Abstract
This paper examines the degree to which shared decision making
(SDM) principles, guidelines, and outcomes were realized in British
Columbia's land and resource management plans (LRMPs) from the
perspective of tourism respondents who participated in these LRMP
processes. The findings suggest that tourism stakeholders are generally
satisfied with how SDM mechanisms helped shape the LRMP outcomes. They
also identify areas where SDM processes could be strengthened in order
to generate more positive and lasting results for the tourism industry.
To address these weaknesses, the paper recommends that future SDM
processes provide increased financial support for stakeholder
participation, address inequities in opportunities for stakeholder
participation; and conduct more training for process participants.
Les auteurs de cet article etudient la mesure dans laquelle les
principes, les directives et les resultats en matiere de prise de
decision par consensus ont ete suivis et atteints dans le cadre des
plans de gestion des terres et des ressources, du point de vue des
repondants du milieu touristique ayant participe a ces processus. Les
resultats donnent a penser que les participants dans le domaine
touristique sont, en general, satisfaits de la maniere dont les
mecanismes de prise de decision par consensus ont contribue aux
resultats des plans de gestion des terres et des ressources. Ils
degagent egalement les domaines ou les processus de prise de decision
par consensus pourraient etre renforces dans le but d'en arriver a
des resultats plus positifs et permanents pour l'industrie du
tourisme. Pour s'attaquer a ces faiblesses, les auteurs de
l'article recommandent que les processus de prise de decision par
consensus a venir prevoient un soutien financier accru pour la
participation des intervenants, traitent des inegalites en matiere de
possibilites de participation pour les intervenants, et prevoient
davantage de formation pour les participants au processus.
Key Words
Tourism, shared decision making, land and resource management
planning, best practices, British Columbia
Introduction
Little doubt exists that British Columbia's tourism industry
is dependent on the province's Crown lands for its market appeal
and long-term sustainability. The province's motto "Splendour
Without Diminishment," its vehicle license plate slogan
"Beautiful British Columbia," and its well-established tourism
brand "Super, Natural British Columbia" all highlight the
importance that successive governments have attached to the
region's Crown lands as a backdrop for tourism activity. Comprised
of about 92 percent of the province's 95-million hectare landscape
(Canadian Forest Service 2001), these lands contain some of the
world's most majestic mountains, extensive forests, wildest rivers,
and outstanding biodiversity. In combination, these resources helped to
advantageously position British Columbia on the international tourism
stage.
Concurrently, these lands have traditionally been a source of
revenues and livelihood for communities and businesses engaged in
forestry, mining, oil and gas development, power generation, fisheries,
and agriculture. With an economy built by industries that depend on
secure access to natural resources, it is not surprising that integrated
land use planning in British Columbia is both challenging and critical.
Prior to the early 1990s, B.C.'s land use planning initiatives
were forest-centric in their emphasis. Primarily conducted by the
province's Ministry of Forests, planning focused on expanding
timber extraction opportunities for industry, almost to the exclusion of
other resource industries including tourism (Gunton 1991; Wilson 1995).
In the early 1990s, excluded stakeholders highlighted inequities in the
existing planning process and demanded a more inclusive approach
(Williams et al. 1998a). After much heated debate, B.C.'s
government instituted an innovative land planning program guided by
shared decision-making (SDM) principles (Kofinas and Griggs 1996; Day et
al. 2003). This more inclusive approach to planning was systematically
applied in the 1990s via two province-wide planning processes: the
Commission on Resources and Environment (CORE), and the Land and
Resource Management Planning (LRMP) process. These SDM processes were
designed to integrate the land use needs of all potential stakeholders.
The two programs offered unprecedented opportunities to incorporate
nontraditional resource use values into B.C.'s land planning
decisions. One stakeholder group with such values that seized the
opportunity to participate in these SDM programs was the backcountry
tourism sector. The perspectives of these tourism stakeholders
concerning SDM mechanisms and outcomes are the focus of this paper.
SDM in LRMP Planning Processes
SDM approaches to LRMP planning emphasized "the importance of
equal access to information and equal opportunity for input and scrutiny
of issues and concerns by all participants, thereby creating a
constructive environment for problem solving" (Duffy et al. 1996).
