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

* Encourage Stakeholder Participation in LRMP Implementation Tourism stakeholders invested considerable time and energy in the development of their LRMPs. Through this involvement they developed an in-depth appreciation of the context and intent of their LRMP's management directives. At the same time they expressed some skepticism concerning the extent to which the directives established in LRMPs might eventually be implemented. Resources should be provided to facilitate the ongoing involvement of these tourism stakeholders in the implementation and monitoring phases of such planning programs. In this manner the legacy of ideas, perspectives, and intents--which participants in the planning processes created--can be maintained and consistently interpreted during the LRMP implementation phases.

Conclusions

This research suggests that tourism stakeholders believe SDM principles and guidelines have been incorporated into LRMP processes, and that this is generating a range of positive outcomes for the public at large. They also feel that the growing inclusiveness of these processes is opening the door for greater integration of tourism interests and values in the outcomes produced. For instance, despite having access to limited training, financial, and technical support, these stakeholders convinced their respective LRMP planning tables to designate an increased level of land and resources to tourism uses. Tourism values are also more prominently reflected in the overriding management directives that drive the long-term implementation of many LRMPs.

As a result of these recent land use triumphs, and the unfavorable outcomes for tourism associated with previous planning approaches, it is not surprising that tourism stakeholders believe that engagement in these SDM driven processes is "the best way to go." Indeed, tourism stakeholders express optimism for the outcomes these processes can create and a real interest in participating in future endeavors of this type.

Despite their stated commitment to making such processes work, tourism stakeholders are generally not satisfied with the extent to which the LRMP outcomes to date have met the needs of their constituents. They express considerable ambivalence concerning how well their voices are being heard and understood by their nontourism planning counterparts. Consequently, they suggest that future SDM processes must place added emphasis on creating mechanisms that heighten stakeholder awareness and appreciation of their tourism values. Such mechanisms involve creating communication systems that facilitate both internal and external information sharing.

While SDM approaches are perceived to be a useful vehicle for increasing the voice and influence of tourism interests in the province's LRMP decisions, many tourism respondents are also concerned that their hard-won, land-use management advances will not necessarily be secure in subsequent implementation programs. They express this concern in the reality of ongoing cutbacks in government staff and resources allocated to managing the implementation of the LRMPs. They are particularly concerned that, outside of these LRMPs, few land use policy instruments exist that are capable of securing tourism's ongoing presence on B.C.'s Crown lands. Many of them feel the need for ongoing SDM processes that will ensure the integration of tourism values in future implementation programs associated with LRMPs. Table 1 Summary of Potential SDM Process Principles and Guidelines 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: The parties who are affected or interested participate

voluntarily and are committed to the process 4. Self Design: The parties involved work together to design the

process to suit the individual needs of that process and its

participants 5. Clear Participant Roles and Ground Rules 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 Adapted from Frame (2002). Table 2 Summary of Potential SDM Outcomes 1. Perceived as Successful: Stakeholders are satisfied with outcomes

and view their involvement as positive 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 5. Creative and Innovative: The process produced creative ideas for

action. Innovative ideas were tested and learned 6. Knowledge, Understanding, and Skills: Stakeholders gained

knowledge, understanding, and skills by participating in the

process 7. Relationships and Social Capital: Stakeholders created new personal

and working relationships, and social capital among diverse

parties 8. Information: The process produced improved data, information, and

analyses through joint fact-finding that stakeholders understand

and accept as accurate 9. Second-Order Effects: The process had second-order effects

including changes in behaviors and actions, 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: The process resulted in increased

understanding of, and stakeholders' support for, future SDM use Adapted from Frame (2002). Table 3. Change in Protected Area Zone and Special Management Zone Designations in Completed LRMPs *

% BEFORE LRMP % AFTER LRMP

LRMP Protected Special Protected Special

Areas Mgmt Areas Mgmt

Zones Zones

Kamloops 18.7 N/A 22.6 18.9

OK/Shuswap 2.9 N/A 7.9 N/A

Dawson Creek 1.6 N/A 6.9 112.9

Ft. St. John 0.1 N/A 4.4 18.1

Mackenzie 3.4 N/A 14.0 38.8

Ft. Nelson 1.5 N/A 10.8 28.5

Robson Valley 15.3 N/A 20.2 25.3

Prince George 0.8 N/A 8.4 21.3

Vanderhoof 0.1 N/A 6.8 3.9

Lakes 27.8 N/A 34.5 19.3

Bulkley 0.0 N/A 5.2 20.2

Kispiox 0.0 N/A 8.8 18.3 Cassiar/Stikine 17.5 N/A 26.3 44.2

Ft. St. James 0.1 N/A 6.0 16.4 Provincial Total 5.6 N/A 12.5 16.4 * Table includes only government-approved plans as of October 2001. Source: Pierce Lefebvre Consulting (2001). Table 4. Tourism Stakeholder Motivation For Participation In LRMPs and Perceived Influence

Mean Response * Statement Trsm/ Other t Sig.