Achieving effective implementation: an evaluation of a collaborative land use planning process.

Abstract

A key to sustainable resource planning is effective implementation of management plans. Despite its obvious significance, planning implementation remains a relatively neglected area of planning research. This paper helps address this gap by reporting results of a case study evaluation of implementation in an innovative collaborative land use planning process in British Columbia, Canada. The paper begins with a brief review of planning process and implementation theory. This is followed by a case study evaluation of plan implementation and identification of factors conditioning implementation success. The paper concludes by assessing implications of the case study evaluation for designing successful plan implementation strategies.

L'une des cles de la planification durable des ressources est la mise en oeuvre efficace de plans de gestion. Malgre son importance evidente, celle-ci demeure une zone negligee dans le domaine de la recherche en planification. Les auteurs de cet article traitent de cette lacune en faisant etat des resultats d'une analyse d'etude de cas portant sur la mise en oeuvre d'un processus novateur de planification concertee en matiere d'utilisation des terres en Colombie-Britannique au Canada. L'article s'ouvre sur un bref examen du processus de planification et de la theorie de mise en oeuvre. On y effectue ensuite une analyse d'etude de cas sur la mise en oeuvre d'un plan et on definit les facteurs determinant le succes de celle-ci. En conclusion, on evalue les repercussions de l'analyse de l'etude de cas afin de concevoir des strategies de mise en oeuvre de plans qui porteront fruit.

Key words:

Plan implementation, plan evaluation, collaborative planning, environmental monitoring, land use planning

Introduction

A key to sustainable resource planning is effective implementation of management plans. Despite its obvious significance, planning implementation remains a relatively neglected area of planning research (Talen 1996; Margerum 1999). The purpose of this paper is to help address this gap in the literature by reporting results of a case study evaluation of a regional land and resource management plan in British Columbia, Canada.

The paper begins with a brief review of planning process and implementation theory. This is followed by a case study evaluation of plan implementation and identification of factors determining implementation success. The paper concludes by assessing implications of the case study evaluation for designing successful plan implementation strategies.

Plan Implementation

Planning is normally defined as a process of decision making moving through the following stages: setting goals and objectives, identifying options, evaluating and choosing an option, implementing the plan, monitoring results, and revising the plan as required. The paramount importance of the implementation stage of the planning process was clearly demonstrated in the landmark study by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) of employment programs in the United States, which documented a large disparity between plan objectives and implementation outcomes. Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) argued that one key contributor to implementation failure is that policy makers do not understand the difficulty of coordinating the large number of activities, competing interests, and diverse agencies involved in implementation. All increase the complexity of the planning environment and therefore the likelihood of implementation failure. A second contributor to implementation failure identified by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) is that plans may be based on flawed causal assumptions between policies and desired outcomes.

The documentation of the disparity between plans and implementation by Pressman and Wildavsky stimulated additional research on implementation. Sabatier and Mazmanian (1983) made an important contribution to the evolution of implementation theory in their review of the California Coastal Commission efforts to manage coastal zone land use. Contrary to the Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) study, Sabatier and Mazmanian (1983) concluded that the California Coastal Commission was relatively successful in implementing its objectives. They then identified criteria that explained this successful outcome and tested the criteria on a number of other case studies of policy implementation (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989). They summarized their findings by identifying six key criteria determining implementation success: clear and consistent objectives; causal linkages between objectives and actions; designation of a sympathetic agency with adequate resources and authority to implement the plan; skilled and committed implementation managers; public and stakeholder support; and, a supportive socioeconomic and policy environment (Mazmanian and Sabatier 1989: 268-9). Following the Mazmanian and Sabatier analysis, other researchers tested and elaborated on the criteria for successful implementation (Goggin et al. 1990; Vedung 1997).

One key criterion for successful implementation identified in all these studies is strong stakeholder and implementing agency support. The obvious question is how can this support be generated. The answer is provided by the recent development of collaborative planning (CP). The essence of CP is that it delegates the authority to develop plans to stakeholders who engage in face-to-face negotiations to reach a planning agreement by consensus (Selin and Chavez 1995; Innes 1996; Harter 1997; Carr et al. 1998; Wondolleck and Yaffee 2000; Susskind et al. 2000; Duffy et al. 1996; Williams et al. 1998). Advocates argue that CP is more likely to result in successful plan implementation because stakeholders are more likely to support and comply with a plan they helped develop.

Planning implementation theory has clearly evolved since the initial study by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973). Criteria necessary for successful implementation have been identified and planning models such as CP have emerged as means of helping garner support for implementation. Nonetheless, observers note the continued failure to achieve successful implementation (Weale 1992), and the need for more implementation research, especially on the role of CP in achieving implementation success (Margerum 1999). The purpose of this study is to help address this research need by a case study evaluation of the implementation of a CP process.

