Abstract
This paper assesses civil society participation in collaborative
planning by completing a comprehensive survey of participants in a
collaborative land use planning process in British Columbia, Canada.
Participant responses are assessed against 25 evaluative criteria to
determine strengths and weaknesses of collaborative processes for civil
society stakeholders. The results show that the greatest barriers for
civil society stakeholders are commitments of time and financial
resources that are required for effective participation, and the power
imbalances that exist among stakeholders. Despite these and other
barriers faced by less empowered stakeholders, the research suggests
that involvement in collaborative planning is an effective strategy for
civil society provided that the limitations of the process are
understood and participants prepare themselves accordingly.
On fait dans cet article une evaluation de la participation de la
societe civile a la planification concertee en completant une enquete
exhaustive aupres des participants au processus de planification en
matiere d'utilisation des terres en Colombie-Britannique, au
Canada. Les reponses des participants sont evaluees au moyen de 25
criteres afin d'etablir les forces et les faiblesses des processus
de planification concertee touchant les intervenants des societes
civiles. Les resultats demontrent que les obstacles les plus importants
auxquels ceux-ci font face sont le manque d'engagement en termes de
temps et de ressources financieres necessaires pour assurer une
participation efficace, de meme que les desequilibres en matiere de
pouvoir qui existent entre les intervenants. Malgre ces obstacles, ainsi
que certains autres, auxquels font face les intervenants ayant moins de
pouvoirs, l'etude donne a penser que la participation a la
planification concertee est une strategie efficace pour la societe
civile, a condition que l'on en reconnaisse les limites et que les
participants y soient prepares en consequence.
Key Terms
Civil society; collaborative planning; environmental dispute
resolution; public participation
Introduction
Canadian government institutions that manage natural resources face
a fundamental dilemma. On the one hand, the challenge is often to
encourage private investment, foster economic growth, and provide jobs.
On the other hand, government institutions must uphold their reputation
as guardians of public goods, such as Crown lands. The dilemma is to
find a planning approach that balances the seemingly disparate goals of
environmental protection and resource development.
An approach that attempts to achieve this balance is called
collaborative planning (CP). In CP, responsibility for planning is
delegated from government institutions to stakeholders who engage in
face-to-face negotiation to meet the mutual interests of all
participants and develop plans by consensus. Advocates of CP cite
numerous benefits over other planning models. These include: increased
ability to develop and implement plans that reflect the public interest;
and, creation of social capital benefits such as improved stakeholder
relations and knowledge that foster better overall community
development.
One underlying assumption of CP is a balance of power among
stakeholder groups to ensure that all relevant interests are adequately
represented in the process. A concern is that if some stakeholders--such
as community groups--have fewer resources to participate in CP, stronger
stakeholders can dominate the process and bias outcomes. Although the
issue of power imbalance has been raised, it has not been subject to a
comprehensive empirical evaluation to determine its impact on CP
performance.
The purpose of this paper is to help fill this void in the
literature by reporting results of a comprehensive evaluation of
participation in CP by the volunteer community sector, or civil society.
The analysis is based on an evaluation of the land use planning process
in British Columbia (B.C.), Canada. The paper begins with an overview of
CP and the role of civil society, followed by a discussion of the
methodology. Results are then reported and implications of findings for
the participation of civil society in CP are analyzed.
Civil Society
Civil society has been broadly defined as the group of people
between the State and the Market, and is often referred to as the
'third sector' (Dempster 2001). O'Connell (1999: 11)
describes civil society as a balance between the rights of individuals
and their "responsibilities as citizens to maintain those
rights". Political science literature is abundant with research
papers examining not only the role of civil society in modern
governance, but more fundamentally, its meaning. Like the ongoing
discourse over sustainable development, civil society is a concept that
has come to mean many things to many people. Despite the confusion,
civil society is important not only because of the multitude of
nonprofit and volunteer organizations that exist and provide essential
services, but also because of the role that these groups play in shaping
society.
Salamon (1996) contends that the third sector has always provided
public services, even before many governments services existed.
Elizabeth May, president of the Sierra Club of Canada, contends that
"Non-Government organizations, or civil society, have played a
large and significant role in the sustainable development agenda since
its inception" (May 2002: par.1). Accordingly, civil society
stakeholders have an important role to play in land use planning because
of the values that they represent, and the roles that they can fulfil.
For the purposes of this paper, civil society is broadly defined as
the stakeholders in land use planning who do not represent government or
corporations. These stakeholders are not professional natural resource
managers, nor do they have any direct pecuniary interest in resource
management decisions.
