Sustained forests; sustained profits
|[ HOME | Lasting Forests Home | Table of Contents | The Finder | Glossary ]|
Replacing confusing concepts of planning (there are some 40 definitions of planning), the The Trevey system unifies GIS, simulation, optimization, ecological databases, and general information (e.g., a 100-page glossary, available in electronic form). The system allows landowners to learn about the land and make decisions appropriate for the present and to account for changes in the future system.
The old plan is no longer "that dusty book on the shelf" (Baltic et al. 1989), out of date before it was printed and delivered. It is the dynamically changing and improving system within the computer. A book can be produced but the usual user will use it as a hypertext, moving forward and backward, first a graph, then a chapter, then a glossary term, then back to check how the objectives had been stated, then in other creative ways.
A singular, generic system produces a unique book for each management area or unit. The book is like a good newspaper, out-of-date tomorrow, a "throwaway." The system shifts emphasis from the plan to a planning system, a computer-based entity being continually updated, revised, edited, expanded, and made more interactive than the day before. The Trevey may include color pictures of historical conditions, television clips of herd conditions, computer programs that may be accessed for detailed local work, color graphs that summarize data accumulated and re-analyzed since the range fire last week caused all statistics to change and new optima to emerge. The system can replace "planning" concepts for large land units (e.g., the 500 National Wildlife Refuges, the source of the original recognized need for such cost effectiveness).
Describing large, complex systems is not only difficult but also always unsatisfactory. People approach problems and solution systems differently, so there is never the proper place to start a description. The Trevey is a system of concepts, a framework of action, and computer support. A prototype and new parts do exist. Trying to unify the interests, as always, is the major task that is last addressed, usually too late to avoid conflicts. The Trevey has been proposed as the unifying means. The system is not likely to solve all land use problems. That is too stringent a requirement, however one conspicuous limitation is enough to have an otherwise-excellent system dismissed. The Trevey needs to be developed further for it may become a standard for comparing other approaches or paradigms. It contains the means for its own correction.
The system will surely be demonstrated to provide substantial cost and time saving, even more important, improve the quality of the decision process. It will provide a stable resource of information and offer continuity in knowledge about local ecosystems and management policies. As a training aid for changing personnel with diverse education and experience, it may become invaluable.
The system is designed so that it can be used for a large farm, county, watershed, or multi-county region. Conceptually, it is right for the nation, perhaps world, but practical and political limitations label such thoughts as infeasible. The Trevey operates for some named land units, a region. It seeks to address comprehensive planning and land use issues for the land volume that is the (region). By emphasis on volume, we embrace all phenomena above the land (e.g., air quality) as well as on and below it (e.g., groundwater and minerals). A three-dimensional worldview begins the break with traditional efforts. A fourth dimension, time, is also dominant. The two major outputs of the system are (1) plans and (2) decision aids, answers to (what does a proposed change really do?)
The Trevey is a dynamic set of programs within a relatively small computer. Overly simplified, it is: (1) a word processor with standard files, (2) a file of data, (3) a set of computer programs, and (3) a merge statement. The file is continually changing as data change, as new programs are written and results produced, and as entry of any new factor changes numbers in many places throughout the file. The data are linked as if in a small ecosystem, many are related to each other. One change in data causes changes in models throughout the system. The changed results are put in the file. The merge command fills in the blanks in the text. There are ancillary materials that rarely change such as photographs of seeds or slides of pathogenic materials. The total plan may not be of interest on a particular day, but a new "plan" or part may be created at any time - any part - any table - any chapter - and sent electronically to where it can be used . . . or merely viewed on a screen. Paper copies are no longer required, but they may be produced.
The plan, as expected, influences the character of the decision aids, the second major product of the system. Decisions in general range from "what cereal for breakfast?" to "where to locate a trans-Alaska pipeline?" but this system, while related to land use decisions, is not just a land use decision system. Implicit within it is that almost all decisions have a major land use component. Everything occurs in the volume. It is likely that at least one environmental factor influences every decision (e.g., noise influencing health care, recreation, and schools). The major components of the system are shown in Table 1. On one-hand it is a land use system, on the other, a system to provide guidance for managing the total human system.
