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

4) The study by Frame et al. (2003) evaluated one of the most comprehensive initiatives in collaborative planning to date: the completion of 19 land use plans covering three-quarters of the land base of the province of British Columbia. The study used a mail survey of all 894 stakeholders in the land use planning processes and had a response rate of 35 percent. This response rate may be lower than some of the other studies because all but two of the processes surveyed ended between 1994 and 2001, thus making it difficult to locate the stakeholders. The survey used all four measures of success to evaluate outcomes and 14 criteria to describe the processes. In 15 (78 percent) of the processes, stakeholders were successful in reaching a land use plan agreement. In 12 of the processes the agreement was reached by full consensus and in two processes agreement was reached by full consensus minus one. Sixty-four percent of the stakeholders expressed satisfaction with the process and 69 percent agreed that the collaborative process was the best way to develop land use plans. Achievement of social capital benefits was high, with 85 percent agreeing that relationships with other stakeholders were improved, 87 percent agreeing that important skills and knowledge were acquired by stakeholders, and 92 percent agreeing that they gained a better understanding of other stakeholders' values and interests. Frame et al. (2003) concluded that these are impressive achievements, given the intense conflict that existed in British Columbia over land use prior to the initiation of the process and the failure of more traditional planning processes to resolve these conflicts.

5) Beierle and Cayford (2002) evaluated 239 case studies of public participation in the United States over the last 30 years. They evaluated four approaches to public participation including public meetings and hearings, advisory committees not seeking consensus, advisory committees seeking consensus, and negotiation/mediation processes. These were compared to five measures of success: incorporation of public values, better decisions, resolution of conflict, building of trust, and education of the public. The assessment was based on the researchers' rating after reviewing case files and secondary sources. They found that negotiation/mediation had much higher levels of success. They qualified this conclusion by noting that the consensus rule in advisory committees did not improve performance and that the more intensive negotiation/mediation approach often did not include a representative sample of the public.

6) Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000) completed a more qualitative evaluation of collaborative planning processes in the United States. Based on their extensive case file analysis, they concluded that collaborative processes have been highly successful and they identify the key obstacles and factors affecting success.

While these evaluations of collaborative planning all have their self-confessed limitations, they do provide an impressive research record that provides strong endorsement of the benefits of collaborative planning. The studies show that collaborative planning is more effective than other planning models in resolving disputes, meeting the interests of stakeholders and generating additional secondary benefits such as improved stakeholders relationships and knowledge. Evaluation results also show that collaborative planning is able to address the major challenges raised by its critics.

Successful application of collaborative planning to complex environmental planning problems involving fundamental differences in values challenges the allegation of limited applicability. Indeed, the findings that collaborative planning addresses the most serious problems, challenges the allegation that consensus processes avoid the tough issues and seek second-best solutions. The involvement of a large number of diverse stakeholder interests, and the retention of final decision making by democratically accountable authorities, challenges the allegation of collaborative processes reflecting only narrow special interests that are not accountable. Increasing use of collaborative processes combined with high rates of satisfaction from stakeholders challenges the allegation that collaboration dominated by more powerful stakeholders. As Gunton and Flynn (1992:15) observed, collaborative planning "simply opens up what is normally a backroom lobbying process to a broader array of stakeholders subject to greater public visibility and review." In sum, the research illustrates that while collaborative planning faces challenges, it has been remarkably successful. The key to success is effective design and management of the collaborative process, which we will address next.

Designing and Managing Collaborative Planning

The collaborative planning literature (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Gray 1989; Julian 1995; Selin and Chavez 1995; Brown 1996) provides a clear outline of the recommended phases and steps in collaborative planning. The first phase, prenegotiation, has four steps. It begins with background preparation, which consists of forming the professional team, identifying potential stakeholders, and completing a conflict assessment that evaluates the nature of the conflict and options for resolution. The second step is to identify the stakeholder groups that will participate in the collaborative process and appoint representatives for each group. The size of stakeholder tables can vary widely from about 6 to 75 depending on the process. Stakeholders can be chosen on the basis of existing organizations, sectoral coalitions, value orientation, and geographic region. The third step is to prepare draft ground rules, of terms of reference, that outline objectives, rules of procedure, roles and responsibilities, timelines, and logistics. The terms of reference need to be reviewed and approved by a stakeholder table. The final step in the first phase is to identify relevant facts and information required by a table.

Phase two is the negotiation phase. The first step in this phase is to identify interests of stakeholders and use procedures such as brainstorming and idea mapping to identify a broad range of options. Often subgroups are used to help identify options and resolve information deficiencies through joint fact finding. The second step is to begin packaging options and encourage principled negotiation around a "single text" document that records the status of discussions. The more contentious issues are often deferred and delegated to subgroups to allow the main stakeholder table to make progress on less contentious issues to build momentum. The next step is to bind the parties to ah agreement and ensure that the both the representatives at the stakeholder table and the organizations that they represent ratify the agreement.

The final phase is postnegotiation. The first step in this phase is to achieve required approvals of the agreement necessary to commence implementation. Stakeholder agreements, for example, often need to be ratified by the legally designated approval authority. The next step is to create a monitoring process to evaluate implementation followed by renegotiation of components of the agreement that may be necessary due to changing circumstances.

Following these phases and steps is a useful guide to collaborative planning. However, successful collaborative planning is contingent on following key design and management principles. Based on a review of the literature we have identified the following ten "keys to success" (Bingham 1986; Cormick et al. 1996; Susskind et al. 2000; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Caton Campbell and Floyd 1996; Innes 1996, Innes and Booher 1999; Margerum 1997, 1999; Duffy et al. 1996; Williams et al. 1998; Beierle and Cayford 2002; Leach et al. 2002; Frame et al. 2003).

1. Determine if Collaborative Planning is Appropriate

Collaborative planning may not work in all circumstances and using it when it is inappropriate can lead to frustration and discrediting of the entire concept. Determining when and if collaborative planning is appropriate is a difficult judgment. Preconditions necessary for successful collaborative planning include: commitment of decision-making agencies, commitment of all stakeholder interests, urgency that the issue needs resolution, absence of fundamental value differences, and existence of feasible solutions. Overly restrictive adherence to meeting these preconditions may preclude or delay the use of collaborative planning when there is no feasible alternative to managing ah environmental issue. The question is not whether the conditions ate ideal for collaborative planning, but whether the conditions have reached the point where it is opportune to commence a collaborative planning process. As Caton Campbell (2003) observed, the initiation of collaborative planning can transform the environment and create conditions necessary for success by improving relationships among stakeholders and understanding of otherwise intractable problems.

2. Ensure Inclusive Representation