systems analysis in land-use planning...a conceptual development

8/8/2019 Systems analysis in land-use planning...a conceptual development

1/12

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS IN LAND-USE PLANNING...a conceptual development

Ronald A. Oliveira

and RaneeSERVICE

DEPARTMENTOF AGRICULTUREW6. BERKELEY. CALIFORNIA 94701

USDA FOREST SERVICEGENERAL TECHNICALREPORT PSW- 5 I1973


2/12

Oliveira, Ronald A.1973. Systems analysis in land-use planning. ..a conceptual develop-ment. Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., Berkeley,Calif. 8 p., illus. (USDA Forest Sew. Ge n Tech. Rep. PSW-5)A planning model in which social, economic, and environmental con-straints are specified-especially in mathematical form-can be helpful indecisionmaking. The general structure of a land-use decision model ap-proached through systems analysis is described. The proposed proceduresemphasize the quantification of interrelationships between uses and thespecification of preferences and goals. The complexi ty of land-use planningis illustrated by an account of how the model might be applied on a ForestService Ranger District of a National Forest in Colorado.

Oxford: 624: 908:907.2.Retrieval Terms: land-use decisionmaking; resource allocation; planningmodels; multiple-use management; systems analysis; Dillon Ranger District;Arapaho National Forest.


3/12

CONTENTSPage

Introduction ............................................ 1 Land-UseProblems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Dillon Ranger District . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Systems Analysis Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Specifying Syst em Boundary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Evaluating Resource U ses .............................. 3 Development of a Systems Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Optimization Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Simulation Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Literature Cited ........................................ 8


4/12

A s opulatio n pressures have increased and nationalgoals changed in past decades, land-use decisions havebecome increasingly complex and difficult. Thereasons are not far to seek. Choices must be madebetwe en conflicting uses of resources. Necessary dataand analysis of resource relationships are often lack-ing. Local objectives and problems have regional andnational ramifications. As the manager of the Nation-al Forests, the F orest Service is confronted with par-ticularly difficult and widely influential decisions,together with the need to make the basis of suchdecisions clearly evident. As a result, the improve-ment of planning methods has become an importantconcern of b oth the agency and th e public.A planning model in which social, economic, andenvironmental constraints are specified, especially inmathematical form, can be a valuable guide to deci-sionmaking. Such a model allows evaluation of theeffects of policy alternatives and changing conditions.It can cover either a broad area, such as a region or aNational Forest, or can be limited to a particulardistrict or planning unit.This report describes the general structure of aland-use decision model approached through systemsanalysis. Actual relationships are not developed indetail. The type of model presented is most suitablefor determining the desirable balance of alternativeresource uses for a specific area, in the c ontext of thebroad goals of Forest Service management. To illus-trate the complexity of land planning, some problemsfacing the Dillon Ranger District, Arapaho NationalForest, in Summit County Colorado, are described.Examples of som e eleme nts of the planning model aredrawn from this area.

LAND-USE PROBLEMSThe multiple-use concept requires that a land unit

be m anaged so as t o achieve the best po ssible balanceof resource uses. Such balancing may mean that aland unit is used less than its potential number ofuses-if full utilization m ight impair th e use of eithe rthat unit or anothe r for a purpose to which it is pecu-liarly suited. The Forest Service Manual (Title 1,November 1, 1971) defines multiple use as the "man-agement o f all the various renewable surface resourcesof the National Forests so that they are utilized in thecombination that will best meet the needs of the

American people. . with consideration being given tothe relative values of the various resources, and notnecessarily the combination of uses that will give thegreatest dollar return or the greatest unit output."Multiple use, then is not necessarily equal use; itmeans equal consideration for each resource in deter-mining the "best" possible combin ation of uses. Thisoutcome requires knowledge of how one use affectsanother, of how to measure present use and predictfuture demands, and how to weight different useswhen conflicts arise.