Facilitated participation, consensus building, collaboration,
interest-based negotiation, and mediation are SDM principles that are
designed to generate more inclusive, representative, and respectful
resolutions to disputes (Cormick et al. 1996, Susskind and Cruikshank
1987, Darling 1991, NRTEE 1993). While not suited to all situations, SDM
is appropriate in circumstances where conventional approaches to
conflict resolution have failed and alternative techniques are needed
(Bacow and Wheeler 1984, Gunton and Flynn 1992). Such situations are
often associated with land use disputes involving multistakeholder
interests and conflicts over natural resource allocations. Such disputes
were particularly prevalent in B.C. throughout the 1990s, and SDM
mechanisms were employed to address these conflicts in the context of
the province's CORE and LRMP initiatives. SDM mechanisms were
believed to be suited to creating process and planning outcomes that
were more creative and reflective of public interests. They were also
thought to be capable of increasing the planning capacities of the
participants (Frame 2002). (A more detailed summary of the principles
and guidelines associated with SDM processes as well as the potential
outcomes they may produce is provided in Tables 1 and 2). The extent to
which these are implemented in SDM processes, and subsequently provide
benefit, offer a useful basis for assessing the efficacy of such
procedures in land use planning situations.
B.C.'s Tourism Land and Natural Resource Needs
Tourism is strategically important to B.C. Over the past decade and
a half, it has been one of the largest and fastest growing sectors in
the B.C. economy. In 2001, tourism supported an estimated 112,000 jobs
and $9.2 billion in revenues (Meadfield 2002). These contributions were
spread throughout the province, providing needed economic
diversification to rural areas (BC MRSM 2001).
The foundation of B.C.'s tourism industry is the
province's spectacular beauty, landscapes, and natural resources.
Targeted promotional programs and unsolicited testimonials attest to the
importance that B.C.'s natural landscape plays in shaping
opportunities for tourism growth: "there is a dynamic at work in
B.C. that makes it unique not just in Canada but possibly in the world.
It has to do with the almost mystical allure of B.C.'s physical
environment" (Lonely Planet 2001 cited in Meadfield 2002). Scenic
viewscapes, intact wildlife habitats, pristine forested landscapes, and
unaltered shorelines are the core ingredients for many of the
province's outstanding adventure, cultural, and nature-based
tourism products. Without protection of these tourism resources, the
industry's sustained contribution to the province's welfare is
questionable. These circumstances reinforce the importance of
incorporating environmental and cultural tourism values into provincial
land use planning initiatives.
Past Tourism Land Use Planning Initiatives
Despite the perceived importance of tourism to the province's
economy, the industry's natural resource needs had not been
systematically incorporated into most land use planning initiatives.
Traditionally, government organizations had focused primarily on
marketing tourism, as opposed to developing the legislative capability
or technical systems needed to effectively integrate tourism resource
requirements into regional land use plans. As a consequence, restricted
land use access and limited crown land tenure possibilities stymied many
opportunities for backcountry tourism development in British Columbia
(Williams et al. 1998b).
More recently, as recognition of tourism's natural resource
requirements has grown, so has the need to incorporate the
industry's resource requirements into land use planning decisions.
This imperative has been reinforced by a diminishing provincial
dependence on natural resource extraction industries for economic
development (Gunton 1998), and the escalating demand for nature-based
tourism opportunities (Middleton 1998). As a consequence, many of the
province's recently completed LRMPs have included tourism values in
their management directives.
Research Focus and Method
This paper examines tourism stakeholder perspectives concerning the
application and outcomes associated with using SDM responses in the
development of British Columbia's LRMPs. Perspectives on these
issues were collected via a survey of respondents who participated in
LRMP processes undertaken between 1995 and 2002 (Frame 2002). Through
several targeted questions, the survey probed their views concerning: 1)
the degree to which SDM process principles and guidelines (Table 1) were
implemented during the LRMP initiatives; 2) the extent to which
potential SDM outcomes (Table 2) were realized via the LRMP processes;
and 3) those factors considered most critical to the success of SDM
processes.
Stakeholder responses to these questions were recorded on a
Likert-type scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 4=strongly agree.
Mean scores for responses to each question were tabulated. The greater
the mean value recorded, the more strongly the respondents agreed with
the statement examined. For reporting purposes mean scores were
interpreted as follows: 1-1.50= strong disagreement,
1.51-2.25=disagreement, 2.26-2.75=undecided, 2.76-3.50 =agreement,
3.50-4.00=strong agreement.
This paper describes the perspectives of the thirty-one tourism
stakeholders who participated in the survey. The collective viewpoints
of these stakeholders are then compared with the combined responses of
all other survey participants. Unless statistically significant
differences ([varies]=0.05) in the responses of tourism and nontourism
stakeholders are apparent based on Student t-tests, only the
perspectives of tourism stakeholders are described.