The decision aids from the system are expected to emerge in answers to conventional questions such as: Can I mine here?, What is the best place for a new school?, Where is the optimum powerline corridor? (Giles 1976, 1977a, Giles et al. 1976); Where is the best place for a new general aviation airport? (Koeln 1980), What are the effects of a new tax on grazing intensity? A scenario is that a developer requests information for placement of structures at a point with coordinates x and y in a region. The Trevey answer: "No, for the following main reason, but OK at location x + 3, y - 2." The intent of such a response is to provide clear answers and assistance and more as discussed later. The system does not make decisions. These remain personal and within the political system. It does provide more information, better processed than ever before, and makes support for going against the output of the system very difficult. With inadequate information, strongly biased special-interest forces are difficult to control. The Trevey may reduce this power. Thwarted political power, however, may kill the system. The philosophy "Information is power " is true for people in general but it may be deadly for individuals (or systems). The potentials of the system raise exciting opportunities and potential radical changes ahead in land use policy.
A central concept of The Trevey is that problems exist in the gap between objectives and the present state. It is possible to develop a concept of a nearly perfect condition of the region that might be expressed as a score. If we call that best score R*, then we can evaluate the current condition (or that condition after some proposed development, land use change, or program) and call it R (Figure 1). R is a total system performance index (Churchman 1968). This seems to lurch into treacherous grounds for some people. A reality is that people in an area need an answer to "how are we doing?" Some people argue that individual factors or conditions should be presented and each person can summarize them in any way they like. The Trevey is grounded in ecology, in the concept that things are related in almost incomprehensible ways with synergism, non-linear relations, limits, and thresholds. The power developed over years of research now allows us to do new syntheses, to "get it all together." Formal synthesis exceeding the power of the unaided human brain is now available and needs to be used.
R and R* have over 300 components or criteria (Giles 1977b, 1981). These are the objectives. We start the design and development of The Trevey with fundamental epistemology, the question of how would we know we were doing well with the land or region or how would we know if we had an excellent condition. The appropriate answer to this question is taken to be: when we are achieving our objectives. We have gained citizen taskforce inputs and student involvement over 10 years and developed such a list of objectives. They are of the form (in two brief examples): (1) to minimize erosion, and (2) to maximize human access to land. As is evident, these (as other objectives) are in conflict. Maximizing access will very likely increase erosion. The tradeoffs are made within the computer program. The formulation of the objective is a major advance within The Trevey concept. It sums for (1) separate groups or populations within the region, (2) over a planning period of 100 years, (3) for all 300 objectives the product of (4) the quantities in a perceived desirable condition (somewhat like economic demand but expressed as a proportion of the potential that a normal area can produce), (5) the relative importance of each element of the condition (Churchman and Ackoff 1957), (6) the expected occurrence or probable failure to achieve the desired end (accounting for risks), (7) substitutability of elements, and (8) a constraint on variety (providing for high biodiversity and similar expressions). The formulation for the objectives is complex but now manageable. Inability to develop this expression and compute it has been at the heart of past public land use problems. Conflicts arise between people when any one of their eight above listed elements are dissimilar!
Figure 1. The score for a region or large management area, R, may be plotted over time. Historical estimates may be made but in general attention is on how to minimize A, the difference between the actual score and the desired condition and its score may be increased (or decreased) as shown at B by re-stating and changing one or more dimensions of the large set of objectives.
Public as well as private land managers, researchers, professors, and consultants wrestle with a problem that resists being named. It is the "equitable-profitable-proper-landuse-for-owner-and-other-citizens-now-and-sustained-indefinitely" problem. The solution to this complex problem is within a complex system, The Trevey.
It is a small wonder that any land use decision is ever made. As shown in Figure 1, the R* value is estimated every few years for it changes as citizen demand, values, etc. change. The R value also changes, hopefully moving more closely to R* under wise management. There may be unavoidable setbacks such as from fires and floods and rapid improvements in R resulting from development, government programs, concerted citizen action, etc.
Table 1 Major Groups of Objectives
One decision aid provided by The Trevey is the result of a simulation, an analysis of the probable consequence of an action on R. If R were likely to decrease, it would probably be unwise to issue a permit (or even to apply for one), or to continue with a project. If a decrease of, say 100 points in R might occur and no other options were available, it may be that other action by the person or group may increase by substantially more than 100 points the score in a region. Then the net results might make the proposal acceptable. Total regional, long-term, net effect of an action seem to be a suitable basis for operation (Giles 1979) on the condition in a region, the potential for a high quality life, given all legal and similar constraints.