Evaluation or weighting of the various conflictinguses can be troublesome. Besides th e difficulty of col-lecting and analyzing data for such resources astimber and water there is the problem of quantifyingthe intangible, o r at least unmarketable, products ofNational Forest use, such as the esthetic quality of alandscape or a wilderness experience. The value ofsuch uses is evident in the costs incurred t o experi-ence them. Moreover, in order to experience suchuses people often forego the o pportu nity t o engage inother activities that may have a market-determinedprice or value.The relationship of National Forest land use tothat of surrounding areas is another source of prob-lems. Land managed privately or by local commu-nities, county, State, and other Federal agenciesaffects and is affected by National Forest manage-ment. Such relationships should be considered toachieve the aims of comprehensive multiple-use man-agement. Varying origins of demand for a particularuse must also be considered. Local demands may, forexample, conflict with national ones. Too superficialan inventory and analysis of the relationships of non-National Forest resources and social and economiccondition s will limit th e u sefulness of unit o r Districtplans.Thus, National Forest land-use planning must ac-count for a complex system of interrelated elements.It seems reasonable that an empirical decisionmakingprocedure for such planning should emphasize theneed to explain the workings of the system.

DILLON RANGER DISTRICTThe Dillon Ranger D istrict offers an illustration of

the complexity of land-use problems on the NationalForests. The District surrounds Dillon Reservoir.Here, most problems of land use arise from high


5/12

demands for recreation in several competing forms.Dillon Reservoir is a drawing card for water-relatedrecreation activities and is a water supply facility forDenver. In addition, several ski developments are inthe area. These two attraction s and the general scenicbeauty of the area have made it popular for secondhome and mountain condominium developments aswell as for the usu al day and we ekend recreation uses.

These high recreation demands and the expandingactivity in building have created an atmosphere ofurgency concerning land-use planning in the Dillonarea. Some development is occurring on areas withunstable soils,"high pollution potential, and high firehazards. Inadequate sewage facilities may lead towater pollution problems. Many of the new develop-ments may also face water supply problems in thefuture.Consequently, the Dillon Ranger District mustconsider these co ndition s in its planning. The surge ofconstruction resulting from the impetus of wintersports and reservoir developments is occurring on pri-vate land adjacent to the National Forest. Thus, theNational Forest serves as a "backyard play area" tothese developments, and pressure on the capabilitiesof the Forest lands coritinues to rise. The Forest Serv-ice needs to know and stipulate the recreation capac-ity of various land type s on the Forest and th e capitalrequirements associated with varying levels of capac-ity. In add ition, its fire prevention capabilities arefacing increasing pressure from the higher populationdensities in subdivisions on private lands as well asfrom intensified use of the National Forest land.Campground use o n th e Dillon Ranger District hasbeen high in past seasons and is exp ected to growunless terminated or otherwise controlled. Increasingfire and water pollution hazards of high campgrounduse, as well as financial limitations, have obliged theDistrict to consider the various alternatives; that is,should more campgrounds be built and who shouldbuild them, or should all camping be prohibited andpublic areas limited to day use?

Land exchanges are needed to facilitate judiciousand coordinated development of both public and pri-vate lands. Developers are seeking more suitable sitesalong the B lue and S nake Rivers. It is also desirable toleave these areas as open space, however, to reduceflood hazards and maintain esthetic qu ality. Whetherthese areas are to become part of private subdivisions,or be left as ope n space, or become partly open spaceand partly subdivisions must be determined. Theseland exchange issues are an essential element in coor-dination of Forest Service land-use plans with thoseof the local com mun ities and Sum mit County.

The variety of land-use problems in the Dillon areahas resulted in the expression in multiple-use plans ofintention to take specific actions. These actions (e.g.,"Convert recreation sites to d ay use only" or "Retainand o btain in public ownership or open space max-imum frontag e along the Blue River") may even tuallyprove to be the "best7' ones. But they appear to bepreconceived solutions based on conventional wis-dom, rather than the outcome of study or analysis,supported by facts, in a form understandable to th epublic. Perhaps a better planning would beto consider all relevant relationships between landuses, public demands, ecosystems, etc., in the light ofthe principles of multiple-use management. By sodoing it would be possible to set forth the policyactions needed to meet the goals of the Region,Forest, Ranger District, County, and State. The sys-tems analysis approach seems the appropriate on e.

