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

O'Connell, Brian. 1999. Civil Society: The Underpinnings of American Democracy. Hanover, N.H: University Press of New England.

Salamon, Lester M. 1996. The Crisis of the Nonprofit Sector and the Challenge of Renewal. National Civic Review 85(4) Winter: 3-16.

Susskind, Lawrence, and Gerard McMahon. 1985. The Theory and Practice of Negotiated Rulemaking. Yale Journal on Regulation 3: 133-165.

Williams, Peter W., J.C. Day, and Thomas I. Gunton 1998. Land and Water Planning in B.C. in the 1990s: Lessons on More Inclusive Approaches. Environments 25(2/3): 1-7.

Wondolleck, J. M. 1998a. Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in Canada and the United States. Society & Natural Resources 11(1): 91-96.

--. 1998b. Democratic Dilemmas in the Age of Ecology: Trees and Toxics in the American West. Society & Natural Resources 11(1): 91-96.

Wondolleck, J. M., N. J. Manring, and J. E. Crowfoot. 1996. Teetering at the Top of the Ladder: The Experience of Citizen Group Participants in Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes. Sociological Perspectives 39(2): 249-262.

Wondolleck, J. M., and C. M. Ryan. 1999. What Hat Do I Wear Now?: An Examination of Agency Roles in Collaborative Processes. Negotiation Journal-On the Process of Dispute Settlement 15(2) Apr: 117-133.

Wondolleck, Julia Marie. 1988. Public Lands Conflict and Resolution: Managing National Forest Disputes. New York: Plenum Press.

Wondolleck, Julia Marie, and Steven Lewis Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Yaffee, S.L., and J.M. Wondolleck. 1995. Building Knowledge Pools and Relationsheds at the Forest Ecosystem Level. Journal of Forestry 93(5) May: 68-68.

RELATED ARTICLE: Table 1 Criteria Used to Evaluate Collaborative Planning Processes

Process Criteria and Explanation

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.

2. Inclusive Representation: All parties with a significant interest in the issues and outcome are involved throughout the process.

3. Commitment: Affected or interested parties participate voluntarily and are committed to the process.

4. Self-Design: The parties work together to design a process to suit the individual needs of its participants.

5. Clear Participant Roles and Ground Rules: Clear terms of reference and ground rules are established.

6. Equal Opportunity and Resources: The process provides for equal and balanced opportunity for effective participation of all parties.

7. Principled Negotiation and Respect: The process operates according to the conditions of principled negotiation including mutual respect, trust, and understanding.

8. Accountability: The process and its participants are accountable to the broader public, to their constituents, and to the process itself.

9. Flexible, Adaptive, and Creative: Flexibility is designed into the process to allow for adaptation and creativity in problem solving.

10. High-Quality Information: The process incorporates high-quality information into decision making.

11. Time Limits: Realistic milestones and deadlines are established and managed throughout the process.

12. Implementation and Monitoring: The process and final agreement include clear commitments to implementation and monitoring.

13. Effective Process Management: The process is coordinated and managed effectively and in a neutral manner.

14. Independent Facilitation: The process uses an independent, trained facilitator throughout the process.

Source: Frame et al. (2002)

RELATED ARTICLE: Table 2 Criteria Used to Evaluate Collaborative Planning Outcomes

Outcome Criteria and Explanation

1. Perceived as Successful: Stakeholders perceive the process as successful and are satisfied with the outcomes of the process and view their involvement as a positive experience.

2. Agreement:: The process reached a high-quality agreement that meets the interests of, and is acceptable to, all stakeholders.

3. Conflict Reduced: The process and its outcomes reduced conflict in the area regarding the issues addressed.

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 by all parties. Benefits include the positive outcomes of the process.

5. Creative and Innovative: The process produced creative ideas for action. Innovative ideas will be tested and learned from, even those ideas that are not successfully implemented can provide opportunities for learning and growth and can change the ways of thinking that led to a conflict.

6. Knowledge, Understanding, and Skills: Stakeholders gained knowledge, understanding, and skills by participating in the process.

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.

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.

9. Second-Order Effects: The process had second-order effects including changes in behaviours and actions as well as spin-off partnerships, umbrella groups, collaborative activities, new practices, or new institutions.

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.

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 could be more effective.

Source: Frame et al. (2002)

Author biographies

Darryl Finnigan recently completed his Master of Resource Management degree at Simon Fraser University where he examined collaborative approaches to land use planning in British Columbia. Darryl previously worked for Health Canada as a facilitator of a collaborative team formed to harmonize international pesticide regulations. Darryl has a continuing interest in the role that nongovernment organizations play in natural resource management. He can be reached by email at dsf@greenmedium.com.

Thomas Gunton is an associate professor and former director of the School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. He held numerous senior positions in government including Deputy Minister of Environment and Deputy Minister of Cabinet Policy for the government of British Columbia. His research is in environmental mediation and dispute resolution and natural resource planning. He can be reached through the School or by email at tgunton@shaw.ca.

Peter Williams is a professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, and Director of the University's Centre for Tourism Policy and Research. His research relates to the use of land and resources for sustainable tourism. He can be reached through the School or by email at peterw@sfu.ca.