Evaluating collaborative planning: the British Columbia experience.

Collaborative planning (CP) is emerging as the dominant planning model in environmental management. The essence of CP is to delegate responsibility for planning to multistakeholder groups that engage in face-to-face negotiations to reach consensus agreements. CP is now "institutionalized" as the preferred technique for preparing forestry plans by the U.S. Forest Service and watershed plans by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Leach et al. 2002). CP is also used in a wide variety of environmental planning applications in the U.S., Canada, and Australia.

Despite its widespread use, CP has not been adequately evaluated to determine its effectiveness and to identify "best practice" guidelines for successful implementation. We have attempted to fill this need for more evaluation of CP in two special volumes of Environments. In a previous volume, Environments 31(2) (Gunton et al. 2003), we reviewed the theory and practice of CP in North America. The purpose of this companion volume is to evaluate the most comprehensive application of CP to date: the preparation of regional land use plans for the Province of British Columbia.

The adoption of CP in British Columbia began in early 1992 after other more traditional planning models had failed to resolve growing conflict between environmentalists and resource extractors over allocation of the provincial Crown land base. The CP approach, termed shared decision making (SDM) by the province, is based on the innovative concept of delegating responsibility for planning to "planning tables" comprised of all relevant stakeholders including government, business, NGOs, and communities. The objective of the planning tables is to prepare regional land use plans by consensus-based negotiation. The proposed plans are then submitted to government for approval.

As of July 2003, nineteen regional land use plans have been completed in British Columbia covering three-quarters of the provincial land base. An additional six plans are currently under development. Plans took approximately four years to complete by planning tables with an average of about twenty to thirty stakeholder representatives. The principal outcome of the regional land use plans was to allocate land to one of the following four zones: protected areas, where no resource extraction is allowed; special management zones, where extra regulations restrict resource extraction to protect important environmental values; general resource extraction, subject to normal regulations; and enhanced resource extraction, where regulations are relaxed to allow for more intensive resource extraction. The plans resulted in a significant change in land use with protected areas doubling from 6% to 13%, general resource-extraction zones decreased from 92% to 68%, while special management zones and enhanced resource-extraction zones each increased from 0% to 16% (Day et al. 2003).

The adoption of this innovative SDM approach to planning and the implementation of these plans did not occur without conflict. The changes in land use policy only developed in response to increasing civil disobedience on the part of environmentalists blocking logging, a growing threat of international boycotts by environmentalists against BC forest products, which threatened the profitability of the industry, and court decisions that gave First Nations increasing legal power to constrain private resource extraction (Gunton 1998). The role of the extractive forestry and mining industries was also declining in the provincial economy relative to new more environmentally depended industries, such as tourism, which wanted more preservationist policies. Consistent with negotiation theory, the shifting balance of power from extractive industries to environmental industries--and threats to the forest industries posed by environmental blockades and boycotts--encouraged the extractive sector to accept significant changes in planning processes and land use allocation. This was reinforced by the development of "no loser" policies such as public funding for forest investment projects to help compensate the forest sector for losses resulting from land use changes (Gunton 1998).

REM Land Use Research Program

British Columbia is the only jurisdiction to date that has implemented CP systematically for a long enough period of time to provide an adequate record for comprehensive evaluation. To take advantage of this opportunity, the School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University organized a multiyear research project funded by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the Government of British Columbia to evaluate the provincial experience.

The research occurred in three major stages. The first phase, conducted between 1989 and 1992, examined various aspects of regional land use planning, including analytical methods for evaluating land use options, new institutional structures for land management, and an evaluation of the British Columbia resource planning system (Gunton and Vertinsky 1990a, 1990b; Gunton 1991; Gunton 1992; Gunton and Duffy 1992; Gunton and Fletcher 1992; Gunton and Flynn 1992; M'Gonigle et al. 1990; M'Gonigle et al. 1992). This research assisted in the development of the new CP approach adopted in British Columbia in early 1992. The second phase of the research program consisted of a preliminary evaluation of a subset of the earlier CP land use plans completed up to 1996 (Cardinal and Day 1996; Duffy et al. 1996; Flynn and Gunton 1996; Wilson et al. 1996; Gunton 1997, 1998; Cantwell and Day 1998; Litke and Day 1998; Penrose et al. 1998; Williams et al. 1998; Williams et al 1998; Duffy et al. 1998; Tamblyn and Day 1999). The third phase of the research, commenced in 2001, involves a comprehensive evaluation of the British Columbia experience by evaluating the process for developing and implementing regional land use plans. This volume of Environments reports on the third phase of research.

