U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE

Survey Responses From the Intermountain West:

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

Survey Responses From the Intermountain West:

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands?

DONNA L. LYBECKER YBECKER, DEBORAH J. SHIELDS, AND MICHELLE ICHELLE HAEFELE
Lybecker, Donna L.; Shields, Deborah J.; Haefele, Michelle. 2005. Survey responses from the Intermountain West: 

Are we achieving the public’s objectives for forests and rangelands? Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-160. Fort 

Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 35 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 that respondents from the Intermountain West (Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, 

New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming) are somewhat more strongly in favor of allowing more diverse uses of our forests and 

grasslands than respondents from the rest of the United States, and slightly less inclined toward protection of ecosystems. Nationwide, as in the Intermountain West, the most important objective was conserving and protecting forests 

and grassland watersheds.

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

Rangelands?

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

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

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

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

RMRS-GTR-158

• Survey Responses From 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

• Comparison of 2000/2003 Data – Forthcoming

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

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

publication title and series number.

Fort Collins Service Center

Telephone (970) 498-1392

FAX (970) 498-1396

E-mail rschneider@fs.fed.us

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

Mailing address Publications Distribution

 Rocky Mountain Research Station

 240 West Prospect Road

 Fort Collins, CO 80526

Rocky Mountain Research Station

Natural Resources Research Center

2150 Centre Avenue, Building A

Fort Collins, CO 80526
Survey Responses From the Intermountain West: 

Are We Achieving the Public’s Objectives for 

Forests and Rangelands? 

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

Contents

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

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

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

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

The Intermountain West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Results for the Intermountain West: Objectives, Beliefs, and Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . 4

Objectives Identified as Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

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

Objectives Identified as Moderately Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Results for the Intermountain West: Public Lands Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

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

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

Comparison of the Intermountain West with the Rest of the United States . . . . . . 23

Objectives Identified as Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Objectives Identified as Not Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

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

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

Highlights of a Comparison of the Intermountain West with Regions 8 and 9 . . . . 28

Core Important Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Other Important Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Objectives Identified as Not Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Objectives Identified as Moderately Important . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Concluding Remarks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 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 having multiple 

facets, providing high-quality customer service and 

achieving high levels of customer satisfaction can be as 

challenging as managing for healthy ecosystems.

A person’s attitudes about the Forest Service are 

often influenced by the nature and outcomes of his or 

her interactions with Forest Service employees. Were 

they polite, knowledgeable, helpful, professional? Was 

the process straightforward, efficient, prompt, and fair? 

Was the desired outcome achieved, such as acquiring a 

fuelwood permit or getting information on day hikes? 

Although traditional customer satisfaction surveys do 

a good job of collecting this type of information, they 

tend to focus on delivery of services to specific classes 

of “users” (for example, permittees or applicants for 

timber sales or grazing allotments), and are not designed 

to capture the preferences and attitudes of the broader 

public.

In addition to personal interactions with the Forest 

Service, people’s perceptions of the agency are also 

influenced by their attitudes about how and toward what 

end the Forest Service manages public land. Various 

segments of the public have both general and in some 

cases quite detailed objectives related to the health of 

forests and rangelands, how Forest Service lands should 

be managed, and the activities that should be allowed 

to take place on them. If stakeholders observe that an 

objective they deem important is not being fulfilled, 

their satisfaction with the Forest Service may be lowered regardless of the quality of their interactions with 

individual Forest Service employees or their experience 

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

the agency’s objectives can provide useful input to the 

strategic planning process.

This report describes the public’s values, objectives, 

beliefs, and attitudes for and toward the USDA Forest 

Service, with particular focus on the Intermountain 

West region. Information on the public’s perceptions 

has been collected through an ongoing survey entitled 

“The American Public’s Values, Objectives, Beliefs, and 

Attitudes Regarding Forests and Rangelands” (hereafter 

VOBA). The VOBA survey asked respondents about 

their environmental values as they relate to public 

lands, these objectives for the management of forests 

and rangelands in general as well as those managed by 

the Forest Service, their beliefs about whether it is the 

role of the Forest Service to fulfill these objectives, and 

their attitudes about the performance of the agency in 

fulfilling their objectives. This report compares the nation-wide public’s response to those from respondents 

in the Intermountain West. Results show that the public 

in the Intermountain West region apparently does not 

view the USDA Forest Service as favorably as does the 

public in the rest of the United States. This is particularly noteworthy due to the high percentage of public 

lands in general, and Forest Service lands in particular, 

within this region.

This report is organized as follows. First there is a 

brief discussion of the data used in the analysis. The 

following section outlines the methods used to analyze 

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

attitudes regarding forests and rangelands. Next, results 

for the Intermountain West region are reported. Finally, 

the responses from the Intermountain West region are 

compared with those from the rest of the United States, 

and with the Southern and Northeastern Regions.

Data and Methodology____

Data for this report come from the VOBA survey. The 

survey was implemented as a module of the National 

Survey on Recreation and the Environment (NSRE). 

This random telephone survey was administered for the 

USDA Forest Service by the University of Tennessee. 

Although random, it is important to note that a telephone 

survey such as the NSRE will not adequately represent 

the views of segments of the population that do not have 

access to or choose not to have telephones. In addition 

to the VOBA questions, respondents were asked about 

their recreational behaviors and basic demographics.

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

agreement or approval in four areas—values, objectives, 

beliefs, and attitudes—regarding forests and rangelands. 

Respondents indicate their agreement or approval on a 

five-point scale. The objectives scale items are anchored 

by 1=not at all important and 5=very important. The 

Value and Belief scale items are anchored by 1=strongly 

disagree and 5=strongly agree. The Attitude scale items 

are anchored by 1=very unfavorable and 5=very favorable.
2 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

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.

The VOBA surveys objectives, and related beliefs and 

attitudes; it does not directly ask respondents about their 

opinions of the USDA Forest Service goals, as embodied 

in the Forest Service 2000 Strategic Plan. Likewise, 

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

the Chief’s Agenda or Leadership Team priorities. The 

VOBAs objectives statements were developed during a 

series of 80 focus group meetings conducted with members of various stakeholder groups as well as individuals 

throughout the country. As such, they represent the main 

objectives for land management as they were presented 

to us by the public.

An objectives hierarchy was constructed for each of 

the focus groups. These hierarchies indicated the group’s 

goals for the management of forests and rangelands, 

and how they would like to see each goal or objective 

achieved. The objectives ranged from the very abstract 

strategic level to the more focused or applied means 

level (figure 1).

The strategic-level objectives are abstract, while 

fundamental level objectives represent a context specific 

application of strategic objectives. End-state fundamental objectives represent the desired state of the world. 

Fundamental means objectives capture the methods by 

which the desired end-state should be achieved.

Objectives elicited from all the focus groups were 

pooled, duplications eliminated, and overlaps accounted 

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

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

the fundamental objectives that indicate both end-state 

preferences and the means by which they should be 

achieved. Each correlates to one of the strategic objectives.

Objectives may be applicable only at the regional or 

national scale, be location specific, or be meaningful at 

multiple scales. The VOBA survey objectives are applicable to the management of forests and rangelands at a 

broad geographic scale. Many of the objectives are also 

meaningful at the regional level. However, the public 

may have additional objectives specific to home regions 

that are not captured in the existing national survey instrument. The belief and attitude statements tier down 

directly from the objectives. For example an objective 

might be “more hiking trails.” The corresponding belief 

question asks whether the respondent believes that providing more hiking trails is an appropriate role for the 

USDA Forest Service. The attitude question would then 

elicit input on the respondent’s perception of how well 

the agency is doing at providing hiking trails.

The value scale in the VOBA survey differs from 

other value survey instruments in that it focuses on 

values associated with public lands. It is applicable at 

multiple spatial scales, and in addition to being used 

in the national VOBA survey, has been applied at the 

National Forest scale.

The Public Lands Values scale was developed using 

approximately 200 items that, through a series of iterations using both student and adult samples around the 

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

was designed to focus on values that people hold for the 

environment in general and public lands in particular. 

It has been tested on four National Forests in Colorado 

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

traditional and non-traditional stakeholder groups. Research and testing have shown that responses to the Public 

Lands Values scale can be arranged into two categories: 

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

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

statements within the VOBA was designed with public 

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

private lands. In other words, the language used may not 

be applicable to some types of private land use concerns, 

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

objective, “Developing and maintaining continuous trail 

systems that cross both public and private land for motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles or ATVs,” is written 

with public land managers in mind. A similar objective, 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 3

written from the perspective of private landowners, 

might say something like, “Coordinating with public 

and private actors to support and maintain continuous 

trail systems that cross both public and private land for 

motorized vehicles.” Although the wording for many of 

the objectives does not present this concern, it is necessary to remain aware that respondents may be thinking 

solely of public lands instead of both public and private 

lands when responding to some of the objectives.1

Data Collection

The VOBA survey was implemented as a module 

of the NSRE, a survey with a nationwide sample. Of 

the 7,069 nationwide respondents, 638 came from the 

Intermountain West. The data were collected between 

late 1999 and early 2000. The number of responses in 

any region is a function of the overall VOBA sampling 

design. For each State the size of the sample was proportional to its population. Due to a limited amount of 

time available for each phone interview, participants 

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

VOBA questions. Each respondent was asked about one 

fundamental objective from each of the five strategiclevel objective categories. Due to this sampling design, 

each item in the objectives, beliefs, and attitude scales 

has fewer than the full 638 respondents.

The overall goal of this split sampling design was 

to control interview time with respondents, yet collect 

analytically valuable information. This not only lowers 

costs, but also reduces respondent burden, which should 

lead to fewer non-responses and therefore to a better 

sample quality.2 To ensure high confidence levels, the 

full national survey was designed so that there was a 

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

are adequate to support multivariate statistical analysis, 

and provides a high level of confidence in the results. 

In the Intermountain West the response numbers for 

each question ranged from 56 to 494. As a result of this 

smaller sample size, there is a slightly greater chance 

the results do not fully reflect the precise traits of the 

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

give a relatively high level of confidence in the results.

Methodology

The objective of this analysis is to determine the 

important and unimportant objectives, the perceived 

appropriateness of roles for the USDA Forest Service, 

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

mean, standard deviation, and frequency distribution, 

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

attitude statements. Factor scores (group means) were 

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

The Intermountain West

This report focuses on the Intermountain West region of the United States: Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, 

Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. 

