United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest

Research Station

General Technical

Report

PNW-GTR-632

March 2005

Line Officers’ Views on

Stated USDA Forest

Service Values and the

Agency Reward System

James J. Kennedy, Richard W. Haynes, and Xiaoping Zhou
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the

principle of multiple use management of the Nation’s forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife, and recreation. Through forestry

research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management

of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives—as directed by Congress—to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.

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

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, 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, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington,

DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and employer.

USDA is committed to making the information materials accessible to all USDA

customers and employees

Authors

James J. Kennedy is a professor, Environment and Society Department, Utah

State University, Logan, UT 84322-5215, jkennedy@cc.usu.edu; Richard W.

Haynes and Xiaoping Zhou are research foresters, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Forestry Sciences Laboratory, P.O. Box 3890, Portland, OR 97208.

Cover

In the background, a painting entitled “Forester in Snow with Crossbills” by Bruce

Bomberger, 1959, is a traditional image of a forester in a field setting. This image

is courtesy of Weyerhaeuser Archives, NP-190, P.O. Box 9777, Federal Way, WA

98063.

In the foreground is a contrasting image of today’s forest managers who engage to

a greater extent with the public about resource issues.
Abstract

Kennedy, James J.; Haynes, Richard W.; Zhou, Xiaoping. 2005. Line officers’

views on stated USDA Forest Service values and the agency reward system.

Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-632. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 72 p.

To update and expand a study done in 1989 (Kennedy et al. 1992), we surveyed

line officers attending the third National Forest Supervisors’ Conference (Chief,

Associate Chief, deputy chiefs, regional foresters, directors of International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, and

forest supervisors; January 2004) and a 40-percent sample of district rangers about

USDA Forest Service (FS) values and the agency reward system.

These line officers believed in 2004, as did their line colleagues in 1989, that

the public in the United States values national forest “outputs” of recreation,

wildlife, and water much more than they value traditional commodities of wood or

grazing. The public values mirror the personal and professional priorities of line

officers in both 1989 and 2004. In 1989, however, line officers believed their

agency valued wood much more than line officers or the public did; by 2004 the

agency roughly valued all national forest uses equally.

The 2004 line officer sample ranked the six most rewarded FS “operational

values” as: (1) teamwork, (2) agency loyalty, (3) meeting targets, (4) professional

competency, (5) hard work, and (6) promoting a good FS image—the same six

(ranked somewhat differently) as given in 1989. Similarly, the values that the 2004

line officer sample believed should be rewarded, (1) care for ecosystems, (2)

professional competency, (3) consensus building, (4) care for employee development, (5) responsiveness to local publics, and (6) concern for future generations,

are the same as those given in 1989, and similar to the values prominently stated in

the 1986 FS vision statement of Caring for the Land and Serving People. Although

line officers believe their agency reward system supports more of these “should-berewarded values” in 2004 than it did in 1989, this recent survey still illustrates

opportunities to improve the FS reward system.

Keywords: Management values, ethics, organizational culture, organizational

reward system, USDA Forest Service.
Summary

A survey of USDA Forest Service (FS) line officers (Chief, Associate Chief, deputy

chiefs, regional foresters, directors of International Institute of Tropical Forestry

and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, forest supervisors, and district

rangers) about their views on agency values and its reward system was conducted

for the 2004 Arbird National Forest Supervisors’ Conference. It updates and

expands a study done at the 1989 Sunbird Conference held in Tucson, Arizona

(Kennedy et al. 1992).

The 63 percent of line officers responding to the survey were divided into three

types: (1) regional foresters, Chief, Associate Chief, deputy chiefs, and directors of

International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area (n = 18), (2) forest supervisors (n = 100), and (3) district rangers

(n = 111). They were 35 percent women and 11 to 15 percent ethnic minorities, a

dramatic change from line-officer demographics at the Sunbird Conference (1989).

Arbird (2004) line officers joined the FS later in life, were from more urban

backgrounds, had more graduate education, and were more professionally diverse

than the earlier group (all differences cited are significant at p ≤0.05). They believed their values were more like the FS vision statement values than were Sunbird line officers’ views, 15 years earlier.

Multiple Uses and Other Goal-Value Priorities

The FS caring-and-serving vision (USDA FS 1986) represents two types of value

statements: (1) goal values that indicate ends pursued and (2) operational values

that shape means of achieving goals. Line officers in both studies ranked how they

perceived the (1) FS and (2) public prioritization of these values, and then gave (3)

their personal rankings. Scores of 1 to 10 were assigned, ranging from 1 as unimportant to 10 as extremely important.

In terms of goal values, the 2004 Arbird survey respondents believed that the

public valued noncommodity multiple uses, such as recreation (9.2), wildlife (8.5),

and water (7.8), much more than the traditional commodity resources of timber

(4.3) and grazing (3.4). Their personal values ranked recreation (8.5), wildlife

(8.0), and water (8.8) considerably higher than timber (6.1) and grazing (4.9),

similar to what they perceived the public valued. They believed the FS, as an

agency, valued traditional timber (7.2) and grazing (6.0) higher, and recreation

(6.3) and wildlife (6.8) much lower.

Perceptions of the FS multiple-use priorities differed greatly between Sunbird

(1989) and Arbird (2004) surveys. Arbird line officers believed the FS ranked
timber second at 7.2, down about 2.0 points (22 percent) from a rating of 9.1 in

the Sunbird sample. Water changed from the least valuable agency-ranked resource

in the 1989 survey to the most important national forest output in 2004 (from 6.3 to

7.5, an increase of 19 percent). Grazing dropped slightly from 6.6 to 6.0 (10 percent) between 1989 and 2004. Arbird respondents also believed FS noncommodity

rankings rose for wildlife (6.6 to 6.8) but slipped for recreation (6.7 to 6.3, a

decrease of 6 percent).

The 2004 Arbird survey added some national forest uses. Respondents believed

the public supported landscape beauty (8.5) and fuels management (7.1) uses but

were less supportive of the more abstract uses such as biodiversity (5.9) and

vegetative management (5.3). Although they personally ranked landscape beauty

(7.7) lower than the public, it was higher than where they perceived it in their

agency’s priorities (6.4). They believed the FS rated fuels management highest

(8.7) of all uses. The Arbird survey participants ranked both fuels management

(8.6) and vegetative management (8.3) as high priorities.

Forest Service Operational Values Rewarded Most and Least,

and Values That Should Be Rewarded

Twenty operational values reflecting work habits, management attitudes, and

professional identity were selected from key agency publications ranging from the

Use Book (USDA FS 1907) to the Caring for the Land and Serving People vision

statement (USDA FS 1986). Respondents picked the six values they believe the FS

rewards most and least, and the six that it should reward.

Of the six values identified, teamwork was seen as the most rewarded (cited by

58 percent of Arbird [2004] line officers). Agency loyalty (52 percent) and meeting

targets (52 percent) were ranked slightly higher than professional competency (50

percent), hard work (50 percent), and promoting a good FS image (49 percent).

Arbird (2004) line officers believed being innovative and willing to take risks

(68 percent) and being independent and individualistic (63 percent) are the least

rewarded FS operational values—followed by caring for future generations (59

percent), caring for one’s family (58 percent), and caring for employee development (51 percent).

Arbird (2004) line officers identified some of the values that should be rewarded (in descending order of preference) as image, teamwork, responsiveness to

local publics, consensus building, professional competency, and caring for ecosystems. Most of the “care values” (e.g., caring for ecosystems, employees, the public,

and future generations), prominently stated in FS publications and press releases,
are the same ones cherished and respected by Arbird line officers. They would like

the institutionalized agency reward system to recognize these same values.

A majority (76 percent) of Arbird (2004) respondents believed caring for

ecosystems should be rewarded, but 22 percent believed it is among the least

rewarded. There was more of an agreement that the reward system supports

professional competence (50 percent believed it is the most rewarded value),

whereas only 14 percent believed it is the least rewarded. Being a consensus

builder, supporting local publics, and working as a team member (teamwork) were

perceived as getting similar support from the FS reward system, and few believed

them to be among the least rewarded values.

Consistent with Kaufman’s (1960) findings, we found FS line officers’ values

to be closely aligned with the FS vision statement values (USDA FS 1986) and

with the portion of the agency reward system supporting these “caring for the land

and serving people” values.

Arbird (2004) line officers believed more stated vision values are actually

supported by the agency reward system than did their Sunbird (1989) colleagues.

Other evidence we see of the FS “walking its value-talk” is the increased ethnic,

gender, and professional diversity of Arbird line officers, and evidence of the FS

respecting and rewarding professional competency and increased graduate education. There also is abundant evidence that the FS is sharing more ideas and

decisionmaking power both inside and outside the agency. For example, “teamwork,” “consensus building,” and “caring for local publics” all rose in the rankings

for most rewarded values between 1989 and 2004.

This progress notwithstanding, there still remains room for improvement in

consistency between the operational values Arbird (2004) line officers personally

and professionally feel should be rewarded (which are the same ones highlighted

in the agency caring-and-serving vision statement) and many of those values

actually supported by the agency reward system.
Table of Contents

1 Introduction

1 Culture and Values and Survey Design Strategies

4 The Arbird Values Study

8 Overview of Harmony and Tension Between the Values of the Agency

and Those of Its Employees

8 Perceived and Personal Resource Values

10 Values and Priorities of Traditional and Emerging National Forest Uses or

Values

13 Ten-Year Trends in the Importance of the Forest Service to Communities

14 Values the Forest Service Rewards Most and Least

14 Overview of Values and Rewards

16 How Survey Participants Believe Values Are Rewarded

18 Arbird and Sunbird Survey Comparisons

19 Values Employees Believe the Forest Service Should Reward

19 Similarities and Differences in Line Officers’ Views of Values That Should

Be Rewarded

19 Analysis of Rewards by Arbird Respondents

21 A Focus on Trends in Collaborative Resources Management

23 Benefits and Drawbacks of the “Process Predicament”

24 Forest Service Organizational and Professional Commitments

26 New Environmental Paradigm Scale

26 Conclusion

28 Acknowledgments

28 Literature Cited

31 Appendix 1—Arbird Survey

39 Appendix 2—Responses to Arbird Survey Questions

66 Appendix 3—Sunbird (1989) Responses, Data Recalculated to Match

Arbird (2004) Survey

69 Appendix 4—New Environmental Paradigm Scale Details
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.

.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

1

Introduction

In 1985, for the first time in the agency’s history, top line officers1 of the USDA

Forest Service (FS) (i.e., Chief, Associate Chief, deputy chiefs, regional foresters,

and all forest supervisors) met at Utah’s Snowbird Ski Resort. The primary goal of

that Snowbird Conference was to reexamine and update the agency’s traditional,

progressive conservation values, resulting in the agency vision statement, Caring

for the Land and Serving People (USDA FS1986). At the second forest supervisors’ meeting (Sunbird Conference, Tucson, Arizona, 1989), attending line officers

were surveyed to see if these “caring-and-serving” values were similar to their

personal and professional values and if they believed the agency reward system

supported the values (Kennedy et al. 1992).

In the 15 years since the Sunbird (1989) survey, the environment in which the

FS operates has changed considerably. The most recent changes include implementation of the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA 1993); the development

of the President’s Management Agenda (2002) that presses for results and accountability; commitment to the National Fire Plan (USDA and USDI 2001)—including

at least a threefold increase in fire funding; the passage of the Healthy Forests

Restoration Act (2003); and continued commitment to embrace workforce diversity. So it was appropriate at the third forest supervisors’ conference (Arbird

Conference, held at the Arbor Day National Center, Nebraska City, Nebraska,

2004) to examine if the values of current FS line officers are in concert with the

implied values in the Caring for the Land and Serving People vision statement and

to compare them to the Sunbird (1989) survey.

Culture and Values and Survey Design Strategies

Forest Service line officers have held a common set of values. Some of these were

shaped by early Chiefs such as Gifford Pinchot (fig. 1) and W.B. Greeley (see fig.

2) who combined vision and action. “Their principles and philosophies helped

mold the Forest Service culture and values that have stood the test of time–conservation leadership, public service, responsiveness, integrity, a strong land ethic, and

professionalism characterized by people who know their jobs and do them well”2

1

 In Forest Service jargon, line officers are the Chief, Associate Chief and deputy chiefs,

regional foresters (including the directors of International Institute of Tropical Forestry and

State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area), forest supervisors, and district rangers who

have supervisory and land management responsibilities consistent with their place in the

organization.

2

 This quote is actually stated in a letter (dated February 1, 1905) from the Secretary of

Agriculture to the Chief when the Forest Service was established. This letter is believed to

have been drafted by Gifford Pinchot.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

2

Figure 1—Gifford Pinchot was the first Chief of the Forest Service

and established many of the values still evident.

Figure 2—Retired Chief Greeley’s book of Forest

Service history (Greeley 1951) reflected an era

when the agency culture was male dominated.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

3

(USDA FS 1986). This common set of values helped weld the behavior of hundreds of geographically dispersed and isolated line officers (especially district

rangers) into a relatively unified organizational pattern, by which the national

policy is translated into consistent actions in the forests (e.g., Clarke and McCool

1985, Gold 1982). Gulick (1951) and Kaufman (1960) were the first to examine the

FS and found this agency solidarity resulted from recruitment, training, and reward

systems that shaped employee perceptions, thinking, and values—especially in its

line officer corps. Some students of the FS see such central leadership power and

solidarity primarily as a liability, anchoring the agency too much in the past (e.g.,

Twight and Lyden 1989). Like the Greek god, Janus, this line officer solidarity

might have two faces and personalities, and also be powerful in shifting agency

leadership culture to embrace newer perspectives and values in ecosystem management, workforce diversity, or collaborative stewardship (Kennedy and Quigley

1998). This conceptual context, and the likely yin/yang dynamics of influential

centralized FS control in shaping and shifting line officer values, underlie the

design and analysis of both the Sunbird (1989) and Arbird (2004) studies.

Examining personal or group values is a difficult task. First, values are not

easily defined in theory or practice, and measuring them is difficult, as Brown

(1984) and Bengston (1994) attest. Secondly, it is often emotionally demanding to

examine our values or those of an organization to which we are bonded. Because of

these factors, it was not easy for either those designing these FS surveys or the

respondents documenting their views and values. It may also be difficult for those

who ponder the results. But such introspective value analysis and reflection are

necessary tasks of any organization that wants to understand itself, be honest and

responsive to its core values, and successfully adapt to a changing internal and

external world.

Understanding values is central to understanding people and their relationships

with others or the organizations employing them (Kennedy and Thomas 1995,

Kennedy et al. 1998, Simmons 1982). Values help define (1) goals (ends) people or

organizations seek and (2) how these goals are pursued (means). Organizational

achievement or goal values are usually found in an organization’s mission, such as:

• Caring for the Land and Serving People (FS)

• Diminish or Eliminate Polio (March of Dimes, until revisions in the 1970s)

• Manage Flood Risk, Power, and Recreational Potentials of U.S. Waters (U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers).

Preceding the Sunbird (1989) conference, multiple-use outputs generally defined

FS achievement or goal values. A series of questions in both the Sunbird and

Arbird (2004) values surveys asked respondents to score the importance of timber,
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

4

grazing, recreation, wildlife, and water on the national forests according to their

own personal values. They also ranked how they believed the FS and the public

prioritized these national forest values.

In addition to the values associated with goals or outputs, organizations have

operational values. The Arbird (2004) survey provided 20 common FS operational

values (e.g., meeting targets, agency loyalty, concern for welfare and development

of other employees) for respondents to (1) rank the values the FS rewards most,

(2) list those the FS rewards least, and (3) rank the values they believed the agency

should reward. This allows comparison between stated FS values (as in the 1986

vision statement)—those the agency does, does not, and should reward—and

comparisons between the Sunbird and Arbird surveys.

The FS value system was formed in the progressive conservation era (1900-

1950s), when the United States was in transition from a frontier-agricultural to an

urbanizing-industrial society. Chief Forester Pinchot (1898-1910) articulated and

installed the operational values of elite, progressive-era professionalism into the

agency culture to control the threats of wildfire and short-term resource exploitation, plus provide a sustained flow of multiple outputs to rural resource-dependent

communities (Hays 1959, Kaufman 1960, Kennedy and Quigley 1998). During the

1950s and 1960s the emphasis was on developing a professional approach to land

management that could efficiently sustain a range of forest outputs and conditions

as shown in figures 3 and 4 and used in advertisements from the late 1950s.

Since the 1970s, the FS has been adapting to more noncommodity, environmental goal values of an urban, postindustrial American society. Agency operational

values also have been adjusting to social pressures and legislative edicts—shifting

from objective, paternalistic, professional foresters managing national forests and

grasslands for the public (Kaufman 1960) to a professionally, ethnically, and

gender-diverse workforce managing these national ecosystems with the public—

called collaborative resource management (Kennedy 1991, Kennedy et al. 1998).

Because of this shift, it is not surprising to find elements of the current FS value

system that are different from its historical values or in tension with long-established reward systems.

The Arbird Values Study

The survey was emailed in December 2003 to all line officers who attended the

Arbird conference (i.e., Chief, Associate Chief, deputy chiefs, regional foresters,

directors of International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private

Forestry Northeastern Area, and forest supervisors). In addition, 40 percent of

district rangers were included, with the sample stratified to insure that one district
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

5

Figure 3—Forester as conservation hero in mid-20th century—a welltrained professional efficiently managing public or private forest lands

for a sustained yield of outputs. (Forester in Snow with Crossbills by

Bruce Bomberg, 1959, provided by Weyerhaeuser Company.)

Figure 4—From the late 1950s, forest management for multiple uses

illustrated a harmony among roads, clearcuts, and spawning steelhead.

(Spawning Steelhead by Jack Dumas, circa 1960, provided by

Weyerhaeuser Company.)
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

6

ranger per national forest participated. Responses were collected, stored anonymously, and statistically analyzed at the Pacific Northwest Research Station. The

Arbird (2004) survey (see app. 1) repeats most of the Sunbird 1989 value survey,

with some updating and several new questions. The results of the survey are

summarized in appendix 2 (tables 13-68). Appendix 3 (tables 69-72) shows selected results from the Sunbird survey (1989) summarized for the same group

definitions as used for the Arbird results. Appendix 4 (tables 73-75) is a discussion

of the new environmental paradigm3

 questions.

Table 1 displays the Arbird (2004) line officer sample (see app. 3, table 69 for

Sunbird [1989] results). The return rate was 63 percent and nonrespondents were

not examined. In this report, Arbird respondents are divided into three types:

regional foresters, Chief, Associate Chief, deputy chiefs, and directors of International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern

Area (RF&Cs; n =18); forest supervisors (SUPEs; n =100); and district rangers

(DRs; n =111). The FS National Leadership Team4

 was also sampled, but the

responses are not included in the current analysis. Unless otherwise noted, all

differences cited in this report are statistically significant at 5 percent or less.

Arbird (2004) respondents were about 35 percent women and 11 to 15 percent

ethnic minorities (table 2). This is a dramatic change from the Sunbird (1989)

survey, when only 5 percent of SUPEs and none of the RF&Cs were women. The

percentage of Sunbird line officers who were ethnic minorities (about 3 percent)

was so low it was not even cited (app. 3, table 70).

More than half of the Arbird (2004) line officers joined the FS when they were

25 years of age or younger (whereas 70 percent of Sunbird [1989] line officers did

so). Additionally 41.5 percent of the Arbird respondents had (or subsequently

earned) a master’s degree or higher (versus only 28 percent of Sunbird respondents). Reflecting the U.S. urbanization, only 17 percent of Arbird RF&Cs and 6

percent of DRs had their initial values formed while growing up on a farm or

ranch, compared to 36 percent of Sunbird RF&Cs and 12 percent of DRs.

3

 The New Environmental Paradigm was developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) and

updated (Dunlap et al. 2000) to measure the degree of proenvironmental orientation.

4 The National Leadership Team includes the Chief, Associate Chief, deputy chiefs,

associate deputy chiefs, chief of staff, regional foresters, station directors, directors of

International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area,

and several Washington Office directors.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

7

Table 1—Arbird survey sample and responses

Line officer

and NLTa Sampling Return rate

categories Total sample (N) percent Return (n) (n/N)

Percent

RF&Cs n/a 100 18b n/a

SUPEs 153 100 100 65

DRs 177 40 111 63

NLTa54 100 33b61

Totals 384 229 63

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and

State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest

supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a NLT: National Leadership Team includes the Chief, Associate Chief, deputy chiefs, associate deputy

chiefs, chief of staff, regional foresters, station directors, directors of International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, and several Washington Office

directors. It was sampled for future use and analysis, but owing to time constraints, is not included in

this report.

b

 The RF&Cs group is composed of 18 line officers who are also part of the 33 NLT members who

returned surveys (omitted were the non-line-officer members of NLT; chief of staff, station directors,

Washington Office directors, and associate deputy chiefs).

Table 2—Description of Arbird survey respondents

Characteristics RF&Csa SUPEsa DRsa Total

(n = 18) (n = 100) (n = 111) (n = 229)

Age (mean years) 54 51 48 50

Gender (percentage men) 56 67 66 65

Ethnicity (percentage white) 89 85 89 87

Education (percentage master’s

degree or more)

b 72 43 37 42

Joined FS young

(percentage joining at 19-25 yrs)c 61 64 48 56

Raised on farm or ranch (percentage) 17 12 6 10

Initial professional identityd (percentage):

Forester 28 35 31 32

Biologist 6 12 16 13

Recreation manager 11 6 10 8

Range manager 0 3 10 6

Planner 0343

Soil/hydrologist 0513

Engineer 0211

a

 RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and

Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors,

and DRs–district rangers.

b

 Chi-square (X2 ) difference in graduate degrees significant at p = 0.02, meaning a difference this great

could occur by chance 2 in 100 times.

c

X2 differences in ages joined is significant at p = 0.05. d

 Professional identity when first hired.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

8

Overview of Harmony and Tension Between the Values

of the Agency and Those of Its Employees

We defined FS rewarded values (i.e., the FS “reward system”) as those the agency

rewards with “promotion, rank, and status.” Three questions initially examined

how employees perceive and respond to the FS value and reward system:

• Question 23. My values and the Forest Service’s values are very similar.

• Question 42. Values I cherish and prize and values the FS rewards conflict.

• Question 43. Do any differences in values you cherish and prize and the values

the FS rewards cause you stress?

As shown in table 3, 78 percent of Arbird (2004) line officers surveyed

strongly or moderately agreed that their values and those of the FS were very

similar; only 6 percent disagreed. On the surface this indicates a high level of

harmony with personal, professional, and agency values. Yet we will see as data

unfold that value analysis is a complex undertaking. For example, did respondents

in this question compare their values to stated FS values, to those they and their

colleagues pursue, to values the formal reward system endorses, or to any combination of the above?

Regardless of these qualifications, Arbird (2004) line officers expressed

significantly stronger agreement and less disagreement between their own and FS

values than did the Sunbird (1989) group 15 years earlier. For example, 28 percent

of Arbird versus 17 percent of Sunbird line officers checked “strongly agree,” and

only 6 percent of Arbird versus 15 percent of Sunbird respondents selected any of

the three disagree choices.

Do differences between one’s values and those of the organization where one is

employed cause conflict or stress? Table 4 (question 42) shows that Arbird RF&Cs

have less conflict between the values they cherish and those that the FS rewards,

with 56 percent of RF&Cs, 30 percent of SUPEs and 21 percent of DRs “seldom”

or “never” experiencing conflict. For the majority of line officers surveyed (59

percent), this value conflict caused “little” or “no” stress. For others, 34 percent

reported it caused “moderate” stress and 7 percent reported “great” or “very great”

stress (table 4, question 43). There were no significant differences in responses to

these three questions between Arbird men and women, but there were significant

differences between Arbird (2004) and Sunbird (1989) respondents.

Perceived and Personal Resource Values

This section examines employees’ perceptions of the values associated with the

five traditional multiple uses of the national forests and grasslands (wood, water,

wildlife, recreation, and grazing) and several emerging uses or values, such as
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

9

Table 3—Similarity between values of respondents and Forest Service

Total

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs response

Agreement (Q 23) (n = 18) (n = 100) (n = 111) (n = 229)

Percent

Strongly agree 28 29 28 28

Moderately agree 67 49 49 50

Slightly agree 5 16 11 13

Neither agree nor disagree 0 3 4 3

Slightly disagree 0 2 4 3

Moderately disagree 0 1 3 2

Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1

Note:RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate

Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

Table 4—Conflict and stress between values the Forest Service

rewards and values that respondents cherish and prize

Total

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs responses

Category (n = 18) (n = 100) (n = 111) (n = 229)

Percent

(Q 42): Values I cherish and values the FS rewards

Very often conflict 0 1 2 1

Often conflict 6 8 11 9

Sometimes conflict 39 61 66 62

Seldom conflict 56 29 21 27

Never conflict 0 1 0 1

(Q 43): Do any differences in values you cherish and values the FS rewards

cause you any stress?

Very great stress 0 1 1 1

Great stress 6 6 5 6

Moderate stress 39 34 33 34

Little stress 50 51 57 53

No stress 5 8 4 6

Note:RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief

and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

biodiversity, fuels management, and landscape beauty (see fig. 5). By

using a relative value scale (1 = unimportant to 10 = extremely important),

respondents were asked to rank these national forest uses from three

perspectives: (1) their perception of public values, (2) their perception of

FS values, and (3) their own personal values. In addition, a series of

questions asked the employees to judge how FS relevancy has changed for

certain communities and user groups in the past decade.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

10

Values and Priorities of Traditional and Emerging National

Forest Uses or Values

Arbird (2004) respondents (table 5) believed the public valued noncommodity

multiple uses, such as recreation (9.2), wildlife (8.5), and water (7.8), much more

than the traditional commodity resources of timber (4.3) and grazing (3.4). These

line officers’ personal values were similar to those they perceived of the public,

ranking recreation (8.5), wildlife (8.0), and water (8.8) considerably higher than

timber (6.1) and grazing (4.9). They believed the FS valued traditional timber (7.2)

or grazing (6.0) higher, and recreation (6.3) and wildlife (6.8) lower than did the

line officers and the public (fig. 6).

The Sunbird (1989, see app. 3, table 71) personal multiple-use or resource-use

output scores were almost identical with those of Arbird (2004) respondents—

differing from 0.1 to 0.5 points in all categories except timber. Over the 15 years

between these two surveys, the timber priority dropped 0.5 (or about 8 percent)

while grazing rose 0.5. Likewise, there was little change in the resource-use

rankings line officers believe the public holds except for minor changes in timber

and grazing. The perceived value held by the public for timber was seen as declining from 4.9 to 4.3 (2004), whereas grazing rose from 2.9 to 3.4.

