[ HOME | Guidance Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ]

Neighbors

The staff of the area seeks to be a good neighbor. To be a good neighbor is easily agreed to by almost everyone but being one so that everyone agrees that you are is difficult. Guidance has been designed to be especially sensitive to this problem which is recognized as important throughout the U.S. (Cortner 1991) and the world. There seem to be conflicts intensifying in number and feelings of importance. One reason for Guidance is to reduce these conflicts because they reduce the quality of life for everyone, require that resources (of all types) be diverted from achieving the objectives of the staff and neighbors, and create stressful often non-productive conditions for individuals and groups. When and where good neighbors exist, the harmony can be rich and very satisfying.

The efforts proposed are believed to constitute what the staff can do legally and otherwise to have the base be viewed as a good neighbor. When people live next to or near each other there are occasional problems. They "work them out." In that spirit of a continuing effort, work will be done by staff with neighbors to the extent feasible. Supplemental Notes on this portion of Guidance are available.

Part of being a good neighbor relates to the influence of each other on their financial conditions. The potential influence of the area on the financial status of the surrounding land owners and communities is presented in the Guidance section called Community Financial Effects.

The real neighbors of the area and its staff and users are the people of the world. Of course there have been international visitors, but people near the area depend on it and the activities there for:

  1. new knowledge from research and other sources,
  2. recreational opportunities and direct use of local and migrating wildlife species,
  3. pleasure in the knowledge of wildlife and other environmental protection,
  4. a standard of excellent land use and management,
  5. educational resources, and
  6. knowledge of limited developments.

Trying to draw a circle around the area to specify who are neighbors is neither easy nor progressive. There are nearby and distant neighbors.

There are many types of land adjoining the military areas of the U.S. Some are pubic lands. About half for the 731 million acres of forest land of the U.S. are privately owned. How these lands are used affects the land and it influences them. For example, nearby people who are willing to or approve of harvesting trees or other resources often are concerned about the consequences of these acts -- not only to the environment, but also to economic interests. Some concerns seem to come from limited knowledge of resource management (e.g., forest, rangeland, wildlife, and fishery management) or the status of resources (e.g., fear of declining wood supplies in an area in which increasing supplies occur). Land owners near the area are believed to share the views of the general public on most natural resource and environmental issues.

About one-third or more of the neighbors have concerns about the way the area is managed. "Concerns" are not specific, but may represent an feeling or belief about an undesirable condition that can likely be changed by supplying information, providing education, and encouraging participation in events and projects. Concerns are of the types such as whether use of rates are excessive and whether cumulative effects are harmful. Neighbors perceive that environmental compatibility is a key element of success for economic development in the neighborhood.

Perhaps about 20 percent of neighbors feel that they have the right to do as they please with their lands regardless of what it does or may do to the area, or to others, or the environment. Of course, 80 percent of property owners are more social in their view about land use rights, but the large number suggests one root of the perpetual problems of managers. Education and other strategies (including compensation) are needed as private property rights may be limited to protect ground water, wetlands, endangered species, critical habitats for migratory bird, or perhaps even expanses of great landscape beauty.

Neighbors tend to oppose proposals about which they know little. Neighbors must understand in an active way the effects of all actions off the area to assist managers in achieving its objectives. The effects must by perceived as being on as well as off the grounds.

Two-thirds of the neighbors are likely to be supportive of initiatives; they constitute a majority; but in stressful situations, only about 18 percent need to shift in any one year or on any topic to create a 51 percent majority negative "voting block."

Within Guidance, emphases have been placed on achieving citizens', and users objectives and on the importance of expertise in making the optimum decisions about how objectives can be achieved. Nevertheless, neighbors may not understand a particular decision or why a practice has been selected. They may be opposed to a practice (for reasons that are cultural, parental teaching, metaphysical, knowledge from a respected source, etc.) that may be "perfect" by many criteria. For example, prescribed burning was viewed by 2.5 percent of one group to be detrimental to wildlife. (This is contrary to most reports about this relationship to many species.) Education and involvement may reduce, but not eliminate, these negative concerns. It may be appropriate to constrain the decision system in the future so that such "practices of high negative concerns" are given an extra "cost", thereby reducing the chance they will be selected. One way to exclude such concerns is to make them a specific objective (e.g., "to avoid use of prescribed fire") and then to have that objective assigned a very high value.