Collaborative Planning
A major component of planning for sustainability entails resolving
conflicts over natural resources. Efforts to resolve such conflicts can
be difficult, involve much political drama, and in some cases lead to
impasse (Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000). Natural resource managers have
increasingly turned to collaboration as a method of addressing and
balancing the numerous interests in land use planning and moving beyond
impasse (Dukes and Firehoc 2001). Collaboration is defined as a
"process through which parties who see different aspects of a
problem can constructively explore their differences and search for
solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is
possible" (Gray 1989: 5). The parties that have a common interest
in a particular issue are called stakeholders (Gray 1989).
Collaborative planning is defined as a "collective process for
resolving conflicts and advancing shared visions involving a set of
diverse stakeholders" (Carr et al. 1998: 768). In collaborative
planning, stakeholders become involved in tackling contentious natural
resource issues together. By identifying and developing common goals,
stakeholders can create practical solutions through consensus
(Wondolleck 1988; Yaffee and Wondolleck 1995; Wondolleck et al. 1996;
Wondolleck 1998a, 1998b; Wondolleck and Ryan 1999; Wondolleck and Yaffee
2000). Such collaborative processes usually result in solutions that
better reflect the public interest by seeking a consensus-based solution
that meets the goals of all stakeholders. Plans developed by CP are more
likely to be successfully implemented because stakeholders, who can
otherwise impede implementation, are more likely to support
implementation because they were involved in the process to develop the
plan. CP can also generate additional benefits such as improved
stakeholder relationships, stakeholder skills, and knowledge. These
benefits, which are sometimes referred to as "social capital"
increase community capacity to solve other problems. While some planning
theorists espouse the benefits of collaboration, others caution against
promoting the approach as a panacea (Amy 1987; Gray 1989; Gunton and
Flynn 1992; Caton Campbell and Floyd 1996). Gunton, and Day (2003), for
example, list potential challenges to CP including logistical issues
such as time and cost of managing diverse stakeholder groups,
difficulties in reaching consensus for the large proportion of issues
involving value differences, second best solutions based on vague
compromises, and inequalities in power between stakeholder groups that
impede effective representation. Moreover, achieving the benefits of CP
has been seen as contingent upon effective representation of all
stakeholder interests in the planning process. Disagreement on the
benefits and challenges inherent in collaborative planning highlights
the need to study these types of processes comprehensively and
systematically.
CP provides special challenges for civil society stakeholders. On
the one hand, CP provides them with the opportunity to participate
directly in the design of the process and the development of the plan.
Consensus-based decision making provides these stakeholders with power
to ensure that the plan meets their interests and objectives through
face-to-face negotiations with other parties. CP also enhances civil
society stakeholders' longer-term influence in policy development
by improving their knowledge, skills, and relationships with other
decision makers. As Gunton and Flynn (1992: 15) observe, CP "simply
opens up what is normally a backroom lobbying process to a broader array
of stakeholders subject to greater visibility and review."
On the other hand, the fewer resources that civil society
stakeholders have relative to government and corporate stakeholders can
undermine their effectiveness in two ways (Gunton and Flynn 1992; Gunton
and Day 2003). First, initiation of CP is contingent on all parties
being motivated to negotiate in good faith. Those parties with greater
power can have higher BATNAs (best alternative to a negotiated
agreement) that remove their incentive to participate in good faith in
CP. Stronger stakeholders can undermine CP by using delaying tactics or
alternative means to meet their objectives if they do not like the
outcome. Even if stakeholders that are more powerful are motivated to
participate, their superior resources and skills can allow them to
dominate the process, bias the outcome, and overwhelm the civil society
stakeholders.
Lack of resources and weak organizational structure also contribute
to the "two table" problem wherein civil society stakeholders
do not have the time and resources to effectively participate
simultaneously in both a CP table and their own constituency table,
which is necessary to ensure accountability to their members (Gray 1989;
Caton Campbell and Floyd 1996). Finally, participation in CP has an
opportunity cost that reduces civil society stakeholders' resources
for participating in other activities in order to further their
interests such as political lobbying, legal challenges, and public
education. Overall, CP has potential advantages and disadvantages for
these stakeholders that must be carefully weighed to determine effective
strategies. These advantages and disadvantages will now be assessed
based on the evaluation of land use planning in British Columbia.
Collaborative Planning in B.C.
