U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

Survey Responses From Region 8:

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

Survey Responses From Region 8:

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

DEBORAH J. SHIELDS, MICHELLE ICHELLE HAEFELE, AND DONNA L. LYBECKER YBECKER
Shields, Deborah J.; Haefele, Michelle; Lybecker, Donna L. 2005. Survey responses from Region 8: Are we achieving the public’s objectives for forests and rangelands? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-158. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 31 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 South (USDA Forest Service Region 8: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

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

strongly in favor of increasing law enforcement efforts on public lands and restricting mineral development on forests 

and grasslands than respondents from the rest of the United States. Respondents from the South are also slightly less 

inclined toward preserving the ability to have a “wilderness” experience on forests and grasslands. Nationwide, as in the 

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

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

Rangelands?

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

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

• Survey Responses From Region 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

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

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

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

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

Results for Region 8: Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

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

Other Important Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Objectives Identified as Not Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Objectives Identified as Moderately Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Results for Region 8: Public Lands Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Socially Responsible Individual Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Socially Responsible Management Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Comparison of Region 8 With the Rest of the United States . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

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

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Survey Responses From Region 8: 

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands? 

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

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 1

Introduction_____________

The mission of the USDA Forest Service is twofold: 

caring for the land, and serving people. Because personal 

satisfaction is an individual concept with multiple facets, 

providing high-quality customer service and achieving 

high levels of customer satisfaction can be as complex 

and challenging 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” (permittees, applicants for timber sales or 

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

the preferences and attitudes of the broader public.

In addition to personal interactions with the Forest 

Service, people’s perceptions of the agency are also 

influenced by their attitudes about how and toward what 

end the agency manage the land. The agency and various 

segments of the public have both general, and in some 

cases quite detailed, objectives related to the health of 

forests and rangelands, the means by which we should 

manage those lands, and the activities that should be 

allowed to take place on them. If stakeholders observe 

that an objective they deem important is not being fulfilled, their satisfaction with the Forest Service may be 

lower, regardless of the quality of their interactions with 

individual Forest Service employees or their experience 

with agency protocols. Gaining an understanding of the 

public’s objectives and their consistency with agency 

objectives, or lack thereof, can provide useful input to 

the strategic planning process.

The agency’s goals and objectives are embodied in 

the 2000 Strategic Plan. Information on the public’s 

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

Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes Regarding Forests 

and Rangelands” (hereafter VOBA). The VOBA survey 

asked respondents about their environmental values as 

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

those managed by the Forest Service, their beliefs about 

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

objectives, and their attitudes about the performance of 

the agency in fulfilling these objectives.1 This report 

presents data from the USDA Forest Service’s Region 

8, the Southern Region.2

Methodology____________

Objectives Hierarchy

The VOBA survey’s objectives, and related belief 

and attitude statements, do not ask respondents about 

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

to the Chief’s Agenda or Leadership Team priorities. 

Rather, the VOBA survey’s objectives statements were 

developed during a series of 80 focus group meetings 

conducted with members of various stakeholder groups 

as well as individuals throughout the country. As such, 

they represent the main objectives for land management 

as they were presented to us by the public.

Based upon the results of the focus group interviews, 

an objectives hierarchy was constructed for each group. 

These hierarchies indicated goals each group or individual had for the management of forests and rangelands, 

and how they would like to see each goal or objective 

achieved. These objectives ranged from the abstract 

strategic level to the more focused or applied means 

level (figure 1 and the Appendix).

Within the objectives hierarchy the strategic-level 

is an abstract objective. Fundamental level objectives 

represent a context-specific application of strategic 

objectives. End-state fundamental objectives represent 

the desired state of the world. Fundamental means objectives capture the methods by which the desired end-state 

should be achieved.

VOBA Statements

The objectives elicited from all the focus groups were 

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

1

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

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

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

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

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

2

 Region 8 consists of: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, MS, NC, OK, SC, TN, 

TX, and VA. 
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

objectives that indicate both end-state preferences and 

the means by which they should be achieved. Each 

correlates to one of the strategic objectives. Five strategic-level objectives were consistently revealed: Access, 

Preservation/Conservation, Economic Development, 

Education, and Natural Resource Management.

The belief and attitude statements tier down directly 

from these objectives. For example an objective might 

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

more hiking trails is an appropriate role for the USDA 

Forest Service. The attitude question would then elicit 

input on the respondent’s perception of how well the 

agency is doing at providing hiking trails.

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

using both student and adult samples around the United 

States, was reduced down to 25 items. These items were 

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

have been tested on four National Forests in Colorado 

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

traditional and nontraditional stakeholder groups. Past 

research and testing have shown that responses to the 

Public Lands Values can be arranged into two categories: 

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

The survey utilizes the objectives, beliefs, attitudes, 

and values statement by asking respondents to indicate 

their level of agreement or approval for each. Level of 

agreement or approval is indicated on a scale from one to 

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

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

scale items are anchored by 1=strongly disagree and 

5=strongly agree. The Attitude scale items are anchored 

by 1=very unfavorable and 5=very favorable.

The value scale in the VOBA survey differs from other 

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

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

Forest scale. Conversely, objectives may be applicable 

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

or be meaningful at multiple scales. The VOBA survey 

objectives are applicable to the management of forests 

and rangelands at a broad geographic scale. Many of 

the objectives are also meaningful at the regional level. 

However, the public may have additional objectives that 

are specific to their home region and are not captured in 

the existing national survey instrument.

Data Collection

The survey was implemented as a module of the 

National Survey on Recreation and the Environment 

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

2,567 in Forest Service Region 8. (The number of responses in any Forest Service Region is a function of the 

overall VOBA sampling design.) For each State the size 

of the sample was proportional to its population. The 

data were collected between late 1999 and early 2000. 

The NSRE is a random telephone survey administered 

for the Forest Service by the University of Tennessee.3 In 

addition to the VOBA questions, respondents were asked 

about their recreational behaviors; basic demographic information was also collected. Due to a limited amount of 

time available for each phone interview, each individual 

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

VOBA questions. Each respondent was asked about one 

fundamental objective from each of the five strategic 

level objective categories. Due to this split sampling 

design, each item in the objectives, beliefs, and attitude 

scales has fewer than the full 2,567 respondents.

The overall goal of this split sampling design was 

to control interview time with respondents, yet collect 

analytically valuable information. This not only lowers 

costs, but also reduces respondent burden, which should 

lead to fewer non-responses and therefore to a better 

Strategic Objectives

Overarching Goals Derived From Held Values

Fundamental End-State Objectives

Situation-Specific Goals Related to the Desired 

State of the World

Fundamental Means Objectives

Situation-Specific Goals Related to the Means of 

Achieving the Desired End-State

Figure 1—Objectives Hierarchy.

3

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

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

have access to or who choose not to have telephones. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 3

sample quality.4 To ensure high confidence levels, the 

full national survey was designed so that there was a 

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

are adequate to support multivariate statistical analysis 

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

Region 8 the response numbers for each question ranged 

from 249 to 828. As a result of this smaller sample size 

for Region 8 there is a greater chance the results do not 

fully reflect the precise demographics of the Region. 

The sample size is still large enough, however, to give a 

relatively high level of confidence in the results.

