uses, and are to be viewed as included in the 

 total budget term, which therefore will be 

 greater than the congressional appropriation. 

 A more refined budget statement would be re- 

 quired in the practical implementation of the 

 model. 



Weighting 



The weighting coefficients (f, o, r, e, s, t) 

 in the model, as discussed earlier, recognize 

 that different resources may be viewed by the 

 society as more important than others. The 

 review of legislation indicated that although 

 much effort has been expended by vested- 

 interested groups and by the Forest Service it- 

 self to specify what these weights ought to be, 

 no such priorities have in fact been estab- 

 lished by law. If the interpretation that equal 

 priorities are set on each of the resources is 

 implemented, the weights may be dropped 

 out, and the goal becomes one of maximizing 

 the sum of the values determined for each of 

 the resources. This would be indicated by 

 changing the goal to read: Maximize (F + 

 0*+ R*+ E*+ S*+ T*). 



The model calls for the separate identifica- 

 tion of (1) the value of the resources, and 

 (2) their weights. A gray area here is created 

 by the apparent lack, which has been men- 

 tioned earlier, of any readily devisable index 

 or numeraire on which to establish the values 

 independent of the weights. Any index or 

 equivalency table will undoubtedly blur the 

 required distinction, as evident from a simple 

 example. Having measured the achievable out- 

 put level of S (soil and watershed) and the 

 achievable output level of R (range) for a giv- 

 en program level, the problem is to determine 

 a trade-off schedule, to the effect that addi- 

 tional units of grazing can be obtained if the 

 resulting deterioration of the watershed is al- 

 lowed. The relationship between the two re- 

 sources can be specified as an interaction 

 function: a gain of x units of R can be real- 

 ized only with a loss of y units of S. But, does 

 the gain in R represent an increase in value 

 sufficient to offset the value lost in S? If a 

 pure numeraire existed, this question could be 

 answered unequivocally. As it is, such a 

 trade-off must be in part decided on the basis 



of value and in part on the basis of the deci- 

 sionmaker's own view of the relative value of 

 two resources — that is, his priority system., 62 

 The model calls for the separation of the two 

 concepts. 



It must be recognized that the decision- 

 maker will always be working in an environ- 

 ment of uncertainty. The model cannot make 

 decisions — that is the role of the land man- 

 ager. What the model can do is spell out the 

 systematic analysis and logic upon which a de- 

 cision and its underlying assumptions are 

 based. It can keep out in front of the policy- 

 maker the goal he is seeking to achieve. Just 

 as importantly it can be used to spell out the 

 consequences of alternative actions by show- 

 ing the effects of such decisions. It extends 

 his ability to understand the implications of 

 any given action. Most important it can pre- 

 vent him from taking an irreversible step to 

 solve a small problem, without considering a 

 much larger one — that is, getting out on a 

 limb only to find that in the meantime his 

 own actions resulted in the severance of the 

 limb from the tree. 63 



Management direction must be all of a 

 piece. The policy of functionalism fulfills spe- 

 cific stipulated requirements of separate legis- 

 lative acts in a distinct and separate manner. 

 The FOREST model emphasizes that each 

 such legislative direction is only a thread in 

 the total fabric, which is the goal itself, to 

 which all actions should be addressed. 



We turn now to a discussion of the prob- 

 lems and prospects of implementing goal- 

 oriented decision management systems in the 

 agency. Our question is, What incongruities 

 exist that prevent the agency from fully meet- 

 ing its obligations as described by the FOR- 

 EST mandate? 



62 See Major (1969), p. 1178. He claims that in the 

 area of water resources planning, at least, a reason- 

 able approximation or estimate of the appropriate 

 weights is possible. 



63 See Forrester (1971). For an economist's per- 

 spective on why "small" decisions taken only in the 

 context of the particular situation may well prove 

 undesirable, see Kahn, The tyranny of small deci- 

 sions (1966). 



44 