Land use planning in British Columbia has been dominated by
conflict between the goals of environmental protection and resource
extraction. Managing land use is considered integral to sustainability
(Gunton and Fletcher 1992). For most of B.C.'s recent history, the
Ministry of Forests (MOF) solely managed all Crown lands in the province
and focused primarily on timber production (Williams et al. 1998; Bryner
1999). Although some attempts were made by the provincial government to
include other agencies and the public in land use planning, the MOF
dominated processes until the 1990s (Gunton and Fletcher 1992). Growing
frustration with being shut out of decisions on the use of public lands
led to protests and blockades by environmentalists in old growth forest
areas of the province.
In response to environmental conflicts, British Columbia instituted
a new CP process to develop resource management plans for the provincial
land base with the creation of the Commission for Resources and the
Environment (CORE) in 1992. CORE was charged with the responsibility to
develop and implement a new CP process for the province and to use this
new process--which CORE referred to as shared decision making (SDM)--to
develop plans for the four most contentious regions of B.C. Concurrent
with CORE's activities was the development of the Land and Resource
Management Planning process (LRMP) to develop plans for the remaining
regions in B.C. using the same collaborative approach.
The CP process implemented by B.C. is described in detail elsewhere
(Day et al. 2003). In short, the process involved delegating
responsibility for preparing regional resource and land use plans to
stakeholders from government, the private sector, and civil society.
These stakeholders engage in face-to-face consensus-based negotiations
to reach agreement on a recommended plan that is submitted to the
provincial government for approval. To date, four CORE plans and fifteen
LRMP plans have been completed covering 73% of the provincial land base.
The plans took on average four years to complete. Fourteen of the plans
were reached by full consensus or consensus minus one. Six LRMPs are
currently underway. The completed plans resulted in significant changes
in land use across the province. 'General' and
'enhanced' resource extraction zones decreased from 92% to
68%. Conversely, 'protected areas' increased from
approximately 6% to 13% of the provincial land base, and 'special
management zones', which provide enhanced environmental protection,
increased from 0% to 16% (Day et al. 2003).
Method
The method for evaluating the role of civil society stakeholders in
the B.C. collaborative land use planning process is based on an
integration of several evaluative frameworks proposed in the literature.
These include Cormick et al. (1996), Moote et al. (1997), Innes and
Booher (1999), and Wondolleck and Yaffee (2000). Details on the method
used for the study can be found in Frame et al. (2002). The steps in the
method are as follows:
1. Establish evaluative criteria based on a literature review.
2. Document key elements of the planning process by reviewing all
relevant planning documents.
3. Develop and administer a survey of stakeholders to evaluate the
process relative to criteria
4. Disaggregate survey results into civil society and noncivil
society stakeholders
5. Analyse results
Twenty-five evaluative criteria were synthesized from the following
collaborative planning literature: Innes and Booher (1999); Cormick et
al. (1996); Moote et al. (1997); Caton Campbell and Floyd (1996); Harter
(1997); Menkel-Meadow (1997); Susskind and McMahon (1985); Gray (1989);
Williams et al. (1998); Duffy et al. (1996). The two main categories of
evaluative criteria are: (1) process and (2) outcome. Fourteen process
criteria and eleven outcome criteria were used (Tables 1 and 2). For
each criterion, one or more questions were developed to assess the
degree to which the criterion was met based on the perceptions of
participants obtained through a survey. In total, twenty questions were
used to test the eleven outcome criteria and forty-six to test the
fourteen process criteria. Questions were designed as statements
requesting responses on a four-point scale of agreement or disagreement
(strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree), or not applicable.
A score for each question was then calculated by applying a weight to
the four-point scale responses based on the following ranking: strongly
agree = 2, agree = 1, disagree = minus 1, and strongly disagree = minus
2. Where a question was phrased negatively, scores were inverted to
ensure comparability of the result with positively worded questions.
Averages for all the questions were then calculated for each criterion
to produce an overall rating by criterion.
The survey was pretested and then sent by mail or email in the
Spring of 2002 to participants in the seventeen Land and Resource
Management Planning (LRMP) processes that were conducted between 1995
and 2002 (Frame et al. 2002). Follow-up reminder notices were sent to
participants from whom responses had not been received two weeks after
the due date for returning the survey. Responses were received from 260
of the 792 participants identified, for a response rate of 32.83%. The
confidence interval for the results of the survey were +/-2.98%, 95% of
the time.
