New Approaches to Forest 

Planning: Inventorying and 

Mapping Place Values in the 

Pacific Northwest Region

Troy E. Hall, Jennifer O. Farnum, Terry C. Slider, and 

Kathy Ludlow1

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Pacific Northwest 

Research Station

Research Note

PNW-RN-562

August 2009

1 Troy E. Hall is an associate professor, College of Natural Resources, University of Idaho, 

P.O. Box 441139, Moscow, ID 83844-1139. Jennifer O. Farnum was a research social 

scientist, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, 400 N 34th St. Suite 201, Seattle, WA 

98103. Terry C. Slider is a regional landscape architect, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 333 SW 1st Ave., Portland, OR 97204. Kathy 

Ludlow is a regional landscape architect (retired), Pacific Northwest Region, 3951 NE 20th

Ave., Portland, OR 97212.

Abstract

This report chronicles a large-scale effort to map place values across the Pacific 

Northwest Region (Washington and Oregon) of the U.S. Forest Service. Through 

workshops held with Forest Service staff, 485 socioculturally meaningful places 

were identified. Staff also generated corresponding descriptions of the places’ 

unique social and biophysical elements—in other words, “niche” qualities and 

“niche” statements that reflected people’s values. These places and their niches 

were then mapped using geographic information systems technology. Niche 

information was supplemented with additional existing data such as National 

Visitor Use Monitoring, National Survey of Recreation and the Environment, U.S. 

and Canadian census data, and other relevant social and economic information. 

Current and potential applications of this information-gathering technique are 

discussed, including its uses in forest planning at regional and niche-based levels. 

Keywords: Geographic information systems mapping, niche planning, Pacific 

Northwest, place attachment, place meanings, regional planning, social values.
2

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

Rationale for the Pacific Northwest Region 

Place Mapping Process

Historically, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USFS) and other 

land management agencies have not maintained a systematic procedure for capturing place meanings and attachments or for incorporating them into planning, 

analysis, and decisionmaking. The process described in this report is a method for 

capturing such social information, detailing the approach used in the USFS Pacific 

Northwest Region (Region 6, Washington and Oregon) to capture and account for 

public values. Unlike traditional social planning tools that assume substitutability 

of place (e.g., Recreation Opportunity Spectrum [ROS] or the Scenery Management 

System [SMS]), the rationale used in this approach is consistent with ecosystem 

management concepts such as vision, desired condition, and niche. 

A variety of factors contributed to the need for and development of an approach 

to public lands planning that systematically and scientifically incorporates people’s 

attachments to landscapes. For example, within recent years many people in the 

management and scientific communities have called for more recognition of public 

values, attitudes, and connections to specific landscapes. Similarly, there has been 

increasing acknowledgment that the public engages with and is attached to socially 

meaningful places, not to abstract management units (Brandenburg and Carroll 

1995, Bricker and Kerstetter 2002, Williams et al. 1992, Williams and Stewart 

1998), and that places are valued for far more than their uses and commodities 

(Lewis 1994; Schroeder 1996, 2002). Recognizing this, Region 6 planners wanted 

to go beyond simply categorizing “types” of lands, as is frequently done in management scenarios (e.g., applications of ROS), and understand deeper, place-specific 

attachments that people hold for landscapes.

Although methods for eliciting individuals’ descriptions of special places 

and landscape values have been developed in many localized case studies (e.g., 

Brown et al. 2002, Eisenhauer et al. 2000, Farnum and Kruger 2008, Williams 

and Vaske 2003, Yung et al. 2003), a major challenge in forest planning has been 

uniting this type of social information with biophysical information. Region 6 

planners envisioned geographic information systems (GIS) as a mechanism that 

could be used to overcome this challenge; by using a GIS-based system, social 

information could be presented alongside many types of biophysical information 

(e.g., vegetation data) that dominantly use visual depictions in the form of maps 

of existing conditions or plan alternatives. Because of the sophistication and 

availability of biophysical resource data, such information has tended to drive 

management decisions, with social information often being overlooked (Kent and 

Preister 1999). Thus, substantial effort was put into the process of place mapping 
3

New Approaches to Forest Planning: Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region

with the intention of elevating the importance, relevance, and accessibility of 

social data.

Another impetus for this project was policy direction within the USFS to adopt 

a “niche” perspective in planning endeavors such as Recreation Facility Analysis 

(RFA) and forest plan revision. Policymakers at the USFS have recognized that the 

agency cannot provide “all things for all people” on every national forest. To do so 

might mean that recreation opportunities are provided where there is no existing or 

future demand, or that certain types of facilities or activities may not complement a 

national forest or local community’s sense of place. Incorporating an understanding 

of localized and contextual place meanings with analysis of social and economic 

trends creates a systematic, defensible approach to defining an area’s recreation 

niche. When social and economic information is integrated with data from other 

resource areas (e.g., wildlife), a description of desired future conditions for public 

lands can be developed. This involves identifying the unique role played by different places, constructing a vision for the future, and assessing the barriers that stand 

in the way of realizing that vision.