Figure 5—Poster displaying forests of

diverse values, representing the shift from

sustained yield to sustainable ecosystem

management embodied in the caring-andserving values expressed in the 1986

mission statement.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

11

The perception of FS resource-use priorities differed greatly between Sunbird

(1989) (fig. 7) and Arbird (2004) surveys. Arbird line officers believed the FS

ranked timber second at 7.2, down about 2.0 points (22 percent) since Sunbird.

Water changed from the least valuable national forest output in 1989 to being

ranked the most important resource value in 2004 (from 6.3 to 7.5, an increase of

19 percent). Grazing also dropped slightly from 6.6 to 6.0 (10 percent). Arbird

respondents also believed noncommodity rankings were higher for wildlife (6.6 to

6.8) but lower for recreation than did Sunbird respondents (6.7 to 6.3, a decrease of

6 percent).

Table 5—Relative rank of more recent resource use values as perceived by

Forest Service employees (range: 1 = lowest to 10 = highest)

Line officers’

Public view FS view views

Resource use (n = 229) (n = 229) (n = 229)

Rank

Water 7.8 7.5 8.8

Fuel risk management 7.1 8.7 8.6

Recreation 9.2 6.3 8.5

Vegetation management 5.3 7.9 8.3

Wildlife 8.5 6.8 8.0

Biodiversity 5.9 6.7 7.7

Landscape beauty 8.5 6.4 7.7

Timber 4.3 7.2 6.1

Grazing 3.4 6.0 4.9

Average value 6.7 7.0 7.6

Figure 6—Line officers’ perceptions of resource-use values ranking, Arbird.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

12

The Arbird (2004) survey added some newer national forest goal values

(table 5). Respondents believed the public supported landscape beauty (8.5) and

fuels management (7.1) goals but that the public had less support for the more

abstract biodiversity (5.9) and vegetative management (5.3) goals or programs.

Although they personally ranked landscape beauty (7.7) lower than their perception of the public’s ranking, they ranked it higher than they believed their agency

(6.4) ranked it. They believe the FS rated fuels management highest (8.7) of all

achievement values, which they personally ranked high (8.6), along with vegetative

management (8.3).

In the 1950s, national forest management normally focused on providing a mix

of renewable resources that best met the needs of the American people (MUSYA

1960: sec. 4b). Since the 1970s, the spatial focus of national forest and grassland

management has shifted from sites to watersheds to larger ecoregions. System

focus has shifted from uses and product outputs, to goals of maintaining viable

ecosystem structure and processes themselves. The time dimension in both

progressive conservation (1900-1970s) and current sustainable ecosystem management eras is focused on the long-term (or future generations) perspective.

With current FS values and visions, healthy ecosystems themselves are becoming the goal or product (Haynes et al. 1996, Kennedy et al. 1998), and a question

was added to the Arbird (2004) survey to examine this. Question 53 asked if

respondents’ work units tend to take a “product/target” or a “sustainable ecosystem” focus (table 6). A few respondents (5 percent) checked “not applicable,” but

of those who judged the question applicable, 22 percent believed their work group

took a product/target focus “all” or “most of the time.” There is a noticeable shift

Figure 7—Line officers’ perceptions of resource-use values ranking, Sunbird.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

13

in attitudes and management behavior from an agency culture that once focused on

full resource production goals, within the constraint of not damaging the long-term

productivity of the land. The constraint is becoming the objective.

Ten-Year Trends in the Importance of the Forest

Service to Communities

A series of questions (57 to 63) asked respondents to reflect on the importance and

relevancy of the FS to traditional (e.g., timber industry) and emerging (e.g., recreational) groups or communities. Table 7 illustrates a general shift of priorities by

the FS from rural to urban goods and services. There are different opinions about

the importance of the FS to local resource-based communities, with about 40

percent of respondents believing it is highly or more relevant now than 10 years

ago, and 47 percent believing it is less or no longer relevant. About 54 percent

believe the FS is more relevant to urban communities than it was 10 years ago;

only about 19 percent think it is less relevant.

Most respondents (79 percent) believe the FS is less relevant to the timber

industry; 91 percent think it is more relevant or highly relevant to recreational

interests; and 69 percent think it is more relevant or highly relevent to environmental and resource conservation groups. Even with these shifts in perception

of FS relevance, most believed “relations between the Forest Service and local

communities and stakeholder groups” were the same (25 percent) or better (51

percent) in 2004 than in 1990; 24 percent believed relations had declined (question

57, app. 2 table 41).

Table 6—Production target versus ecosystem focus in thinking and management action of work unit

Total

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs responses

Focus (Q 53) (n = 13) (n = 100) (n = 105) (n = 218)

Percent

Production target all the time 0 1 1 1

Production target most of the time 23 14 27 21

About half and half 46 38 35 37

Sustainable ecosystem most of the time 31 41 28 34

Sustainable ecosystem all of the time 0 6 9 7

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and

State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest

supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

14

Values the Forest Service Rewards Most and Least

Multiple use and other output and achievement values in the FS have just been

examined. We now focus on 20 of the most important agency operational (meansto-ends) values related to an individual’s work habits, professional development,

and agency attitudes. Our purpose is to identify values and attitudes perceived to be

most and least rewarded, and those that line officers believe should be rewarded

(app. 1, questions 24-41).

Overview of Values and Rewards

Values that respondents believed the FS rewarded most and least are displayed in

figures 8 and 9. Among the Arbird participants, teamwork was seen as the value

most often rewarded (cited by 58 percent as among one of six values the FS most

rewards–priority ranks not considered). Loyalty (52 percent) and meeting targets

(52 percent) were tied for second and third, followed by professional competency

(50 percent), hard work (50 percent), and promoting a good FS image (49 percent,

see fig. 8).

Notice that many of the most rewarded values on the surface appear to be

generic organizational values of loyalty, productivity (i.e., meeting targets), or hard

work. These are the commonly rewarded attributes of successful performance in

most complex organizations, in the Roman Empire or the Western world today—

military or civilian, public or private, secular or religious. Teamwork, professional

competence, and responsiveness to local publics also are frequently cited as most

rewarded, and are more unique FS values commonly encountered in the Caring for

the Land and Serving People vision statement (USDA FS 1986). However, many

values in the FS vision statement were frequently cited by the Arbird responders as

Table 7—Change in Forest Service emphasis over the past decade (n = 229)

Change in relevancy replies

Communities No longer Less More Highly Never was

or group relevant relevant Same relevant relevant relevant

Percent

Q 58 Local resource-based

communities 2 45 13 17 23 0

Q 59 Urban communities 2 17 24 40 14 3

Q 60 School/education 2 31 38 22 6 1

Q 61 Timber industry 7 72 8 7 6 0

Q 62 Recreational interests 0 0 9 45 46 0

Q 63 Environmental/

conservation groups 0 6 24 31 38 1
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

15

Figure 8—Forest Service values rewarded most, Arbird and Sunbird.

Figure 9—Forest Service values rewarded least, Arbird and Sunbird.

Percent

Percentage often ten least rewarded values

Percentage of ten most rewarded values
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

16

least rewarded—especially concern for future generations (59 percent), care for

welfare and development of other employees (51 percent), and involvement in

women and minority issues (38 percent, see fig. 9).

There are some compelling gender differences in these results from the Arbird

survey (table 8). For example, men order the top six values rewarded as (1) teamwork, (2) FS image, (3) professional competency, (4) loyalty, (5) meeting targets,

and (6) responsiveness to local publics. Women order the top six values as (1) hard

work (not in men’s top six), (2) meeting targets, (3) teamwork, (4) loyalty, (5)

professional competency, and (6) care and concern for ecosystems.

How Survey Participants Believe Values Are Rewarded

Regional foresters, Chief, Associate Chief, deputy chiefs, and directors of International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern

Area (RF&Cs); forest supervisors (SUPEs); and district rangers (DRs) have

different perceptions of the most rewarded FS values (listed in declining order for

RF&Cs by percentage of response citing the value as one of six most rewarded):

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs

Percent

 1 Teamwork (78) Teamwork (59) FS image (55)

 2 Care: ecosystems (67) Meeting targets (57) FS loyalty (54)

 3 Professional competency (66) Hard work (54) Teamwork (53)

 4 Hard work (56) Professional competency (52) Meeting targets (50)

 5 Consensus builder (45) FS loyalty (52) Professional competency (46)

 6 Promoting image (44) Consensus builder (44) Hard work (45)

 7 Local publics (44) Local publics (44) Follow rules/regs. (42)

 8 FS loyalty (39) FS image (43) Consensus builder (41)

 9 Meeting targets (33) Follow rules/regs. (36) Local publics (39)

10 National publics (28) Care: ecosystems (35) Meeting budgets (32)

The RF&Cs, SUPEs, and DRs all cite similar values that their agency rewards

most, but the priority ranks differed in some cases.

Note above and in appendix 2 (table 34) that RF&Cs are unique in that 67

percent cited care for sustainable ecosystems as a highly rewarded value. It was

ranked 10th by SUPEs and even lower by DRs, with only 23 percent of DRs listing

it as among the six values the FS rewards

Women line officers in the Arbird (2004) survey also were significantly more

likely to believe the FS rewards caring for sustainable ecosystems, with 44 percent

of women versus 25 percent of men citing it as one of the six most rewarded

values. The only other significant gender difference here was involvement in

women’s and minority issues. Almost no women in the sample (4 percent) cited it

as a value most rewarded by the FS, whereas 23 percent of men did.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

17

The value of being innovative and a risk taker was cited most frequently as the

least rewarded (68 percent, fig. 9)5

 and may help explain the difficulty the national

forests have had in implementing formal adaptive management approaches to

broad-scale land management efforts that involve risk taking. The second least

rewarded value (cited by 63 percent) is being independent and individualistic (fig.

9). This indicates how respected and rewarded FS values can change. Displaying

individualism and independence is the traditional John Wayne heroic mode that

elicited considerable respect in the early decades of the agency. In that era, Chief

Pinchot described a ranger (USDA FS 1907: 33) as “...able to take care of himself

and his horses under very trying conditions; build trails and cabins; ride all day and

night; pack, shoot, and fight fire without losing his head....All this requires a very

vigorous constitution.” Today this seems to be the antithesis of the highly rewarded

value of teamwork (cited by 58 percent of respondents as most rewarded) or

consensus building (42 percent, fig. 8), characteristic of a successful line officer in

the collaborative resource management era developing since the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA 1969).

Concern for future generations, care for one’s family, care for other employees,

and involvement in women’s and minority issues are the next most frequently cited

values seen as least rewarded (fig. 9). These are followed by “strong professional

identity and commitment.” In the Sunbird (1989) survey, nonforesters were concerned that their “professional identity and commitment” might lead to their loyalty

5

 Kaufman (1960: 79) also noted the tendency of district rangers to avoid risks that might

lead to conflicts with local interests.

Table 8—Values Arbird’s respondents think the Forest

Service rewards most

Overall rank and category Women Men

Rank

1 Teamwork 3 1

2 FS loyalty 4 4

3 Meeting targets 2 5

4 Professional competency 5 3

5 Hard work 1 8

6 FS image 7 2

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district

rangers.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

18

being questioned (Kennedy and Thomas 1995). Note that none of these commonly

cited, least rewarded values were in any group’s 10 most rewarded, above.

Consistent with gender differences in the most rewarded values above, women

were significantly less likely to see care for ecosystems as least rewarded (14 percent) than men (27 percent); they were also more likely to believe that women’s

and minority issues are least rewarded (49 percent) than men (32 percent). Table 9

shows the six values men and women feel are least rewarded by the FS.

Arbird and Sunbird Survey Comparisons

Arbird (2004) line officers’ list of 10 most rewarded FS operational values includes

8 also in the Sunbird (1989) group’s top 10 (app. 3, table 72). But rank and scores

differ significantly.

In the more recent survey, values the FS rewards most (see fig. 8) are seen as

closer to what both surveys believe should be rewarded. For example, Sunbird

(1989) line officers ranked loyalty first (74 percent citing it among the one of six

most rewarded) and meeting targets second (72 percent) as the most rewarded

agency values (see app. 2, table 34). Although still ranked second and third by

Arbird (2004) respondents, their scores are significantly lower, 52 percent for

loyalty and 52 percent for targets. Consensus building was cited as among the six

values the FS rewards most by only 27 percent of Sunbird line officers and did not

make their top 10 lists. It was seventh (42 percent) in 2004 for the Arbird group.

Even more interesting was the proportion of respondents who placed care for

sustainable ecosystems in their top 10 list (Sunbird 7 percent, Arbird 32 percent).

However, women’s and minority issues came in ninth (29 percent) in 1989 but did

not make Arbird’s list (16 percent), perhaps suggesting that these efforts are now a

part of everyday operating procedures.

The same FS operational values are cited for both Arbird (2004) and Sunbird

(1989) groups as the six least rewarded values, but their ranks and scores differ

somewhat (see fig. 9). More Arbird line officers ranked being innovative and

taking risks as least rewarded (68 percent) than did the Sunbird group (53 percent),

and fewer Arbird respondents (58 percent) ranked caring for one’s family as not

rewarded than did Sunbird (80 percent) in 1989. There was similar optimism, of

sorts, for caring about sustainable ecosystems, with 22 percent listing this as least

rewarded in 2004, down from 42 percent in 1989.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

19

Values Employees Believe the Forest Service Should

Reward

Most frequently cited values that survey respondents believe the FS should reward are presented in figure 10. Several values here also show up on the 10 most

rewarded list, namely: teamwork, professional competency, image, consensus

building, responsiveness to local publics, and care for ecosystems (table 10). Most

of the care-values, such as caring for ecosystems, for employees, the public, and

future generations (prominently stated in FS publications and press releases), are

the same ones cherished and respected by these line officers. They would like the

institutionalized agency reward system to reward these same values.