The data requirements are great but no greater than those used or needed at present, and the data are used, not just collected and filed away, nearly impossible to retrieve and rarely used to influence a decision.
The primary data flow to models, (e.g., of waste disposal per person per year). As an example, an increase in people resulting from a proposed development automatically changes the numbers in the waste chapter, automatically the cost of a disposal facility in the budget chapter.
The other data are numerous. Some appear as tables but they all operate in models (or are omitted because they do not "do anything", are functionless in reaching decisions). In most cases "nice-to-know" is omitted in favor of "need-to-know" but some general text material is provided because of the extreme diversity within the system and the near impossibility of anyone being fully knowledgeable in each area for which a report is prepared.
A primary input and processing category is the computer map produced by an entire geographic information subsystem (Figure 2). These maps have become increasingly well known. Their first uses were as overlays. The computer successively placed a single factor map atop a cumulative set of maps. Progressively, good or bad areas were delineated, i.e., areas having all or most factors. More recent systems include (nearness-to) or (distance from) functions allowing zones around roads for example, to be mapped and these to be added as a map feature. Other improvements include modeling in a map cell or polygon. Given an equation such as Y= A + BX + CZ3 -DQ0.5 and that X Z and Q are names of factors on maps with real numbers in each cell (as in Figure 2), then the computer moves to a cell, pulls the values, computes Y, then stores the results and moves to the next cell. A new map is made of all of the computed values of Y. That new map may be of prime sites for Type D industries.
A computer mapping system provides the basis for evaluating a developer's proposal, because it allows new-roads, water lines, school transit, and environmental and visual impacts all to be assessed in the same form.
It is almost impossible to discuss system inputs without discussing processes. The core processes are operations research, mathematical, statistical, and econometric models. The premises or operating policies and concepts are:
Computer maps showing different factors or quantities can display detailed information about large areas. Many maps can be overlain, factors used in models, distance and area phenomena computed and used, and all produced in color or three dimensions. The discrimination provided as seen here allows site-specific information to be used in lieu of often-over-generalized information such as found in zoning maps.
To change the state of the region from R to R* may not cost a region anything. People there may continue operation as in their history. A change agent (e.g., a new building, a shopping center) may come or go - the R score will change. Citizens (or landowner) may decide that they want to increase the score. Implicit is the need for optimization. Given 20 proposals by creative citizens or a consultant, which will be best? The results typically are in the form of a modified benefit-to-cost ratio (RR) with (R*-R) /R* being maximized and C being minimized.
Part of the concept is that the computation of RR, R*, or R must not cost very much.. The Trevey is conceived as being a large system of staff and computers and is not appropriate for a small group. Because it is a system, it is likely that, once developed, it can be modified in minor ways so that the initial development need not be borne again. Only revisions and managing local data will be needed. The system can be adapted for use elsewhere.
The costs of such a system are invariably less than those of a misplaced highway, a suit involving an endangered animal species, a U. S. Forest Service Plan (average $3 million; O'Toole 1985 page 176), or costs of delays in any large project. Effectiveness is said to be achieving objectives at low cost and high efficiency, and then operating at low cost. The Trevey is an effectiveness-oriented system. People can become every efficient in doing the wrong thing, even evil things.
A Rural Implication: Zoning
In the rural sector, the agricultural zone is said to be a banking zone. Land is banked there until such time as someone needs it for another use, then it is re-zoned to that use. This cynical view highlights the widespread displeasure with zoning. There are many approaches to controlling or regulating rural land use, but none have worked well (Table 2). People wait for the next move by a developer, the new highway, or some other challenge to rural land use. Giles and Koeln (1983) advocated analyzing the primeness of farm land, then allowing progressive alternative land use inroads only in sequence, retaining the most prime farmland until the last. This is a subset of zoning, a long-standing practice so entrenched it will be hard to convince anyone of there being an option.
That discoveries are still on the shelf does not mean that they are not good, as any patent attorney will testify. The history of technology is replete with examples of ideas pulled from the past and used, sometimes in new ways, but not always. One such breakthrough is called dynamic classification. Williamson (1981) completed a Ph.D. dissertation on the topic and several others have advanced the concept (Giles et al. 1993). The concept is grounded in computer mapping. Williamson held that maps should not be made of regions or generalized areas. A mapped region good for displaying conifer forests may not be good for displacing where a certain reptile occurs.
