ABSTRACT
Public and scientific views of forests are changing, and together, science and the public are creating a better-
integrated and much more complete view of their value and function (Gordon et al. 1993; Gordon 1994). Previous forest research, policy, and management strategies have usually been created and applied in pieces. Resources (“timber,” “wildlife,” “open space”) were reified (made “real” and discrete rather than part of an integrated landscape), used, and had their use optimized largely independently. Also, most management tacitly assumed that overall land use stayed constant, that is, forests remained forests. Thus, conflicts over forest resource use most often have been resolved or approached as land allocation problems within a static total forest area. Various uses of forests were either optimized for a given area, or blended in multiple use management, in which all uses were said to be served simultaneously within a fixed area. Nowhere is the limited nature of those solutions more clearly demonstrated than at what we call the wildland-urban interface. Indeed, the term wildlands is ambiguous. Here, we take it to mean all land not subject to relatively intensive development for human habitation. Similarly, working landscapes can contain areas that are set aside
2.1 Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................15 2.2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................................................15 2.3 The Problem..............................................................................................................................................................16 2.4 An Example ..............................................................................................................................................................18