Although not a single USDA Forest Service Region,3

these eight States share a number of characteristics and 

are facing similar economic and social transitions. One 

of the most important similarities within the Intermountain West region is the extent of public lands within these 

States.4 Other similarities include wide-open spaces with 

the majority of the population living in urban centers, 

a tradition of boom and bust economies, and expansive 

and rapid growth and development. Additionally, these 

States are changing from the so –called “Old West” to 

the “New West,” a transition marked by the traditional 

extractive economy (mining, logging, and ranching) 

being surpassed by the service sector (everything from 

tourism services to telecommuting professionals). 

Despite these changes, in fact possibly due to these 

changes, there is an enduring regional trait, a “Code 

of the West”—a way of thinking and living that differs 

from other regions of the United States.5 Included within 

1

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

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

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

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

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

2

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

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

3

 These states are parts of USDA Forest Service Regions 1, 2, 3 and 4.

4

 According to the Atlas of the New West: Portrait of a Changing Region 

(W. Riebsame, H. Gosnell and D. Theobald, eds, 1997. New York: W.W. 

Norton and Company, p. 58), these states consist of between 28.0% and 

32.9% public lands. 

5

 See for example, Riebsame, W., H. Gosnell and D. Theobald, eds. 1997. 

Atlas of the New West: Portrait of a Changing Region New York: W.W. Norton 

and Company, and Brick, P., D. Snow, and S. Van de Wetering, eds. 2001. 

Across the Great Divide. Washington D.C.: Island Press. Riebsame, W., H. 

Gosnell and D. Theobald, eds, 1997. 
4 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

this region’s “code” or identity is a history of self-sufficiency through cooperation, exemplified by actions 

such as the Sagebrush Rebellion.6 These traits unite the 

eight States of the Intermountain West, and distinguish 

the region from the rest of the United States. Thus, by 

treating these States as one region, it is possible to shed 

light on how this distinct segment of the United States 

public perceives values, objectives, beliefs, and attitudes 

about forests and rangelands.

Results for the Intermountain West: Objectives, 

Beliefs, and Attitudes_____

Results from the Intermountain West respondents to 

the VOBA national survey are reported first for objectives, the extent to which the public believes it is the job 

of the Forest Service to fulfill the objectives (beliefs), 

and the perception of agency performance in fulfilling 

these objectives (attitudes). These results are grouped 

as to objectives the Intermountain West public feels 

are the most important, not important, and moderately 

important. For each of these groups of objectives the 

level of consensus (or lack thereof) among the public 

is also highlighted.

Results for the values are then divided into Socially 

Responsible Individual Public Lands Values with a high 

level of agreement among Intermountain West respondents, Socially Responsible Individual Public Lands Values with a low level of agreement among respondents, 

and Socially Responsible Management Values.

Objectives Identified as Important

For this report, a mean response of 4.00 or greater 

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

to the respondents in the Intermountain West. Eleven of 

the original 30 objectives were thus identified as important. Four of these 11 were further specified as “core” 

objectives because their response rating has a standard 

deviation (s.d.) of less than 1.00, indicating that the 

public is generally in agreement about the importance 

of these objectives.7

Core Important Objectives

The four core objectives for the public in the Intermountain West are presented in detail in table 1. For 

each of the four core objectives, a histogram compares 

the distribution of responses for the importance of the 

objective, the agency role, and customer satisfaction. 

In each case there is agreement that the objective is important, and that it is an appropriate role for the USDA 

Forest Service. However, this consistency does not hold 

when looking at agency performance. None of these 

objectives shows a public with a “very favorable” or 

“favorable” (mean above 4.00) view of the performance 

of the USDA Forest Service.

Watershed Protection—The VOBA objective deemed 

the most important by respondents in the Intermountain 

West is the conservation and protection of lands that are 

the source of our water resources. This objective has a 

mean of 4.69 and a standard deviation of 0.78 (table 1; 

figure 2, which shows the distribution of responses). 

The mean of 4.44 for the corresponding belief statement 

also indicates that the public considers the protection 

of watersheds to be an appropriate role for the USDA 

Forest Service. This belief has wide consensus as well, 

indicated by the standard deviation of 0.92. Agency performance is viewed as somewhat favorable, with a mean 

of 3.76. This rating, however, does not exhibit as much 

consensus as the objective and belief (s.d. 1.15).

Volunteer programs—Developing volunteer programs 

to improve the health of forests and grasslands had the 

second highest importance ranking, with a mean of 

4.60. A standard deviation of 0.76 again indicates wide 

agreement that these programs are important. The respondents also saw the development of such volunteer 

programs as an appropriate role for the agency (mean 

7

 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. 

6

 The Sagebrush Rebellion began in the 1970s as an organized resistance in 

the West to Federal public lands policies—the states wanted more control 

over the federal lands within their boundaries. Since that time, the Sagebrush Rebellion has become an attitude that exists in the West, reflecting 

the feeling that Federal policies affecting the West were made in the East 

and without much attention to the conditions and concerns of the West. For 

more information see such references as: Policy Analysis Staff Group, US 

Forest Service. c.a. 1980. “Draft Report Concerning Transfer of Western 

National Forest System Lands to State Ownership, as Proposed by S. 1680.” 

USDA Forest Service; Cawley, R. McGreggor. 1993. Federal Land, Western 

Anger: The Sagebrush Rebellion and Environmental Politics. Lawrence, KS: 

University of Kansas Press. 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 5

4.42). Although the standard deviation of 0.98 reveals 

less agreement than with the objective itself, this belief 

has wide consensus. Finally, this objective has the lowest performance evaluation of the four core objectives, 

although the evaluation is still somewhat favorable 

(mean 3.41). This evaluation also has a high standard 

deviation (1.13) indicating that the respondents’ attitudes 

vary widely. Figure 3 shows that while the majority 

of the Intermountain West respondents view agency 

performance as adequate, fully 80% (the percentage of 

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

����������

�� ���� �� ���������

��������� ��� ����

������ �� ��� ���������� ������

����������

�� ��� ������� ����

���������� ���� ���������

�� �� ����������� ���� ���

��� ���� ������

��������

����������� ��������� ����������

������

��� ��������� �� ���

���� ��� ����������� ��

��� ���� ������

������� �� ���������� ����

����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

���������� ��� ���������� �������

��� ���������� ���� ��� ��� ������ ��

��� ����� ���������� ���� ��

�������� ������ ��� ��������� ������

����

������

�����

����

����

���

����

����

��

���������� ��������� �������� ��

������� ������� ��� ���������� ����

�������� �������� ������ ��

��������� ����� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

���

����

����

��

��������� ��� ������ �����

���������� �������� �� ������� ���

���������� ���� �� ������� �����

���������� ��� ������� ��� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

��

����

����

���

�������� ��� ������� ���� �� �������

��� ���������� ���� �� ��������

����������� ��� �������� ��������

����

����

��

����

����

��

����

����

��

�

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

������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������ number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

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-160. 2005.

respondents answering 4 or less) feel that the agency 

could be doing a better job.

Recreation concerns—The public in the Intermountain West sees distribution of information about recreation concerns as very important (figure 4), with a mean 

of 4.57. The standard deviation of 0.88 indicates general 

consensus about the importance of this core objective. 

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 4.44, s.d. 0.89). 

Agency performance is somewhat high (with a mean of 

3.63), but there is wide disagreement (s.d. 1.21) about 

the appropriateness of the performance. Only a small 

number of respondents rate the performance of the 

USDA Forest Service as unfavorable.

Diverse uses—Allowing for diverse uses is seen as an 

important objective by most respondents (mean 4.21, s.d. 

0.97). As with the distribution of recreation information, 

the Intermountain West respondents see this is an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean 4.10), 

but with somewhat less agreement (s.d. 1.08), possibly 

indicating that some respondents would prefer to see the 

agency limit uses allowed within forests and grasslands. 

Agency performance is viewed as somewhat favorable, 

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 4—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 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).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 7

with a mean of 3.59, but there are some dissenting voices 

as indicated by the standard deviation (1.07). Figure 5 

shows that while the majority of respondents view the 

objective as important and its fulfillment as an appropriate role for the agency, more than 75% (the percentage 

of respondents answering 4 or less) felt that the agency 

could be doing a better job.

Other Important Objectives

Table 2 shows the results for the next seven objectives 

the respondents in the Intermountain West felt were important. Although these objectives also had means over 

4.00, these means have higher standard deviations, indicating that the responses are more diverse. 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, objectives 

identified as relatively more important sometimes fall 

lower in the table than some objectives identified as 

relatively less important. Each of these objectives will be 

discussed briefly, but histograms will only be presented 

for those that exhibit striking disparities in the responses 

to the importance, beliefs about the role of the USDA 

Forest Service, and customer satisfaction.

Protection of ecosystems—This objective has a mean 

of 4.32 and a standard deviation of 1.05, indicating some 

consensus, although less than for the core objectives. 

The public in the Intermountain West sees this as an 

appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean 

4.34), but there are some dissenting voices as indicated 

by the standard deviation (1.02). Agency performance 

is seen as somewhat favorable (mean 3.59), but again 

with some disagreement (s.d. 1.20).

Making decisions locally—The issue of local control 

is also important to the people of the Intermountain West 

(mean 4.31), although there is a lower level of agreement 

(s.d. 1.07). Making it possible for management decisions 

to be made locally is seen as an appropriate role for 

the agency (mean 4.22), but with some disagreement 

(s.d. 1.08). Agency performance is seen as somewhat 

favorable (mean 3.13), although the high standard deviation (1.50) indicates substantial disagreement. This 

disagreement suggests that some people in the Intermountain West still support the ideas of the Sagebrush 

Rebellion—that management decisions should be made 

locally—and therefore transferring decision making is 

an appropriate role for the Forest Service, but that the 

Agency needs to give up more control. Figure 6 shows 

the familiar correspondence between the importance of 

the objective and the appropriateness of the agency’s 

role. However, the level of customer satisfaction reveals 

a third of the public giving an unfavorable rating.

Developing volunteer programs—Development of 

volunteer programs for trail maintenance and other facility improvements is important to the Intermountain 

West public (mean 4.16). These respondents are not all 

in agreement, as indicated by the standard deviation of 

1.07. Most respondents feel that the development of 

these programs is an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean 4.17, s.d. 1.01). Agency performance 

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

50

40

30

20

10

0

45

35

25

15

5

Figure 5—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude scores 

for: Allowing for diverse uses of 

forests and grasslands such as 

grazing, recreation, and wildlife 

habitat.
8 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

Table 2--Other important objectives for the Intermountain West public.