Findings
The following section is divided into four parts. First, an
overview is presented of the extent to which tourism values were
recognized in the province's completed LRMPs. Then, tourism
stakeholder perspectives are described concerning the extent to which
the SDM process principles and guidelines were applied in the LRMPs.
Third, their opinions are reported concerning the extent to which the
potential benefits associated with the use of SDM processes were
realized in the LRMPs. Finally, tourism stakeholder viewpoints are
identified concerning the most important factors influencing the success
of SDM processes.
LRMP Recognition of Tourism Values
As of March 2003, tourism stakeholders had engaged in twenty-one
LRMP processes throughout B.C. (B.C. LUCO 2003). These LRMPs provide
strategic management and resource allocation directives for over 80
percent of the province's Crown lands. Fourteen of them have been
approved by the government and are now being implemented. Tourism values
are incorporated to varying degrees in each of these LRMPs.
A tangible measure of the ability of SDM processes to incorporate
tourism values is reflected in the amount of LRMP land designated to
tourism use. LRMP lands most inclusive of tourism values are designated
as special management zones (SMZ) and protected area zones (PAZ). Table
3 highlights the percentage changes in PAZ and SMZ land use areas
designated for potential tourism use as a result of individual LRMP
decisions. The figures show that PAZ doubled from 5.6 percent to 12.5
percent of the province and new SMZ were created covering 16.4 percent
of the land base. The figures also reveal that while there are
substantial variations in the amount of land allocated for tourism use
within the LRMP regions, each planning process resulted in a significant
increase in areas available for tourism use. This suggests that SDM
processes were effective in integrating the perspectives of tourism
stakeholders into the LRMP processes.
Tourism Stakeholder Involvement in LRMP Processes
Tourism respondents' perspectives concerning their
participation in the province's LRMPs are described in this
section. In particular, results are given on their overriding reasons
for participating, and their viewpoints concerning how their involvement
influenced the planning processes employed. Their perspectives are
summarized in Table 4.
Motivations for Involvement
Tourism respondents indicated that they were participating in LRMP
processes because their constituency felt that it was the best way to
achieve their land-use goals. They suggested that they entered these
processes with clear goals in mind, and had a strong commitment to
making the processes work.
Planning Process Influences
Overall, the tourism respondents felt that their participation in
the process had made a difference in the outcomes of the LRMP(s). They
believed their involvement had helped shape the design of planning
processes. They claimed they were able to offer clear direction to the
process based on input derived from their constituencies. They also felt
that the planning processes used had helped them to effectively
communicate with, and gain support from, their constituencies on LRMP
planning matters (Table 4).
Despite these positive perspectives, they were less sure about
their ability to shape the ongoing activities of these SDM processes.
For instance they expressed uncertainty about: 1) the extent to which
the processes had provided them with the training needed to participate
effectively; as well as, 2) the degree to which the process mechanisms
had helped them be accountable to their constituency. While they felt
that they had not received the level of funding needed to fully
participate in the planning activities, this perspective was
statistically less pronounced ([varies]=0.05) than it was for nontourism
respondents (Table 4).
Integration of SDM Process Principles and Guidelines Into LRMPs
Tourism stakeholders expressed their views on whether or not
overriding SDM process principles and management guidelines were
integrated into LRMP planning procedures. This section describes their
opinions on the extent of such integration in terms of structural
dimensions such as process organization, process tools, and process
staffing as well as equity considerations related to inclusiveness and
power balance. Overall responses related to this assessment are
summarized in Table 5.
Structural Characteristics
Process Organization Tourism respondents' perspectives about
the integration of SDM organizational processes into LRMP procedures
were mixed. From a positive perspective, they suggested that the
processes offered: a focus on significant and timely issues for
resolution; deadlines for moving the process along; clear procedural
ground rules; enough flexibility to accommodate new information and
changes as needed; and, a clear notice of the government's
authority to impose a decision if consensus among the stakeholders was
not reached.
On a more negative note, they expressed greater ambivalence
concerning the presence of several other SDM organizational elements. In
particular, they were uncertain about the extent to which the
organization of the LRMP processes allowed participants to: collectively
identify and agree on goals and objectives for the LRMPs; establish
clear roles for the participants; and facilitate communication with the
general public.
