildlife

habitat.

4.03

����

94

4.05

����

1036

4.07

����

75

4.05

����

884

3.66

����

58

3.67

����

791

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n).

*, **, *** 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-157. 2005. 25

those of the rest of the United States with one minor 

variation. Respondents from Region 5 view the performance of the USDA Forest Service in encouraging 

collaboration less favorably then do respondents from 

the rest of the United States (mean for Region 5, 3.28, 

mean for the rest of the United States, 3.59). Not surprising, Region 5 respondents’ less favorable evaluation is 

coupled with greater disagreement than the more favorable evaluation from respondents in the rest of the United 

States (s.d. for Region 5, 1.21, s.d. for the rest of the 

United States, 1.13). Table 9 shows the variation between 

the respondents from Region 5 and those from the rest 

of the United States for the important objectives.

Objectives Identified as 

Not Important

Respondents from Region 5 evaluated the objective 

of making the permitting process easier for some established uses of forests and grasslands such as grazing, 

logging, mining, and commercial recreation as even less 

important than respondents from the rest of the United 

States (mean for Region 5, 2.42, mean for the rest of 

the United States, 2.77). Consistency of evaluation was 

nearly the same for both groups of respondents.

There is again only one statistically significant difference between the views of the respondents from Region 

5 and the views of the respondents from the rest of the 

United States in evaluating appropriateness roles for the 

USDA Forest Service. Region 5 evaluated the expansion 

of commercial recreation to be less appropriate than did 

respondents from the rest of the United States (mean for 

Region 5, 2.67, mean for the rest of the United States, 

3.05). There was also less agreement about this evaluation for Region 5 respondents (s.d. for Region 5, 1.40, 

s.d. for the rest of the United States, 1.35).

Finally, the comparison of Region 5 respondents’ 

evaluation of the USDA Forest Service performance 

with the evaluation from respondents from the rest of the 

United States reveals there are no statistically significant 

differences. Table 10 shows the comparison for objectives evaluated to be less than important.

Table 9--Comparison of other important objectives, beliefs, and attitudes between Region 5 and the rest of

the United States.

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

5

Rest of

US

Sig. diff

–R5/rest

US Region 5

Rest of

US

Sig. diff

–R5/rest

US

Region

5

Rest of

US

Sig. diff

–R5/rest

US

Preserving the ability to have a

wilderness experience on forests and

grasslands.

4.26

�����

109b

4.22

����

1232

4.32

����

122

4.21

����

1237

3.86

����

114

3.86

����

1287

Informing the public on the potential

environmental impacts of all uses

associated with forests and

grasslands.

4.24

����

87

4.40

����

1085

4.51

����

91

4.44

����

1044

3.22

����

82

3.43

����

931

Developing a national policy that

guides natural resource development

of all kinds (for example, specifies

levels of extraction and regulates

environmental impacts).

4.26

����

113

4.22

����

1182

4.16

����

79

4.15

����

1029

3.36

����

95

3.44

����

898

Using public advisory committees to

advise on public land management

issues.

4.02

����

87

3.83

����

883

3.90

����

70

3.88

����

857

3.29

����

49

3.32

����

671

Encouraging collaboration between

groups in order to share information

concerning uses of forests and

grasslands.

4.21

����

97

4.21

����

969

4.23

����

83

4.19

����

984

3.28

����

72

3.59

����

829

**

Preserving the natural resources of

forests and grasslands through such

policies as no timber harvesting or

not mining.

4.09

����

101

4.15

����

1258

4.17

����

109

4.12

����

1234

3.57

����

90

3.60

����

1079

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n).

*, **, *** mean differences are statistically significant at α = 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

Objectives Identified as 

Moderately Important

As was done in the earlier section exploring objectives 

for moderate importance for Region 5, results have been 

organized by issues to facilitate a discussion of related 

issues (for example, objectives which deal either directly 

or indirectly with resource extraction are grouped together). These results are reported in table 11.

Resource extraction and use—Respondents from 

Region 5 consistently view the objectives that deal with 

resource extraction and use as slightly less important 

than do respondents from the rest of the United States 

(table 11). Only one objective, dealing with the provision 

of natural resources to support communities dependent 

on grazing, mining, or timber, was ranked significantly 

lower (mean from Region 5, 3.21; mean from the rest 

of the United States, 3.58).

