Achieving effective implementation: an evaluation of a collaborative land use planning process.

Abstract

A key to sustainable resource planning is effective implementation of management plans. Despite its obvious significance, planning implementation remains a relatively neglected area of planning research. This paper helps address this gap by reporting results of a case study evaluation of implementation in an innovative collaborative land use planning process in British Columbia, Canada. The paper begins with a brief review of planning process and implementation theory. This is followed by a case study evaluation of plan implementation and identification of factors conditioning implementation success. The paper concludes by assessing implications of the case study evaluation for designing successful plan implementation strategies.

L'une des cles de la planification durable des ressources est la mise en oeuvre efficace de plans de gestion. Malgre son importance evidente, celle-ci demeure une zone negligee dans le domaine de la recherche en planification. Les auteurs de cet article traitent de cette lacune en faisant etat des resultats d'une analyse d'etude de cas portant sur la mise en oeuvre d'un processus novateur de planification concertee en matiere d'utilisation des terres en Colombie-Britannique au Canada. L'article s'ouvre sur un bref examen du processus de planification et de la theorie de mise en oeuvre. On y effectue ensuite une analyse d'etude de cas sur la mise en oeuvre d'un plan et on definit les facteurs determinant le succes de celle-ci. En conclusion, on evalue les repercussions de l'analyse de l'etude de cas afin de concevoir des strategies de mise en oeuvre de plans qui porteront fruit.

Key words:

Plan implementation, plan evaluation, collaborative planning, environmental monitoring, land use planning

Introduction

A key to sustainable resource planning is effective implementation of management plans. Despite its obvious significance, planning implementation remains a relatively neglected area of planning research (Talen 1996; Margerum 1999). The purpose of this paper is to help address this gap in the literature by reporting results of a case study evaluation of a regional land and resource management plan in British Columbia, Canada.

The paper begins with a brief review of planning process and implementation theory. This is followed by a case study evaluation of plan implementation and identification of factors determining implementation success. The paper concludes by assessing implications of the case study evaluation for designing successful plan implementation strategies.

Plan Implementation

Planning is normally defined as a process of decision making moving through the following stages: setting goals and objectives, identifying options, evaluating and choosing an option, implementing the plan, monitoring results, and revising the plan as required. The paramount importance of the implementation stage of the planning process was clearly demonstrated in the landmark study by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) of employment programs in the United States, which documented a large disparity between plan objectives and implementation outcomes. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) argued that one key contributor to implementation failure is that policy makers do not understand the difficulty of coordinating the large number of activities, competing interests, and diverse agencies involved in implementation. All increase the complexity of the planning environment and therefore the likelihood of implementation failure. A second contributor to implementation failure identified by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) is that plans may be based on flawed causal assumptions between policies and desired outcomes.

The documentation of the disparity between plans and implementation by Pressman and Wildavsky stimulated additional research on implementation. Sabatier and Mazmanian (1983) made an important contribution to the evolution of implementation theory in their review of the California Coastal Commission efforts to manage coastal zone land use. Contrary to the Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) study, Sabatier and Mazmanian (1983) concluded that the California Coastal Commission was relatively successful in implementing its objectives. They then identified criteria that explained this successful outcome and tested the criteria on a number of other case studies of policy implementation (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989). They summarized their findings by identifying six key criteria determining implementation success: clear and consistent objectives; causal linkages between objectives and actions; designation of a sympathetic agency with adequate resources and authority to implement the plan; skilled and committed implementation managers; public and stakeholder support; and, a supportive socioeconomic and policy environment (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989: 268-9). Following the Mazmanian and Sabatier analysis, other researchers tested and elaborated on the criteria for successful implementation (Goggin et al. 1990; Vedung 1997).

One key criterion for successful implementation identified in all these studies is strong stakeholder and implementing agency support. The obvious question is how can this support be generated. The answer is provided by the recent development of collaborative planning (CP). The essence of CP is that it delegates the authority to develop plans to stakeholders who engage in face-to-face negotiations to reach a planning agreement by consensus (Selin and Chavez 1995; Innes 1996; Harter 1997; Carr et al. 1998; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Susskind et al. 2000; Duffy et al. 1996; Williams et al. 1998). Advocates argue that CP is more likely to result in successful plan implementation because stakeholders are more likely to support and comply with a plan they helped develop.

Planning implementation theory has clearly evolved since the initial study by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973). Criteria necessary for successful implementation have been identified and planning models such as CP have emerged as means of helping garner support for implementation. Nonetheless, observers note the continued failure to achieve successful implementation (Weale 1992), and the need for more implementation research, especially on the role of CP in achieving implementation success (Margerum 1999). The purpose of this study is to help address this research need by a case study evaluation of the implementation of a CP process.

Case Study Overview

The case study is based on the Kamloops land and resource management plan (KLRMP) (Figure 1). The KLRMP is part of an innovative provincial planning strategy developed in British Columbia in the early 1990s to resolve conflicts between environmentalists and resource developers. The planning process, termed shared decision making (SDM) by the provincial government, is described in detail by Day et al. (2003). The process is based on a collaborative planning model that delegates responsibility for preparing a plan to stakeholders, who engage in face-to-face negotiations to reach consensus agreement on a plan which is then submitted to the provincial Cabinet for approval. The advocates of this new collaborative approach to planning argue that there are numerous advantages relative to more traditional planning models (Gunton and Day 2003; Owen 1998). These advantages include increased likelihood of reaching a planning agreement that is in the public interest, increased likelihood of successfully implementing the plan, and generation of social capital benefits such as improved skills, knowledge, and relationships among stakeholders. To date, nineteen regional land use plans have been completed under this process covering 73% of the provincial land base. Eight plans, covering most of the remainder of the land base, are still in progress.

The KLRMP, which covers 2.3-million hectares of Crown land, was the first plan completed under this new collaborative planning model. The planning process was initiated in late 1989 and the provincial government approved the final plan in July 1995. The KLRMP, therefore, provides an excellent case study because sufficient time has lapsed since the completion of the plan to assess implementation progress. Also, the innovative process used to develop the KLRMP provides an opportunity to test the merits of CP and its impact on implementation success.

During the first stage of the KLRMP process from 1990 to 1992, an interagency planning team (IPT) assembled information and resource maps, and identified key issues that needed to be addressed during the planning process. Starting in the fall of 1992, the IPT approached local stakeholder groups who might have had an interest in participating in the planning process. Ultimately, the KLRM Planning Table consisted of about 45 representatives from provincial and federal government agencies and from stakeholder groups with interests in local commerce, agriculture, fisheries, labor, forestry, mining, environmental conservation, recreation, and tourism. Members of the planning table were chosen on a sectoral basis to ensure representation of all relevant interests. The table had a full-time facilitator and chair to help manage the process and a professional staff reporting to the table to provide information and analysis to support table activities.