The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management (1).

Abstract

This paper assesses the utility of a new civics-based model of planning that delegates responsibility for preparing plans directly to affected stakeholders. The paper traces the origin of this new model, termed collaborative planning (CP) or shared decision making (SDM), and assesses its strengths and weaknesses by reviewing recent theoretical and empirical studies. The review illustrates that CP is ah effective planning model that is more likely than other planning models to develop and implement a plan that is in the public interest. The paper identifies ten "best practice" guidelines for successful use of CP. If these guidelines are followed, CP can be an effective model for achieving sustainability in resource and environmental management. The paper concludes by identifying areas for future research on CP including more meta- analysis using a uniform method, more analysis of factors determining success, and research on the preconditions for successful CP.

Resume

Dans cat article, les auteurs evaluent I'utilite d'un nouveau modele de planification fonde sur la cooperation qui delegue directement aux intervenants en jeu la responsabilite de preparer les plans d'intervention. L'article trace I'odgine de ce nouveau modele, nomme planification concertee ou prise de decisions partagee, et en evalue les forces et les faiblesses en examinant les recentes etudes theodques et empiriques. Cet examen met en lumiere que la planification concertee est un modele de planification efficace qui est plus susceptible que les autres modales de planification de developper et mettre en oeuvre un plan qui sera conforme a I'interet du public. On identifie les lignes directrices des dix pratiques exemplaires pour une utilisation reussie de la planification concertee. Si I'on suit cas lignes directrices, la planification concertee peut se reveler un modele efficace pour atteindre la durabilite en matiere de gestion des ressourees et de I'environnement. Les auteurs concluent en identifiant les domaines de recherche a venir sur la planiflcation concertee notamment, une plus grande m,ta-analyse en utilisant une m,thode plus uniforme, une meilleure analyse des facteurs de reussite ainsi que de la recherche sur les conditions prealables a une planification concertee reussie.

Key words:

Collaborative planning; shared decision making; public participation; sustainable resource management; Australia, Canada, United States

Introduction

A recent approach to public participation that is generating increasing interest is collaborative planning or shared decision making. The distinguishing feature of collaborative planning is that it delegates the responsibility for planning directly to stakeholders. Collaborative planning is now formally adopted as a preferred planning model in forest and land use planning, watershed planning, regulatory rule-making, and urban planning in the United States, Canada, and Australia (Margerum 1999; Leach et al. 2002; Frame et al. 2002; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000)

The purpose of this paper is to assess the utility of collaborative planning in sustainable resource management. The paper begins with an overview of the origins and characteristics of collaborative planning, followed by an assessment of its strengths and weaknesses. The paper concludes by identifying "best practice" guidelines for successful use of collaborative planning.

Evolution of the Planning Process

Prior to the 1960s, planning in North America was viewed as a technical exercise performed by independent experts using scientific principles to provide basic infrastructure and manage resources (Gunton 1984; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Susskind et al. 2000; Beierle and Cayford 2002). Objective scientific analysis free from political interference was the preferred model.

In the 1960s, this technocratic model was challenged by the emergence of conflict and debate over planning policies in areas such as resource extraction, conservation, urban renewal, and transportation. Planners responded to this growing conflict by formally acknowledging the role of democratically determined goals and values as the principal force guiding planning (Davidoff 1965; McLoughlin 1969; Chadwick 1971; Hall 1974; Chapin and Kaiser 1979). Technical experts and science, in this new calculus, were relegated to a secondary status of identifying appropriate means for meeting politically determined objectives.

The recognition of planning as a value laden process above science led to the broad acceptance of various types of public participation to assist decision-makers in identifying public goals and objectives. Forms of public participation including public meetings, workshops, advisory committees, and task forces became widely used in the planning process (Mitchell 1989; Beiede, and Cayford 2002). In her classic article on citizen participation, Arnstein (1969) classified these various approaches based on the degree of public participation in a ladder including citizen manipulation, therapy, informing, partnerships, consultation, placation, delegated power, and citizen control.

