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

Tourism stakeholders were asked for their opinions concerning the outcomes associated with participating in LRMP planning processes. In particular, their views were examined regarding the extent to which the processes produced satisfactory LRMP outcomes, helped reduce conflict, as well as increased social capital and other beneficial second-order effects. Table 7 summarizes their responses with respect to these themes, which are discussed next.

Satisfaction with LRMP Outcomes

Tourism respondents reported several beneficial effects associated with the use of LRMP processes (Table 7). Overall, they expressed clear agreement that the processes used in the development of the LRMPs provided the best way of developing such plans. More specifically they felt that the LRMP procedures used: represented an effective method for making land use decisions, generated creative ideas for action, and served the public interest.

On a more personal level, they suggested that they their involvement in the process was a positive experience and that they would be willing to get involved in similar processes in future. They also agreed that their organizations' needs had been better accommodated through the LRMP processes than would have been the case under other planning approaches.

Despite their positive views on the worth of the LRMP processes, respondents were not convinced of the value of the end results generated. On average, the tourism stakeholders expressed only marginal agreement that the LRMP processes had been a success. In this regard, they were undecided as to whether or not the processes had actually provided: satisfactory LRMP outcomes, a clear strategy for plan implementation, and a shared commitment to plan implementation. They were even less certain that the resulting LRMPs had actually addressed the specific concerns of the tourism industry.

Tourism stakeholder views on all of these outcomes were statistically similar ([varies]=0.05) to the collective perspectives of all other nontourism respondents in this study except with respect to the worth of LRMP approaches in land use planning contexts. In that case, tourism stakeholders were significantly more convinced ([varies]=0.05) that LRMP processes were the best way of developing such land use plans (Table 7).

Conflict Reduction

Tourism respondents generally agreed that the processes employed in the development of the LRMPs helped to reduce potential conflicts (Table 7). This agreement was strongest with respect to the role such processes played in improving respondents' understanding of the interests of other participants, and building better working relationships with other LRMP members. They also felt that the processes helped to build stronger relationships among other LRMP table members, as well as to change the behaviors of some of these stakeholders. However, they were undecided as to whether the processes had actually decreased conflict over land uses.

Social Capital and Second-Order Benefits

Beyond the direct outcomes generated through the use of LRMP processes, the tourism stakeholders suggested several other indirect effects associated with the application of these planning approaches (Table 7). In particular, they felt that as a result of the processes they had developed a stronger awareness of: their region, government land use management responsibilities, and contacts important to themselves and their constituents. They also agreed that the information they had acquired would be of value to them and their tourism organizations in the future. Indeed, they indicated that they had already used some of this information for purposes beyond the LRMPs. However, they were less certain about the existence of any spin-off partnerships or new collaborative activities that had occurred as a result of these processes.

SDM Success Factors

Based on their past involvement in LRMP planning programs, tourism respondents reported their views on the importance of specific factors in generating successful collaborative planning processes and outcomes. In particular, the importance of various aspects of stakeholder inclusion, process management, and process design was examined. Table 8 summarizes their responses.

Stakeholder Inclusion

Tourism respondents strongly agreed that several internally and externally focused inclusion factors were important to the success of SDM processes. From an internal decision making perspective, they rated the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, and the presence of mutual respect and trust amongst these groups as being essential to the ultimate success of SDM processes. They also felt that it was important that participating groups have a clear understanding, not only of their own interests, but also the interests of the other stakeholders. They believed that developing such understanding was dependent on not only all groups having access to high quality information, but also possessing equal availability of support resources for data collection and planning purposes. Tourism stakeholders placed significantly more importance ([varies]=0.05) on the availability of such support resources than did their non-tourism LRMP counterparts.

From an external support perspective, the tourism respondents felt that ensuring the process was accountable and open to the public, as well as to stakeholder constituents was imperative (Table 8). They felt that a commitment to both the internal and external flow of information and ideas was especially important the success of these processes.

Process Management

Tourism respondents were clear that having an effective management process in place was critical to the success of SDM planning initiatives. From their perspective, the management tools and mechanisms needed to ensure success included: clear rules and procedures, a clearly defined purpose and objectives, and a requirement for achieving consensus agreements. They felt such processes worked best when there were clearly defined timelines for reaching agreements, and the alternatives of not doing so were clearly understood. They placed significantly more importance ([varies]=0.05) than their nontourism counterparts on the use of independent facilitators or mediator to effectively manage such processes (Table 8).

Process Design

Tourism respondents firmly supported SDM processes that were designed to ensure that the plans developed were implemented and monitored. They also felt that it was very important to select participants who were committed to making the SDM processes work. They expressed significantly more agreement ([varies]=0.05) on the need for this factor than their nontourism counterparts. Despite believing that clear guidelines were needed for the management of such processes, they also firmly felt that the process designs should be flexible and adaptive, and based on voluntary participation.

Management Implications

The preceding findings reveal that tourism stakeholders were generally satisfied with the way that SDM processes facilitated their involvement in the development of British Columbia's LRMPs. However, they also identified areas where these processes could be strengthened to generate more positive and lasting results for tourism stakeholders. Their suggestions are reflected in the following recommendations.

* Increase Support for Stakeholder Participation For tourism stakeholders to play ongoing and contributive roles in current and future LRMP-related programs, they must receive greater support from government agents. Such support might be provided not only in the form of financial resources to subsidize participants for the time and energy taken from normal business activities, but also in the form of high quality technical and research support. Such support would provide the incentive for stakeholders to participate more robustly in such decision making processes.

* Increase Equity in Stakeholder Participation To address perceived imbalances in the representation of tourism interests in LRMP processes, ensure that this sector's representation is equivalent to that of other resource sectors. As with forestry, the tourism industry has a variety of stakeholder groups with distinct interests related to land use as well as several areas of common concern. When selecting sector representatives, process facilitators should include enough tourism representatives to reflect the varying land use needs of this diverse industry. Depending on the planning context, potential participants might include stakeholders associated with urban, backcountry, cultural, and nature-based tourism. Of course, decisions concerning the number of tourism representatives to be included should be balanced with those assigned to other interest groups. This approach would help to address real and perceived power imbalances in LRMP planning.

* Provide More Training to Process Participants While the tourism stakeholders supported the use of collaborative processes in LRMPs, they were not necessarily satisfied with the outcomes that were produced for their constituents. Being able to persuasively present the "tourism case" in an SDM context requires considerable skill and high quality information. More specialized training in communication, data interpretation, problem solving, and negotiation would help tourism stakeholders to more effectively shape the outcomes of LRMP processes.