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS APPROACHA systems orientation implies a view of a systemof elemen ts as a who le, rather tha n individually. That

is, this perspective emphasizes the interdependenciesbetween the elements of the system and concentratesattention on their relationships (DeLucia et al. 1971;Churchman 1968).

Often the systems approach to complex problemsolving requires data gathering and analysis by inter-disciplinary teams. I t is not always obvious in advancewhich disciplines will mak e the m ajor con tribution tothe study. Viewpoints and procedures may be drawnfrom a variety of disciplines.

In the construction of large systems models, thegap between specialists is often bridged by a mathe-matical formulation. This formulation provides valu-able guidance for research and data collection andallows the engineer, the e conom ist, the biologist, andothers to see how small but vitally important piecesof information and theory can merge, and to recog-nize critical gaps in existing information and knowl-edge. Mathematical models are tools of the systemsapproach. Their development and utilization providea useful framework for integrating the contributionsfrom various disciplines and for incorporating dataand th e research results from different fields.

Specifying System BoundaryThe nature and scope of the particular problem at

hand defines the system bound ary-the "line" tha tsurrounds those elemen ts considered to be part of thesystem. In the "art of systems analysis," specifying


6/12

I II System 1I I

Poss ible expans ionboundary of boundary

FeedbackFigure 1-A basic system model consists of inputs,elements of the system, and the outputs. The boun-dary of the system can be expanded to cover problemswhose scope widens during the systems analysis.

this boundary enables the user to choose the appro-priate model to define the system. Land-use planningmodels are subjective in that the system boundary isnot an objective datum perceivable through directobservation, but is largely a choice of the analyst,who arbitrarily classifies some borderline interactionsas exogenous (outside the system).

The system boundary is specified to include thoseelements that are interrelated and pertinent to the setof decisions to be made. The boundary usually en-closes those parts of the system that are subject tosome degree of control. For example, if in planningfor campground units it is assumed that the demandfunctions for campgrounds are known but thatpricing policy is beyond the planner's control, thendemands are noncontrolled. If, however, the plannercan charge camping fees or establish quotas, demandsare now at least partially controllable, and are con-sidered endogenous to the system. In effect, thescope of the problem can expand or contract thesystem boundary definition. In addition, it can influ-ence the degree of aggregation and approximationwith which pertinent interacting elements are con-sidered.

A system in simple terms is charted in figure 1.The system receives inputs-some controlled, othersnot-that affect the interaction of system elements.Outputs are produced which in dynamic systems mayaffect the inputs (feedback). The control decisionsseek to achieve some objective or set of objectives. Asimplified example of such a system could be a

National Forest campground area. The inputs wouldbe demand for the campground, fees, and othercampground regulations, type of sites, soil types andslopes, vegetation, etc. The system would be the in-teraction of these inputs, and the outputs would beenvironmental quality of the area, fire hazard, actualcampground use, etc. These outputs in turn wouldhave feedback effects on future inputs. Forest Servicedecisionmakers, recognizing the interactions withinthe system, would manipulate the controllable inputs,such as length-of-stay or limit, to achieve the outputsdesired.

Evaluating Resource UsesA systems analysis approach to the integrated con-trol and use of National Forest resources provides for

the examination and evaluation of a large number ofpossible resource uses. It does not necessarily, how-ever, require the inclusion of all uses in the resourcedevelopment plan. Inclusion or exclusion depends onthe degree to which a particular use contributes tothe broad objectives of land use, and on the extent towhich the use is complementary to other desired uses.The danger exists that the attempt to be compre-hensive may be used to guarantee the inclusion ofcertain preselected uses. A systems planning effortthat is well designed and executed avoids this hazard.