This increasingly complex world of diverse values and competing interests stimulated development of two new planning paradigms: advocacy and mediation (Gunton 1984; Susskind et al. 2000). Advocacy planning acknowledges competing interests and proposed that planners, like lawyers, act as advocates supporting specific stakeholder groups (Davidoff 1965). Stakeholders that lacked power were the preferred clients of this new advocate planner. Mediation or alternative dispute resolution (ADR) proposes that planners act as mediators helping stakeholders resolve conflicts in a mutually beneficial way (Bacow and Wheeler 1984; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). In their influential book, Getting to Yes, Fisher and, Ury (1981) proposed ah innovative theory of negotiation to guide ADR based on four key principles: separating the people from the problem, focusing on interests instead of positions, inventing options for mutual gain, and using objective criteria for evaluation.

Advocates of this new ADR approach argue that it is superior to other forms of dispute resolution such as litigation because ADR seeks win/win solutions that come closer to meeting the interests of all stakeholders than the winner-take-all approach of litigation (Bacow and Wheeler 1984; Susskind and Cruikshank 1987). Advocates also argue that ADR is lower cost and more likely to resolve conflict than other approaches. This approach to ADR is now institutionalized in environmental planning in a number of jurisdictions in Canada and the United States (Gunton and Flynn 1992; Susskind and Secunda 1998; Leach et al. 2002; Margerum 1999).

Collaborative Planning

Advocacy and ADR models of planning are symbiotic. Advocacy empowers stakeholders, which is a necessary condition for successful ADR, and ADR creates a forum for resolving stakeholder disputes. The emergence of collaborative planning (CP) is a logical extension of the advocacy and ADR paradigms. Like advocacy planning, CP acknowledges that there are competing interests and, like mediation, CP acknowledges that these different interests must be engaged in a negotiation process to seek mutually acceptable outcomes. The principal difference between CP and more conventional participatory methods is that CP uses a higher level of collaboration by directly delegating control of the planning process to stakeholders who work together in face-to-face negotiations to reach a consensus agreement ideally in advance of disputes (Carr et al. 1998; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Duffy et al. 1996; Susskind et al. 2000; Leach et al. 2002).

Advocates of collaborative planning cite numerous advantages over other planning models (Selin and Chavez 1995; Innes 1996; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Susskind et al. 2000; Frame et al. 2003). First, collaborative planning is more likely to reach a decision on a plan because stakeholders are constructively incorporated into the process to reach a solution, instead of remaining as critics outside the process. Second, collaborative planning is more likely to develop a plan that is in the public interest because more alternatives are generated for consideration through dynamic interaction of stakeholders and the consensus decision rule ensures that mutual interests of all parties are at least partially met in the final plan. Third, collaborative planning is more likely to result in successful plan implementation because stakeholders, who may otherwise attempt to block implementation, develop the plan and will help to implement it because they have a stake in the outcome. Finally, collaborative planning creates what has been termed "social capital", or the development of improved skills, knowledge, and stakeholder relationships that benefit the community in ways beyond preparation of the specific plan.

Both advocates and critics of collaborative planning have also identified weaknesses and challenges of the collaborative approach (Amy 1987; Cormick 1987; Forester 1989; Riesel 1985; Gunton and Flynn 1992; Susskind et al. 2000; Frame et al. 2003). First, collaborative planning is founded on the principle of stakeholders being motivated to negotiate with each other. In some cases more powerful stakeholders will avoid of simply undermine collaborative planning by using delaying tactics, or pursue alternative means to achieve their objectives, if they do not like the outcome of collaboration. Even if more powerful stakeholders are motivated to negotiate, the asymmetrical distribution of negotiating skills and resources can result in inequitable outcomes. Weaker stakeholders who ate frustrated with the process may withdraw, thereby reducing the likelihood of a mutually beneficial outcome.

Second, stakeholder groups willing and able to participate in collaborative planning may represent a narrow spectrum of special interests that exclude broader public interests that are not represented by organized groups (Amy 1987; Gray 1989; Gunton and Flynn 1992; Beiede and Cayford 2002). Delegating planning responsibility to a narrow spectrum of interests that are not democratically accountable can be inimical to the public interest.

Third, consensus rules may encourage stakeholders to seek second-best solutions, or the lowest common denominator, in order to achieve consensus (Born and Genskow 2000; Griffin 1999; Kenny 1999; Gregory et al. 2001). Difficult issues, or scientifically derived ecological constraints, may be ignored in the desire to achieve consensus and recommendations may be too vague to guide implementation. The result, according to Margerum (1999), is poor implementation of collaborative agreements.