Similarities and Differences in Line Officers’ Views of Values

That Should Be Rewarded

There is more general agreement among Arbird (2004) line officers about the

values they believe the agency should reward (app. 2, table 36) than about the

values they perceive as most and least rewarded (app. 2, tables 34 and 35). One

of the few notable differences in the values that should be rewarded is that 44 percent of RF&Cs rated meeting targets high, whereas only 24 percent of SUPEs and

23 percent of DRs did. In addition, the same top 10 values Arbird line officers

believe the FS reward systems should support, with one minor exception, were also

in the Sunbird (1989) line officers’ list (fig. 10). Change in time and space dimensions between these two groups of FS leaders did little to change their vote that FS

“caring-and-serving values” are the right ones for them and their agency—and

should be rewarded.

Analysis of Rewards by Arbird Respondents

Appendix 2 (table 36) provides a quick comparison of how the perceived FS

reward system endorses the values Arbird (2004) respondents believe should be

Table 9—Values Arbird’s respondents think the Forest Service

rewards leasta

Overall rank and category Women Men

Rank

1 Innovation/risk taking 1 1

2 Independence/individualism 2 2

3 Care for future generations 4 3

4 Care for one’s family 4 4

5 Care for employee development 3 5

6 Women’s/minority involvement 5 7

a

 Rank of 1 means it is valued least.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

20

Figure 10—Forest Service values that should be rewarded, Arbird and Sunbird.

Table 10—Values Arbird’s respondents believe should be rewarded and that the Forest

Service rewards most and least (n = 229)

Ranking the values among the six values that:

Should be rewarded overall Should be Are rewarded Are rewarded

ranking and values rewarded most least

Percent

1 Care/concern for ecosystems 76 32 22

2 Professional competency 70 50 14

3 Consensus building 51 42 12

4 Care for employees 49 8 51

5 Responsiveness to local publics 46 42 16

6 Concern for future generations 44 5 59

7 Innovation/risk taking 38 10 68

8 Teamwork 36 58 11

9 Health/safety 34 18 26

10 FS image 26 49 17
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

21

rewarded. The FS reward system can be seen as receiving a “vote of confidence”

when values line officers believe should be rewarded are perceived to be (1)

those the agency rewards most and (2) those that are not frequently cited as least

rewarded—as is the case with professional competence, consensus building, or

responsiveness to local publics (see fig. 11). Caring for sustainable ecosystems is

the top ranked value that should be rewarded, but it is placed at 10th for both the

most and least rewarded value—on the margin of a vote of confidence. The FS

reward system clearly gets a vote of no-confidence in caring for employee development (8 percent most and 51 percent least rewarded), or caring for future generations (5 percent most and 59 percent least rewarded; app. 2, tables 34 and 35).

A Focus on Trends in Collaborative Resources

Management

During the past three decades national forest managers have evolved from being

solitary decisionmakers to being more engaged with the public who care for and

use the forests. This evolution in managing national forests not for, but with, the

public involved efforts to reshape agency values and expectations and has recently

been called collaborative resources management (CRM). Figure 12 illustrates some

of the efforts to develop the attitudes and skills (teamwork, consensus building, or

concern for local publics) necessary for successful CRM.

For the Arbird (2004) survey, the FS CRM committee requested that several

questions (app. 1, questions 54-56) on the evolving status of agency CRM be

included. Table 11 shows the majority of respondents (81 percent) believed CRM

has increased since 1990. Yet there were significant differences in optimism

between higher ranked and positioned RF&Cs (94 percent saw an increase) and

SUPEs (90 percent increase) versus DRs, 70 percent of whom believed CRM

increased since 1990. Most respondents rated CRM’s importance at 8 or higher,

with only 8 percent rating it 6 or less. Again the higher the line officer rank, the

greater the likelihood to check the “extremely important” (10) end of the scale.

This trend continued with 39 percent of RF&Cs believing engagement in CRM

was highly rewarded; only 6 percent of SUPEs and 6 percent of DRs were that

optimistic. Although most line officers believed CRM performance is moderately

rewarded, 19 percent of DRs thought it was not rewarded.

Like many new attitudes and skills promoted by the FS, CRM is a process of

personal and professional behavior. It is not an output or target of performance for

which line officers have traditionally been held accountable. Admired (and often

promoted) FS “can-do” professionals of the 1960s were often respected more for

what they achieved in timber harvest, recreational visitor days accommodated, or

fire suppression prowess than for employee, stakeholder, or ecosystem processes.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

22

Figure 11—In the past three decades national forest management has evolved from planning decisions made by

professionals to planning done collaboratively with the public.

Seth White

Figure 12—Forest Service (Region 9) publications, circa 1980s, illustrating

teams of agency professionals and publics sharing national forest planning

and management power (in what today is often called CRM: collaborative

resource management).
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

23

Sensitivity and skills in processes of listening, sharing power, and shaping consensus have traditionally been considered feminine values in our society (Gilligan

1982). Consistent with this, women line officers in the Arbird (2004) survey were

significantly more likely (53 percent; p = 0.01) to rate CRM as extremely important

(rating it 10), whereas only 29 percent of men rated it at this level.

In the NEPA (1969) era, one often hears the lament that the agency is “bogged

down in process”—such as interdisciplinary team negotiations, public involvement,

or partnership maintenance. Regardless of this and some DR skepticism, the above

CRM responses and the fact that teamwork and consensus building have increasingly been seen as most rewarded values indicate a FS shift to desiring and rewarding some processes. The next section examines the perceived benefits and drawbacks of many new and lauded processes that FS employees are encouraged to

embrace in an attempt to relieve the “process predicament.”

Benefits and Drawbacks of the “Process Predicament”

Four questions (64 through 67) were included in the Arbird (2004) survey to assess

FS attempts to deal with perceived gridlock imposed by increased attention to

processes. Each group of line officers agreed (84 to 94 percent; app. 2, table 43)

Table 11—Importance, rewards, and trends in Forest Service collaborative

resource management (CRM)

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total responses

Scale (n = 18) (n = 100) (n = 111) (n = 229)

Percent

Q 54. Change in CRM since 1990

Increased 94 90 70 81

Same 6 9 27 17

Decreased 0 1 3 2

Q 55. CRM importance to agency mission (1-10 scale)

10=Extremely important 56 41 32 38

9 11 19 16 17

8 33 19 25 23

7 0 12 18 14

6 or less 0 9 9 8

Q 56. Is CRM engagement rewarded?

Not rewarded 5 7 19 13

Moderately rewarded 56 87 75 79

Highly rewarded 39 6 6 8

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State

and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest

supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

24

that “process gridlock” was detrimental to accomplishing FS mission and goals.

Similar responses were given for statements that the FS should actively “promote

streamlining procedures” (app. 2, table 44), and that respondents were personally

aware of agency policies and programs to manage some of these problems. These

results indicate both widespread recognition of the problem and agency action to

manage it.

Question 67 responses, however, point to differences within the leadership

community about the extent of progress. The RF&Cs all agree that some progress

is being made, but a significant number (about 28 percent) of both SUPEs and DRs

see little progress. These results suggest that top leadership needs to remain

diligent in its attempts to promote, develop, and implement innovative ideas that

support streamlining procedures and processes. To achieve the desired results

might also take longer than expected.

Forest Service Organizational and Professional

Commitments

Arbird (2004) respondents represented significantly more diverse types of professions (p = 0.001) than Sunbird (1989) line officers (question 68). Whereas about

one-third of Arbird respondents were foresters (32 percent; app. 2, table 47), almost

half (48 percent; app. 3, table 70) of Sunbird line officers were foresters in 1989.

Biological professions more than tripled in those 15 years (4 percent to 14 percent),

and recreation management stayed the same. The majority of both surveys (about

80 percent) checked responses of extremely strong, very strong, or strong commitment to their profession (question 69). The majority (about 77 percent) would

choose the same profession if living their lives over again (question 70).

In a similar series of questions about their agency commitment, Arbird (2004)

respondents gave significantly stronger answers on all items than Sunbird (1989)

line officers when asked the strength of their commitment to stay in the FS (question 71); 55 percent of the Arbird group (versus 43 percent of Sunbird) checked the

extremely strong commitment option, and only 4 percent checked any of the three

weak commitment categories (versus 8 percent of Sunbird). If respondents were

living life over again (question 72), 86 percent of Arbird (versus 74 percent of

Sunbird) checked yes they would work for the FS again, whereas14 percent

indicated no or undecided (versus 26 percent for Sunbird).

In the late 1960s, Hall et al. (1970) developed a FS organizational identification scale (FS ID-scale) and tested it in the Eastern Region (R9). Bullis (1984)

applied this ID-scale to a servicewide sample, and it was repeated in the Sunbird

(1989) and Arbird (2004) surveys for a 40-year glimpse of agency identification
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

25

(questions 16-23). This scale asks respondents to agree or disagree with eight items

(e.g., question 16: Forest Service has a fine tradition of public service; or question

17: I feel a sense of pride in working for the Forest Service) that can be categorized

into agency identification or career satisfaction. An ID-score can range from 1.0

(high) to 7.0 (low FS identification).

The increasing numeric scores in table 12 indicate a general decline in FS

identification at all levels of the agency from the 1970s until the Sunbird (1989)

survey. Table 12 also indicates that high FS identification (lower score) is consistently associated with higher line positions. Yet the 2004 survey scores show higher

FS identification than the comparable line officer group in the Sunbird survey.

Perhaps the decline of agency identification has stopped or even reversed direction.

At the close of both surveys two questions asked respondents to look 20 years

into the future. One asked them to state how optimistic or pessimistic they were

about the “FS ability to care for the land and serve people over the next 20 years”

(app. 1, question 73). The majority of Arbird (2004) respondents (79 percent)

checked “optimistic” or “very optimistic.” Sunbird (1989) line officers were less

optimistic, with 73 percent checking the two optimistic choices and 16 percent

“pessimistic” or “very pessimistic” (versus 10 percent of Arbird). In the next

question (74) Sunbird line officers were significantly less optimistic and more

Table 12—Hall et al. (1970) Forest Service identification scale by employee

position

Study names and dates

Employee Hall et al. Bullis Sunbird Arbird

position (1970) (1984) (1989) (2004)

FS identification scoresa

 and sample sizes

RF&Cs NA NA 1.69 (n = 10) 1.59 (n = 18)

SUPEs NA 1.60 (n = 18) 1.87 (n = 112) 1.75 (n = 100)

DRs 1.39 (n = 42) 2.06 (n = 67) 2.41 (n = 123) 1.85 (n = 111)

DC staff NA NA 2.92 (n = 36) NA

Regional staff 1.15 (n = 18) 2.16 (n = 38) 2.99 (n = 186) NA

Forest staff 1.59 (n = 34) 2.61 (n = 31) 3.08 (n = 512) NA

District staff 1.62 (n = 39) 2.65 (n = 88) 3.22 (n = 616) NA

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State

and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest

supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a The composite score reflects the level of agency identification and career satisfaction. Responses

weighted as follows: Strongly agree = 1.0, moderately agree = 2.0, slightly agree = 3.0, neither

disagree nor agree = 4.0, and strongly disagree = 7.0.

Note: NA = not sampled.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

26

pessimistic (p = 0.001) about the FS remaining a “satisfying and rewarding place to

work over the next 20 years.” More Arbird respondents (62 percent versus 48

percent) were “optimistic” or “very optimistic” and less pessimistic (19 percent

versus 33 percent) than Sunbird line officers.

New Environmental Paradigm Scale

We used the New Environmental Paradigm developed by Dunlap and Van Liere

(1978) to measure the environmental values of Forest Service leadership. Details

are given in appendix 4, but in general the results indicate a balanced ecological

worldview of Arbird (2004) line officers. Limited results from other groups suggest

line officers may differ in having a more balanced view rather than sharing the

general population’s proecological worldview.

Conclusion

The Arbird (2004) study confirms much of what Mohai et al. (1994: 32) found in a

1992 survey of FS employees. When asked what have been the “most important

positive changes in the FS over the past 10 years, the 800-some line officers stated

“increased public responsiveness (40 percent), increased noncommodity emphasis

(30 percent), workforce diversification (18 percent), better communications and

open working conditions (17 percent), increased emphasis on ecosystem/biological

diversity (11 percent), and increased environmental awareness/sensitivity (10

percent).” When asked what single most important change their agency still needed

to make, few new policies or programs were suggested. Most line and staff employees essentially said “stay the course.” This is a vote of confidence for the “caring

for the land and serving people” core values (USDA FS 1986) developed after the

first forest supervisors’ conference in 1985.

Mohai and Jakes (1996) report that most employees feel there has been significant progress in fulfilling the caring-and-serving agency mission, and that the FS

should continue that momentum. There is similar encouraging news with a greater

proportion of Arbird (2004) than Sunbird (1989) line officers believing the FS

reward system supports values they personally believe are rewarded (see fig. 8).

Yet, another interpretation of both surveys is that much FS employee caring-andserving behavior occurs without much help from the official reward system. In the

Sunbird and Arbird surveys, line officers usually stated very generic values and

performance as most rewarded: work hard and competently in teams that meet

targets and exhibit FS loyalty. Much hard, loyal, professionally competent work

and target achievement can include caring-and-serving core values, but many of

these values were not explicitly stated on Sunbird or Arbird lists of most rewarded
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

27

FS values. In fact, these mission statement values are most boldly stated in the

values survey respondents believe the agency least rewards, but should.

