Land use planning implementation: a 'best practices' assessment.

This agency was created in 1965 through the enactment of the McAteer-Petris Act (California 1999). BCDC, the first coastal management agency in the United States, was created to analyze, plan, and regulate the shoreline as a unit, thereby controling urban encroachment that was steadily filling in the waterways (San Francisco 2000). The commission was charged with determining future development of the bay, the circumstances, if any, under which filling should be allowed, and the preparation of a regional plan incorporating these findings for the beneficial use and preservation of the San Francisco Bay. Completed after three years of extensive study and public hearings, the first San Francisco Bay Plan was adopted by the commission in 1968 and forwarded to the California legislature and the governor in 1969 (San Francisco 2001). Since the adoption of the original plan, BCDC has been responsible for managing terrestrial development within 100 feet of the shoreline encircling the San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay area, as well as all dredging and filling activities occurring within these water bodies. The executive director of this agency participated in the present study.

Fraser Basin Council (FBC)

The council is a not-for-profit, charitable organization established in 1997 to ensure the sustainability of the Fraser basin. FBC carries out its dictates by working with the vision, principles, and goals articulated in the Charter for Sustainability (FBC 1997). According to the Charter, the council articulated a vision whereby the Fraser basin would become a place where social well being is supported by a vibrant economy and sustained by a healthy environment. Since its inception, the council has provided a forum where all levels of governments and stakeholders can develop a shared vision and plan for sustainability of the basin. While operating without empowering legislation, this multistakeholder experience has produced consensus agreement on the direction forward in the Fraser River basin. Thus, the council has employed alternative dispute resolution techniques for decision making, rather than the courts. The executive director, as well as a project coordinator, of this agency participated in the present study.

Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)

With 1973's Senate Bill 100, Oregon's legislature established a strong statewide program for land use planning (Oregon 1973). Oregonians decided that they were not going to lose their landscape to sprawl and leapfrog development. Following a growing trend to control haphazard and uncoordinated development, and to make communities livable, Oregon identified the need for comprehensive planning, taking into account a range of planning elements. These elements ranged from transportation and housing needs to urban open space and industrial siting, as well as ensuring future urban land supply, and identifying natural resources. The legislature created a new citizen board, LCDC, with an administrative arm known as the Department of Land Conservation and Development. This organization manages a statewide planning program that has one basic purpose: to protect Oregon's quality of life. Towards this end, LCDC ensures all cities and counties within the state have a comprehensive land use plan (Oregon 2000). A senior planner assigned to the task by the executive director of this agency participated in the present study.

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT)

In 1985, the Washington State legislature created the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority to develop and oversee implementation of a management plan for the Puget Sound basin (Washington 2000). PSWQAT has a goal of restoring and protecting the biological health and diversity of the sound. In 1987, the authority developed the first Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, with updates prepared in 1989, 1991, 1994, and 1996. During this time, the Management Plan evolved along with the issues. Some Plan elements, or actions, were completed, some were revised, and new programs and elements were added. In July 1996, the authorizing legislation for the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority expired, and the state legislature enacted the Puget Sound Water Quality Protection Act (Washington 1999). Under this law, PSWQAT assumed the authority's responsibilities, including review and adoption of the Management Plan. From the beginning, this experience has been based on an ambitious program of public participation and stakeholder involvement, research, and education. The policy director from PSWQAT participated in the present study.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS)

In 1905, the U.S. Congress established USDA FS to provide leadership in the management, protection, and use of the U.S.'s forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems (USDA FS 2000). Hence, the forest service is responsible for managing the national forest system, which includes 192-million acres in 42 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. This system is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and various other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture. The mission of the service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the U.S. forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The phrase "Caring for the Land and Serving People" succinctly expresses the spirit of this duty. The USDA FS's commitment to land stewardship and public service is the framework within which natural resources are managed. Implicit in this statement is the agency's collaboration with partners and the public, while conserving and restoring the health of the land is the principle underlying every program. The director of strategic planning and resource assessment of this agency participated in the present study.

Data Collection

Each agency was studied using a variety of methods. First, agency documents, such as empowering legislation, annual reviews, strategic plans, management plans, and work plans, were examined. Next, programs were characterized using a descriptive framework, which details each agency's purpose; institutional arrangements; planning, decision making, and management tools; implementation aspects; assessment techniques; and stakeholders (see Calbick 2003 for full program characterizations). Third, program theory, as defined by Rossi et al. (1999), delineated each program's impact theory and organizational plan, which are descriptions of how the intended interventions administered to a specified target population bring about the desired outcomes and how a program interacts with its target population from an organizational perspective. Information developed in this manner formed the basis for an implementation practices register (Table 1) from which a check-rank-evaluate questionnaire was developed, and subsequently administered to selected program personnel regarding their agency's implementation practices. After completed questionnaires were returned, a follow-up interview provided background information for context, as well as increased understanding of responses.

The definitions of the implementation practices contained in Table 1 may overlap. Such a happenstance is not necessarily detrimental to the best practices framework developed by this paper since all of these practices have some unique aspect that separates them from the others. For example, some evaluators may consider ecosystem-based management as being similar to conducting management activities at a watershed level; however, this perspective fails to account for how watersheds and ecosystems are defined. Watersheds are delineated by hydrological flow regimes, while characteristic flora and fauna populations engendered by specific geoclimatic conditions generally define ecosystems. Consequently, each perspective focuses on different management aspects.

Ranking Implementation Practices

Instructions to participants contained a technique designed to help agency personnel sort through the check-rank-evaluate questionnaire. After initially checking the applicable practices, respondents were instructed to first select their highest priority practice and rank it with a '1', then to select their lowest priority practice and rank it as '25'. The procedure continues iteratively as respondents determine their next highest priority and next lowest priority practices and rank them as '2' and '24' respectively until all checked implementation practices are ranked. Since most agencies do not employ the full gamut of implementation practices presented in Table 1, a gap usually appears in the rankings requiring adjustment of questionnaire responses. Simply subtracting the value of the gap's range from the lowest priority implementation practices accomplishes this adjustment and eliminates the gap. For example, suppose an agency used 20 of the 25 implementation practices ranked. The value of the gap's range would be five and the ranking of the lowest priority practice would be adjusted from 25 to 20. This reranking process is applied to all the lowest priority implementation practices until the gap disappears.