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

* Designated historic trails Completion of First Nations traditional use studies Designation and management of historic trails 18. Public Involvement Meaningful public * Public involvement in resource [square root of] involvement in use planning processes local level planning Educated and informed public with respect to LRMP goals and outcomes Legend: [square root of] desired outcome is generally being met / desired outcome is partially being met X desired outcome is not being met Table 1 Implementation Status of Kamloops LRMP Projects Kamloops LRMP Project Implementation Status

NS I M SC C A. Watershed Management (WLAP) B. Fisheries Management (MAFF) C. Ecosystem Management Strategies (MSRM) D. Commercial Recreation Plans (B.C.LW Inc) E. Protected Area Management Plans (WLAP) F. Grazing Enhancement Fund (MAF) G. Mineral Strategies (MEM) H. Watershed Management (MoF) I. Biodiversity Emphasis Analysis (MoF) J. Landscape Unit Plans (MoF) K. Strategies for Grazing in Protected Areas (WLAP) Acronyms: B.C. LW Inc.: B.C. Land and Water Inc. MAFF: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries MEM: Ministry of Energy and Mines MoF: Ministry of Forests MSRM: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management WLAP: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection NS: not started I: initiated M: midway SC: substantially complete C: complete Source: B.C. (2001) Figure 2: Kamloops Monitoring Table Survey Respondents by Sector Resource sector 13% Tourism, recreation, conservation 17% Multiple nongovernmental: conservation, 17% recreation, resource, tourism Government environmental 21% Government resource 32% Note: Table made from pie chart. Table 2 Kamloops Monitoring Table Responses on Plan Implementation Criteria Criteria for successful land use plan criterion criterion implementation significance achievement

in KLRMP 1. clear and consistent objectives very important met 2. strong commitment of implementing very important met

officials 3. monitoring framework with appropriate important met

indicators to track change in each

objective 4. strong provincial government support important partly met 5. sufficient information available to important met

make appropriate decisions for land

use plan implementation 6. high level of cooperation and important met

information sharing between

implementing agencies 7. strong stakeholder support important met 8. good collaborative planning process important met 9. implementing officials skilled in important met

working collaboratively with

stakeholders 10. clear delineation of agency important met

responsibilities 11. land use plan objectives well important partly met

integrated within individual agency

work plans 12. strong local government agencies important met

support 13. implementation monitoring committee important met

with public reporting requirements 14. adequate natural science data important partly met

available to make implementation

decisions 15. adequate financial and staff resource important partly met

commitments for plan implementation 16. participation of stakeholders in important met

monitoring 17. participation of stakeholders in land important met

use plan development through a

collaborative planning process 18. power differences between important met

stakeholders equalized through the

process 19. participation of implementing important met

officials in plan preparation 20. clear understanding of causal important partly met

relationship between implementation

strategies and desired outcomes 21. no conflicting government policies important partly met 22. socioeconomic data available important partly met 23. strong public support important partly met 24. favorable socioeconomic conditions in somewhat met

the land use plan area important 25. small target group as a percentage of not v. important not met *

the total population 26. extent of behavioral change required not v. important partly met

is small 27. small difference in values among not v. important not met *

stakeholders * These two questions were not specifically asked in the survey because information about them was available. The target group is large since a large number of resource sectors are impacted by the KLRM Plan. In addition, research by Frame et al. (2004) indicates that there are significant value differences among stakeholders in land use planning.

Literature Cited

British Columbia. 2001. Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan Monitoring Report 2000. Kamloops, B.C.

--. 1999a. Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan Monitoring Report 1999. Kamloops, B.C.

--. 1999b. Provincial Monitoring Framework for Strategic Land Use Plans--Working Draft. July 1999. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. Available at URL http://srmrpdwww.env.gov.bc.ca/lrmp/provmon.htm. Accessed January 29, 2002.

--. 1995. Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer.

Carr, Deborah S., Steven W. Selin, and Michael A. Schuett. 1998. Managing Public Forests: Understanding the Role of Collaborative Planning. Environmental Management 22(5): 767-776.

Day, J.C., Thomas I. Gunton, and Tanis M. Frame. 2003. Toward Environmental Sustainability in British Columbia: The Role of Shared Decision Making. Environments 31(2): 21-38.

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): 1-16.

Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. 2004. "Resolving Environmental Disputes Through Shared Decision Making: A Case Study of Land Use Planning in British Columbia." Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. (in press)

Gunton, Thomas I., and J.C. Day. 2003. Theory and Practice of Collaborative Planning in Resource and Environmental Management. Environments 31(2): 5-21.

Goggin, M. L., Anne O'M. Bowman, James P. Lester, and Laurence J. O'Toole. 1990. Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Third Generation. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.

Gray, B. 1989. Collaboration: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publications.

Harter, Philip J. 1997. Fear of Commitment: An Affliction of Adolescents. Duke Law Journal 46: 1389-1428.

Innes, Judith E. 1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association 62: 460-472.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. American Planning Association Journal--65 (4): 412-422.

Kamloops LRMP Monitoring Table. 1998. Summary of Meeting #7, 7 May 1998. Best Western Town Lodge, Kamloops,

Margerum, Richard D. 1999. Getting Past Yes: From Capital Creation to Action. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(2): 181-192.

Mazmanian, D. A., and P. A. Sabatier. 1989. Implementation and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Owen, Stephen. 1998. Land Use Planning in the Nineties: CORE Lessons. Environments 25(2 and 3): 14-26.

Pierce Lefebvre Consulting. 2001. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of the Provincial Government's Strategic Land Use Plans on Key Sectors in British Columbia. Report Presented to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Victoria, B.C.

Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aaron Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Sabatier, P.A., and D.A. Mazmanian. 1983. Can Regulation Work? The Implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative. New York: Plenum.

Selin, Steven W., and Deborah Chavez. 1995. Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management. Environmental Management 19(2): 189-95.

Susskind, Lawrence, Mieke van der Wansem, and Armand Ciccarelli. 2000. Mediating Land Use Disputes: Pros and Cons. Cambridge, Mass.: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Susskind, L., and J. Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.

Talen, Emily. 1996. Do Plans Get Implemented? A Review of Evaluation in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 10(3): 248-59.

Vedung, Everet. 1997. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Weale, A. 1992. Implementation Failure: A Suitable Case for Review, pp. 43-63. In Achieving Environmental Goals: The Concept and Practice of Environmental Performance Review, ed. E. Lykke. London: Belhaven.