Similar to their Sunbird predecessors, Arbird line officers cited concern for

future generations (58 percent), care for the development of other employees (51

percent), or women and minority involvement (38 percent) as their third, fifth, and

sixth values least supported by the FS reward system. Yet the demographic

changes in gender and ethnic diversity of line officers at Sunbird and Arbird

meetings (see fig. 13) indicate considerable progress, even if “care and involvement in women’s and minority issues” may not “pay off” if one is focused only on

the formal reward system. Clear progress is indicated also by responses to question

53, where only 22 percent of Arbird respondents believe that on a month-to-month

basis, their work unit(s) take a product or target focus most or all the time, versus

41 percent who checked “managing for a sustainable ecosystem” most or all the

time.

Some progress in FS employees implementing the agency mission statement

likely does result from official pay and reward incentives; but some of those

actions of Sunbird (1989) and Arbird (2004) respondents in caring for sustainable

ecosystems, the health and development of colleagues, or publics living and yet to

be born seem to occur in spite of incentives of the official reward system. Perhaps

other less obvious reward systems are operating in harmony and tension with the

obvious official one, namely: (1) line officers’ own personal/professional values

and ethics, (2) sustaining the respect of other admired line officers or mentors, or

(3) supporting the generic and specialized passions of respected staff colleagues in

fire ecology, personnel training and development, wildlife management, or workforce diversity—all centripetal and centrifugal forces that Gulick (1951) and

Kaufman (1960) observed in the FS about 50 years ago.

The FS is not unique in its attempt to focus on and reward certain values while

also trying to maintain political constituency support and organizational productivity, accountability, or control. Education, health delivery, or natural resource management bureaucracies typically have constant tension between the values they

cherish and the unavoidable, generic organizational values of loyalty, measurable

productivity, and following rules and regulations. Some organizations ignore these

core values and reward system tensions. Some organizations accept that there is

nothing they can do about this in the oppressive world of bureaucracies and

politics. Organizations of integrity confront these persistent and unavoidable

political and bureaucratic realities to forge an organization that is committed to its

core values and strives to remain true to its mission. Studies such as ours or that of

Mohai et al. (1994) suggest that the Forest Service fits the latter category.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

28

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the use of Forester in Snow with Crossbills by Bruce Bomberger

(fig. 3) and Steelhead Spawning by Jack Dumas (fig. 4) provided by Weyerhaeuser

Company for use in this manuscript. We acknowledge the help of Margaret

Hamilton in developing the mailing lists and survey handling process and Ellen

Donoghue for suggesting the collaborative stewardship questions and helping to

explain the responses. We appreciate the assistance of Judy Mikowski in preparing

all of the tables and figures.

Literature Cited

Bengston, D.N. 1994. Changing forest values and ecosystem management. Society

and Natural Resources. 7: 515-533.

Brown, T.C. 1984. Concept of value in resource allocation. Land Economics. 60:

231-239.

Bullis, C.A. 1984. Communication as unobtrusive control: a re-examination of

identification in the U.S. Forest Service. Lafayette, IN: Purdue University.

284 p. Ph.D. dissertation.

Clarke, J.N.; McCool, D. 1985. Staking out the terrain—power differentials

among natural resource management activities. Albany, NY: State University

of New York. 312 p.

Figure 13—Gender and ethnic diversity.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

29

Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D. 1978. The “new environmental paradigm”:

a proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education. 9: 10-19.

Dunlap, R.E.; Van Liere, K.D.; Mertig, A.G.; Jones, R.E. 2000. Measuring

endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: a revised NEP Scale. Journal

of Social Issues. 56: 425-442.

Gilligan, C. 1982. In a different voice: psychological theory in women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 216 p.

Gold, K.A. 1982. Managing for success—a comparison of private and public

sectors. Public Administrative Review. 42(6): 568-575.

Government Performance Results Act [GPRA]. 1993. Act of August 3, 1993.

103 P.L. 62; 107. Stat. 285.

Greeley, W.B. 1951. Forests and men. A veteran forest leader tells the story of the

last fifty years of American forestry. Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co. 255 p.

Gulick, L.H. 1951. American forest policy. New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce.

252 p.

Hall, D.T.; Schneider, B.; Nygren, H.T. 1970. Personal factors in organizational

identification. Administrative Science Quarterly. 15(2): 176-190.

Haynes, R.W.; Graham, R.T.; Quigley, T.M., tech. eds. 1996. A framework

for ecosystem management in the interior Columbia basin. Gen. Tech. Rep.

PNW-GTR-374. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Pacific Northwest Research Station. 60 p.

Hays, S.P. 1959. Conservation and the gospel of efficiency. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press. 242 p.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act. 2003. Act of December 3, 2003. HR 1904.

Kaufman, H. 1960. The forest ranger. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Press.

259 p.

Kennedy, J.J. 1991. Integrating gender diverse and interdisciplinary professionals

into traditional U.S. Department of Agriculture-Forest Service culture. Society

and Natural Resources. 4: 165-176.

Kennedy, J.J.; Dombeck, M.P.; Koch, N.E. 1998. Values, beliefs and management of public forests in the Western world at the close of the twentieth

century. Unasylva. 49: 16-26.

Kennedy, J.J.; Krannich, R.S.; Quigley, T.M.; Cramer, L.S. 1992. How

employees view the USDA-Forest Service value and reward system. Logan,

UT: Department of Forest Resources, Utah State University. 62 p.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

30

Kennedy, J.J.; Quigley, T.M. 1998. Evolution of USDA-Forest Service organizational culture and adaptation issues in embracing an ecosystem management

paradigm. Landscape and Urban Planning. 40: 113-122.

Kennedy, J.J.; Thomas, J.W. 1995. Managing natural resources as social value.

In: Knight, R.L.; Bates, S.F., eds. A new century for natural resources management. Washington, DC: Island Press: 311-321.

Mohai, P.; Jakes, P. 1996. The Forest Service in the 1990s–Is it heading in the

right direction? Journal of Forestry. 94: 31-38.

Mohai, P.; Stillman, P.; Jakes, P.; Liggett, C. 1994. Changes in the USDAForest Service: Are we heading in the right direction? Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-172.

St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central

Forest Experiment Station. 130 p.

Multiple Use Sustained Yield Act of 1960 [MUSYA]; Act of June 12, 1960; P.L.

86-517; 74 Stat. 215, U.S.C. 528 C, 368 (note), 528-531.

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 [NEPA]; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

President’s Management Agenda. 2002. Washington, DC: Executive Office of

the President, Office of Management and Budget. 71 p. http://

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget. (February 2004).

Simmons, D.D. 1982. Personal valuing. Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall. 115 p.

Taylor, D.E. 2002. Race, class, gender, and American environmentalism. Gen.

Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-534. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 p.

Twight, B.W.; Lyden, F.J. 1989. Measuring Forest Service bias. Journal of

Forestry. 87: 35-41.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1907. The use of the national

forests. Washington, DC. 142 p.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1986. The USDA Forest

Service—caring for the land and serving people [Brochure]. FS-402.

Washington, DC.

U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. A

collaborative approach for reducing wildland fire risks to communities and

the environment: 10-year comprehensive strategy [National Fire Plan]. 21 p.

http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/7-19-en.pdf. (February 2004).

Zelezny, L.C.; Poh-Pheng, C.; Christina, A. 2000. Elaborating on gender differences in environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues. 56(3): 443-457.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

31

Appendix 1—Arbird Survey

2004 FOREST SUPERVISOR CONFERENCE SURVEY

Let’s begin this survey by getting some basic background and descriptive information on

you and your Forest Service (FS) position.

1. In what year did you get your first permanent FS assignment? (year)

2. How old were you then? (years)

3. Your current age is? (years)

4. a. What was your Forest Service Occupational Series (e.g., 460, 501, 810, 1301,

etc.) when hired

b. Current FS Occupational Series (e.g., 460, 501, 810, 1301, etc.)

5. Pay Plan: (GS, SES)

6. Current Grade (e.g., 5, 9, 12, 14, SES)

7. Sex: (Male or Female)

8. Ethnic data:

a. American Indian or Alaskan Native

b. Asian

c. Black or African American

d. Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander

e. Hispanic or Latino

f. White

9. Which best describes the place where you lived the longest when you were

growing up (and when your values were forming)?

a. large city (250,000 population or more)

b. medium-sized city (50,000-250,000) in the suburbs

c. medium-sized city (50,000-250,000) not in the suburbs

d. small city, town, village or unincorp. area (under 50,000) in the suburbs

e. small city, town, village or unincorp. area (under 50,000) not in the suburbs

f. in a rural area, but not on a farm or ranch

g. on a farm or ranch

10. A. Describe your formal education (a, b, c, d, etc.)

a. High School

b. Some college (AA)

c. College graduate (BS or BA, etc.)

d. Some masters work

e. Masters degree (MBA, MS, MF, MA degree)

f. Additional graduate credit or degree

g. PhD degree

11. Your current Forest Service job location:

a. Region Office

b. Station

c. Area

d. Washington Office

e. Research Work Unit

f. Project

g. Forest

h. Ranger District
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

32

12. Your current Forest Service job type is:

a. Line

b. Staff

c. Other

13. Emphasis of your current Forest Service job:

a. Forest/Vegetation/Fuel Management

b. Wildlife/Fisheries Management

c. Range

d. Water/Soil

e. Recreation

f. Fire Management

g. Engineering

h. Planning

i. Administration

j. Line

k. Other

14. A. Do you consider yourself a specialist or generalist?

B. Are your career plans to be a specialist or generalist?

15. How many years have you been: (Enter 0 for positions not held)

a. District/Project staff

b. District Ranger

c. Forest staff/Research Work Unit

d. Forest Supervisor

e. Region staff

f. Regional Forester/Station Director/S&PF Area Director

g. WO staff

h. WO Chief, Deputy, or Assoc. Deputy

You are now asked to state some feelings about the Forest Service and being a Forest

Service employee in a series of questions asked of Forest Service employees since the

1960s.

Listed below are a series of statements that represent possible feelings that individuals

might have about the Forest Service. With respect to your own feelings about the Forest

Service, please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with each statement in

the left column by selecting one of the seven choices listed in the right column. Note that

the middle of the scale, “Neither Agree nor Disagree (4),” is a neutral response.

Strongly Moderately Slightly Neither Disagree Slightly Moderately Strongly

Agree Agree Agree nor Agree Disagree Disagree Disagree

7 6 5 4 3 21

16. The Forest Service has a fine tradition of public service.

17. I feel a sense of pride in working for the Forest Service.

18. I would advise a young professional graduate to choose a career in the Forest

Service.

19. If I had my life to live over again, I would still choose to work for the FS.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

33

20. I feel the Forest Service is doing an important job in showing how public land

should be managed.

21. Generally speaking, my career in the Forest Service has been satisfactory.

22. The record of the National Forests is an example of what dedicated people can

achieve.

23. My values and the Forest Service’s values are very similar.

We now turn to an examination of values. This is the most important part of the

questionnaire and will probably take the greatest amount of time and thought.

From the list of values/attitudes below, we ask you to select the six (6) that the FS most

rewards with Agency respect, status, and promotion. Then select the six (6) the FS rewards

least. Finally you will be asked to select the six (6) values you believe the FS should

reward. First read the list of values/attitudes, then make your selections below.

a. Work hard, do extra work

b. Competent professional performance

c. Care and involvement in welfare and development of other employees

d. Works well with others and in teams.

e. Care and involvement in health/safety of self and others

f. Promotes good FS public image

g. Achieves work targets on time

h. Care/concern about healthy sustainable ecosystems and resources

i. Care and involvement in women/minority issues

j. Concern about future generations and the long-run (50+ years)

k. Imaginative, innovative, a risk-taker

l. Loyalty to and support of the Forest Service

m. Accountable, stays within budget

n. Being responsive to local publics and clients

o. Strong professional identity and commitment

p. Being responsive to national publics and clients

q. Operates within rules and procedures

r. Care/concern about one’s family

s. Consensus builder, brings groups together

t. Independent, self-reliant, individualist

Questions 24 through 29:

Next, decide on the six (6) FS most rewarded values. Rank them in descending order of

importance in the table with the top most rewarded value first to the lowest most rewarded

value sixth.

Questions 30 through 35:

Next, select the six (6) values you believe the FS rewards least. You need not rank them,

just select six (6).

Questions 36 through 41:

You have stated what you believe the FS actually does reward. What do you believe the FS

should reward (with respect, status, and promotion)? Using the above list of 20 values,

identify and rank the six (6) values you believe the FS should reward (they can be the same

most-rewarded values you ranked in above or different ones).
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

34

42. The values I cherish and prize and the values the FS rewards:

a. Very often conflict

b. Often conflict

c. Sometimes conflict

d. Seldom conflict

e. Never conflict

43. Do any differences in values you cherish and prize and the values the FS rewards

cause you any discomfort or stress?

a. Very great stress

b. Great stress

c. Moderate stress

d. Little stress

e. No stress

The next set of value questions deal with the priorities placed on the traditional multiple

uses (wildlife, water, timber, grazing, and recreation) and several emerging uses or values.

Perceived values of the major uses of the National Forests are important in influencing

decisions. In addition to the values you individually place on these uses, you also have

perceptions of how you believe the public (society) at large values these uses and how the

Forest Service, as a whole, values them.

Please indicate how you think the public values the major uses of the Nation Forest System

lands, the value you think the Forest Service as a whole has for these uses, and how you

personally value the major uses of these lands. Using a 1 to 10 scale of importance (where

10 is Extremely Important and 1 is Unimportant), record your answers below by clicking on

a number in each column for the major uses listed at the right side of the table below. An

entry of 1 would indicate that the value for that use would be Unimportant; an entry of 5

would indicate that the value was Moderately Important; and an entry of 10 would indicate

that the value was Extremely Important.

