Environmental Management

, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp 41–52 | Cite as

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

  • Douglas Cocks
  • John Ive


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, SIROMED, can be applied at any level of detail compatible with available analytical resources and to resources other than forests.

Key Words

Mediation Negotiation Resource management SIRO-MED LUPIS 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. Anderssen R. S., and J. R. Ive. 1982. Exploiting structure in linear programming formulations for land-use planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 9:331–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Austin M. P., A. O. Nicholls, and C. R. Margules. 1990. Measurement of the realised qualitative niche of plant species: Examples of the environmental niches of five Eucalyptus species. Ecological Monographs 60(2):161–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bacow L. S., and M. Wheeler. 1984. Environmental dispute resolution. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  4. Cocks, K. D. 1984. A systematic method of public use zoning of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia. Coastal Zone Management journal 12(4):324–359.Google Scholar
  5. Cocks, K. D., J. R. Ive, J. R. Davis, and I. A. Baird. 1983. SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: An Australian approach to land-use planning 1. The SIRO-PLAN land-use planning method. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 10:331–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cocks, K. D., J. R. Ive, and J. R. Davis. 1986. Policy guidelines for the management of public natural lands. Land Use Policy 3(1):9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cocks, K. D., J. R. Ive, and J. L. Clark, (eds.). 1995. Forest issues: Processes and tools for inventory, evaluation, mediation and allocation. CSIRO Division of Wildlife and Ecology, Divisional Project Report 7.Google Scholar
  8. Davidson, D. 1992. The evaluation of land resources, Longman Scientific and Technical, Harlow, p. 198.Google Scholar
  9. Dawes, R. M. 1988. Rational choice in an uncertain world. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Dean, D.J. 1994. Computerized tools for participatory national forest planning. Journal of Forestry 92(2):37–40.Google Scholar
  11. Foran, B., and K. Wardle. 1995. Transitions in land use and the problems of planning: A case study from the mountainlands of New Zealand, Journal of Environmental Management. 43(2):97–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ive, J. R. 1995. LUPIS: Computer assistance for land use allocation, Resource Technology 92 Taipei: Information technology for environmental management, November 1992, Taipei, Taiwan (in press).Google Scholar
  13. Ive, J. R., and K. D. Cocks. 1983. SIRO-PLAN and LUPLAN: An Australian approach to land use planning. 2. The LUPLAN land-use planning package. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 10:346–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Ive, J. R., and K. D. Cocks. 1985a. Rural land use planning techniques. Pages 112–122. In P. Newton and M. Taylor (eds.), Microcomputers for local government planning and management. Hargreen, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  15. Ive, J. R., and K. D. Cocks. 1985b. Adding a localised adjustment capability to the LUPLAN land use planning package. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 12:455–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ive, J. R., and K. D. Cocks. 1989. Incorporating multi-party preferences into land use planning. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 16:99–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ive, J. R., P. A. Walker, and K. D. Cocks. 1992. Small-scale spatial modelling of the potential for dryland salinisation in Victoria, Australia. Land Degradation and Rehabilitation 3(l):27–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Iverson, D. C., and R. M. Alston. 1986. The genesis of FOR- PLAN: A historical and analytical review of Forest Service planning models. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report INT-214.Google Scholar
  19. Janssen, R. 1991. Multiobjective decision support for environmental problems. Free University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  20. Margules, C. R., and M. P. Austin. (eds.). 1991. Nature conservation: Cost effective biological surveys. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  21. Margules, C. R., and J. L. Stein. 1989. Patterns in the distribution of species and the selection of nature reserves: An example from Eucalyptus forests in south-eastern New South Wales. Biological Conservation 50:219–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McLean, E. R., and H. G. Sol. 1986. Editorial in Decision support systems: A decade in perspective, Elsevier (North- Holland), Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  23. Resource Assessment Commission. 1991. Forest and timber inquiry: Draft report Vol. 1. Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas Cocks
    • 1
  • John Ive
    • 1
  1. 1.CSIRO Division of Wildlife and EcologyLynehamAustralia

Personalised recommendations