More and more homes are being built at the forest/urban interface. There is inadequate adherence to safety rules. Current regulatory codes are inflexible. Specifications for building and site characteristics cannot be adjusted to accommodate homeowner values. An "ignition assessment" may be an alternative to current safety codes.

The problem areas:

Neighbors differ in the way they think that private land, corporate land, or the area should be managed.

Environmental concerns are very important and even take precedence over economic concerns such as jobs (for over two-thirds of the neighbors). This is from research over 20 years which shows public environmental awareness and concern are strong and growing.

Tourism is generally supported for economic development, perhaps because it seems to be environmentally benign. (It may not be. See Ranging or Ecotourism Section.)

In the spirit of cooperativeness, especially with neighbors, the management staff of the area is prepared to discuss and examine local options and alternatives for:

  1. Sharing resources at the border when these produce zero or positive benefits in achieving objectives.
  2. Providing special use areas (e.g., parking) for local people.
  3. Providing special services, displays, tours etc. for local people.
  4. Being open to special events (new or unique) events or sports or activities that increase achievement of objectives.
  5. Providing (sharing) planning services and computer aids.
  6. Providing (sharing) available computer aids to improved land use.
  7. Providing information on integrated pest damage management systems.
  8. Assisting in long-term erosion control strategies that reduce effects of use-related sediment erosion to the area.
  9. Improving boundary posting.
  10. Supporting seminars and workshops related to improving the area- and-neighbor partnership.
  11. Developing interpretive facilities and programs (e.g., self-guided trails and auto tours, and signs)
  • Assist in boundary surveys related to the boundary.

    Correspondence

    Neighbors of the area should feel free to correspond with their governmental representatives about the area, especially about its needs, the advantages and opportunities it provides, the needs it fulfills, and the economies derived. The key people with whom they may correspond are listed under "Location and Area." Copies (where possible) for the staff are welcomed. The Mail Room, an E-Mail option make communicating very easy.

    Positive letters and communications tend to remind legislators of the presence and role of the area, which can easily be forgotten or not seen as important among the many units of theDoD. Supportive communication can often stimulate funds that reduce or prevent problems (the usual communication) from occurring.

    Staff will provide supportive communications for appropriate related community initiatives, chamber of commerce promotion, and related ways that off-area gains may be made.

    Organizations

    The area staff will seek coordination and collaboration where possible and work to develop meaningful partnerships. Usually these will be with groups but relations with individuals may be formed when mutually beneficial (as defined within Refuge objectives). Typically the activities will be in brief, public, written mutual aid agreements, memoranda of understanding, and operating plans. In the spirit of Guidance, already described, these documents are not "contracts" but are dynamic, timely, and more of the nature of notes on agreement than formal documents that require excessive time spent away from achieving the objectives of the area. They typically are efforts to prevent or solve problems and reduce conflicts (Guidanceoperates on the premise that a problem exists in the gap between the actual condition and the desired one. The greater the distance away from the desired condition, the greater the problem may seem to be.)

    Friends

    A Friends organization is planned. This is described in the section by that name. Where membership signs are available, a special N symbol can be used to designate a neighbor meaning that the owner is a member of the Friends of... and also has property touching a boundary of the area .

    Difficulties

    In the spirit of preventing conflicts, not being negative, it may be a good idea to recognize the difficulties experienced in past situations similar to the area and their staff to be good neighbors. Hopefully by recognizing them, they will not surprise managers or others responsible for the area, and certain events not be viewed as being of evil intent.

    1. Leadership being provided in any area by either neighbor may be seen as an "effort to control" or perhaps gaining ability to control (Cortner 1991).
    2. Education may be viewed as propaganda.
    3. Coordination and working in partnership take time and effort, thus they have costs.
    4. Partners who contribute money or much time ("time is money") tend to want to "have a say" related to this investment.
    5. Federal agencies must be responsive to national and international laws. These may not be consistent with local conditions or produce local conflicts completely out of the hands of local staff.
    6. Staff changes are common. Lasting relations and "understandings" are difficult to maintain. Good notes, TV tapes of conversations, and related efforts can reduce conflicts that may occur with staff changes.
    7. Physical changes occur (storms, etc.) What was once a good or satisfactory condition may no longer exist. Causes can be sought (not "fault") and efforts taken to change the system. As always, available resources, even if there was a strong desire to allocate them, may not be available.
    8. It is very difficult, almost impossible (and often impossible) for a legally established agency of area staff, long-standing in national and international importance, to change in many ways. Major changes may have occurred at the boundaries (e.g., mining, urban expansion). Staff will be as cooperative as possible but the area must be protected, its legal grounds and rights presented, and its ability to achieve its objectives not impaired.