Fourth, collaborative planning poses serious logistical challenges. Organizing a process around a large group of potentially antagonistic stakeholders consumes substantial resources and time. This is compounded by the potential lack of enthusiasm of planning officials to support the collaborative process because of their reluctance to abdicate decision-making power to outside stakeholders (Gunton and Flynn 1992; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000).

Finally, collaborative planning may not be appropriate in many environmental planning situations that involve fundamental value differences (Amy 1987; Painter 1988; Rabe 1991; O'Leary 1995). Caton Campbell (2003), for example, developed the theory of "intractable" environmental problems characterized by value and power disputes that ate not readily amenable to collaborative planning. Indeed, some observers suggest that as high as 90 percent of environmental problems ate not suitable for consensus-based mediated solutions (Talbot 1983; Amy 1987)

Advocates of collaborative planning acknowledge these challenges. The question, however, is not whether collaborative planning has weaknesses--it does--but whether the weaknesses ate more or less than alternative planning models. Further, can good design and management of the collaborative process mitigate the weaknesses of collaborative planning? This is the question that we will now address based on a review of recant empirical evaluations.

Evaluating Collaborative Planning

There is widespread agreement that assessing the strengths and weaknesses of collaborative processes, and identifying best practice guidelines for collaborative planning, requires comprehensive empirical evaluation of case studies (Caton Campbell and Floyd 1996; Sipe 1998; Innes and Booher 1999; Andrew 2001; Leach et al. 2002; Beierle and Cayford 2002; Caton Campbell 2003; Frame et al. 2003). Unfortunately, empirical evaluations of collaborative planning are challenging because of the difficulty in comparing the performance of a control group of noncollaborative processes to collaborative processes. The two processes do not exist side-by-side and there are too many confounding variables and disagreement over evaluative criteria to provide definitive results. Consequently, while there have been many individual case study assessments, there is a dearth of systematic, empirical evaluations of collaborative processes. Recent developments in collaborative planning, however, ate encouraging.

The first encouraging step is the development of a common set of evaluative criteria to assess the performance of collaborative planning processes. Although there are still differences in terminology and emphasis, evaluators have identified four key evaluative criteria (Moore 1996; Sipe 1998; Innes and Booher 1999; Andrew 2001; Todd 2001; Leach et al. 2002; Beierle and Cayford 2002; Frame et al. 2003). These criteria include:

1. success in reaching ah agreement

2. efficiency of the collaborative process relative to alternative processes

3. satisfaction of stakeholders with the process and outcome

4. achievement of other "social capital" benefits such as improved relationships among stakeholders and enhanced stakeholder skills and knowledge

Some or all of these criteria have been used in recant evaluations of collaborative processes that are discussed next.

1) The study by Susskind et al. (2000), which is also summarized in this volume, examined 100 case studies of land use planning disputes in the United States. The evaluation was based on phone survey interviews with at least three participants in each case study for a total of 400 interviews. Two-thirds of the cases resulted in settlements and one-third did not achieve settlement. The results show a high degree of stakeholder satisfaction, with 85 percent of those interviewed having a favorable view of the process and 81 percent stating that the process was more efficient than alternative processes. Although the results may be biased due to the nonrandom sampling of participants, the positive assessment of the collaborative processes is impressively high.

2) Andrew (2001) examined 54 cases of collaborative processes used to resolve waste management disputes in Ontario and Massachusetts. The processes were successful in resolving 81 percent of the disputes and 75 percent of the processes were judged to be more efficient than the alternatives, which consisted of hearings or litigation (Table 1). A more in depth analysis was completed for 23 of the 54 cases by undertaking phone surveys of at least three stakeholders per case for a total of 123 interviews. The results showed that 65% of the stakeholders were satisfied with the process. Andrew also completed one of the first quantitative efforts to identify factors determining success by using the survey data and case file material to assess the statistical relationship between 17 key variables and three measures of success. The study revealed that only one variable--number of key issues--had a statistically significant effect on achieving successful resolution; only one variable - participation of all stakeholders--had a statistically significant effect on increasing stakeholder satisfaction. Eight variables had a statistically significant relationship with efficiency. While the small sample size precludes drawing any definitive conclusions about the relative importance of factors affecting success, Andrew's study provides helpful insights to guide future research.

