Backcountry tourism perspectives on shared decision making in B.C. land use planning.

This paper examines tourism stakeholder perspectives concerning the application and outcomes associated with using SDM responses in the development of British Columbia's LRMPs. Perspectives on these issues were collected via a survey of respondents who participated in LRMP processes undertaken between 1995 and 2002 (Frame 2002). Through several targeted questions, the survey probed their views concerning: 1) the degree to which SDM process principles and guidelines (Table 1) were implemented during the LRMP initiatives; 2) the extent to which potential SDM outcomes (Table 2) were realized via the LRMP processes; and 3) those factors considered most critical to the success of SDM processes.

Stakeholder responses to these questions were recorded on a Likert-type scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. Mean scores for responses to each question were tabulated. The greater the mean value recorded, the more strongly the respondents agreed with the statement examined. For reporting purposes mean scores were interpreted as follows: 1-1.50= strong disagreement, 1.51-2.25=disagreement, 2.26-2.75=undecided, 2.76-3.50 =agreement, 3.50-4.00=strong agreement.

This paper describes the perspectives of the thirty-one tourism stakeholders who participated in the survey. The collective viewpoints of these stakeholders are then compared with the combined responses of all other survey participants. Unless statistically significant differences ([varies]=0.05) in the responses of tourism and nontourism stakeholders are apparent based on Student t-tests, only the perspectives of tourism stakeholders are described.

Findings

The following section is divided into four parts. First, an overview is presented of the extent to which tourism values were recognized in the province's completed LRMPs. Then, tourism stakeholder perspectives are described concerning the extent to which the SDM process principles and guidelines were applied in the LRMPs. Third, their opinions are reported concerning the extent to which the potential benefits associated with the use of SDM processes were realized in the LRMPs. Finally, tourism stakeholder viewpoints are identified concerning the most important factors influencing the success of SDM processes.

LRMP Recognition of Tourism Values

As of March 2003, tourism stakeholders had engaged in twenty-one LRMP processes throughout B.C. (B.C. LUCO 2003). These LRMPs provide strategic management and resource allocation directives for over 80 percent of the province's Crown lands. Fourteen of them have been approved by the government and are now being implemented. Tourism values are incorporated to varying degrees in each of these LRMPs.

A tangible measure of the ability of SDM processes to incorporate tourism values is reflected in the amount of LRMP land designated to tourism use. LRMP lands most inclusive of tourism values are designated as special management zones (SMZ) and protected area zones (PAZ). Table 3 highlights the percentage changes in PAZ and SMZ land use areas designated for potential tourism use as a result of individual LRMP decisions. The figures show that PAZ doubled from 5.6 percent to 12.5 percent of the province and new SMZ were created covering 16.4 percent of the land base. The figures also reveal that while there are substantial variations in the amount of land allocated for tourism use within the LRMP regions, each planning process resulted in a significant increase in areas available for tourism use. This suggests that SDM processes were effective in integrating the perspectives of tourism stakeholders into the LRMP processes.

Tourism Stakeholder Involvement in LRMP Processes

Tourism respondents' perspectives concerning their participation in the province's LRMPs are described in this section. In particular, results are given on their overriding reasons for participating, and their viewpoints concerning how their involvement influenced the planning processes employed. Their perspectives are summarized in Table 4.

Motivations for Involvement

Tourism respondents indicated that they were participating in LRMP processes because their constituency felt that it was the best way to achieve their land-use goals. They suggested that they entered these processes with clear goals in mind, and had a strong commitment to making the processes work.

Planning Process Influences

Overall, the tourism respondents felt that their participation in the process had made a difference in the outcomes of the LRMP(s). They believed their involvement had helped shape the design of planning processes. They claimed they were able to offer clear direction to the process based on input derived from their constituencies. They also felt that the planning processes used had helped them to effectively communicate with, and gain support from, their constituencies on LRMP planning matters (Table 4).

Despite these positive perspectives, they were less sure about their ability to shape the ongoing activities of these SDM processes. For instance they expressed uncertainty about: 1) the extent to which the processes had provided them with the training needed to participate effectively; as well as, 2) the degree to which the process mechanisms had helped them be accountable to their constituency. While they felt that they had not received the level of funding needed to fully participate in the planning activities, this perspective was statistically less pronounced ([varies]=0.05) than it was for nontourism respondents (Table 4).

Integration of SDM Process Principles and Guidelines Into LRMPs

Tourism stakeholders expressed their views on whether or not overriding SDM process principles and management guidelines were integrated into LRMP planning procedures. This section describes their opinions on the extent of such integration in terms of structural dimensions such as process organization, process tools, and process staffing as well as equity considerations related to inclusiveness and power balance. Overall responses related to this assessment are summarized in Table 5.

Structural Characteristics

Process Organization Tourism respondents' perspectives about the integration of SDM organizational processes into LRMP procedures were mixed. From a positive perspective, they suggested that the processes offered: a focus on significant and timely issues for resolution; deadlines for moving the process along; clear procedural ground rules; enough flexibility to accommodate new information and changes as needed; and, a clear notice of the government's authority to impose a decision if consensus among the stakeholders was not reached.

On a more negative note, they expressed greater ambivalence concerning the presence of several other SDM organizational elements. In particular, they were uncertain about the extent to which the organization of the LRMP processes allowed participants to: collectively identify and agree on goals and objectives for the LRMPs; establish clear roles for the participants; and facilitate communication with the general public.

Process Tools Several SDM process tools were developed to facilitate the development of the province's LRMPs. For the most part they were designed to provide the information needed by stakeholders to make informed land and resource planning decisions. Overall, tourism stakeholders were uncertain about the extent to which these process tools provided the quality of information needed for effective decision making. Those tools deemed to be especially useful to the tourism stakeholders included overlay mapping technologies, and multiple account procedures for evaluating land use options. In contrast, respondents were uncertain about the strength of the communication and negotiation tools available to participants.

Process Support Staff Tourism stakeholders agreed that the staff provided to administer the development of their LRMPs were effective in facilitating smooth running processes. They also believed that the agency managing their planning processes acted neutrally and without bias. This sentiment was particularly strong with respect to the role facilitators played in these processes.

Equity Characteristics

Process Inclusiveness Tourism respondents agreed that the LRMP processes ensured that all appropriate interests and values were included at the LRMP planning tables. They also acknowledged that the processes encouraged open communications as well as teamwork. However, they were uncertain that all LRMP participants had a clear understanding of the varying stakeholders' interests at the planning tables.

Process Power Balance Tourism respondents expressed ambivalence concerning the extent to which the processes had been able to effectively address potential power imbalances at the LRMP planning tables. They agreed that the process staff acted in a neutral and unbiased fashion. They also felt that the LRMP participants had opportunities to adjust the process as needed. However, they were ambivalent concerning how committed the LRMP participants were to making the SDM process work. They felt that LRMP participants were still primarily accountable to their constituents for the decisions they made. Table 6 summarizes all responses related to this issue.

Tourism Perspectives on LRMP Process Outcomes