Lication in the Following Source: Kamruzzaman

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Queensland University of Technology ePrints Archive

This is the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for pub- lication in the following source:

Kamruzzaman, Md.& Baker, Douglas C. (2013) Will the application of spatial multi criteria evaluation technique enhance the quality of decision-making to resolve boundary conﬂicts in the Philip- pines? Land Use Policy, 34, pp. 11-26.

This ﬁle was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/56809/

Notice: Changes introduced as a result of publishing processes such as copy-editing and formatting may not be reﬂected in this document. For a deﬁnitive version of this work, please refer to the published source:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.01.007 *Title page with author details

Will the Application of Spatial Multi Criteria Evaluation Technique Enhance the Quality of Decision-making to Resolve Boundary Conflicts in the Philippines?

Md. Kamruzzaman1, Douglas Baker

School of Civil Engineering and the Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, 2 George Street, Brisbane, Queensland 4000, Australia.

Abstract Systematic studies that evaluate the quality of decision-making processes are relatively rare. Using the literature on decision quality, this research develops a framework to assess the quality of decision-making processes for resolving boundary conflicts in the Philippines. The evaluation framework breaks down the decision-making process into three components (the decision procedure, the decision method, and the decision unit) and is applied to two ex-post (one resolved and one unresolved) and one ex-ante cases. The evaluation results from the resolved and the unresolved cases show that the choice of decision method plays a minor role in resolving boundary conflicts whereas the choice of decision procedure is more influential. In the end, a decision unit can choose a simple method to resolve the conflict. The ex-ante case presents a follow-up intended to resolve the unresolved case for a changing decision-making process in which the associated decision unit plans to apply the spatial multi criteria evaluation (SMCE) tool as a decision method. The evaluation results from the ex-ante case confirm that the SMCE has the potential to enhance the decision quality because: a) it provides high quality as a decision method in this changing process, and b) the weaknesses associated with the decision unit and the decision procedure of the unresolved case were found to be eliminated in this process.

Keywords Decision Quality; Conflict Resolution; Spatial Multi Criteria Evaluation (SMCE); Boundary Conflicts; Ex-ante Evaluation; Decision Support System

1 Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 (0)7 3138 2510; fax: +61 (0)7 3138 1170. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Md. Kamruzzaman), [email protected] (Douglas Baker) *Highlights (for review)

Research highlights

 A framework is developed to evaluate the quality of the decision-making processes in resolving boundary conflicts in the Philippines.

 The application of the spatial multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) technique is investigated to determine whether it enhances the quality of the decision-making processes.

 The choice of decision method was found to play a minor role in resolving boundary conflicts in the case studies; however, the choice of procedure was found to have a greater impact.

 A decision unit can choose a simple method to resolve the conflict in the end.

 The SMCE has the potential to enhance the quality of the decision-making process because the limitations associated with the procedure and the people involved were eliminated.

*Manuscript without author identifiers Click here to view linked References

1. Introduction Land use and environmental conflicts often require both accurate and high-quality decision-making to resolve complex issues among the stakeholders. Indeed, the need for more systematic studies to evaluate the quality of the decision-making in resolving environmental conflicts has been highlighted in the literature (Rauschmayer and Wittmer, 2006). Within this context, decision-making is a social process that selects from a set of options the alternative(s) that is/are most likely to lead to the desired outcomes and includes those who make the decision as well as those affected by the decision (Balasubramanian et al., 1999; Wittmer et al., 2006). Mintzberg et al. (1976) argue that the decision-making process is composed of three main components: the decision procedure, the decision unit, and the decision method. The decision procedure is referred to as the steps/activities that are required in a decision-making process to finally reach a valid and accepted decision. The common steps of a decision procedure may include agenda building, decision preparation, evaluation, decision realisation, feedback, and revision of the decision (Peters and Hulscher, 2006). On the other hand, individuals/groups who actively participate in different steps of a decision procedure are defined as the decision unit (Hermann, 2001; Peters and Hulscher, 2006). When a decision-making process becomes mired in conflicts arising from multi-party involvement due to the need to resolve a complex decision problem1, a decision unit often seeks decision support tools/techniques to make a decision (Ackoff, 1981; Bouyssou et al., 2000). These tools/techniques are often referred to as decision methods (Brown, 2005). Bouyssou et al. (2000) have classified decision methods into the categories of formal methods (e.g., voting, cost-benefit analysis, multi-criteria analysis, decision tree) and informal methods (e.g., tossing a coin, asking an oracle, visiting an astrologer).

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the quality of the decision-making processes aimed at resolving boundary conflicts in the Philippines through the development of a decision-quality evaluation framework. Traditionally, two approaches have been used to evaluate the quality of decision-making: a) an evaluation of the processes used to make a decision (referred to as the process-oriented approach), and b) an evaluation of the different outcomes of a decision (referred to as the outcome- oriented approach) (Davern et al., 2008; Hershey and Baron, 1992; Keren and Bruin, 2003; Zakay, 1984). The process-oriented approach evaluates the efforts used to make a decision (Timmermans and Vlek, 1996). The primary argument put forward is that decisions are made under uncertainty, and as a result, the processes are critical in defining the quality of the decision (Edwards et al., 1984). In contrast, the outcome-oriented approaches argue that people are less likely to follow the guidelines provided by the process-based literature, and instead, when judging decision quality, they tend to focus on the substantive outcomes rather than the processes (Hershey and Baron, 1992; Jones et al., 1997). Lipshitz and Barak (1995) argue that a decision process and its outcomes are probabilistically

1 Ackoff (1981) has defined a decision problem as a situation in which an individual or a group perceives a difference between a present state and a desired state and where: a) the individual or group has alternative courses of action available, b) the choice of an action can have a significant effect on this perceived difference, and c) the individual or group is uncertain a priori as to which alternative should be selected.

1 related, and therefore, the appropriate criteria for the evaluation of a decision is not what actually happened but what might have happened. In addition, to operationalise the outcome-oriented approaches, one must know the outcomes of a decision, which are not realistically accessible to an analyst prior to the decision. As a result, this paper follows a process-oriented approach to evaluate the quality of decision-making.

Systematic studies evaluating the quality of decision-making processes are relatively rare (Davern et al., 2008; Keren and Bruin, 2003). The previous research aimed at evaluating the quality of decision- making processes is generally fragmented and can be broadly constructed into two groups. The first group examines the impact of different types of computer-aided tools on the quality of the decision- making process and includes such approaches as Group Decision Support Systems, Intelligent Decision Support Systems, and E-negotiation (see, Coll et al., 1991; Larsen, 2003; Limayem et al., 2006; Moreau, 2006; Pedro et al., 2004; Timmermans and Vlek, 1996). These tools are commonly referred to as planning/decision support systems and are therefore synonymous with the decision method concept in this paper (Geertman and Stillwell, 2010). The second group examines the impact of a specific component (other than a decision method) of a decision-making process (e.g., size of participation, data quality, visualization quality, quality of the decision-makers, decision-making duration) and its effect on the decision-making quality (Borchers, 2005; Carmeli and Schaubroeck, 2006; Fiedler and Kareev, 2006; see for instance, Ganster et al., 1991; Lipshitz and Barak, 1995; Malhotra et al., 2007; Raghunathan, 1999; Schulte and Peter Grüner, 2007). All of these components, including the decision support tools, represent only a portion of the decision-making process, and therefore, a more comprehensive analysis is required to evaluate the quality of a decision process.

Early research by Hart (1985) provides a comprehensive framework for evaluation of the quality of group/collaborative decision-making processes. This work derived three sets of interrelated components of group decision-making based on the literature: a) process – which is defined as procedural rationality (fair, open and collaborative), b) content – understanding of the preferences and viewpoints of the participants involved in the process, and c) outcome – use of the results by the participants, i.e., acceptance of the process outcomes by the decision units involved. The study did not evaluate the quality of the unit itself and did not include any relevant criteria/components to assess the relevance/suitability of any tools/methods used.

In contrast, Wittmer et al. (2006) developed a framework with criteria (e.g., information management, legitimacy, social dynamics, and cost) to assess the appropriateness of the decision methods used to resolve conflict. However, no empirical studies were used to operationalise the framework. Using a similar framework, Rauschmayer and Wittmer (2006) evaluated several decision support methods and concluded that multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) methods can be applied to conflict resolution because the analytical methods are particularly suitable for stakeholder engagement. However, many studies have highlighted the observation that the application of a potentially useful decision method/tool does not necessarily mean a “sure win” solution (Davern et al., 2008; Hart, 1985). Bouyssou et al. (2000) have argued that a “best method” cannot exist that is empirically correct in all

2 contexts; a decision aid must take into account the capabilities and needs of the people who will implement and use the aid (Brown, 2005). Therefore, an evaluation of the quality of a decision method should focus on determining whether the method fits the purpose in a specific decision- making context (Rauschmayer and Wittmer, 2006; Wittmer et al., 2006).

Based on the above discussion, the objective of this research is twofold: first, to develop a framework to evaluate the quality of decision-making processes in resolving environmental conflicts such that the strengths and weaknesses associated with the processes can systematically be identified; and second, to examine whether the introduction of a specific decision support tool known as the „spatial multi criteria evaluation (SMCE)‟ will enhance the quality of decision-making processes in resolving conflicts. The research uses municipal boundary conflicts in the Philippines as case studies to operationalise the developed framework. The remainder of this paper is organised into four sections: Section 2 reviews the literature on the identification of the nature and causes of municipal boundary conflicts; it also gathers evidence of the methods applied in resolving boundary conflicts. Section 3 outlines the methods, evaluation framework and case studies used to analyse the quality of the decision-making processes. Section 4 provides the evaluation results of the decision processes used in the different case studies. Section 5 concludes the paper by drawing on specific empirical results from the application of the SMCE in the case studies.

2. Municipal boundary conflict Boundary conflict, which often results from the creation of a fuzzy boundary, is a specific type of environmental conflict characterised by its nature: a boundary is shared between different actors, and if a boundary conflict exists, the contenders often lack access to resources within the conflicting areas (Gleditsch et al., 2006; Shmueli, 2008). Shmueli (2008) has identified different attributes of the contenders, which include attitudes, perceptions, interests and needs, that shape the level of the disputes and are strongly influenced by the geographical milieu in terms of both the human and physical landscapes. Research has shown that municipal boundary conflict is a multifaceted type of conflict with different levels: a) geopolitical (e.g., electoral interests – manipulation of an electoral boundary to influence the political power of parties), b) economic (e.g., municipalities aim to maximise the amount of land uses that contribute the most to their local tax base and to minimise the size of the burden on municipal services), c) local identities (e.g., powerful sentiments for the preservation of historical local identities), and d) cultural/inter-group relationships (e.g., ethnic disputes) (O'Loughlin, 1991; Razin and Hazan, 2004; Shmueli, 2008). Generally, the first two issues are common in a pluralist society whereas the later two are common in a deeply divided society (Razin and Hazan, 2004). This research identifies that the existence of fuzzy boundaries (the lack of a precise technical boundary) triggers municipalities in the Philippines to grab additional land from neighbouring municipalities primarily to increase their revenue. Within this context, the establishment of precise technical boundaries faces difficulty for three reasons:

a. the municipalities were created by the Presidential Executive Order, which provided only a narrative description of the boundaries. This narrative provided a descriptive location (e.g., a

geographical landmark such as a mountain) of the municipal boundary monuments (MBMs) and also often describes the boundary lines using a narrative (e.g., slightly right of the hill). In locations where the narrative is not well defined, this creates conflict during the preparation of a precise linear boundary by the responsible organisation (such as Land Management Services - LMS); b. certain conflicts were the result of the existence of contradictory boundary information presented in the NAMRIA (National Mapping and Resource Information Authority) and the LMS maps. The NAMRIA maps are primarily topographic maps based on old records. An indication is provided in the NAMRIA maps that the municipal boundaries presented in these documents are not authoritative and can be changed after cadastre/political boundary surveys by the LMS. However, many municipalities did not accept the LMS map, especially if they ended up losing lands; and c. the existence of cultural/ethnic boundaries also caused boundary conflicts in the Philippines. The existing law in the Philippines supports the identity (boundary) of different ethnic enclaves located within the municipalities. In certain cases, the municipal boundaries bisect the cultural boundaries, which the ethnic groups did not accept, and the contending municipalities were not interested in giving up a portion of their politically divided ethnic area.

The reasons for refusing to give up a portion of municipal land and/or claiming additional land were found to be economic in the following forms: a) internal revenue allotment (IRA), which is the major source of municipal income received from the national government and is calculated based on land area and population; b) municipal income, which is generated through taxation of properties; and c) people living in the disputed area who are often reluctant to resolve a conflict due to their exploitation of a „status quo‟ situation by not paying tax to any municipality.

Razin and Hazan (2004) have identified two broader approaches in resolving municipal boundary conflicts: a) geographical-administrative, which refers to criteria such as efficiency, effectiveness (including coordinated land use planning and environmental management), equity and local democracy; and b) political, which refers explicitly to outcomes of power structures. Therefore, the first approach follows a formal method whereas the latter approach is more likely to be an informal method. Although it is often conceptualised that the former approach is also implicitly political, it is argued in the literature that professional assessments do make a difference. As Razin and Hazan (2004, p.81) noted:

“...the prominence of political considerations in municipal boundary delineation is overemphasized by some who downplay the significance of expert evaluations in initiating changes, evaluating them, mitigating disagreements and legitimizing decisions. Political decision-makers are influenced to a degree by professional evaluations, particularly when these do not contradict their vested interests or ideologies. The bureaucracy could be even more influenced by expert evaluations. Professional evaluations are not value free and can be manipulated, serving to mask hidden political agendas. However, such evaluations still represent an aspiration for a more transparent, pluralist and rational process.”

Every boundary conflict contains a strong spatial component (Shmueli, 2008). As a result, geographic information systems (GIS) have long been applied in resolving municipal/local boundary conflicts (e.g., US political redistricting) (Forest, 2004). However, although boundary conflict is a multiparty game, traditional GIS methods cannot facilitate the participation of different stakeholders within a decision-making process to resolve boundary conflicts. The development and application of participatory three-dimensional modelling (P3DM) in resolving boundary conflicts therefore represents a path forward (McCall, 2003; Rambaldi et al., 2002). Although a P3DM effectively facilitates participation (e.g., by displaying a 3-D model of the conflicting areas and resources), unlike the MCE, it cannot take into account the conflicting interests of the contenders. The MCE seeks to incorporate only non-spatial interests and their weights to evaluate the alternative boundary options. In a conflict, the interests of the contenders vary over the conflicting areas (spatial variation). The development of the spatial multi-criteria evaluation (SMCE) is an approach in which this problem can be addressed. The SMCE is a combination of the MCE method and spatial analysis (GIS) that bridges the gap between the GIS and MCE (Malczewski, 1999). Despite intensive application in such different research fields as transport planning, risk analysis, suitability analysis, land use planning, and water management (Ceballos-Silva and Lopez-Blanco, 2003; Dai et al., 2001; Kamruzzaman et al., 2011; Makropoulos and Butler, 2006; Simon et al., 2004; Zucca et al., 2008), the application of the SMCE in resolving boundary conflicts has received little attention in the literature. Sharifi et al. (2002) have applied the SMCE to locate a boundary between the Tunari National Park and Cochabamba city in Bolivia.

3. Methods An evaluation framework is developed from the literature and tested in three case studies in the Philippines. The framework is used to assess the components and quality of the formal decision processes in each case.

3.1 Framework applied to evaluate the quality of the decision-making process The evaluation framework applied to assess the quality of a decision-making process in resolving conflicts was developed based on the literature on decision quality (Figure 1). This framework uses the three components of a decision-making process (decision procedure, decision method, and decision unit), and the quality of each component was assessed which, in turn, informed the overall quality of the process. To keep the framework simple, no interactions amongst the components were evaluated in this research, although we acknowledge that the quality of any single component may have an impact on the quality of other components. The quality of each of the three components was evaluated using a number of criteria, as outlined in Figure 1.

In terms of the quality of a decision procedure, Hoffberg and Korver (2003) argue that a high-quality procedure is not a guarantee of a certain outcome but a warranty that the procedure used to arrive at a choice was a good one. A good procedure generally consists of clear steps together with clear beginning and ending steps (Zakay, 1984). Each step in a good procedure clarifies the task (action) to be completed (Davis and Cosenza, 1993), the nature of the decision unit‟s involvement (e.g.,

5 negotiation, facilitation, mediation, arbitration, litigation)2 (Brown, 1995; Nagel and Mills, 1990), the potential training needs of the unit (Ganster et al., 1991; Hart, 1985), the venue for action to be taken, and the start time and end time of the steps in the overall process to avoid misunderstanding (Hart, 1985; Messner et al., 2006; Webler, 1995; Wittmer et al., 2006). A training step in the procedure avoids premature convergence and greatly increases the possibility of a win-win solution (Ganster et al., 1991). This process also enables the affected parties to take part in and to influence the decision- making process (Briggs, 2003; Messner et al., 2006).

The selection of a neutral venue with an open atmosphere enhances impartiality in decision-making, and otherwise, individuals or groups may boycott the procedure (Jacobs, 2002; Pestman, 1998; Skelly, 2002; UNESCO, 2002). A decision can be good, but at a certain stage of the procedure, the „finality of a decision‟ is important (Mintzberg et al., 1976). Three conditions for finality are important: documentation of decisions (e.g., memorandum of agreement – MOA), easy access to these decision documents, and the implementation of the decision (Klercker and Klercker, 1998; Masalu, 2000; Zhang et al., 2005). Finally, Wittmer et al. (2006) have highlighted the need for a legal backup to these steps to increase their acceptability and to reduce doubt among the members of a decision unit.

The quality of a decision substantially depends on a decision unit‟s levels of expertise (Malhotra et al., 2007). However, an evaluation of the expertise of a decision unit requires knowledge of the structure of the decision unit. Hermann (2001) has classified the decision units into the following categories: a predominant leader (e.g., autocracy), a single group (e.g., employees in a office), and a coalition of autonomous actors. The coalition of autonomous actors is the most common form of a decision unit used to resolve a conflict. The actors in this situation consist of separate individuals or groups or representatives of institutions, which all (if some or all concur) can act but no one of which by itself has the ability to decide. In such a coalition, the actors can follow three types of approaches to resolve a conflict: soft (the participants are friends, and the goal is agreement), hard (the participants are adversaries, and the goal is victory), and principled (the participants are problem-solvers, and the goal is a wise outcome reached efficiently and amicably) (Fisher et al., 1991). Fisher et al. (1991) argue that a principled approach provides the most stable resolution (win-win) for conflict. A number of other attributes indicating the level of expertise of a coalition of autonomous actors has been highlighted in the literature, including sensitivity to information and use of technology (Hermann, 2001), knowledge of how decisions are made to provide the necessary input to the process (Wittmer et al., 2006), decision-making history (Keren and Bruin, 2003), preparation for decision-making (Mostert, 1998; Zakay, 1984), and sensitivity to the context of a decision problem (Mostert, 1998; Zakay, 1984).

2 Mediation – an independent body is used to assist (e.g., work through issues, help to identify alternatives, facilitate final agreement) the parties in finding a mutually acceptable solution. Facilitation – less formal than mediation, a third party assists by preparing the agenda, chairing meetings, distributing relevant information, steering parties to reach an agreement. Negotiation – one party attempts to convince and influence other party. Litigation – an adversarial legal process conducted in a court of law.

The developed framework is useful only to evaluate the quality of the formal decision methods because conflict resolution requires the consideration of different stakes at any given time, and this means that conflicting values and interests must be reconciled in the process. Only a formal method provides the explicit and unambiguous representation of a complex problem and offers a common language for communicating among the different parties involved. A number of authors have proposed various criteria to select a decision method depending on a variety of methodological and practical considerations (Graaff, 1996; Rinner, 2006; Sharifi, 2005; Timmermans and Vlek, 1996; Wittmer et al., 2006; Zakay, 1984). These criteria can be grouped as: a) technical considerations / decision analytic and processing capability / information management capability; b) organisational considerations / practical criteria / resource criteria; and c) the decision maker‟s considerations / attitudinal criteria.

Technical considerations refer to the methodological soundness of a decision method used to cope with the ecological and societal complexity of a decision problem (Timmermans and Vlek, 1996; Wittmer et al., 2006). This process can be determined by examining the representation and processing qualities of the user‟s goals, preferences and expectations (Sharifi, 2005; Timmermans and Vlek, 1996). Organisational considerations refer to a method‟s flexibility with respect to the variations in the decision problems and the user‟s competence and efficiency (Graaff, 1996; Wittmer et al., 2006). For the organisation, Timmermans and Vlek (1996) have observed that the application of a decision method is feasible when it can be run within the budget, time and expertise constraints of an organization. Attitudinal criteria, which Rinner (2006) has referred to as “usability criteria”, are user satisfaction criteria such as satisfaction with and acceptance of the method and satisfaction with and confidence in the method‟s outcome (result) (Timmermans and Vlek, 1996). An additional criterion that is applicable only to group decision-making is the „interaction criteria‟. The method by which a decision is reached should be suitable for participation (Rauschmayer and Wittmer, 2006; Timmermans and Vlek, 1996).

3.2 Selection of cases with boundary conflicts and their backgrounds The developed framework was operationalised in this research using three decision-making cases aimed at resolving inter-municipal boundary conflicts located within the province of Benguet in the Cordillera Administrative Region (CAR) of the Philippines (Figure 2). The Philippines has a century- old history of boundary conflicts between administrative units. Three tiers of administration exist: provincial, municipal, and Barangay (lowest tier)3. Although all boundary conflicts arise at the Barangay level, the complexity of a conflict can be escalated if: a) two conflicting Barangays are located in two different municipalities, which means that the pattern of conflict changes from intra- municipal to inter-municipal as does the nature of the stakeholder involvement; and b) these two conflicting municipalities are located in two different provinces, and therefore the nature of the stakeholder engagement changes from intra-provincial to inter-provincial.

3 A region is not a separate level in the administrative structure but an organisational subdivision of the national government.

Since 1991, the Local Government Code (LGC) of the country has been used as the legal process for resolving boundary conflicts. According to the LGC, intra-municipal (Barangay level), intra-provincial (municipal level), and intra-regional (provincial level) conflicts should, respectively be resolved in the concerned municipality, province, and region. However, previous research studies have indicated that most of the intra-municipal (Barangay level) conflicts were settled by the end of 1999, although inter- municipal conflict remained open in the region (Rambaldi et al., 2002). As a result, inter-municipal boundary conflicts that are located within a province (intra-provincial) were selected as cases in this research because these cases represent the next level of conflict (after intra-municipal) for resolution. This bottom-up approach in resolving the conflict was found to be in agreement with the proposed action plan of a task force currently involved in resolving boundary conflicts and is discussed in Section 3.2.3.

Figure 3 outlines the decision procedure as laid out in the LGC for resolving inter-municipal boundary conflicts. In this process, the decision unit is principally composed of a boundary dispute committee (BDC) with a chairman (all are elected officials from the provincial council) and the officials from the contending municipalities. Within this process, the code does not specify a decision method to follow for conflict resolution, but it does specify the necessity of an “amicable settlement”. As a result, the concerned decision unit can choose any method to resolve a conflict. However, despite the implementation of the LGC for more than two decades, this legal process becomes stranded in many cases. For example, out of 19 inter-municipal conflicts in the province of Benguet, eight cases have been filed in the provincial council and only two have been resolved. As a result, the Regional Development Council (RDC) in the CAR has initiated alternative approaches to resolve all conflicts in the region4. This is the primary reason for the choice of the CAR as a case study region in this research.

The interests of the contenders in all three selected cases were found to be geo-economic in nature. In all three cases, the municipalities aimed to maximise the amount of land uses that contribute the most to their local tax base and to minimise the size of the burden on the municipal services. In addition, all three conflicts were found to stem from the absence of a precise technical boundary in which the locals relied on narrative description. Despite these similarities, the three cases possess sufficient contrast in terms of their adopted decision procedures, the nature of decision unit involvement, the applied decision methods, and decision outcomes, as discussed below. The following three cases were evaluated according to the developed framework in Figure 1.

3.2.1 Case Study 1: Ex-post evaluation of a resolved conflict The boundary conflict between the Kapangan and Tublay municipalities was the first of the two conflicts that were resolved in Benguet province (Figure 2). This case was chosen as an ex-post

4 The CAR has six provinces (Abra, Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, Kalinga, and Mountain Province) comprising of 76 municipalities and 1172 barangays. Interestingly, it has a total of 76 inter-municipal conflicts of which 17 are inter-regional (CAR vs. other region), 8 are inter-provincial but intra-regional, and the remaining 51 are inter- municipal but intra-provincial.

8 evaluation of a resolved conflict using the developed framework. The decision procedure began in mid-1994 when Kapangan filed a petition in the Benguet provincial council to resolve the conflict (Figure 4). Upon receipt of the petition, the chairman of the BDC acted as a facilitator and invited the opponent municipality (Tublay) to hear the case. The Tublay municipality responded to this invitation positively and actively participated in the process; as a result, the nature of the decision unit involvement in this case followed a facilitation method. However, due to changes in the composition of the decision unit after four hearings (because of elections), it took nearly a year to initiate the process again. The case was finally resolved in 2.5 years (ending in December 1996) from its first referral to the provincial council (Figure 4). A comparison between Figure 3 and Figure 4 clearly indicates that the decision unit involved in the resolved case followed the procedure as laid out in the LGC.

The decision problems of this case were first, to select a proper location for Municipal Boundary Monument (MBM) 10, which was a common MBM for three municipalities (e.g., Kapangan, Tublay, and Atok), and second, to delineate a boundary line between MBM 9 and MBM 10 once the location of MBM 10 was settled (Figure 2). This meant that once the location for MBM 10 was fixed, Atok was no longer a component of this decision unit. The two decision problems were resolved using two different methods. The unit searched for old documents, received help from the local people, and consulted with the ex-officials to resolve the MBM location problem. On the other hand, the chairman of the BDC identified the conflicting interests of the contenders to take into account for the delineation decision. These interests included the increased internal revenue allotment (IRA), the inclusion of communal forest and rice terraces, and the addition of higher taxpaying properties. However, in the end, the chairman proposed a „tax map‟ (a map based on who paid tax to which municipality) as the only determining criterion for the delineation decision. The proposal was accepted by both parties. As a result, the adopted method (tax map) represents a „spatial single criterion evaluation (SSCE)‟.

3.2.2 Case Study 2: Ex-post evaluation of an unresolved conflict The boundary conflict between the La Trinidad and Tublay municipalities, as outlined in Figure 2, was chosen as a case for an ex-post evaluation of an unresolved conflict using the framework. Since 1949, two attempts have been made to resolve this conflict, although neither attempt was successful (Figure 5). The decision problem of the unresolved case was to delineate a boundary line between MBM 22 and MBM 24, which meant that the location of MBM 23 was under question. However, as shown in Figure 2, no third municipality (unlike Case Study 1) had a stake in these decision problems.

During the first attempt in 1949, the case was referred to the former Mountain province (Benguet was a sub-province of the Mountain province at that time). Note that there was no LGC during this period, and neither was there a BDC. However, the nature of the stakeholder involvement in this time period was found to be facilitation, and the provincial governor facilitated the process together with the governor of Benguet sub-province. Based on the documents located for this period, it appeared that the provincial council produced a resolution report. However, subsequent municipal activities during this period indicate that the municipalities made their own decisions (e.g., putting up a sign board) and informed the other municipality of their decision by referring back to the report. The recommended

9 resolution from the provincial council was exploited by each side to justify their own positions, and as a result, the conflict continued.

The second attempt to resolve the conflict took place in 2002-03. During this period, the two municipalities attempted to negotiate the boundary dispute between them with no third party involvement to oversee the process. They sat together, listened to each other, and derived methods to resolve the conflict by taking into account the conflicting interests of both parties. A method similar to that used in the resolved case was used to resolve the MBM location problems in this case. However, the multi-criteria evaluation (MCE) technique that was proposed for delineating the disputed boundary was not implemented. The multiple conflicting interests of both municipalities were identified in a conflict resolution meeting on September 23, 2002, and in this case, the criteria were categorised as: a) geographical issues, b) documents, and c) public consultation categories, although no progress was made afterwards. As a result, no resolution resulted at this point.

3.2.3 Case Study 3: Ex-ante evaluation of an ongoing process to resolve the previous unresolved conflict The chairman of the RDC in CAR observed that boundary conflicts have a negative impact on the economic development in the region and issued a resolution (No. CAR-034) in 2005 requesting NAMRIA and the department of environment and natural resources (DENR) to assist the local government units (LGUs) in settling the boundary conflict. The NAMRIA responded and agreed to provide technical assistance; however, the funding was to be provided by LGUs. An additional technical party, the GIS network technical work group (GIS-TWG), also showed interest in assisting the LGUs. The RDC took this opportunity and asked the GIS-TWG to design a workshop in order to form a task force that would mediate the process. After the workshop, a regional task force on boundary conflict resolution was created (composed of DENR-CAR, LMS, GIS-TWG, and NAMRIA) through RDC Resolution No. 47 in 2006. The task force was composed of professionals from multidisciplinary backgrounds, including municipal engineers, town planners, and decision support scientists (in addition to the politicians involved in the conflicting municipalities). The task force subsequently organised a general orientation seminar on boundary conflict resolution, and representatives from almost all of the LGUs in CAR attended. The task force introduced itself, clarified its objectives, and also explained its working procedure (Figure 6) for resolving boundary conflicts in that seminar. The task force also identified the municipalities interested in resolving their boundary conflicts. The interested municipalities agreed to pay the cost that would be incurred to resolve their conflicts as laid out in the procedure, and a memorandum of agreement (MOA) was signed. Because they were influenced by this holistic approach and the overwhelming responses from the LGUs, the central offices of NAMRIA and the national economic development authority (NEDA) also expressed their intention to replicate this process for the entire country in that seminar.

The task force, therefore, represented a new decision unit that developed a new decision procedure (Figure 6) to resolve all conflicts in the region on a case-by-case basis. Note that the task force contains no legal enforcement mechanism but is instead a collaborative venture between the

10 municipalities. The task force selected the previously unresolved case (the conflict between La Trinidad and Tublay) for resolution in the first instance. This unit also intended to use the SMCE as a decision method in this changing process. As a result, this unresolved case was again selected for an ex-ante evaluation of the quality of the decision-making process and for examination of the impact of the SMCE in enhancing the decision quality for future processes. Because the unresolved case has yet to be resolved, the decision problem of the ex-ante case remains the same. Figure 6 shows that the ex-ante procedure contains two parts; the first part of the procedure is common for all conflicting municipalities whereas the second part is case specific. The decision unit involved in this case aims for capacity building for the municipal officials in the first part, and the second part is related to decision-making through an iterative process (case-by-case). The task force implemented the training step in the procedure to train officials of the signed municipalities in the areas of GIS, SMCE, decision-making, and conflict resolution. Currently, the task force is in the process of generating alternative boundary options to resolve the ex-ante case.

3.3 Operationalising the framework A three-step method was followed in this research to operationalise the developed framework. First, the relevant decision-making documents for each case were studied and examined (content analysis) based on the developed framework (see Figures 4, 5, and 6). Second, interviews were carried out with the relevant decision units for the ex-post cases (resolved and unresolved). The aim of this interview was to gather information that would both complement and triangulate the data derived from the content analysis. Next, two additional rounds of interviews were conducted with the decision unit involved in the ex-ante case. In the first round, issues such as the role of the task force, their structure and competencies, the attitudes of the contending municipalities towards the task force, and the conflicting interests and preferences of the contending municipalities were identified (Table 1). In addition, three alternative boundary options (i.e., a natural boundary following a creek that bisects the conflicting area, a highway boundary that also bisects the conflicting area, and a tax line boundary based on the tax payment of the residents living in the conflicted area) connecting to the undisputed MBMs (e.g. MBM 22 and MBM 24) were generated based on the literature (Figure 7) (Aloe, 2006). The identified conflicting interests from Table 1 were subsequently captured in an SMCE environment as the spatial criteria and were used to evaluate the alternative boundary options (Figure 8).

Using the spatial criteria and their weights (preferences), the alternative boundaries were evaluated and the results were documented (Table 2). For the second round of interviews, all of these steps were demonstrated and explained to the municipal town planners, engineers, and politicians, who were subsequently questioned as to their satisfaction in terms of understanding the method and its results. A similar demonstration was provided to the audiences that participated in the orientation seminar. A pre-printed questionnaire was provided to the audiences before the demonstration, and they were asked to fill in the questionnaire after the demonstration. Forty (40) questionnaires were returned to the researcher by the participants at the end of the seminar. The questionnaire was designed to capture the levels of satisfaction and understanding with respect to the application of the SMCE in resolving boundary conflict. All of the data collected (content analysis, interviews, and

11 questionnaires) were analysed using the developed framework and were evaluated based on a three- point qualitative scale (good, moderate, and poor).

4. Results The evaluation results for the three decision-making processes are outlined in Table 3. The following sub-sections outline the scores of the evaluation using a comparative description of the decision procedure, the decision units, and the decision methods.

4.1 Decision procedure A comparison between Figure 3 and Figure 4 clearly indicates that the decision unit involved in the resolved case followed the procedure as laid out in the LGC, which is simple, straightforward, easy to understand, and backed by the law. It appears that not only were the steps (as laid out in the LGC) followed consistently in the resolved case but an additional step of “monumenting on the ground” made the decision permanent. However, no specific procedure was followed in the unresolved case. The existence of ambiguity in this procedure can be distinguished easily in Figure 5. For example, Figure 5 demonstrates that the decision unit involved during the first attempt in the unresolved case followed two parallel procedures, and the lack of coordination between the steps is a distinguishable feature of the procedure followed in the second attempt. The ex-ante procedure (Figure 6) is simple and straightforward. However, unlike the resolved case, the ex-ante procedure is not supported by legislation, and this lack of support provides the potential for disagreements. In addition, the ex-ante procedure does not contain any steps related to the implementation of decisions on the ground to make them permanent, although a step is included to update the boundary on paper once a decision is reached. In contrast, the results from both the content analysis and the interviews show that the absence of a training step in the resolved and unresolved cases created uncertainty and confusion as to how to proceed.

Evidence also suggests that the chairman of the BDC handled the resolved case impartially as a facilitator. The chairman provided equal opportunity to the stakeholders, and each member was able to present his or her argument, logic and opinion. Although the municipality of Atok was not initially considered as a contender in the resolved case, the chairman advocated for the inclusion of Atok‟s opinion to render the procedure more transparent. The following citation taken from one of the hearings in this case reflects the neutrality of the chairman:

“Now, there is a problem here with respect to Mount Toctocan as the common boundary. Since Tublay is enforcing this, any decision, agreement by the parties before this requires the presence of Atok. Since it is the common boundary between Kapangan, Tublay and Atok, we have to involve Atok if your stand is to be followed.”---Chairman, Boundary Dispute Committee, hearing on October 19, 1995.

Similar to the resolved case, the conflicting parties were treated impartially by the provincial governor during the first attempt of the unresolved case. This evaluation criterion is not applicable during the second attempt because the parties followed the negotiation method. Neutrality was maintained in terms of the selection of meeting venue in the resolved case but not in the unresolved case. Most of the meetings/hearings in the resolved case took place at the session hall of the provincial council in

Benguet, which was considered as a neutral place by the stakeholders. However, in the unresolved case, only one meeting was held in the provincial board-room, and the remaining meetings took place at the office of the Tublay municipality (one contender in this case). Both in the ex-ante and resolved cases, every activity (including every speech during the hearings) was recorded in a book format together with other relevant documents, and kept in a safe and easily accessible location (Benguet provincial council). In the unresolved case, it was rather difficult to locate the relevant documents. Separate pieces of paper and fragmented documents were collected from multiple locations to prepare Figure 5 for the unresolved case in this research.

Although the conflict is resolved on the ground for the resolved case, it is not officially resolved. The decision unit placed MBMs at frequent intervals on the ground to make the decisions permanent, but it did not push its decisions forward to the decision implementation unit. Figure 2 was prepared using data obtained from the LMS. The appearance of this resolved conflict in Figure 2 indicates that the LMS is still not aware of the decisions made a decade earlier. This situation was also verified through interviews with the LMS. The main reason for this lack of communication between the decision- making unit and the decision implementation unit (e.g., the LMS) was identified as a missing link in the procedure laid out in the LGC (see Figure 3). The LGC had not specified the next steps after the „amicable settlement‟ step. This weakness in the procedure of the resolved case is acting as a hindrance in the way of utilizing any benefit from this successful process. An amendment in the legal procedure is therefore required for a smooth transition in the resolution process. Figure 4 outlines that the decision unit took over than a year to make a decision in the „amicable settlement‟ step instead of 60 days. Two reasons were identified for this lag: first, the decision unit was uncertain of how to proceed with an “amicable settlement”, and second, changes were made to the decision unit in the middle of the procedure for political reasons.

In addition, during the interviews, the decision units involved in both the resolved and unresolved cases complained of funding limitations for conflict resolution. The results of the questionnaire survey also support this observation. The ex-ante procedure ensures the availability of funds for the process. However, the ex-ante procedure will not be sufficiently robust to resolve all of the conflicts in the region unless all of the contending parties sign the MOA. Complexity will also be increased in the ex- ante procedure if one contender in a conflict signs the MOA but the other(s) does not.

4.2 Decision unit The selections of alternative dispute resolution methods by the decision units were found to be different across the three cases: facilitation methods were followed in the resolved case and during the first attempt in the unresolved case, negotiation method was used in the second attempt of the unresolved case, and mediation was chosen in the ex-ante case. As mentioned earlier, the resolved case bears no benefits for the contenders due to poor facilitation. In the ex-ante case, the organisations that were supposed to be informed in the resolved procedure became the members of the task force. As a result, this composition of the decision unit in the ex-ante case reduces the procedural complexity. In addition, the training step in the ex-ante procedure increased the procedural

13 knowledge of the decision unit involved (the impact of the decision unit on the decision procedure or vice versa). Because no specific procedure was followed in the unresolved case, it was not possible to evaluate the procedural knowledge criterion for this case.

In all three cases, the respective decision units were found to be highly sensitive to information and attempted to use technology where necessary. For example, in the unresolved case, the mayors of both municipalities asked their respective engineers and assessors to prepare maps (e.g., tax maps, business maps, property maps) and to present the maps during the joint dispute resolution meeting on September 23, 2002. The resolved case is the first conflict resolution decision in the history of Benguet province, which means that the unit had no prior experience in making decisions, and this novelty was observed to have an impact in the process (e.g., inefficient process management). For instance, the following dialogue from a new chairman of the BDC in a hearing reflects this observation:

“May we know from the parties if there is any record in their position with respect to the previous proceedings? We would like to know so that we will know where we should start. As of now, we do not really know where the previous committee have already undertaken. Otherwise, we will start again. All over again.”---Chairman, Boundary Dispute Committee, on October 19, 1995 hearing.”

It is reasonable to expect that the new chairman should go through the previous documents before attending this meeting. However, the task force was found to be well prepared as a mediator. In addition, 71% of respondents mentioned that mediation would be more helpful because of the nature of involvement compared with that of facilitation.

Unlike the resolved case, the decision unit involved in the unresolved case (the La Trinidad and Tublay municipalities) had a prior history of conflict resolution. The La Trinidad municipality was able to resolve all of its intra-municipal (Barangay) boundary conflicts (resolution no. 12-93 on October 26, 1993) whereas the above resolved case provided an example for the Tublay municipality that was resolved in 1996. On the other hand, the task force does not have any prior experience in decision- making to resolve boundary conflicts. However, once it gains experience, the task force has a greater probability of reapplying these principles for two reasons: first, it will handle a greater number of cases because it operates in a regional rather than provincial context; and second, unlike the BDC, which usually changes every three years due to elections, the task force is not susceptible to political change over time because it is composed of technical persons from government offices.

This research was conducted as a response to an invitation from the task force to study the conflicts in the CAR region, which signifies the unit‟s interests in seeking professional help. As in the ex-ante case, the decision units (mainly composed of politicians) involved in both the resolved and unresolved cases were found to be willing to seek professional help whenever they faced technical difficulties. The following statement reveals this fact in the resolved case. When a member of the BDC asked the mayor of Kapangan municipality whether he would be able to distinguish the shape of an imaginary line from the Mount Sob-ong to the MBM 9, the mayor replied as follows:

“I am hesitant to answer that. I need an Engineer.” ---Mayor Agpas, Kapangan municipality, boundary dispute meeting, October 19, 1995

Both contenders in the resolved case (Tublay and Kapangan) followed the principled approach in resolving the conflict. The following statement reveals that they attempted to reach an agreement but at the same time, they were sensitive to the needs of their constituencies.

“Kapangan will be sacrificed if we adopt Sob-ong and maintain straight line method since this is at the northern part. That is why we are reiterating our stand that we will abandon the straight line so that there will be equity in the distribution of land area and to respect the occupants in the area.”- Mayor Agpas, Kapangan Municipality, hearing on October 19, 1995

However, in the unresolved case, the parties were assertive in resolving the problem but did not cooperate. They passed resolutions (for instance, resolution no. 176; 28 October 2002 for Tublay) in their respective municipalities to resolve the problem, but at the same time, one municipality made its own decision without informing the contender (e.g., putting up sign boards and highway boundaries; see Figure 5). The political nature of the decision unit in both the resolved and unresolved cases was found to be a major weakness for these processes for two primary reasons. First, the members of the BDC feared for the future of their own political careers. They felt that if one of the contending municipalities becomes dissatisfied with the decision reached, the committee would not get voted in for the next election. Secondly, the officials (e.g., the mayor) of the contending municipalities were elected as well, and tended to draw out the length of the process so that no decision could be made during their current tenure, with the objective of avoiding blame from opposing political parties if a decision did not go in favour of their municipality.

The structure of the task force was found to be effective because it was composed of technical personnel from technical organisations and the contending municipalities. This composition does not contain the strong political inferences and consequences that the decision units shared. Interviews from municipal stakeholders reflect the following:

“It would be better for me to go to the court because Provincial Council is a political office. The court decision may go against the municipality but it is not me personally.” --- Councillor, La Trinidad Municipality

“Both sides are considering that they can solve it by themselves. Since La Trinidad is not filing a petition, so does Tublay. Taking too much time to solve in the Provincial Council is another reason for not going there.” --- Municipal Planning and Development Coordinator, Tublay Municipality

4.3 Decision method

The applied decision methods (or those currently planned) in the resolved, unresolved, and ex-ante cases are the SSCE, the MCE, and the SMCE, respectively. The SSCE failed to capture the different objectives and preferences raised by the stakeholders in the resolved case. A number of conflicting interests were discussed in the meetings for consideration in the decision-making, as previously indicated (e.g., IRA, communal forest and rice terraces, property taxes). However, the SSCE does

15 not have the ability to structure these interests and transform them into the preferred goal and objectives. A tax line boundary was accepted by both parties in the resolved case. The tax line boundary was generated based on the only tax map that could be further evaluated by other criteria (e.g., rice terrace, land area, communal forest, etc.) to render the decision more rational.

However, the representation of the decision-maker‟s goals, objectives, and preferences is a major strength of both the MCE and the SMCE. During the demonstration of the SMCE in this research, the contenders were urged to think of their problems in a broader context and consider other perspectives. For example, during the first round of interviews, the stakeholders were interested only in the IRA at the beginning. However, after the explanation of the SMCE, the participants made a substantial effort to re-structure their perceptions or representations of their problem. This effort was viewed as beneficial among the participants because it forced them to evaluate their positions against other viewed objectives. The demonstrated example of the SMCE shows how it accounted for the identified interests and preferences of the contenders and thus was able to overcome the weaknesses found in the SSCE.

In the resolved case, the adopted method took only one month to complete. Data were available within the municipal offices, and the professionals of both municipalities were able to carry out the necessary tasks. In the unresolved case, the municipal professionals clarified that they were not able to handle the functionalities of the MCE at that time and required the hiring of experts and investment in the necessary data to adopt this method (although no budget existed/exists for this purpose). The task force was found to be capable of handling the “technicality” of the SMCE in the ex-ante case. Many members of the task force have specialised knowledge of GIS and SMCE (e.g., NAMRIA). Within this context, 80% of the respondents reported that they believed the maps to be essential in resolving a boundary problem. The SMCE uses maps as an input and also produces maps as well as numbers as outputs (e.g., the demonstrated example). Approximately 75% of the respondents felt that the SMCE would be helpful in resolving boundary conflicts. The members understood the working concept of the SMCE and confirmed that the output is logical. Interviews were carried out prior to the hands-on training on the SMCE and, therefore, the completion of the training step in the decision procedure might make the stakeholders more confident in the application of the SMCE (impact of the decision procedure on the decision method).

Although the SSCE method was introduced by the chairman of the BDC in the resolved case, no group raised questions with respect to the SSCE method. This example provides an indication that the contenders were at least satisfied with the method. In the unresolved case, the contenders themselves adopted the MCE method without any third party advice. The results of the SSCE method were accepted by all parties involved. This approach also facilitated communication between the parties. Municipal engineers and municipal assessors from the contending municipalities sat together to prepare the tax maps. The following citations from the conversation amongst the participants of a hearing on February 16, 1996 revealed the collaborative strength of the SSCE method in the resolved case.

“One suggestion, Mr. Chairman. How about if, before we meet on March 15, 1996; the technical people of the two municipalities will first synchronize so that if we will submit, it will be already near to finality.”-- -Vice Mayor, Kapangan Municipality.

“What is the reaction of Councillor Eckman to the suggestion of Vice Mayor?”---Chairman, Boundary Dispute Committee, PC.

“I think we do not have any objection to that, sir. It is very good.”---Councillor Eckman, Tublay Municipality.

A clear advantage of the SSCE method was the clarity provided to the parties, who were able to see and compare the inputs and the outputs of the method. Both municipalities prepared their own tax map and overlaid them on a wall, which was examined by the officials from both municipalities to identify inconsistencies. The open display of the maps disclosed any misinformation presented in the prepared maps. Although the MCE method did not produce any outcome in the unresolved case, this method forced the decision unit to sit together to identify conflicting interests. It also facilitated dialogue among the contenders.

In the ex-ante case, the SMCE made the decision procedure more comprehensive and straightforward. The „mediation‟ step in the ex-ante procedure is similar to the „amicable settlement‟ step of the legal procedure (see Figures 3 and 6). The uncertainty of the decision unit during the amicable settlement in the resolved case stemmed from the procedure. This procedure did not specify the next step after in the „amicable settlement‟ step. The same situation would have occurred in the „mediation‟ step of the ex-ante procedure, but an introduction of the SMCE added three additional steps (Figure 6), which would guide the decision unit to perform the next step (the quality of a method enhances the quality of the procedure).

The SMCE provided an unambiguous representation of a given problem in the demonstrated example; it also offered a common language for communication of the problem and took into account the interests of the contenders. Our example also shows that the SMCE answered different questions with little effort (e.g., own perspective vs. equal weight perspective in Table 2), which can be of great help for devising a concurrent solution. From Table 2, it is clear that the natural boundary alternative would not be a concurrent solution but a compromise solution instead. The ranking of the natural boundary is neither the best nor the worst. The SMCE allows evaluation of other alternatives that have not been considered in the example, which could lead to a concurrent result. If the contenders consider the natural boundary as a compromise solution, every party will come out ahead of their worst expectations. The SMCE operation has also been carried out in this case using the resources available (e.g., data, time).

5. Discussion and conclusion This research develops a framework to evaluate the quality of decision-making processes. The framework was applied to three cases (resolved, unresolved, and ex-ante) aimed at resolving boundary conflicts in the Philippines. The framework identifies the systematic strengths and weaknesses of the processes used for decision-making. The evaluation scores of the unresolved

17 case reveal that a technically good decision method and a good- or medium-quality decision unit were unable to produce a decision due to the deficiencies in the decision procedure. The scores of the ex- ante decision procedure demonstrate that it is an improvement over the other two procedures; however, there is scope for further improvement due to the identified weaknesses. The poor performance of the „representation of goal‟ criterion in the resolved case highlights the necessity of a technically good method, but at the same time, the organisational capability must be considered (unresolved case) when selecting a decision method. The ex-ante case has fulfilled these requirements.

The quality of the decision units in both the resolved and unresolved cases discloses the fact that a lack of experience can be overcome if a decision unit is sufficiently willing to seek professional assistance and possesses a good attitude and a strategy toward problem solving. Because the task force involved in the ex-ante case is following a principled approach and the contending parties are also cooperative, it can be anticipated that the task force will be able to overcome its lack of experience given that it is more likely to be involved in many decision-making cases. The poor performance of the “decision confirmation” criterion has brought little real benefit from the whole process in the resolved case. This situation revealed the poor procedural knowledge of the decision unit involved in the resolved case. The awareness-building and training steps would therefore be expected to enhance the decision unit‟s procedural knowledge in the ex-ante case.

Referring back to the main question of this study, whether a potentially good decision method will lead to a good decision, the research found that a potentially good method does not mean a sure win (e.g., the unresolved case). The analysis of this case clearly demonstrates the importance of a good decision procedure together with the correct attitude of the stakeholders. This research found that the correct attitude of a decision unit could simplify its conflicting interests from multiple criteria to a single criterion to resolve a conflict. However, an analysis of both the resolved and the unresolved cases finds that the conflicts originated from multiple spatial and non-spatial interests of the contenders. In addition, the resolved case is an example of the importance of spatial criteria (tax map) in resolving conflict. These examples are mere indications of the suitability of the SMCE in resolving conflicts. The evaluation of the ex-ante case also verified these issues. As a result, the SMCE was determined as a good decision method in the ex-ante process, and more importantly, the SMCE as a decision method enhanced the quality of the ex-ante decision procedure. Given these conditions, the SMCE possesses the potential to enhance the quality of decision-making in resolving boundary conflicts.

A number of challenges were identified to operationalise the evaluation framework in this research. First, certain criteria used to evaluate a particular component of the decision-making process (e.g., decision procedure) can be fit into other components. For example, a training step in the decision process can enhance both the procedural knowledge, and satisfaction and acceptance of a decision method. Thus, a training step can be implemented as a quality of a decision procedure and/or a decision unit. Second, although the developed framework was operationalised in a simple way, without considering the interactions between the components, we found evidence of interaction

18 throughout the research as expected. Despite these limitations, the comparative description of the cases together with a qualitative measure of the criteria used to evaluate the decision making quality offer a greater insight into the strengths and weaknesses associated with decision-making in resolving boundary conflicts. Although the framework was applied to a specific setting and cases, it is potentially useful to researchers for conducting evaluation studies in other contexts.

6. Acknowledgement The authors thank the editor (Prof. Guy Robinson) of this journal and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions. This research benefited from funding provided by the Netherlands Fellowship Programme; spatial data provided by the Land Management Services and National Economic Development Authority, CAR, the Philippines; and helpful guidance by Dr. Luc Boerboom, Drs. Emile Dopheide, and Ms. Gina Gacusan.

7. References Ackoff, 1981. The art and science of mess management. Interfaces 11, 20-26. Aloe, 2006. Administrative Boundaries. http://www.rev.net/~aloe/boundary/. Accessed on September 4, 2006 Balasubramanian, P., Nochur, K., Henderson, J.C., Kwan, M.M., 1999. Managing process knowledge for decision support. Decision Support Systems 27, 145-162. Borchers, J.G., 2005. Accepting uncertainty, assessing risk: Decision quality in managing wildlife, forest resource values, and new technology. Forest Ecology and Management 211, 36-46. Bouyssou, D., Marchant, T., Pirlot, M., Perny, P., Tsoukias, A., Vincke, P., 2000. Evaluation and Decision Models: A Critical Perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston London Dordrecht. Briggs, X.d.S., 2003. Planning Together: How (and How Not) to Engage Stakeholders in Charting a Course. The Art and Science of Community Problem-Solving Project @ MIT. Brown, R., 2005. Rational Choice and Judgment: Decision Analysis for the Decider. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New Jersey. Brown, V., 1995. Risks and Opportunities: Managing Environmental Conflict and Change. Earthscan, London. Carmeli, A., Schaubroeck, J., 2006. Top management team behavioral integration, decision quality, and organizational decline. The Leadership Quarterly 17, 441-453. Ceballos-Silva, A., Lopez-Blanco, J., 2003. Evaluating biophysical variables to identify suitable areas for oat in Central Mexico: a multi-criteria and GIS approach. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment 95, 371-377. Coll, R., Coll, J.H., Rein, D., 1991. The effect of computerized decision aids on decision time and decision quality. Information & Management 20, 75-81. Dai, F.C., Lee, C.F., Zhang, X.H., 2001. GIS-based geo-environmental evaluation for urban land-use planning: a case study. Engineering Geology 61, 257-271. Davern, M.J., Mantena, R., Stohr, E.A., 2008. Diagnosing decision quality. Decision Support Systems 45, 123-139. Davis, D., Cosenza, R.M., 1993. Business Research for Decision Making, Third Edition ed. Wadsworth Publishing Company, Belmont, California. Edwards, W., Kiss, I., Majone, G., Toda, M., 1984. What constitutes 'a good decision'? Acta Psychologica 56, 5-27. Fiedler, K., Kareev, Y., 2006. Does Decision Quality (Always) Increase With the Size of Information Samples? Some Vicissitudes in Applying the Law of Large Numbers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 32, 883-903. Fisher, R., Ury, W., Patton, B., 1991. Getting To Yes: Negotiating agreement without giving in, Second ed. Penguin Books, New York. Forest, B., 2004. Information sovereignty andGIS: the evolution of „„communities of interest‟‟ in political redistricting. Political Geography 23, 425–451.

Ganster, D.C., Williams, S., Poppler, P., 1991. Does Training in Problem Solving Improve the Quality of Group Decisions? Journal of Applied Psychology 76, 479-483. Geertman, S., Stillwell, J., 2010. Planning Support Systems: An Introduction, In: Geertman, S., Stillwell, J. (Eds.), Planning Support Systems in Practice. Springer, Berlin, pp. 3-22. Gleditsch, N.P., Furlong, K., Hegre, H., Lacina, B., Owen, T., 2006. Conflicts over shared rivers: Resource scarcity or fuzzy boundaries? Political Geography 25, 361-382. Graaff, J.d., 1996. Economic Evaluation Methods. Backhuys Publishers, Leiden, the Netherlands. Hart, S.L., 1985. Toward Quality Criteria for Collective Judgements. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 36, 209-228. Hermann, M.G., 2001. How Decision Units Shape Foreign Policy: A theoretical Framework. International Studies Review 3, 47-82. Hershey, J.C., Baron, J., 1992. Judgment by outcomes: When is it justified? Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 53, 89-93. Hoffberg, K., Korver, C., 2003. Great Leadership, Great Decisions, Great Outcomes- Creating Organizational Decision Quality. DQI, LLC. http://www.bpmforum.org/DecisionROI/PDF/Intro_DQ.pdf. Accessed on December 15, 2006 Jacobs, S., 2002. Maintaining neutrality in dispute mediation: managing disagreement while managing not to disagree. Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1403-1426. Jones, S.K., Yurak, T.J., Frisch, D., 1997. The effect of outcome information on the evaluation and recall of individuals' own decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 71, 95-120. Kamruzzaman, M., Hine, J., Gunay, B., Blair, N., 2011. Using GIS to visualise and evaluate student travel behaviour. Journal of Transport Geography 19, 13-32. Keren, G., Bruin, W.B.d., 2003. On the Assessment of Decision Quality: Considerations Regarding Utility, Conflict and Accountability, In: Hardman, D., Macchi, L. (Eds.), Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment and Decision Making. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., pp. 347- 363. Klercker, T.a., Klercker, M.a., 1998. Decision support system for primary health care in an inter/intranet environment. Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine 55, 31-37. Larsen, T.K., 2003. ICT in urban planning. Aalborg University. http://www.audrep.auc.dk/publications/TorbenLarsen.pdf. Accessed on August 26, 2006 Limayem, M., Banerjee, P., Ma, L., 2006. Impact of GDSS: Opening the black box. Decision Support Systems 42, 945-957. Lipshitz, R., Barak, D., 1995. Hindsight wisdom Outcome knowledge and the evaluation of decisions. Acta Psychologica 88, 105-125. Makropoulos, C.K., Butler, D., 2006. Spatial ordered weighted averaging: incorporating spatially variable attitude towards risk in spatial multi-criteria decision making. Environmental Modelling & Software 21, 69-84. Malczewski, J., 1999. GIS and Multicriteria Decision Analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.

Malhotra, V., Lee, M.D., Khurana, A., 2007. Domain experts influence decision quality: Towards a robust method for their identification. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 57, 181- 194. Masalu, D.C.P., 2000. Coastal and marine resource use conflicts and sustainable development in Tanzania. Ocean & Coastal Management 43, 475-494. McCall, M.K., 2003. Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of processes and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning. Habitat International 27, 549-573. Messner, F., Zwirner, O., Karkuschke, M., 2006. Participation in multi-criteria decision support for the resolution of a water allocation problem in the Spree River basin. Land Use Policy 23, 63-75. Mintzberg, H., Raisinghani, D., Theoret, A., 1976. The Structure of "Unstructured" Decision Process. Administrative Science Quarterly 21, 246-275. Moreau, É.M.F., 2006. The impact of intelligent decision support systems on intellectual task success: An empirical investigation. Decision Support Systems 42, 593-607. Mostert, E., 1998. A Framework for Conflict Resolution. Water International 23, 206-215. Nagel, S.S., Mills, M.K., 1990. Multi-Criteria Methods for Alternative Dispute Resolution. Quorum Books, New York. O'Loughlin, J., 1991. Political geography: returning to basic conceptions. Progress in Human Geography 15, 322-339. Pedro, J.S., Burstein, F., Linger, H., 2004. E-Negotiation Support for Boundary Conflict Resolution. DSS2004 Conference Proceedings. Pestman, P.K., 1998. Dutch infrastructure policies, public participation and the environment in the 1990s: the politics of interfering logics, In: Coenen, F.H.J.M., Huitema, D., O'Toole, L.J. (Eds.), Participation and the Quality of Environmental Decision Making. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht Boston London, pp. 185-202. Peters, B.G.T.M., Hulscher, S.J.M.H., 2006. Large-scale offshore sand extraction: What could be the results of interaction between model and decision process? Ocean & Coastal Management 49, 164-187. Raghunathan, S., 1999. Impact of information quality and decision-maker quality on decision quality: a theoretical model and simulation analysis. Decision Support Systems 26, 275-286. Rambaldi, G., Bugna, S., Tiangco, A., Vera, D.D., 2002. Bringing the Vertical Dimension to the Negotiating Table: Preliminary Assessment of a Conflict Resolution Case in the Philippines. Asean Biodiversity Special Reports, 17-26. Rauschmayer, F., Wittmer, H., 2006. Evaluating deliberative and analytical methods for the resolution of environmental conflicts. Land Use Policy 23, 108-122. Razin, E., Hazan, A., 2004. Municipal Boundary Conflicts Between Jewish and Arab Local Authorities in Israel: Geography of Administration or Geopolitics? Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 86, 79-94. Rinner, C., 2006. A Geographic Visualization Approach to Multi-Criteria Evaluation of Urban Quality of Life. Working Paper, VASDS GIScience 2006.

Schulte, E., Peter Grüner, H., 2007. Speed and quality of collective decision making: Imperfect information processing. Journal of Economic Theory 134, 138-154. Sharifi, M.A., 2005. Integrated Planning and Decision Support System: Concepts, Adoptions and Evaluation. ISPRS Workshop on Spatial Planning and Decision Support Systems. Enschede, the Netherlands. 8-9 December Sharifi, M.A., Toorn, W.V.D., Rico, A., Emmanuel, M., 2002. Application of GIS and Multicriteria Evaluation in Locating Sustainable Boundary between the Tunary National Park and Cochabamba City (Bolivia). Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis 11, 151-164. Shmueli, D.F., 2008. Framing in geographical analysis of environmental conflicts: Theory, methodology and three case studies. Geoforum 39, 2048-2061. Simon, U., Bruggemann, R., Pudenz, S., 2004. Aspects of decision support in water management- example Berlin and Potsdam (Germany) I- spatially differentiated evaluation. Water Research 38, 1809-1816. Skelly, D.K., 2002. Experimental Venue and Estimation of Interaction Strength. Ecology 83, 2097- 2101. Timmermans, D., Vlek, C., 1996. Effects on Decision Quality of Supporting Multi-attribute Evaluation in Groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 68, 158-170. UNESCO, 2002. Best Practice of Non-Violent Conflict Resolution in and out-of-school: Some example. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001266/126679e.pdf. Accessed on December 12, 2006 Webler, T., 1995. "Right" discourse in citizen participation: an evaluation yardstick, In: Renn, O., Webler, T., Wiedemann, P. (Eds.), Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation- Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, pp. 35-86. Wittmer, H., Rauschmayer, F., Klauer, B., 2006. How to select instruments for the resolution of environmental conflicts? Land Use Policy 23, 1-9. Zakay, D., 1984. The Evaluation of Managerial Decision's Quality by Managers. Acta Psychologica 56, 49-57. Zhang, P., Sun, J., Chen, H., 2005. Frame-based argumentation for group decision task generation and identification. Decision Support Systems 39, 643-659. Zucca, A., Sharifi, A.M., Fabbri, A.G., 2008. Application of spatial multi-criteria analysis to site selection for a local park: A case study in the Bergamo Province, Italy. Journal of Environmental Management 88, 752-769.

8. Tables

Table 1: Conflicting interests of the municipalities with preferences

Objectives and criteria (standardisation method) Further explanation Preferences (rank)

Tublay La Trinidad To increase municipal land area (std: goal) La Trinidad requires 2000 hectares of land to NA 1 declare it a component city. A component city enjoys more taxing power than a municipality. To increase internal rate of allotment (IRA) IRA is the central government money 1 2 allocated to different municipalities based on: To increase IRA based on land area (std: maximum) a) land area (4.03 pesos/100 m2); and To increase IRA based on population (std: maximum) b) number of population (492 pesos/person). To increase municipal tax5 2 NA To increase residential property tax (std: maximum) To increase commercial property tax (std: maximum) To increase agricultural property tax (std: maximum) To have areas with urban development potential 3 NA To increase areas closer to existing roads (std: The areas closer to road network were maximum) considered more suitable for urban development. To increase land area conforming zoning regulation (std: attribute ranking; residential and commercial 1, agricultural 2, other 3) To minimise social burden 4 NA To reduce areas with lower population density A higher cost associated with service delivery in areas with fewer population NA - Not Applicable

5 Property taxes were calculated using the following formula from the LGC: Property Tax = ((Fair Market Value) × (Assessment percentage) × (2 percent) × 100))/ Property Area. Fair market value data were collected from the municipalities. Assessment percentages for commercial, residential and agriculture are 80%, 60% and 50%, respectively, according to the LGC. Spatial analysis was conducted using a 10-m resolution pixel size, and therefore, all calculations were conducted for 100 m2.

Table 2: Evaluation results of the alternative boundary options in the SMCE

Alternatives Ranking and utility scores of the alternative boundary options Based on municipal preferences Based on equal weight of all criteria

Tublay La Trinidad Tublay La Trinidad Conflicting area (total utility score) 4,171 691 7,711 426 Highway boundary Rank 1 Rank 3 Rank 1 Rank 3 (2,791) (100) (5,101) (55) Tax line boundary Rank 3 Rank 1 Rank 3 Rank 1 (1,421) (265) (2,886) (182) Natural boundary Rank 2 Rank 2 Rank 2 Rank 2 (1,845) (224) (3,450) (154)

Table 3: Comparative evaluation results of the cases using the criteria of the developed framework

Level 1 Level 2 Criteria Evaluation score

Resolved case Unresolved case Ex-ante case Procedural clarity and understandability Medium Poor Good Quality of the Procedural conformity with existing laws Good Poor Poor decision procedures Treatment of parties Good NA NA

Inclusion of relevant stakeholders Good Good Good Opportunity for the parties Good NA NA Decision making atmosphere/venue Good Poor Good Quality of the decision Documentation of decision Good Poor Good processes Decision confirmation Poor NA Good Implementation of decision Good NA Poor Quality of the Procedural knowledge Poor NA Good decision units Sensitivity to information Good Good Good Use of technology Good Good Good Preparation Poor Medium Good Prior relevant experience Poor Good Poor Professional knowledge use Good Good Good Attitude and strategy of the parties Good Medium Good Methodological soundness Good Good Good Quality of the Representation of goal Poor Good Good decision methods Organizational capability Good Poor Good Acceptance of method Good Good Good Confidence with output Good NA Good Interaction quality Good Good Good NA- Not Applicable

9. Figure captions

Figure 1: A framework for evaluation of the quality of decision-making processes aimed at resolving boundary conflicts (numbers refer to the citation used and are shown in the footnotes)6.

Figure 2: Location of case study areas and the conflicting boundaries in Benguet, CAR.

Figure 3: Formal (legal) procedure used to resolve municipal boundary conflict (synthesised from the Local Government Code of the Philippines ‟91).

Figure 4: Decision procedure followed in the resolved case (synthesised from the documents collected from the provincial council).

Figure 5: Decision procedure followed to resolve the unresolved case (synthesised from the minutes, resolutions and other documents collected from different offices).

Figure 6: Operational decision procedure in the ex-ante case.

Figure 7: Alternative boundaries generated to demonstrate the application of the SMCE.

Figure 8: A demonstration of the spatial multi criteria evaluation technique used to assess the natural boundary option for Tublay based on the ILWIS SMCE software.