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?

������� ������������

������ ����������

Protecting ecosystem and wildlife habitats. 4.32����a

116b

4.34

����

102

3.59

����

104

Making management decisions concerning the use

of forests and grasslands at the local level rather

than at the national level.

4.31

����

80

4.22

����

73

3.13

����

68

Developing volunteer programs to maintain trails

and facilities on forests and grasslands (for

example, trail maintenance or campground

maintenance).

4.16

����

93

4.17

����

96

3.61

����

75

Informing the public on the economic value

received by developing our natural resources.

4.01

����

86

4.06

����

77

2.73

����

80

Informing the public on the potential

environmental impacts of all uses associated with

forests and grasslands.

4.12

����

82

4.38

����

92

3.22

����

90

Developing a national policy that guides natural

resource development of all kinds (for example,

specifies levels of extraction, and regulates

environmental impacts).

4.16

����

101

3.99

����

90

3.22

����

74

Preserving the ability to have a ‘wilderness’

experience on forests and grasslands.

4.03

����

98

3.90

����

114

3.80

����

126

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 638 sample since each respondent was asked only a

portion of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations. number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 6—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.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 9

is seen as somewhat favorable (mean 3.61), although the 

standard deviation (1.22) again indicates a high level 

of disagreement.

Informing the public—Two important objectives deal 

with informing the public. The first of these, informing 

the public on the economic value received by developing 

our natural resources, scored a mean of 4.01. This objective has a lower level of agreement, however (s.d. 1.07), 

indicating there are some members who do not hold 

this view. Most respondents feel that the development 

of these programs is an appropriate role for the agency 

as well (mean 4.06, s.d. 1.16). Agency performance on 

informing the public about these economic values is seen 

as slightly unfavorable (mean 2.73), but again a high 

standard deviation (1.33) shows that this evaluation is 

not universal. Figure 7 shows nearly three-fourths of the 

Intermountain West public views agency performance 

as neutral or unfavorable.

The second objective dealing with informing the 

public concerns the potential environmental impacts of 

all uses associated with forests and grasslands (mean 

4.12) (figure 8). As seen with many of these important objectives, the somewhat high standard deviation 

(1.08) indicates a number of respondents who do not 

see this as important. Intermountain West respondents 

are in relative agreement that the provision of such 

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

40

30

20

10

0

5

15

25

35

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 7—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Informing the public on the economic value 

received by developing our 

natural resources.

Figure 8—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude scores 

for: Informing the public on potential environmental impacts 

of all uses associated with 

forest and grasslands.
10 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

opportunities is an appropriate role for the agency (mean 

4.38, s.d. 0.95). Finally, the USDA Forest Service is seen 

as doing a somewhat adequate job providing the public 

with information on potential environmental impacts 

(mean 3.22), but again there is less consensus for this 

evaluation (s.d. 1.39). The histogram (figure 8) reveals 

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

role for the agency, the distribution of opinions about 

agency performance is spread more evenly across the 

range of attitudes.

National policy on resource development—While 

local decisions are important to the people of the Intermountain West, they also see the need for national 

level guidance when managing the development of 

natural resources (mean 4.16) (figure 9). However, the 

high standard deviation (1.23) may indicate that there 

are also those who favor a more “hands off” approach 

from the Washington Office, again representative of 

the Sagebrush Rebellion sentiment. The development 

of such national policies is seen as an appropriate role 

for the agency, although again a high level of disagreement exists (mean 3.99, s.d. 1.18). Agency performance 

is somewhat favorable, but as has been the case with 

many other objectives, there is a low level of consensus 

on the performance of this objective (mean 3.22, s.d. 

1.22). Figure 9 illustrates the lack of consensus in the 

evaluation of agency performance, and shows that while 

most respondents agree that this objective is important 

and an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service, 

there are also a good many who do not.

Preserving the wilderness experience—Finally, preserving the ability to have a “wilderness” experience on 

forests and grasslands is another important objective for 

the people of Intermountain West, although again there is 

a low level of consensus (mean 4.03, s.d. 1.32). Fulfilling 

this objective is seen as a somewhat important role for 

the USDA Forest Service (mean 3.90), although there is 

less consensus for this evaluation (s.d. 1.25). The agency 

is evaluated, with a bit more consensus (s.d. 1.05), as 

doing an adequate job providing the ability to have a 

wilderness experience (mean 3.80).

Objectives Identified as 

Not Important

Some objectives in the VOBA were not important to 

the people of the Intermountain West. These objectives 

have a mean importance ranking of less than 3.00 (3.00 

is the midpoint of the scale, indicating a neutral position). While the means for these means indicate that 

most respondents did not feel they were important, all 

of these objectives also exhibit high standard deviations, 

indicating that there are supporters as well. Divergent 

evaluations are not surprising since these objectives were 

included in the VOBA survey based upon the input of 

the focus groups, some of which were comprised of specific stakeholder groups (and thus may have had strong 

preferences for these objectives). In other words, while 

the general public does not feel that these objectives are 

important, there is a vocal minority that does. These less 

important objectives are presented in table 3.

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Figure 9—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude scores 

for: Developing a national policy 

that guides natural resources 

development of all kinds.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 11

Access for motorized recreation—Two objectives 

dealing with access for motorized recreation can be 

deemed “unimportant” for respondents from the Intermountain West. Developing new paved roads had a 

low mean of 2.38, but with evidence that there are also 

some for whom it is important (s.d. 1.30). Likewise, the 

development of paved roads is not seen by most to be 

an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean 

2.33), but there is a great deal of disagreement (s.d. 

1.35). Finally, the USDA Forest Service is seen as doing a somewhat favorable job in developing new paved 

roads (mean 3.14), but again there is little consensus 

(s.d. 1.20). In the histogram for this objective (figure 

10) we see that while most people in the Intermountain 

West do not view the development of new paved roads 

as important, a good many do feel it is important or at 

least neutral. Figure 10 also shows that the responses on 

agency performance are widely distributed.

Expanding off-highway motorized access (figure 11) 

is also somewhat unimportant to many of the people of 

the Intermountain West. Again there is very little consensus for this objective (mean 2.60, s.d. 1.55) indicating 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 

2.52), although there are many who do, as indicated by 

the high standard deviation (1.40). Agency performance 

on the provision of off-highway motorized access is seen 

as slightly unfavorable (mean 2.88), but again this evaluation is not universal (s.d. 1.30). Figure 11 summarizes 

that while a majority of respondents in the Intermountain 

West feel that expanding off-highway motorized access 

is not important and, further, that such expansion is not 

an appropriate activity for the agency, a large number 

feel it is important and many are neutral. The histogram 

also shows that, as with the development of new paved 

roads, customer satisfaction varies considerably among 

respondents.

Expanding commercial recreation—Expanding 

commercial recreation on forests and grasslands is not 

viewed by most of the Intermountain West public as 

an important objective (mean 2.80), although the high 

standard deviation (1.24) indicates some exceptions. Nor 

is it seen as an appropriate role for the agency (mean 

Table 3 – Objectives that the Intermountain West respondents do not view as important.

OBJECTIVE:

Is this an

important

objective for you?

������ �� ��� ����������

������ ����������

Do you believe that

fulfilling this

objective is an

appropriate role for

the USDA Forest

Service?

����������� ���������

���������� ������

How favorably do

you view the

performance of the

USDA Forest

Service in fulfilling

this objective?

������� ������������

������ ����������

Developing new paved roads on forests and

grasslands for access for cars and recreational

vehicles.

2.38

�����

80b

2.33

����

92

3.14

����

74

Expanding access for motorized off-highway

vehicles on forests and grasslands (for

example, snowmobiling or 4-wheel driving).

2.60

����

92

2.52

����

100

2.88

����

75

Expanding commercial recreation on forests

and grasslands (for example, ski areas, guide

services, or outfitters).

2.80

����

81

2.92

����

106

3.38

����

56

Making the permitting process easier for some

established uses of forests and grasslands such

as grazing, logging, mining, and commercial

recreation.

2.93

����

86

2.86

����

84

2.87

����

71

Developing and maintaining continuous trail

systems that cross both public and private land

for motorized vehicles such as snowmobiles or

ATVs.

2.94

����

90

2.86

����

93

2.96

����

78

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 638 sample since each respondent was asked only a

portion of the 115 VOBA questions due to time limitations.
12 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

2.92), although this opinion is not universally agreed 

upon, as indicated by a standard deviation of 1.40. The 

performance of the Forest Service in expanding commercial recreation is seen as somewhat favorable (mean 

3.38), although there is some disagreement (s.d. 1.05). 

Figure 12 shows that the majority of respondents are 

neutral about the importance of this objective and agency 

performance. The evaluation of expanding commercial 

recreation as an appropriate activity for the agency is 

fairly evenly spread among the responses. These responses may indicate that while there are 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.

Easing the permitting process—Making the permitting process easier for some established uses of forest 

and grassland (grazing, logging, mining, and commercial 

recreation) is not viewed by most respondents from the 

Intermountain West as an important issue (mean 2.93). 

Again, however, the high standard deviation for this 

objective (1.37) indicates there may be some groups 

who do view this as an important objective. Likewise, 

making the permitting process easier for established 

uses is not seen by most in the Intermountain West as 

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

40

30

20

10

0

5

15

25

35

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

40

30

20

10

0

5

15

25

35

Figure 10—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude scores 

for: Developing new paved 

roads on forests and grasslands for access for cars and 

recreational vehicles.

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-160. 2005. 13

an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean 

2.86), but there is little consensus (s.d. 1.47) for this 

evaluation. Agency performance on the easing of the 

permitting process for established uses is see as slightly 

unfavorable (mean 2.87), but, as with the other responses 

for this objective, this evaluation is not universal (s.d. 

1.25). The histogram for this objective (figure 13) resembles the one for expansion of commercial recreation: 

the majority of respondents were neutral for both the 

importance of the objective and agency performance, 

while evaluation of appropriateness of the role for the 

Forest Service is more wide spread.