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

statements within the VOBA was designed with public 

lands in mind. Thus some statements may raise questions concerning the appropriateness of the language 

for private lands. In other words, the language used 

may not be applicable to some types of private land use 

concerns, making it less appropriate to draw overarching conclusions about general land management. For 

example, the objective, “Developing and maintaining 

continuous trail systems that cross both public and private land for motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles or 

ATVs,” is written with public land managers in mind. A 

similar objective, written from the perspective of private 

landowners, might say something like, “Coordinating 

with public and private actors in order to support and 

maintain continuous trail systems that cross both public 

and private land for motorized vehicles.” Although the 

wording for many of the objectives do not present this 

concern, it is necessary to remain aware that respondents 

may be thinking solely of public lands instead of both 

public and private lands when responding to some of 

the objectives.

Results for Region 8: 

Objectives, Beliefs, and 

Attitudes________________

Results from the Region 8 respondents to the VOBA 

National survey will be broken down into those the 

public feels are the most important, not important, 

moderately important. We highlight the public’s level of 

consensus for rating each objective within these groups. 

We also discuss the extent to which the public feels that 

it is the job of the Forest Service to fulfill the objective, 

and examine the perception of agency performance in 

fulfilling these objectives. A subsequent section presents 

the Region 8 responses to the Public Lands Values Scale. 

Finally, responses from Region 8 are compared with 

those from the rest of the United States.

Objectives Identified as Important

We are designating a mean response of 4.00 or greater 

(out of a possible 5) as indicating an objective is important. Fifteen of the original 30 objectives have been 

identified as being important to the people of Region 8. 

Five have been further singled out as “core” important 

objectives for the public in Region 8. These core objectives not only have means of 4.00 or higher, but also 

have low standard deviations (s.d.) (less than 1.00), 

indicating that the public is generally in agreement that 

these objectives are important.5

Core Important Objectives

The core objectives are presented in detail in table 

1. For each of these five objectives we have included a 

histogram that compares the distribution of responses 

for the importance of the objective, the agency role, and 

customer satisfaction. In each case there is agreement 

that the objective is important, and that it is an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service. However, for only 

one objective—the protection of ecosystems—does the 

public does view the performance of the USDA Forest 

Service favorably.

Watershed protection—The VOBA objective deemed 

the most important by respondents in Region 8 is the 

conservation and protection of lands that are the source 

of our water resources. This objective has a mean of 4.70 

and further a standard deviation of 0.77, indicating that 

most respondents thought this objective was important. 

The mean of 4.63 for the corresponding belief statement 

also indicates that the public considers the protection 

4

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

Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90: 54-63.

5

 General agreement about the importance of these objectives is revealed 

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

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

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

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

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

agreed on their rating.
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

of watersheds to be an appropriate role for the USDA 

Forest Service. This belief has wide consensus as well, 

as indicated by the standard deviation of 0.81. Agency 

performance is viewed by Region 8 respondents as 

somewhat favorable, with a mean of 3.91. This rating, 

however, does not exhibit as much consensus as the 

objective and belief ratings (s.d.=1.20), as illustrated in 

figure 2, which shows the distribution of responses.

Volunteer programs—Developing volunteer programs to improve the heath of forests and grasslands 

had a mean rating of 4.61 with a standard deviation of 

0.76, which again indicates wide agreement that these 

programs are important. Region 8 respondents see the 

development of this type of volunteer programs as an 

appropriate role for the agency (mean=4.43), but with 

somewhat less agreement (s.d.=1.07). These results may 

indicate that some respondents would prefer to see the 

agency cooperate with non-government organizations or 

perhaps even have these organizations take the lead on 

this objective. The agency is viewed as doing a somewhat adequate job in providing volunteer programs, but 

again with somewhat less agreement than we see for 

the importance of the objective (mean=3.90, s.d.=1.23). 

Figure 3 shows that while the majority view the agency 

favorably, over half feel that the agency could be doing 

a better job.

Ecosystem protection—Region 8 residents widely 

agree that the protection of wildlife habitat and ecosystems is important (mean=4.58, s.d.= 0.91). They 

also believe it is an important role for the USDA Forest 

Service, although with a standard deviation of 1.02, the 

level of agreement is not quite as high as it is regarding 

importance. Customer satisfaction with the protection of 

ecosystems and habitat is the highest for any of VOBA 

objectives (mean=4.07). As shown in the histogram 

(figure 4), less than 10% of respondents were dissatisfied 

with the agency performance.

Recreation concerns—The public in Region 8 also 

sees two objectives relating to the distribution of information to be very important. Information about 

recreation concerns has a mean of 4.55 and a standard 

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

����������

�� ���� �� ���������

��������� ��� ����

������ �� ��� ����������

������ ����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ���� ���������

�� �� ����������� ����

��� ��� ���� ������

��������

����������� ��������� ����������

������

��� ��������� �� ���

���� ��� �����������

�� ��� ���� ������

������� �� ����������

���� ����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

���������� ��� ���������� �������

��� ���������� ���� ��� ��� ������

�� ��� ����� ���������� ���� ��

�������� ������ ��� ���������

������

����

������

�����

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��������� �������� ��

������� ������� ��� ����������

���� �������� �������� ������ ��

��������� ����� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ���������� ��� ��������

���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

��������� ��� ������ �����

���������� �������� �� ������� ���

���������� ���� �� ������� �����

���������� ��� ������� ��� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

��������� ��� ������ �� ���

��������� ������������� ������� ��

��� ���� ���������� ���� ������� ���

�����������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

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

���� � ������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 3—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Developing volunteer programs to improve 

forests and grasslands (for 

example, planting trees, or 

improving water quality).

Figure 2—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Conserving and 

protecting forests and grasslands that are the source of 

our water resources, such as 

streams, lakes, and watershed 

areas.
6 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

deviation of 0.88, indicating general consensus about its 

importance. The distribution of this type of information 

is also viewed as an appropriate role for the agency, 

and this is widely agreed to be the case (mean=4.49, 

s.d.=0.95). Agency performance is determined to be 

somewhat favorable (with a mean of 3.82), but here we 

see wide disagreement (s.d. = 1.30). The histogram in 

figure 5 shows that only a small number of respondents 

rate the performance of the USDA Forest Service as 

unfavorable, while most see the objective as important 

and the role as highly appropriate for the agency.

Environmental impact information—The distribution 

of information about environmental impacts is seen as 

an important objective by most Region 8 respondents 

(mean=4.53, s.d.=0.84). As with the distribution of 

recreation information, the public agrees that this is an 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 5—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Informing the public about recreation concerns 

on forests and grasslands such 

as safety, trail etiquette, and 

respect for wildlife.

Figure 4—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitat.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 7

important role for the USDA Forest Service (mean=4.44, 

s.d.=0.98). This objective has the lowest performance 

evaluation of the five core objectives, although the 

evaluation is still somewhat favorable (mean=3.49). As 

with recreation information, this evaluation has a high 

standard deviation (1.26) indicating that the respondents’ 

attitudes vary widely. Figure 6 shows that while the 

majority of respondents view the objective as important, 

and its fulfillment as an appropriate role for the agency, 

opinions about agency performance are spread nearly 

evenly across the range of attitudes.

Other Important Objectives

Table 2 shows the results for the other objectives 

that respondents in Region 8 identified as important. 