In contrast to the traditional analysis of a partic-ular function, a well-defined systems model allowsdecisionmakers to assess the degree of complemen-tarity between purposes. Complementarity may be


7/12

considered a measure of the efficiency with which aland resource system can serve several purposes-sitesfor outdoor recreation, timber production, and wild-life habitat, for example. Complementarity existswhen a stand of tim ber tha t is thinned to controldisease and insect damage yields usable wood. Sirni-larly, the thinning may improve stand growth andwildlife habitat. Different purposes are usually notperfectly compatible; for instance, timber harvestingand recreation seasons may co incide, and th e removalof trees m ay temporarily reduce the esthetic qualityof the landscape. If a system is developed and oper-ated t o obtain m aximum efficiency for one resourceuse, th en in general, less than full efficiency isachieved in other uses.

DEVELOPMENT OF A SYSTEMS MODELIn general, the most ap propriate situation for the .

application of systems analysis is one in which con-ditions are changing too rapidly for experience to beassimilated by informal, unsystematic methods, butslowly enough to permit the formulation of a modelapplicable t o bo th t he recent past and relevant future,and t o permit th e ach mu lati on of the data needed(DeLucia, et al. 1971). Such a situation apparentlyexists in land-use planning, especially on th e NationalForests. The applicability of systems analysis toNational Forest land-use planning has been broadlyoutlined earlier in this report. How a model can bedeveloped is illustrated by using the Dillon RangerDistrict as an example.

The first step in analysis is to specify objectives(fie,. 2). They constitute the framework in whichchoices between resource uses and alternative planswill be made. Th e general goals of manageme nt in theDillon Ranger D istrict are those of th e Forest Serviceas a whole. T he Fo rest Service has outlined its objec-tives and guides to policy in its Framework for th eFuture (USDA F orest Service 1970). One objective,for example, is to "p rotect and improve the qualityof air, water, soil, and natural beauty." Another is to"promo te and achieve a pattern o f natural resourceuses that will best meet the needs of people now andin th e future." All 1 1 objectives listed presumablyhave equal priority, but in the decisionmaking proc-ess, some choice must be made t o resolve potential oractual conflicts.

The aim should be to find a satisfactory com-promise (possibly eliminating s om e uses), based on

Figure 2-The systems analysis process may be viewedin terms of a flow chart.

Spe c i fy ob je c t ive s a ndmajor problem areas

L i s t k e y v a r i a b l e s o rsubsystems t o b,e analyzedand c on t ro l va r i a b le s

Determine t h e in te r -dependencies betweensubsys ems

Quantify the abover e l a t i o n s h i p s and i n t e r -dependencies

Define the sytemboundary

Categorize subsystems:Economic - demographicHydrologicRelevant ecosystems

Determine cause and effectr e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n e achsubsystem

\bAna lyze t he qua n t i f i e dsystem :1. Determine optimal

l e v e l s o f c o n t r o lv a r i a b l e s on b a s i s o fe s t ima te d p re fe r e nc ef u n c t i o n (s)2 . S im ul at e t h e r e s u l t s o fv a r io u s p o s s i b l e l e v e l so f c o nt r o l v a r i a b l e s .

1


8/12

analysis of the relative "costs" and "benefits," b otheconomic and environmental, of each use. Often, Sector production however, a measurement for uses other than the pri- sary one, especially the "use" represented by main-tenance of environmental quality, is difficult. In suchinstances, th e cost-effectiveness approach may be em-ployed to compare the net dollar benefits of the useforegone to preserve, for example, a certain numberof undeveloped acres. If appropriate information isavailable, the number of undeveloped acres mightpossibly be related to numbers of certain specificspecies saved or protected. It should be noted, how-ever, that this particular example is a problem of non-marketability in the benefit estimate, no tintangibility.The n ext step in the analysis is for each mem ber ofthe interdisciplinary team to list those variables in hisareas that should be explained by the system and tospecify the structural form of the subsystems withwhich he will be concerned. F or exam ple, an econ-omist might specify employment, production, andincome as some of the relevant variables of aneconomic-demographic subsystem (fig. 3). The pre-sumed causal relationships within each subsystemneed to be formulated; in other words, each en-dogenous variable (e.g., employment in lumbermanufacturing) will be expressed in a mathematicalrelationship as a function of various explanatory vari-ables. The nature of these relationships must bespecified, on a basis of available theory and empiricalfindings, eith er mathematically o r verbally.