Developing trail systems—The issue of developing 

and maintaining continuous trail systems that cross 

both public and private land for motorized vehicles such 

as snowmobiles or ATVs is unimportant to most of the 

public of the Intermountain West (mean 2.94), but with 

evidence there are also some for whom it is important (s.d. 

1.46). Developing and maintaining such a trail system is 

not seen by most as an appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service (mean 2.86), although again, there is a lack of 

agreement as to this role (s.d. 1.50). Agency performance 

is not seen as favorable, but the standard deviation of 1.17 

indicates not all respondents agree (figure 14).

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

30

20

10

0

5

15

25

35

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

30

20

10

0

5

15

25

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

for: Expanding commercial 

recreation on forests and grasslands (for example, ski areas, 

guide services, or outfitters).

Figure 13—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Making the permitting process easier for some 

established uses of forests and 

grasslands such as grazing, 

logging, mining, and commercial recreation.
14 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

Objectives Identified as 

Moderately Important

Table 4 presents ratings for those objectives the people 

of the Intermountain West feel are somewhat important, 

or those for which they are more neutral. Each objective 

within this set has a mean between 3.00 and 4.00. As 

with the less important objectives, all of these objectives 

also have relatively high standard deviations, indicating 

that while most people do not feel strongly about them, 

a few do. Results for this group of objectives have been 

organized to facilitate a discussion of related issues. For 

example, objectives that deal either directly or indirectly 

with resource extraction are grouped together. Within 

these groupings, the objectives are organized in order 

of decreasing importance.

Resource extraction and use—The preservation of 

natural preservation of natural resources of forests and 

grasslands through policies that end timber harvesting 

and mining is of moderate importance to the Intermountain West (mean 3.86). This objective has a low level of 

agreement, however, as indicated by the high standard 

deviation (1.34). The implementation of such restrictions 

is seen as a somewhat appropriate role for the USDA forest 

Service (mean 3.65), although the high standard deviation 

(1.52) indicates there are many who disagree. The USDA 

Forest Service is doing a somewhat adequate job restricting timber harvesting and grazing, but again there is little 

consensus with this evaluation (mean 3.32, s.d. 1.28).

Forests and grasslands have many cultural uses by 

Native Americans and Hispanics, and the preservation 

of these uses is seen as somewhat important by the Intermountain West respondents (mean 3.82). This opinion 

is not shared by all within the region, as can be seen 

in the high standard deviation (1.31). Preserving such 

cultural uses is seen as a somewhat important role for 

the USDA Forest Service (mean 3.43), but here again 

we see a lack of consensus similar to that for the importance of the objective (s.d. 1.31). Agency performance 

is only somewhat favorable (mean 3.38), although there 

is more consensus with agency performance than with 

importance of the objective or appropriateness of the 

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

Wilderness designation can usually be expected to 

meet with some controversy, and the Intermountain West 

responses indicate this potential. While the mean for this 

objective indicates that most people feel it is somewhat 

important (3.82), the high standard deviation (1.39) 

also shows a high level of disagreement. The designation of wilderness is seen as an appropriate role for the 

agency (mean 3.42) although again we see that this is 

not a universal opinion (s.d. 1.60). In this case the high 

standard deviation may actually reflect the knowledge 

that Congress, not the USDA Forest Service, is the body 

responsible for officially designating wilderness. The 

USDA Forest Service is seen as performing at a somewhat favorable level, but this evaluation is not consistent 

(mean 3.01, s.d. 1.37).

number of responses

1 2 3 4 5

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

30

20

10

0

5

15

25

35

Figure 14—Distribution of Objective, Belief, and Attitude 

scores for: Developing and 

maintaining continuous trail 

systems that cross both public 

and private land for motorized 

vehicles such as snowmobiles 

or ATVs.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 15

Table 4--Objectives of moderate importance for the Intermountain West respondents.

OBJECTIVE:

Is this an

important

objective for

you?

������ �� ���

���������� ������

����������

Do you believe that

fulfilling this objective

is an appropriate role

for the USDA Forest

Service?

����������� ���������

���������� ������

How favorably do you

view the performance of

the USDA Forest

Service in fulfilling this

objective?

������� ������������

������ ����������

Preserving the natural resources of forests and

grasslands through such policies as no timber

harvesting or no mining.

3.86

�����

111b

3.65

����

110

3.32

����

97

Preserving the cultural uses of forests and

grasslands by Native Americans and Native

Hispanics

# such as firewood gathering,

herb/berry/plant gathering, and ceremonial uses.

3.82

����

113

3.43

����

101

3.38

����

78

Designating more wilderness areas on public

land that stops access for development and

motorized uses.

3.82

����

109

3.42

����

91

3.01

����

80

Providing natural resources from forests and

grasslands to support communities dependent on

grazing, mining, or timber harvesting.

3.69

����

90

3.37

����

83

3.29

����

94

Restricting mineral development on forests and

grasslands.

3.55

����

88

3.78

����

86

3.04

����

110

Resource Extraction and Use

Restricting timber harvesting and grazing on

forests and grasslands.

3.54

����

90

3.36

����

97

3.09

����

69

Encouraging collaboration between groups in

order to share information concerning uses of

forests and grasslands.

3.98

����

82

4.21

����

84

3.70

����

79

P

ublic Input

&

Information

Using public advisory committees to advise on

public land management issues.

3.77

����

70

4.00

����

74

3.14

����

59

Developing and maintaining continuous trail

systems that cross both public and private land

for non-motorized recreation such as hiking or

cross-country skiing.

3.91

����

85

3.81

����

81

3.51

����

86

Increasing law enforcement efforts by public

land agencies on public lands.

3.76

����

66

3.62

����

82

3.41

����

66

Designating some existing trails for specific use

(for example, creating separate trails for

snowmobiling and cross-country skiing or for

mountain biking and horseback riding.)

3.76

����

85

3.87

����

93

3.23

����

83

Recreation

Paying an entry fee that goes to support public

land

3.47

����

77

3.61

����

80

3.11

����

64

Increasing the total number of acres in the public

land system.

3.39

����

77

3.70

����

83

3.25

����

73

Land

Acquisition

Allowing public land mangers to trade public

lands for private lands (for example, to eliminate

private property within public land boundaries,

or to acquire unique areas of land).

3.14

����

71

3.23

����

78

3.09

����

66

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 638 sample since each respondent was asked only a portion of the 115

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

“traditional groups” in the 2003 survey.
16 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

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

natural resources to these communities is a somewhat 

important objective for the people of the Intermountain 

West (mean 3.69), although the importance of this 

objective is not universally agreed upon as seen by the 

high standard deviation (1.27). The people of the Intermountain West see the agency role of providing natural 

resources to dependent communities as somewhat important (mean 3.37), but again there is little consensus 

(s.d. 1.19). Finally, agency performance in providing 

these natural resources is rated as somewhat favorable 

(mean 3.29) and the level of agreement is similar to that 

seen for the agency role (s.d. 1.15).

Restriction of mineral development on forests and 

grasslands is similarly considered to be of moderate importance in the Intermountain West (mean 3.55). As with 

many of the moderately important objectives, there is 

wide disagreement about the evaluation of this objective 

(s.d. 1.45). Implementation of such restrictions is seen as 

a somewhat appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service 

(mean 3.78), but disagreement is evident (s.d. 1.46). Similarly, agency performance is somewhat favorable (3.04), 

but with a large disparity of responses (s.d. 1.30).

The last moderately important objective dealing with 

resources extraction and use is the restriction of timber 

harvesting and grazing on forests and grasslands (mean 

3.54). Again, a high standard deviation (1.56) indicates 

little consensus in this evaluation of importance. Likewise, the public of the Intermountain West feels that this 

type of restriction is a somewhat appropriate role for the 

USDA Forest Service (mean 3.36, s.d. 1.49). Finally, 

agency performance is somewhat favorable (mean 3.09), 

but again with a large disparity of responses (s.d. 1.30).

Public input and information—Collaborative management is being applied more and more frequently 

in Federal land management. The Intermountain West 

respondents feel that encouraging such collaboration is a 

moderately important objective (mean 3.98), with some 

disagreement (s.d. 1.17). These respondents do strongly 

feel that the Forest Service should be encouraging collaboration (mean 4.21), and there is more agreement 

about this role for the agency (s.d. 1.07). Agency performance is somewhat favorable (mean 3.70), but again 

we see a lack of consensus (s.d. 1.14).

Public input into land management decisions is 

always important to at least some Forest stakeholders. 

The form for this input can influence how participation 

takes place and how people feel about the process. In 

the same spirit as collaboration, many people have advocated using public advisory committees to inform land 

management decision makers and to provide input into 

management decisions. The people of the Intermountain 

West find the use of such committees to be somewhat 

important, but there is a low level of agreement (mean 

3.77, s.d. 1.17). Using such committees is believed to 

be an appropriate role for the agency, with a degree of 

agreement similar to that for the importance of the objective (mean 4.00, s.d. 1.15). The performance of the 

USDA Forest Service is viewed somewhat favorably 

(mean 3.14, s.d. 1.09).

Recreation—The development of continuous trail 

systems, crossing both public and private land, for 

non-motorized access is seen as somewhat important 

(mean 3.91), but with some disagreement (s.d. 1.14). 

This may indicate that while many people would like 

to use such a system, there are also many respondents 

(perhaps potentially affected landowners) who would see 

such a system of access as an infringement of property 

rights. It is also interesting to note that the residents 

of the Intermountain West find the development of 

a similar trail system for motorized recreation to be 

considerably less important (see “Objectives Identified 

as Not Important by Respondents in the Intermountain 

West”). The development of a system of private/public 

non-motorized access is seen as a somewhat appropriate 

role for the agency (mean 3.81), however again with a 

level of disagreement (s.d. 1.26). Agency performance 

is evaluated as somewhat favorable, but as with the other 

aspects of this objective, this evaluation is not universally 

held (mean 3.51, s.d. 1.23).

Law enforcement on public lands is moderately 

important to Intermountain West residents, although 

some lack of agreement exists (mean 3.76, s.d. 1.23). 

Respondents believe that increasing law enforcement is a 

somewhat appropriate role for the USDA Forest Service, 

but here again there is considerable disagreement (mean 

3.62, s.d. 1.24). Agency performance is rated somewhat 

favorable, but the level of agreement is lower still for 

this evaluation (mean 3.41, s.d. 1.29).