The process described in this report was intended to serve several purposes. 

In particular, it was developed to help Region 6 with the following tasks:

• Forest plan revision. As the national forests go through the process of 

revising their land and resource management plans, they need to consider 

sociocultural values within their specific forests and across the region. The 

regional-scale analysis described in this summary provides a social assessment of setting, activity, and experience meanings across Oregon and 

Washington, giving forests a springboard for better understanding their 

recreation roles and niches.

• Recreation facility analysis. In the national facility master planning 

process currently underway across Region 6, planners must identify 

which facilities to construct, maintain, or decommission. The place-based 

mapping process described here provides spatially explicit criteria for 

making such judgments.

• Travel management—off highway vehicles (OHV). Unmanaged recreation, (specifically OHV use) has been identified by the USFS former Chief, 

Dale Bosworth, as one of the four major threats to forest health; as such, 

trying to develop better management strategies is a key goal for areas in 

which OHV use is present. The process detailed in this report can assist in 

developing those strategies by providing a broad-scale contextual overview 

to evaluate existing sociogeographic information and to formulate alternatives for National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) evaluation. Spatial 
4

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

plotting techniques such as those implemented in this project can identify 

public values, information that can then be integrated with other resource 

data to assist in determining specific land use allocations. 

• Day-to-day management. Identifying and prioritizing key values, themes, 

and features can aid in providing a framework for routine decisionmaking 

on individual management units. This understanding assists in budgeting 

and evaluation of proposed actions. Place information also clarifies management strategies and desired conditions, directing day-to-day management through the lens of long-term goals.

Place-Based Planning Workshops

Participants

To gather place-specific information about the region, staff from the regional office 

conducted workshops with all the national forests in Oregon and Washington during 

the winter, spring, and summer of 2004. Under the guidance of facilitators from the 

regional office, 18 meetings were held with a total of 154 participants; depending on 

staff availability and interest, some forests held multiple meetings and others held 

only one meeting. Workshops involved forest-level and district-level employees, and 

were attended primarily by staff with a direct knowledge of the landscape and the 

people who use it. Approximately 75 percent of workshop participants were recreation field technicians; the remainder of participants consisted of other resource 

specialists and managers. Although the workshop invitations specifically requested 

the participation of those knowledgeable about public values, no one was excluded 

and all who attended were permitted to participate. 

Goals and Objectives

Geographers recognize that symbolic or practical place boundaries often do not 

align with political boundaries (Kent and Preister 1999). Thus, the primary goal of 

the workshops was to generate geographic boundaries for socioculturally meaningful “places” by gaining a basic understanding of values and meanings associated 

with landscapes. 

In addition to creating geographic place boundaries, planners also wanted to 

gather information about each place’s sociocultural and biophysical attributes. They 

aimed to develop descriptions of salient place values, meanings, and characteristics, 

as well as gather information about the USFS’s perceptions of the public’s management concerns. In this way, all descriptive information generated (e.g., attributes 

and management concerns) could be attached to places on the ground, permitting 

analysts to spatially represent these variables across the region. This information 
5

New Approaches to Forest Planning: Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region

could then be overlain with other types of data—e.g., census data, habitat conditions, or political boundaries—that could reveal areas of special concern or interest. 

From the beginning, the regional office’s expectation was that they would 

supply a starting point for place-based work, and that individual forests (e.g., at 

district and project levels) would refine place understandings by involving more 

participants and stakeholders. Thus, the process initiated by Region 6 was viewed 

as a first step in uncovering and locating place meanings and values.

Workshop Activities

At the beginning of each workshop, facilitators (i.e., Region 6 staff) presented 

workshop participants with a large map of the local national forest and the 

immediate surrounding vicinity. To begin developing place boundaries, they 

invited participants to consider public perspectives about the entire area shown, 

disregarding political and ownership boundaries unless those corresponded to 

publicly meaningful sociocultural boundaries. Participants were asked, for the 

landscape as a whole, to identify places with different value sets, areas that could 

be considered distinct places. 

Initially, workshop protocol and activities were somewhat flexible, emerging 

based on the interactions that occurred during the course of the meetings; questions varied from focusing on what people liked about the area, to what impression 

they had of different places, to the things that people thought were important about 

specific areas. Examples of questions included, “Based on your observations, what 

do you think the public values?” “What niche does this place fill?” “What has 

meaning for people in regard to recreation?” “Where are these places located?” 