In addition to those functions making up thevarious subsystems, an account of other relationshipscentral to specific problems or issues may be desirablein the over-all system. Some of these relationshipsmay have already been specified in the subsystems.Examples of such relationships, in the form of ques-tions applying to the Dillon area, are the following:1. What is the effect of more recreation activityon water quality in the area?a. How do es this vary with the typ e of activityand the type of soil on which the activity takesplace?

b. What is the limit of recreation capacity forDillon Reservoir to preserve its water qu ality?2. What is the effect of various forest land activi-

Figure 3-A simplified example of a hypothetical eco-nomicdemographic subsystem of this type may beformulated from theory and altered to fit the specificapplication. The arrows represent a possible causalrelationship that would need to be verifiedempirically.

Employment

Sector exports and imports

Use of public facilities by sectorsu

Land use, assessment, and taxes

Population, labor supply, and unemployment

Income by categories

I Local governmentexpenditures Demand for National Forest land uses


9/12

ties (timber harvesting, recreation, wildlife manage-ment, fire, etc.) on the environmental factors in thearea (soil erosion, water quality, noise level, wildlife,scenic quality, etc.)?3 . How are different land uses interrelated orwhat are the trade-offs between uses?4. What land areas are best suited for construction

and which areas are not suitable?5. What is the expected demand for ski areas inthe Dillon area? Does this demand need to be met? Ifso, what are the suitable sites?

6. What will be the influence of the new 1-70tunnel on the area?7. How will increasing urbanization or serni-urbanization affect the environmental quality ofNational Forest land?Whenever feasible, demand relationships should beintroduced into the land-use system. Traditionally,land-use plans have usually treated demand, which isdifferent from use or participation, as an exogenousfactor beyond the control of the local planning unit.Demand is influenced by local conditions, however,such as land taxes, zoning, fees, and building regula-tions. An understanding of the causal nature behindcertain demands will enable the Forest Service toanticipate changes in demand and decide whetherchanges in supply are necessary.

Once the team has specified the structural form ofthe system, the mathematical or reduced form ofeach relationship must be specified. Statistical proce-dures for estimating the parameters of each relation-ship need to be selected. These procedures will oftenbe limited by the availability of data. In fact, many ofthe functions or relationships may have to be approx-imated because data are limited. Often a prioriparameter estimates may be obtained from previousstudies or other analysts.

Once the above relationships have been quantified(that is, their parameters have been satisfactorilyestimated), the land-use systems model is readyfor analysis. For such a model two types of analyticaltechnique are feasible: an optimization system and asimulation system.

Optimization ProcedureAn optimization procedure would prove useful for

decisionmakers in a policymaking framework. Oftenpolicy makers dislike the use of words (or proce-dures) such as "optimize" or "maximize." Suchterminology is used in government planning guides,however, and specifically in the multiple-use direc-tives of the Forest Service Manual (Title 2100,

November 1971): "Public goals established by peoplethrough political processes for the management ofNational Forest System and related lands require thattheir protection, development and use provideoptimum public benefits."As noted above, Forest Service decisions regardingland use must serve broad economic, social, and en-vironmental objectives. When these goals are competi-tive, a higher level of attainment of one goal can bereached only by reducing the level of attainment ofanother goal. Thus, an implicit preference or objec-tive function exists by which land planning decision-makers weight the relative importance of the variousgoals when making choices. That is, they consider andweigh the trade-offs between actions. Obviously, suchevaluation should be evident, if possible, in theplanning system.Procedures for estimating the parameters orweights of a preference function for policy analysishave been discussed by others1 and are beyond thescope of this report. One approach is worth mention-ing, however. The system team or analyst choosesseveral land-use planning objectives. (This procedureis similar to that proposed by Van Eijk and Sandee(1959).) They then attempt to obtain the ratios ortrade-offs between the various variables entering thepreference function. These ratios or "barter terms"indicate the willingness of policymakers to sacrificeone variable for a certain amount of another variablewithout changing the value of the preference func-tion. That is, the analyst attempts to ascertain pointsof indifference. "The coefficient of each target isthen obtained as the (geometric) average of the barterterms of that target against all other targets (andagainst itself, which terms are obviously unity)" (VanEijk and Sandee 1959, p. 4). Thus, the preferencefunction might be formulated for a group of individ-uals who shape government policy on a committeeand consulting type basis. In reality, such a situationis highly probable since policy actions may be de-cided by government officials, but influenced bymany others such as advisors, pressure groups, laborleaders, and various technical experts. To estimate the