Conflicts between incompatible recreation uses are 

often an issue on public lands, including those in the 

National Forest System. One solution to this type of 

conflict would be to designate some trails for specific 

uses (for example separate trails for cross-country skiing and snowmobiling). When asked about the objective 

of designating specific-use trails, the respondents from 

the Intermountain West evaluated the objective to be 

somewhat important, although some disagreement was 

revealed (mean 3.76, s.d. 1.29). Creating such designations for trails is generally believed to be an appropriate 

role for the Forest Service (mean 3.87), although this 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 17

belief is not shared by all respondents (s.d. 1.20). When 

assessing the performance of the agency, the respondents 

show a similar level of agreement (s.d. 1.21), and give the 

agency a somewhat favorable evaluation (mean 3.23).

Most respondents in the Intermountain West region 

feel that it is somewhat important to pay an entry fee to 

support public lands (mean 3.47), but as can be expected, 

there is a lack of consensus on this objective (s.d. 1.34). 

The people of the Intermountain West do feel that this 

would be an appropriate role for the agency, but again, 

there is disagreement (mean 3.61, 1.35). Finally, agency 

performance is seen as adequate, although there is a lack 

of consensus (mean 3.11, s.d. 1.36).

Land acquisition—Increasing the total number of 

acres in the public land system is seen by the Intermountain West population as a somewhat important objective 

(mean 3.39), but this is a potentially contentious issue 

due to the evident lack of consensus (s.d. 1.43). Adding 

to the public domain is seen as an appropriate role for 

the agency (mean 3.70), but there is also a lack of agreement as to this role (s.d. 1.35) again possibly indicating 

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. 1.27), 

but the people of the Intermountain West give the Forest 

Service a somewhat adequate rating (mean 3.25).

Finally, allowing public land managers to trade public 

lands for private lands is a somewhat important objective 

for Intermountain West residents, but this objective is far 

from universally supported (mean 3.14, s.d. 1.54). The 

USDA Forest Service is viewed as an appropriate agency 

to fulfill this objective, although not all groups view it 

as such (mean 3.23, s.d. 1.26). Agency performance is 

viewed as somewhat favorable, with a mean of 3.09 and 

standard deviation of 1.24

Results for the 

Intermountain West: 

Public Lands Values______

Previous research using the Public Lands Values 

Scale has shown that items consistently fall into two 

categories. The first category, which deals with individual actions or values, has been labeled Socially 

Responsible Individual Values (tables 5 and 6). For 

these values, a higher mean indicates a higher level of 

environmental orientation. The second category, which 

deals with how public lands should be managed, has 

been labeled Socially Responsible Management Values 

(table 7). These values statements are worded so that a 

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

��������� ����� ������������

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

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

�����

����

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

�����������

����

����

���

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

����

���

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

����

���

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

����

���

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

����

���

�

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

������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������
18 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

higher value indicates that relatively more importance is 

placed upon human uses of, or commodity production 

from, forests and grasslands.

Socially Responsible 

Individual Values

Most of the means for these values indicate an environmental orientation in the people of the Intermountain 

West. For many of the values statements, however, the 

standard deviation indicates that the level of agreement 

is low. Responses to the Socially Responsible Individual 

Values are therefore broken into two groups, those for 

which there is a high degree of consensus and those for 

which the level of agreement is lower (based upon the 

standard deviation).

Socially Responsible Individual Values With a 

High Degree of Consensus

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

Responsible Individual Values with a higher degree of 

agreement (standard deviation of 1.00 or less) are placed 

in order of increasing standard deviation, the order of 

agreement is almost analogously decreasing. In other 

words, the values statements with higher means (indicating more environmentally oriented values) are also 

those with higher levels of consensus.

Socially Responsible Individual Values With a Low 

Degree of Consensus

Table 6 shows the values statements with lower 

consensus among the respondents. These again nearly 

Table 6--Socially responsible individual public lands values for the Intermountain West with a low level of

agreement among respondents.

Values ����������� ��������� ���������� ������ Mean

People can think public lands are valuable even if they never go there themselves. 4.48

����a

180b

I am willing to make personal sacrifices for the sake of slowing down pollution. 4.27����

155

People should urge their friends to limit their use of products made from scarce resources. 4.04

����

181

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

future generations.

3.94

����

157

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

might be inconvenient.

3.86

����

169

Forests have a right to exist for their own sake, regardless of human concerns and uses. 3.96

����

166

Natural resources should be preserved even if people must do without some products. 3.83����

191

The whole pollution issue has never upset me too much since I feel it’s somewhat overrated. c 2.27

����

166

Wildlife, plants, and humans have equal rights to live and grow. 4.05����

158

I would be willing to sign a petition for an environmental cause. 3.61

����

163

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

(for example, hiking, camping, hunting).

3.02

����

211

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n). The sample sizes for each item are less than the full 638 sample since each respondent was asked only a

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

reverse scoring, please refer to the appendix.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 19

always exhibit the characteristic that higher levels of 

environmental orientation also correspond to higher 

consensus (even among these values with low consensus).

Figure 15 shows the responses to the statement “I 

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

lands for recreational purposes.” While many respondents agree with this statement (the mean is 3.02), there 

is a noticeable amount of disagreement (indicated by the 

high standard deviation of 1.54). The figure shows that 

there is an identifiable minority who clearly disagree. 

Since fees are often a reality in order to provide such 

recreation opportunities, it is important to be aware that 

while most support them, such policies will also most 

likely meet with considerable resistance.

Socially Responsible 

Management Values

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

higher agreement to lower agreement. As the previous 

section demonstrates, although most people believe in 

protecting the environment, disagreement arises about 

the appropriate methods to achieve such protection. 

The differences in responses to this set of values are 

likely the basis for disagreement noted in some of the 

aforementioned objectives. Histograms are presented 

for each of the Socially Responsible Management 

Values, but only the first value is discussed because of 

its direct relevance to customer satisfaction.

It is interesting to note the low level of agreement 

with the statement “The Federal government should 

subsidize the development and leasing of public lands to 

companies.” Furthermore, although there is a relatively 

high level of disagreement among the respondents in 

the Intermountain West regarding this statement, there 

is more agreement for this statement than any of the 

other Socially Responsible Management Public Lands 

Values. Figure 16 shows the responses to this statement. 

Figures 17 through 23 show responses to the other seven 

“Management Values” statements.

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

������

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

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

����

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

����� ���������

����

����

���

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

����

���

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

���

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

��������

����

����

���

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

���

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

���

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

����

���

�

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

� ������� �� ��� ��� ���� ��������� ��� �� ���� ������������
20 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

0

20

40

60

120

100

80 Figure 16—Distribution of responses 

to: “The Federal government 

should subsidize the development and leasing of public lands 

to companies.”

Figure 15—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).”

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

80

70

Figure 17—Distribution of responses 

to: “I think that the public land managers are doing an adequate job of 

protecting natural resources from 

being overused.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 21 number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

70

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

80

70

number of respondents

1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree

1 2 3 4 5

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

80

70

Figure 20—Distribution of responses 

to: “The government has better places to spend money than 

devoting resources to a strong 

conservation program.”

Figure 18—Distribution of responses 

to: “The decision to develop resources should be based mostly 

on economic grounds.”

Figure 19—Distribution of responses 

to: “The primary use of forests 

should be for products that are 

useful to humans.”
22 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

Figure 23—Distribution of responses 

to: “We should actively harvest 

more trees to meet the needs of a 

much larger human population.”

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

80

70

number of respondents

1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

50

0

10

20

30

40

60

70

Figure 21—Distribution of responses 

to: “The most important role for the 

public lands is providing jobs and 

income for local people.”

Figure 22—Distribution of responses 

to: “The main reason for maintaining resources today is so we 

can use them in the future if we 

need to.”
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 23

Comparison of the 

Intermountain West 

with the Rest of the 

United States____________

The final section of this report compares the VOBA 

results for the Intermountain West with the results for 

the rest of the United States. Tables 8 through 11 present 

the objectives, beliefs about the role of the agency, and 

customer satisfaction. These are arranged into the same 

groups as in the sections above (“Core” Important Objectives, Other Important Objectives, Unimportant Objectives, and Objectives of Moderate Importance). Tables 

12 and 13 contain the comparison for the Public Lands 

Values. These are arranged into Socially Responsible 

Individual Values and Socially Responsible Management Values. Discussion focuses on those objectives and 

values with statistically significant differences.

Objectives Identified as Important

Core Important Objectives

The Intermountain West does not differ significantly 

from the rest of the United States regarding the importance of any of the “core” objectives (table 8). It does 

differ, however, in that it believes the role of the USDA 

Forest Service in implementing the top core objective, 

“Conserving and protecting forests and grasslands that 

are the source of our water resources, such as streams, 

lakes, and watershed areas,” is less appropriate than does 

the rest of the United States (mean for Intermountain 

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

�������

�� ���� �� ��������� ��������� ���

����

������ �� ��� ����������

������ ����������

�� ��� ������� ���� ���������� ����

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

���� ������ ��������

����������� ���������

���������� ������

��� ��������� �� ��� ���� ���

����������� �� ��� ���� ������

������� �� ���������� ���� ����������

������� ������������

������ ����������

���������

������

��������

���� ���� �� ��

���� ����

��������

��

������

��������

���� ���� �� ��

���� ����

��������

��

������

��������

���� ���� �� ��

���� ���� �

��� ����

��

���������� ���

���������� ������� ���

���������� ���� ��� ���

������ �� ��� �����

���������� ���� ��

�������� ������ ���

��������� ������

����

�����

����

����

����

����

����

����

���

����

����

����

�� ����

����

���

����

����

����

���������� ���������

�������� �� �������

������� ��� ����������

���� �������� ��������

������ �� ���������

����� ���������

����

����

���

����

����

����

����

����

���

����

����

����

����

����

��

����

����

���

��

��������� ��� ������

����� ����������

�������� �� �������

��� ���������� ���� ��

������� ����� ����������

��� ������� ���

���������

����

����

���

����

����

����

����

����

��

����

����

����

����

����

���

����

����

����

��

�������� ��� �������

���� �� ������� ���

���������� ���� ��

�������� �����������

��� �������� ��������

����

����

��

����

����

����

����

����

��

����

����

���

����

����

��

����

����

���

�

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

�� ��� ��� ���� ����������� ��� ������������� ����������� ��α� ����� ����� ��� ����� ������������� ����� �� � �������
24 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

West 4.44, for rest of the United States 4.61). However, 

there is also greater variation in evaluations within the 

Intermountain West than within the rest of the United 

States (standard deviation for Intermountain West 0.92, 

for rest of United States 0.82).