Although these objectives also had means over 4.00, 

these means had higher standard deviations, indicating 

more diverse responses from the public. The objectives 

in table 2 are ordered from those with the lowest standard deviation (higher consensus) to those with higher 

standard deviations (less consensus). As a result, some 

objectives identified as relatively more important fall 

lower in the table than objectives identified as relatively 

less important. Each of these objectives will be discussed 

briefly, with histograms only for those issues with striking disparities in the responses to the importance, the 

beliefs about the role of the USDA Forest Service, and 

customer satisfaction.

Region 8 residents feel that encouragement of collaboration among groups to share information concerning 

uses of forests and grasslands is an important objective 

(mean=4.21). The standard deviation is 0.99, indicating 

some consensus, but not as much as the core objectives. 

The public in Region 8 sees this as an appropriate role 

for the USDA Forest Service (mean=4.25), with some 

dissenting voices as indicated by the standard deviation 

(1.08). Overall, the public believes the agency is doing 

a good job encouraging collaboration (mean=3.80), 

but again, there is less consensus for this evaluation 

(s.d.=1.19).

Increasing law enforcement on public lands is also important to the people of Region 8 (mean 4.11), although 

there is a somewhat low level of agreement (s.d.=1.04). 

The enforcement of laws on public lands is seen as an 

appropriate role for the agency (mean=4.09), but with 

low consensus (s.d.=1.13). Agency performance is good, 

with still lower agreement (mean=3.90, s.d.=1.18).

The issue of local control is important to the people 

of Region 8 (mean=4.15).6 These respondents are not all 

in agreement, as indicated by the standard deviation of 

1.12. Making management decisions locally is seen as 

a somewhat important role for the USDA Forest Service 

(mean 3.93), but again, the standard deviation (1.33) 

indicates little agreement for this role. The histogram 

(figure 7) reveals that while most respondents do agree 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 6—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Informing the 

public on the potential environmental impacts of all uses 

associated with forests and 

grasslands.

6

 Commodity production is discussed at the end of this section.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

that the role is appropriate, many are neutral, and a few 

disagree. Agency performance is seen as somewhat 

favorable (mean=3.59), but with some disagreement 

(s.d.=1.27). Figure 7 shows the familiar correspondence 

between the importance of the objective and the appropriateness of the agency’s role, but once again, the level 

of customer satisfaction is more diverse with about 42% 

giving a neutral or unfavorable response.

The development of volunteer programs for trail 

maintenance and other facility improvements is important to Region 8 public (mean=4.20, s.d.=1.15). 

Most respondents feel that the development of 

these programs is an appropriate role for the agency 

(mean=4.25, s.d.=1.00). The respondents from Region 

8 are also somewhat satisfied with the level of agency 

performance, although, as has been the case with many 

Table 2--Other important objectives for Region 8.

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?

������� ������������

������ ����������

Encouraging collaboration between groups in

order to share information concerning uses of

forests and grasslands.

4.21

����a

364b

4.25

����

346

3.80

����

306

Increasing law enforcement efforts by public

land management agencies on public lands.

4.11

����

334

4.09

����

322

3.90

����

268

Restricting timber harvesting and grazing on

forests and grasslands.

4.11

����

360

4.03

����

337

3.37

����

337

Making management decisions concerning the

use of forests and grasslands at the local level

rather than at the national level.

4.15

����

303

3.93

����

389

3.59

����

253

Developing volunteer programs to maintain

trails and facilities on forests and grasslands

(for example, trail maintenance, or campground

maintenance).

4.20

����

373

4.25

����

381

3.87

����

346

Preserving the ability to have a ‘wilderness’

experience on forests and grasslands.

4.08

����

457

4.30

����

467

3.87

����

475

Preserving the natural resources of forests and

grasslands through such policies as no timber

harvesting or no mining.

4.25

����

441

4.22

����

443

3.82

����

400

Develop a national policy that guides natural

resource development of all kinds (for example,

specifies levels of extraction, and regulates

environmental impacts).

4.20

����

414

4.11

����

378

3.77

����

339

Allowing for diverse uses of forests and

grasslands such as grazing, recreation, and

wildlife habitat.

4.01

����

385

3.99

����

318

3.82

����

295

Restricting mineral development on forests and

grasslands.

4.12

����

371

3.89

����

346

3.61

����

324

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 2567 sample since each respondent was asked

only a portion of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 9

other objectives, there is little consensus (mean=3.87, 

s.d.=1.07).

Overall, the people of Region 8 believe the ability 

to have a wilderness experience on forests and grasslands is an important objective (mean=4.08). However, 

the standard deviation (1.17) reveals that numerous 

respondents disagree. Region 8 respondents do see the 

provision of such opportunities as an appropriate role 

for the agency (mean=4.30), although again, there is 

not universal agreement (s.d.=1.11). The USDA Forest 

Service is seen as doing a somewhat adequate job at 

providing the ability to have a wilderness experience 

(mean=3.87, s.d.=1.07).

While local decisions are important, the people of 

Region 8 also see the need for national level guidance for 

the development of natural resources (mean 4.20). The 

high standard deviation (1.20) may indicate that there 

are also those in Region 8 who favor a more “hands off” 

approach from the Washington Office. The development 

of such national policies is seen as an appropriate role 

for the agency, but again a high level of disagreement 

exists (mean=4.11, s.d.=1.23). Agency performance is 

somewhat favorable, with considerably more agreement 

on the evaluation than on the importance of the objective or the belief that the Forest Service ought to fulfill 

it (mean=3.77, s.d.=1.05).

Diverse uses of forests and grasslands are important 

to the people of Region 8, although there is a low level 

of consensus for this objective (mean=4.01, s.d.=1.21). 

Fulfilling this objective is viewed as a somewhat important role for the USDA Forest Service (mean=3.99). 

There is limited agreement about the appropriateness of 

this role for the agency (s.d.=1.14). Agency performance 

is reported to be somewhat favorable, with minimal 

consensus (mean=3.82, s.d.=1.17).

Three of the objectives that Region 8 respondents 

feel are important deal with limiting the use of forests 

and grasslands for commodity production. To facilitate a 

discussion of the implications of these objectives, these 

three are grouped (rather than in the order in which 

they appear in table 3). The Region 8 respondents to 

the VOBA see the restriction of timber harvesting and 

grazing on public lands as an important objective with 

a mean of 4.11. This objective has a lower level of 

agreement, however, (s.d.=1.11) indicating that there 

are some members of the public who do not hold this 

view.7 The implementation of such restrictions is seen 

as an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service 

(mean 4.03), although, again, the high standard deviation 

(1.25) indicates that there are many among the public 

who disagree. The USDA Forest Service is considered 

to be doing a somewhat adequate job restricting timber 

harvesting and grazing, but there is again little consensus 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 7—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Making management decisions concerning the 

use of forests and grasslands 

at the local level rather than at 

the national level.