3) The study by Leach et al. (2002) examined 44 cases of collaborative watershed planning in California and Washington. Data were collected by phone surveys of between three and six stakeholders per case study and a mail survey of the entire 1,185 stakeholders with a response rate of 65%. The study measured the performance of the collaborative processes using three broad criteria: affect on watershed conditions, achievement of social capital benefits, and reaching agreement. Stakeholder perceptions from survey data were used to measure the impact of collaborative planning on 12 indicators of watershed conditions. The results show that the impact on watershed conditions was generally positive, with 39 of the case studies recording overall improvement. The study also found that the processes were successful in achieving social capital benefits and agreement. Within these broad findings, Leach et al. found several important trends. First, the success of collaborative planning was strongly correlated with the length of time of the process, with four-to-six years required to achieve any significant measure of success. Leach et al. cautioned, therefore, against premature evaluation of collaborative processes. Second, contrary to the criticism that collaborative planning avoids tough problems in an effort to achieve consensus, the study found that the collaborative processes focused on mitigating the most serious problems in the watersheds.

4) The study by Frame et al. (2003) evaluated one of the most comprehensive initiatives in collaborative planning to date: the completion of 19 land use plans covering three-quarters of the land base of the province of British Columbia. The study used a mail survey of all 894 stakeholders in the land use planning processes and had a response rate of 35 percent. This response rate may be lower than some of the other studies because all but two of the processes surveyed ended between 1994 and 2001, thus making it difficult to locate the stakeholders. The survey used all four measures of success to evaluate outcomes and 14 criteria to describe the processes. In 15 (78 percent) of the processes, stakeholders were successful in reaching a land use plan agreement. In 12 of the processes the agreement was reached by full consensus and in two processes agreement was reached by full consensus minus one. Sixty-four percent of the stakeholders expressed satisfaction with the process and 69 percent agreed that the collaborative process was the best way to develop land use plans. Achievement of social capital benefits was high, with 85 percent agreeing that relationships with other stakeholders were improved, 87 percent agreeing that important skills and knowledge were acquired by stakeholders, and 92 percent agreeing that they gained a better understanding of other stakeholders' values and interests. Frame et al. (2003) concluded that these are impressive achievements, given the intense conflict that existed in British Columbia over land use prior to the initiation of the process and the failure of more traditional planning processes to resolve these conflicts.

5) Beierle and Cayford (2002) evaluated 239 case studies of public participation in the United States over the last 30 years. They evaluated four approaches to public participation including public meetings and hearings, advisory committees not seeking consensus, advisory committees seeking consensus, and negotiation/mediation processes. These were compared to five measures of success: incorporation of public values, better decisions, resolution of conflict, building of trust, and education of the public. The assessment was based on the researchers' rating after reviewing case files and secondary sources. They found that negotiation/mediation had much higher levels of success. They qualified this conclusion by noting that the consensus rule in advisory committees did not improve performance and that the more intensive negotiation/mediation approach often did not include a representative sample of the public.

6) Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000) completed a more qualitative evaluation of collaborative planning processes in the United States. Based on their extensive case file analysis, they concluded that collaborative processes have been highly successful and they identify the key obstacles and factors affecting success.

While these evaluations of collaborative planning all have their self-confessed limitations, they do provide an impressive research record that provides strong endorsement of the benefits of collaborative planning. The studies show that collaborative planning is more effective than other planning models in resolving disputes, meeting the interests of stakeholders and generating additional secondary benefits such as improved stakeholders relationships and knowledge. Evaluation results also show that collaborative planning is able to address the major challenges raised by its critics.

Successful application of collaborative planning to complex environmental planning problems involving fundamental differences in values challenges the allegation of limited applicability. Indeed, the findings that collaborative planning addresses the most serious problems, challenges the allegation that consensus processes avoid the tough issues and seek second-best solutions. The involvement of a large number of diverse stakeholder interests, and the retention of final decision making by democratically accountable authorities, challenges the allegation of collaborative processes reflecting only narrow special interests that are not accountable. Increasing use of collaborative processes combined with high rates of satisfaction from stakeholders challenges the allegation that collaboration dominated by more powerful stakeholders. As Gunton and Flynn (1992:15) observed, collaborative planning "simply opens up what is normally a backroom lobbying process to a broader array of stakeholders subject to greater public visibility and review." In sum, the research illustrates that while collaborative planning faces challenges, it has been remarkably successful. The key to success is effective design and management of the collaborative process, which we will address next.