Looking at the other core objectives in table 8, the 

Intermountain West residents rate agency performance 

for developing volunteer programs to improve forests 

and grasslands lower, although still somewhat favorably, than does the rest of the United States (mean for 

Intermountain West 3.41, mean for rest of United States 

3.75). The same is true for informing the public about 

recreation concerns on forest and grasslands (mean for 

Intermountain West 3.63, mean for rest of United States 

3.89). Although there is substantial disagreement concerning both of these evaluations, the level of disagreement is quite similar between the Intermountain West 

region and the rest of the United States.

Other Important Objectives

The Intermountain West differs from the rest of the 

United States in four of the seven other Important Objectives (table 9). Protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitat, informing the public on the potential environmental 

impacts, and preserving the ability to have a wilderness 

experience are all less important to residents of the 

Intermountain West than to residents of other regions. 

However, there was also less consistency in responses 

for the Intermountain West residents than for the rest of 

the United States. The general trends also hold true when 

looking at appropriateness of the role for the USDA 

Forest Service and agency performance.

In contrast to the aforementioned objectives, the issue 

of making local management decisions is more important to the Intermountain West region than to the rest of 

the United States. People of the Intermountain West also 

view local management decisions as a more appropriate 

role for the USDA Forest Service than does the rest of 

the United States. They reported a less favorable level 

of agency performance than does the rest of the United 

States, however.

Objectives Identified as 

Not Important

Respondents from the Intermountain West differed 

from the rest of the United States within only one objective: expanding access for motorized off-highway 

vehicles on forest and grasslands (table 10). Although 

both respondent groups evaluated the objective as 

unimportant, the public from the Intermountain West did 

view it as significantly more important than respondents 

from the rest of the United States. Consistency of evaluation was nearly the same for both groups.

Moving to appropriateness of the role for the USDA 

Forest Service, there is no statistically significant difference in the views of the respondents from the Intermountain West and those from the rest of the United States. 

Finally, the comparison between the Intermountain 

West public and the rest of the United States revealed 

only one statistically significant difference in how the 

two groups view agency performance. The respondents 

from the Intermountain West evaluated the agency’s 

performance to be less favorable than did the rest of the 

United States in the development and maintenance of a 

continuous trail system for motorized vehicles (mean for 

the Intermountain West, 2.96, for the rest of the United 

States, 3.22). The standard deviation is nearly the same 

for both of these groups (s.d. for Intermountain West, 

1.17, for the rest of the United States, 1.20).

Objectives Identified as 

Moderately Important

As was done in the earlier section, results for this 

group of objectives have been organized in table 11 to 

facilitate a discussion of related issues. (For example, 

objectives that deal either directly or indirectly with 

resource extraction are grouped together.)

Resource extraction and use—The Intermountain 

West differs from the rest of the United States in rating 

three of the six objectives of moderate importance that 

deal with resource extraction and use. All three deal 

with limiting extractive industries, or the development 

of extractive industries, such as timber harvesting and 

mining, in order to preserve forests and grasslands, and 

in all three the respondents from the Intermountain West 

considered the objective to be of less importance than 

did the public from the rest of the United States (table 

11). Interestingly, respondents from the rest of the United 

States considered two of these objectives to be important, 

and in the third the mean was 3.99, or as close as possible 

to being an important objective without being placed 

within that category. Standard deviations were higher 

than those from the rest of the United States, however, 

showing less agreement in the Intermountain West.

Similarly, in four of the six objectives, public from the 

Intermountain West viewed fulfilling the resource extraction and use objectives to be less appropriate roles for 

the USDA Forest Service than did the rest of the United 
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 25

Table 9--Comparison of other important objectives, beliefs and attitudes between the Intermountain West and the rest of the United States.

Is this an important objective for you?

������ �� ��� ����������

������ ����������

Do you believe that fulfilling this

objective is an appropriate role for

the USDA Forest Service?

����������� ���������

���������� ������

How favorably do you view the

performance of the USDA Forest

Service in fulfilling this objective?

������� ������������

������ ����������

OBJECTIVE Inter-mountain

West Rest of US

Sig. diff -

IW/rest

US

Inter-mountain

West

Rest of

US

Sig. diff -

IW/rest

US

Inter-mountain

West Rest of US

Sig. diff –

IW/rest

US

Protecting

ecosystems and

wildlife habitats.

4.32

����

116

4.57

����

1406

*** 4.34

����

102

4.58

����

1220

** 3.59

����

104

3.88

����

1154

***

Making management

decisions concerning

the use of forests and

grasslands at the

local level rather

than at the national

level.

4.31

����

80

3.95

����

837

***

4.22

����

73

3.92

����

1030

**

3.13

����

68

3.43

����

737

*

Developing

volunteer programs

to maintain trails and

facilities on forests

and grasslands (for

example, trail

maintenance or

campground

maintenance).

4.16

����

93

4.15

����

1014

4.17

����

96

4.20

����

1069

3.61

����

75

3.73

����

882

Informing the public

on the economic

value received by

developing our

national resources.

4.01

����

86

4.02

����

1026

4.06

����

77

3.98

����

994

2.73

����

80

3.25

����

906

****

Informing the public

on the potential

environmental

impacts of all uses

associated with

forests and

grasslands.

4.12

����

82

4.41

����

1090

** 4.38

����

92

4.45

����

1043

3.22

����

90

3.43

����

923

Developing a

national policy that

guides natural

resource

development of all

kinds (for example,

specifies levels of

extraction and

regulates

environmental

impacts).

4.16

����

101

4.23

����

1194

3.99

����

90

4.17

����

1018

3.22

����

74

3.45

����

919

Preserving the ability

to have a wilderness

experience on forests

and grasslands.

4.03

����

98

4.23

����

1243

*

3.90

����

114

4.25

����

1245

***

3.80

����

126

3.87

����

1275

a

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

*, **, *** mean differences are statistically significant atα= 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
26 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

States. Finally, the Intermountain West respondents also 

consistently viewed agency performance surrounding 

resource extraction and use less favorably than did the 

rest of the United States. (See the data recorded in table 

11.) These differences may reflect the fact that the much 

of the nation’s resource extraction occurs on land within 

the Intermountain West region.

Public input and information—Of the two objectives 

of moderate importance that deal with public input and 

information, one, encouraging collaboration between 

groups in order to share information concerning uses of 

forests and grasslands, is considered to be less important 

by the public of the Intermountain West (mean for the 

Intermountain West, 3.98, mean for the rest of the United 

States, 4.23). As is the case in most of the aforementioned 

cases, the lower mean is also paired with a higher standard 

deviation, showing less agreement among the respondents 

of the Intermountain West than of the rest of the United 

States (s.d. for the Intermountain West, 1.17, s.d. for the 

rest of the United States, 1.08). Despite the difference 

with the importance of the objective, people from the 

Intermountain West are in agreement with people from the 

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

rest of the United States.

Is this an important objective

for you?

(1=not at all important,

5=very important)

Do you believe that fulfilling this

objective is an appropriate role

for the USDA Forest Service?

(1=strongly disagree,

5=strongly agree)

How favorably do you view the

performance of the USDA Forest

Service in fulfilling this

objective?

(1=very unfavorably,

5=very favorably)

OBJECTIVE

Intermountain

West

Rest of

US

Sig. diff

-

IW/rest

US

Intermountain

West

Rest of

US

Sig. diff

-IW/rest

US

Intermountain

West Rest of US

Sig. diff

–IW/rest

US

Developing new paved

roads on forests and

grasslands for access

for cars and

recreational vehicles.

2.38

1.30a

80b

2.39

1.37

1030

2.33

1.35

92

2.47

1.41

1141

3.14

1.20

74

3.13

1.25

850

Expanding access for

motorized off-highway

vehicles on forests and

grasslands (for

example,

snowmobiling or 4-

wheel driving).

2.60

1.55

92

2.24

1.38

1037

** 2.52

1.40

100

2.41

1.37

1172

2.88

1.30

75

2.96

1.29

751

Expanding commercial

recreation on forests

and grasslands (for

example, ski areas,

guide services, or

outfitters).

2.87

1.24

81

2.87

1.31

996

2.92

1.40

106

3.03

1.36

1192

3.38

1.05

56

3.36

1.16

832

Making the permitting

process easier for some

established uses of

forests and grasslands

such as grazing,

logging, mining, and

commercial recreation.

2.93

1.37

86

2.72

1.40

978

2.86

1.47

84

2.64

1.43

1050

2.87

1.25

71

2.97

1.27

696

Developing and

maintaining continuous

trail systems that cross

both public and private

land for motorized

vehicles such as

snowmobiles or ATVs.

2.94

1.46

90

2.76

1.41

1192

2.86

1.50

93

2.80

1.44

1030

2.96

1.17

78

3.22

1.20

859

*

a

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

*, **, *** mean differences are statistically significant atα= 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 27

Table 11--Comparison of the objectives, beliefs and attitudes identified as moderately important by the Intermountain West

with the rest of the United States.

Is this an important objective

for you?

(1=not at all important,

5=very important)

Do you believe that fulfilling this

objective is an appropriate role

for the USDA Forest Service?

(1=strongly disagree,

5=strongly agree)

How favorably do you view the

performance of the USDA Forest

Service in fulfilling this

objective?

(1=very unfavorably,

5=very favorably)

OBJECTIVE

Intermountain

West

Rest of

US

Sig. diff

-

IW/rest

US

Intermountain

West Rest of US

Sig. diff

–IW/rest

US

Intermountain

West Rest of US

Sig. diff

–IW/rest

US

Resource Extraction and Use Objectives

Preserving the natural

resources of forests and

grasslands through such

policies as no timber

harvesting or no

mining.

3.86

1.34a

111b

4.17

1.21

1248

** 3.65

1.52

110

4.17

1.22

1233

  3.32

1.28

97

3.63

1.22

1072

** 

Preserving the cultural

uses of forests and

grasslands by Native

Americans and Native

Hispanics such as

firewood gathering,

her/berry/plant

gathering, and

ceremonial access.