Evaluating the Planning Process

The evaluation of the CP process for developing regional plans is based on the following steps. First, an evaluation method was developed, employing 25 evaluative criteria that are based on an integration and extension of key frameworks proposed in the literature (Moore 1996; Cormick et al. 1996; Duffy et al. 1996; Moote et al. 1997; Williams et al. 1998; Innes and Booher 1999; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Todd 2001; Leach et al. 2002). The evaluation is based on both outcome criteria--which measure outcome success--and process criteria--which define desirable features of process management. The second step documented key elements of the CP process in British Columbia. In the third step, a survey instrument was designed and administered to participants in the CP processes to assess the extent to which these processes met the evaluative criteria. Surveys were mailed, or emailed, to 767 of 894 possible participants. Two hundred sixty responses were received and form the basis of this analysis (response rate 35%). The confidence interval for the results of this study is +/- 2.98%, 95% of the time. The final task was to analyze the overall study results and assess implications of the findings for CP theory and practice.

Based on the detailed analysis in Frame et al. (2003), the collaborative planning evaluation findings are summarized for process criteria (Table 1) and outcome criteria (Table 2). The tables illustrate that the CP processes met, or partially met, all 25 evaluative criteria. The key achievement was the ability of CP to reach consensus, or near consensus, agreements in the majority of the nineteen regional land use plans completed. Consensus, or near consensus (consensus minus one), was achieved in fourteen of the fifteen Land and Resource Management planning processes completed. The remaining LRMP process achieved consensus on a majority of plan elements. Four early regional land use planning processes managed by a separate Commission of Resources and the Environment failed to reach such consensus agreements and the government had to prepare the plans itself.

Given the high level of conflict over land use, reaching consensus on a majority of the plans is a remarkable achievement that provides strong evidence of the effectiveness of CP relative to other more traditional planning models. The results also show that CP generated important additional "social capital" benefits such as improved knowledge and better stakeholder relationships that increased the capacity of the communities to manage other issues and to promote regional welfare (Table 2). Based on these results, Gunton and Day (2003), Frame et al. (2003), and Day et al. (2003) developed best practice guidelines for the management of collaborative processes. Frame, Gunton, and Day emphasize, however, that while the adoption of these best practices are important of achieving success, the external environment needs to be suitable for collaboration by ensuring a balance of power between stakeholders that encourages cooperation to achieve individual stakeholder interests.

An important research question in evaluating the CP process is to assess how well a process performed from the perspective of different stakeholder groups. Finnigan, Gunton, and Williams address this question in this volume by evaluating CP from the perspective of civil society stakeholders. These are defined as stakeholders who are not from government and who are not from private for-profit enterprises. Such stakeholders, therefore, have no direct pecuniary interest in resource decisions.

Finnigan, Gunton and Williams conclude that effective participation of civil society stakeholders in the planning process is critical to the success of CP because these stakeholders bring important values that must be incorporated into plans if they are to reflect the broad public interest. However, civil society stakeholder groups face two special challenges. First, they may be less effective than other stakeholders because they have fewer resources to devote to CP. Second such organizations may be less structured than other organizations such as government or private corporations. This lack of structure can make accountability of civil society stakeholder representatives to their organizations difficult.

Finnigan, Gunton and Williams assess the impact of these challenges by disaggregating the evaluation survey results of civil society stakeholder participants in the British Columbia CP processes and comparing their results to other participants. The study confirms that these stakeholders have inferior resources compared to other stakeholders. Nevertheless, the results indicate that inferior resources do not seem to reduce the effectiveness of these groups in the planning process. They perceived themselves as being more influential than other stakeholders in the design of the planning process and being just as influential on the outcomes as other stakeholders. Civil society stakeholder bodies were also as satisfied with the outcomes of the process and were just as accountable to their organizations as other stakeholders. Finnigan, Gunton, and Williams conclude that participating in CP is an effective strategy for civil society stakeholders despite the handicaps that these groups have relative to other stakeholder sectors.