In order to examine differences in opinions among types of
stakeholders in the LRMP processes, the 260 responses were categorized
into two groups: Civil society stakeholders and other stakeholders.
Civil society stakeholders were defined as nongovernmental stakeholders
and noncorporate stakeholders who have no direct pecuniary interest in
planning outcomes. For the most part, civil society stakeholders were
comprised of those identifying themselves as belonging to conservation
and community nongovernment organizations. A comparison of these and
other stakeholders is provided in Table 3. Based on this definition, 75
responses were classified as civil society stakeholders and 185
responses as other stakeholders.
Results
Survey results for civil society stakeholders are summarized in
Table 4, which records process criteria results and Table 5, which
records outcome criteria results. Scores for each criterion were
calculated by averaging the numerical scores for each of the statements.
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 it is not satisfied; and, if is between 0.50 and -0.50 the
criterion is considered to have been only partially satisfied. Although
all fourteen process criteria were met to some degree, the results show
that the following five of the fourteen process criteria were only
partially met: equal opportunity and resources; accountability;
high-quality information; time limits; and, commitment to implementation
and monitoring (Table 4).
Analysis of whether the process provided equal opportunity to all
stakeholders was based on five of the questions. A majority of
respondents agreed that they had received sufficient training. However,
the majority also agreed that there was insufficient funding to support
participants, inequalities among stakeholders' influence, and an
inability of the process to reduce power imbalances. Surprisingly, there
was strong agreement that despite these inequities, each stakeholder was
able to make a difference in the outcomes. Accountability was divided
into two types: accountability of stakeholders to their own constituency
and accountability to the public. Civil society stakeholders strongly
agreed that they were accountable to their constituencies. This suggests
that they were able to overcome the "two table" problem of
participating effectively in their own constituency table and the
broader LRMP table. However, civil society stakeholders did not agree
that the process was accountable to the broader public. The other
process criteria that were only partially met include high-quality
information, time limits, and implementation. While there was strong
support for techniques such as biophysical overlay techniques used to
analyse spatial information, only a small majority agreed that enough
high-quality information about the plan area was available in the
process. A small majority of respondents agreed that time limits for
completing the process were unrealistic and that the process did not
develop a clear plan for implementation. All eleven of the outcome
criteria were either met (eight) or partially met (three criteria). The
key outcome criterion that was met was the ability to reach an
agreement. As stated, fourteen of the nineteen processes resulted in a
consensus agreement (defined as full consensus of consensus minus one)
and the five remaining processes created the conditions for an eventual
agreement brokered by government. The processes were also very
successful in generating additional secondary, or social capital,
benefits including improved stakeholder knowledge and skills, improved
stakeholder relationships, and information.
The three outcome criteria that were only partially met include:
perceived as successful, reduction in conflict, and second-round
initiatives (Table 5). Four questions were used to test whether the
agreement was perceived as successful. A majority of respondents agreed
with the statements that the process was a success and that the process
was a positive experience. However, disagreement with the outcome is not
necessarily a deficiency of the process. Almost all stakeholders
formally agreed with the approval of the plans in the consensus-based
process. The lack of agreement that the plan met the objectives of the
individual constituency represented by the stakeholder is therefore more
likely an indicator of the inevitable compromises that must be made in
any negotiation process. Clearly, no group is able to meet all of its
objectives. This finding reveals an important qualification: consensus
agreements with the outcome should not be interpreted as full
stakeholder support.
A third outcome criterion not met was reduction of conflict.
Slightly less than one-half of civil society stakeholders agreed that
conflict was reduced as a result of the process. There was no difference
in responses between them and other stakeholders to this question. The
low agreement that conflict was reduced is likely due to the fact that
LRMPs are strategic plans that deferred a large number of contentious
resource management issues to a subsequent, more detailed, planning
process. A fourth outcome criterion, only partially satisfied, was the
issue of second-round initiatives. Respondents only partially agreed
that they had witnessed changes in behaviors and new partnerships as a
result of the process. However, these are difficult factors to assess
and may only be manifest years after a process has concluded.
Table 6 summarizes differences between civil society stakeholders
and other respondents in the survey. Differences in the average
responses for each question were defined based on a t-test at a 95%
confidence level. Equal variance in responses for these stakeholders and
other respondents were assumed for all t-tests. The results show a
remarkable agreement in responses between them and other stakeholders,
with no statistically significant differences in 66 out of 71 questions
used in the survey. The five questions where there was a difference are
as follows. Civil society stakeholders agreed more strongly than other
stakeholders that consensus-based decision making is an effective way of
planning, that the public should be involved in resource planning, that
the LRMP process was the best way of developing a land use plan, that
they had been involved in the design of the process, and that there was
inadequate funding for stakeholder participation (Table 6).