7

 It should be noted that this objective statement is presented here as it 

was worded in the survey, and that this wording originated with the focus 

groups. 
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

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

����������

�� ���� ��

���������

��������� ��� ����

������ �� ��� ����������

������ ����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ����

��������� �� ��

����������� ���� ���

��� ���� ������

��������

����������� ���������

���������� ������

��� ��������� ��

��� ���� ���

����������� �� ���

���� ������

������� �� ����������

���� ����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

��������� ������ ��� ��������� ����

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

���� �������� ������������ �� �������

���������

����

�����

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

���������� ��� ������ ��� ���� ���

������������ ���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

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

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

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

�� ������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

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

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

0

50

100

150

200

2

number of respondents

50

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 8—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Restricting timber 

harvest and grazing on forests and grasslands.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 11

(mean=3.37, s.d.=1.34). Figure 8 illustrates the lack 

of consensus in the evaluation of agency performance, 

and shows that while most respondents agree that this 

objective is important, and that it is an appropriate role 

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

who do not.

Another objective considered important by the people 

of Region 8 is the restriction of mineral development 

on forests and grasslands.8 While the public sees this 

objective as important (mean=4.12), there is a wide 

disagreement (s.d.=1.31), even more than we see with 

the restriction of timber harvesting and grazing. The 

disagreement expands when looking at whether such 

restriction of mineral extraction is an appropriate role for 

the agency (s.d.=1.52), even though based on the mean 

it is considered to be appropriate (mean=3.89). Agency 

performance is somewhat favorable (mean=3.61), but 

again we see disparity among responses (s.d.=1.45). 

While most agree that the objective is important (figure 

9) and an appropriate role for the agency, the evaluation 

of agency performance is more evenly divided among 

the levels of responses.

Policies that eliminate the extraction of timber and 

minerals in order to preserve natural resources are important to the people of Region 8, although there is low 

consensus for this objective (mean=4.25, s.d.=1.20). 

While this objective is similar to the previous two, it is 

interesting to note that the public’s responses indicate 

this objective is viewed as more important. This may be 

due to the wording of these objectives. While the previous two simply state that extraction of resources is to be 

restricted, this objective prefaces similar restrictions with 

a justification (the preservation of natural resources). 

In fact, however, the wording of this objective is more 

restrictive (calling for policies such as no timber harvest 

or no mining). The greater acceptance of this objective 

may be attributed to the fact that the restrictions are for 

a purpose. The previous two objectives, while seen as 

important, are not as widely accepted by some, possibly 

due to a perceived arbitrariness. Policies that end timber 

harvest and mining are seen by many as an appropriate 

role for the USDA Forest Service, but again with less 

agreement (mean=4.22, s.d.=1.21). Finally, agreement 

is somewhat low (s.d.=1.22), but the agency is viewed 

as performing adequately (mean=3.82). Figure 10 shows 

a high correspondence between the public’s view of the 

importance of these policies and of the agency’s role in 

8

 The wording of this objective is also the direct result of focus group 

input.

0

50

100

150

200

250

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 9—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Restricting mineral development on forests 

and grasslands.
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

fulfilling them, but the level of customer satisfaction 

is lower.

Objectives Identified as 

Not Important

Three objectives in the VOBA were not important to 

the people of Region 8. These objectives have a mean 

importance of less than 3.00 (3.00 is the midpoint of the 

scale, indicating a neutral position). While the means 

for these objectives indicate that most respondents did 

not feel they were important, all of these objectives 

also exhibit high standard deviations, indicating there 

are supporters as well. This is not surprising since these 

objectives were included in the VOBA survey based 

upon the input of the focus groups. Some focus groups, 

which are representative of elements within society, revealed 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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 10—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Preserving the 

natural resources of forests 

and grasslands through such 

policies as no timber harvesting or no mining.

Figure 11—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude scores 

for: Expanding access for motorized off-highway vehicles on 

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

driving).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 13

Expanding off-highway motorized access (figure 

11) is not important for many of the people of Region 

8 (mean=2.30), although the standard deviation (1.37) 

indicates there is a constituency for whom such access 

is more important. Overall, the public does not see the 

provision of such access as an appropriate role for the 

Forest Service (mean=2.64), but again, there are many 

who do (s.d.=1.49). Agency performance on the provision of off-highway motorized access is seen as slightly 

unfavorable (mean=2.95), but this evaluation is not 

universal (s.d.=1.40).

Developing new paved roads is also unimportant to 

most of the people of Region 8 (mean=2.66). There are 

also some, however, for whom it is important (s.d.=1.49). 

The development of paved roads is not seen by most 

to be an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service 

(mean=2.65), but with a great deal of disagreement 

(s.d.=1.50). The USDA Forest Service is generally not 

seen as doing a favorable job in developing new paved 

roads (mean=2.94). Yet, again, there is little consensus 

for this evaluation (s.d.=1.36). This histogram for this 

objective (figure 12) resembles figure 11.

Land swapping (trading public lands for private lands) 

is not viewed by most of the Region 8 public as an important objective (mean=2.88). Yet, the high standard 

deviation (1.47) indicates some groups do view this as 

important. That trading public land for private land is 

seen by Region 8 respondents as a somewhat appropriate 

role for the agency (mean=3.13), is not surprising since 

the agency would presumably have to take the lead in 

such trades. This role’s appropriateness is not universally 

agreed upon, however, (s.d.=1.36). The public in Region 

8 views the performance of the Forest Service in providing such land trades as somewhat favorable (mean=3.31), 

but with a diversity of opinions (s.d.=1.25). Figure 13 

shows that the majority of respondents are neutral about 

this objective: its importance, the agency’s role in fulfilling it, and in agency performance. This may indicate that 

while there is a minority for whom this objective strikes 

a chord, either as important or unimportant, the general 

public is not as interested in, or is perhaps unaware of, 

the issue of land trading.

Objectives Identified as 

Moderately Important

Table 4 presents the final set of objectives—those 

which respondents from Region 8 feel are somewhat 

important, or those for which they are more neutral. This 

set of objectives has means between 3.00 and 4.00. As 

with the less important objectives, all also have higher 

standard deviations, indicating that while most people do 

not feel strongly about them, a few do. These objectives 

are presented in decreasing order of importance, since 

all exhibit high standard deviations.

While informing the public about recreation concerns and potential environmental impacts are important objectives to the people of Region 8 (see table 1), 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

number of respondents

1 2 3 4 5

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

Figure 12—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude scores 

for: Developing new paved roads 

on forests and grasslands for 

access for cars and recreational 

vehicles.
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

informing the public about the economic benefits of resource development is seen as only somewhat important. 

The mean for this objective is 3.95, and the standard 

deviation is 1.33, indicating a lack of consensus about 

the importance of this type of information. Region 8 

respondents do feel that providing this type of information is an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service 

(mean=4.13), and there is more agreement about this 

role for the agency (s.d.=1.07). In fact, this objective has 

one of the lowest standard deviations in all of Region 8’s 

responses. Agency performance is somewhat favorable 

(mean=3.38), but again lacks consensus for this evaluation (s.d.=1.34).

The people of Region 8 see the use of public advisory 

committees for public land management as somewhat 

important as well (mean=3.94) although, this assessment 

too is not universally held (s.d.=1.16). Respondents view 

the use of such committees as a somewhat appropriate 

role for the Forest Service, but again the standard deviation suggests a high level of disagreement (mean=3.76, 

s.d.=1.32). Agency performance in using public advisory 

committees is rated as somewhat favorable, (mean=3.33) 

but this evaluation is not shared by all respondents, as 

indicated by the standard deviation (1.20).