Process Tools Several SDM process tools were developed to
facilitate the development of the province's LRMPs. For the most
part they were designed to provide the information needed by
stakeholders to make informed land and resource planning decisions.
Overall, tourism stakeholders were uncertain about the extent to which
these process tools provided the quality of information needed for
effective decision making. Those tools deemed to be especially useful to
the tourism stakeholders included overlay mapping technologies, and
multiple account procedures for evaluating land use options. In
contrast, respondents were uncertain about the strength of the
communication and negotiation tools available to participants.
Process Support Staff Tourism stakeholders agreed that the staff
provided to administer the development of their LRMPs were effective in
facilitating smooth running processes. They also believed that the
agency managing their planning processes acted neutrally and without
bias. This sentiment was particularly strong with respect to the role
facilitators played in these processes.
Equity Characteristics
Process Inclusiveness Tourism respondents agreed that the LRMP
processes ensured that all appropriate interests and values were
included at the LRMP planning tables. They also acknowledged that the
processes encouraged open communications as well as teamwork. However,
they were uncertain that all LRMP participants had a clear understanding
of the varying stakeholders' interests at the planning tables.
Process Power Balance Tourism respondents expressed ambivalence
concerning the extent to which the processes had been able to
effectively address potential power imbalances at the LRMP planning
tables. They agreed that the process staff acted in a neutral and
unbiased fashion. They also felt that the LRMP participants had
opportunities to adjust the process as needed. However, they were
ambivalent concerning how committed the LRMP participants were to making
the SDM process work. They felt that LRMP participants were still
primarily accountable to their constituents for the decisions they made.
Table 6 summarizes all responses related to this issue.
Tourism Perspectives on LRMP Process Outcomes
Tourism stakeholders were asked for their opinions concerning the
outcomes associated with participating in LRMP planning processes. In
particular, their views were examined regarding the extent to which the
processes produced satisfactory LRMP outcomes, helped reduce conflict,
as well as increased social capital and other beneficial second-order
effects. Table 7 summarizes their responses with respect to these
themes, which are discussed next.
Satisfaction with LRMP Outcomes
Tourism respondents reported several beneficial effects associated
with the use of LRMP processes (Table 7). Overall, they expressed clear
agreement that the processes used in the development of the LRMPs
provided the best way of developing such plans. More specifically they
felt that the LRMP procedures used: represented an effective method for
making land use decisions, generated creative ideas for action, and
served the public interest.
On a more personal level, they suggested that they their
involvement in the process was a positive experience and that they would
be willing to get involved in similar processes in future. They also
agreed that their organizations' needs had been better accommodated
through the LRMP processes than would have been the case under other
planning approaches.
Despite their positive views on the worth of the LRMP processes,
respondents were not convinced of the value of the end results
generated. On average, the tourism stakeholders expressed only marginal
agreement that the LRMP processes had been a success. In this regard,
they were undecided as to whether or not the processes had actually
provided: satisfactory LRMP outcomes, a clear strategy for plan
implementation, and a shared commitment to plan implementation. They
were even less certain that the resulting LRMPs had actually addressed
the specific concerns of the tourism industry.
Tourism stakeholder views on all of these outcomes were
statistically similar ([varies]=0.05) to the collective perspectives of
all other nontourism respondents in this study except with respect to
the worth of LRMP approaches in land use planning contexts. In that
case, tourism stakeholders were significantly more convinced
([varies]=0.05) that LRMP processes were the best way of developing such
land use plans (Table 7).
Conflict Reduction
Tourism respondents generally agreed that the processes employed in
the development of the LRMPs helped to reduce potential conflicts (Table
7). This agreement was strongest with respect to the role such processes
played in improving respondents' understanding of the interests of
other participants, and building better working relationships with other
LRMP members. They also felt that the processes helped to build stronger
relationships among other LRMP table members, as well as to change the
behaviors of some of these stakeholders. However, they were undecided as
to whether the processes had actually decreased conflict over land uses.
Social Capital and Second-Order Benefits
Beyond the direct outcomes generated through the use of LRMP
processes, the tourism stakeholders suggested several other indirect
effects associated with the application of these planning approaches
(Table 7). In particular, they felt that as a result of the processes
they had developed a stronger awareness of: their region, government
land use management responsibilities, and contacts important to
themselves and their constituents. They also agreed that the information
they had acquired would be of value to them and their tourism
organizations in the future. Indeed, they indicated that they had
already used some of this information for purposes beyond the LRMPs.
However, they were less certain about the existence of any spin-off
partnerships or new collaborative activities that had occurred as a
result of these processes.