Designing and Managing Collaborative Planning

The collaborative planning literature (Susskind and Cruikshank 1987; Gray 1989; Julian 1995; Selin and Chavez 1995; Brown 1996) provides a clear outline of the recommended phases and steps in collaborative planning. The first phase, prenegotiation, has four steps. It begins with background preparation, which consists of forming the professional team, identifying potential stakeholders, and completing a conflict assessment that evaluates the nature of the conflict and options for resolution. The second step is to identify the stakeholder groups that will participate in the collaborative process and appoint representatives for each group. The size of stakeholder tables can vary widely from about 6 to 75 depending on the process. Stakeholders can be chosen on the basis of existing organizations, sectoral coalitions, value orientation, and geographic region. The third step is to prepare draft ground rules, of terms of reference, that outline objectives, rules of procedure, roles and responsibilities, timelines, and logistics. The terms of reference need to be reviewed and approved by a stakeholder table. The final step in the first phase is to identify relevant facts and information required by a table.

Phase two is the negotiation phase. The first step in this phase is to identify interests of stakeholders and use procedures such as brainstorming and idea mapping to identify a broad range of options. Often subgroups are used to help identify options and resolve information deficiencies through joint fact finding. The second step is to begin packaging options and encourage principled negotiation around a "single text" document that records the status of discussions. The more contentious issues are often deferred and delegated to subgroups to allow the main stakeholder table to make progress on less contentious issues to build momentum. The next step is to bind the parties to ah agreement and ensure that the both the representatives at the stakeholder table and the organizations that they represent ratify the agreement.

The final phase is postnegotiation. The first step in this phase is to achieve required approvals of the agreement necessary to commence implementation. Stakeholder agreements, for example, often need to be ratified by the legally designated approval authority. The next step is to create a monitoring process to evaluate implementation followed by renegotiation of components of the agreement that may be necessary due to changing circumstances.

Following these phases and steps is a useful guide to collaborative planning. However, successful collaborative planning is contingent on following key design and management principles. Based on a review of the literature we have identified the following ten "keys to success" (Bingham 1986; Cormick et al. 1996; Susskind et al. 2000; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Caton Campbell and Floyd 1996; Innes 1996, Innes and Booher 1999; Margerum 1997, 1999; Duffy et al. 1996; Williams et al. 1998; Beierle and Cayford 2002; Leach et al. 2002; Frame et al. 2003).

1. Determine if Collaborative Planning is Appropriate

Collaborative planning may not work in all circumstances and using it when it is inappropriate can lead to frustration and discrediting of the entire concept. Determining when and if collaborative planning is appropriate is a difficult judgment. Preconditions necessary for successful collaborative planning include: commitment of decision-making agencies, commitment of all stakeholder interests, urgency that the issue needs resolution, absence of fundamental value differences, and existence of feasible solutions. Overly restrictive adherence to meeting these preconditions may preclude or delay the use of collaborative planning when there is no feasible alternative to managing ah environmental issue. The question is not whether the conditions ate ideal for collaborative planning, but whether the conditions have reached the point where it is opportune to commence a collaborative planning process. As Caton Campbell (2003) observed, the initiation of collaborative planning can transform the environment and create conditions necessary for success by improving relationships among stakeholders and understanding of otherwise intractable problems.

2. Ensure Inclusive Representation

The success of collaborative planning is contingent on having all relevant stakeholder groups represented. If some interests are not present, it is important for managers to help organize these unrepresented interests by helping to create formal stakeholder groups. It is particularly important to include decision-makers, government experts, and implementers at the stakeholder committee to ensure that scientific information is appropriately utilized, that stakeholder table decisions are accepted by legislative authorities, and that decisions are successfully implemented. Procedures for adding new stakeholder interests that may emerge during the process should be included in the ground rules.

3. Provide Clear Ground Rules

It is important that the ground rules adopted by the table be clear and comprehensive. Key issues that need to be included are: identification of key stakeholder groups; process for adding and removing stakeholders; process for amending ground rules; role and obligation of stakeholders such as attendance, process objectives, timelines; role of subcommittees; role of facilitators; role of a stakeholder table in the decision-making process; media policy; record keeping; decision rules; confidentiality requirements; role of the public; role of consultants; data-gathering procedures; and, code of conduct. Although these ground rules can be adjusted as required during the process, clarity on these issues is essential to avoid inaccurate expectations and reduce disagreements.