Extremely Important Moderately Minimally Unimportant

Important Important Important

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Public FS You

44. Timber ____ ____ ____

45. Grazing ____ ____ ____

46. Recreation ____ ____ ____

47. Wildlife ____ ____ ____

48. Water ____ ____ ____

49. Vegetation ____ ____ ____

50. Fuel Risk Mgmt ____ ____ ____

51. Biodiversity ____ ____ ____

52. Landscape Beauty ____ ____ ____
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

35

53. Overall, my work unit(s) tend to take this perspective in their month-to-month

thinking and, especially, management action.

a. Product, target or output focus ALL of the time

b. Product, target or output focus MOST of the time

c. About half and half

d. Sustainable ecosystem focus MOST of the time

e. Sustainable ecosystem focus ALL of the time

f. Question not applicable or relevant

When answering questions 54 to 56, consider “collaborative resource management” to be

the pooling of resources (e.g., money, labor, information) by the Forest Service and

communities or groups to achieve mutual objectives from which all parties will benefit.

54. How has the Forest Service’s engagement in “collaborative resource management”

changed since 1990?

a. Increased

b. Stayed the same

c. Decreased

55. How important is Forest Service engagement in “collaborative resource

management” to achieving the agency’s mission? (Scale 1-10 Extremely important

to Unimportant)

56. To what extent are employees who engage in “collaborative resource

management” rewarded (respect, status, promotion) for the time and commitment

required of such activities and processes?

a. Not rewarded

b. Moderately rewarded

c. Highly rewarded

57. Since 1990, relations between the Forest Service and local communities and

stakeholder groups have:

a. Improved

b. Stayed the same

c. Decreased

From your perspective, how has the importance or relevancy of the Forest Service to the

following stakeholder groups changed in the last decade? Complete the sentences below by

selecting one of the choices listed:

a. is no longer relevant

b. is less relevant

c. has the same level of relevancy

d. is more relevant

e. is highly relevant

f. never was relevant

58. The Forest Service is __ to local resource-based communities.

59. The Forest Service is __ to urban communities.

60. The Forest Service is __ to schools/educational institutions.

61. The Forest Service is __ to the timber industry.

62. The Forest Service is __ to recreation interests/communities.

63. The Forest Service is __ to environmental and resource conservation groups.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

36

The next four questions about your feelings about the Forest Service attempt to deal with

the Process Predicament. Please indicate the degree to which you agree or disagree with

each of the statements listed below by selecting one of the seven choices listed:

a. Strongly Agree (7)

b. Moderately Agree (6)

c. Slightly Agree (5)

d. Neither Agree nor Disagree (4)

e. Slightly Disagree (3)

f. Moderately Disagree (2)

g. Strongly Disagree (1)

64. Process Gridlock is detrimental to effectively accomplishing the Forest Service

mission and goal.

65. The Forest Service should actively promote, develop, and implement innovative

ideas that support streamlining procedures and processes.

66. I am aware of the current actions across the Agency that support streamlining

procedures and processes.

67. The Forest Service has made significant progress to reduce gridlock within the

Agency.

The next set of questions ask about your commitment to a Forest Service career and to a

career in a professional area.

68. Do you identify with a particular profession in the Forest Service?

a. Foresters

b. Range managers

c. Biologist/Botanist

d. Recreation managers

e. Engineers

f. Hydrologists

g. Soil scientists

h. Planners

i. None

j. Other

69. The strength of my commitment to stay involved in this professional area for most

of my career (next 10 to 20 years) is:

a. Extremely strong commitment

b. Very strong commitment

c. Strong commitment

d. Weak commitment

e. Very weak commitment

f. Extremely weak commitment

g. No commitment

70. If you could turn back the clock, would you choose this same professional area

again?

a. yes

b. no

c. undecided
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

37

71. The strength of my commitment to stay in the Forest Service for the next 10 to 20

years (or until retirement) is:

a. Extremely strong commitment

b. Very strong commitment

c. Strong commitment

d. Weak commitment

e. Very weak commitment

f. Extremely weak commitment

g. No commitment

72. If you could turn back the clock, would you choose to work for the Forest Service

again?

a. yes

b. no

c. undecided

73. How optimistic or pessimistic are you about the FS continuing to “care for the

land and serve people” in the next 20 years?

a. Very optimistic

b. Optimistic

c. Neutral

d. Pessimistic

e. Very pessimistic

74. How optimistic or pessimistic are you about the FS being a satisfying and

rewarding place for someone like you to work in the next 20 years?

a. Very optimistic

b. Optimistic

c. Neutral

d. Pessimistic

e. Very pessimistic

Next is a series of “agree-disagree” questions used for over a decade in measuring

environmental attitudes in the USA and Europe. Please indicate the degree to which you

agree or disagree with each of the statements listed below by selecting one of the five

choices listed.

Strongly agree

Mildly agree

Unsure

Mildly disagree

Strongly disagree

75. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support.

76. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.

77. When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences.

78. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the Earth unlivable.

79. Humans are severely abusing the environment.

80. The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them.

81. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.

82. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern

industrial nations.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

38

83. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.

84. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.

85. The earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.

86. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.

87. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

88. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control

it.

89. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major

ecological catastrophe.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

39

Appendix 2—Responses to Arbird Survey Questions

Table 13—In what year did you get your first

permanent Forest Service assignment? (Q 1)

Period RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Number of people

1964-1970 4 9 5 18

1971-1975 5 16 16 37

1976-1980 3 53 34 90

1981-1985 3 16 20 39

1986-1990 1 2 24 27

1991-1995 0 2 9 11

1996-2000 0 1 1 2

2001-2003 2 1 1 4

** 0 0 1 1

Total 18 100 111 229

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International

Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry

Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief,

SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

** Years not identified.

Table 14—How old were you when you got your

first permanent Forest Service assignment? (Q 2)

Age RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Years Number of people

Younger than 20 0 3 4 7

21-25 11 61 49 121

26-30 2 22 39 63

31-35 1 6 13 20

36-40 1 4 3 8

41-45 0 0 2 2

46-50 3 4 0 7

** 0 0 1 1

Total 18 100 111 229

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International

Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry

Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief,

SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

** Age not identified.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

40

Table 15—What is your current age? (Q 3)

Age RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Years Number of people

32-35 0 0 4 11

36-40 0 0 11 33

41-45 0 12 21 67

46-50 2 36 29 80

51-55 10 33 37 28

56-60 5 15 8 4

61-65 0 3 1 1

66-69 1 0 0 1

** 0 1 0

Total 18 100 111 229

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International

Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry

Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief,

SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

** Age not identified.

Table 16—What was your occupational series

when hired? (Q 4)

Series RF&Cs SUPEs DRs

Percent

Forester 28 35 31

Biologist 6 12 16

Recreation manager 11 6 10

Range manager 0 3 10

Planner 0 3 4

Soil/hydrologist 0 5 1

Engineer 0 2 1

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International

Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry

Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief,

SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

41

Table 17—What is your current pay plan? (Q 5)

Pay plan RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Number of people

GM/GS 0 100 111 211

SES 18 0 0 18

Total 18 100 111 229

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International

Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs—

forest supervisors, and DRs—district rangers.

Table 18—What is your current grade, gender, and ethnicity?

(Q 6, Q 7, Q 8)

Category (question) RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Number of people

Grade (Q 6):

GS-11 or 12 0 0 30 30

GS-13 0 0 81 81

GS-14 0 61 0 61

GS-15 0 39 0 39

SES 18 0 0 18

Total 18 100 111 229

Gender (Q 7):

Female 8 33 38 79

Male 10 67 73 150

Ethnicity (Q 8):

American Indian/Alaska Native 0 2 4 6

Asian 0 4 0 4

Black/African American 0 3 2 5

Native Hawaiian 0 0 0 0

Hispanic/Latino 2 6 6 14

White 16 85 99 200

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief

and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

42

Table 19—Which best describes where you lived longest when you

grew up? (Q 9)

Place RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Number of people

Large city 3 19 17 39

Medium-sized city in suburbs 5 15 20 40

Medium-sized city not in suburbs 2 6 9 17

Small-sized city in suburbs 0 13 15 28

Small-sized city not in suburbs 5 22 16 43

Rural area but not farm/ranch 0 13 27 40

Farm/ranch 3 12 7 22

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate

Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

Table 20—Describe your formal education (Q 10)

Degree RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Number of people

High school 0 0 0 0

Some college 0 1 0 1

College graduate 2 34 44 80

Some master’s work 3 22 26 51

Master’s degree 6 27 29 62

Additional graduate credit 4 15 11 30

Ph.D. 3 1 1 5

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate

Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

Table 21—Your current Forest Service job location (Q 11)

Location RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Number of people

Regional office 6 0 0 6

Station 3 0 0 3

Area 0 0 0 0

Washington office 9 0 0 9

Research work unit 0 0 0 0

Project 0 0 0 0

Forest 0 100 0 100

Ranger district 0 0 111 111

Total 18 100 111 229

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate

Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

43

Table 22—Your current Forest Service job type is

(Q 12)

Job type RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Number of people

Line 18 100 111 229

Staff 0 0 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0

Total 18 100 111 229

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International

Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry

Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief,

SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

Table 23—Emphasis of your current Forest Service job (Q 13)

Emphasis RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Number of people

Forest/vegetation/fuel management 0 2 1 3

Wildlife/fisheries management 0 0 0 0

Range 0 0 1 1

Water/soil 0 0 0 0

Recreation 0 0 1 1

Fire management 0 0 1 1

Engineering 0 0 0 0

Planning 0 0 0 0

Administration 6 4 14 24

Line 9 94 93 196

Other 3 0 0 3

Total 18 100 111 229

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate

Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

Table 24—Do you consider yourself a specialist or generalist? (Q 14a)

Are your career plans to be specialist or generalist? (Q 14b)

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Number of people

Current

Generalist 18 100 108 226

Specialist 0 0 3 3

Plan to be

Generalist 18 98 104 220

Specialist 0 2 7 9

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief

and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

44

Table 25—During your career how many years have you been the

following? (Q 15)

Position RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Average years

District/project staff 3.1 7.4 9.7 8.1

District ranger 1.9 5.4 5.9 5.4

Forest staff/research unit 3.6 3.2 2.3 2.8

Forest supervisor 2.1 5.5 0 2.6

Regional staff 2.2 1.3 .5 1.0

RF/SD/S&PF area director 3.8 0 0 .3

WO staff 4.2 1.5 .1 1.0

WO Chief, deputies, Associate Chief 1.0 0 0 .1

Average service years in FS 21.9 24.2 18.5 21.2

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate

Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

Table 26—The Forest Service has a fine tradition of public service

(Q 16)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 72 67 56 62

Moderately agree 28 26 39 32

Slightly agree 0 5 3 3

Neutral 0 1 1 1

Slightly disagree 0 0 2 1

Moderately disagree 0 1 0 0

Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0

Agreement indexa 1.278 1.440 1.541 1.476

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief

and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index values indicate

higher levels of agreement.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

45

Table 27—I feel a sense of pride in working for the Forest Service

(Q 17)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 78 67 68 69

Moderately agree 17 30 23 26

Slightly agree 0 2 5 3

Neutral 0 0 0 0

Slightly disagree 6 0 3 2

Moderately disagree 0 1 0 0

Strongly disagree 0 0 1 0

Agreement indexa 1.389 1.390 1.486 1.437

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief

and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index values indicate

higher levels of agreement.

Table 28—I would advise a young professional graduate to choose a

career in the Forest Service (Q 18)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 56 37 30 35

Moderately agree 33 35 43 39

Slightly agree 0 21 15 17

Neutral 0 2 5 3

Slightly disagree 6 2 5 4

Moderately disagree 6 1 2 2

Strongly disagree 0 2 0 1

Agreement indexa 1.833 2.080 2.180 2.109

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief

and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index values indicate

higher levels of agreement.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

46

Table 29—If I had my life to live over again, I would still choose to

work for the Forest Service (Q 19)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 83 59 57 60

Moderately agree 11 27 28 26

Slightly agree 0 7 6 6

Neutral 0 0 3 1

Slightly disagree 0 4 4 3

Moderately disagree 0 2 1 1

Strongly disagree 6 1 2 2

Agreement indexa 1.444 1.730 1.784 1.734

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry

and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief,

SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index values indicate

higher levels of agreement.

Table 30—I feel the Forest Service is doing an important job in showing how public land should be managed (Q 20)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 39 36 40 38

Moderately agree 33 38 37 37

Slightly agree 22 16 12 14

Neutral 0 2 1 1

Slightly disagree 6 4 9 7

Moderately disagree 0 3 1 2

Strongly disagree 0 1 1 1

Agreement indexa 2.000 2.130 2.090 2.100

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry

and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief,

SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index values indicate

higher levels of agreement.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

47

Table 31—Generally speaking, my career in the Forest Service has

been satisfactory (Q 21)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 78 66 59 64

Moderately agree 17 30 35 31

Slightly agree 0 2 5 3

Neutral 0 0 0 0

Slightly disagree 0 2 0 1

Moderately disagree 6 0 0 0

Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0

Agreement indexa 1.444 1.420 1.459 1.441

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry

and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief,

SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index values indicate

higher levels of agreement.