Respondents from Region 5 differ significantly from 

respondents from the rest of the United States about the 

appropriateness of the role for the USDA Forest Service 

in two of the five resource extraction and use objectives. 

The objective to restrict timber harvesting and grazing 

is evaluated as a more appropriate role for the USDA 

Forest Service by the respondents from Region 5, while 

on the other hand, preserving the cultural uses of forests 

and grasslands is evaluated as less appropriate.

Finally, the public in Region 5 and the respondents 

from the rest of the United States generally agree on how 

favorably they view the performance of the USDA Forest 

Service in fulfilling resource extraction and use objectives. The only evaluation with a statistically significant 

difference, involving restricting mineral development on 

forests and grasslands, showed respondents from Region 

5 viewing the USDA Forest Service’s performance on 

restricting mineral development less favorably.

Table 10--Comparison of the objectives, beliefs, and attitudes identified as not important by Region 5 with

the rest of the United States.

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 5 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R5/rest

US Region 5 Rest of US

Sig. diff –

R5/rest US Region 5 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R5/rest

US

Expanding access for

motorized off-highway

vehicles on forests and

grasslands (for example,

snowmobiling or 4-wheel

driving).

2.24

�����

93b

2.27

����

1036

2.37

����

103

2.42

����

1169

2.97

����

58

2.95

����

768

Developing new paved roads

on forests and grasslands for

access for cars and

recreational vehicles.

2.32

����

96

2.39

����

1014

2.45

����

99

2.46

����

1034

3.23

����

78

3.12

����

846

Making the permitting process

easier for some established

uses of forests and grasslands

such as grazing, logging,

mining, and commercial

recreation.

2.42

����

101

2.77

����

963

** 2.58

����

95

2.66

����

1039

3.12

����

59

2.95

����

708

Developing and maintaining

continuous trail systems that

cross both public and private

land for motorized vehicles

such as snowmobiles or

ATVs.

2.56

����

116

2.80

����

1166

2.74

����

97

2.81

����

1026

3.08

����

71

3.21

����

866

Expanding commercial

recreation on forests and

grasslands (for example, ski

areas, guide services, or

outfitters).

2.74

����

77

2.88

����

1000

2.67

����

115

3.05

����

1183

*** 3.19

����

67

3.38

����

821

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n).

*, **, *** 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-157. 2005. 27

Table 11--Comparison of the objectives, beliefs, and attitudes identified as moderately important by Region 5 with

the rest of the United States.

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 5

Rest of

US

Sig. diff

–R5/rest

US Region 5 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R5/rest

US Region 5 Rest of US

Sig. diff

–R5/rest

US

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

Restricting mineral

development on forests and

grasslands.

3.99

������

88b

4.00

����

1004

3.81

����

102

3.95

����

1021

2.87

����

67

3.33

����

861

 

Restricting timber harvesting

and grazing on forests and

grasslands.

3.83

����

94

3.97

����

1048

4.26

����

91

3.91

����

980

** * 3.20

����

79

3.31

����

867

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.

3.66

����

129

3.79

����

1225

3.41

����

107

3.67

����

1356

**

3.53

����

83

3.38

����

937

Designating more wilderness

areas on public land that stops

access for development and

motorized uses.

3.58

����

77

3.87

����

998

3.69

����

102

3.66

����

1989

3.51

����

75

3.27

����

826

Providing natural resources

from forests and grasslands to

support communities

dependent on grazing,

mining, or timber harvesting.

3.21

����

89

3.58

����

1017

** 3.02

����

82

3.27

����

994

3.31

����

89

3.35

����

955

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

Informing the public on the

economic value received by

developing our natural

resources.

3.94

����

99

4.03

����

1013

3.54

����

96

4.03

����

975

  3.08

����

77

3.22

����

909

Making management

decisions concerning the use

of forests and grasslands at

the local level rather than at

the national level.

3.78

����

73

4.00

����

844

3.74

����

90

3.95

����

1053

3.18

����

68

3.43

����

737

���������� ����������

Developing and maintaining

continuous trail systems that

cross both public and private

land for non-motorized

recreation such as hiking or

cross-country skiing.

3.82

�����

100b

3.71

����

1033

3.72

����

83

3.67

����

1042

3.48

����

61

3.60

����

859

Increasing law enforcement

efforts by public land agencies

on public land.