4. Reduce Inequities Among Stakeholders

There will be inevitable disparities in skills and resources among stakeholder groups. Well-organized business interests will usually have superior resources to smaller volunteer groups. While these inevitable inequities are not fatal to the process, inequities need to be mitigated by providing training in relevant skills such as negotiation and technical analysis, equal access to relevant information, and financial resources to cover out of pocket costs for volunteers.

5. Ensure Process Accountability

Collaborative planning processes need to be accountable in several ways. First, stakeholder representatives at a table need to be accountable to their respective organizations to ensure that the organizations support the final agreement. This can be done by requiring the respective organizations, as well as their representatives, to ratify all major decisions reached during the process. Second, the process needs to be accountable to the general public by including a comprehensive public participation program and ensuring that authority for final approval of agreements and plans is retained by democratically accountable authorities.

6. Remain Flexible and Adaptive

Although clarity on key aspects of the process is essential, the process needs to remain flexible enough to provide for changes necessary to adapt to changing circumstances. As discussed above, acknowledgement that potential changes may be required and the process for making these changes should be specified in the ground rules.

7. Provide Sound Process Management

The management of the process by skilled staff, who are perceived to be independent of any specific interest, is essential. This requires the appointment of a neutral professional mediator/facilitator as chair, the designation of professional staff fully accountable to the table to handle logistics and information gathering, and the provision of adequate financial and logistical assistance.

8. Provide Realistic Timelines

A successful collaborative process requires clear timelines for all milestones. These timelines should include a specified project completion time along with a clear alternative process that will make the decision in the event the table fails to reach consensus. Clearly defining stakeholders' best alternative to a negotiated agreement by having an alternative decision process if the table fails to reach consensus can increase the probability of table success. Further, the empirical research shows that it takes considerable time for collaborative processes to reach agreement (Frame et al. 2003; Leach et al. 2002). Therefore it is important to provide realistic timelines, in the order of four years, for collaborative processes to work.

9. Provide Implementation and Monitoring Processes

The success of a collaborative planning process is contingent on successful implementation of the plan. To increase the probability of successful implementation, it is important to provide a clear implementation plan with key milestones, clear responsibilities for implementation, a monitoring process that includes a compulsory public progress reporting system, and a process for mitigating implementation failures. A process that has worked well in improving implementation success is to have the original collaborative planning table continue as a monitoring table to oversee plan implementation (Albert et al. 2003). This ensures an institutional memory that can reduce and resolve misunderstandings on intent and provide ongoing impetus for implementation from those who have a stake in the plan.

10. Use Multiple-Objective Evaluation

Collaborative planning research shows that it achieves a number of objectives including reaching superior agreements, reaching agreements more efficiently than other processes, and achieving secondary social capital benefits. Evaluation of collaborative processes must use all of these objectives to judge the success of the process and evaluate the success not only against ideals, but also against alternative processes that could have been used. The success of collaborative planning requires extensive time. Therefore evaluations should not be done prematurely.

Future Research

The development of a common evaluation methodology and case study analysis of collaborative planning is building an improved knowledge base. This has significantly advanced understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of collaborative planning and the development of best practice guidelines. The research agenda, however, is still in its embryonic stage. Only a limited number of empirical evaluations have been completed and they are based on relatively small sample sizes, which precludes definitive conclusions. The issue in judging the utility of collaborative planning is not whether it has weaknesses, but whether the weaknesses are greater or less than alternative approaches. Finally, it is difficult to define some of the key indicators of success, such as the quality of the agreement and social capital benefits. Too narrow a definition of success may tilt practice in an unproductive direction.