Wilderness designation can usually be expected 

to meet with some controversy, and the Region 8 

responses indicate this potential. While the mean 

indicates that most people feel it is somewhat important (3.86), the high standard deviation (1.27) also 

shows a high level of disagreement. The designation 

of wilderness is seen as an appropriate role for the 

agency (mean=3.74), and again we see that this is not 

a universal opinion (s.d.=1.41). In this case the high 

standard deviation may actually reflect the knowledge 

that Congress is the body responsible for officially 

designating wilderness. The USDA Forest Service is 

generally seen as performing at a somewhat favorable 

level, but not all respondents agreed with this evaluation (mean=3.38, s.d.=1.26).

Most respondents in Region 8 feel that it is somewhat 

important to pay an entry fee to support public lands 

(mean=3.84), yet numerous respondents do not hold 

this opinion (s.d.=1.28). The people of Region 8 do feel 

that this would be an appropriate role for the agency, 

but again there is disagreement (mean=3.76, s.d.=1.31). 

Agency performance is seen as adequate, although not 

by everyone (mean=3.74, s.d.=1.22).

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 8 

respondents (mean=3.82). However, there is substantial 

disagreement with the evaluation of this objective, as 

indicated by the high standard deviation (1.29). Preserving such cultural uses is seen as a somewhat important 

role for the USDA Forest Service (mean 3.76), but there 

is a lack of agreement on this issue (s.d.=1.30). Agency 

performance is only somewhat favorable (mean 3.48), 

and consensus is low (s.d.=1.25).

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 13—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Allowing public 

land managers to trade public 

land for private lands (for 

example, to eliminate private 

property within public land 

boundaries, or to acquire 

unique areas of land).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 15

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

����������

�� ���� ��

���������

��������� ���

����

������ �� ���

���������� ������

����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ����

��������� �� ��

����������� ���� ���

��� ���� ������

��������

����������� ���������

���������� ������

��� ��������� �� ���

���� ��� �����������

�� ��� ���� ������

������� �� ���������� ����

����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

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

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

����

�����

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

������ ���� ���������� �������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

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

��������� ����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

�����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

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

���������

� ���� �� ���� ���� ����������

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

�������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

���� �������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

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

�������� ������ �� ������ �����������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

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

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

������������� �������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

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

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

�����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

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

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

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

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

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

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

�����������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

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

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

��������� �� ������������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

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

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

����������� ������ �� ��� ���� �������
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

Increasing the total number of acres in the public 

land system is seen by the Region 8 public as somewhat 

important (mean=3.73). However, this potentially contentious issue did draw a variety of responses (s.d.=1.35). 

The people of Region 8 see adding to the public domain 

as an appropriate role for the agency (mean=3.97), 

but there is also a lack of agreement as to this role 

(s.d.=1.42). Again this could indicate differences in 

knowledge about who would actually have the authority 

to acquire additional public lands. There is also some 

lack of agreement as to the performance of the agency 

in increasing public land acreage (s.d.=1.32), but the 

people of Region 8 give the Forest Service a somewhat 

adequate rating (mean=3.41).

Many communities are dependent on public forests 

and grasslands for their economic bases. Providing 

natural resources to these communities is a relatively important objective for the people of Region 8 

(mean=3.68). However the importance of this objective 

is not universally agreed upon (s.d.=1.35). The people 

of Region 8 see the agency role in providing natural 

resources to dependent communities as somewhat 

important (mean=3.29), but again there is little consensus (s.d.=1.33). Agency performance in providing 

these natural resources is rated as somewhat favorable 

(mean=3.50, s.d.=1.29).

Three objectives dealing with recreation access fall 

into the category of moderately important. The first 

two deal with developing and maintaining systems of 

trails that combine access on private and public lands. 

The development of such systems for non-motorized 

access is seen as somewhat important (mean=3.59), 

but there is a lack of agreement about this evaluation 

(s.d.=1.31). This may indicate that while many people 

would wish to use such a system, there are also many 

(perhaps potentially affected landowners) who would see 

such a system of access as an infringement of property 

rights. The development of a system of private/public 

non-motorized access is seen as a somewhat important 

role for the agency (mean=3.69). However, the standard 

deviation also shows that there is a level of disagreement 

concerning this assessment (s.d.=1.34). Agency performance is somewhat favorable, but the whole sample 

does not concur (mean=3.68, s.d.=1.30)

A similar objective for the development of a trail 

system for motorized access that encompasses both 

private and public lands is seen as a much less important 

objective by the Region 8 public (mean=3.02). The high 

standard deviation (1.37) indicates that this opinion is 

not universal. Providing such motorized access is seen 

by some as a somewhat appropriate role for the USDA 

Forest Service, although there is disagreement about this 

(mean=3.04, s.d.=1.47). Agency performance is rated 

as somewhat adequate (mean=3.34), but the standard 

deviation is 1.44.

A third somewhat important objective related to recreation access is the designation of specific trails by use 

(for example separating motorized and non-motorized 

activities or other incompatible uses), but the level of 

consensus is low (mean=3.49, s.d.=1.46). Such separation of uses is viewed as a somewhat important role 

for the Agency, and there is a somewhat higher level 

of agreement (mean=3.89, s.d.=1.21). When assessing 

the performance of the agency, the Region 8 respondents show a similar level of agreement (s.d.=1.21), 

and give the agency a somewhat favorable evaluation 

(mean=3.52).

Many uses of public lands, such as livestock grazing, 

mining, logging, and commercial recreation, require a 

permit. The people of Region 8 see making the permitting process easier for these established uses as a slightly 

important role (mean=3.13), but there is a great deal of 

variability in the responses (s.d.=1.51). Making the permit process easier is not seen as an appropriate role for the 

agency (mean=2.84), but some respondents do not share 

this belief (s.d.=1.42). This objective has the lowest mean 

for agency performance, indicating there may be a need 

for further investigation using more traditional customer 

service survey methods (mean=2.86, s.d.=1.40).

Expanding commercial recreation (such as guides, 

outfitters, and ski areas) on forests and grasslands is 

slightly important to the Region 8 public, although there 

is a high level of variation (mean=3.04, s.d.=1.38). The 

expansion of such businesses is seen as a somewhat 

appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service, but with 

a low degree of consensus (mean=3.27, s.d.=1.57). 

Agency performance is somewhat favorable and again, 

consensus is low (mean=3.58, s.d.=1.22).

Results for Region 8: Public 

Lands Values____________

This section presents the Region 8 responses to the 

Public Lands Values Scale. Previous research using the 

Public Lands Values Scale has shown that these items 

consistently fall into two categories. The first category 

contains items that deal with individual actions or 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 17

values. We have labeled these the Socially Responsible 

Individual Values (tables 5 and 6). For the Socially Responsible Individual Values, a higher mean indicates a 

higher level of environmental orientation. The second 

category contains items that deal with how public lands 

should be managed. These are the Socially Responsible 

Management Values (table 7). The Socially Responsible 

Management Values statements are worded so that a 

higher value indicates that relatively more importance 

is placed upon human uses of, or commodity production 

from, forests and grasslands.

