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

Rec'n Perceived Satisfaction With Process Outcomes The LRMP process was the best way of 3.26 2.82 2.414 0.017 developing a land use plan (35) (216) Knowing what I know now I would get 3.21 2.94 1.379 0.169 involved in a process similar to the (39) (215) LRMP again I believe that consensus based processes 3.19 2.84 1.839 0.067 are an effective way of making land and (37) (215) resource use decisions The LRMP process was a positive 3.08 2.85 1.211 0.227 experience (39) (218) The planning process produced creative 3.03 2.87 1.007 0.315 ideas for action (38) (216) I believe the outcome of the LRMP 2.97 2.83 0.720 0.472 process served the common good or public (36) (217) interest My/my organizations' interests have been 2.86 2.57 1.481 0.130 accommodated better through the LRMP (35) (207) process than they would have been through other means The LRMP process I participated in was a 2.79 2.74 0.274 0.784 success (38) (213) I am satisfied with the outcome of the 2.63 2.54 0.459 0.647 process (38) (215) The table developed a clear strategy for 2.63 2.53 0.589 0.556 plan implementation (38) (208) At the end of the process, the table 2.58 2.74 -0.785 0.433 participants shared a strong commitment (36) (208) to plan implementation The resulting plan addressed the needs, 2.49 2.53 -0.215 0.830 concerns, and values, of the group I (39) (207) represented The LRMP process produced information 2.46 2.60 -0.866 0.387 that has been understood and accepted by (39) (216) all participants Reduced Conflict As a result of the process, I have a 3.53 3.50 0.213 0.831 good understanding of the interests of (38) (214) other participants I have better working relationships with 3.00 3.17 -1.139 0.256 other parties involved in land use (39) (211) planning as a result of the LRMP process The relationships among table members 2.97 3.06 -0.494 0.622 improved over the course of the process (38) (215) I have seen changes in behaviors and 2.89 2.83 0.408 0.684 actions as a result of the process (36) (207) As a result of the LRMP process, 2.37 2.39 -0.075 0.940 conflict over land use in the area has (35) (205) decreased Increased Social Capital and Second-order Benefits As a result of the process, I have a 3.41 3.38 0.206 0.837 better understanding of my region (39) (216) I gained new or improved skills as a 3.34 3.28 0.462 0.644 result of my involvement in the process (38) (214) Information acquired through my 3.24 3.19 0.387 0.699 participation in the LRMP process is (38) (216) useful to me and/or my sector/organization As a result of the process, I now have a 3.18 3.22 -0.222 0.825 better understanding of how government (38) (209) works with respect to land and resource management I have used information generated 3.14 3.03 0.705 0.481 through the LRMP process for purposes (37) (204) outside of the process Contacts I acquired through my 3.14 3.15 -0.093 0.926 participation in the LRMP process are (36) (210) useful to me and/or my sector/organization I am aware of spin-off partnerships or 2.59 2.65 -0.310 0.756 collaborative activities or new (32) (192) organizations that arose as a result of the process * 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 Table 8. Tourism Stakeholder Perspectives On Factors Important to SDM Success

Mean Response * SDM Success Factors

Trsm/ Other t Sig.

Rec'n Stakeholder Inclusion Mutual respect and trust in the 3.82 3.61 1.859 0.064 negotiation process (39) (217) Inclusive representation of all relevant 3.79 3.67 1.061 0.290 stakeholder/interest groups (38) (219) Stakeholder groups having a clear 3.74 3.59 1.453 0.147 understanding of their own and other (39) (218) stakeholders' interests Access to high quality information 3.69 3.68 0.136 0.892

(39) (218) Accountability and openness of process 3.67 3.57 0.903 0.367 to the public (39) (218) Accountability of representatives to 3.66 3.44 1.663 0.098 their constituencies (38) (210) Participants having equal opportunity & 3.59 3.18 2.588 0.010 resources (skills, resources, money, (39) (217) support) Process Management Tools Effective process management (including 3.82 3.72 1.107 0.269 process coordinator/staff) (39) (219) Clear rules of procedure 3.72 3.61 1.050 0.295

(39) (218) Clearly defined purpose and objectives 3.69 3.70 -0.088 0.930

(39) (217) Use of an independent facilitator or 3.56 3.17 2.172 0.031 mediator (36) (211) Consensus requirement 3.47 3.04 2.610 0.010

(38) (212) Clearly defined consequence or 3.42 3.38 0.215 0.830 alternative outcome if consensus not (36) (214) reached (e.g. knowing the provincial government would make the decisions if no consensus reached) Timetable (including deadline for 3.21 3.17 0.260 0.795 reaching agreement) (38) (216) Process Design Commitment to a plan for implementation 3.74 3.57 1.517 0.130 and monitoring (38) (218) Commitment of stakeholders to the 3.72 3.47 2.030 0.043 process because it was the best way of (39) (217) meeting objectives Process design that is flexible and 3.43 3.45 -0.117 0.907 adaptive (37) (217) Process designed by participants 3.18 2.90 1.616 0.107

(39) (215) Voluntary participation (all 3.14 2.93 1.210 0.228 participants are free to leave at any (36) (207) time or pursue other avenues if agreement not reached) Urgency of issues addressed in the 2.92 2.98 -0.420 0.675 process providing incentive to reach (37) (215) agreement * 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

References Cited

Bacow, L., and M. Wheeler. 1984. Environmental Dispute Resolution. New York: Plenum Press.

British Columbia. Land Use Coordination Office (LUCO). 2003. Status Report on Land and Resource Management Plans. [Accessed on March 2003].

British Columbia. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MRSM). 2001. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of the Provincial Government's Strategic Land Use Plans on Key Sectors in British Columbia: Final Report. Victoria, B.C.

Canadian Forest Service. 2001. The State of Canada's Forests 2000-2001: Up Front Profiles. Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada: [Accessed on July 25, 2002].

Cormick, G., N. Dale, P. Edmond, S.G. Sigurdson, and B. Stuart. 1996. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Putting Principles into Practice. Ottawa: National Round Table on Environment and Economy.

Darling, C. 1991. In Search of Consensus: An evaluation of the Clayoquot Sound Sustainable Development Task Force Process. Victoria, B.C.: Island Press.

Day, J.C., Thomas I. Gunton, and Tanis M. Frame. 2003 Towards Rural Sustainability in British Columbia: The Role of Biodiversity Conservation and Other Factors. Environments 31(2): 47-63.

Duffy, Dorli M., Mark Roseland, and Thomas I. Gunton. 1996. A Preliminary Assessment of Shared Decision-Making in Land Use and Natural Resource Planning. Environments 23(2): 1-15.

Frame, T. 2002. Shared Decision Making and Sustainability: An Evaluation of Land and Resources Management Planning in British Columbia. MRM Report 296. Burnaby, B.C.: Simon Fraser University, School of Resources and Environmental Management.

Gunton, Thomas I. 1991. Crown Land Planning in British Columbia: Managing for Multiple Use, pp. 275-293. In Our Living Legacy: Proceedings of a Symposium on Biological Diversity, ed. M.A. Fenger, E.H. Miller, J.A. Johnson, and E.J.R. Williams. Victoria: Royal British Columbia Museum.

--. 1998. Forestry Land Use Policy in British Columbia: The Dynamics of Change. Environments 25(2 and 3): 8-13.