Research is required on several fronts. First, more meta-analyses are required of a large set of cases using a uniform methodology that is based on objective criteria as well as stakeholders' perceptions. Second, research needs to focus on the key attributes that determine success as well as evaluating whether success was achieved. The recent evaluation initiative of the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution is encouraging in this respect (USICER 2003). Third, more research needs to be done to identify how to create the preconditions necessary for collaborative planning to be implemented. But while the continuation of this research agenda is helpful, it must be acknowledged that the case for collaborative planning is ultimately a value-based argument. This states that participation of those affected by decisions in the decision making process is a desirable and necessary component of a democratic society. Like the case for democracy itself, the case for collaborative planning is, therefore, dependent on a fundamental value, not an empirical proof. Table 1 Summary of Factors Affecting Success Potential Affect on Success Affect Found 1. Facilitation and mediation better than

negotiation No 2. Type of alternative process (defines

BATNA (1)) Yes, on efficiency 3. Prior impasse impedes process Yes, on efficiency 4. Better if smaller number of issues Yes, on outcome 5. Better if smaller number of parties No 6. Better if smaller number of people Yes, on efficiency 7. Participation of all stakeholders Yes, on satisfaction 8. Participant funding No 9. Government participation Yes, on efficiency 10. Better if principals represent themselves Yes, but negative

relation.

That is, better if

principals do not

represent themselves 11. Better if stakeholders have skills and

resources to participate effectively Yes, on efficiency 12. Better if stakeholders design and manage

process Yes, on efficiency 13. Better if facilitator/mediator Yes, on efficiency 14. Better if deadlines/milestones No 15. Better if good stakeholder relationships No 16. Better if balance of power between

stakeholders No 17. Better if process confidential No (1) Best alternative to a negotiated settlement Source: Derived from Andrews (2001)

(1) This paper was written in support of the next paper in this issue (Day et al.), which was originally presented to the NATO Advanced Research Workshop: The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in the Transition to Rural Sustainability, Krakow, Poland, 5-9 November 2002 (Light et al. 2002). Research for this paper was funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council and by the British Columbia government Forestry Innovation Fund

References

Albert, Karin H., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. 2003. Achieving Effective Implementation: An Evaluation of a Collaborative Land Use Planning Process. Environments 31(3) in press.

Andrew, John. 2001. Making or Breaking Alternative Dispute Resolution? Factors Influencing Its Success in Waste Management Conflicts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21: 23-57.

Amy, Douglas J. 1987. The Politics of Environmental Mediation. New York. Columbia University Press.

Arnstein, S. 1969. A Ladder of Citizen Participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35: 216-224.

Bacow, Lawrence S., and Michael Wheeler. 1984. Environmental Dispute Resolution. New York. Plenum Press.

Beierle, Thomas, and J. Cayford. 2002. Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in Environmental Decisions. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Bingham, Gail. 1986. Resolving Environmental Disputes: A Decade of Experience. Washington, D.C.: The Conservation Foundation.

Born, S.M., and K.D. Genskow. 2000. The Watershed Approach: An Empirical Assessment of Innovation in Environmental Management. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Public Administration.

Brown, Darryl. 1996. Strategic Land Use Planning Sourcebook. Victoria, British Columbia: Commission on Resources and the Environment.

Carr, D.S., S.W. Selin, and M.A. Schuett. 1998. Managing Public Forests: Understanding the Role of Collaborative Planning. Environmental Management 22: 767-776.

Caton Campbell, Marcia. 2003. Intractability in Environmental Disputes: Exploring a Complex Construct. Journal of Planning Literature 17(3): 361370.

Caton Campbell, Marcia, and D.W. Floyd. 1996. Thinking Critically about Environmental Mediation. Journal of Planning Literature 10(3): 235-247.

Chadwick, George. 1971. A Systems View of Planning: Toward a Theory of the Urban and Regional Planning Process. New York: Pergamon.

Chapin, F. Stuart, and E.J. Kaiser. 1979. Urban Land Use Planning. Urbana: University of Illinois.

Cormick, Gerald. 1987. The Myth, the Reality, and the Future of Environmental Mediation. In Resolving Locational Conflict, ed. Robert Lake. New Brunswick, N.J.: Center for Urban Policy Research.

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.

Day, J.C., Thomas I. Gunton, and Tanis M. Frame. 2003. Toward Environmental Sustainability in British Columbia: The Role of Collaborative Planning. Environments, this volume.

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.

Fisher, Roger and William Ury. 1981. Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In. 1st ed. New York: Penguin Books.

Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. 2003. Resolving Environmental Disputes through Collaborative Planning. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. In press.

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

Gregory, Robin, Tim McDaniels, and Daryl Fields. 2001. Decision Aiding, Not Dispute Resolution: Creating Insights through Structured Environmental Decisions. Journal of Policy Analysis 20(3): 415-432.

