J. Richard Forester Dispute Resolution Services

Evaluative Research

1. Results of the Mediating Land Use Disputes Study

by Mieke van der Wansem

From 1995-97, CBI conducted an unprecedented qualitative and quantitative evaluation to analyze and assess efforts to mediate 100 land use disputes throughout the United States for the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. The purpose of the study is to be able to provide public officials with insight into what they are likely to encounter if and when they use assisted negotiation to resolve various types of land use disputes. Following is a summary of the key findings.

Government Officials Initiate Mediation
78% of the mediated cases were initiated by government officials at different levels. Our interviews suggest that these government officials learned about assisted negotiation through hands-on experiences, seminars, and initiatives by other government departments.

Participants in Mediation View the Process Quite Positively
Most survey participants had a positive view of assisted negotiation: 86% of participants viewed the process either very favorably (46%) or favorably (40%). Even respondents from the cases that were not settled, 31% viewed the process as either very favorable (12%) or favorable (19%).

Significant Progress was Made Even When No Settlement was Reached
Of the participants who thought their dispute remained unresolved, 64% thought that the assisted negotiation process had helped the parties make significant progress toward resolution of the conflict. Progress mentioned included: minor agreements; improved relationships; clarification of issue and interests; and expanded knowledge.

Mediation Serves Individual Interests as well as All Parties' Interests
92% of respondents whose cases were settled strongly agreed (49%) or agreed (43%) that their own interests were well served by the settlement their group had reached. 86% of respondents whose cases were settled agreed (51%) or strongly agreed (35%) that, in general, all parties' interests were met by the settlement.

Mediated Settlements are Creative, Stable, and Sufficiently Implemented
Of the respondents who stated that some sort of settlement was reached:

75% thought their settlement was implemented very well (41%) or sufficiently (34%).

69% thought their settlement was more stable than what they probably could have reached through another process such as litigation or administrative appeal (23% didn't know).

88% stated that their settlement was creative (it produced the best possible outcome for all sides given what they know now).

Mediators Play an Important Role
85% of respondents thought the mediator was crucial (60%) or important (25%) in achieving agreement among the parties. Only 4% thought the mediator was not important. Remarkably, 75% of respondents from unsettled cases thought the mediator was crucial or important. In fact, 80% of respondents thought they could not have reached an agreement without the assistance of a neutral professional.

Mediation Costs Less and Takes Less Time
81% of the 400 respondents who answered this question thought that mediation consumed less time and money than they thought would have been the case had they pursued litigation or administrative appeals. Only 5% thought mediation cost more and took more time.

The results of this study are also synthesized in two forthcoming reports being published by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy: "Using Assisted Negotiation to Settle Land Use Disputes: A Guidebook for Public Officials" and "Mediating Land Use Disputes: a Policy Focus Paper." A course on this same topic will be offered through the Lincoln Institute in the Fall of 1999. For more information call the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy at 617-661-3016 or contact Mieke van der Wansem at 617-492-1414 ext. 19 or at mieke@igc.org.


	Dispute Resolution Services J. Richard Forester