SDM Success Factors
Based on their past involvement in LRMP planning programs, tourism
respondents reported their views on the importance of specific factors
in generating successful collaborative planning processes and outcomes.
In particular, the importance of various aspects of stakeholder
inclusion, process management, and process design was examined. Table 8
summarizes their responses.
Stakeholder Inclusion
Tourism respondents strongly agreed that several internally and
externally focused inclusion factors were important to the success of
SDM processes. From an internal decision making perspective, they rated
the inclusion of all relevant stakeholders, and the presence of mutual
respect and trust amongst these groups as being essential to the
ultimate success of SDM processes. They also felt that it was important
that participating groups have a clear understanding, not only of their
own interests, but also the interests of the other stakeholders. They
believed that developing such understanding was dependent on not only
all groups having access to high quality information, but also
possessing equal availability of support resources for data collection
and planning purposes. Tourism stakeholders placed significantly more
importance ([varies]=0.05) on the availability of such support resources
than did their non-tourism LRMP counterparts.
From an external support perspective, the tourism respondents felt
that ensuring the process was accountable and open to the public, as
well as to stakeholder constituents was imperative (Table 8). They felt
that a commitment to both the internal and external flow of information
and ideas was especially important the success of these processes.
Process Management
Tourism respondents were clear that having an effective management
process in place was critical to the success of SDM planning
initiatives. From their perspective, the management tools and mechanisms
needed to ensure success included: clear rules and procedures, a clearly
defined purpose and objectives, and a requirement for achieving
consensus agreements. They felt such processes worked best when there
were clearly defined timelines for reaching agreements, and the
alternatives of not doing so were clearly understood. They placed
significantly more importance ([varies]=0.05) than their nontourism
counterparts on the use of independent facilitators or mediator to
effectively manage such processes (Table 8).
Process Design
Tourism respondents firmly supported SDM processes that were
designed to ensure that the plans developed were implemented and
monitored. They also felt that it was very important to select
participants who were committed to making the SDM processes work. They
expressed significantly more agreement ([varies]=0.05) on the need for
this factor than their nontourism counterparts. Despite believing that
clear guidelines were needed for the management of such processes, they
also firmly felt that the process designs should be flexible and
adaptive, and based on voluntary participation.
Management Implications
The preceding findings reveal that tourism stakeholders were
generally satisfied with the way that SDM processes facilitated their
involvement in the development of British Columbia's LRMPs.
However, they also identified areas where these processes could be
strengthened to generate more positive and lasting results for tourism
stakeholders. Their suggestions are reflected in the following
recommendations.
* Increase Support for Stakeholder Participation For tourism
stakeholders to play ongoing and contributive roles in current and
future LRMP-related programs, they must receive greater support from
government agents. Such support might be provided not only in the form
of financial resources to subsidize participants for the time and energy
taken from normal business activities, but also in the form of high
quality technical and research support. Such support would provide the
incentive for stakeholders to participate more robustly in such decision
making processes.
* Increase Equity in Stakeholder Participation To address perceived
imbalances in the representation of tourism interests in LRMP processes,
ensure that this sector's representation is equivalent to that of
other resource sectors. As with forestry, the tourism industry has a
variety of stakeholder groups with distinct interests related to land
use as well as several areas of common concern. When selecting sector
representatives, process facilitators should include enough tourism
representatives to reflect the varying land use needs of this diverse
industry. Depending on the planning context, potential participants
might include stakeholders associated with urban, backcountry, cultural,
and nature-based tourism. Of course, decisions concerning the number of
tourism representatives to be included should be balanced with those
assigned to other interest groups. This approach would help to address
real and perceived power imbalances in LRMP planning.
* Provide More Training to Process Participants While the tourism
stakeholders supported the use of collaborative processes in LRMPs, they
were not necessarily satisfied with the outcomes that were produced for
their constituents. Being able to persuasively present the "tourism
case" in an SDM context requires considerable skill and high
quality information. More specialized training in communication, data
interpretation, problem solving, and negotiation would help tourism
stakeholders to more effectively shape the outcomes of LRMP processes.
* Encourage Stakeholder Participation in LRMP Implementation
Tourism stakeholders invested considerable time and energy in the
development of their LRMPs. Through this involvement they developed an
in-depth appreciation of the context and intent of their LRMP's
management directives. At the same time they expressed some skepticism
concerning the extent to which the directives established in LRMPs might
eventually be implemented. Resources should be provided to facilitate
the ongoing involvement of these tourism stakeholders in the
implementation and monitoring phases of such planning programs. In this
manner the legacy of ideas, perspectives, and intents--which
participants in the planning processes created--can be maintained and
consistently interpreted during the LRMP implementation phases.
