Reconciling Science and Politics in Forest Service Decision Making: New Tools for Public Administrators

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
In recent years, a wide variety of federal agencies have utilized alternative dispute resolution (ADR) approaches to resolve controversial issues. Although public officials represent central actors in most ADRs, there has been little systematic examination of their experiences and perceptions of ADR. This work begins to fill this gap by examining a key issue of concern for public officials: the impact of negotiations on professionally based decision making. Anecdotal evidence suggsts that public officials often are concerned that professionally based decision making will be compromised in ADR to reach a political consensus with competing stakeholders. Focusing on the U.S. Forest Service, this paper examines the effects of ADR on the agency's traditional scientific decision-making processes. Informants found that negotiating appeals accentuated the need for sound scientific information and broadened the knowledge base upon which forest management decisions are made. This view of negotiation involved recognizing the differences between science, conventional management practices, and values. The Forest Service's experience shows how ADR offers a new tool for meeting the challenge of reconciling science and politics.

This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit: