Editorial.

With this issue, Environments completes four issues on the theory and practice of planning, management and decision-making. The papers in these issues are published at a time of dynamic change in thinking about such theory and practice. The long-time focus of many government and private organizations on objectives-driven rational planning has come increasingly into question. Especially since the 1960s, questioning has occurred through, for example, the emergence of alternatives, such as mixed scanning and transactive approaches.

In more recent years, major sources of challenge have come from several sources. One is First Nations and local people who are advocates of a style that is more interactive and consensus-seeking in contrast to the focused and less inclusive rational or synoptic planning. Another source is the thrust from resource, environmental and land use groups--notably nongovernment organizations--for more comprehensive and consultative ecosystem-based planning, management and decision-making. A third source of challenge has been interest from an array of groups and individuals in more interactive, adaptive and participatory or civic approaches. One motivation for the latter is a search for greater equity, and environmental and social justice.

In Environments 30(3) and 31(1) many papers, notably by younger scholars, explored the dimensions of ecosystem-based and participatory approaches through a focus on what was called Managerial Ecology. In Environments 31(2) and the present issue, 31(3), the focus is on what is referred to as collaborative planning where this involves incorporating advances from conflict resolution and shared decision-making.

The current issue should be of special interest because it involves evaluation and assessment of planning initiatives and more particularly of their implementation. The results make a very strong case for the efficacy of collaborative approaches, although the guest editors of Environments 31(2 and 3) are careful to stress that a collaborative approach is not suitable for all situations and that examination and understanding of the policy or project context is needed as a basis for choosing an approach.

In this respect, I am of the view that collaborative planning--as put forward in Environments 31(2 and 3)--while closely linked to, is not the same as, a more explicitly civics approach. The collaborative approach seems to be more focused and organized around the objectives of an agency or agencies and the achievement of these objectives. In contrast, the civics approach seeks a framework for the interaction of as many government and private organizations as possible in setting an agenda and in planning and moving forward with implementation, assessment and adaptations. Collaborative planning leans to the managerial and civic planning to the political and the self-organizing approach.

However, this is not the place to explore such questions in any detail. What Environments 31(3) does, along with Environments 30(3), 31(1) and 31(2), is contribute strongly to the better understanding of planning, management and decision-making theory and practice. The four issues make the tools available to us clearer and more accessible, while setting the stage for more enhancement through further research, application and assessment.

Gordon Nelson, Editor-in-Chief