3.82

1.31

113

3.78

1.29

1241

3.43

1.31

101

3.67

1.31

1362

* 3.38

0.07

78

3.40

1.23

942

Designating more

wilderness areas on

public land that stops

access for development

and motorized uses.

3.82

1.28

109

3.85

1.28

966

3.42

1.60

91

3.68

1.39

1000

* 3.01

1.37

80

3.32

1.23

821

**

Providing natural

resources from forests

and grasslands to

support communities

dependent on grazing,

mining, or timber

harvesting.

3.69

1.27

90

3.54

1.33

1016

3.37

1.19

83

3.24

1.37

993

3.29

1.15

94

3.36

1.17

950

Restricting mineral

development on forests

and grasslands.

3.55

1.45

88

4.03

1.26

1004

  3.78

1.46

86

3.95

1.34

1037

3.04

1.30

110

3.33

1.36

818

** 

Restricting timber

harvesting and grazing

on forests and

grasslands.1

3.54

1.56

90

3.99

1.22

1052

*** 3.36

1.49

97

4.00

1.49

974

  3.09

1.30

69

3.31

1.29

877

Public Input and Information Objectives

Encouraging

collaboration between

groups in order to share

information concerning

uses of forests and

grasslands.

3.98

1.17

82

4.23

1.08

984

**  4.21

1.07

84

4.20

1.04

983

3.70

1.14

79

3.55

1.14

822

Using public advisory

committees to advise

on public land

management issues.

3.77

1.17

70

3.85

1.16

900

4.00

1.15

74

3.87

1.15

853

3.14

1.09

59

3.34

1.19

661

a

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

*, **, ***,   mean differences are statistically significant atα=0.10, 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
28 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

rest of the United States when it comes to evaluating the 

appropriateness of the role for the USDA Forest Service 

and the performance of the agency for the public input 

and information objectives. (See table 11.)

Recreation—Within the group of four objectives dealing with recreation, there are no statistically significant 

differences between the responses of the Intermountain 

West and those of the rest of the United States. The Intermountain West region does report a lower evaluation of 

appropriateness, however, for the USDA Forest Service’s 

role in increasing law enforcement efforts by public 

lands agencies. The Intermountain West respondents 

also evaluate the agency performance less favorably 

than does the public from the rest of the United States 

on two objectives: designating some existing recreation 

trails for specific use, and paying an entry fee that goes 

to support public land.

Land acquisition—The final two moderately important objectives, as evaluated by the Intermountain West 

public, focus on land acquisition issues. One, increasing 

the total number of acres in the public land system, is 

evaluated by the Intermountain West public to be significantly less important than it is for public in the rest of the 

United States (mean for the Intermountain West, 3.39, 

mean for the rest of the United States, 3.70). However, 

in the other areas of evaluation—appropriateness of role 

for the USDA Forest Service and performance of the 

agency—the respondents from the Intermountain West 

agree with those from the rest of the United States.

Public Lands Values

Socially Responsible Individual Values

Table 12 compares the Intermountain West respondent’s Socially Responsible Individual Values with 

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

Intermountain West is at least somewhat lower than for 

the rest of the United States in all but 1 of the 13 values, 

statistically lower in 5. Since a higher mean in the value 

statements indicates a higher level of environmental orientation, this suggests the respondents from the Intermountain West are generally not as environmentally oriented as 

are respondents in other parts of the United States.

Socially Responsible Management Values

The mean responses of the Socially Responsible 

Management Values from the Intermountain West are 

lower in all cases where there is a statistically significant difference (table 13). These values statements are 

worded so that higher responses indicate greater value 

placed on the extraction and use of natural resources. 

Thus, while respondents from the Intermountain West 

exhibit a lower level of environmental orientation for 

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

when responding to the Management Values. Although 

there are many possible explanations for this reaction, 

one possibility may be the general desire within the Intermountain West to minimize government involvement. 

Following this outlook, and bearing in mind that respondents may interpret many of these values as asking about 

public lands instead of private lands, people within the 

Intermountain West may react less favorably to anything 

they view as increasing government involvement.

Highlights of a Comparison 

of the Intermountain West 

with Regions 8 and 9______

As part of the Chief’s Regional Review process, 

reports similar to this one were prepared for USDA 

Forest Service Southern Region (8) and Eastern Region 

(9). The availability of results from these two Regions 

allows for a general comparison among respondents in 

the Intermountain West region and those in Region 8 

and Region 9. Tables 14 through 18 show these comparisons. Discussion of the comparisons focuses on the 

core objectives (those with very high means and low 

standard deviations) and the important objectives (with 

high means, but also higher standard deviations).

Core Important Objectives

Residents in both Regions and the Intermountain West 

indicated the preservation of watersheds to be the most 

important objective. The preservation of watersheds 

objective also has high degree of consensus within each 

of the regions. Likewise, all respondents find the development of volunteer programs to improve the land and 

informing the public about recreation concerns, to also 

be core objectives. Despite these three similarities, the 

last core objective for Intermountain West respondents, 

allowance of diverse uses of forest and grasslands, is 

only considered to be important, meaning there was a 

lack of consensus, by Regions 8 and 9. Table 14 lays out 

the variation among the Regions.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 29

Table 12--Comparison of socially responsible individual values--the Intermountain West and the rest of the United States.

VALUES (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree)

Intermountain

West Rest of US

Significant difference between

Intermountain West and the rest

of the US

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

them.

4.74

0.74a

189b

4.75

0.73

1860

Manufacturers should be encouraged to use recycled materials

in their manufacturing and processing operations.

4.63

0.80

156

4.65

0.79

1842

People should be more concerned about how our public lands

are used.

4.46

0.97

164

4.68

0.76

1652

** **

Future generations should be as important as the current one in

the decisions about public lands.

4.45

0.97

185

4.60

0.84

1921

**

Consumers should be interested in the environmental

consequences of the products they purchase.

4.38

0.97

158

4.49

0.89

1694

Donating time or money to worthy causes is important to me. 4.20

0.97

172

4.19

1.02

1659

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

actually go there themselves.

4.48

1.00

180

4.63

0.81

1643

**

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

down pollution.

4.27

1.01

155

4.37

0.94

1679

People should urge their friends to limit their use of products

made from scarce resources.

4.04

1.21

181

4.14

1.11

1851

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

there would be more left for future generations.

3.94

1.23

157

4.05

1.22

1595

I am willing to stop buying products from companies that

pollute the environment even though it might be inconvenient.

3.86

1.25

169

3.97

1.15

1697

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

human concerns and uses.

3.96

1.29

166

4.12

1.17

1786

*

Natural resource must be preserved even if people must do

without some products.

3.83

1.34

191

4.12

1.14

1824

****

a

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

*, **, ***,   mean differences are statistically significant atα=0.10, 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
30 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

Table 14--Comparison (mean, standard deviation, and n) among core important objectives for the Intermountain

West region and Forest Service Regions 8 and 9.

OBJECTIVE

Intermountain

West

Region

8

Region

9

Conserving and protecting forests and grasslands that are the source of our

water resources, such as streams, lakes, and watershed areas.

4.69

0.78a

110b

4.70

0.77

479

4.76

0.67

530

Developing volunteer programs to improve forests and grasslands (for

example, planting trees, or improving water quality).

4.60

0.76

107

4.61

0.76

405

4.53

0.85

545

Informing the public about recreation concerns on forests and grasslands

such as safety, trail etiquette, and respect for wildlife.

4.57

0.88

100

4.55

0.88

378

4.52

0.92

490

Allowing for diverse uses of forests and grasslands such as grazing,

recreation, and wildlife habitat.

4.21

0.97

97

4.01

1.21

385

4.05

1.12

444

a

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

Table 13--Comparison of socially responsible management values--the Intermountain West and the rest of the

United States.

VALUES (1=strongly agree, 5=strongly disagree)

Intermountain

West

Rest

of US

Significant difference between

Intermountain West and the rest of

the US

The Federal government should subsidize the

development and leasing of public lands to

companies.

1.93

1.20a

207b

2.15

1.38

2124

** 

I think that the public land managers are doing an

adequate job of protecting natural resources from

being overused.

3.03

1.21

190

3.09

1.18

1974

The decision to develop resources should be based

mostly on economic grounds.

2.70

1.29

192

2.70

1.36

2093

The primary use of forests should be for products

that are useful to humans.

2.47

1.30

238

2.70

1.44

2309

**

The government has better places to spend money

than devoting resources to a strong conservation

program.

2.38

1.39

194

2.24

1.30

2156

The most important role for the public lands is

providing jobs and income for local people.

2.76

1.40

232

2.93

1.40

2348

*

The main reason for maintaining resources today is

so we can develop them in the future if we need to.

3.48

1.41

211

3.72

1.37

2101

**

We should actively harvest more trees to meet the

needs of a much larger human population.

2.70

1.51

205

2.56

1.53

2138

a

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

*, **, ***, **** mean differences are statistically significant atα=0.10, 0.05, 0.01, and 0.001 respectively, based on a t-test.
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 31

Table 15--Comparison (mean, standard deviation, and n) of important objectives for the Intermountain West region and

Forest Service Regions 8 and 9.

OBJECTIVE

Intermountain

West

Region 8 Region 9

Protecting ecosystems and wildlife habitats. 4.32

1.05a

116b

4.58

0.91

488

4.60

0.87

642

Making management decisions concerning the use of forests and

grasslands at the local level rather than at the national level.

4.31

1.07

80

4.15

1.12

303

3.90

1.19

370

Developing volunteer programs to maintain trails and facilities on

forests and grasslands (for example, trail maintenance, or

campground maintenance).

4.16

1.07

93

4.20

1.15

373

4.13

1.05

445

Informing the public on the economic value received by developing

our natural resources.

4.01

1.07

86

3.95

1.33

370

4.08

1.19

450

Informing the public on the potential environmental impacts of all

uses associated with forests and grasslands.

4.12

1.08

82

4.53

0.84

412

4.42

0.99

499

Developing a national policy that guides natural resource

development of all kinds (for example, specifies levels of

extraction, and regulates environmental impacts).

4.16

1.23

101

4.20

1.20

414

4.32

1.09

553

Preserving the ability to have a “wilderness” experience on forests

and grasslands.

4.03

1.25

98

4.08

1.17

457

4.29

1.11

536

a

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

Table 16--Comparison (mean, standard deviation, and n) among objectives the Intermountain West Region does not view

as important with Forest Service Regions 8 and 9.