1. Preferential Tax Assessment. The higher the tax the less likely the change in use. Change usually causes cost increases so taxes are sought to balance out these costs. There are pure, deferred, (rollback) and restrictive agreement types.
2. Use Purchase. (or donation) of land for public use as decided by governing bodies. The region pays the difference between the land value and the development value for some long period.
3. Circuit Breaker State Tax Income. Landowners receive credit on the state income tax (up to some percentage) for having surrendered development rights. (This is limited to a proportion of property taxes.)
4. Inheritance and Estate Taxation. Relief is given to owners who keep land in its present class.
5. Tax Exemptions. Exemptions or reductions are allowed for maintaining land in a particular use (e.g., farmland).
6. Best-use Taxation. The taxes are higher the greater the deviation from an agreed-upon best use.
7. Land Gains Taxation. A sliding scale of levies is placed on profits from sales of land held for only a short time. Rewards are based on land class and on length of time ownership.
8. Graduated Property Tax. Incentives to retain rural land are provided as relatively lower taxes than on other land use.
9. Combined Zoning and Taxation. Formation of "Districts " combining rigid zoning and preferential tax assessment
10. Purchase. Fee simple acquisition of land by government may include signs, fencing, etc.
11. Limited Rights Purchase. Less than fee-simple acquisition.
12. Easements. Purchase of easements.
13. Land Banking. The government assembles a manageable track, then leases or sells it with deed restrictions.
14. Planned Unit Development. Alternative pattern of development of housing and infrastructures to reduce land put under cover.
15. Flexible Cluster Development. Improved patterns that retain more greenspace.
16. Performance Standards. Acceptable levels of impact are established for sites.
17. Ad Hoc Action. Creative "commission" actions that are site and project specific.
18. Policy. Agency policy and guidelines that are protective in influencing use and management combinations (e.g., best management combinations)
19. Combinations of the Above. There are 153 pairs among the above.
"Ecoregions" are over-generalized maps. When we have (as we do) the capability of mapping animal ranges, specific points with conditions suitable for a species, why should we over-generalize and group all reptiles or all conifer trees? Technology now allows low cost maps to be produced in a timely fashion to meet specific needs. Zoning, using grossly mapped areas of land use types, is over generalizing.
Each map cell, because there are so many factors known about each, is probably unique. Given hundreds of factors characterizing each cell, it is possible to ask of such a system: Given the 25 characteristics of my planned factory (or any project), where are the best places to put it? Perhaps the computer might select a place (in a factory or industrial zone) but the place might be suboptimal, slightly better at the edge of another zone, several times better in another zone.
Years ago, there were too many factors, options were fewer, pressures less, space more available. Creating maps of zones was not a bad technique. All of that has changed. Where shall we put the pipeline corridor through the region? Which of the more than 300,000 possible routes will have the lowest ratepayer, environmental, legal, and infrastructure costs? At the farm scale: what is the most profitable crop I can grow this year in all of those fields? At the regional scale, where can we encourage marketing, advertising, printing and warehouse centers for the coming fossil-energy short society? Where does a new goat herd enterprise make sense? Where are farm and heavy-equipment cooperatives likely to be profitable? These are the questions with answers in The Trevey. When these potentials are realized, then conventional zoning with all of its costly delays, litigation, and community-destroying ill-will becomes outdated.
Within The Trevey a proposal is made: Request permission to put development D at point x, y. Query. Results: No constraints or limits are passed. R will improve 1.36 points. Permission suggested. This query could have been made before a formal request, indicating a future strong potential for permission and preventing developers and others from ever going too far down the planning path only to reach later the high costs of being rejected.
Having sustained development or a sustainable region is an idea with intuitive appeal. It sounds logical, reasonable. When we ask how will we know when we have it, or when we imagine arguing our case in court trying to prove we achieved it, we find the idea may have slipped from our grasp. Suppose we graph a sustained community as in Figure 3. If we look at the line A, the progress of R toward R* over time, we can argue that our system has great stability, no gains, and even though the score is low, we have sustained the system at a constant rate and it never stopped.
