Planning in the public interest: an evaluation of civil society participation in collaborative land use planning in British Columbia.

Abstract

This paper assesses civil society participation in collaborative planning by completing a comprehensive survey of participants in a collaborative land use planning process in British Columbia, Canada. Participant responses are assessed against 25 evaluative criteria to determine strengths and weaknesses of collaborative processes for civil society stakeholders. The results show that the greatest barriers for civil society stakeholders are commitments of time and financial resources that are required for effective participation, and the power imbalances that exist among stakeholders. Despite these and other barriers faced by less empowered stakeholders, the research suggests that involvement in collaborative planning is an effective strategy for civil society provided that the limitations of the process are understood and participants prepare themselves accordingly.

On fait dans cet article une evaluation de la participation de la societe civile a la planification concertee en completant une enquete exhaustive aupres des participants au processus de planification en matiere d'utilisation des terres en Colombie-Britannique, au Canada. Les reponses des participants sont evaluees au moyen de 25 criteres afin d'etablir les forces et les faiblesses des processus de planification concertee touchant les intervenants des societes civiles. Les resultats demontrent que les obstacles les plus importants auxquels ceux-ci font face sont le manque d'engagement en termes de temps et de ressources financieres necessaires pour assurer une participation efficace, de meme que les desequilibres en matiere de pouvoir qui existent entre les intervenants. Malgre ces obstacles, ainsi que certains autres, auxquels font face les intervenants ayant moins de pouvoirs, l'etude donne a penser que la participation a la planification concertee est une strategie efficace pour la societe civile, a condition que l'on en reconnaisse les limites et que les participants y soient prepares en consequence.

Key Terms

Civil society; collaborative planning; environmental dispute resolution; public participation

Introduction

Canadian government institutions that manage natural resources face a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand, the challenge is often to encourage private investment, foster economic growth, and provide jobs. On the other hand, government institutions must uphold their reputation as guardians of public goods, such as Crown lands. The dilemma is to find a planning approach that balances the seemingly disparate goals of environmental protection and resource development.

An approach that attempts to achieve this balance is called collaborative planning (CP). In CP, responsibility for planning is delegated from government institutions to stakeholders who engage in face-to-face negotiation to meet the mutual interests of all participants and develop plans by consensus. Advocates of CP cite numerous benefits over other planning models. These include: increased ability to develop and implement plans that reflect the public interest; and, creation of social capital benefits such as improved stakeholder relations and knowledge that foster better overall community development.

One underlying assumption of CP is a balance of power among stakeholder groups to ensure that all relevant interests are adequately represented in the process. A concern is that if some stakeholders--such as community groups--have fewer resources to participate in CP, stronger stakeholders can dominate the process and bias outcomes. Although the issue of power imbalance has been raised, it has not been subject to a comprehensive empirical evaluation to determine its impact on CP performance.

The purpose of this paper is to help fill this void in the literature by reporting results of a comprehensive evaluation of participation in CP by the volunteer community sector, or civil society. The analysis is based on an evaluation of the land use planning process in British Columbia (B.C.), Canada. The paper begins with an overview of CP and the role of civil society, followed by a discussion of the methodology. Results are then reported and implications of findings for the participation of civil society in CP are analyzed.

Civil Society

Civil society has been broadly defined as the group of people between the State and the Market, and is often referred to as the 'third sector' (Dempster 2001). O'Connell (1999: 11) describes civil society as a balance between the rights of individuals and their "responsibilities as citizens to maintain those rights". Political science literature is abundant with research papers examining not only the role of civil society in modern governance, but more fundamentally, its meaning. Like the ongoing discourse over sustainable development, civil society is a concept that has come to mean many things to many people. Despite the confusion, civil society is important not only because of the multitude of nonprofit and volunteer organizations that exist and provide essential services, but also because of the role that these groups play in shaping society.

Salamon (1996) contends that the third sector has always provided public services, even before many governments services existed. Elizabeth May, president of the Sierra Club of Canada, contends that "Non-Government organizations, or civil society, have played a large and significant role in the sustainable development agenda since its inception" (May 2002: par.1). Accordingly, civil society stakeholders have an important role to play in land use planning because of the values that they represent, and the roles that they can fulfil.

For the purposes of this paper, civil society is broadly defined as the stakeholders in land use planning who do not represent government or corporations. These stakeholders are not professional natural resource managers, nor do they have any direct pecuniary interest in resource management decisions.

Collaborative Planning

A major component of planning for sustainability entails resolving conflicts over natural resources. Efforts to resolve such conflicts can be difficult, involve much political drama, and in some cases lead to impasse (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Natural resource managers have increasingly turned to collaboration as a method of addressing and balancing the numerous interests in land use planning and moving beyond impasse (Dukes and Firehoc 2001). Collaboration is defined as a "process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible" (Gray 1989: 5). The parties that have a common interest in a particular issue are called stakeholders (Gray 1989).

Collaborative planning is defined as a "collective process for resolving conflicts and advancing shared visions involving a set of diverse stakeholders" (Carr et al. 1998: 768). In collaborative planning, stakeholders become involved in tackling contentious natural resource issues together. By identifying and developing common goals, stakeholders can create practical solutions through consensus (Wondolleck 1988; Yaffee and Wondolleck 1995; Wondolleck et al. 1996; Wondolleck 1998a, 1998b; Wondolleck and Ryan 1999; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Such collaborative processes usually result in solutions that better reflect the public interest by seeking a consensus-based solution that meets the goals of all stakeholders. Plans developed by CP are more likely to be successfully implemented because stakeholders, who can otherwise impede implementation, are more likely to support implementation because they were involved in the process to develop the plan. CP can also generate additional benefits such as improved stakeholder relationships, stakeholder skills, and knowledge. These benefits, which are sometimes referred to as "social capital" increase community capacity to solve other problems. While some planning theorists espouse the benefits of collaboration, others caution against promoting the approach as a panacea (Amy 1987; Gray 1989; Gunton and Flynn 1992; Caton Campbell and Floyd 1996). Gunton, and Day (2003), for example, list potential challenges to CP including logistical issues such as time and cost of managing diverse stakeholder groups, difficulties in reaching consensus for the large proportion of issues involving value differences, second best solutions based on vague compromises, and inequalities in power between stakeholder groups that impede effective representation. Moreover, achieving the benefits of CP has been seen as contingent upon effective representation of all stakeholder interests in the planning process. Disagreement on the benefits and challenges inherent in collaborative planning highlights the need to study these types of processes comprehensively and systematically.

CP provides special challenges for civil society stakeholders. On the one hand, CP provides them with the opportunity to participate directly in the design of the process and the development of the plan. Consensus-based decision making provides these stakeholders with power to ensure that the plan meets their interests and objectives through face-to-face negotiations with other parties. CP also enhances civil society stakeholders' longer-term influence in policy development by improving their knowledge, skills, and relationships with other decision makers. As Gunton and Flynn (1992: 15) observe, CP "simply opens up what is normally a backroom lobbying process to a broader array of stakeholders subject to greater visibility and review."