Environmental dispute resolution and organizational incentives: An examination of the U.S. Forest Service's adoption of environmental dispute resolution approaches.

Abstract

The objective of this study was to further our understanding of the institutionalization of environmental dispute resolution ("EDR") in public resource agencies by (1) examining key organizationally-based interests and incentives associated with the U.S. Forest Service's ongoing adoption of EDR to resolve disputes, and (2) analyzing the complexity of potentially incongruous organizational and individual interests and incentives to employ EDR. Using the grounded theory method of qualitative research, comparison cases and individual informants from all levels in the agency were selected through theoretical sampling. The data show that the Forest Service's organizational core technology and autonomy have been protected in EDR processes. Although the agency is having to more realistically define its interests, it has not had to significantly modify existing program levels in negotiations. Organizational autonomy has been protected in that the agency has maintained its jurisdiction over forest management issues by using EDR. Organizational members share this perspective but experience a more complex reality. Individuals are concerned about protecting material dimensions of core technology as well as maintaining their reliance upon scientific decision-making. By recognizing the difference between science and conventional management practices and accepting the key role of values, agency officials have been able to utilize their scientific expertise in EDR processes. Individuals are concerned about protecting the organization's jurisdiction as well as their own professional autonomy and jurisdiction. EDR strengthens individuals' professional autonomy when compared with the realistic alternatives to negotiations, and defined in terms of the ability to accomplish management objectives. EDR also strengthens the internal autonomy of line officers by enabling officers to resolve issues at their own jurisdictional levels. Finally, individuals who participate in EDR incur personal and organizational costs not experienced by the organization as a whole and not shared equally by individuals at all agency levels. The study concludes that successful institutionalization of EDR requires: (1) effective boundary spanning to enable organizational members to understand the realities of their organizational environment; (2) organizational mechanisms to diffuse knowledge of the realities of EDR within the organization; and (3) formal organizational change to mitigate the differential organizational and individual perspectives and costs of EDR.