Conclusions
This research suggests that tourism stakeholders believe SDM
principles and guidelines have been incorporated into LRMP processes,
and that this is generating a range of positive outcomes for the public
at large. They also feel that the growing inclusiveness of these
processes is opening the door for greater integration of tourism
interests and values in the outcomes produced. For instance, despite
having access to limited training, financial, and technical support,
these stakeholders convinced their respective LRMP planning tables to
designate an increased level of land and resources to tourism uses.
Tourism values are also more prominently reflected in the overriding
management directives that drive the long-term implementation of many
LRMPs.
As a result of these recent land use triumphs, and the unfavorable
outcomes for tourism associated with previous planning approaches, it is
not surprising that tourism stakeholders believe that engagement in
these SDM driven processes is "the best way to go." Indeed,
tourism stakeholders express optimism for the outcomes these processes
can create and a real interest in participating in future endeavors of
this type.
Despite their stated commitment to making such processes work,
tourism stakeholders are generally not satisfied with the extent to
which the LRMP outcomes to date have met the needs of their
constituents. They express considerable ambivalence concerning how well
their voices are being heard and understood by their nontourism planning
counterparts. Consequently, they suggest that future SDM processes must
place added emphasis on creating mechanisms that heighten stakeholder
awareness and appreciation of their tourism values. Such mechanisms
involve creating communication systems that facilitate both internal and
external information sharing.
While SDM approaches are perceived to be a useful vehicle for
increasing the voice and influence of tourism interests in the
province's LRMP decisions, many tourism respondents are also
concerned that their hard-won, land-use management advances will not
necessarily be secure in subsequent implementation programs. They
express this concern in the reality of ongoing cutbacks in government
staff and resources allocated to managing the implementation of the
LRMPs. They are particularly concerned that, outside of these LRMPs, few
land use policy instruments exist that are capable of securing
tourism's ongoing presence on B.C.'s Crown lands. Many of them
feel the need for ongoing SDM processes that will ensure the integration
of tourism values in future implementation programs associated with
LRMPs.
Table 1 Summary of Potential SDM Process Principles and Guidelines
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: The parties who are affected or interested participate
voluntarily and are committed to the process
4. Self Design: The parties involved work together to design the
process to suit the individual needs of that process and its
participants
5. Clear Participant Roles and Ground Rules
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 effectively and in a neutral manner
14. Independent Facilitation: The process uses an independent trained
facilitator throughout the process
Adapted from Frame (2002).
Table 2 Summary of Potential SDM Outcomes
1. Perceived as Successful: Stakeholders are satisfied with outcomes
and view their involvement as positive
2. Agreement: The process reached a high-quality agreement that meets
the interests of, and is acceptable to, all stakeholders
3. Conflict Reduced: The process and its outcomes reduced conflict in
the area regarding the issues addressed
4. Superior to Other Methods: The process was superior to other
planning or decision methods in terms of costs and benefits
5. Creative and Innovative: The process produced creative ideas for
action. Innovative ideas were tested and learned
6. Knowledge, Understanding, and Skills: Stakeholders gained
knowledge, understanding, and skills by participating in the
process
7. Relationships and Social Capital: Stakeholders created new personal
and working relationships, and social capital among diverse
parties
8. Information: The process produced improved data, information, and
analyses through joint fact-finding that stakeholders understand
and accept as accurate
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
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
11. Understanding and Support: The process resulted in increased
understanding of, and stakeholders' support for, future SDM use
Adapted from Frame (2002).
Table 3. Change in Protected Area Zone and Special Management Zone
Designations in Completed LRMPs *
% BEFORE LRMP % AFTER LRMP
LRMP Protected Special Protected Special
Areas Mgmt Areas Mgmt
Zones Zones
Kamloops 18.7 N/A 22.6 18.9
OK/Shuswap 2.9 N/A 7.9 N/A
Dawson Creek 1.6 N/A 6.9 112.9
Ft. St. John 0.1 N/A 4.4 18.1
Mackenzie 3.4 N/A 14.0 38.8
Ft. Nelson 1.5 N/A 10.8 28.5
Robson Valley 15.3 N/A 20.2 25.3
Prince George 0.8 N/A 8.4 21.3
Vanderhoof 0.1 N/A 6.8 3.9
Lakes 27.8 N/A 34.5 19.3
Bulkley 0.0 N/A 5.2 20.2
Kispiox 0.0 N/A 8.8 18.3
Cassiar/Stikine 17.5 N/A 26.3 44.2
Ft. St. James 0.1 N/A 6.0 16.4
Provincial Total 5.6 N/A 12.5 16.4
* Table includes only government-approved plans as of October 2001.