“Why are these places special or unique?” “Why do people come here?” Participants were given markers and encouraged to circle areas on the map that reflected 

their responses to the above questions (figure 1). 

Typically, participant-generated maps included a large number of highly specific places—too many to be meaningful within a regional context. Therefore, the 

next step was to conflate boundaries and combine individual responses to generate 

a composite map with a smaller number of areas. To do this, the group worked as a 

whole to identify any “common threads” across the areas. Facilitators told groups 

that, based on work conducted in similar scenarios, producing 18 to 24 places had 

proven to be most workable for the expanse of land covered.2

 The result was that 

2 The idea of grouping smaller meaningful units within larger units is consistent with 

procedures used by others to group small “human resource units” (HRUs) within larger 

“social resource units” (SRUs) (Kent and Preister 1999). Whereas HRU boundaries are 

often independent of topographical or political boundaries, SRUs typically coincide with 

geographical features.
6

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

Figure 1—Participants working on place mapping activity. 

Terry C. Slider,

Figure 2—The 465 working polygons in Region 6.

Graphic courtesy of GeoSpatial Services, Region 6, USDA Forest Service

conflated area boundaries sometimes followed landscape features, whereas other 

boundaries were based on sociocultural factors. The entire map area was divided 

into discrete areas so that no spaces were left undescribed. Areas that had been 

identified by workshop participants as distinct places were referred to as working 

polygons. Across the entire region, 465 polygons were generated (fig. 2).
7

New Approaches to Forest Planning: Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region

Following the mapping exercise, facilitators divided people into teams to 

work on developing geographic place inventories (table 1). Teams began by listing geographic attributes that characterized the essence of the area, including 

salient landforms, fauna and flora, and bodies of water. Participants then noted 

the types of recreational activities that were most important in the area as well as 

any significant community events (e.g., festivals) that were valued by locals. The 

worksheet also provided the opportunity for teams to capture the place’s culture, 

community, economy, and polity. These categories were developed with guidance 

from ecological and sociological impact assessments (e.g., Lewis 1994, 1999). 

Specifically, culture was presented as an extension of local and regional identity, 

including religion, family, and values orientation. Community was used to refer 

to shared social solidarity, reflecting elements of civic engagement, organizations 

and institutions, patterns of social relations, and degree of social integration. Polity

encompassed public infrastructure and support services as well as government. 

Economy represented institutions for production of goods and services as well as 

types of enterprises and employment. 

After the worksheets were completed, the facilitators developed polygonspecific (i.e., place-specific) niche statements for each polygon by assessing the 

information captured on the geographic place inventories and the sentiments that 

had been expressed at the workshops. Niche statements were intended to capture 

the values and meanings associated with the areas and the elements of the landscape 

that made it special or unique. For example, niche statements from the Deschutes 

National Forest workshop included:

• Lower Deschutes: Area with strong influence from sovereign nation with 

spiritual, cultural connections to place; dispersed recreation emphasis; full 

spectrum of ecosystems from high alpine to desert settings.

• Fossil Beds: Open, arid, sage, juniper, high desert, dissected by steep, 

eroded John Day River drainage exposing unique geologic formation corridor. Modest ranches, small communities. Contains the Fossil Beds National 

Geologic Monument. Lands managed by the National Park Service, USFS, 

and Bureau of Land Management occupy this landscape.

• Crescent/LaPine: Lodgepole pine ecosystem; chosen independent lifestyle; 

historic town and mill at Gilcrest; primarily dispersed recreation; portal to 

Newberry National Volcanic Monument.
8

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

Table 1—Geographic place inventory, Cascade Wildernessa

Landscape descriptors:

Category Attributes (+) Deviations (-) Issues

Geographic

Landform:

 Cascade Mountains—

 Three Sisters, Three- 

 Fingered Jack, Mount 

 Washington

Volcanic snow-capped 

 peaks, central portion of 

 Cascade Mountain range, 

 predominant scenic feature

See Air/Viewscape, 

 active vents on South 

 Sister and potential of 

 flooding from Squaw 

 Creek

See Air/Viewscape, 

 How do communities 

 prepare for mountain 

 runoff and potential 

 catastrophic volcanic

 event?

 Fauna/Flora:

 High alpine 

 association

Healthy, resilient, 

 in balance

Spruce budworm at 

 low elevations.

Lynx habitat pressure 

 from recreation use.

How do we manage for 

 quality habitat, forest 

 health, safety of users, and 

 adjacent private property?

 Water:

 High Lakes Glacial, hundreds of scenic 

 small streams, lakes. 

400 inches of rain replenish-

 ing aquifer—see High

 Desert area places.

Physical impact from 

 high number of users.

Not enough water in 

 streams for fisheries 

 and agricultural needs.

How do we balance 

 social and biophysical 

 capacity issues?