Implications of Findings for Civil Society Participation in
Collaborative Planning
What are the implications of the findings from this study for the
arguments for and against civil society stakeholder participation in
collaborative planning? First, the findings confirm that CP provides
important opportunities for civil society to affect resource and
environmental decisions. Civil society stakeholders agreed that they
were able to affect the outcomes and the design of the planning process
and a majority agreed that the process was a success and achieved the
public interest. Second, the findings confirm that there are significant
social capital benefits to the participation of civil society
stakeholders in CP--including improved knowledge, skills, and
relationships with other stakeholders--that ultimately enhance the role
of civil society stakeholders in other facets of resource and
environmental management beyond the specific preparation of an LRMP.
Third, these stakeholders were able to overcome the "two
table" problem of participating in a multistakeholder land use
table and their own constituency table. There was strong agreement from
them that they were able to obtain direction and were accountable to
their own organizations. Fourth, the findings confirm that these
stakeholders face a greater handicap in resources to participate in CP
than other stakeholders. Interestingly, inferior resources do not seem
to reduce civil society effectiveness in cooperative planning. Civil
society stakeholders felt that they had more influence than other
stakeholders on the design of the planning process and just as much
influence on the outcomes. Further, they were also as satisfied as other
stakeholders with the outcomes of the process. This conclusion of the
benefits to civil society participating in collaborative planning is
further shown by stronger support from these stakeholders than from
other stakeholders for CP processes and their overwhelming agreement
that they would participate in a similar process again.
But while the results support civil society stakeholder
participation in CP, several qualifications should be noted. One
qualification is that participation in CP should be viewed as a
complement, and not an alternative, to other means to meet the
objectives of civil society. The initiation of the CP process in B.C.
was contingent on effective lobbying by civil society stakeholders in
support of forest product export bans and antilogging blockades, which
were necessary to convince the resource sector to participate in good
faith (Gunton 1998).
A second qualification is that civil society stakeholders have a
significant handicap in terms of time and resources relative to other CP
stakeholders. Simply put, stakeholders from civil society do not always
have the capacity to participate. Clearly, sponsors of collaborative
processes must ensure that these barriers are removed.
The basic caveat for participants from civil society who are
considering involvement in collaborative planning processes seems to be
"know what you're getting into." This may seem like a
straightforward recommendation, but it is worth emphasizing. Therefore,
a checklist of conditions that should be in place before getting
involved could be a useful tool for civil society. This checklist
approach does not dissuade participation, particularly if the checklist
of conditions is something that participants can affect in the process
design phase of a planning process. Understanding the demands that civil
society will face in collaborative planning processes will allow such
stakeholders to better manage their own resources, budgets, and staffs.
For civil society stakeholders and designers of collaborative processes
who wish to enhance participation of civil society, the checklist
outlined in Table 7 should be considered carefully.
Limitations of the Research
This research has attempted to examine the participation of civil
society stakeholders in LRMP processes in British Columbia and uncover
barriers and lessons for these participants. While the results support
the principles and benefits of CP, this study only represents opinions
of those civil society stakeholders that participated in the land use
planning tables. Many other citizens were involved in some way, or
affected by the LRMP process, but were not able to participate due to
time or financial constraints. These people are not considered in this
study. Nor does this study examine the attitudes of organizations or
groups who purposely chose not to participate in such land use planning
processes, such as some larger NGOs that chose to effect change using
more traditional dispute resolution techniques. Many participants may
have concluded their participation in land use planning some years ago,
in processes that may have been conducted several years before the
survey that was administered in 2002. Perceptions of strengths and
weaknesses of the process are useful to retrospective studies. But this
research could be supplemented with further triangulation such as
personal interviews, case studies, or other qualitative analyses, as
well as further disaggregation of responses by type of civil society
stakeholders group and geographic location. In addition, research that
examines civil society organizations that have an interest in land use
planning but that did not participate in the LRMP processes would
greatly complement this study. This could confirm some of the barriers
and incentives to participation that may have been missed in this
survey.