Alternative graphs of sustainable rural development. What is meant by sustainable may be in doubt. R is the score for the good condition of the area in a year. The desired level is R*; the desired condition probably line E or F.
Line B is also of a sustained system. It has never reached zero (certainly the condition of (unsustained). We do not know what will happen at time (b), but that was never specified; regions are variable. We will argue that we can work out something in the future as we have done in the past.
Pattern C seems unacceptable! The sharp dips are dangerous, probably bringing short-term unemployment or bankruptcy. We need a regular pattern; that's what sustain implies. We cannot have a perfectly smooth line as in A or B. A little fluctuation is normal. Line D presents problems, but, like C, we can argue that over the long run we have achieved well. We never discuss what occurred in the gaps.
Clearly sustained, just variable, line E seems to suggest success. Never zero, never a real threat of unacceptable conditions, the pattern is highly acceptable. The average rate is zero and that, to some, is the definition of sustained and stable. We may not want stable development only stable benefits; we may want a continuous increase without excessive fluctuation well into the next century as shown in F.
Within The Trevey the issue of sustainability is addressed in several ways. We define what we want. We adopt a long planning period. We continue to slide the planning period 100 years ahead at the end of each year (part of the concept of a dynamic planning system). We accept and expect fluctuation and variation but we continue to move toward R*, then regulate the system as tightly as possible about that (a negative feedback operation). We do not use within the system concepts like "development", "quality of life", "sustainability", or "ecosystem management" for they are intrinsic to the total, dynamic, system operating for humans.
Development, by some definitions, means lost quality of life, higher taxes, and lower-wage jobs. Sustained development in a depression or unwise development "at any cost", while achieving that objective, may fail in most other tests. Not yield, not production, not buildings built or land sales . . . but quality of life for citizens subject to a set of reasonable, needed constraints, policies, and laws, is what we need. We need to replace the political slogans and easily-used phrases with our own phrases.
The Trevey is a system for guiding people toward writing and then achieving their objectives. That local peoples' objectives are the fundamental driving property of the system is easily lost among discussions about data banks, computers, and economic or ecological issues.
The objective is formulated precisely (Giles 1981). Citizen efforts in past objective-setting exercises have been confounded by imprecision and mixing of demand, value, and risk and by rarely, if ever, confronting the prospects of substitutable conditions. These efforts have rarely dealt actively in making the full-scale costs estimates over time. They have rarely been able to voice an opinion about an action in relation to their society over the long run, the change in R in relation to R*.
Citizen participation requirements are very great. Exhausting valuation is required and it takes weeks of evening volunteer work. However, once done, this intensive work is not required again for 5 years. Objectives must be somewhat stable. Adjustments may be made in the interim.
There are different needed conditions and levels of importance among different populations. Within the system these are unified as subpopulations. The "average person" may not exist. Care to meet the needs of sub-population reduces some conflict while allowing every citizen's needs in some areas to be met.
Citizen inputs about procedures and processes (suggestions) are allowed, but decisions about these are left to the professionals in the region and their full expression of superior state-of-the-field works is encouraged. Of course citizen ideas, questions, and suggestions are welcomed, but an effort has been made herein to tease apart means and ends, the root of past extreme conflicts in land use management and decisions.
Who are the publics, the sub-groups? This has been a controversial issue. Perhaps every person should be given access to expressing fully seven dimensions of 300 objectives. It is an interesting idea but impractical and infeasible by many measures, chief of which are time and cash. Citizen sampling is appropriate. It too is costly and representativeness is questioned in every conflict situation. "Representative government" is called for. Elected officials "represent" citizens in providing values. Even this has proven a problem; there is great reluctance to represent the wishes of others. Doing so is a time consuming, very particular activity over a very great range of concepts --however these are the full range required for superior decision making by government officials of a region. (The ignorance of individuals, otherwise hidden, can be exposed.) Often elected officials will appoint commissions or committee (by various names) to do this work. Even among them, there may be reluctance. They have often asked (staff) to assign weights of importance, risk levels, etc. This has resulted in increasing resource agency conflict over the years. Decades ago foresters, for example, were representative. They were rural people among rural people. Now their values are very different from those of a highly urban society. Years ago Kennedy (1970) found little agreement between values of state wildlife biologists and rural folk. The probability of a close match between citizens' objectives and staff objectives seems small. A staff person may argue that he or she is better informed than citizens are. Perhaps, but the point is missed. Needs, wants, importance, willingness to take risks - these are the topics, not the technical details of soil erosion rates, tree growth, or toxicity of certain substances. Both are of ultimate importance simultaneously but separately.