Source: Pierce Lefebvre Consulting (2001).
Table 4. Tourism Stakeholder Motivation For Participation In LRMPs and
Perceived Influence
Mean Response *
Statement Trsm/ Other t Sig.
Rec'n
Motivations For Participation
I became involved in the process because 3.43 3.36 0.538 0.591
I/my organization felt it was the best (37) (215)
way to achieve my/our goals with respect
to land use planning
I had clear goals in mind when I first 3.18 3.11 0.513 0.608
became involved in the LRMP process (38) (217)
I was fully committed to making the 3.74 3.63 1.142 0.255
process work (39) (214)
Participation Influences
My participation made a difference in 3.26 2.99 1.672 0.096
the outcomes of the LRMP process (38) (215)
I was involved in the design of the LRMP 3.22 2.98 1.169 0.244
process such as ground rules, roles, and (32) (179)
procedures
The organization/sector/group I 2.97 2.76 1.136 0.257
represented provided me with clear (32) (190)
direction throughout the process
The process helped to ensure I was 2.69 2.59 0.568 0.571
accountable to the constituency I was (32) (181)
representing
I had or received sufficient training to 2.69 2.84 -0.875 0.382
participate effectively (35) (205)
On an ongoing basis, I was able to 2.65 2.62 0.141 0.888
influence the process used in the LRMP (34) (209)
I had or received sufficient funding to 2.19 2.72 -2.387 0.018
participate effectively (31) (188)
Due to constraints of the process, I was 1.97 1.99 -0.130 0.896
unable to effectively communicate with (35) (177)
and gain support from my constituency
* Mean scores based on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
4=strongly agree.
The statements in italics represent a statistically significant
difference ([varies]=0.05) in group agreement levels
Numbers in brackets denote the total number of respondents for that
statement.
Table 5 Tourism Stakeholder Perceptions of SDM Principles and Guidelines
Incorporated into LRMPs
Mean Response *
SDM Process Guidelines Trsm/ Other t Sig.
Rec'n
Process Organization
Deadlines during the process were 3.32 3.06 1.347 0.179
helpful in moving the process along (31) (185)
Stakeholders had a clear understanding 3.44 3.43 0.014 0.988
that if no consensus were reached, the (39) (219)
provincial government would make the
decisions
The process was flexible enough to be 2.92 2.89 0.187 0.852
adaptive to new information or changing (37) (217)
circumstances
The process was hindered by lack of 2.22 2.18 0.227 0.821
structure (37) (213)
Participant roles were clearly defined 2.71 2.77 -0.383 0.702
(38) (213)
The process had a detailed project plan 2.72 2.66 0.389 0.697
(for the negotiation process) including (36) (216)
clear milestones
The issues we were dealing with in the 3.41 3.31 0.684 0.495
LRMP process were significant problems (39) (219)
requiring timely resolution
The procedural ground rules were 3.21 3.06 0.954 0.341
clearly defined (39) (219)
The time allotted to the process was 2.58 2.45 0.685 0.494
realistic (36) (218)
The process was hindered by a lack of 2.49 2.35 0.791 0.4230
communication and negotiation skills (37) (220)
Process Tools
The overlay of resource values on maps 3.49 3.29 1.459 0.146
was a useful technique for evaluating (37) (217)
land use options
The process participants collectively 2.69 2.70 - 0.967
identified and agreed on clear goals (39) (216) 0.041
and objectives
The process lacked adequate 2.37 2.36 0.059 0.953
high-quality information for effective (38) (218)
decision making
The multiple accounts method was a 2.83 2.57 1.541 0.125
useful way of evaluating land use (30) (182)
options
The process had an effective strategy 2.64 2.58 0.360 0.719
for communicating with the broader (39) (213)
public
All government agencies that needed to 2.97 2.93 0.233 0.816
be involved were adequately represented (39) (221)
Process Support Staff
The independent facilitator/mediator 3.26 3.01 1.266 0.207
acted in an unbiased manner (31) (186)
The agency responsible for managing the 3.05 2.72 1.808 0.072
LRMP process acted in a neutral and (37) (218)
unbiased manner
Process staff, including facilitators 3.13 3.23 - 0.498
if used, were skilled in running (38) (218) 0.678
meetings
* Mean scores based on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to
4=strongly agree.