OBJECTIVE

Intermountain

West

Region 8 Region 9

Developing new paved roads on forests and grasslands for access

for cars and recreational vehicles.

2.38

1.30a

80b

2.66

1.49

371

2.36

1.34

457

Expanding access for motorized off-highway vehicles on forests

and grasslands (for example, snowmobiling or 4-wheel driving).

2.60

1.55

92

2.30

1.37

368

2.22

1.41

469

Expanding commercial recreation on forests and grasslands (for

example, ski areas, guide services, outfitters).

2.87

1.24

81

3.04

1.38

369

2.88

1.30

440

Making the permitting process easier for some established uses of

forests and grasslands such as grazing, logging, mining, and

commercial recreation.

2.93

1.37

86

3.13

1.51

354

2.60

1.34

425

Developing and maintaining continuous trail systems that cross

both public and private land for motorized vehicles such as

snowmobiles or ATVs.

2.94

1.46

90

3.02

1.37

426

2.71

1.45

512

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n).
32 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

Table 17--Comparison (mean, standard deviation, and n) among objectives the Intermountain West Region views as

moderately important with Forest Service Regions 8 and 9.

OBJECTIVE

Intermountain

West

Region 8 Region 9

Preserving the natural resources of forests and grasslands

through such policies as no timber harvesting or no mining.

3.86

1.34a

111b

4.25

1.20

441

4.25

1.12

586

Preserving the cultural uses of forests and grasslands by

Native Americans and Native Hispanics such as fire wood

gathering, herb/berry/plant gathering, and ceremonial uses.

3.82

1.31

113

3.82

1.29

442

3.79

1.27

554

Designating more wilderness areas on public land that stops

access for development and motorized uses.

3.82

1.39

109

3.86

1.27

358

3.98

1.21

451

Providing natural resources from forests and grasslands to

support communities depending on grazing, mining, or timber

harvesting.

3.69

1.27

90

3.68

1.35

390

3.51

1.33

440

Restricting mineral development on forests and grasslands. 3.55

1.45

88

4.12

1.31

371

4.07

1.24

456

Resource Extraction and Use

Restricting timber harvesting and grazing on forests and

grasslands.

3.54

1.56

90

4.11

1.11

360

4.01

1.20

478

Encouraging collaboration between groups in order to share

information concerning uses of forests and grasslands.

3.98

1.17

82

4.21

0.99

364

4.23

1.08

423

Public Input

&

Information Using public advisory committees to advise on public land

management issues.

3.77

1.17

70

3.94

1.16

304

3.85

1.14

409

Developing and maintaining continuous trail systems that

cross both public and private land for non-motorized

recreation such as hiking or cross-country skiing.

3.91

1.14

85

3.59

1.31

384

3.85

1.22

454

Increasing law enforcement efforts by public land agencies on

public lands.

3.76

1.23

66

4.11

1.04

334

3.83

1.27

400

Designating some existing recreation trails for specific uses

(for example, creating separate trails for snowmobiling and

cross-country skiing, or for mountain biking and horseback

riding).

3.76

1.29

85

3.49

1.46

370

3.74

1.24

489

Recreation

Paying an entry fee that goes to support public land. 3.47

1.34

77

3.84

1.28

307

3.56

1.29

400

Increasing the total number of acres in the public land system. 3.39

1.43

77

3.73

1.35

314

3.84

1.25

411

Land

Acquisition

Allowing public land managers to trade public lands for

private lands (for example, to eliminate private property

within public land boundaries, or to acquire unique areas of

land).

3.14

1.54

71

2.88

1.47

293

3.07

1.35

338

a

Standard deviation b Sample size for each item (n).
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 33

Other Important Objectives

Other important objectives consist of those that have 

high means but lower consensus. The list of important 

objectives, as evaluated by the Intermountain West, differs from both Regions 8 and 9 in three objectives. The 

Intermountain West respondents’ evaluations were less 

consistent on two objectives than the evaluations of the 

other groups. Both protecting ecosystems and wildlife 

habitats and informing the public on potential environmental impacts are classified as core objectives for Regions 8 and 9, while respondents from the Intermountain 

West classified both of these objectives as important. 

This variation reveals that, although all groups see these 

objectives as important, there is lower consensus for this 

evaluation within the Intermountain West.

In contrast, there are also two objectives that were 

evaluated as more important by the Intermountain West 

than by other groups. The objective dealing with local 

management decision making is viewed as important 

in the Intermountain West, yet is considered to be only 

moderately important by Region 9. Respondents from 

Region 8 agreed with the Intermountain West and evaluated the objective as important. Finally, as revealed in 

table 15, the Intermountain West and Region 9 agree 

that the objective concerning informing the public on 

economic values is an important objective, while Region 

8 views informing on economics as only moderately 

important.

Objectives Identified as 

Not Important

Respondents from the Intermountain West and Region 9 identified the same objectives as not important. 

Region 8 showed greater variation than the other groups 

in evaluating objectives viewed as not important. Table 

16 displays the variation.

Objectives Identified as 

Moderately Important

The final category of moderately important objectives 

shows some variation among the Regions. As table 17 

displays, the vast majority of the variation is between 

evaluations of important and moderately important. 

Overall comparisons reveal that the Intermountain 

West differs most from Region 8 (the southern United 

States).

Concluding Remarks______

Data extracted from the VOBA survey reveals the 

Intermountain West public’s objectives for the management of forests and rangelands, beliefs about whether it 

is the role of the Forest Service to fulfill these objectives, 

and attitudes about the performance of the agency in 

fulfilling the objectives. Additionally, these data show 

this public’s environmental values as they relate to 

public lands.

The most important objective to these respondents 

was a concern for conserving and protecting forest and 

grasslands that are the source of water resources. This 

is not surprising from a region with limited water supplies. Objectives not viewed as important within the 

Intermountain West region mainly deal with development of access for motorized vehicles (on and off road), 

although the evaluation of these objectives also has the 

least consensus.

Finally, the report also compared the responses from 

the Intermountain West to those in the rest of the United 

States, and then to two Forest Service Regions. Overall 

results from the Intermountain West are quite similar 

to those of the United States as a whole. The results do 

show a stronger tendency towards allowing access for 

diverse uses, however, and slightly less of a trend toward 

protection of ecosystems than do the other Regions and 

the rest of the United States.
34 USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005.

Survey Design and 

Implementation

Between September 1999 and June 2000 over 80 

focus groups and individual interviews were conducted 

across the lower 48 States. These efforts concentrated on 

three topics: 1) issues related to the use of public lands 

in general and forests and rangelands in particular, 2) 

the objectives (or goals) of the group (or individual) 

regarding the use, management, and conservation of 

the forests and rangelands, and 3) the role of the Forest 

Service in the use, management and conservation of the 

forests and rangelands.

Based upon the results of the focus group interviews, 

an objectives hierarchy was constructed for each group. 

These hierarchies indicated what each group or individual was attempting to achieve, and how they would 

achieve each goal or objective. These objectives ranged 

from the abstract strategic level to the more specific or 

applied means level. The means level objectives are at 

the bottom of the hierarchy, while the strategic objective 

is at the top. Fundamental objectives between the means 

level and the strategic level completed the hierarchies. 

Therefore, the strategic level objective is an abstract 

objective that can be achieved by more specific fundamental level objectives, which are in turn achieved by 

means-level objectives (figure 1).

Each of the objectives hierarchies was confirmed 

with its respective group so as to ensure that it accurately reflected the group’s goals and objectives. A 

combined objectives hierarchy was then constructed 

that included all the objectives stated by each group or 

individual interviewed. The result was a hierarchy that 

covered five strategic level objectives related to access, 

preservation/conservation, commodity development, 

education, and natural resource management. These 5 

strategic level objectives were supported by 30 fundamental objectives.

The 30 fundamental level objectives were used to 

develop 30 objectives statements that were utilized in 

the National Survey of Recreation and the Environment 

(NSRE). The NSRE is a national survey administered 

via telephone interviews. The 30 objectives statements 

were divided into 5 groups based upon the strategic level 

objectives the focus groups had identified. During the 

telephone interviews, each respondent was asked one 

statement from each of the five strategic level groups 

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 (hereafter 

VOBA) was conducted as a module within the NSRE. 

Although questions about respondents’ recreation behavior comprise the bulk of the interview, the results 

presented here are based solely on the questions in 

the VOBA Module of the survey and the demographic 

questions. The VOBA questions are sets of scale items 

to which people are asked to respond using a 5-point 

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

important to 5=very important. Beliefs are anchored by 

1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree and attitudes 

are anchored by 1=very unfavorable to 5=very favorable. Each of these 3 scales consists of 30 items. The 25 

items in the “values” scale are anchored by 1=strongly 

disagree and 5=strongly agree.

Reverse Scoring

When the VOBA was designed, care was taken to 

avoid the appearance of an instrument biased toward or 

against a specific position. To do this the “direction” of 

the scale varied. For example, for one item a “strongly 

agree” response might indicate a conservation/preservation orientation, while for another item the same response might indicate a development orientation. While 

this is useful to increase the acceptance of the instrument 

and subsequent response rates, it creates problems when 

items with the opposite direction are grouped.

To compare two or more items that have opposite 

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

the same direction. For example, suppose we want to 

examine the overall preference for sweets as indicated by 

the preference for ice cream and pie. We have two scale 

items. For each, 1 indicates “strongly disagree” and 5 

indicates “strongly agree” as in the Public Lands Values 

scale. To avoid the appearance of bias toward or against 

Appendix
USDA Forest Service RMRS-GTR-160. 2005. 35

sweets, the two items move in opposite directions: “I like 

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

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

second. Conversely, someone who does not like sweets 

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

items are grouped, it would be more useful for research 

if both items are scored in the same direction to indicate 

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

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

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

becomes a 1, an answer of 4 becomes 2, 3 remains the 

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

effect creates a new item (which could be reworded as 

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

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

consistent indication of each respondent’s preference for 

sweets. Higher numbers for each item indicate a higher 

preference for sweets, lower numbers indicate lower 

preference. A similar re-scoring was done for certain 

items in the VOBA to more accurately characterize 

overall preferences for item groups.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and employer.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

FOREST SERVICE

ROCKY MOUNTAIN RESEARCH STATION

GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT RMRS-GTR-160

SEPTEMBER 2005