Conclusion
Collaborative planning has emerged as an effective process for
resolving environmental conflicts and preparing management plans that
meet the public interest. The success of CP is contingent on the
effective participation of a broad array of stakeholders. This study has
examined the role of one key stakeholder group: civil society. The study
shows that while civil society stakeholders face special challenges when
participating in CP processes, the overall benefit-cost equation
strongly favors civil society involvement. This study suggests that
although civil society stakeholders did not perceive the processes to be
entirely equitable, they were just as supportive of the outcomes, and of
the process, as other stakeholders. The results show that if CP is well
designed, and efforts are made to mitigate the obstacles to civil
society involvement, collaborative planning can be an effective forum
for civil society to achieve its goals.
Table 3 A Comparison of Civil Society Stakeholders and Other
Stakeholders as Categorized in this Study
Civil Society * Other
Federal Government
Members of the Public
First Nations
Conservation Groups
(Environmental NGOs) Provincial Government
Tourism / Recreation Groups ** Local Government
Community Associations Forest Industry
Mining Industry
Energy Industry
Agricultural Industry
Fishing Industry
Tourism / Recreation Groups **
Hunting / Trapping / Guiding
Labor Groups ***
* The types of members relate closely to how participants
self-identified in the survey.
** Tourism/Recreation participants were categorized under the civil
group if their activities were considered nonconsumptive of natural
resources such as hiking, paddling, or under the other group if their
activities were consumptive in nature such as hunting. The rationale
for this division is that it is assumed that consumptive activities
relate more closely to those stakeholders with a direct financial
interest in the outcome of a process.
*** While labor groups could be categorized as part of civil society,
for this study they are included in the resource group since often they
represent workers involved in resource extraction
Table 4: Process Criteria Satisfied for the Civil Society Respondent
Group
Criteria
Score Satisfied Process Criteria
Yes Part
1.12 [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.
0.54 [check] 2. Inclusive Representation: All parties with
a significant interest in the issues and
outcome are involved throughout the process.
0.79 [check] 3. Commitment: The parties who are affected or
interested participate voluntarily and are
committed to the process.
0.72 [check] 4. Self-Design: The parties involved work
together to design the process to suit the
individual needs of that process and its
participants.
0.66 [check] 5. Clear Participant Roles and Ground Rules:
Clear terms of reference and ground rules are
to be established.
0.05 [check] 6. Equal Opportunity and Resources: The
process provides for equal and balanced
opportunity for effective participation of all
parties.
0.46 [check] 7. Principled Negotiation and Respect: The
process operates according to the conditions
of principled negotiation including mutual
respect, trust, and understanding.
0.31 [check] 8. Accountability: The process and its
participants are accountable to the broader
public, to their constituents, and to the
process itself.
0.57 [check] 9. Flexible, Adaptive, and Creative:
Flexibility is designed into the process to
allow for adaptation and creativity in problem
solving.
0.27 [check] 10. High-Quality Information: The process
incorporates high-quality information into
decision making.
0.16 [check] 11. Time Limits: Realistic milestones and
deadlines are established and managed
throughout the process.
0.11 [check] 12. Implementation and Monitoring: The process
and final agreement include clear commitments
to implementation and monitoring.
0.70 [check] 13. Effective Process Management: The process
is coordinated and managed effectively and in
a neutral manner.
0.93 [check] 14. Independent Facilitation: The process uses
an independent, trained facilitator throughout
the process.
Table 5: Outcome Criteria Satisfied for Civil Society Respondent Group
Criteria
Satisfied
Score Outcome Criteria
Yes Part
n.a. [check] 1. Agreement: The process reaches an agreement
0.25- [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..
-0.25 [check] 3. Conflict Reduced: The process and its
outcomes reduced conflict in the area regarding
the issues addressed.
0.60 [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.
0.62 [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.
1.32 [check] 6. Knowledge, Understanding, and Skills:
Stakeholders gained knowledge, understanding,
and skills by participating in the process.
0.87 [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.
0.80 [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, or 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.
0.24 [check] 9. Second-Round Initiatives: The process had
second-order effects including changes in
behaviours and actions, spin-off partnerships,
umbrella groups, collaborative activities, new
practices, or new institutions.
0.60 [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.
1.17 [check] 11. Understanding and Support of Shared
Decision Making: The process resulted in
increased understanding of, and stakeholders
support the future use of SDM approaches. In
future stakeholders are more likely to make
fewer unilateral decisions where collaboration
could be more effective.