Socially Responsible Individual 

Values

The responses to the Socially Responsible Individual 

Values will be further broken into two groups: those 

for which there is a high degree of consensus (standard 

deviation less than 1.00), and those for which the level 

of agreement is lower. Most of the means for the values 

indicate an environmental orientation in the people of 

Region 8, but for many of the values statements, the 

standard deviation indicates that the level of agreement 

is low.

Socially Responsible Individual Values With a 

High Degree of Consensus

When the Socially Responsible Individual Values 

are placed in order of increasing standard deviation, the 

order of agreement is almost analogously decreasing. In 

other words, the values statements with higher means 

(indicating a more environmental value orientation) are 

also those with higher levels of consensus.

Socially Responsible Individual Values With a Low 

Degree of Consensus

Table 6 shows the values statements that have lower 

consensus among the respondents. Again, higher levels 

of agreement with the values statements (higher means) 

tend to correspond with higher consensus among the 

respondents.

Figure 14 shows the responses to the statement “I 

would be willing to pay $5 more each time I use public 

land for recreational purposes.” While most respondents 

agree with this statement (mean=3.62), the standard 

deviation is high, showing a great deal of disagreement 

(1.44). The histogram shows there is an identifiable 

minority that clearly disagrees. Since fees are often a 

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

������

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

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

������

�����

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

�����������

����

����

���

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

����

���

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

���������� �����������

����

����

���

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

���������

����

����

���

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

������

����

����

���

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

����

���

�

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

���� � ������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

reality in order to provide such recreation opportunities, 

it is important to be aware that while most support them, 

such policies will also most likely meet with considerable resistance.

Socially Responsible Management 

Values

The results for the Socially Responsible Management 

Values are presented in table 7 in order from higher 

agreement to lower agreement. As the previous section demonstrates, everyone believes in protecting the 

environment. Disagreement arises about the appropriate 

methods to achieve such protection. The differences in 

responses to this set of values are the basis for the disagreement we see in some objectives. Histograms are 

presented for each of the Socially Responsible Management Values (figures 15 through 22), but only the first 

is discussed because of its direct relevance to customer 

satisfaction.

The first of the Socially Responsible Management 

Values examines the performance of public land managers. This value statement may in part explain the overall 

low means for attitudes about agency performance on 

specific issues. Here we see that the overall assessment 

of public land managers is neutral (figure 15). Generally 

people neither agree nor disagree with the statement. 

However, when asked about the performance of a specific agency (the USDA Forest Service) in fulfilling a 

specific objective, most people have stronger opinions 

and these have been revealed in the attitude statements 

discussed in the preceding sections.

Table 6--Socially responsible individual public lands values with a low level of agreement in Region 8.

Values

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

I am willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of slowing down pollution. 4.33

����a

576b

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

resources.

4.23

����

637

Wildlife, plants and humans have equal rights to live and grow. 4.35

����

542

Forests have a right to exist for their own sake, regardless of human concerns and uses. 4.17

����

627

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

though it might be inconvenient.

3.95

����

580

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

for future generations.

4.08

����

546

Natural resource must be preserved even if people must do without some products. 4.04

����

632

I would be willing to sign a petition for an environmental cause. 4.04

����

565

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

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

3.62

����

712

The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much since I feel it’s somewhat overrated. c 3.56

����

560

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 2567 sample since each respondent was asked

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

discussion of reverse scoring, please refer to the appendix.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 19

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

������

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

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

��������� ���� ����� ���� �����

����

������

�����

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

�� �� ���� ���

����

����

���

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

�������

����

����

���

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

����

���

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

������������ ��������

����

����

���

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

����������

����

����

���

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

����

���

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

�����������

����

����

���

�

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

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

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 14—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).”
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

0

50

100

150

200

250

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

Figure 17—Distribution of responses to: “The most 

important role for the public lands is providing jobs 

and income for local people.”

Figure 15—Distribution of responses to: “I think that 

the public land managers are doing an adequate job 

of protecting natural resources from being over used.”

Figure 16—Distribution of responses to: “The main reason 

for maintaining resources today is so we can develop 

them in the future if we need to.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 21

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

Figure 18—Distribution of responses to: “The decision 

to develop resources should be based mostly on 

economic grounds.”

Figure 20—Distribution of responses to: “The Federal 

government should subsidize the development and 

leasing of public lands to companies.

Figure 19—Distribution of responses to: “The government has better places to spend money than devoting 

resources to a strong conservation program.”
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

Figure 22—Distribution of responses to: “We should actively 

harvest more trees to meet the needs of a much larger human population”

0

50

100

150

200

250

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1 2 3 4 5

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

Figure 21—Distribution of responses to: “The primary use of 

forests should be for products that are useful to humans.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 23

Comparison of Region 8 

With the Rest of the United 

States__________________

This final section compares the VOBA results for 

Region 8 with the results for the rest of the United 

States. Tables 8 through 11 present the objectives, beliefs 

about the role of the agency, and customer satisfaction. 

These are arranged in a manner similar to the previous 

sections (Core Important Objectives, Other Important 

Objectives, Unimportant Objectives, and Objectives of 

Moderate Importance). Table 12 contains comparisons 

of the Public Lands Values between Region 8 and the rest 

of the United States. This table is divided into Socially 

Responsible Individual Values and Socially Responsible 

Management Values. Discussion will focus on those 

objectives and values with statistically significant differences.

Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes

The respondents of Region 8 differ from the rest of 

the United States on only one core objective: informing 

the public on the potential impacts of uses of forests 

and grasslands. This objective is more important for the 

residents of Region 8 than it is for the rest of the United 

States. It also shows a lower standard deviation for the 

residents of Region 8 than for the rest of the United 

States, indicating greater agreement about the evaluation 

within Region 8.

As seen in table 9, Region 8 differs from the rest of 

the United States in five of the ten important objectives. 

Not only are increasing law enforcement on public lands, 

making local management decisions, the restriction of 

timber harvest and grazing, and the restriction of mining, more important to the residents of Region 8 than 

to residents of the rest of the United States, the level of 

consensus for these objectives is also higher in Region 

8. The public in Region 8 also differs from the rest of 

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

��� ������ �������

�� ���� �� ��������� ���������

��� ����

������ �� ��� ���������� ������

����������

�� ��� ������� ���� ����������

���� ��������� �� ���

����������� ���� ��� ���

���� ������ ��������

����������� ��������� ����������

������

��� ��������� �� ��� ����

��� ����������� �� ���

���� ������ ������� ��

���������� ���� ����������

������� ������������ ������

����������

���������� ������ �

���� ��

��

���� ����

����

���� �� ������ � ���� �� ��

���� ����

����

���� �� ������ � ���� �� ��

����

���� �

��� ����

��

���������� ��� ����������

������� ��� ���������� ���� ���

��� ������ �� ��� �����

���������� ���� �� ��������

������ ��� ��������� ������

����

�����

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��������� ��������

�� ������� ������� ���

���������� ���� ��������

�������� ������ �� ���������

����� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

���������� ���������� ���

�������� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

����

����

���

����

����

���

��

��������� ��� ������ �����

���������� �������� �� �������

��� ���������� ���� �� �������

����� ���������� ��� ������� ���

���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

��������� ��� ������ �� ���

��������� ������������� �������

�� ��� ���� ���������� ����

������� ��� �����������

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

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

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

�� ��� ��� ���� ����������� ��� ������������� ����������� �� � � ����� ����� ��� ����� ������������� ����� �� � �������
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

Table 9--Comparison of other important objectives, beliefs, and attitudes between Region 8 and the rest of

the United States.