Numbers in brackets denote the total number of respondents for that
statement.
Table 6. Tourism Stakeholder Perspectives On LRMP Process Inclusiveness
and Power Balances
Mean Response *
SDM Process Element
Trsm/ Other t Sig.
Rec'n
Process Inclusiveness
The process encouraged open 3.10 3.18 -0.525 0.600
communication about participants' (39) (220)
interests
All appropriate interests or values were 3.00 2.76 1.392 0.165
represented in the process (39) (219)
Process staff acted in a neutral and 2.84 2.73 0.617 0.538
unbiased manner (38) (216)
The process fostered teamwork 2.82 2.77 0.290 0.772
(38) (219)
Participants were given the opportunity 2.73 2.87 -0.864 0.388
to periodically assess the process and (37) (216)
make adjustments as needed
All participants demonstrated a clear 2.72 2.61 0.665 0.507
understanding of the different (39) (220)
stakeholder interests around the table
Process Power Balance
Generally, the representatives at the 2.92 2.80 0.840 0.402
table were accountable to their (37) (210)
constituencies
The process reduced power imbalances 2.44 2.29 0.881 0.379
among participants (36) (219)
All participants were committed to 2.38 2.37 0.106 0.915
making the process work (39) (216)
* Mean scores based on a scale ranging from 1 = strongly disagree to 4 =
strongly agree
Table 7. Tourism Stakeholder Perspectives Concerning LRMP Process
Outcomes
Mean Response *
Process Outcomes
T'rsm/ Other t Sig.
Rec'n
Perceived Satisfaction With Process Outcomes
The LRMP process was the best way of 3.26 2.82 2.414 0.017
developing a land use plan (35) (216)
Knowing what I know now I would get 3.21 2.94 1.379 0.169
involved in a process similar to the (39) (215)
LRMP again
I believe that consensus based processes 3.19 2.84 1.839 0.067
are an effective way of making land and (37) (215)
resource use decisions
The LRMP process was a positive 3.08 2.85 1.211 0.227
experience (39) (218)
The planning process produced creative 3.03 2.87 1.007 0.315
ideas for action (38) (216)
I believe the outcome of the LRMP 2.97 2.83 0.720 0.472
process served the common good or public (36) (217)
interest
My/my organizations' interests have been 2.86 2.57 1.481 0.130
accommodated better through the LRMP (35) (207)
process than they would have been through
other means
The LRMP process I participated in was a 2.79 2.74 0.274 0.784
success (38) (213)
I am satisfied with the outcome of the 2.63 2.54 0.459 0.647
process (38) (215)
The table developed a clear strategy for 2.63 2.53 0.589 0.556
plan implementation (38) (208)
At the end of the process, the table 2.58 2.74 -0.785 0.433
participants shared a strong commitment (36) (208)
to plan implementation
The resulting plan addressed the needs, 2.49 2.53 -0.215 0.830
concerns, and values, of the group I (39) (207)
represented
The LRMP process produced information 2.46 2.60 -0.866 0.387
that has been understood and accepted by (39) (216)
all participants
Reduced Conflict
As a result of the process, I have a 3.53 3.50 0.213 0.831
good understanding of the interests of (38) (214)
other participants
I have better working relationships with 3.00 3.17 -1.139 0.256
other parties involved in land use (39) (211)
planning as a result of the LRMP process
The relationships among table members 2.97 3.06 -0.494 0.622
improved over the course of the process (38) (215)
I have seen changes in behaviors and 2.89 2.83 0.408 0.684
actions as a result of the process (36) (207)
As a result of the LRMP process, 2.37 2.39 -0.075 0.940
conflict over land use in the area has (35) (205)
decreased
Increased Social Capital and Second-order Benefits
As a result of the process, I have a 3.41 3.38 0.206 0.837
better understanding of my region (39) (216)
I gained new or improved skills as a 3.34 3.28 0.462 0.644
result of my involvement in the process (38) (214)
Information acquired through my 3.24 3.19 0.387 0.699
participation in the LRMP process is (38) (216)
useful to me and/or my
sector/organization
As a result of the process, I now have a 3.18 3.22 -0.222 0.825
bette