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

In October 2000, the B.C. government gave a March 2001 completion deadline to the planning table to complete the first phase of the plan. In an effort to meet the deadline, the planning table tried to develop a plan acceptable to all stakeholders through intensive negotiating sessions using a two-phase approach. Phase one was to develop recommendations on the main land use management issues, and phase two was to finalize management decisions and establish strategies to implement the plan (BC MSRM 2004). Two different plans were established during these sessions: one from the resource extraction group and one from the conservation/recreation group. One week before the deadline, stakeholders agreed that consensus on one plan was not possible (Mou 2003).

This impasse led the stakeholders to accept a "final offer selection" process in which each of the two groups would propose its final plan to the B.C. government in the form of an offer (BC MSRM 2004). Consequently, the Lillooet LRMP table submitted two separate land use scenarios to the B.C. government in March 2001 (BC 2001). The first scenario was proposed by the coalition of Lillooet communities (CC) and the second by the conservation, recreation, tourism, and community group (CRTC). The two plans were similar in structure, including a summary of the main objectives, strategies, maps, and background information on the Lillooet area. The principal difference in the plans was the proportion of the land base designated as protected areas: 15.7% in the resource sector proposal and 18.8% in the conservation sector proposal. The conservation sector proposal was forecast to result in a 14.5% reduction in the timber harvest compared to a 10.8% reduction in the resource sector proposal (BC MSRM 2001). It is interesting to note that the final offer selection process had reduced the range of difference in the two final offer proposals to 3.1%, which is considerably lower than the range of difference among the earlier proposals of 18%.

In April 2001, the government completed phase one of the Lillooet process to designate land use zones by approving the conservation proposal to protect 18.8% of the land base. The government announced that phase two of the Lillooet process to prepare more detailed management plans for resource extraction would be completed by March 2002 (BC 2001). However, a new government elected shortly after the decision to accept the conservation scenario cancelled the approval and directed government staff to prepare a new plan. The government cited community concerns over the plan as the rationale for the rejection of the plan approved by the previous government. This is the only case in which a plan proposal submitted from an LRMP process was rejected by the government. Another important change that occurred subsequent to the April 2001 decision was the accumulation of court cases that strengthened the obligation of government to consult and accommodate First Nations in any decisions affecting First Nation interests (Donovan and Griffith 2003). The lack of consultation with First Nations in the 2001 Lillooet LRMP decision therefore could potentially undermine the legal basis of the decision.

Following consultation with public and First Nations, the Ministry of Sustainable Resources Management prepared a new draft land use plan for Lillooet in 2004 (Figure 1). A major difference between the new plan prepared for discussion by the government and the original plan approved by the government in April 2001 is a reduction in protected areas from 18.8% in the original plan to 17% in the new plan (BC MSRM 2004). The major proportion of this reduction--1.3% out of the 1.8% reduction--is due to a reclassification of a section of the major new park proposal, Spruce Lake, from "protected" to a new zone that would allow tourism and mining while maintaining the prohibition on logging. The remaining 0.5% decline is due to reduction in other protected area proposals. As of March 2007, the draft plan is still being discussed with First Nations (Jim Britton, personal communication, March 22, 2007). During discussions, no resource development is allowed in proposed protected areas.

Evaluation Methodology

The methodology used to evaluate the planning process is based on a multiple criteria evaluation framework developed by the Sustainable Planning Research Group at Simon Fraser University and used in the macro analysis of the twenty-one land use plans in British Columbia (Frame et al. 2004). The evaluation criteria include eleven outcome criteria and fourteen process criteria (Table 3 and 4). The criteria were developed by integrating and enhancing evaluation frameworks proposed by Innes and Booher (1999), Cormick et al. (1996), Moote et al. (1997), and Williams et al. (1998). The eleven outcome criteria are based on four broad measures of success: reaching an agreement, reaching an agreement that is in the public interest, using a planning process superior to alternative processes, and generating "social capital" benefits such as improved stakeholder relationships and knowledge. The fourteen process criteria are based on best practices planning criteria based on Innes and Booher (1999), Cormick et al. (1996), Moote et al. (1997), and Williams et al. (1998).

Assessing the degree to which the planning process meets the criteria is based on stakeholder ratings derived from a survey for all criteria except reaching agreement. The reaching agreement criterion is assessed by examining the outcome of the planning process based on planning process records. The stakeholder survey uses multiple questions to evaluate each criterion: twenty-four questions are used to evaluate the ten outcome criteria and forty-six questions to evaluate the fourteen process criteria. The questions in the survey are based on statements with which stakeholders agree or disagree using a four-point Likert type scale of strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, and strongly disagree. For purposes of presentation, the strongly agree and somewhat agree responses are combined as agree and the average for all questions under each of the twenty-four criteria is calculated to report the degree of agreement by criterion. Open-ended questions are also used to assess stakeholder perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of the process. A coding system is used to categorize responses and calculate the frequency of each type of response. Those wishing to review the survey and methodology in more detail should consult Frame et al. (2004).

Results

A total of forty-eight participants were identified to be surveyed: thirty-four table participants, ten alternates, and four process staff. Of the forty-eight targeted participants, thirty-three were sent surveys by email or mail. No contact information was available for the remaining fifteen participants. Responses were received from sixteen participants, for a response rate of 33% of potential respondents and 45% of those contacted. Respondents represented all key groups including support staff, government, resource development, and conservation sectors. Responses were received during March 2005 and are therefore perceptions of stakeholders of the process structure and outcomes as of that date.

Responses for the outcome criteria are summarized in Table 5. To date, the criterion of reaching agreement on a plan has not been met. However, it is important to note that the planning table did achieve a consensus agreement on a process to accept the outcome of a final offer selection based on two submissions to the government. In this sense the planning process did achieve a consensus outcome that was subsequently rejected by the government, the first such rejection in the history of the LRMP process. It is also important to note that, although the process has not yet resulted in a final plan outcome, the process has been successful in narrowing the range of disagreement among the parties. As noted earlier, the range of difference in the options for protected areas was reduced from 18% of the land base in 1999 to 3.3% in the final offer plan options submitted in 2001. The 2004 government draft plan recommends protected areas within the range between the two final offers submitted in 2001. Therefore the process has been successful in significantly reducing disagreement among stakeholders and increasing the likelihood of achieving an outcome acceptable to all parties.

Two other criteria were also not met: achieving an outcome that met the interests of the stakeholder group (25% agreement) and reducing conflict (19% agreement). However, more than one-half of respondents (56%) agreed that the outcome to date has been in the public interest. The process has also been very successful in generating additional social capital benefits including: improved knowledge (94%), creative ideas (88%), improved relationships among stakeholders (75%), and useful information (75%). The strength of the process in generating social capital was also the achievement most frequently cited by respondents in the unprompted, open-ended questions (frequency of 38%). The process of collaborative planning was perceived as superior to alternative methods by 75% of respondents. The consensus-based, multistakeholder approach was also cited most frequently by respondents as a strength of the planning process in the open-ended responses (frequency of 75%).