Evaluating collaborative planning: the British Columbia experience.

This volume of Environments helps address a critical research need to evaluate collaborative planning (CP) by assessing the most comprehensive application of CP to date. The research also focuses on one of the most important, but neglected, areas in planning research: the implementation of plans. The papers in this volume provide the first results in the literature that disaggregate CP evaluation results by stakeholder group and assess criteria for effective implementation by surveying implementation stakeholders. Our research on CP is still in its early stages and the findings from the B.C. case studies may not be fully applicable to other regions with differing characteristics, for example regions having large areas of privately owned land in contrast to B.C.'s publicly owned land system. However, the papers in this volume provide preliminary findings that demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative planning in preparing resource and environmental plans and identify keys to successful plan implementation. Table 1 Process Criteria Satisfied for Stakeholders Group *

Criteria Score Satisfied Process Criteria **

Yes Partly 80 [check] 1. Purpose and Incentives The process is driven

by a shared purpose and provides incentives to

participate and to work towards consensus in

the process. 66 [check] 2. Inclusive Representation All parties with a

significant interest in the issues and outcome

are involved throughout the process. 72 [check] 3. Commitment The parties who are affected or

interested participate voluntarily and are

committed to the process. 63 [check] 4. Self-Design The parties involved work

together to design the process to suit the

individual needs of that process and its

participants. 71 [check] 5. Clear Participant Roles and Ground Rules

Clear terms of reference and ground rules are

to be established. 56 [check] 6. Equal Opportunity and Resources The process

provides for equal and balanced opportunity for

effective participation of all parties. 63 [check] 7. Principled Negotiation and Respect The

process operates according to the conditions of

principled negotiation including mutual

respect, trust, and understanding. 62 [check] 8. Accountability The process and its

participants are accountable to the broader

public, to their constituents, and to the

process itself. 72 [check] 9. Flexible, Adaptive, and Creative Flexibility

is designed into the process to allow for

adaptation and creativity in problem solving. 64 [check] 10. High-Quality Information The process

incorporates high-quality information into

decision making. 58 [check] 11. Time Limits Realistic milestones and

deadlines are established and managed

throughout the process. 59 [check] 12. Implementation and Monitoring The process

and final agreement include clear commitments

to implementation and monitoring. 69 [check] 13. Effective Process Management The process is

coordinated and managed effectively and in a

neutral manner. 75 [check] 14. Independent Facilitation The process uses

an independent, trained facilitator throughout

the process. * This table identifies the evaluative process criteria that were used to evaluate the planning process. Statements used to test each of the criteria were grouped to aid in the presentation and interpretation of the results. Responses were given on a four-point scale, which was converted to a numerical scale as follows: strongly agree (2), agree (1), disagree (-1), strongly disagree (-2). Scores for each criterion were calculated by averaging the numerical scores for each of the statements used to test the criterion. If the average score is greater than or equal to 0.50, the criterion is considered to have been satisfied, if it is less than or equal to -0.50 is not satisfied, and if is between 0.50 and -0.50 the criterion is considered to have been only partially satisfied. ** % of respondents agreeing Table 2 Outcome Criteria Satisfied for Stakeholders *

Criteria Score Satisfied Outcome Criteria **

Yes Partly 74 *** [check] 1. Agreement: The process results in a

consensus or near consensus agreement. 59 [check] 2. Perceived as Successful: Stakeholders

perceive the process as successful.

Stakeholders are satisfied with the outcomes

of the process and view their involvement as a

positive experience. 53 [check] 3. Conflict Reduced: The process and its

outcomes reduced conflict in the area

regarding the issues addressed. 63 [check] 4. Superior to Other Methods: The process was

superior to other planning or decision methods

in terms of costs and benefits. Costs include

time and resources for process support and

management, and participation for all parties.

Benefits include the positive outcomes of the

process. 72 [check] 5. Creative and Innovative: The process

produced creative ideas for action. Innovative

ideas will be tested and learned from; even

those that are not successfully implemented

can provide opportunities for learning and

growth and change ways of thinking that led to

a conflict. 90 [check] 6. Knowledge, Understanding, and Skills:

Stakeholders gained knowledge, understanding,

and skills by participating in the process. 82 [check] 7. Relationships and Social Capital: The

process created new personal and working

relationships, and social capital among

stakeholders. The process developed a network

of relationships among diverse parties that

allows for continued information exchange,

understanding, cooperation, and trust. 77 [check] 8. Information: The process produced improved

data, information, and analyses through joint

fact-finding that stakeholders understand and

accept as accurate such as facts, inventories,

models, forecasts, histories, and analytical

tools. This information was shared by others

beyond the immediate group and is useful to

stakeholders and others for purposes outside

of the process. 66 [check] 9. Second-Order Effects: The process had

second-order effects including changes in

behaviors and actions, spin-off partnerships,

umbrella groups, collaborative activities, new

practices, or new institutions. 69 [check] 10. Public Interest: The outcomes are regarded

as just and serve the common good or public

interest, not just those of stakeholders in

the process. 78 [check] 11. Understanding and Support of Shared

Decision Making: The process resulted in

increased understanding of, and stakeholders

support for, the future use of SDM approaches.

In future stakeholders are more likely to make

fewer unilateral decisions where collaboration