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

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. 0.80 [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, or 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. 0.24 [check] 9. Second-Round Initiatives: The process had

second-order effects including changes in

behaviours and actions, spin-off partnerships,

umbrella groups, collaborative activities, new

practices, or new institutions. 0.60 [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. 1.17 [check] 11. Understanding and Support of Shared

Decision Making: The process resulted in

increased understanding of, and stakeholders

support the future use of SDM approaches. In

future stakeholders are more likely to make

fewer unilateral decisions where collaboration

could be more effective. Table 6: Most Significant Differences Between Mean Responses of Respondent Groups Who Participated in LRMP Processes in B.C.: 1992-2002

Mean Response Evaluative criteria and t Sig. statements to test criteria Civil All

society Other Process Criterion 4: Self-Design: The parties involved work together to design the process to suit the individual needs of that 1.10 0.62 2.189 0.030 process and its participants. (n=63) (n=148)

I was involved in the design

of the LRMP process (i.e.

ground rules, roles,

procedures). Process Criterion 6: Equal Opportunity and Resources: The process provides for equal and balanced opportunity for -0.38 0.44 -3.467 0.001 effective participation of all (n=60) (n=159) parties.

I had or received sufficient

funding to participate

effectively. Outcome Criterion 4 - Superior to Other Methods: The process was superior to other planning or decision methods in terms of 0.88 0.45 2.140 0.033 costs and benefits. (n=72) (n=179)

The LRMP process was the best

way of developing a land use

plan. Outcome Criterion 11 - Understanding and Support of Shared Decision-Making Approaches: The process resulted in increased understanding of, and participants support the 0.90 0.44 2.190 0.029 future use of, SDM approaches. (n=71) (n=181)

I believe that consensus-based

processes are an effective way

of making land and resource

use decisions. Outcome Criterion 11 - Understanding and Support of Shared Decision-Making Approaches: The process resulted 1.76 1.41 2.918 0.004 in increased understanding of, (n=74) (n=183) and participant's support for the future use of, SDM approaches.

The government should involve

the public in land and

resource use decisions. Table 7: A checklist of special considerations for members of civil society considering participation in collaborative processes [square] 1. Does the collaborative process have a legitimate

purpose conducive to addressing the issues of the

participants? [square] 2. Are all stakeholders adequately represented and is

the process inclusive? [square] 3. Is the process open and voluntary? [square] 4. Are all participants committed to making the process

work? [square] 5. Are participants able to design the process

themselves? [square] 6. Is there funding available that will adequately allow

participants to attend meetings and participate fully

in the process? [square] 7. Can participants make the necessary time commitment

to a process that may be long and arduous? [square] 8. Is there an opportunity to undertake the training

that may be required to participate effectively in

the process? [square] 9. Are the time frames for the process realistic? [square] 10. Will the process develop a clear strategy for

implementing the agreement? [square] 11. Does the process have adequate facilitation and

support staff? [square] 12. Will recommendations from the process be adopted? [square] 13. Is there a strong government commitment to the

process? [square] 14. Does the process make decisions by consensus?

References

Amy, Douglas J. 1987. The Politics of Environmental Mediation. New York: Columbia University Press.

Bryner, Gary. 1999. Balancing Preservation and Logging: Public Lands Policy in British Columbia and the Western United States Policy Studies Journal 27(2): 307-327.

Carr, Deborah. S., Steven. W. Selin, and Michael. A. Schuett. 1998. Managing Public Forests: Understanding the Role of Collaborative Planning Environmental Management 22(5): 767-776.

Caton Campbell, Maria, and Donald W. Floyd. 1996. Thinking Critically About Environmental Mediation Journal of Planning Literature 10(3): 235-247.

Cormick, Gerald W., and National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy (Canada). 1996. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Putting Principles Into Practice. Ottawa: National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. Day, J.C., Thomas I. Gunton, and Tanis Frame. 2003. Toward Environmental Sustainability in British Columbia: The Role of Shared Decision Making. Environments 31(2): 21-38.

Dempster, Beth 2001. Some Reflections on Civics and Civil Society as Grounding for Urban Environmental Management. Environments 29(1): 123-162.

Duffy, Dorli M., Mark Roseland, and Thomas I. Gunton. 1996. A Preliminary Assessment of Shared Decision-Making in Land Use and Natural Resource Planning. Environments 23(2): 1-16.

Dukes, E. Franklin, and Karen Firehoc. 2001. Collaboration: A Guide for Environmental Advocates. Institute for Environmental Negotiation, University of Virginia. . [Accessed on: March 3, 2003]

Frame, Tanis M. 2002. Shared Decision Making And Sustainability: An Evaluation Of Land And Resource Management Planning In British Columbia. MRM Report No. 296. Burnaby, B.C.: School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University.

Frame, Tanis M., J.C. Day, and Thomas I. Gunton. 2002. Strategic Land Use Planning for Sustainable Resource Management--An Evaluation of the Land and Resource Management Planning Process in British Columbia. Burnaby, B.C.: School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University.

Gray, Barbara. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Gunton, Thomas I., and J.C. Day. 2003. Theory and Practice of Collaborative Planning in Resource Management. Environments 31(2): 5-19.

Gunton, Thomas I., and C. Fletcher. 1992. An Overview: Sustainable Development and Crown Land Planning. Environments 21(3):1-4.

Gunton, Thomas I., and S. Flynn. 1992. Resolving Environmental Conflict : The Role of Mediation and Negotiation. Environments 21(3): 12-16.

Gunton, Thomas I. 1998. Forestry Land Use Policy in British Columbia : The Dynamics of Change. Environments 25(2/3): 8-13.

Harter, Philip J. 1997. Fear of Commitment: An Affliction of Adolescents. Duke Law 46: 1389-1428.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999a. Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4): 412-423.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999b. Consensus Building as Role Playing and Bricolage: Toward a Theory of Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(1): 9-38.

May, Elizabeth. 2002. The Role of Civil Society: Pre and Post Rio. Government of Canada: Canada at the WSSD, National Report Process Website: . [Accessed on: November 8, 2002].

Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1997. When Dispute Resolution Begets Disputes of its Own: Conflicts Among Dispute Professionals. UCLA Law Review 44: 1871-1933.

Moote, M.A., M.P. McClaran, and D. Chickering. 1997. Application of Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land Planning: A Case Study. Environmental Management 21: 877-889.