or examples, see the paper A conceptual regional econo-metric model incorporating policy considerations, by R . A.Oliveira and G. C. Rauser, presented at th e Western Eco-nomic Association annual meeting, Davis, Calif., Aug. 27-28,1970 ; and the paper Estimation of social preferencefunctions for the analysis of economic policy problems, b yG. C. Rauser and J. W. Freebairn, presented a t the AmericanAgricultural Econom ics Association annu al meeting, Gaines-ville, Florida, Aug. 20-23, 1972 (copy on fi le at Dep. Agric.Economics, Univ. Calif., Davis, Calif.).


10/12

subjective barter terms underlying the preferencefunction of such a group, Van Eijk and Sandee (1959,p. 4) propo se a me thod which th ey refer to as imagi-nary interviewing. In other words, they feel that anactual interviewing of policy mak ers to ascertain theirpreferences would not be possible. They suggest atyp e of imaginary interviewing or actually a reviewingof written and spoken policy statements.

The o bjectives of Forest Service management areclearly stated and communications between staff andline decisionmakers are fairly open. Therefore eitherthe imaginary or straightforward interviewing proce-dure may prove feasible. In addition, this methodcould easily be used to construct several possiblepreference functions rather than a single one. Thesecould reflect the extreme viewpoints and preferencesof different central decisionmakers (or differentcitizens' groups) involved in the planning process, aswell as viewpoints lying between these extremes.Thu s, th e analysis team could present th e policydecisionmaking group with a series of assessmentsbased on a variety of objective functions, leaving thepolicy group to make its ow n choice as to which on ebest reflects (or is closest to) their preferences orobjectives.

Where objectives are not complementary, butwhere they can be ranked in order of preference orpriority, the analyst could specify a ranking or orde-ring of objectives where the last objective consists ofa few variables that could be combined in a prefer-ence function. That is, satisfactory levels (e.g., satis-factory water quality standard) would be specifiedfor all variables exce pt tho se in the last objective, andpreference weights would need to be determined forthese few variables on ly. Th e weighted combin ationof these variables would then be maximized subjectto satisfactory levels of all prior objectives or goals.

Simulation ProceduresIf it is not possible to specify an objective func-

tion, then the land-use systems model may beanalyzed by simulation procedures. In other words,the analyst could vary the magnitude of certain vari-ables and /or parameters and simulate th e effects onthe system. Experiments could be performed o n themodel to see how sensitive the outputs were tovarious assumptions, variables, parameters, or fore-casts. In addition, certain policy actions could betested and their results observed. If several such testswere made, policymakers could observe the results oftheir action s and thu s make b etter decisions.

A hypo thetical simple simulation model for camp-

......................... . ' . .

(Feed-back effects)

*.II.*.

Figure 4-Hypothetical simulation model of camp-ground use.

Inputs :Recrea t ion useNumber of s i t e sNumber of t r a i l s

I

.IL.......

ground management is given in figure 4. The inputswould be recreation use in camper days and landmanagement decisions, such as the nu mber of camp-ing sites and trails. The model wou ld show how theseinputs interact with the local environment (or eco-system). Plausible outputs could be various environ-mental measures. The effects of various inputs (suchas different use rates) could be simulated with themodel. A more sophisticated ap proach would treatrecreation use as an endogenous o utp ut which wouldbe a result of th e interactions within th e system.

