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

Rec'n Motivations For Participation I became involved in the process because 3.43 3.36 0.538 0.591 I/my organization felt it was the best (37) (215) way to achieve my/our goals with respect to land use planning I had clear goals in mind when I first 3.18 3.11 0.513 0.608 became involved in the LRMP process (38) (217) I was fully committed to making the 3.74 3.63 1.142 0.255 process work (39) (214) Participation Influences My participation made a difference in 3.26 2.99 1.672 0.096 the outcomes of the LRMP process (38) (215) I was involved in the design of the LRMP 3.22 2.98 1.169 0.244 process such as ground rules, roles, and (32) (179) procedures The organization/sector/group I 2.97 2.76 1.136 0.257 represented provided me with clear (32) (190) direction throughout the process The process helped to ensure I was 2.69 2.59 0.568 0.571 accountable to the constituency I was (32) (181) representing I had or received sufficient training to 2.69 2.84 -0.875 0.382 participate effectively (35) (205) On an ongoing basis, I was able to 2.65 2.62 0.141 0.888 influence the process used in the LRMP (34) (209) I had or received sufficient funding to 2.19 2.72 -2.387 0.018 participate effectively (31) (188) Due to constraints of the process, I was 1.97 1.99 -0.130 0.896 unable to effectively communicate with (35) (177) and gain support from my constituency * Mean scores based on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. The statements in italics represent a statistically significant difference ([varies]=0.05) in group agreement levels Numbers in brackets denote the total number of respondents for that statement. Table 5 Tourism Stakeholder Perceptions of SDM Principles and Guidelines Incorporated into LRMPs

Mean Response * SDM Process Guidelines Trsm/ Other t Sig.

Rec'n Process Organization Deadlines during the process were 3.32 3.06 1.347 0.179 helpful in moving the process along (31) (185) Stakeholders had a clear understanding 3.44 3.43 0.014 0.988 that if no consensus were reached, the (39) (219) provincial government would make the decisions The process was flexible enough to be 2.92 2.89 0.187 0.852 adaptive to new information or changing (37) (217) circumstances The process was hindered by lack of 2.22 2.18 0.227 0.821 structure (37) (213) Participant roles were clearly defined 2.71 2.77 -0.383 0.702

(38) (213) The process had a detailed project plan 2.72 2.66 0.389 0.697 (for the negotiation process) including (36) (216) clear milestones The issues we were dealing with in the 3.41 3.31 0.684 0.495 LRMP process were significant problems (39) (219) requiring timely resolution The procedural ground rules were 3.21 3.06 0.954 0.341 clearly defined (39) (219) The time allotted to the process was 2.58 2.45 0.685 0.494 realistic (36) (218) The process was hindered by a lack of 2.49 2.35 0.791 0.4230 communication and negotiation skills (37) (220) Process Tools The overlay of resource values on maps 3.49 3.29 1.459 0.146 was a useful technique for evaluating (37) (217) land use options The process participants collectively 2.69 2.70 - 0.967 identified and agreed on clear goals (39) (216) 0.041 and objectives The process lacked adequate 2.37 2.36 0.059 0.953 high-quality information for effective (38) (218) decision making The multiple accounts method was a 2.83 2.57 1.541 0.125 useful way of evaluating land use (30) (182) options The process had an effective strategy 2.64 2.58 0.360 0.719 for communicating with the broader (39) (213) public All government agencies that needed to 2.97 2.93 0.233 0.816 be involved were adequately represented (39) (221) Process Support Staff The independent facilitator/mediator 3.26 3.01 1.266 0.207 acted in an unbiased manner (31) (186) The agency responsible for managing the 3.05 2.72 1.808 0.072 LRMP process acted in a neutral and (37) (218) unbiased manner Process staff, including facilitators 3.13 3.23 - 0.498 if used, were skilled in running (38) (218) 0.678 meetings * Mean scores based on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree. Numbers in brackets denote the total number of respondents for that statement. Table 6. Tourism Stakeholder Perspectives On LRMP Process Inclusiveness and Power Balances

Mean Response * SDM Process Element

Trsm/ Other t Sig.

Rec'n Process Inclusiveness The process encouraged open 3.10 3.18 -0.525 0.600 communication about participants' (39) (220) interests All appropriate interests or values were 3.00 2.76 1.392 0.165 represented in the process (39) (219) Process staff acted in a neutral and 2.84 2.73 0.617 0.538 unbiased manner (38) (216) The process fostered teamwork 2.82 2.77 0.290 0.772

(38) (219) Participants were given the opportunity 2.73 2.87 -0.864 0.388 to periodically assess the process and (37) (216) make adjustments as needed All participants demonstrated a clear 2.72 2.61 0.665 0.507 understanding of the different (39) (220) stakeholder interests around the table Process Power Balance Generally, the representatives at the 2.92 2.80 0.840 0.402 table were accountable to their (37) (210) constituencies The process reduced power imbalances 2.44 2.29 0.881 0.379 among participants (36) (219) All participants were committed to 2.38 2.37 0.106 0.915 making the process work (39) (216) * Mean scores based on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree Table 7. Tourism Stakeholder Perspectives Concerning LRMP Process Outcomes

Mean Response * Process Outcomes

T'rsm/ Other t Sig.