These counter-currents are well known in planning. A solution was made evident in a controversy. Three high level judges presided over an optimum location case. They refused to provide weights that were reflective of citizens' feelings of importance about fairness, equality, or how the proposed project may degrade certain environmental features. Such weights were needed for the analysis. To overcome their reluctance and proceed with the analysis, three analyses were done. This is called a parametric approach. The staff created in a consensus discussion group inputs that they believe that were representative of extremes of attitudes of the public - for example (1) the ultra-protective, long-range viewing people and (2) the exploitative, short-range viewing people. Then a mid-range - the all-around, reasonable person. These are caricatures (often humorous) but by their use, a type of simulation can be run that allows three results from computer analyses that can be compared by most observers. When the analyses have been conducted, we have found that (1) there is not an equal distance in results between the so-called mid-range people and the extremes. The best efforts to describe the central tendency fail. As observers say the extreme (high or low) was not that far from the good guys. The other observation has been that on large projects (e.g., selecting a utility corridor) there is amazing similarity of location for all groups, perhaps 60 percent of the distance. These differences in citizen values expressed in the objectives cause the route to deviate (to meet these objectives) in certain areas. The results allow discussions and further analyses to be concentrated on these areas of difference rather than on efforts to prevent or block an entire project (already having been decided that it will be implemented, the location being the remaining question.) There is no good place to put any development. There will always be change that results from the development and some change will be viewed by some person as bad. The solution to many land use problems may be formulated as a least-bad or cost minimization problem. Risks can be included in such a formulation as "expected cost" or the product of an expectation-value (i.e., 1.0-risk) and the estimated discounted costs.
All of this work, all of this detailed analysis of human objectives can be dispatched in the blink of a socio-political eye. All people are not equal; one-person, one-vote is not a rule followed in land use planning. Neither cynical nor naive, development in The Trevey has the potential of computing the will of the people (or an appropriate subgroup) and computing and presenting how to achieve it. There are many reasons why a project may fail, but these are the same reasons that unaided people will also fail to match their actual condition with their desired and needed condition. Most peoples' objectives are poorly known and the formulation above helps them to be at least as well (perhaps "better") expressed as ever before. Once developed and the power of The Trevey documents is seen by the public, there will be fewer apparently single-interest, self-serving judgments made by those in authority. The unpopular can be justified; the apparent disclaimed. The system's results can be used to support rational, informed decisions in the public context, those that meet citizens' long term needs.
If there was only a single landowner or chief executive then there would be one "public" and one set of numbers and the system would work to achieve that person's objectives. The design has been to achieve a system for both public and private interests.
The Trevey is a living system. By that is meant (1) the text (chapters and sections) is expanding, (2) the text is edited, (3) the files are updated and expanded, (4) models are added and their results are added to or replace items in the file; (5) auto-regression is used (older data are dropped or given low weights as new data are added; (6) research is reviewed and coefficients changed, (7) models are improved; and (7) use rates are used to influence the rates at which revisions are made.
Major changes do occur in land use, ranging from sweeping tax rule change to price support programs. A forest fire, industrial development, or flood can cause significant change in data about an area. These data, when entered, change proportions, indices, tax bases and many other numbers linked in some way. When a change occurs in one place (say creation of a new lake), many files are changed throughout the system and a new book or "plan" is produced that includes the lake but changes also in biodiversity, climate, recreation, motel service, transportation, school service, groundwater risks, waterfowl migration, fire fighting services for residential areas, and others.
Use rates of The Trevey will be monitored and a decline in use will trigger investigations into causes. Acceptance of The Trevey results will be monitored and causes for failures identified. Exciting intra-system policy issues are ahead for addressing revisions in the system to increase acceptability of recommendations versus those that improve the technical content but perhaps reduce the acceptance of recommendations.
The system will be judged to be suitable if it is responsive to the dynamics of technology (computers and communications); the land itself; knowledge about the components of the system (gained from experts and research); citizen objectives; and the staff operating the system.