How do we manage surface 

 and subsurface water 

 supply to meet people and 

 natural resource needs?

 Air:

 Air/Viewscape Predominant scenic 

 views of peaks

Smoked-in views 

 in summer.

How do we manage for 

 fuel/fire and maintain 

 scenic quality?

Sociologic

 Culture:

 Mountains Mountains are a spiritual/

 universal anchor. 

Native Americans feel 

 use on mountains is not 

 consistent with beliefs.

How do we manage for 

 recreation uses while 

 preserving cultural values?

 Transportation routes Driving, old wagon 

 roads, hiking (historical

 movement).

Expectation for wildness 

 in area of high use.

How do we balance 

 social and biophysical 

 carrying capacity?

 Community:

 Urban populations Easy access to area from 

 Bend, Redmond, Sisters, 

 LaPine, etc.

Easy access leads to 

 increased use.

How do we maintain 

 wilderness values 

 while meeting urban 

 recreation demands?

 Polity:

 FS administers 

 wilderness 

Outstandingly remarkable 

 values (ORVs) of 

 wilderness are 

 administered and 

 protected by FS.

See Community See Community
9

New Approaches to Forest Planning: Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region

Table 1—Geographic place inventory, Cascade Wilderness (continued)

Landscape descriptors:

Category Attributes (+) Deviations (-) Issues

 Economics:

 Eco-tourism Wilderness and mountain 

 scenery big draw for local 

 and regional urban areas.

High use conflicts with 

 wilderness values.

See Community

Expressions

 Activities:

 Developed recreation

 roads, trails and 

 trailhead facilities, 

 day use hiking, 

 climbing

Infrastructure is supporting 

 National Scenic Byways 

 and Pacific Crest Trail.

Easy access to wilderness 

 from nationally known 

 routes increases use.

See Community

 Dispersed recreation

 cross-country trails, 

 hiking, camping, 

 climbing

Solitude, wilderness 

 experience, and 

 self-discovery

High use How do we balance 

 social and biophysical 

 carrying capacity?

 Events:

 Traditional hiking 

 and climbing, 

 e.g., Boy Scouts,

 Mountaineers

Wilderness experience, 

 challenge, social 

 interaction

Number of people 

 using the area

See Community

a Niche: high alpine, volcanic peaks, urban backcountry—easy access to scenic areas, lakes. Solitude and healthy ecosystem.

Workshop Leadership Style 

Throughout the workshops—particularly the initial ones—leaders actively encouraged participant-driven discussion and activities. Because of this, the structure of 

workshops varied somewhat by location. This adaptive leadership style was adopted 

for two reasons. First, facilitators were simultaneously developing the workshop 

process and gathering useable data from the meetings. Facilitators wanted discussion to be determined—at least in part—by participants, not dictated by facilitator expectations. Thus, protocols were flexible, allowing attendees to voice their 

individual and collective opinions regarding the process. Second, workshop leaders 

recognized that conducting such a broad-scale place assessment effort would 

inevitably be an iterative process, particularly because it was the first attempt of 

its kind. Owing to these factors, it was difficult to predict the type of structure that 

ultimately emerged from the process, and which activities would be most successful in capturing relevant information. As leaders conducted more workshops and 

optimal group activities became apparent, greater structure was provided using the 

strategies that had proven most effective.
10

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

As a result of both the adoption of a participant-driven framework and adaptations that were made in the workshop approach (from less structured to more 

structured), some of forests that were first consulted in this process lacked information that had ultimately emerged as valuable. Some workshop groups had taken a 

more inclusive approach in delineating areas’ attributes and issues, whereas others 

seemed to focus exclusively on the area’s unique or valued qualities. Recognizing 

that different conclusions might be drawn depending on which of these approaches 

was adopted, leaders wanted to bring some level of refinement and validation to the 

information collected. To do so, telephone interviews were conducted with forest 

staff members who had been identified as being especially knowledgeable about 

the area and who had been engaged in the place-planning workshops. The goal of 

the staff interviews was to verify the accuracy of information obtained during the 

workshops and address any lingering questions that may have arisen. Standardized protocols were developed for the purposes of these interviews; interviewees 

were asked to identify three of the area’s most valued attributes (whether related to 

landscapes, culture, economy, etc.) and discuss them at length. In addition, popular 

recreational activities and social and cultural events were noted. Interviews became 

a process of cross-validation, looking at existing information and adding new information. In the end, the type of data gathered from each forest was fairly uniform 

and, at the same time, derived from an adaptive, participant-centered approach.

Managing the Data

Forest workshops were completed in 2004, and interviews completed by early 2005. 