Edwards-Craig, Williams, and Gunton provide an additional disaggregation of results by stakeholder group that focuses on the tourism sector. The tourism sector includes a wide spectrum of interests from nonconsumptive recreationalists, such as backpackers, to consumptive users such as hunters and integrated resort operators. Traditionally, the tourism sector has not been an active participant in resource planning despite its dependence on the natural resource base to support its businesses and activities. Like the civil society stakeholder sector, the tourist sector perceived itself as facing greater constraints than other stakeholders in the process because of inferior resources to participate. But, like the civil society stakeholder sector, the tourism sector was just as satisfied with the outcomes of the process as other, better resourced, stakeholders. Edwards-Craig, Williams, and Gunton conclude that CP is an effective means for the tourism sector to participate in resource planning to ensure that plans adequately reflect tourism interests. They caution, however, that the tourism sector requires multiple representatives to reflect its diverse interests. The tourist sector also needs additional resources and training to help overcome its disadvantages relative to better-resourced groups.

Evaluating Plan Implementation

Effective implementation of plans is a key step in achieving sustainability. Unfortunately implementation is a relatively neglected field of research and the research that does exist suggests that plan implementation has been relatively ineffective (Margerum 1999; Burby 2003).

To help address this research gap, the second dimension of our current research on collaborative processes focuses on plan implementation. The principal objective of this research component is to identify key conditions necessary for effective implementation. The first step in the research was to identify criteria for effective plan implementation based on a literature review. The next step was to rank the importance of these criteria by surveying senior officials and stakeholders currently engaged in managing the implementation of major plans. The third step was to test the criteria by analyzing the relationship between the criteria and implementation success using a case study of CP in B.C. The final step was to interpret the findings to reach conclusions on keys to implementation success and to develop best practice guidelines for effective implementation.

This research is unique in two ways. First, the research provides the first survey results in the literature that asks implementation stakeholders to identify and assess the relative importance of factors determining success. Second, the research uses various statistical techniques to quantify the relationship between implementation success and factors affecting success.

Two papers in this volume summarize preliminary findings from our implementation research, which is still in its early stages and ongoing. The paper by Calbick, Day, and Gunton reports on the development and assessment of criteria for effective implementation based on a survey of senior implementation officials in five resource agencies in North America. The agencies were chosen to reflect a diversity of implementation experience in resource and environmental management. Agencies surveyed include: U.S. Forest Service, Bay Conservation and Development Commission (San Francisco), Fraser Basin Council (B.C.), Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (Washington State), and the Land Conservation and Development Commission (Oregon State). The results tested 25 implementation practices of which 8 were judged as high priority for implementation success, 12 as medium priority, and 5 as lower priority. The 8 high priority criteria include: a legislated mandate, administrative rules (regulations and permits), development of guidelines on how to achieve compliance, a collaborative planning process to develop and implement the plan, adequate funding, enforcement penalties, multijurisdictional cooperation, and financing projects to achieve plan objectives.

The paper by Albert, Gunton, and Day also reports the results of an assessment of implementation criteria based on a case study of one of the LRMP plans in B.C. Based on a review of the literature, 24 criteria for effective implementation were identified. These criteria were then tested in two ways. First, a multistakeholder group involved in the implementation of the case study plan was asked to rank the relative importance of the implementation criteria. Second, the same group was asked to assess the degree to which these criteria were met in the case-study implementation process. The degree of implementation success was then evaluated by assessing plan implementation outcomes and identifying the criteria correlated with implementation success.

Three criteria are normally identified in the literature as necessary for implementation success: small differences in values among those affected by implementation; small behavioral changes required to comply with a plan; and, a small number of people affected by implementation. Albert, Gunton, and Day found in their case study of one LRMP plan, that these criteria were not significant for success. However, the following factors were identified as significant:

* clear and consistent objectives,

* strong commitment of implementing officials,

* monitoring framework with appropriate indicators to track change in each objective,

* strong provincial government support,

* sufficient information available to make appropriate decisions for land use plan implementation,

* high level of cooperation and information sharing between implementing agencies,

* strong stakeholder support,

* collaborative planning process,

* implementing officials skilled in working collaboratively with stakeholders,

* clear delineation of agency responsibilities,

* land use plan objectives well integrated within individual agency work plans,

* strong local government agencies support,

* implementation monitoring committee with public reporting requirements,

* adequate natural science data available to make implementation decisions,

* adequate financial and staff resource commitments for plan implementation,

* participation of stakeholders in monitoring,

* participation of stakeholders in land use plan development through a collaborative planning process,

* power differences between stakeholders equalized through the process,

* participation of implementing officials in plan preparation,

* clear understanding of causal relationship between implementation strategies and desired outcomes,

* no conflicting government policies,

* socioeconomic data available,

* strong public support,

* favorable socioeconomic conditions in the land use plan area.

