The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management (1).

Abstract

This paper assesses the utility of a new civics-based model of planning that delegates responsibility for preparing plans directly to affected stakeholders. The paper traces the origin of this new model, termed collaborative planning (CP) or shared decision making (SDM), and assesses its strengths and weaknesses by reviewing recent theoretical and empirical studies. The review illustrates that CP is ah effective planning model that is more likely than other planning models to develop and implement a plan that is in the public interest. The paper identifies ten "best practice" guidelines for successful use of CP. If these guidelines are followed, CP can be an effective model for achieving sustainability in resource and environmental management. The paper concludes by identifying areas for future research on CP including more meta- analysis using a uniform method, more analysis of factors determining success, and research on the preconditions for successful CP.

Resume

Dans cat article, les auteurs evaluent I'utilite d'un nouveau modele de planification fonde sur la cooperation qui delegue directement aux intervenants en jeu la responsabilite de preparer les plans d'intervention. L'article trace I'odgine de ce nouveau modele, nomme planification concertee ou prise de decisions partagee, et en evalue les forces et les faiblesses en examinant les recentes etudes theodques et empiriques. Cet examen met en lumiere que la planification concertee est un modele de planification efficace qui est plus susceptible que les autres modales de planification de developper et mettre en oeuvre un plan qui sera conforme a I'interet du public. On identifie les lignes directrices des dix pratiques exemplaires pour une utilisation reussie de la planification concertee. Si I'on suit cas lignes directrices, la planification concertee peut se reveler un modele efficace pour atteindre la durabilite en matiere de gestion des ressourees et de I'environnement. Les auteurs concluent en identifiant les domaines de recherche a venir sur la planiflcation concertee notamment, une plus grande m,ta-analyse en utilisant une m,thode plus uniforme, une meilleure analyse des facteurs de reussite ainsi que de la recherche sur les conditions prealables a une planification concertee reussie.

Key words:

Collaborative planning; shared decision making; public participation; sustainable resource management; Australia, Canada, United States

Introduction

A recent approach to public participation that is generating increasing interest is collaborative planning or shared decision making. The distinguishing feature of collaborative planning is that it delegates the responsibility for planning directly to stakeholders. Collaborative planning is now formally adopted as a preferred planning model in forest and land use planning, watershed planning, regulatory rule-making, and urban planning in the United States, Canada, and Australia (Margerum 1999; Leach et al. 2002; Frame et al. 2002; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000)

The purpose of this paper is to assess the utility of collaborative planning in sustainable resource management. The paper begins with an overview of the origins and characteristics of collaborative planning, followed by an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. The paper concludes by identifying "best practice" guidelines for successful use of collaborative planning.

Evolution of the Planning Process

Prior to the 1960s, planning in North America was viewed as a technical exercise performed by independent experts using scientific principles to provide basic infrastructure and manage resources (Gunton 1984; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Susskind et al. 2000; Beierle and Cayford 2002). Objective scientific analysis free from political interference was the preferred model.

In the 1960s, this technocratic model was challenged by the emergence of conflict and debate over planning policies in areas such as resource extraction, conservation, urban renewal, and transportation. Planners responded to this growing conflict by formally acknowledging the role of democratically determined goals and values as the principal force guiding planning (Davidoff 1965; McLoughlin 1969; Chadwick 1971; Hall 1974; Chapin and Kaiser 1979). Technical experts and science, in this new calculus, were relegated to a secondary status of identifying appropriate means for meeting politically determined objectives.

The recognition of planning as a value laden process above science led to the broad acceptance of various types of public participation to assist decision-makers in identifying public goals and objectives. Forms of public participation including public meetings, workshops, advisory committees, and task forces became widely used in the planning process (Mitchell 1989; Beiede, and Cayford 2002). In her classic article on citizen participation, Arnstein (1969) classified these various approaches based on the degree of public participation in a ladder including citizen manipulation, therapy, informing, partnerships, consultation, placation, delegated power, and citizen control.

This increasingly complex world of diverse values and competing interests stimulated development of two new planning paradigms: advocacy and mediation (Gunton 1984; Susskind et al. 2000). Advocacy planning acknowledges competing interests and proposed that planners, like lawyers, act as advocates supporting specific stakeholder groups (Davidoff 1965). Stakeholders that lacked power were the preferred clients of this new advocate planner. Mediation or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proposes that planners act as mediators helping stakeholders resolve conflicts in a mutually beneficial way (Bacow and Wheeler 1984; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). In their influential book, Getting to Yes, Fisher and, Ury (1981) proposed ah innovative theory of negotiation to guide ADR based on four key principles: separating the people from the problem, focusing on interests instead of positions, inventing options for mutual gain, and using objective criteria for evaluation.

Advocates of this new ADR approach argue that it is superior to other forms of dispute resolution such as litigation because ADR seeks win/win solutions that come closer to meeting the interests of all stakeholders than the winner-take-all approach of litigation (Bacow and Wheeler 1984; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Advocates also argue that ADR is lower cost and more likely to resolve conflict than other approaches. This approach to ADR is now institutionalized in environmental planning in a number of jurisdictions in Canada and the United States (Gunton and Flynn 1992; Susskind and Secunda 1998; Leach et al. 2002; Margerum 1999).

Collaborative Planning

Advocacy and ADR models of planning are symbiotic. Advocacy empowers stakeholders, which is a necessary condition for successful ADR, and ADR creates a forum for resolving stakeholder disputes. The emergence of collaborative planning (CP) is a logical extension of the advocacy and ADR paradigms. Like advocacy planning, CP acknowledges that there are competing interests and, like mediation, CP acknowledges that these different interests must be engaged in a negotiation process to seek mutually acceptable outcomes. The principal difference between CP and more conventional participatory methods is that CP uses a higher level of collaboration by directly delegating control of the planning process to stakeholders who work together in face-to-face negotiations to reach a consensus agreement ideally in advance of disputes (Carr et al. 1998; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Duffy et al. 1996; Susskind et al. 2000; Leach et al. 2002).

Advocates of collaborative planning cite numerous advantages over other planning models (Selin and Chavez 1995; Innes 1996; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Susskind et al. 2000; Frame et al. 2003). First, collaborative planning is more likely to reach a decision on a plan because stakeholders are constructively incorporated into the process to reach a solution, instead of remaining as critics outside the process. Second, collaborative planning is more likely to develop a plan that is in the public interest because more alternatives are generated for consideration through dynamic interaction of stakeholders and the consensus decision rule ensures that mutual interests of all parties are at least partially met in the final plan. Third, collaborative planning is more likely to result in successful plan implementation because stakeholders, who may otherwise attempt to block implementation, develop the plan and will help to implement it because they have a stake in the outcome. Finally, collaborative planning creates what has been termed "social capital", or the development of improved skills, knowledge, and stakeholder relationships that benefit the community in ways beyond preparation of the specific plan.