Griffin, C.B. 1999. Watershed Councils: An Emerging Form of Public Participation in Natural Resource Management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 505-18.

Gunton, Thomas I. 1984. Role of the Professional Planner. Canadian Public Administration 27(4): 399-417.

Gunton, Thomas I., and S. Flynn. 1992. Resolving Environmental Conflicts: The Role of Mediation and Negotiation. Environments 21(3): 12-16.

Hall, Peter.1974. Urban and Regional Planning. New York: Praeger.

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. A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4): 412-423.

Julian, D.A. 1994. Planning for Collaborative Neighbourhood Problem Solving: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Planning Literature 9(1): 313.

Kenny, D.S. 1999. Historical and Sociopolitical Context of the Western Watersheds Movement. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 35: 493-503.

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.

Light, Steve, Rafal Serafin, Kristen Blann, Timothy O'Riordan, Zbigniew Bochniarz, and Jan Sendzimir. 16 Oct. 2002. The Role of Biodiversity Conservation in Rural Sustainability: Using Adaptive Management, Institutional Analysis, and Sustainability Appraisal to Understand Experience from North America and Europe, with Special Reference to Central and Eastern Europe. Prepared for the NATO Advanced Research Workshop, 5-9 Nov. 2002. Krakow, Poland: Polish Environmental Partnership Foundation.

Margerum, R.D. 1997. Integrated Approaches to Environmental Planning and Management. Journal of Planning Literature 11(4): 459-475.

Margerum, R.D. 1999. Getting Past Yes: From Capital Creation to Action. American Planning Association Journal 56(2): 181-191.

McLoughlin, J. Brian. 1969. Urban and Regional Planning, A Systems Approach. New York: Praeger.

Mitchell, B. 1989. Geography and Resource Analysis. Harlow, England: Harlow, Longman.

Moore, Susan. 1996. Defining Successful Environmental Dispute Resolution: Case Studies from Public Land Planning in the United States and Australia. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 16: 151-169.

O'Leary, Rosemary. 1995. Environmental Mediation: What do we Know and How do we Know It. In Mediating Environmental Conflicts: Theory and Practice, en. Walton Blackburn and Willa Marie Bruce. Westport, Conn.: Quorum Books.

Painter, Ann. 1988. The Future of Environmental Dispute Resolution. Natural Resources Journal 28(1): 145-70.

Rabe, Barry. 1988. The Politics of Environmental Dispute Resolution. Policy Studies Journal 16(3): 585-601.

Riesel, Daniel. 1985. Negotiation and Mediation of Environmental Disputes. Journal on Dispute Resolution 1: 99-111.

Selin, S., and D. Chavez. 1995. Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management. Environmental Management 19: 189-195.

Sipe, Neil. 1998. An Empirical Analysis of Environmental Mediation. American Planning Association Journal 64(3): 275-85.

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

Susskind, Lawrence, and J. Secunda. 1998. Environmental Conflict Resolution: The American Experience. In Environmental Conflict Resolution, C. Napier, ed. London, U.K.: Cameron May.

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

Talbot, Allan. 1983. Setting Things Straight: Six Case Studies in Environmental Mediation. Washington, D.C.: Conservation Foundation.

Todd, Susan. 2001. Measuring the Effectiveness of Environmental Dispute Resolution Efforts. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 21: 97-110.

United States. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (USIECR). 2003. Request for Quotations with Revised Timeline for Project Title: Integrating ECR Evaluation Results into Practice. Tucson, Ariz.: USIERC.

Williams, Peter W., 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 and 3): 1-7.

Wondolleck, Julia M., and Steven L. Yaffee. 2000. Making Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovations in Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Author Biographies

Dr. Thomas I. Gunton is an associate professor and former director of the School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University. He held numerous senior positi0ns in government including Deputy Minister of Environment and Deputy Minister of Cabinet Policy for the government of British Columbia. His research is in environmental mediation and dispute resolution and natural resource planning. He can be reached through the School at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A lS6 or at tgunton@shaw.ca.

Dr. J.C. (Chad) Day is the founding director and adjunct professor of the School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University. His research focuses on institutions for integrated land and water management and environmental planning. He can be reached through the School at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada V5A 1S6 or at jday@sfu.ca.