Table 32—The record of the national forests is an example of what

dedicated people can achieve (Q 22)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 50 37 28 34

Moderately agree 44 49 47 48

Slightly agree 6 11 18 14

Neutral 0 3 6 4

Slightly disagree 0 0 1 0

Moderately disagree 0 0 0 0

Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0

Agreement indexa 1.556 1.800 2.054 1.904

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief

and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index values indicate

higher levels of agreement.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

48

Table 33—My values and the Forest Service’s values are very similar

(Q 23)

Scales RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 28 29 28 28

Moderately agree 67 49 49 50

Slightly agree 5 16 11 13

Neutral 0 3 4 3

Slightly disagree 0 2 4 3

Moderately disagree 0 1 3 2

Strongly disagree 0 0 1 1

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief

and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index values indicate

higher levels of agreement.

Table 34—Values line officers think the Forest Service rewards most (Q 24-29)

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Values (n = 18) (n = 100) (n = 111) (n = 229) X2 p

 – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – –

Teamwork 78 59 53 58 1.686 0.430

FS loyalty 39 52 54 52 0.686 0.710

Meeting targets 33 57 50 52 1.821 0.402

Professional competency 66 52 46 50 1.436 0.488

Hard work 56 54 45 50 0.978 0.613

FS image 44 43 55 49 1.618 0.445

Consensus building 44 44 41 42 0.169 0.919

Responsiveness to

local publics 44 44 39 41 0.392 0.822

Following rules and

regulations 6 36 42 37 5.737 0.057

Care/concern for ecosystems 67 35 23 32 9.628 0.008

Budget accountability 17 27 32 29 1.540 0.463

Responsiveness to national

publics 28 33 23 28 2.099 0.350

Professional identity and

commitment 11 16 22 18 1.464 0.481

Health/safety 11 12 23 17 4.383 0.112

Women/minority involvement 11 12 21 16 2.785 0.249

Innovation/risk taking 6 6 14 10 3.426 0.180

Care for employees 11 8 7 8 0.305 0.859

Independence and individualism 0 7 5 6 NA

Concern for future generations 22 3 5 5 10.979 0.004

Care for one’s family 6 0 1 1 NA

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private

Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district

rangers.

NA = No observations in one or more groups.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

49

Table 35—Values line officers think the Forest Service rewards least (Q 30-35)

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Values (n = 18) (n = 100) (n = 111) (n = 229) X2 p

 – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – –

Innovation/risk taking 83 70 64 68 0.9446 0.6236

Independence and

individualism 67 70 56 63 1.7171 0.4238

Concern for future generations 44 59 60 59 0.6776 0.7126

Care for one’s family 56 56 59 58 0.1242 0.9398

Care for employees 56 57 44 51 1.8081 0.4049

Women/minority involvement 39 42 34 38 0.8386 0.6575

Professional identity and

commitment 33 37 25 31 2.3857 0.3034

Budget accountability 11 28 34 30 2.9608 0.2275

Health/safety 22 37 17 26 8.0538 0.0178

Care/concern for ecosystems 6 17 30 22 6.2795 0.0433

Meeting targets 44 9 28 21 14.1334 0.0009

Hard work 0 13 31 21 NA

Following rules and regulations 56 12 16 17 16.7616 0.0002

FS image 22 18 14 17 0.7803 0.6769

Responsiveness to local publics 17 11 21 16 3.0805 0.2143

Professional competency 11 10 19 14 3.0522 0.2174

Responsiveness to national

publics 11 18 10 14 2.6277 0.2688

FS loyalty 6 12 14 12 0.8098 0.6671

Consensus building 17 10 13 12 0.6988 0.7051

Teamwork 0 14 11 11 NA

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and

Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors,

and DRs–district rangers.

NA = No observations in one or more groups.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

50

Table 36—Values line officers think the Forest Service should reward (Q 36-41)

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Values (n = 18) (n = 100) (n = 111) (n = 229) X2 p

 – – – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – – –

Care/concern for ecosystems 78 79 74 76 0.185 0.912

Professional competency 89 66 70 70 1.149 0.563

Consensus building 44 58 46 51 1.664 0.435

Care for employees 56 47 50 49 0.247 0.884

Responsiveness to local publics 50 45 46 46 0.084 0.959

Concern for future generations 39 49 41 45 0.814 0.666

Innovation/risk taking 0 31 50 38 NA

Teamwork 50 38 32 36 1.713 0.425

Health/safety 28 34 35 34 0.246 0.884

FS image 22 26 26 26 0.095 0.953

Meeting targets 44 24 23 25 3.047 0.218

Budget accountability 39 24 21 24 2.181 0.336

Hard work 17 17 22 19 0.651 0.722

Responsiveness to national

publics 22 15 14 15 0.794 0.672

Professional identity and

commitment 0 9 16 12 NA

Care for one’s family 0 13 11 11 NA

FS loyalty 6 9 10 9 0.326 0.850

Women/minority involvement 17 9 6 8 2.109 0.348

Following rules and regulations 0 6 6 6 NA

Independence and individualism 0 1 2 1 NA 

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State and Private

Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district

rangers.

NA = No observations in one or more groups.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

51

Table 37—Values I cherish and prize and values the Forest

Service rewards (Q 42) and discomfort or stress caused by

differences (Q 43)

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

(n = 18) (n = 100) (n = 111) (n = 229)

Percent

Q 42

Very often conflict 0 1 2 1

Often conflict 6 8 11 9

Sometimes conflict 39 61 66 62

Seldom conflict 56 29 21 27

Never conflict 0 1 0 1

Q 43

Very great stress 0 1 1 1

Great stress 6 6 5 6

Moderate stress 39 34 33 34

Little stress 50 51 57 53

No stress 5 8 4 6

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district

rangers.

Table 38—What major uses or outputs (average) are valued on National

Forest System lands? (Q 44-52)

Line

officers’

Public view FS view views

Resource values (n = 229) (n = 229) (n = 229) F-value p

Rank (1 = lowest, 10 = highest)

Q 48 Water 7.8 7.5 8.8

Q 50 Fuel risk management 7.1 8.7 8.6

Q 46 Recreation 9.2 6.3 8.5

Q 49 Vegetation management 5.3 7.9 8.3

Q 47 Wildlife 8.5 6.8 8.0

Q 51 Biodiversity 5.9 6.7 7.7

Q 52 Landscape beauty 8.5 6.4 7.7

Q 44 Timber 4.3 7.2 6.1

Q 45 Grazing 3.4 6.0 4.9

Average value 6.7 7.0 7.6 62.32 <0.0001
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

52

Table 39—Overall, my work unit(s) tends to take this perspective in

month-to-month thinking and, especially, management action (Q 53)

Values RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

(n = 13) (n = 100) (n = 105) (n = 218)

Percent

Production target all the time 0 1 1 1

Production target most of the time 23 14 27 21

About half and half 46 38 35 37

Sustainable ecosystem most of the time 31 41 28 34

Sustainable ecosystem all of the time 0 6 9 7

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and

State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–

forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

Table 40—How has the Forest Service’s engagement in collaborative

resource management changed since 1990, how important is Forest

Service engagement in collaborative resource management to achieving

the agency’s mission, and to what extent are employees who engage in

collaborative resource management rewarded (respect, status, promotion)

for the time and commitment required of such activities and processes?

(Q 54, Q 55, Q 56)

 Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

(n = 18) (n = 100) (n = 111) (n = 229)

Percent

Q 54

Increased 94 90 70 81

Same 6 9 27 17

Decreased 0 1 3 2

Q 55 (10 = extremely important, 1 = unimportant)

10 56 41 32 38

9 11 19 16 17

8 33 19 25 23

7 0 12 18 14

6 or less 0 9 9 8

Q 56

Not rewarded 5 7 19 13

Moderately 56 87 75 79

Highly rewarded 39 6 6 8

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and

State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–

forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

53

Table 41—Since 1990, relations between the Forest Service and local

communities and stakeholder groups have: (Q 57)

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Scale n = 18 n = 100 n = 111 n = 229 X2 p

– – – – – – – – – Percent – – – – – – – – –

Improved 28 54 51 51 4.461 0.347

Stayed the same 33 24 26 25

Decreased 39 22 23 24

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and

State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–

forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

Table 42—From your perspective, how has the Forest Service importance or relevancy

changed in the past decade to the following? (Q 58-63)

Change in relevancy replies

No Never

Communities longer Less More Highly was

or group relevant relevant Same relevant relevant relevant

Percent

Local resource-based communities 2 45 13 17 23 0

Urban communities 2 17 24 40 14 3

School/education 2 31 38 22 6 1

Timber industry 7 72 8 7 6 0

Recreational interests 0 0 9 45 46 0

Environmental/conservation groups 0 6 24 31 38 1

Table 43—Process gridlock is detrimental to effectively

accomplishing the Forest Service mission and goal (Q 64)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly disagree 0 1 0 0

Moderately disagree 0 2 4 3

Slightly disagree 0 2 1 1

Neutral 0 1 2 1

Slightly agree 6 10 6 8

Moderately agree 28 26 17 22

Strongly agree 66 58 70 65

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

54

Table 44—The Forest Service should actively promote,

develop, and implement innovative ideas that support

streamlining procedures and processes (Q 65)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly disagree 0 0 1 0

Moderately disagree 0 0 0 0

Slightly disagree 0 1 0 0

Neutral 0 0 0 0

Slightly agree 6 4 4 4

Moderately agree 11 19 16 17

Strongly agree 83 76 79 78

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

Table 45—I am aware of the current actions across the

Agency that support streamlining procedures and processes (Q 66)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly disagree 0 0 0 0

Moderately disagree 0 1 1 1

Slightly disagree 0 0 2 1

Neutral 0 1 2 1

Slightly agree 22 5 16 12

Moderately agree 33 42 54 47

Strongly agree 44 51 25 38

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

55

Table 46—The Forest Service has made significant

progress to reduce gridlock within the Agency (Q 67)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly disagree 0 5 5 4

Moderately disagree 0 11 7 8

Slightly disagree 0 13 16 14

Neutral 6 1 7 4

Slightly agree 39 38 50 44

Moderately agree 56 27 13 22

Strongly agree 0 5 3 3

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

Table 47—Do you identify with a particular profession in

the Forest Service? (Q 68)

Professions RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Forester 28 35 31 32

Range manager 0 3 10 6

Biologist 6 12 16 14

Recreation manager 11 6 10 8

Engineer 0 2 1 1

Hydrologist 0 4 1 2

Soil scientist 0 1 0 0

Planner 0 3 5 3

None 6 20 9 14

Other 50 14 18 19

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

56

Table 48—The strength of my commitment to stay involved in this professional area for most of my career

(next 10 to 20 years) (Q 69)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Extremely strong 39 20 19 21

Very strong 22 22 35 28

Strong 33 30 28 29

Weak 0 18 5 10

Very weak 0 2 0 1

Extremely weak 0 1 2 1

No commitment 6 7 11 9

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers

Table 49—If you could turn back the clock, would you

choose this same professional area again? (Q 70)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Yes 83 75 78 77

No 11 12 8 10

Undecided 6 13 14 13

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

Table 50—The strength of my commitment to stay in the

Forest Service for the next 10 to 20 years (or until retirement) is: (Q 71)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Extremely strong 50 55 57 55

Very strong 11 31 23 25

Strong 28 8 14 12

Weak 0 2 2 2

Very weak 0 1 3 2

Extremely weak 6 0 0 0

No commitment 6 3 3 3

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

57

Table 51—If you could turn back the clock, would you

choose to work for the Forest Service again? (Q 72)

Choices RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Yes 94 85 86 86

No 6 4 5 4

Undecided 0 11 10 10

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

Table 52—How optimistic or pessimistic are you about the

Forest Service continuing to “care for the land and serve

people” in the next 20 years? (Q 73)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Very optimistic 44 30 21 27

Optimistic 50 52 51 52

Neutral 0 11 15 12

Pessimistic 6 6 10 8

Very pessimistic 0 1 3 2

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

Table 53—How optimistic or pessimistic are you about the

Forest Service being a satisfying and rewarding place for

someone like you to work in the next 20 years? (Q 74)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Very optimistic 22 15 9 13

Optimistic 61 52 44 49

Neutral 6 16 24 19

Pessimistic 11 13 22 17

Very pessimistic 0 4 1 2

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

58

Table 54—We are approaching the limit of the number of

people the Earth can support (Q 75)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 22 25 27 26

Mildly agree 39 35 29 32

Unsure 0 17 15 15

Mildly disagree 33 14 21 19

Strongly disagree 6 9 8 8

Agreement indexa 2.611 2.470 2.538 2.516

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.

See Appendix 4 for a discussion of the specific results for the New Environmental

Paradigm Scale (Q 75-87).

Table 55—Humans have the right to modify the natural

environment to suit their needs (Q 76)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 28 10 14 13

Mildly agree 50 62 46 53

Unsure 0 5 3 3

Mildly disagree 22 20 30 25

Strongly disagree 0 3 8 5

Agreement Indexa 2.167 2.440 2.729 2.559

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

59

Table 56—When humans interfere with nature it often

produces disastrous consequences (Q 77)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 11 6 21 14

Mildly agree 50 42 34 39

Unsure 6 8 5 7

Mildly disagree 28 36 33 34

Strongly disagree 6 8 6 7

Agreement indexa 2.667 2.980 2.700 2.821

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.