Regional staff then had the responsibility of assembling, refining, and interpreting 

the information generated. The 485 unique places (i.e., working polygons) were 

mapped using an interactive, Oracle-based GIS system3 (see fig. 2). In a few cases, 

areas had identical social descriptors but different geographic locations. Therefore, 

they received the same label and niche statement but nonetheless referred to different places. Specifically, there were five polygons labeled “North Cascade Wilderness,” seven polygons labeled “Native American Reservations,” and five polygons 

labeled “Defense Department Lands.” Similarly, there were three types of highway 

descriptors that applied to highway corridor polygons. All other areas had unique 

titles and niche statements. 

In addition to the 465-unit working polygon map, a subregional map was also 

developed (fig. 3). This subregional map provided a broad-scale perspective of 

socially meaningful places, and was intended to aid in decisions that required a 

3 The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information and does not 

imply endorsement by the U.S. Department of Agriculture of any product or service.
11

New Approaches to Forest Planning: Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region

Figure 3—Subregional map representing amalgamated polygons. 

contextual perspective. The map contained 24 larger areas formed by grouping 

working polygons having common setting, cultural milieu, and symbolic identity. 

For each of the 24 areas, a description was written of the geographic and social 

attributes and place meanings. By consulting this subregional map, forests could 

quickly determine how key attributes of the local area are similar to or unique 

from other areas in the region. Also, looking at overlapping GIS layers highlighted 

the social complexity of issues in different places and spatial dependencies among 

activities, uses, and meanings.

Regional planners also undertook a process of content analysis to reduce the 

individual place descriptors provided on each geographic place inventory worksheet 

to a set of approximately 160 common categories. This information was entered 

into the GIS database to permit spatial representation of different themes. For 

example, polygon population density and character were classified as rural/isolated 

town, rural/small town, urban-wildland interface, gateway community, suburb, 

or urban area. Similarly, categories associated with economic base were timber, 

mining, ranching, agriculture, services, recreation/tourism, industry, transportation, 

retirement, and government. 

GeoSpatial Services, Region 6, USDA Forest Service
12

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

Supplementing Workshop Data

To provide more richness and context to the workshop data, other types of existing 

spatial data were added as supplemental GIS layers. Sources of such information included U.S. and Canadian censuses, USDA Economic Research Service, 

National Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM), National Survey on Recreation and the 

Environment (NSRE), Oregon and Washington Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor 

Recreation Plans (SCORP), as well as information available from various chambers 

of commerce, the American Automobile Association, market studies, retirement 

books, the National Association of Counties, the National Association of Realtors, 

and more. The addition of such information enriched and filled in existing data 

gaps, which were especially prevalent in private and sovereign land ownership. By 

adding these additional data into the GIS, relevant social and biophysical information could be used to inform the data gathered through the workshop process (fig. 4 

provides an example of querying retirement destination type and population).

Figure 4—Using geographic information systems to query retirement destination by type and 

population. 

GeoSpatial Services, Region 6, USDA Forest Service
13

New Approaches to Forest Planning: Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region

Using the 160 worksheet categories and the preexisting spatial data, analysts 

generated maps that displayed all polygons that shared a given quality or qualities; in the GIS program, areas that share such qualities “light up” across Region 

6. The GIS system also permitted the user to select a specific polygon, calling up 

all polygon-specific information including both the workshop-derived data and the 

supplementary information obtained through the censuses, NVUM, SCORP, etc. In 

this way, both macro-level (regional) and micro-level (polygon-based) information 

can be simultaneously compared and evaluated. 

Products Generated From the Process

Products other than the GIS tool have been developed as a result of the Region’s 

place-mapping efforts. For example, gap analyses, which assess deviations from 

desired conditions, were conducted for each of the 485 polygons. To carry out the 

analyses, a decision was made about whether identified recreational activities (e.g., 

OHV use, dispersed recreation, riparian recreation) were occurring in the polygon. 

If the answer was affirmative, attention was then turned to the general character of 

the experience associated with that activity within the polygon—specifically, the 

area’s setting and its environmental safety. Based on assessment of the activity, setting, and safety, a judgment was reached about whether the polygon was currently 

acceptable, unacceptable, or “at risk.” “At risk” polygons were those in which the 

biophysical setting was compromised or likely to become so, the quality of recreation experiences was poor, or environmental safety (e.g., OHV use in urban areas) 

was a concern. At-risk polygons were expected to generate unacceptable levels of 

conflict or resource impacts in the future and were flagged as important considerations in planning direction and policy. Like the workshop mapping exercise, the 

gap analyses were intended to give an initial impression of suitability that can guide 

further investigation at smaller, more detailed scales. 