3.73

����

79

3.90

����

883

3.90

����

92

4.03

����

882

3.69

����

68

3.64

����

724

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).

3.51

����

88

3.69

����

1032

3.78

����

88

3.93

����

983

3.48

����

85

3.58

����

879

Paying an entry fee that goes to

support public land.

3.38

����

79

3.62

����

856

3.71

����

89

3.64

����

887

3.57

����

76

3.50

����

739
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

Public relations and management—The respondents 

from Region 5 agree with the respondents from the rest 

of the United States concerning the level of importance 

for the two objectives of moderate importance that 

deal with public relations and management (table 11). 

However, the respondents from Region 5 view informing the public about economic values as a significantly 

less appropriate objective for the Forest Service than do 

respondents from the rest of the United States (mean for 

Region 5, 3.54, mean for the rest of the United States, 

4.03). Region 5 respondents’ lower mean is paired with 

a higher standard deviation, showing less agreement 

among the respondents of Region 5 than those from the 

rest of the United States (s.d. for Region 5, 1.38, s.d. for 

the rest of the United States, 1.18).

Despite statistically significant differences with views 

of appropriateness of the role for the USDS Forest 

Service, people from Region 5 are in agreement with 

people from the rest of the United States when it comes 

to evaluating agency performance for public relations 

and management.

Recreation—There are no statistically significant differences between the responses from Region 5 and those 

of the rest of the United States for the four recreation 

objectives. These similar evaluations are evident not 

only when looking at the importance of the recreation 

objectives, but also when evaluating the appropriateness 

of the role for the USDA Forest Service, and agency 

performance in fulfilling the objective.

Land acquisition—There are no statistically significant differences reported between the evaluations of land 

acquisition objectives from Region 5 and from the rest 

of the United States.

Public Lands Values

Socially Responsible Individual Values

Table 12 shows the comparison between Region 5 

respondent’s Socially Responsible Individual Values and 

those of the rest of the United States. The mean scores 

for Region 5 do not appear to be consistently higher or 

lower than those for respondents from the rest of the 

United States. In the six cases where there are statistically significant differences, there are four cases where 

the respondents from Region 5 evaluated the values as 

higher than the rest of the United States (greater level 

of environmental orientation) and two cases where they 

evaluated them as lower.

Socially Responsible Management Values

In all cases where there is a statistically significant 

difference, the mean responses of Socially Responsible 

Management Values from Region 5 are lower than 

those of respondents from the rest of the United States 

(table 13). These statements are worded so that higher 

responses indicate greater value placed on the extraction 

and use of natural resources. Thus, respondents from 

Region 5 exhibit a lower preference for human-centered 

uses of forests and grasslands than do respondents from 

the rest of the United States.

Concluding Remarks______

Data extracted from the VOBA survey reveals the 

Region 5 public’s objectives for the management of for-

���� ����������� ����������

���������� ��� ����� ������ ��

����� �� ��� ������ ���� �������

����

����

��

����

����

���

����

����

��

����

����

���

����

����

��

����

����

���

�������� ������ ���� ��������

�� ����� ������ ����� ��� �������

����� ���� �������� ��

��������� ������� ��������

������ ������ ���� �����������

�� �� ������� ������ ����� ��

������

����

����

��

����

����

���

����

����

��

����

����

���

����

����

��

����

����

���

�

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

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

Table 11. Continued.

α
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 29

Table 12--Comparison of socially responsible individual values: Region 5 and the rest of the United States.

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

Region

5

Rest of

US

Significant difference between

Region 5 and the rest of the US

Manufacturers should be encouraged to use recycled materials in

their manufacturing and processing operations.

4.76

���� a

157b

4.64

����

1841

People should be more concerned about how our public lands are

used.

4.67

����

141

4.66

����

1675

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

down pollution.

4.53

����

155

4.35

����

1679

** 

Future generations should be as important as the current one in the

decisions about public lands.

4.54

����

170

4.59

����

1936

Donating time or money to worthy causes is important to me. 4.38

����

147

4.17

����

1684

***

Consumers should be interested in the environmental

consequences of the products they purchase.

4.48

����

146

4.48

����

1706

I am glad there are National Forests even if I never get to see

them.

4.64

����

181

4.75

����

1868

**

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

environment even though it might be inconvenient.