Based on these findings, Albert, Gunton, and Day conclude that successful implementation is a complex task that requires fulfillment of a diverse range of criteria to achieve success. They also conclude that a key aspect of implementation success is the development of plans through a collaborative planning process. The reasons that CP is a key to success are that engaging stakeholders in the development of a plan ensures greater support and cooperation for implementation and reduces opposition to a plan.

The implementation research results reported in these two papers are the basis for additional studies currently underway. These projects are testing the importance of factors that determine implementation success by analyzing the performance of a large set of collaborative plans completed in B.C. This ongoing work will help fill major gaps in understanding the implementation process and help develop best practice guidelines for implementation success.

Conclusion

This volume of Environments helps address a critical research need to evaluate collaborative planning (CP) by assessing the most comprehensive application of CP to date. The research also focuses on one of the most important, but neglected, areas in planning research: the implementation of plans. The papers in this volume provide the first results in the literature that disaggregate CP evaluation results by stakeholder group and assess criteria for effective implementation by surveying implementation stakeholders. Our research on CP is still in its early stages and the findings from the B.C. case studies may not be fully applicable to other regions with differing characteristics, for example regions having large areas of privately owned land in contrast to B.C.'s publicly owned land system. However, the papers in this volume provide preliminary findings that demonstrate the effectiveness of collaborative planning in preparing resource and environmental plans and identify keys to successful plan implementation. Table 1 Process Criteria Satisfied for Stakeholders Group *

Criteria Score Satisfied Process Criteria **

Yes Partly 80 [check] 1. Purpose and Incentives The process is driven

by a shared purpose and provides incentives to

participate and to work towards consensus in

the process. 66 [check] 2. Inclusive Representation All parties with a

significant interest in the issues and outcome

are involved throughout the process. 72 [check] 3. Commitment The parties who are affected or

interested participate voluntarily and are

committed to the process. 63 [check] 4. Self-Design The parties involved work

together to design the process to suit the

individual needs of that process and its

participants. 71 [check] 5. Clear Participant Roles and Ground Rules

Clear terms of reference and ground rules are

to be established. 56 [check] 6. Equal Opportunity and Resources The process

provides for equal and balanced opportunity for

effective participation of all parties. 63 [check] 7. Principled Negotiation and Respect The

process operates according to the conditions of

principled negotiation including mutual

respect, trust, and understanding. 62 [check] 8. Accountability The process and its

participants are accountable to the broader

public, to their constituents, and to the

process itself. 72 [check] 9. Flexible, Adaptive, and Creative Flexibility

is designed into the process to allow for

adaptation and creativity in problem solving. 64 [check] 10. High-Quality Information The process

incorporates high-quality information into

decision making. 58 [check] 11. Time Limits Realistic milestones and

deadlines are established and managed

throughout the process. 59 [check] 12. Implementation and Monitoring The process

and final agreement include clear commitments

to implementation and monitoring. 69 [check] 13. Effective Process Management The process is

coordinated and managed effectively and in a

neutral manner. 75 [check] 14. Independent Facilitation The process uses

an independent, trained facilitator throughout

the process. * This table identifies the evaluative process criteria that were used to evaluate the planning process. Statements used to test each of the criteria were grouped to aid in the presentation and interpretation of the results. Responses were given on a four-point scale, which was converted to a numerical scale as follows: strongly agree (2), agree (1), disagree (-1), strongly disagree (-2). Scores for each criterion were calculated by averaging the numerical scores for each of the statements used to test the criterion. If the average score is greater than or equal to 0.50, the criterion is considered to have been satisfied, if it is less than or equal to -0.50 is not satisfied, and if is between 0.50 and -0.50 the criterion is considered to have been only partially satisfied. ** % of respondents agreeing Table 2 Outcome Criteria Satisfied for Stakeholders *

Criteria Score Satisfied Outcome Criteria **

Yes Partly 74 *** [check] 1. Agreement: The process results in a

consensus or near consensus agreement. 59 [check] 2. Perceived as Successful: Stakeholders

perceive the process as successful.