    Many past difficulties with planning and plans, particularly related to gaining insight into public interests and values have been addressed in Guidance. Management now tends toward multiple values and benefits from many resources as well as "multiple use".

    Preventing Problems in the Neighborhood

    On one hand, an objective of the area staff is to encourage balanced change in the region around it, change that is healthful, esthetic, and financially beneficial. On the other, it is to protect and conserve the area and all of its resources. Changes outside may effect things inside. President Truman, upset with people who said "on one hand..." was said to request one-handed advisors. Trying to find an appropriate balance between interests of neighbors and the area itself is difficult. In some cases, these problems can be prevented from occurring. The strategies which can be employed in different sequences, different combinations, and as opportunities arise, to shape the use of land at parts of the borders of the area(Cortner 1991, Shands 1988, Binkley and Hagenstein 1989, USDA Forest Service 1990) are:

    1. Creating legislative economic disincentive zones for construction near the area
    2. Purchasing key tracts for parks and compatible-uses
    3. Zoning and related land use regulation
    4. Creating and enforcing building codes to assure compatible color, form, height, scale, and texture
    5. Improving current use of land to increase profits and reduce incentives to sell or develop
    6. Providing tax incentives so that landowners can keep land in traditional uses
    7. Implementing a capital gains tax on income from land development
    8. Gaining perpetual or terminating conservation easements on adjacent lands
    9. Forming a home-owner-landowner association to work with the staff
    10. Providing tax credits for investing in land adjacent to and like the land
    11. Providing benefits, tax credits or payment to landowners who provide access
    12. Providing information to developers about objectives and desires related to the area and how early discussions can improve long-term relations.

    A supplement paper on land around wildland areas (Giles 1994) is available within Guidance.

    Use of Private Land

    Neighbors of the area may elect to allow their lands to be used by the public. This influences the area, whether it is a singular center for public use, or whether it is a member of a variety of lands with different uses in the vicinity. Increasing population, interest, and access make such private lands, especially a consortium of public, staff of the area, and private lands, important. The 1987 President's Commission on America's Outdoors said that private lands are the Nation's greatest source of future recreation opportunities. They recommended such owners to be encouraged to open more land for public use.

    Reasons for not opening land (the points for future strategic work) are:

    Local studies may need to be done, but, in general (and until such studies), the following seem to be reasonable observations:

    Land is not held by any owner very long (35 percent held it for less that 20 years in Illinois (Leatherberry 1993). Major turnover in ownership is likely to occur (This rate, r, should be measured: the ownership "half-life", t, may then be computed by t=0.7/r), probably increasing the closure rate.

    Literature Cited

    Binkley, C. S. and P. R. Hagenstein. 1989. Conserving the North Woods: Issues in public and private ownership of forested lands in northern New England and New York. Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT.

    Bliss, J. C., R. T. Brooks, Jr., and M. D. Larsen. 1993. Attitudes in the Tennessee Valley Region toward forest practices and policies. Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN. 7 pp.

    Cortner, H. J. 1991. Interface policy offers opportunities and challenges: USDA Forest Service strategies and constraints. J. For:31-34.

    Leatherberry, E. C. 1993. Using forest inventory data to assess use restrictions on private timberland in Illinois. NC-149, USDA Forest Service, North Central For. Exp. Sta. Res. Bul. St. Paul, MN. 6 pp.

    Shands, W. E. 1988. Forest wildlands and their neighbors: interactions, issues, opportunities. USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

    U.S.D.A. Forest Service and Governor's Task Force on Northern Forest Lands. 1990. Northern forest lands study. USDA Forest Service, Rutland, VT.

    Go to the top of the page.

    Other Resources:
    [ HOME | Lasting Forests (Introductions) | Units of Lasting Forests | Ranging | Guidance | Forests | Gamma Theory | Wildlife Law Enforcement Systems | Antler Points | Species-Specific Management (SSM) | Wilderness and Ancient Forests | Appendices | Ideas for Development | Disclaimer]
    Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com

    This Web site is maintained by R. H. Giles, Jr.
    Last revision January 17, 2000.