4.10

����

147

3.94

����

1719

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

themselves.

4.42

����

137

4.64

����

1686

***

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

concerns and uses.

4.30

����

175

4.09

����

1777

**

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

scarce resources.

4.06

����

171

4.13

����

1861

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

would be more left for future generations.

4.12

����

137

4.03

����

1615

The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much since I feel it’s

somewhat overrated. c

3.00

����

162

2.72

����

1689

**

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

3.97

�����

152b

3.87

����

1630

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

4.06

����

133

4.15

����

1668

Natural resources should be preserved even if people must do without

some products.

4.18

����

150

4.09

����

1865

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

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

3.47

����

156

3.53

����

2055

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n).

*, **, ***,   mean differences are statistically significant at � =0.10, 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

Table 13--Comparison of socially responsible management values – Region 5 and the rest of the United

States.

������ ����������� ������ ���������� ��������� Region 5 Rest of US

Significant difference

between Region 5 and the

rest of the US

The government has better places to spend money than

devoting resources to a strong conservation program.

1.93

���� a

194b

2.28

����

2156

** **

I think that the public land managers are doing an

adequate job of protecting natural resources from being

overused.

3.01

����

158

3.09

����

2006

The Federal government should subsidize the

development and leasing of public lands to companies.

2.03

����

195

2.14

����

2136

The decision to develop resources should be based

mostly on economic grounds.

2.42

����

179

2.72

����

2106

***

The most important role for the public lands is

providing jobs and income for local people.

2.90

����

210

2.92

����

2370

The primary use of forests should be for products that

are useful to humans.

2.64

����

209

2.68

����

2338

The main reason for maintaining resources today is so

we can use them in the future if we need to.

3.58

����

183

3.71

����

2129

We should actively harvest more trees to meet the

needs of a much larger human population.

2.49

����

203

2.58

����

2140

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n).

*, **, ***, **** mean differences are statistically significant at � =0.10, 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005. 31

ests and rangelands, beliefs about whether it is the role 

of the Forest Service to fulfill these objectives, and attitudes about the performance of the agency in fulfilling 

the objectives. Additionally, these data show the public’s 

environmental values as they relate to public lands.

The most important objective to respondents from 

Region 5 was a concern for conserving and protecting forest and grasslands that are the source of water 

resources. This is not surprising from a Region that 

includes California—a State that is constantly struggling 

with limited water supplies. Objectives not viewed as 

important within Region 5 mainly deal with development of access for motorized vehicles (on and off road), 

although the evaluations of these objectives also have a 

variety of diverse responses.

Finally this report also compares the responses of 

respondents from Region 5 to those of respondents 

from the rest of the United States. Overall, responses 

from Region 5 are quite similar to those of the rest of 

the United States, although Region 5 shows a stronger 

tendency towards allowing access for diverse uses and 

less of a trend toward informing the public.

Survey Design and 

Implementation

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 group interviews, 

an objectives hierarchy was constructed for each group. 

These hierarchies indicated 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 utilized in 

the National Survey of Recreation and the Environment 

(NSRE). The NSRE was 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.

The survey of the American public’s values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes (hereafter VOBA) 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. The VOBA 

questions are sets of scale items to which people are 

asked to respond using a 5-point scale. The objectives 

items are anchored by 1=not at all important to 5=very 

important. Beliefs are anchored by 1=strongly disagree 

to 5=strongly agree and attitudes are anchored by 

1=very unfavorable to 5=very favorable. Each of these 

three scales consists of 30 items. The 25 items in the 

Appendix
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-157. 2005.

“values” scale are anchored by 1=strongly disagree and 

5=strongly agree.

Reverse Scoring

When the VOBA was designed, care was taken to 

avoid the appearance of an instrument 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 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 for research 

if both items are scored in the same direction to indicate 

preference for sweets (either with a higher or lower response for both items). To achieve this, to re-score, we 

choose one of the items, in this example we’ll choose 

the second, and reverse the scoring. An answer of 5 thus 

becomes a 1, 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 (which could be reworded as 

“I like pie”) that corresponds in direction to “I like ice 

cream.” This re-scoring allows the researcher an overall, 

consistent indication of each respondent’s preference for 

sweets. Higher numbers for each item indicate a higher 

preference for sweets; 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-157

SEPTEMBER 2005