In addition to the gap analyses, the knowledge gained from this process was 

used to develop a forest-level protocol for mapping place meanings and values. This 

protocol assists in finer scale analyses that are necessary in order to make informed, 

place-specific managerial decisions. The protocol includes sections on the background and rationale for place mapping; the process of reviewing existing social 

data; the determination of the need for additional, place-specific data; guidelines 

for conducting meetings to generate place maps; and uses and limitations of the 

information produced.
14

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

Considerations in Using the Approach

Issues of Scale

Incorporating social information into complex resource decisions is always a challenge. It is especially challenging because most other resource information (e.g., 

from wildlife specialists) is spatially explicit, and many human values do not have a 

direct or necessarily spatial dimension because values are intangible or nonmaterial 

(Lewis 1994). Those values that do have a spatial component vary tremendously in 

their spatial extent; whereas a watershed may be reasonably described as having 

a single vegetation type (or discretely mappable types), or providing habitat for a 

specific species, some public values may entail attachment to a single tree (e.g., 

the largest spruce), and other public values may extend to the watershed as a whole 

(e.g., old-growth forests) or be predicated on a type of activity that can be accommodated at specific sites across the watershed. Thus, users of information generated 

from place-mapping activities must remember that it is only one type of information about values and that values may have many different spatial scales.

This approach lends itself to representing values at a coarse, general level 

intended to offer a glimpse into regional land value dynamics. Polygons created 

through this broad-scale analysis provide overarching, sociogeographic, contextual 

perspectives for the region. Individual forests or other public land units can use this 

information as a starting point in conducting their own refined assessments; the 

detail and specificity needed for such finer scale work may be obtained by “drilling 

down” into polygons, using more aggressive data-collection techniques such as public meetings, interviews, surveys, etc. (e.g., as done in the NVUM data-gathering 

process as described by Burns.4

 Conducting finer scale analyses will also help to 

avoid some of the tension that can arise between local specificity and place nuances 

versus representing information regionally in a way that has utility for management, 

planning, and information sharing across management units and administrative 

levels. 

Issues of scale are also important when juxtaposing the working polygons (485) 

with the larger, subregional polygons (24). The benefit of aggregating the working 

polygons (i.e., creating the subregional polygons) is that doing so provides a broad 

perspective of regional functioning. A potential drawback, though, is that the 

uniqueness that people think is so important about place meanings may become 

obfuscated. Thus, the optimal approach to dealing with this issue of scale may be to 

look at aggregated, subregional polygons alongside the smaller working polygons, 

4 Burns, R. 2006. Understanding outdoor recreation in Oregon and Washington. Presentation 

to Region 6 USDA Forest Service and Oregon State Parks, Portland, Oregon.
15

New Approaches to Forest Planning: Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region

simultaneously considering the information developed from finer scale assessments 

performed by individual forests. Doing so will enable understanding of the interplay between smaller and larger scales and how specific meanings are embedded 

within larger contexts.

Accessing different scales may also help clarify some of the apparent contradictions that arise from looking only at broad-scale information. For example, based on 

identified recreational opportunities and land designations, a specific polygon might 

appear to be unsuitable for OHV use when, in fact, locals might be aware of prime 

OHV opportunities. However, because OHV-conducive qualities did not emerge 

based on workshop proceedings, the polygon would not indicate that OHV use was 

compatible with its social or political attributes. 

Definition of Terms

Another important consideration in this approach relates to the definition of key 

terms that were used. For example, because “niche” has been applied ambiguously 

within USFS policy, it was difficult to arrive at an incontrovertible interpretation 

of “niche” during the mapping process (e.g., does “niche” refer to a forest’s current niche, desired niche, anticipated niche, etc.?). Participants may have generated 

responses to “niche” conditions using different understandings of the term. Similarly, there may have been a lack of clarity concerning the notion of “deviation,” 

a category of the geographic place inventories. For example, when participants 

were judging “deviations,” did they consider factors that interfere with the visitors’ 

ability to have their desired experiences? Or, on the other hand, did they interpret 

this to mean that if visitors strive for their desired experiences, this would cause 

conditions on the ground to deviate from what is acceptable? Parties interested in 

conducting this type of exercise in the future should be prepared to clarify the timeframe associated with the terminology (e.g., past, present, or future) and the nature 

of the conditions (e.g., desired versus expected). Planners should be conscientious 

in conveying singular definitions of potentially confusing terms, recognizing that 

ultimate connotations will depend in part on guidance from the Forest Service 

Washington office.

External Validity

In this process, as is often done, information gathered was based on the expert 

opinions of forest staff. There is nothing wrong with beginning with expert assessments, and for many purposes these may be quite adequate (Haas 2003). Indeed, 

some evidence suggests that public opinion is well-represented through staff 

consultations. For example, a project conducted in southern California found that 
16

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

citizens ratified approximately 90 percent of the material and assumptions staff 

generated through mapping procedures similar to those in Region 6 (Juarez 2007). 