Table 6: Most Significant Differences Between Mean Responses of
Respondent Groups Who Participated in LRMP Processes in B.C.: 1992-2002
Mean Response
Evaluative criteria and t Sig.
statements to test criteria Civil All
society Other
Process Criterion 4: Self-Design:
The parties involved work
together to design the process to
suit the individual needs of that 1.10 0.62 2.189 0.030
process and its participants. (n=63) (n=148)
I was involved in the design
of the LRMP process (i.e.
ground rules, roles,
procedures).
Process Criterion 6: Equal
Opportunity and Resources: The
process provides for equal and
balanced opportunity for -0.38 0.44 -3.467 0.001
effective participation of all (n=60) (n=159)
parties.
I had or received sufficient
funding to participate
effectively.
Outcome Criterion 4 - Superior
to Other Methods: The process
was superior to other planning
or decision methods in terms of 0.88 0.45 2.140 0.033
costs and benefits. (n=72) (n=179)
The LRMP process was the best
way of developing a land use
plan.
Outcome Criterion 11 -
Understanding and Support of
Shared Decision-Making
Approaches: The process resulted
in increased understanding of,
and participants support the 0.90 0.44 2.190 0.029
future use of, SDM approaches. (n=71) (n=181)
I believe that consensus-based
processes are an effective way
of making land and resource
use decisions.
Outcome Criterion 11 -
Understanding and Support of
Shared Decision-Making
Approaches: The process resulted 1.76 1.41 2.918 0.004
in increased understanding of, (n=74) (n=183)
and participant's support for the
future use of, SDM approaches.
The government should involve
the public in land and
resource use decisions.
Table 7: A checklist of special considerations for members of civil
society considering participation in collaborative processes
[square] 1. Does the collaborative process have a legitimate
purpose conducive to addressing the issues of the
participants?
[square] 2. Are all stakeholders adequately represented and is
the process inclusive?
[square] 3. Is the process open and voluntary?
[square] 4. Are all participants committed to making the process
work?
[square] 5. Are participants able to design the process
themselves?
[square] 6. Is there funding available that will adequately allow
participants to attend meetings and participate fully
in the process?
[square] 7. Can participants make the necessary time commitment
to a process that may be long and arduous?
[square] 8. Is there an opportunity to undertake the training
that may be required to participate effectively in
the process?
[square] 9. Are the time frames for the process realistic?
[square] 10. Will the process develop a clear strategy for
implementing the agreement?
[square] 11. Does the process have adequate facilitation and
support staff?
[square] 12. Will recommendations from the process be adopted?
[square] 13. Is there a strong government commitment to the
process?
[square] 14. Does the process make decisions by consensus?
References
Amy, Douglas J. 1987. The Politics of Environmental Mediation. New
York: Columbia University Press.
Bryner, Gary. 1999. Balancing Preservation and Logging: Public
Lands Policy in British Columbia and the Western United States Policy
Studies Journal 27(2): 307-327.
Carr, Deborah. S., Steven. W. Selin, and Michael. A. Schuett. 1998.
Managing Public Forests: Understanding the Role of Collaborative
Planning Environmental Management 22(5): 767-776.
Caton Campbell, Maria, and Donald W. Floyd. 1996. Thinking
Critically About Environmental Mediation Journal of Planning Literature
10(3): 235-247.
Cormick, Gerald W., and National Round Table on the Environment and
the Economy (Canada). 1996. Building Consensus for a Sustainable Future:
Putting Principles Into Practice. Ottawa: National Round Table on the
Environment and the Economy. Day, J.C., Thomas I. Gunton, and Tanis
Frame. 2003. Toward Environmental Sustainability in British Columbia:
The Role of Shared Decision Making. Environments 31(2): 21-38.
Dempster, Beth 2001. Some Reflections on Civics and Civil Society
as Grounding for Urban Environmental Management. Environments 29(1):
123-162.
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.
Dukes, E. Franklin, and Karen Firehoc. 2001. Collaboration: A Guide
for Environmental Advocates. Institute for Environmental Negotiation,
University of Virginia.
. [Accessed
on: March 3, 2003]
Frame, Tanis M. 2002. Shared Decision Making And Sustainability: An
Evaluation Of Land And Resource Management Planning In British Columbia.
MRM Report No. 296. Burnaby, B.C.: School of Resource and Environmental
Management, Simon Fraser University.
Frame, Tanis M., J.C. Day, and Thomas I. Gunton. 2002. Strategic
Land Use Planning for Sustainable Resource Management--An Evaluation of
the Land and Resource Management Planning Process in British Columbia.
Burnaby, B.C.: School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon
Fraser University.