Table 57—Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not

make the Earth unlivable (Q 78)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 39 11 11 13

Mildly agree 28 38 32 34

Unsure 17 26 16 21

Mildly disagree 11 19 32 25

Strongly disagree 6 6 9 7

Agreement indexa 2.167 2.710 2.970 2.794

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

60

Table 58—Humans are severely abusing the environment

(Q 79)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 11 12 23 17

Mildly agree 44 49 41 45

Unsure 0 7 3 4

Mildly disagree 44 24 28 28

Strongly disagree 0 8 6 7

Agreement indexa 2.778 2.670 2.547 2.620

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.

Table 59—The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we

just learn how to develop them (Q 80)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 6 7 4 5

Mildly agree 39 30 31 31

Unsure 11 13 13 13

Mildly disagree 39 37 37 37

Strongly disagree 6 13 16 14

Agreement indexa 3.000 3.190 3.312 3.236

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

61

Table 60—Plants and animals have as much right as

humans to exist (Q 81)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 22 19 30 24

Mildly agree 28 43 28 35

Unsure 6 5 5 5

Mildly disagree 33 22 27 25

Strongly disagree 11 11 11 11

Agreement indexa 2.833 2.630 2.610 2.638

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.

Table 61—The balance of nature is strong enough to cope

with the impacts of modern industrial nations (Q 82)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 0 2 1 1

Mildly agree 11 16 15 15

Unsure 11 17 7 12

Mildly disagree 50 41 47 45

Strongly disagree 28 24 30 27

Agreement indexa 3.945 3.690 3.892 3.808

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

62

Table 62—Despite our special abilities, humans are still

subject to the laws of nature (Q 83)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 44 60 62 60

Mildly agree 44 35 35 36

Unsure 6 3 2 3

Mildly disagree 0 1 1 1

Strongly disagree 6 1 0 1

Agreement indexa 1.778 1.480 1.414 1.471

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.

Table 63—The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated (Q 84)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 6 11 8 9

Mildly agree 39 32 39 36

Unsure 6 7 11 9

Mildly disagree 33 35 24 30

Strongly disagree 17 15 18 17

Agreement indexa 3.167 3.110 3.051 3.087

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

63

Table 64—The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited

room and resources (Q 85)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 33 20 30 26

Mildly agree 44 52 42 47

Unsure 0 5 5 4

Mildly disagree 17 17 21 19

Strongly disagree 6 6 3 4

Agreement indexa 2.167 2.370 2.241 2.293

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.

Table 65—Humans were meant to rule over the rest of

nature (Q 86)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strong agree 11 13 7 10

Mildly agree 22 15 29 22

Unsure 6 8 9 8

Mildly disagree 50 35 28 33

Strong disagree 11 29 27 27

Agreement indexa 3.278 3.520 3.384 3.437

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

64

Table 66—The balance of nature is very delicate and

easily upset (Q 87)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 0 10 8 8

Mildly agree 33 31 31 31

Unsure 6 8 5 7

Mildly disagree 50 45 48 47

Strongly disagree 11 6 8 7

Agreement indexa 3.389 3.060 3.172 3.139

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.

Table 67—Humans will eventually learn enough about how

nature works to be able to control it (Q 88)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 11 1 1 2

Mildly agree 22 8 4 7

Unsure 0 8 10 8

Mildly disagree 39 45 54 49

Strongly disagree 28 38 32 34

Agreement indexa 3.500 4.110 4.117 4.066

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

65

Table 68—If things continue on their present course, we

will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe (Q 89)

Scale RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Percent

Strongly agree 6 5 9 7

Mildly agree 22 27 28 27

Unsure 6 24 18 20

Mildly disagree 56 33 27 32

Strongly disagree 11 11 18 14

Agreement indexa 3.445 3.180 3.172 2.797

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of

Tropical Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy

chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–

district rangers.

a

 Agreement index is computed as the average of the ratings. Smaller index

values indicate higher levels of agreement.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

66

Appendix 3—Sunbird Responses (1989), Data 

Recalculated to Match Arbird (2004) Survey

The original data collected from the 1989 Sunbird survey were recompiled following the group definitions for line officers used for the 2004 Arbird data. The

primary differences were changes in the number of associates and deputies and

dropping the respondents who were in staff positions (from the Sunbird data).

Table 69—Sunbird survey sample and responses

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Population (number) 17 121 182 320

Sampled (percentage) 100 100 28.6

Returned (number) 11 106 139 256

Return rate (percentage) 65 88 76 80

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical

Forestry and State and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief

and Chief, SUPEs–forest supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

Table 70—Age, gender, ethnicity, education, profession of survey participants

(Q 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10)

RF&Cs SUPEs DRs Total

Characteristics (n = 11) (n = 106) (n = 139) (n = 256)

Age (mean years) 47.5 50.3 42.9 46

Gender (percentage men) 100 95 73 83

Ethnicity (percentage white) 100 96 97 97

Education (percentage

master’s or more) 45 24 30 28

Joined FS young

(percentage joining at 19-25 yrs) 91 74 66 70

Grew up on farm or ranch

(percentage) 36 20 12 16

Initial professional identity

 (percentage)

Forester 73 52 43 48

Biologist 0 2 6 4

Recreation manager 0 4 12 8

Range manager 9 8 7 7

Planner 0 6 3 4

Soil/hydrologist 0 1 2 1

Engineer 0 1 0 1

Note: RF&Cs–Regional foresters, directors of the International Institute of Tropical Forestry and State

and Private Forestry Northeastern Area, deputy chiefs, Associate Chief and Chief, SUPEs–forest

supervisors, and DRs–district rangers.

a

 Professional identity when first hired.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

67

Table 71—What major uses and other outputs (average) are valued on National Forest System lands?

(n = 256) (Q 44-48)

Line

officers’

Resource use Public view FS view views

Rank (1 = lowest, 10 = highest)

Q 44 Timber 4.9 9.1 6.6

Q 45 Grazing 2.9 6.6 4.5

Q 46 Recreation 9.0 6.7 8.3

Q 47 Wildlife 8.8 6.6 8.1

Q 48 Water 7.6 6.3 8.5

Average value 6.6 7.1 7.2
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

68

Table 72—Values line officers think the Forest Service rewards most, least, and should be rewarded (n = 256) (Q 24-41)

Most rewarded Least rewarded Should be rewarded

Values/attitudes Percent Values/attitudes Percent Values/attitudes Percent

FS loyalty 74 Care for one’s family 80 Care/concern for ecosystems 77Meeting targets 72 Independence and individualism 64 Professional competency 64FS image 56 Concern for future generations 57 Care for employees 56Teamwork 52 Care for employees 57 Concern for future generations 54Professional competency 49 Innovation/risk taking 53 Innovation/risk taking 54Following rules and regulations 46 Care/concern for ecosystems 42 Consensus builder 53Hard work 46 Health/safety 32 Teamwork 34Budget accountability 31 Hard work 26 Responsiveness to local publics 32Women/minority involvement 29 Women/minority involvement 25 FS image 25Responsiveness to local publics 27 Professional identity and commitment 25 Women/minority involvement 20Consensus building 27 Budget accountability 21 FS loyalty 20Responsiveness to national publics 21 Responsiveness to local publics 20 Hard work 17Innovation/risk taking 16 Consensus building 18 Responsive to national publics 17Professional identity and Professional identity and

commitment 16 Professional competency 16 commitment 14

Care/concern for ecosystems 7 Responsiveness to national publics 15 Budget accountability 13Independence and individualism 7 Following rules and regulations 11 Meeting targets 12Health/safety 6 FS loyalty 9 Care for one’s family 12Care for employees 6 Meeting targets 9 Health/safety 11Concern for future generations 4 FS image 7 Independence and individualism 8Care for one’s family 0 Teamwork 7 Following rules and regulations 5
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

69

Appendix 4—New Environmental Paradigm Scale

Details

In the last quarter of the 20th century, the emergence of specific environmental

issues as well as concerns about broad-scale environmental conditions as policy

issues has focused attempts to measure public environmental concerns. Often this

relation between society and the natural environment is seen in stark black-andwhite terms. One group views technological development and economic growth as

being antithetical to environmental preservation, whereas other groups see continued economic development as offering the best option for escaping from the

world’s ecological crisis. Such views, and their expression in U.S. democratic and

legal processes, provide some of the context for land management decisions. Other

parts of the context are tied to converging developments in forest science and

management and to trends in society, technology, and politics.

Underlying these contextual changes are changes in societal views about the

human relationship to Earth ecosystems. These changes have focused attempts to

measure public environmental concerns. One such way has been the new environmental paradigm (NEP) developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978) to measure

ecological worldviews, focusing on beliefs about limits to growth for human

societies, humanity’s right to rule over the rest of nature (expressed in terms of

antianthropocentrism), and humanity’s ability to upset the balance of nature.

Dunlap et al. (2000) updated the NEP and broadened the scale’s content by adding

categories for “human exceptionalism” (the idea that humans are exempt from the

constraints of nature) and the possibility of an “ecocrisis” (the likelihood of

potentially catastrophic environmental changes). The NEP scale has been used for

over two decades in measuring environmental attitudes in the United States and

Europe.

We added the 15 NEP items to the Arbird survey, “agree-disagree” questions

and offered five statements to describe the strength of respondents’ agreement or

disagreement with each of the following statements:

1. We are approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can support.

2. Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs.

3. When humans interfere with nature, it often produces disastrous consequences.

4. Human ingenuity will ensure that we do not make the Earth unlivable.

5. Humans are severely abusing the environment.

6. The Earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop

them.
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

70

7. Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.

8. The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern

industrial nations.

9. Despite our special abilities, humans are still subject to the laws of nature.

10. The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly

exaggerated.

11. The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room and resources.

12. Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.

13. The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset.

14. Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to

control it.

15. If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major

ecological catastrophe.

These 15 questions are aggregated into five broad groups (see table 73): limits

to growth (1, 6, 11); antianthropocentrism (2, 7, 12); balance of nature (3, 8, 13);

human exemptionalism (4, 9, 14); and ecocrisis (5, 10, 15). The aggregated responses indicate the extent to which a sampled group shares a proecological

worldview. The questions are designed so that agreement or disagreement with

them indicates a proecological worldview.

Results in table 73 indicate a “balanced” ecological world view, with 48

percent anti- and 42 percent proenvironment, and 9 percent unsure. There was no

difference among the three groups of line officers, but some among sets of questions.1

 For example, there is agreement that limits to growth do exist. There are

also significant differences in how the two genders (see table 74) answered the

questions indicating limits to growth, antianthropocentrism, and human

exemptionalism. Women generally accept that there are limits to growth, and they

also disagree with men about the extent human needs preempt nature. Another way

of saying this is that men tend to be more antianthropocentric than do women

working for the Forest Service. These results are similar to other studies finding

that women report stronger environmental attitudes than do men (e.g., Taylor 2002

and Zelezny et al. 2000).

1

 The extent that Forest Service leadership NEP values reflect those of Forest Service

employees is unclear. A sample of Forest Service social scientists suggests that this might be

the case for worldviews on limits to growth and ecological catastrophe, but it is mixed on

worldviews about humanity’s ability to upset the balance of nature, human domination over

nature, and the extent humans are exempt from the constraints of nature.
Line Officers’ Views on Stated USDA Forest Service Values...

71

Finally, there are only a few possible comparisons that can be made of this

group of individuals with other groups in the U.S. population. One comparison is

with a study of Washington state residents as shown in table 75 (and reported in

Dunlap et al. 2000). The results suggest differences between the general population and the group of people first selecting to work in land management and

second, choosing to be a line officer. Line officers tend to see slightly fewer limitations, more opportunities for greater balance, and less chance of an ecological

catastrophe.

Table 73—New ecological paradigm scales

Groups Agree Disagree Unsure

Percent

Limits to growth 55.6 33.8 10.6

Antianthropocentrism 52.6 41.9 5.5

Balance of nature 36.1 55.6 8.3

Human exemptionalism 50.5 39.0 10.5

Ecocrisis 46.9 42.2 10.9

Table 74—New ecological paradigm scales by gender

Women (n = 79) Men (n = 150)

Groups Agree Disagree Unsure Agree Disagree Unsure

Percent

Limits to growth 64.6 28.3 7.2 50.9 36.7 12.4

Antianthropocentrism 46.4 45.2 8.4 55.8 40.2 4.0

Balance of nature 37.6 51.9 10.6 35.3 57.6 7.1

Human exemptionalism 47.7 44.3 8.0 52.0 36.2 11.8

Ecocrisis 48.1 42.6 9.3 46.2 42.0 11.8
GENERAL TECHNICAL REPORT PNW-GTR-632

72

Table 75—Trends in responses to selected new ecological paradigm items by

selected groups

Washington

NEP items state residentsa Arbird

 Percent

Ecological limits:

We are approaching the limit of the number of people

the Earth can support (agree) 67 58

The Earth is like a spaceship with very limited room

and resources (agree) 80 72

Balance of nature:

When humans interfere with nature, it often produces

disastrous consequences (agree) 86 52

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset (agree) 84 39

Human domination:

Humans have the right to modify the natural environment

to suit their needs (disagree) 64 66

Ecological catastrophe:

Humans are severely abusing the environment (agree) 89 62

The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has

been greatly exaggerated (disagree) 75 45

If things continue on their present course, we will soon

experience a major ecological catastrophe (agree) 78 34

a

 Results reported in Dunlap et al. (2000).
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.

.
This page has been left blank intentionally.

Document continues on next page.

.
Pacific Northwest Research Station

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

Telephone (503) 808-2592

Publication requests (503) 808-2138

FAX (503) 808-2130

E-mail pnw_pnwpubs@fs.fed.us

Mailing address Publications Distribution

Pacific Northwest Research Station

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Pacific Northwest Research Station

333 S.W. First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300