Despite examples indicating professionals have a solid understanding of public 

sentiment—at least that of their current visitors–the literature also contains examples in which resource managers misperceived public values and views (e.g., Absher 

et al. 1988, Ibitayo and Virden 1996, Twight and Lyden 1989). It is easy to understand how this could occur, as managers often hear from a vocal minority who may 

not represent the full range of public opinion. To be most reliable, processes that 

rely upon managers’ perceptions should verify and expand upon these perceptions 

by gaining feedback directly from the public.

In this project, the need to cross-validate information gathered in the mapping 

process analysis was evidenced by participant comments on the geographic place 

inventories. Even though participants worked hard to put themselves in the position 

of citizens or visitors, the worksheets indicate that some participants were speaking 

from their role as resource stewards, not as public mouthpieces. This was especially 

common for the identification of “issues” and “deviations.” For instance, the following “issue” statements generated by participants appear to reflect the language 

of managers (and presumably their concerns as well) more than the language of the 

public:

• How do we balance social and biophysical carrying capacity?

• How to minimize catastrophic fire within socially acceptable levels? 

On the other hand, some of the issue statements most likely capture the essence 

of public concerns fairly well. For instance, in the Bend, Oregon, area, issues 

included the following:

• How can we grow while preserving the positive character of towns? 

• Is there enough water for fish and recreation activities (e.g., rafting)?

Thus, there is some concern about the degree of consistency between the 

views obtained through these meetings and the public values they were intended 

to reflect. This issue can, and should, be examined in the future through the use 

of actual constituent participation. Again, this points to the necessity of individual 

forests conducting their own hands-on assessments of public opinion. By directly 

consulting the public, forests can verify the accuracy of original findings, identify 

discrepancies between public and agency perceptions of forest priorities, and 

develop a more localized understanding of the area’s social dynamics. Currently, 

several forests are performing their own assessments, applying results toward forest 

plan revision (Blue Mountain forest plan revision) and travel management plans 

(Deschutes and Ochoco National Forests).
17

New Approaches to Forest Planning: Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region

Current Status of the Project

This was and continues to be a large effort with ambitious aims. The project 

gathered a great deal of momentum in a short amount of time with relatively little 

expenditure of resources. Currently, members of the regional office are working to 

add more data types to maps, disperse information to specific forests and districts, 

and build forest and district capacity to develop procedures for gathering more 

localized, nuanced information about specific areas.

By using a standardized approach on all national forests in the region, Region 

6 planners hope to achieve a common language and frame of reference that 

captures important issues and values. Such regional consistency across forests is 

rare. Ideally, this consistency can be used to facilitate communication and collaboration among forests. Although the decentralized nature of the National Forest 

System has afforded it the ability to make localized, specific, and timely decisions, 

decentralization also has the side effect of impeding intra-agency communication. 

Many forests and districts deal with similar problems under similar circumstances 

but may be unaware of each others’ insights into management strategies. By using 

data gathered through this process, forests can begin to overcome barriers created 

through decentralization and identify more opportunities for collaboration. Identifying similarities could open avenues for information sharing: What problems were 

encountered on forests? What solutions were introduced? What worked and what 

did not? By engaging in these discussions, USFS staff can begin to build networks 

that can help better inform forest planning, conflict resolution, and other important 

concerns. 

Final Comments

Striking a balance between maintaining a localized understanding of place and 

recognizing the regional flavor of an area is an ongoing process. Having the type 

of geospatial data gathered through this process can bring a great deal of clarity 

to a region and help mitigate some of the conflict that develops when dealing with 

issues of scale. This process aids in overcoming issues of scale by nesting lower 

level, more focused analyses within each broad subregion. Indeed, blending of 

scale is perhaps one of the greatest achievements of the project. Data can be viewed 

at a refined scale (485 polygons) and concurrently evaluated at a larger scale (24 

polygons). Ideally, these scales should also be evaluated relative to results derived 

from forest- or project-level analyses conducted by individual units. This may prove 

invaluable in understanding how public lands management should be approached 

within a niche-based context. Geospatial data (often preexisting, e.g., NVUM or 

census data) in conjunction with the written data gathered from USFS personnel, 
18

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

can be used to help public land managers begin to better conceptualize the unique 

attributes of the area and assess the relative quality, availability, and value associated with particular areas and activities. 

