Adding a localized adjustment capability to the LUPLAN land-use planning package

Ive, J R; Cocks, K. D.

doi:10.1068/b120455

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The existing LUPIS package contains a selective reallocation facility (Ive and Cocks, 1985) which, although not developed specifically for the purpose, allows parties to build up a compromise plan, zone by zone. The essence of the selective reallocation facility is to allow a party to nominate a change of plan on a zone and view the implications, in policy achievement terms, of that change prior to accepting (rejecting) the nominated change.…”

Section: Plan-adjusting Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For situations where zones which are candidates for change are not so apparent, LUPIS contains a conditional reallocation facility (Ive and Cocks, 1985) which searches for the zone where reallocation would generate the maximum net change in suitability score (as measured at the margin). The LUPIS package calculates a suitability score for each land use on each zone.…”

Section: Plan-adjusting Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, having created a compromise plan by blending, parties may see opportunities to trade off or 'log-roll', meaning, in its simplest form, a joint decision to change the land use on two zones, one being a change sought by party A (but acceptable to party B) and one sought by party B (but acceptable to party A). As noted above, the selective and conditional reallocation capabilities already built into LUPIS (Ive and Cocks, 1985) provide an easy way of exploring and incorporating such trade-offs (that is, plan adjustments) into a plan produced by blending. For example, a party offered another party's list of candidate reallocations to consider can use the (selective) reallocation capabilities to profile each in terms of net changes in suitability scores over all guidelines or impacts on individual guideline achievements considered to be of particular importance.…”

Section: Combining Plan-blending and Plan-adjusting Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This study has been used previously to illustrate land-allocation (Ive and Cocks, 1985) and land-management capabilities ) of the LUPIS package. Planning issues at the time of the original study reflected pressures from several interest groups including (1) state foresters who wished to extend their pine plantation eastwards from the current plantings to the western border of the Cooloola National Park;…”

Section: An Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The plan is in fact identical to one used in Ive and Cocks (1985). Being a LUPIS plan, it is imported into PARTISAN totally automatically.…”

Section: An Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Incorporating Multiparty Preferences into Land-Use Planning

Ive

Cocks

1989

Environ Plann B Plann Des

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Depending on circumstances, a land-use planning exercise is an attempt to meet the demands of one, two, or more clients. For multiparty planning exercises, the relative extent to which the demands of different parties are met is ultimately a political decision. Nonetheless, within this constraint, if 'public participation' is to have any legitimacy, it is important that the demands of each party be clearly recognised and satisfied to the maximum extent possible in a compromise plan.Two approaches to producing a compromise plan are distinguished and discussed: (a) plan adjusting and (b) plan blending. The PARTISAN decision-support package is described and demonstrated. PARTISAN is independent of but compatible with the LUPIS land-use planning package. PARTISAN accepts LUPIS-generated and/or intuitive planning suggestions from individual interest groups and blends these in one of several alternative ways into a single compromise plan reflecting preferences of and relative influence assigned to each party. By making use of already existing LUPIS capabilities for selective and conditional reallocation of land uses to zones, PARTISAN is further able to provide guidance, suggestions, and bookkeeping assistance to parties seeking to negotiate further small changes to the compromise plan.

show abstract

Section: Plan-adjusting Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Plan-adjusting Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Combining Plan-blending and Plan-adjusting Approachesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: An Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The plan is in fact identical to one used in Ive and Cocks (1985). Being a LUPIS plan, it is imported into PARTISAN totally automatically.…”

Section: An Examplementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Incorporating Multiparty Preferences into Land-Use Planning

Ive

Cocks

1989

Environ Plann B Plann Des

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

ADAPT: A Knowledge-Based Decision Support System for Producing Zoning Schemes

Davis¹,

Grant²

1990

Expert Systems: Applications to Urban Planning

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mediation support for forest land allocation: The SIRO-MED system

Cocks

Ive

1996

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mediation support systems for facilitating resolution of natural resources conflicts must be able to systematically identify and use a full complement of data and value sets relevant to the spectrum of issues underlying the conflict, A stepwise computer-supported procedure for developing and then blending contrasting issue-sensitive stakeholder plans in map form for forest use is described and demonstrated. The goal is a balanced plan that efficiently satisfies the more important land-use guidelines of each stakeholder reasonably well. This procedure, SIRO-MED, can be applied at any level of detail compatible with available analytical resources and to resources other than forests.Public controversy over how the dwindling temperate hardwood forests of eastern Australia should be used is ongoing (Resource Assessment Commission 1991). The basic disagreement is over the relative extent to which forests should be allocated to productive uses based on some form of harvesting (intensive harvesting for pulpwood is currently particularly controversial) versus protective uses based on conservation and various lowintensity uses that minimally disturb the recreational and aesthetic and the natural functions (such as gene conservation, gas exchange, water quality maintenance) of forest areas.In recent conflicts, considerable dispute has centered on when knowledge of the biological resources of an area is adequate and on how the conservation value of these resources should be evaluated. The identification of boundaries around areas of conflict and of alternative areas for allocation to particular uses has also presented difficulties. These issues have in turn raised questions such as: (1) how to undertake effective inventories of biological resources at acceptable cost (e.g., Margules and Austin 1991);(2) what criteria can be used for conservation evaluation, which incorporate both ecological knowledge and community values; and (3) whether modern computer technologies such as geographic information systems and spatial decision support systems can, by integrating diverse information, assist with community decisions on land allocation in forests (e.g., Dean 1994).

show abstract

Adding a localized adjustment capability to the LUPLAN land-use planning package

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Incorporating Multiparty Preferences into Land-Use Planning

Incorporating Multiparty Preferences into Land-Use Planning

ADAPT: A Knowledge-Based Decision Support System for Producing Zoning Schemes

Mediation support for forest land allocation: The SIRO-MED system

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About