6 1. Zakay (1984); 2. Hershay and Baron (1992); 3. Keren and Bruin (2003); 4. Davern et al. (2008); 5. Edwards et al. (1984); 6. Lipshitz and Barak (1995); 7. Hart (1985); 8. Hoffberg and Korver (2003); 9. Hermann (2001); 10. Wittmer et al. (2006); 11. Timmermans and Vlek (1996); 12. Bouyssou et al. (2000); 13. Davis and Cosenza (1993); 14. Webler (1995); 15. Briggs (2003); 16. Messner et al. (2006); 17. Ganster et al. (1991); 18. Nagel and Mills (1990); 19. Jacobs (2002); 20. UNESCO (2002); 21. Mintzberg et al. (1976); 22. Klercker and Klercker (1998); 23. Zhang et al. (2005); 24. Masalu (2000); 25. Mostert (1998); 26. Malhotra et al. (2007); 27. Fisher et al. (1991); 28. Graaff (1996); 29. Rinner (2006); 30. Rauschmayer and Wittmer (2006); 31. Sharifi (2005); 32. Brown (2005).

Figure1

Procedural clarity and understandablity (1,13 ) Procedural conformity with existing laws (10) Inclusion of relevant stakeholders (7,10,14,16) Relevant training to the parties (8, 17) Quality of decision Opportunity for the parties (15, 18) procedure (7, 8) Decision making atmosphere/venue (19, 20) Confirmation of decision (21) Documentation of decision (22) Decision communication (23) Implementation of decision (24) Procedural knowledge (9,10) Sensitivity to information (9)

Quality of Use of technology (9) decision Quality of decision Preparation (1, 3, 25, 26) process unit (1,9) (1,2,3,4,5,6) Prior relevant experiences (1, 3, 25, 26) Professional knowledge use (1) Attitude and strategy of the parties (7, 27) Methodological soundness (10,11,28) Technical consideration (10, 11, 28, 31, 32) Representation of goal (10, 31, 32) Quality of decision Organizational Capability (1, 10, 11, 28) method (10,11,12) Collaboration/Interaction Quality (11, 30) Attitude of user/Usability (11, 28, 29) Acceptance of method (11, 29) Confidence with output (11, 28) Figure2

a. Conflicting areas in Benguet (CAR) b. The resolved case

Mankayan Kapangan

Bakun Atok

MBM 9 ! MBM 10 Buguias !

Kibungan Tublay

! Boundary monument Kapangan Kabayan Disputed area Atok Contending municipalities 01.5 3 6 km ± c. The unresolved case Tublay Sablan La Trinidad Bokod

Baguio Tublay

MBM 22 ! Tuba Itogon MBM 23 MBM 23 !! La Trinidad MBM 24 !

! Boundary monument Disputed areas Disputed area Undisputed areas 05 10 20 km ± Contending municipalities 01.5 3 6 km ± Figure3

Concern municipality files petition to the respective Documents need to be attached with the petition: provincial council (PC) o Proof of creation of the LGU (Law, document) concerned; o Municipal map dully certified by the Land Mmanagement Bureau; o PC forwards the petition to the opponent party/parties Technical description of the boundaries of the municipality concerned; concerned o Written certification of the municipal assessor as to territorial jurisdiction over the disputed area according to records in custody; o Written declaration or sworn statements of the people residing in the Adverse party answers to PC within 15 working days disputed area; and o Other documents or information as may be required by the council hearing the dispute PC invites hearing from both parties within 5 working o days after receipt of the answer Opportunity to show the evidence of both parties

Within 60 days from the date of application Joint hearing: o When two or more provincial council jointly hear case, they may sit en banc Amicable o Councils can designate their representatives settlement o Allowing equal number of representatives from each provincial council o Electing one presiding officer and a secretary among the representatives

Agreement Disagreement

PC issues a certificate of disagreement to the parties concerned

PC itself makes a formal decision within 60 days from the date of issuance of certificate Missing link Note: PC informs its decision within 15 days to the parties DILG-Department of Interior and Local Government Comlec-Commission of Election concerned, DILG, local assessor, Comelec, NSO, LMS, LMB, NSO-National Statistics Office DBM and other NGAs concerned LMS-Land Management Services LMB-Land Management Bureau DBM-Department of Budget and Management Parties can appeal to the regional trial court (RTC) who NGA- National Government Agency elevate the decision

RTC checks PC’s decision, hears the parties, and decides within one year from the date of filing thereof Figure4

Municipal Provincial Events Time representative representative Chairman,Boundary dispute Kapangan filed a petition to PC Hon.Raymundo W. Celino

PC invitated for hearing the case June 27, 1994 committee(BDC) Hon. LisoAgpas (Mayor) and Hon.Rogelio Leon (Vice

Hon. Joseph cosente (Mayor) and Hon. Tito Acop (Vice Hearing July 8, 1994

Hearing July 26, 1994

Hearing August 18, 1994

Hearing September, 1994 Decisionunit changes

Kapangan re-requested PC to settle the issue August 31, 1995

PC re-invited for hearing September 7, 1995 Contenders requested PC to provide earlier September 18, 1995 resolution documents for the new BDC Hearing September 25, 1995 Hon.Marciano T.Inso Chairman,BDC Mayor),Kapangan Hearing October 19, 1995 Mayor), Tublay Ocular inspection of common boundary point January 10, 1996

Selecting strategy to draw line February 16, 1996

Adopting strategy March 15, 1996

Signing Memorandum of Agreement April 20, 1996

PC invited parties to fix cost for monumenting November 18, 1996

Monumenting on the ground December 3, 1996 Figure5

Municipal Provincial Events Time representative representative Deputy Governor’s (Benguet) report stating January 12, 1949 boundary dispute resolved on Dec 10, 1948 Meeting at Mountain Province Hon. Cipriane Abales (mayor) Hon.and BillyHolman (vicem Tublay decided to put sign board indicating boundary May 6, 1949 based on tax payer information

Hon. Sixto Acop(mayor) and Hon. Togan (vice mayor), Resolution 2, at Tublay Tacwiling-Pasmaan Creek the boundary Tublay sent letter to La Trinidad referring the decision of January 12, 1949 meeting May 15, 1949

and requesting to attend & conduct detail survey Hon. Dennis Melintas, Governor, Mountainprovince Hon.Luis Hora, Governor, Benguet Sub-province Tublay sent letter to PC requesting to be present at dispute meeting on June 2, ‘49 May 17, 1949 and requesting to bring all official documents e.g. map PC reiterated the action of January 12, 1949 report and June 2, 1949 asked municipalities to pass resolution to accept the report Meeting at Tublay, all were present A policeman confirmed that Tili Tili junction has been settled as boundary line July 2, 1949 at Tubly Tili Tili is closed to Pasmaan creek La Trinidad accepted the PC’s report September 15, 1949 dated Jan 12, 1949 Resolution 16 at La Trinidad La Trinidad sent letter to Tublay protesting the sign board La Trinidad requested PC to survey based on the report September 15, 1949 La Trinidad proposed the presence of 5 members Resolution 17 at La Trinidad

ayor),La Trinidad Members should be old municipal officials Tublay PC asked La Trinidad whether resolution 2 is acceptable October 14, 1949 PC also asked for a concurrence decision resolution Resolution 617 at PC PC accepted the request of La Trinidad November 14, 1949 for the survey dated Sep 15, ‘49 Resolution 665 at PC

PC sent letters to Tublay and La Trinidad stating dispute meeting to be held on Dec 4, 1949 and November 18, 1949 asking to be prepared with all the materials WillyL. Velasco(mayor) and Ben W. Polig(vice mayor), T HenryM. Kipas (chairman,ad hoc committee), La Trinidad Tublay prepared a list of registered business September 10, 2002 establishment in the conflicting area September 23, 2002 Both municipalities set up criteria to fix boundary problem Conflict resolution meeting at Tublay October 28, 2002 Tublay passed resolution to fix boundary problem Resolution 176 at Tublay Tublay sent letter to La Trinidad informing the willingness November 11, 2002 to settle boundary conflict La Trinidad accepted the request of Tublay November 19, 2002 proposing a meeting on November 26, 2002

Local level initiative: concerned barangays with civil society April 4, 2003 requested action from municipalities to resolve the conflict Joint resolution 12 at Shilan Barangay Tublay decided to put up of a signboard indicating July 14, 2003 highway as boundary Resolution 89 at Tulay La Trinidad sent letter to Tublay indicating to settle July 30, 2003 disputed highway boundary Letter from La Trinidad to Tublay ublay Figure6

RDC’s realization of boundary conflict in CAR -DENR (NAMRIA, LMS, LMB) -NEDA -DBM Formation of Task Force -DILG -TWG of GIS Network Note: Awareness building among the LCEs of LGUs RDC-Regional Development Council CAR-Cordillera Administrative Region Identification of interested LGUs to resolve DENR-Department of Environment and Natural Resources boundary conflict NAMRIA-National Mapping and Resource Information Authority NEDA-National Economic Development Authority

Part I: Common for all LGUs all for I: Common Part Signing of MoA between LGUs and the Task Force TWG-Technical Working Group LCE-Local Chief Executive LGU-Local Government Unit (e.g. municipality) Training to the municipal officials SMCE-Spatial Multi Criteria Evaluation

SMCE Case selection Identification of contenders’ interests and preferences

Mediation Generation of alternative boundary options Memorandum of agreement between the conflicting Evaluation of the options using the identified LGUs interests and preferences

Part II: Case Specific II: Case Part Updating boundary Figure 7

Undisputed MBM 22 e r u t c u r t s

Disputed a r f

MBM 23 n i

d n a

s e i t r e p o r P

: 2

t e s n I

Baguio La Trinidad Bontoc Road Disputed area Natural boundary

Highway boundary Tax line boundary Inset 1: Conflicting municipalities

Tublay

Disputed area

La Trinidad

Undisputed MBM 24 Disputed area Municipal boundary monument (MBM) Tax line boundary

Natural boundary Highway boundary Property tax payed to LaTrinidad ± Tublay 0 250 500 1,000 Meters Figure 8