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

The results of the KMT survey show that two criteria were ranked as very important: providing clear objectives to guide implementing agencies (mean 4.67), and strong commitment of implementing officials (mean 4.58) (Table 2). One criterion was ranked as only somewhat important: favorable socioeconomic conditions for land use plan implementation (mean 3.0). Three criteria were ranked as not very important: small target group as a percentage of the total population affected by the land use plan (mean 1.63), minimal behavioral changes required to comply with the land use plan (mean 2.21), and small differences in values among stakeholders (mean 1.83). All other variables were ranked as important (means 3.5 to 4.5). The KMT rankings, therefore, are generally consistent with the implementation literature with the following exceptions. Table members did not think that value differences, size of the target group affected by implementation, and magnitude of behavioural changes, were important conditions for successful implementation.

The KMT was also asked to assess the degree to which these criteria were met in the KLRMP on a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The results of this assessment help test the relative importance of the criteria by identifying which of them are correlated with a successful implementation process. The survey results show that the respondents considered sixteen criteria as met (means greater than 3.5) and nine criteria as only partially met (means between 2.5 and 3.5). No criterion that was considered important for implementation success was considered as not met in the KLRMP implementation process (Table 2). The two criteria not met in the case of the KLRMP--having only a small target population affected by the land use plan, and small differences in values among stakeholders--were ranked as unimportant for implementation success by the survey respondents.

Formal rankings in the KMT survey were complemented with responses to open-ended questions. According to two table members (9%), one important factor in ensuring implementation success, in the case of the KLRMP, was the long history of cooperation between local government agencies and different sectors in the region. Local government agencies and the resource and environmental sectors worked together for many years prior to the KLRMP to develop and implement local resource use plans. Many of the same players involved in implementing these plans also participated in the Kamloops land and resource management planning process and later on the monitoring table. They brought with them a spirit of trust and willingness to cooperate that helped overcome some of the initial challenges of getting a diverse group of people to work together. A further three respondents (13%) mentioned the importance of developing trust between stakeholders. Four others (17%) pointed to the strong commitment of local implementing agencies as a key factor in furthering implementation. These open-ended responses in the survey are also represented by criteria in Table 2 that were ranked as important or very important.

In their answers, the table members also identified a number of challenges and issues in plan implementation with the following frequencies of occurrence:

* Clarification of intent of objectives (9%): The KLRM Plan does not include statements of intent. Implementation depends, therefore, on interpretation of objectives, which can create disputes over intent that can undermine implementation. The KMT emphasized that developing statements of intent for ambiguous objectives aids implementation by helping to ensure that all parties have the same understanding of what objectives mean.

* Continuity of membership (9%): Related to the challenge of understanding intent is ensuring continuity of membership at the monitoring table. Maintaining continuity in membership allows for relationships to grow and ensures continuation of the cooperative culture of the monitoring table that develops over time.

* Orientation and training for new table members (9%): The KMT expressed concern that if new members are added, they must be oriented to the overall planning process. Orientation should include a history of the planning process, principles, values, ground rules, and decision-making processes.

* Confirmation and consistency of government commitments (21%): The monitoring table responses indicate that the linking of planning strategies and objectives, and integration of commitments into agency work plans, remain ongoing challenges. A number of KMT respondents are uncertain with respect to the current provincial government's commitment to KLRMP implementation. Clearly, government policy on this issue needs to be clarified to avoid uncertainty, and potentially, loss of commitment by stakeholders to plan implementation. Related to this challenge is consistency and continuity of government policy and direction. Governments need to honor the agreements reached by the KLRMP Table. This includes continuing to provide funding for implementation of key components of the plan. In the case of the KLRMP, the provincial government has cut funding for several programs that were part of the agreement package. Cutting essential program components can have a detrimental impact on the commitment of the affected sector, or other parties interested in implementation of the land use plan agreement.

* Ongoing information sharing between participants (9%): Respondents emphasized that with so many different agencies involved in implementation, cooperation and information sharing between agencies are very important. Regular meetings of the KMT, the KIAMC, and other working groups ensure cooperation and information exchange continue.

* Improvements to the monitoring framework and timetable (13%): Respondents generally agreed that the monitoring framework has appropriate indicators for monitoring each objective. But there is room for improvement. Several respondents observed that linkages between desired outcomes and agency program objectives need to be strengthened. The monitoring table expressed some dissatisfaction with failure to meet time lines in implementing the KLRMP. Given resource constraints, implementation strategies need to be prioritized and a realistic schedule drawn up.

Implications of Findings for Plan Implementation

Effective implementation is an infrequent event in resource planning (Margerum 1999; Talen 1996). Therefore, the implementation of the KLRMP provides a rare opportunity to evaluate a successful implementation process. Assessments in Table 2 show that twenty-three implementation criteria were ranked as important to very important by stakeholders in achieving this success. This finding illustrates that implementation of a land use plan is a complex undertaking that requires attention to a broad range of issues to achieve implementation success. These range from developing useful indicators and dealing with scientific uncertainty to building respect and trust between individuals from widely divergent backgrounds. The twenty-three criteria in Table 2, therefore, provide a good checklist for assessing planning implementation strategies. Responses in the open-ended sections of the survey also highlighted aspects of these twenty-three criteria that needed special attention in the implementation process. These include: clarification of intent of objectives, continuity of membership, orientation and training for new table members, confirmation and consistency of government commitments, ongoing information sharing between participants, and improvements to the monitoring framework and timetable

Table 2 also illustrates that three criteria--small value differences, small behavioral change, and small target population--were not ranked as important by the stakeholders in the case study. However, they are normally considered necessary conditions for successful implementation. The fact that the KLRM Plan was successfully implemented without meeting these three criteria provides evidence that they are not always necessary for successful implementation. This finding on the relative insignificance of these three criteria is contrary to the implementation literature.

The ability to achieve successful implementation without meeting these three criteria may be due to another key aspect of the KLRMP process--collaboration in both development and implementation of the plan. The strong link between collaboration and successful implementation strongly supports the arguments on the benefits of CP. The Kamloops Monitoring Table survey provides further documentation of the key role played by CP, with 80% of respondents agreeing that CP was important to very important in achieving implementation success.

Study Limitations