Gray, Barbara. 1989. Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for
Multiparty Problems, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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., 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
Conflict : The Role of Mediation and Negotiation. Environments 21(3):
12-16.
Gunton, Thomas I. 1998. Forestry Land Use Policy in British
Columbia : The Dynamics of Change. Environments 25(2/3): 8-13.
Harter, Philip J. 1997. Fear of Commitment: An Affliction of
Adolescents. Duke Law 46: 1389-1428.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999a. Consensus Building
and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative
Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(4): 412-423.
Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999b. Consensus Building as
Role Playing and Bricolage: Toward a Theory of Collaborative Planning.
Journal of the American Planning Association 65(1): 9-38.
May, Elizabeth. 2002. The Role of Civil Society: Pre and Post Rio.
Government of Canada: Canada at the WSSD, National Report Process
Website: . [Accessed on: November 8, 2002].
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1997. When Dispute Resolution Begets
Disputes of its Own: Conflicts Among Dispute Professionals. UCLA Law
Review 44: 1871-1933.
Moote, M.A., M.P. McClaran, and D. Chickering. 1997. Application of
Participatory Democracy Theory to Public Land Planning: A Case Study.
Environmental Management 21: 877-889.
O'Connell, Brian. 1999. Civil Society: The Underpinnings of
American Democracy. Hanover, N.H: University Press of New England.
Salamon, Lester M. 1996. The Crisis of the Nonprofit Sector and the
Challenge of Renewal. National Civic Review 85(4) Winter: 3-16.
Susskind, Lawrence, and Gerard McMahon. 1985. The Theory and
Practice of Negotiated Rulemaking. Yale Journal on Regulation 3:
133-165.
Williams, Peter W., J.C. Day, and Thomas I. Gunton 1998. Land and
Water Planning in B.C. in the 1990s: Lessons on More Inclusive
Approaches. Environments 25(2/3): 1-7.
Wondolleck, J. M. 1998a. Beyond NIMBY: Hazardous Waste Siting in
Canada and the United States. Society & Natural Resources 11(1):
91-96.
--. 1998b. Democratic Dilemmas in the Age of Ecology: Trees and
Toxics in the American West. Society & Natural Resources 11(1):
91-96.
Wondolleck, J. M., N. J. Manring, and J. E. Crowfoot. 1996.
Teetering at the Top of the Ladder: The Experience of Citizen Group
Participants in Alternative Dispute Resolution Processes. Sociological
Perspectives 39(2): 249-262.
Wondolleck, J. M., and C. M. Ryan. 1999. What Hat Do I Wear Now?:
An Examination of Agency Roles in Collaborative Processes. Negotiation
Journal-On the Process of Dispute Settlement 15(2) Apr: 117-133.
Wondolleck, Julia Marie. 1988. Public Lands Conflict and
Resolution: Managing National Forest Disputes. New York: Plenum Press.
Wondolleck, Julia Marie, and Steven Lewis Yaffee. 2000. Making
Collaboration Work: Lessons from Innovation in Natural Resource
Management. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.
Yaffee, S.L., and J.M. Wondolleck. 1995. Building Knowledge Pools
and Relationsheds at the Forest Ecosystem Level. Journal of Forestry
93(5) May: 68-68.
RELATED ARTICLE: Table 1 Criteria Used to Evaluate Collaborative
Planning Processes
Process Criteria and Explanation
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.
2. Inclusive Representation: All parties with a significant
interest in the issues and outcome are involved throughout the process.
3. Commitment: Affected or interested parties participate
voluntarily and are committed to the process.
4. Self-Design: The parties work together to design a process to
suit the individual needs of its participants.
5. Clear Participant Roles and Ground Rules: Clear terms of
reference and ground rules are established.
6. Equal Opportunity and Resources: The process provides for equal
and balanced opportunity for effective participation of all parties.
7. Principled Negotiation and Respect: The process operates
according to the conditions of principled negotiation including mutual
respect, trust, and understanding.
8. Accountability: The process and its participants are accountable
to the broader public, to their constituents, and to the process itself.
9. Flexible, Adaptive, and Creative: Flexibility is designed into
the process to allow for adaptation and creativity in problem solving.
10. High-Quality Information: The process incorporates high-quality
information into decision making.
11. Time Limits: Realistic milestones and deadlines are established
and managed throughout the process.
12. Implementation and Monitoring: The process and final agreement
include clear commitments to implementation and monitoring.
13. Effective Process Management: The process is coordinated and
managed effectivel