WEIGHT SETTING 

 IN THE FRAMEWORK 

 OF THE DECISION MODEL 



In the previous section, some of the incon- 

 gruities in current Forest Service practice have 

 been pointed out. It remains for us to con- 

 sider the progress now being made toward 

 goal-oriented decisionmaking, and the ways in 

 which the decision model can help to acceler- 

 ate that progress. Achievements are being 

 made in methods of public involvement and 

 in research techniques in the exploration of 

 alternatives. Progress in solving budget prob- 

 lems may be slow, but if the agency can see 

 clearly the direction it must take in the light 

 of its mandate, even here much may be ac- 

 complished. An essential step toward the fu- 

 ture is the identification of priorities on the 

 national level. 



National and I .oral 

 Priorities 



The distinction between values and 

 weights, or priorities, in the FOREST model 

 is a crucial one, as we have seen. In the 

 weighting of goals, the political and social de- 

 sires of the nation's citizens, as expressed 

 through the democratic process, are reflected. 

 Values, on the other hand, are the achievable 

 levels of output, appropriately measured, for 

 the various resources. Ecological and environ- 

 mental interrelationships are stressed in the 

 measurement. 



The conclusion has been reached in this 

 study that in the legislation the weights to be 

 assigned to each of the resource values are left 

 to be determined on a local or regional basis. 

 It seems proper now to suggest that these 

 ought to be determined on the national level. 

 In decisionmaking, the value ratios between 

 the interrelated resources must be identified, 



but this process in itself requires a weighting. 

 Presumably, nationally perceived needs ought 

 to outweigh those perceived ' locally. The 

 knotty question is, just how much weight 

 should each have in determining priorities? 

 This has both theoretical and political impor- 

 tance that should not be underestimated. 



Our difficult question may be put in 

 another way to ask, Whose forests are they 

 (see Held 1967)? This problem has intrigued 

 historians for three generations and will prob- 

 ably never be fully solved to the satisfaction 

 of all. People in the forested regions of the 

 West will always feel that the interest of 

 people in the East in preserving recreational 

 and scenic values competes with their concern 

 for commodity values important to their eco- 

 nomic welfare. Recently we hear a new tone 

 in statements on the issue. It is said that there 

 is no logic in keeping millions of acres locked 

 up in the wilderness areas, when so many 

 people living in poverty in the East will never 

 see the trees unless they are utilized in a pro- 

 gram aimed at urban renewal and housing 

 construction. Full implementation of a goal- 

 oriented FOREST-type model will require 

 that a practical answer to our question be 

 found. 



That answer could have the following gen- 

 eral outlines. The public should be given every 

 opportunity to be heard at the national level 

 (both in Congress and in the Washington Of- 

 fice of the Forest Service) on matters affect- 

 ing rules and decisions of a legislative charac- 

 ter. This could be done as amendments of the 

 overriding legislated goal are considered and 

 weights are assigned for use by local decision- 

 making units in their evaluations of proposed 



67 