Is this an important objective

for you?

������ �� ��� ���������� ������

����������

Do you believe that fulfilling

this objective is and

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 8

Rest of

US

Sig. diff

-R8/

rest US Region 8 Rest of US

Sig. diff

-R8/

rest US Region 8 Rest of US

Sig.

diff -

R8/ rest

US

Encouraging collaboration

between groups in order to

share information concerning

uses of forests and grasslands.

4.21

����a

364b

4.13

����

702

4.25

����

346

4.10

����

721

*

3.80

����

306

3.65

����

595

Increasing law enforcement

efforts by public land

management agencies on public

lands.

4.11

����

334

3.88

����

628

**

4.09

����

322

3.98

����

652

3.90

����

268

3.79

����

524

Restricting timber harvesting

and grazing on forests and

grasslands.

4.11

����

360

3.94

����

782

*

4.03

����

337

3.97

����

734

3.37

����

337

3.42

����

609

Making management decisions

concerning the use of forests

and grasslands at the local level

rather than at the national level.

4.15

����

303

3.88

����

614

**

3.93

����

389

3.83

����

714

3.59

����

253

3.44

����

552

Developing volunteer programs

to maintain trails and facilities

on forests and grasslands (for

example, trail maintenance, or

campground maintenance).

4.20

����

373

4.16

����

734

4.25

����

381

4.25

����

784

3.87

����

346

3.74

����

611

Preserving the ability to have a

‘wilderness’ experience on

forests and grasslands.

4.08

����

457

4.27

����

884

**

4.30

����

467

4.21

����

892

3.87

����

475

3.84

����

926

Preserving the natural resources

of forests and grasslands

through such policies as no

timber harvesting or no mining.

4.25

����

441

4.22

����

918

4.22

����

443

4.19

����

900

3.82

����

400

3.59

����

769

**

Allowing for diverse uses of

forests and grasslands such as

grazing, recreation, and wildlife

habitat.

4.01

����

385

4.14

����

745

3.99

����

318

4.04

����

641

3.82

����

295

3.72

����

554

Develop a national policy that

guides natural resource

development of all kinds (for

example, specifies levels of

extraction, and regulates

environmental impacts).

4.20

����

414

4.26

����

881

4.11

����

378

4.20

����

730

3.77

����

339

3.40

����

654

***

Restricting mineral

development on forests and

grasslands.

4.12

����

371

3.76

����

721

***

3.89

����

346

3.92

����

777

3.61

����

324

3.12

����

604

***

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 2567 sample since each respondent was asked

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

*, **, *** mean differences are statistically significant at � = 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 25

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

��� ������ �������

�� ���� �� ��������� ���������

��� ����

������ �� ��� ���������� ������

����������

�� ��� ������� ���� ����������

���� ��������� �� ���

����������� ���� ��� ���

���� ������ ��������

����������� ��������� ����������

������

��� ��������� �� ��� ����

��� ����������� �� ���

���� ������ ������� ��

���������� ���� ����������

������� ������������ ������

����������

��������� ������ �

���� ��

��

���� ����

����

���� �� ������ � ���� �� ��

���� ����

����

���� �� ������ � ���� �� ��

����

���� �

��� ����

��

��������� ������ ��� ���������

����������� �������� �� �������

��� ���������� ���� ��������

������������ �� �������

���������

����

�����

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� ����� ����� ��

������� ��� ���������� ��� ������

��� ���� ��� ������������

���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���

�������� ������ ���� ��������

�� ����� ������ ���� ��� �������

����� ���� �������� �� ���������

������� �������� ������ ������

���� ����������� �� �� �������

������ ����� �� ������

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

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

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

�� ��� ��� ���� ����������� ��� ������������� ����������� �� � � ����� ����� ��� ����� ������������� ����� �� � �������
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

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

��� ������ �������

�� ���� �� ��������� ��������� ���

����

������ �� ��� ���������� ������

����������

�� ��� ������� ���� ����������

���� ��������� �� ��� �����������

���� ��� ��� ���� ������

��������

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

��� ��������� �� ��� ����

��� ����������� �� ��� ����

������ ������� �� ���������� ����

����������

������� ������������ ������

����������

��������� ������ �

���� ��

��

���� ����

���� ����

�� ������ � ���� �� ��

���� ����

���� ����

�� ������ � ���� �� ��

���� ����

���� ����

��

��������� ��� ������ �� ���

�������� ����� �������� ��

���������� ��� ������� ����������

����

�����

����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����� ������ �������� ����������

�� ������ �� ������ ����

���������� �������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����������� ���� ���������� �����

�� ������ ���� ���� ����� ������ ���

����������� ��� ��������� ����

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

������ �� ����� ��� ���� ���� ��

������� ������ �����

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� �������� ���� ��

������� ��� ���������� �� ������

��������� ��� ������ ���������

���� �� ���� ���� ����������

���������������� ���������� ���

���������� �������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� ����� ������ ��

����� �� ��� ������ ���� �������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

��������� ������� ��������� ����

������� ��� ���������� �� �������

����������� ��������� ��

�������� ������ �� ������

�����������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� �����������

���������� ����� ������� ���� �����

���� ������ ��� ������� ���� ���

������������� ���������� ���� ��

������ ��� ������������� �������

����

����

���

����

����

���

��

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

���������� ��� �����������

���������� ����� ������� ���� �����

���� ������ ��� ������� ���� ���

��������� �������� ���� ��

����������� �� �����

����

����

���

����

����

���

��

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����������� ���� ��������

���������� ������ ��� �������� ���

���� �������� �������� ��������

������ ��� ������������ ��� ������

������� ������� �� ��� ��������

������ ��� ��������� ��������

����

����

���

����

����

���

��

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

������ ��� ���������� �������

������ ��� ���� ����������� ���� ��

������� ��� ���������� ���� ��

�������� �������� ������� ���

���������� �����������

����

����

���

����

����

���

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

��������� ���������� ����������

�� ������� ��� ���������� ����

�������� ��� ������ ����� ���������

�� ������������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

���

�

�

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

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

�� ��� ��� ���� ����������� ��� ������������� ����������� �� � � ����� ����� ��� ����� ������������� ����� �� � �������
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 27

Table 12--Comparison of values between Region 8 and the rest of the United States.

SOCIALLY RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL VALUES

������ ����������� ������ ���������� ��������� Region 8

Rest of

US

Significant difference

between Region 8 and

the rest of the US

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

them.

4.78

����a

623b

4.72

����

1426

People can think public lands are valuable even if they do not

actually go there themselves.

4.69

����

592

4.55

����

1231

***

People should be more concerned about how our public lands

are used.

4.68

����

564

4.67

����

1252

Manufacturers should be encouraged to use recycled

materials in their manufacturing and processing operations.

4.62

����

649

4.68

����

1349

Consumers should be interested in the environmental

consequences of the products they purchase.

4.52

����

576

4.43

����

1276

*

Future generations should be as important as the current one

in the decisions about public lands.

