Evaluating collaborative planning: a case study of a Land and Resource Management Planning process.

Abstract

Planners increasingly rely on collaborative planning models that engage stakeholders to develop plans through consensus-based negotiations. While support for using collaborative planning models is growing, evaluation of their effectiveness is in its infancy. This paper reports on a case study evaluation, using a multiple criteria evaluation method, of an innovative collaborative planning process to prepare a strategic land use plan for a region in British Columbia, Canada. The study reveals that the collaborative planning process generated important benefits, including improved relationships and understanding, even though it did not result in consensus agreement on a plan. The outcome also shows that the plan did not result in consensus because some stakeholders were not sufficiently engaged in the process. In addition, an unrealistic timeline was imposed that led to a final offer selection process whose result was ultimately rejected by the government.

Resume

Les planificateurs comptent de plus en plus sur des modeles de planification collaborative qui encouragent les intervenants a elaborer des plans au moyen de negociations fondees sur l'atteinte d'un consensus. Alors que l'appui a l'utilisation de modeles de planification collaborative augmente, l'valuation de leur efficacite en est encore a ses debuts. Le present article fait etat de l'etude de cas de l'evaluation d'un processus de planification collaborative novateur visant a preparer un plan strategique d'utilisation des terres dans une region de la Colombie Britannique en se servant d'une methode d'evaluation a criteres multiples. L'etude revele que le processus de planification collaborative a engendre d'importants avantages, notamment une amelioration des relations et de la comprehension, bien que le processus n'ait pas permis d'atteindre un consensus quant au plan. Le resultat demontre egalement que le plan n'a pas fait l'objet d'un consensus parce que l'engagement de certains des intervenants envers le processus n'etait pas suffisant. De plus, on avait impose un echeancier non realiste qui a mene a un processus de selection d'une offre finale qui a en fin de compte ete rejetee par le gouvernement.

Key Words

Collaborative planning, resource and environmental planning, regional planning, dispute resolution, public participation

Introduction

Planners are increasingly relying on collaborative planning models that engage stakeholders to develop plans through consensus-based negotiations. Collaborative planning models are now adopted by many resource agencies including the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Leach et al., Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000, Conley and Moote 2003) and are used in resource planning throughout the world (Gunton and Day 2003). While support for using collaborative planning models is growing, evaluation of their effectiveness is still in its infancy. Advocates and critics of collaborative planning are united in their call for more research.

The purpose of this paper is to report on an evaluation of collaborative planning that is based on a longer term research project being conducted by the Sustainable Planning Research Group in the School of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. The research has been evaluating the unique effort by the government of British Columbia to prepare land use plans using a collaborative planning model termed shared decision making. Twenty-one land use plans have been completed covering approximately 80% of the provincial land base. Our research to date has conducted a macro analysis of the completed twenty-one plans (Frame et al. 2004). This paper reports on a case study evaluation of a single land use planning process to provide a more in-depth understanding of collaborative planning than is possible in a macro analysis of twenty-one plans.

The paper begins with a description of collaborative planning. This is followed by a description of the case study region and the planning process. The evaluation methodology is then described, followed by presentation of the research findings. Conclusions and implications for planning are summarized.

Collaborative Planning

For most of the twentieth century, planning has been dominated by the technocratic paradigm that defines planning as a process employing experts who use objective scientific analysis to define optimal strategies (Gunton and Day 2003, Susskind et al. 2000). In the 1960s, the technocratic model was criticized for its failure to recognize that planning was based on diverse values that could not be derived by science and that there was no optimal or correct plan that could be developed without incorporating the interests of stakeholders. The criticism of technocratic planning was fueled by the growing protests of stakeholders over expert-formulated plans in areas such as natural resource management, environmental regulation, transportation, and urban renewal, that were clearly contrary to the interests of large segments of society.

Planning theory responded to the criticism by acknowledging the role of goals and objectives identified through democratic political processes to set the framework in which plans were prepared (Davidoff 1965, McLoughlin 1969). Experts in this new participatory environment were relegated to determining optimal means to achieve politically set goals. The unresolved question in this new goals-based planning theory was how the goals should be determined. The initial and somewhat vague response was that goals should be determined by citizen participation in the planning process. But how should the participation be structured?

In the 1970s and 1980s several planning models emerged that specifically defined how citizens should be engaged to define planning goals. The most common approach was to consult stakeholders during plan preparation by seeking feedback through public meetings and public comment. Another model, termed advocacy planning, proposed that citizens should hire their own experts who would prepare plans and act as advocates for different stakeholder groups much the same way as lawyers representing clients (Davidoff 1965). The problem with advocacy planning, however, was that it did not provide a framework for resolving disputes among competing interest groups. A third model, often referred to as alternative dispute resolution, also emerged as a way of engaging stakeholders in the development of plans by allowing stakeholders to negotiate a consensus agreement to resolve the dispute (Bacow and Wheeler 1984, Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). The problem with alternative dispute resolution is that it is reactive in responding to disputes that have already arisen instead of proactive. This limits its effectiveness as a planning tool.

Collaborative planning, which emerged as a distinct planning paradigm in the 1990s, is a logical extension of alternative dispute resolution (Gunton and Day 2003). Most discussions of collaborative planning rely on Gray's (1985: 912) definition of the concept underlying collaboration as "the pooling of appreciations and/or tangible resources, e.g. information, money, labor, etc., by two or more stakeholders to solve a set of problems which neither can solve individually." Within this concept, different terms are used to describe various kinds of collaborative planning including: partnerships (Selin and Chavez 1993, Moote et al. 1997, Wondolleck and Yaffee 1994); mediation (Susskind et al. 2000); community-based planning (Moote et al. 2000); consensus building (Innis and Booher 1999); shared decision-making (Gunton and Day 2003); and co-management (Rao and Geisler 1990). A central feature in all these collaborative models is the engagement of stakeholders in the development of plans (Gunton and Day 2003, Conley and Moote 2003, Selin and Chavez 1995). More specifically, we define collaborative planning as the delegation of responsibility to prepare and implement plans to a stakeholder group representing all relevant interests that uses consensus-based negotiation to reach agreement. Normally, collaborative planning will use a facilitator, interest-based negotiation techniques, consensus rules for agreement, and joint fact finding to develop plans that are then recommended to statutory agencies that retain final approval authority.

Advocates of collaborative planning cite many advantages of the collaborative model relative to other models of planning (Gunton and Day 2003, Wondelleck and Yaffee 2000, Susskind et al. 2000, Selin and Chavez 1995). Key advantages include: increased likelihood of developing a plan that is in the public interest because the plan incorporates the interests of all affected parties; increased likelihood of implementation because all affected interests support the plan; and generation of "social capital" such as improved stakeholder relations and improved stakeholder knowledge that provide long-term benefits to society. Advocates and critics also identify limitations to collaborative planning including: limited applicability to only those cases where all relevant stakeholders are motivated to participate and/or management agencies are willing to delegate power; high cost in time and resources; inequality in power that gives some stakeholders an unfair advantage; propensity to develop second best or vague outcomes in order to achieve consensus agreements; and lack of an underlying theoretical foundation.