The mapping process described here encourages—even demands—a diversified biophysical and social approach to public land planning. Because the data 

gathered and compiled in this process are so varied, any conclusions derived from 

them need to be evaluated by an array of different stakeholders including resource 

managers (e.g., forest supervisors, district rangers, recreation staff), state and local 

government representatives (e.g., county commissioners; city, state, and regional 

planners), and nonprofit agencies (e.g., county and regional economic development 

organizations). Various specialists need to be brought into the process as well, for 

instance sociologists (to evaluate people’s values and attitudes), landscape architects 

(spatial relationships), geographers (landscape elements), and economists (supply, 

demand, and services). This aids in generating unique interpretations of data, avoiding the chance that a single agenda or perspective would color the outcome. By 

using diverse data types and including diverse participants, this approach has the 

potential to unite different stakeholders and make significant contributions to forest 

planning approaches.

Contact information

Terry C. Slider, RLA, NARRP

Regional Landscape Architect, Planner

Recreation, Lands and Minerals

333 SW First Ave.

Portland, OR 97204-3623

Phone: (503) 808-2439 

Email: tslider@fs.fed.us

References

Absher, J.D.; McAvoy, L.H.; Burdge, R.J.; Gramann, J.H. 1988. Public and 

commercial managers predicting recreationist opinions. Journal of Park and 

Recreation Administration. 6(2): 66–77.

Brandenburg, A.M.; Carroll, M.S. 1995. Your place or mine? The effect of 

place creation on environmental values and landscape meanings. Society and 

Natural Resources. 8(5): 381–398.
19

New Approaches to Forest Planning: Inventorying and Mapping Place Values in the Pacific Northwest Region

Bricker, K.S.; Kerstetter, D.L. 2002. An interpretation of special place meanings 

whitewater recreationists attach to the South Fork of the American River. 

Tourism Geographies. 4(4): 396-425.

Brown, G.G.; Reed, P.; Harris, C.C. 2002. Testing a place-based theory 

for environmental evaluation: an Alaska case study. Applied Geography. 

22(1): 49–76.

Eisenhauer, B.W.; Krannich, R.S.; Blahna, D.J. 2000. Attachments to special 

places on public lands: an analysis of activities, reason for attachments, and 

community connections. Society and Natural Resources. 13(5): 421–441.

Farnum, J.O.; Kruger, L.E., eds. 2008. Place-based planning: innovations 

and applications from four western forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-471. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station, 44 p.

Haas, G.E. 2003. Applying judicial doctrine to visitor capacity decision making. 

Society and Natural Resources. 16(8): 741–750.

Ibitayo, O.O.; Virden, R.J. 1996. Visitor and manager perceptions of depreciative 

behavior in urban park settings. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration. 

14(4): 36–51.

Juarez, T. 2007. Personal communication. Landscape architect and recreation 

planner, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, 1323 Club Drive, 

Vallejo, CA 94592.

Kent, J.A.; Preister, K. 1999. Methods for the development of human geographic 

boundaries and their uses. Report prepared for the USDI Bureau of Land 

Management. On file with: T. Hall, College of Natural Resources, University 

of Idaho, P.O. Box 441139, Moscow, ID 83844-1139.

Lewis, B.J. 1994. Problem analysis: the social dimension of ecosystem 

management. Final Report, October, 1994. USDA Forest Service, North 

Central Forest Experiment Station, Social and Economic Dimensions of 

Ecosystem Management Project. On file with: T. Hall, College of Natural 

Resources, University of Idaho, P.O. Box 441139, Moscow, ID 83844-1139.

Lewis, B.J. 1999. Social and economic sustainability in the Missouri Ozarks. 

In: Flader, S.L., ed. Toward a vision for Missouri’s private forests: proceedings 

of a conference. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-239. St. Paul, MN: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station: 129–172.
20

RESEARCH NOTE PNW-RN-562

Schroeder, H. 1996. Ecology of the heart: understanding how people experience 

natural environments. In: Ewert, A., ed. Natural resource management: the 

human dimension. Boulder, CO: Westview: 13–27.

Schroeder, H. 2002. Experiencing nature in special places: surveys in the 

North-Central Region. Journal of Forestry. 5(1): 8–14.

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

Forestry. 87(5): 35–41.

Williams, D.R.; Patterson, M.E.; Roggenbuck, J.W.; Watson, A.E. 1992.

Beyond the commodity metaphor: examining emotional and symbolic 

attachment to place. Leisure Sciences. 14(1): 29–46.

Williams, D.R.; Stewart, S.I. 1998. Sense of place: an elusive concept that is 

finding home in ecosystem management. Journal of Forestry. 95(5): 18–23.

Williams, D.R.; Vaske, J.J. 2003. The measurement of place attachment: 

validity and generalizability of a psychometric approach. Forest Science. 

49(6): 830–840.

Yung, L.; Freimund, W.A.; Belsky, J.M. 2003. The politics of place: 

understanding meaning, common ground, and political difference on 

the Rocky Mountain Front. Forest Science. 49(6): 855–866.


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 SW First Avenue

P.O. Box 3890

Portland, OR 97208-3890

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, $300