| This thesis demonstrates that conflict can be reduced among managers and users of national forests. Current Forest Service planning at the forest level of the agency is based on a closed/rational approach where the emphasis is on controlling the outcome. To a large extent, physical knowledge about the resource is used for determining what uses will be allowed. In this study, a more open strategy was evaluated. The approach involves the use of political and economic data, as well as biological and physical data in negotiations between agency officials and interest group leaders. More attention is given to needs of users. This alternate approach was applied to national forests in Central Arizona where conflicts exist among groups interested in greater water yield and forage production, and groups interested in timber production, aesthetics, wildlife, and other values. The results were compared with an earlier (1974) attempt to resolve the same conflicts. The differences were significant. Although the various interest groups did not fully achieve their individual goals with a more open strategy, they were still convinced that the benefits of accepting a negotiated compromise were greater than fighting the final decision in court, at higher administrative levels, in the press, or in Congress. Using this alternate approach did not require the Forest Service to compromise on its essential goals. |