Computer power opens new alternatives to wildland or rural land use planning and alternative means to control use. The Trevey provides answers to whether a proposed land use (or land related practices) may be approved based on (1) a large set of citizen (or land owner) objectives with eight components, (2) non-linear optimization, (3) extensive computer mapping capabilities, (4) large data sets, and (5) dynamic changes. The dynamic system in the computer available from the internet replaces conventional plans or books for they-are no longer timely. The system delivers on demand electronically an entire report or its parts. Sections or data are responsive to user needs. The system may also respond to preliminary queries about possible land use approvals, thereby reducing costly delays and risk-related rejections. The system is believed to provide a major alternative to zoning but raises issues about planning policy such as who are the representatives, how comprehensive should the system be, how stable must the objectives be, what models are to be used, and the levels of confidence that are appropriate in making any rural land use decision. The use of The Trevey has potentials of reducing conflicts and their costs, encouraging cooperative efforts and partnerships, and creating opportunities for improved quality of life in the future.
Estimated costs for future development......$50,000
Estimated annual profit 250 users @$1000....$250,000
Baltic, T. J., J. G. Hof, and B. M. Kent. 1989. Review of critiques of the U.S.D.A. Forest Service Land Management Planning Process. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report RM-170, Rocky Mt. Forest and Range Exp. Sta., Ft. Collins, CO. 15pp.
Churchman, C. W., 1968. The systems approach. Dell Publishing Company, New York, xi + 243 pp.
Churchman, C. W., R. L. Ackoff, and E. L. Arnoff. 1957. Introduction to operations research. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, N.Y. 645 pp.
Forrester, J. W., 1969. Urban dynamics. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. XIII + 285 pp.
Giles, R. H., Jr. 1976. Siting high-voltage powerlines in Virginia. Industrial Vegetation Management. 8(3): 14-19.
Giles, R. H., Jr. 1977a. Simulating the environmental impacts of a high-voltage transmission line. Winter Simulation Conference Proc. Vol. 1, 319-321.
Giles, R. H., Jr. 1977b. A watershed planning and management system: design and synthesis. Virginia Water Resources Res. Center, Bull. 107, Blacksburg, VA vi + 133 pp.
Giles, R. H., Jr. 1979. Modeling decision or ecological systems? p. 147-159 in J. Cairns Jr., G. P. Patil, and W. E. Waters, Eds. Environmental biomonitoring, assessment, prediction, and management - certain case studies and related quantitative issues, International Corp. Pub. House, Fairland, MD, 438 pp.
Giles, R. H., Jr. 1981. Assessing land owner objectives of wildlife, p. 112-129 in R. T. Dumke, G. V. Burger, and J. R. March (eds.) Wildlife Management on Private Lands, Wisc. Chapter Wildlife Society, Madison, WI 568 pp.
Giles, R. H., Jr. 1987. The creation, uses, and demise of a Virginia, USA, geographic information system. p. 507-524 in Proc. International Workshop on GIS, Beijing, PRC, 2 vol. 535 pp.
Giles, R. H., Jr., C. W. Smart, and A. G. Jones, III. 1976. Power: a high voltage transmission corridor location system, pp. 43-47, Proc. 1st National Symposium on Environmental Concerns in Rights-of-Way Management. 335 pp.
Giles, R. H., Jr. and G. T. Koeln. 1983. Land and cropland primeness: concepts and methods of determination. Env. Management 7(2):129-142.
Giles, R. H. Jr., R. G. Oderwald, and A. U. Ezealor. 1993. Toward a rationally robust paradigm for agroforestry systems. 24:21-37.
Holling, C.S. (ed). 1978. Adaptive environmental assessment and management. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY 377 pp.
Williamson, J. F. Jr., 1981. Dynamic Classification: conceptual development and applications in wildlife management. Unpub. PhD Diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA x+ 231 pp.
Kennedy, J.J., III. 1970. A consumer analysis approach to recreational decisions: deer hunters as a case study. Unpub. Ph.D. Diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 182 pp.
Koeln, G. T., 1980. A computer-assisted general aviation airport location and evaluation system for Virginia. PhD Diss., Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA xii + 235 pp.
O'Toole, R. A., 1988. Reforming the Forest Service. Island Press, Washington, DC 245 pp.
Return to the top.
|Quick Access to the Contents of LastingForests.com|
This Web site is maintained by R. H.
Last revision January 17, 2000.