Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

Using multiple methods to understand agency values and objectives: Lessons for public lands management

Contents:

Author Info

  • Iingrid M. Martin

    ()

  • Toddi A. Steelman

    ()

Registered author(s):

    Abstract

    The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) directs agencies to determine their objectives based on what stakeholders value. Identifying, measuring and analyzing values and objectives is a key challenge for public land management agencies. Using R and Q factor analysis we assess the values and objectives within the Leadership Team (LT) of the United States Forest Service (USFS). R-factor analysis demonstrates strong support among the LT for a more preservation-oriented view to manage public lands. Q-factor analysis reveals divergent perspectives among the LT and how the aggregated preservation orientation found with the R-factor analysis plays out according to individual perspectives. The findings illustrate the challenges inherent in identifying what values and objectives exist, how they should be analyzed, and the implications for choosing one set of values and objectives over another in public lands management to fulfill the mandates under GPRA.

    Download Info

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
    File URL: http://journals.kluweronline.com/issn/0032-2687/contents
    Download Restriction: no

    Bibliographic Info

    Article provided by Springer in its journal Policy Sciences.

    Volume (Year): 37 (2004)
    Issue (Month): 1 (03)
    Pages: 37-69

    as in new window
    Handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:37-69

    Contact details of provider:
    Web page: http://www.springerlink.com/link.asp?id=102982

    Related research

    Keywords:

    References

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as in new window

    Cited by:
    1. Marcelo Lufin Varas & Ángela Villalobos Lorca, 2013. "Valores y Diseños de Política Pública: El Caso de la Implementación del Programa Chile Solidario en las Comunas de la Región de Antofagasta," Documentos de Trabajo en Economia y Ciencia Regional 39, Universidad Catolica del Norte, Chile, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2013.
    2. David Ockwell, 2008. "‘Opening up’ policy to reflexive appraisal: a role for Q Methodology? A case study of fire management in Cape York, Australia," Policy Sciences, Springer, vol. 41(4), pages 263-292, December.

    Lists

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:kap:policy:v:37:y:2004:i:1:p:37-69. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Guenther Eichhorn) or (Christopher F. Baum).

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.