Stakeholders are satisfied with the outcomes

of the process and view their involvement as a

positive experience. 53 [check] 3. Conflict Reduced: The process and its

outcomes reduced conflict in the area

regarding the issues addressed. 63 [check] 4. Superior to Other Methods: The process was

superior to other planning or decision methods

in terms of costs and benefits. Costs include

time and resources for process support and

management, and participation for all parties.

Benefits include the positive outcomes of the

process. 72 [check] 5. Creative and Innovative: The process

produced creative ideas for action. Innovative

ideas will be tested and learned from; even

those that are not successfully implemented

can provide opportunities for learning and

growth and change ways of thinking that led to

a conflict. 90 [check] 6. Knowledge, Understanding, and Skills:

Stakeholders gained knowledge, understanding,

and skills by participating in the process. 82 [check] 7. Relationships and Social Capital: The

process created new personal and working

relationships, and social capital among

stakeholders. The process developed a network

of relationships among diverse parties that

allows for continued information exchange,

understanding, cooperation, and trust. 77 [check] 8. Information: The process produced improved

data, information, and analyses through joint

fact-finding that stakeholders understand and

accept as accurate such as facts, inventories,

models, forecasts, histories, and analytical

tools. This information was shared by others

beyond the immediate group and is useful to

stakeholders and others for purposes outside

of the process. 66 [check] 9. Second-Order Effects: The process had

second-order effects including changes in

behaviors and actions, spin-off partnerships,

umbrella groups, collaborative activities, new

practices, or new institutions. 69 [check] 10. Public Interest: The outcomes are regarded

as just and serve the common good or public

interest, not just those of stakeholders in

the process. 78 [check] 11. Understanding and Support of Shared

Decision Making: The process resulted in

increased understanding of, and stakeholders

support for, the future use of SDM approaches.

In future stakeholders are more likely to make

fewer unilateral decisions where collaboration

could be more effective. * This table identifies the evaluative process criteria that were used to evaluate the planning process. Statements used to test each criterion were grouped to aid in the presentation and interpretation of the results. Responses were given on a four-point scale, which was converted to a numerical scale as follows: strongly agree (2), agree (1), disagree (-1), strongly disagree (-2). Scores for each criterion were calculated by averaging the numerical scores for each of the statements used to test the criterion. If the average score is greater than or equal to 0.50, the criterion is considered to have been satisfied, if it is less than or equal to -0.50 is not satisfied, and if is between 0.50 and -0.50 the criterion is considered to have been only partially satisfied. ** % of respondents agreeing *** This is the percentage of all regional land use plans that were reached by consensus for near consensus agreement (14 out of 19).

References

Burby, Raymond. 2003. Making Plans that Matter: Citizen Involvement and Government Action. Journal of the American Planning Association 69(3): 33-49.

Cantwell, Mark, and J.C. Day. 1998. Citizen-Initiated River Basin Planning: The Salmon River Watershed Example. Environments 25 (2 & 3): 80-90.

Cardinall, Dan, and J.C. Day. 1998. Embracing Value and Uncertainty in Environmental Management and Planning: A Heuristic Model. Environments 25 (2 & 3): 110-125.

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.

Day, J.C., Thomas I. Gunton, and Tanis M. Frame. 2003. Towards Rural Sustainability in British Columbia: The Role of Biodiversity Conservation and Other Factors. Environments 31(2): 21-38.

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.

Duffy, Dorli, Lisa Hallgren, Zane Parker, Robert Penrose, and Mark Roseland. 1998. Improving the Shared Decision-Making Model: An Evaluation of Public Participation in Land and Resource Management Planning (LRMP) in British Columbia. Vancouver: Mimeographed.

Flynn, Sarah, and Thomas I. Gunton. 1996. Resolving Natural Resource Conflicts Through Alternative Dispute Resolution: A Case Study of the Timber Fish Wildlife Agreement in Washington State. Environments--23(2): 101-111.

Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. 2003. Resolving Environmental Disputes Through Shared Decision-Making: A Case Study of Land Use Planning in British Columbia. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management. (in press).

Gunton, Thomas I. 1991. Crown Land Planning in British Columbia: Managing for Multiple Use, pp. 275-293 In Our Living Legacy: Proceedings of a Symposium on Biological Diversity, ed. M.A. Fenger, E.H. Miller, J.A. Johnson, and E.J.R. Williams. Victoria: Royal British Columbia Museum.

--. 1992. Evaluating Land Use Tradeoffs: A Review of Selected Techniques. Environments 21(3): 53-63.

--. 1998. Forest Land Use and Public Policy in British Columbia: The Dynamics of Change. Environments 25 (2 and 3): 8-14.

Gunton, Thomas I., and D. Duffy, eds. 1992. Sustainable Management of Public Land: The Canadian Experience. Environments 21(3).

Gunton, Thomas I., and C. Fletcher. 1992. An Overview: Sustainable Development and Crown Land Planning. Environments 21(3): 1-4.

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

Gunton, Thomas I., and J.C. Day. 2003. Theory and Practice of Collaborative Planning in Resource Management. Environments 31(2): 5-19.

Gunton, Thomas I., J.C. Day, and Peter W. Williams. 2003. Collaborative Planning and Sustainable Resource Management: The North American Experience. Environments 31(2): 1-4.

Gunton, T.I. and I. Vertinsky. 1990a. Reforming the Decision Making Process for Forest Land Planning in British Columbia. Final Report for the B.C. Forest Resource Commission, Victoria, B.C.

Gunton, T.I. and I. Vertinsky. 1990b. Methods of Analysis for Forest Land Allocation in British Columbia. Final Report for the B.C. Forest Resource Commission, Victoria, B.C.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4): 412-423.

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.

Litke, Steve, and J.C. Day. 1998. Building Local Capacity for Stewardship and Sustainability: The Role of Community-Based Watershed Assessment in Chilliwack, British Columbia. Environments 25 (2 & 3): 91-109.

Margerum, R.D. 1999. Getting Past Yes: From Capital Creation to Action. American Planning Association Journal 56(2): 81-191.

M'Gonigle, M., Thomas I. Gunton, Chris Fletcher, Murdoch McAllister, and Doug MacKnight. 1992. Comprehensive Wilderness Protection in British Columbia: An Economic Impact Assessment. Forestry Chronicle 68(3): 357-364.

M'Gonigle, M., Thomas I. Gunton, K. Brenneis, J. Campfens, J. Fox, W. Clissold-Hoyle, T. Makinen, J. Nyboer, C. Rankin, E. Van Osch, and M. Valenius. 1990. "Crown Land Use Planning: A Model For Reform," pp. 35-46. Law Reform for Sustainable Development in British Columbia, ed. Calvin Sandborn. Vancouver: Canadian Bar Association.

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.

Moote, Margaret A., Mitchel P. McClaran, and Donna K. Chickering. 1997. Theory in Practice: Applying Participatory Democracy Theory to Land Use Planning. Environmental Management 21(6): 877-889.

Tamblyn, Gregory C., and J.C. Day. 1999. Land and Resource Management Planning: The Kamloops Experience. Environments 25(4): 16-38.

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

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.

Williams, Peter, W., Robert Penrose, and Suzanne Hawkes. 1998. Tourism Industry Perspectives on the Cariboo-Chilcotin CORE Process: Shared Decision Making?. Environments 25(2 and 3): 48-64.

Wilson, Anne, Mark Roseland, and J.C. Day. 1996. Shared Decision Making and Public Land Planning: An Evaluation of the Vancouver Island Regional CORE Process. Environments 23(2): 69-85.

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

Thomas Gunton is an associate professor and former director of the School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. He held numerous senior positions 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 or by email at tgunton@shaw.ca.

Chad Day is the founding director and adjunct professor of the School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC. His research focuses on institutions for integrated land and water management and environmental planning. He can be reached through the School or by email at jday@sfu.ca.

Peter Williams is a professor in the School of Resource and Environmental Management (REM) at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, and Director of the University's Centre for Tourism Policy and Research. His research relates to the use of land and resources for sustainable tourism. He can be reached through the School or by email at peterw@sfu.ca.