4.55

����

648

4.54

����

1458

Donating time or money to worthy causes is important to me. 4.18

����a

547b

4.23

����

1284

I am willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of

slowing down pollution.

4.33

����

576

4.38

����

1258

People should urge their friends to limit their use of products

made from scarce resources.

4.23

����

637

4.06

����

1395

**

Wildlife, plants and humans have equal rights to live and

grow.

4.35

����

542

4.20

����

1259

*

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

human concerns and uses.

4.17

����

627

4.16

����

1325

I am willing to stop buying products from companies that

pollute the environment even though it might be

inconvenient.

3.95

����

580

3.93

����

1286

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

less there would be more left for future generations.

4.08

����

546

4.05

����

1206

Natural resource must be preserved even if people must do

without some products.

4.04

����

632

4.16

����

1383

*

I would be willing to sign a petition for an environmental

cause.

4.04

����

565

3.94

����

1217

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

public lands for recreational purposes (for example, hiking,

camping, hunting).

3.62

����

712

3.50

����

1499

The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much since

I feel it’s somewhat overrated.

2.44

����

560

2.29

����

1291

*
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

the United States on preserving the ability to have a 

wilderness experience. The respondents from Region 8 

determined this objective to be less important, but again 

with somewhat higher consensus, than did the rest of 

the United States.

Table 10 shows that only one of the unimportant 

objectives has a significantly different mean for Region 

8 than for the rest of the United States. This objective 

concerns allowing public land managers to trade public 

lands for private. The respondents in Region 8 find this 

objective to be less important that those in the rest of the 

United States, although Region 8 has a higher standard 

deviation.

Table 11 shows statistically significant differences 

between Region 8 and the rest of the United States for 5 

of the 12 objectives of moderate importance. Developing 

and maintaining continuous trails for motorized access, 

making the permitting process easier, and paying an 

entry fee are all more important to Region 8 residents 

than to residents in the rest of the United States. The 

development of continuous trail systems for non-motorized access and the designation of separate trails by use 

are less important for the people of Region 8 than for 

respondents in the rest of the United States.

Public Lands Values

Table 12 compares Region 8 respondents’ values to 

those from the rest of the United States. For Socially 

Responsible Individual Values with statistically significant differences, the means for Region 8 are higher than 

for the rest of the United States in all but one case. The 

exception is the statement that natural resources must be 

preserved even if people must do without some things. 

This suggests that there is a higher level of environmental orientation within Region 8 than for the rest of the 

United States. For the Socially Responsible Management 

Values, the mean responses from Region 8 are higher in 

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

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

���� ��

��

����������� ����������

������� ������ � ���

��� ���� �� ��� ��

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

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

����

����

���

����

����

����

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

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

����

����

���

����

����

����

���

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

��� ������ ��� ����� �������

����

����

���

����

����

����

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

�������� ��������

����

�����

����

����

����

����

�

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

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

����

����

���

����

����

����

��

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

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

����

����

���

����

����

����

���

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

������ �� �������

����

����

���

����

����

����

���

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

���� ������ ����� �����������

����

����

���

����

����

����

�

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

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

�� ��� ��� ���� ����������� ��� ������������� ����������� �� � � ����� ����� ��� ����� ������������� ����� �� � �������
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 29

all cases. These values statements are worded so that a 

higher response indicates that a respondent values the 

extraction and use of natural resources more highly. 

Thus, while Region 8 respondents exhibit a higher level 

of environmental orientation on the Individual Values, 

they also exhibit a higher preference for human-centered 

uses of forests and grasslands when responding to the 

Management Values.
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005.

Survey Design and Implementation

The design of the VOBA survey began with focus 

groups and interviews. Between September 1999 and 

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

interviews concentrated on 3 topics; 1) issues related 

to the use of public lands in general and forests and 

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

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

and conservation of the forests and rangelands, and 3) 

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

and conservation of the forests and rangelands.

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

group of stakeholders. These hierarchies indicate what 

each group or individual was attempting to achieve and 

how they would achieve each goal or objective. These 

objectives ranged from the abstract strategic level to 

the more focused or concrete means level. The means 

level objectives are at the bottom of the hierarchy, while 

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

completed the hierarchies. Therefore, the strategic-level 

objective is an abstract objective that can be achieved 

by more specific fundamental-level objectives, which 

are in turn achieved by means level objectives. (See 

figure 1.)

Each of the objectives hierarchies was confirmed with 

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

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

The result was a hierarchy that covered 5 strategic level 

objectives related to access, preservation/conservation, 

commodity development, education and natural resource 

management. These 5 strategic level objectives were 

supported by 30 fundamental objectives.

The 30 fundamental level objectives were used to 

develop 30 objectives statements that were used in the 

National Survey of Recreation and the Environment 

(NSRE). The NSRE is a national survey administered 

via telephone interviews. The 30 objectives statements 

were divided into 5 groups based upon the strategic level 

objectives that the focus groups had identified. During 

the telephone interviews each respondent was asked 

one statement from each of the 5 strategic level groups 

in order to obtain a statistically valid sample for each 

statement and for each strategic level group.

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

values, objectives, beliefs and attitudes was conducted 

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

the interview. However, the results presented here are 

based solely on the questions in the VOBA Module of 

the survey and the demographic questions. Participants 

were asked to respond to the VOBA questions using a 

five-point. The objectives questions are anchored with 

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

anchored with 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree 

and attitudes are anchored with 1=very unfavorable to 

5=very favorable. Each of these three scales consists 

of 30 items. The twenty-five items in the ‘values’ scale 

are anchored with 1=strongly disagree and 5=strongly 

agree.

Reverse Scoring

When the VOBA survey was designed, care was 

taken to avoid the appearance of an instrument that was 

biased toward or against a specific position. To do this 

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

one item a “strongly agree” response might indicate a 

conservation/preservation orientation, while for another 

item the same response might indicate a development 

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

creates problems when items with the opposite direction 

are grouped.

In order to compare two or more items that have the 

opposite direction, it is necessary to make the items 

move in the same direction. To illustrate this we will use 

an example. Suppose we want to examine the overall 

preference for sweets as indicated by the preference for 

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

Appendix
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-158. 2005. 31

indicates “strongly disagree” and 5 indicates “strongly 

agree” as in the Public Lands Values scale. In order to 

avoid the appearance of bias toward or against sweets, 

the two items move in opposite directions: “I like ice 

cream” and “I don’t like pie.” Clearly a person who 

likes all sweets will answer 5 to the first item and 1 to 

the second. Conversely, someone who does not like 

sweets will answer 1 to the first and 5 to the second. If 

these items were grouped, it would be more useful to a 

research if the two items were scored to indicate preference for sweets either with a higher response for both 

items (or lower, either way would work). So, to re-score, 

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

the second, and reverse the scoring. So, and answer of 

5 to “I don’t like pie” becomes a 1 (and we can reword 

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

remains the same (neutral), 2 becomes 4 and 1 becomes 

5. This in effect creates a new item that corresponds in 

direction to “I like ice cream.” Now we have an indication of each respondent’s preference for sweets. Higher 

numbers for each item indicate a higher preference for 

sweets, while lower numbers indicate lower preference. 

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

VOBA in order to more accurately characterize overall 

preferences for item groups.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and employer.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT RMRS-GTR-158

SEPTEMBER 2005