Outputs:St ream qual i tyErosionW i l dl i fe h a b i t a tF i r e p o t e n t i a l

CONCLUSION

. w

[ Etc .A

The land-use systems model and the analysismethods I have described are in accord with theForest Service's multiple-use planning unit concept.

..a..I

Environmental systemsmodel

.


11/12

Planning units could easily serve as boundaries forland use systems. The Forest Service Manual (Title2100, Directive 1, Section 21 26, Nov. 197 1) de-scribes such units as "specific, identified and delin-eated land areas. Smaller than Planning Areas, theyare large enough to encompass most of th e meaning-ful or significant relationships within a drainage orseries of drainages. The purpose of Planning Units isto provide a focus for planning activities in a smallenough area to be workable and large enough toenable the planning team to envision or predict thecause and effect relationships of managementalternatives...."The proposed land-use planning systems analysiscould easily meet the analysis requirements as speci-fied in the Forest Service Manual. The use of anobjective function would indicate how alternativeplans contribute to goals and would indicate thetrade-offs between alternatives. In addition, the con-struction phase of the model would point out anydata or inventory limitations which may exist.The systems analysis approach seems well suited t oForest Service land use planning. It allows foranalysis, experience, judgments, and revisions t o ent erthe decisionmaking process. Proposed programs canbe examined in relation to various objectives, botheconomic and social, of local and regional programs.This type of multidiscipline approach is needed tosolve problems having a wide range of alternativesolutions. The effects of such alternatives can be dis-played in multiobjective accounts framework that canthen be used in policy discussion and in other studiesand programs. In addition, the systems planning

approach has cumulative value in that informationand operation costs incurred in one area may beapplicable to National Forest planning problems inother areas.

Obviously implementing the systems approach toNational Forest land use planning would not be easy;investments would be required in system analysis,computer time, and supporting facilities. The invest-ments in time and money would be small, however,minuscule compared w ith the tota l costs of managingthe National Forests. Complex and sophisticated pro-cedures are now in use in such areas as timber man-agement, watershed management, and forest engineer-ing. T he land use decision process could profi tably beanalyzed w ith t he sa me rigor.

LITERATURE CITEDDeLucia, R. J. , H. A. Thomas, Jr., P. P. Rogers, M. B. Fiering,and R. P. Burden.

197 1. Systems analysis in water resourcesplanning. 393p. Cambridge, Mass.: Meta System s, Inc.Churchman, C. West.1968. Th e systems approach. 243 p. New York, NewYork: D elacorte Press.USDA Forest Service.1970. Framework for the future. Washington, D. C.(unpaged)Van Eijk, C. J ., and J. Sandee.

1959. Quantitative determination of an optimum eco-nomic policy. Econometrics 27(1): 1-13.

The AuthorRONALD A. OLIVEIRA is an economist with the Station's forest recrea-tion research work unit, headquartered in Berkeley, California. He earneddegrees in agricultural economics at the University of California B.S.(196 8) and M.S. (1 969 ). Before joining the Station staff in 197 2, he waswith the Division of State and Private Forestry, Forest Service's RockyMountain Region, Denver, Colorado, where he did much of the work re-ported in this paper.

EDITOR'S NOTE: General Technical Repor t is a new series of ForestService research pu blications th at com plem ents the three existingseries: Research Paper, Research Note, and Resource Bulletin. T heGeneral Technical Repo rt series serves as an outl et for informa tion of atechnical nature but not necessarily the product of a specific piece oforiginal research or resource survey.


12/12

The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. . .Conducts forest and range research at more than 75 locations from Puerto Rico toAlaska and Hawaii.. . .Participates with all State forestry agencies in cooperative programs to protect and im-prove the Nation's 395 million acres of State, local, and private forest lands.. . .Manages and protects the 187-million-acre National Forest System for sustained yieldof its many products and services.

The Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Stationrepresents the research branch of the Forest Service in California and Hawaii.

GPO 794-426/3742

systems analysis in land-use planning...a conceptual development

Documents