Evaluating collaborative planning: a case study of a
Land and Resource Management Planning process.
by Gunton, Thomas I.^Peter, Thomas^Day, J.C.
Collaborative planning has emerged as a popular model of planning
with many alleged benefits relative to alternative planning models.
There is a consensus among advocates and critics alike, that careful
evaluation of collaborative planning is required to assess its merits
relative to other planning models and to develop best practice
guidelines to maximize its effectiveness. This paper describes and
applies an evaluation methodology for collaborative planning. The
research findings based on the Lillooet, B.C. case study illustrate the
strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation method. The findings show
that collaborative planning is a successful model capable of achieving
an array of benefits and is perceived to be superior to other planning
models by a significant majority of stakeholders engaged in the process.
This is consistent with the findings of a larger survey of stakeholders
engaged in collaborative planning (Frame et al. 2004). The case study
also provides important insights into best practices management of
collaborative planning because it is one of the few cases in British
Columbia that did not result in a consensus agreement. Key reasons for
the failure include imposition of an unrealistic deadline, development
of separate plan options by different stakeholder groups, and absence of
key stakeholder groups from the negotiation table. The case study
experience shows the importance of allowing sufficient time for
collaborative processes to come to a consensus decision and ensuring
that all key stakeholders remain engaged in a collectively driven
process.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank SSHRC for funding support for this research
and the anonymous referees for their helpful suggestions.
References
Bacow, Lawrence S., and Michael Wheeler. 1984. Environmental
Dispute Resolution. New York. Plenum Press.
B.C. 2001. Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan- Phase 1.
News Release Backgrounder, April 17 2001.
[Accessed 1 December, 2006].
B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). 2001.
Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan. Socio-economic and
Environmental Assessment of Phase 1 Framework Proposals.
[Accessed 1 December, 2006].
B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). 2004.
Draft Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan.
[Accessed 5 January, 2007].
B.C. Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management (MSRM). 2004.
Draft Lillooet Land and Resource Management Plan. Summary of
Socio-economic and Environmental Implications.
[Accessed 5 January, 2007].
B.C. Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE). 1992. Report
on a Land Use Strategy for British Columbia. Victoria, B.C.:
Queen's Printer.
B.C. Integrated Resource Planning Committee (IRPC). 1993. LRMP: A
Statement of Principles and Process.
[Accessed 14 October, 2006].
B.C. Ministry of Agriculture and Lands. (MAL). 2006. Strategic Land
Use Plans in British Columbia.
[Accessed 1
December, 2006].
Conley, Alexander, and Margaret Moote. 2003. Evaluating
Collaborative Natural Resource Managament. Society and Natural Resources
16: 371-386.
Cormick, Gerald, Norman Dale, Paul Emond, S. Glenn Sigurdson, and
Barry Stuart. 1996. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future: Putting
Principles into Practice. Ottawa: National Roundtable on the Environment
and Economy.
Davidoff, Paul. 1965. Advocacy and Pluralism in Planning. Journal
of the American Institute of Planners. 31(4): 331-338.
Donovan, Allan, and Jennifer Griffith. 2003. Duty of Business to
Consult With and Accommodate First Nations. The Continuing Legal
Education Society of British Columbia.
[Accessed 14 January, 2006].
Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day, 2004. The Role of
Collaborative Planning in Environmental Management: An Evaluation of
Land and Resource Management Planning in British Columbia. Journal of
Environmental Planning and Management 47(1): 57-80.
Gray, B. Conditions Facilitating Interorganizational Collaboration.
Human Relations 38(10): 911-936.
Gunton, Thomas I., and J. C. Day 2003. The Theory and Practice of
Collaborative Planning in Resource and Environmental Management.
Environments 31(2): 5-19.
Gunton, Thomas I., J.C. Day, and Peter Williams, 2003. Evaluating
Collaborative Planning: The British Columbia Experience. Environments
31(3): 1-11.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher, 1999. Consensus Building and
Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative
Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4): 412-422.
Leach, W.D., N. Pelkey, and Paul Sabatier. 2002. Stakeholder
Partnerships as Collaborative Policymaking: Evaluation Criteria Applied
to Watershed Management in California and Washington. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management 21(4): 645-670.
Lillooet Land and Resource Management Planning Table (LLRMPT).
1997. Terms of Reference.
[Accessed 5 January, 2007].
McLoughlin, J. Brian. 1969. Urban and Regional Planning, A Systems
Approach. New York: Praeger.
Moote, Margaret A., Mitchel P. McClaran, and Donna K., Chickering,
1997. Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to
Public Land Planning. Environmental Management 21(6): 877-889.
Moote, Margaret, A. Conley, K. Firehock, and F. Dukes. 2000.
Assessing Research Needs: a Summary of a Workshop on Community-based
Collaboratives. Tuscon: Udall Center for the Studies of Public Policy,
University of Arizona.
Mou, Desiree M., 2003. An Examination of the Role of Group Dynamics
in a Multi-stakeholder, Consensus Land Use Planning Process. Masters
thesis, Faculty of Forestry, University of British Columbia. Vancouver.
Rao, K. and C. Geisler. 1990. Social Consequences of Protected
Areas Development for Resident People. Society and Natural Resources
3(1): 19-32.
Selin, S.W., and D. Chavez. 1993. Recreation Partnerships and the
USDA Forest Service. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration
11(1): 1-8.
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, Lawrence, and Jeffrey Cruikshank. 1987. Breaking the
Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. New York:
Basic Books.
Williams, Peter, J.C. Day and Thomas I. Gunton. 1998. Land and
Water Planning in British Columbia in the 1990s: Lessons On More
Inclusive Approaches. Environments 25 (2): 1-8.
Wondolleck, J.M., and S.L. Yaffee. 1994. Building Bridges Across
Agency Boundaries: in Search of Excellence in the United States Forest
Service. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan School of Natural
Resources.
Wondolleck, J.M., and S.L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work:
Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource Management. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Thomas Gunton is a professor in the School of Resource and
Environmental Management and Director of the Resource and Environmental
Planning Program at Simon Fraser University. He has held numerous senior
positions in government including Assistant Deputy Minister of Energy
and Mines for the government of Manitoba and Deputy Minister of
Environment, Lands, and Parks for the government of British Columbia.
His research focuses on environmental mediation and dispute resolution
and resource and environmental planning. He can be contacted at
tgunton@shaw.ca
Thomas Peter has a Master's degree in Resource and
Environmental Management from Simon Fraser University. He has worked in
a variety of positions in international development and is currently
working for the Canadian International Development Agency in Vietnam.
Chad Day is professor emeritus and founding director of the School
of Resource and Environmental Management at Simon Fraser University. His
research focuses on institutions for integrated land and water
management and environmental planning. He can be contacted at
jday@sfu.ca.
Table 1. Steps in the collaborative planning process
Process Steps Planning Products
Preliminary organization
* Set regional priorities
* Identify agency commitments Agreement to make plan
* Appoint and train interagency
planning team
* Contact public stakeholders
and form stakeholder table
* Identify preliminary issues
and planning area
* Agree to terms of reference
Information assembly and Resource information reports
analysis
* Describe issues and links to Analytical reports
other processes
* Assemble resource inventories Recommendations
* Conduct resource analysis
Plan development Land use zones
* Define resource unit Management strategies
boundaries
* Develop management objectives Alternatives for testing
and strategies
* Identify management scenarios
* Analyze and assess impacts of
COPYRIGHT 2006 Wilfrid Laurier
University Reproduced with permission of the copyright holder. Further reproduction or distribution is prohibited without permission.
Copyright 2006, Gale Group. All rights
reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.
NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.