Case Study Overview

The case study is based on the Kamloops land and resource management plan (KLRMP) (Figure 1). The KLRMP is part of an innovative provincial planning strategy developed in British Columbia in the early 1990s to resolve conflicts between environmentalists and resource developers. The planning process, termed shared decision making (SDM) by the provincial government, is described in detail by Day et al. (2003). The process is based on a collaborative planning model that delegates responsibility for preparing a plan to stakeholders, who engage in face-to-face negotiations to reach consensus agreement on a plan which is then submitted to the provincial Cabinet for approval. The advocates of this new collaborative approach to planning argue that there are numerous advantages relative to more traditional planning models (Gunton and Day 2003; Owen 1998). These advantages include increased likelihood of reaching a planning agreement that is in the public interest, increased likelihood of successfully implementing the plan, and generation of social capital benefits such as improved skills, knowledge, and relationships among stakeholders. To date, nineteen regional land use plans have been completed under this process covering 73% of the provincial land base. Eight plans, covering most of the remainder of the land base, are still in progress.

The KLRMP, which covers 2.3-million hectares of Crown land, was the first plan completed under this new collaborative planning model. The planning process was initiated in late 1989 and the provincial government approved the final plan in July 1995. The KLRMP, therefore, provides an excellent case study because sufficient time has lapsed since the completion of the plan to assess implementation progress. Also, the innovative process used to develop the KLRMP provides an opportunity to test the merits of CP and its impact on implementation success.

During the first stage of the KLRMP process from 1990 to 1992, an interagency planning team (IPT) assembled information and resource maps, and identified key issues that needed to be addressed during the planning process. Starting in the fall of 1992, the IPT approached local stakeholder groups who might have had an interest in participating in the planning process. Ultimately, the KLRM Planning Table consisted of about 45 representatives from provincial and federal government agencies and from stakeholder groups with interests in local commerce, agriculture, fisheries, labor, forestry, mining, environmental conservation, recreation, and tourism. Members of the planning table were chosen on a sectoral basis to ensure representation of all relevant interests. The table had a full-time facilitator and chair to help manage the process and a professional staff reporting to the table to provide information and analysis to support table activities.

The first task of the KLRM Planning Table was to identify key issues and information requirements. The table then developed land use scenarios and evaluated them using multiple accounts analysis to compare outcomes related to planning objectives. After extensive negotiations over more than three years, the KLRM Planning Table reached a consensus minus one agreement on a proposed land use plan on 7 February 1995. The proposed plan was submitted to the provincial government and approved in July of that year.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The principal component of the KLRMP is zoning of land to alternative uses. The plan contains three key zones: protected areas; special management zones, which provide a higher level of environmental controls over resource extraction to protect important environmental assets; and, general resource extraction zones. Special management zones are further divided into three subzones to reflect the nature of environmental resources requiring special consideration. These subzones are community watersheds, wildlife habitat, and recreation/tourism areas. The plan increased protected areas from 18.7 to 22.6 percent of the regional land base, established 18.9 percent of the land as special management zones, and reduced areas available for enhanced resource extraction from 80.6 to 57.8 percent (Pierce Lefebvre Consulting 2001). In addition to the land use changes, the plan included over 300 strategies to achieve 150 objectives.

Kamloops LRMP Implementation and Monitoring

Implementation of the KLRM Plan is overseen by a Crown corporation--Land and Water B.C. Inc.--and five provincial agencies: the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management; the Ministry of Forestry; the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; the Ministry of Energy and Mines; and, the Ministry of Water, Lands, and Air Protection. A monitoring report on implementation progress is prepared every five years although implementation is an ongoing process. Overall, coordination of implementation activities and evaluation of progress is the responsibility of the Kamloops Interagency Management Committee (KIAMC). The committee consists of regional managers or directors of resource management agencies that have responsibility within the Kamloops Region LRMP and representatives from the Fraser Basin Council and the Forest Practices Board (Kamloops LRMP Monitoring Table 1998). KIAMC interprets plan objectives and strategies, assists with plan implementation and resolution of issues, reviews recommendations for amendments, develops a system for long-term monitoring of land use plan implementation, and monitors implementation progress and compliance by agencies and resource users (BC 1999b).

The IAMC work is complemented by the Kamloops LRMP Monitoring Table (KMT). It is a multistakeholder group with about 49 active members that includes many of the original KLRM Planning Table representatives. The table provides recommendations on annual agency work plans and progress reports, and reviews results of the implementation and effectiveness assessments--part of a mandated five-year monitoring report. Advice provided by KMT includes: interpretation of land use plan objectives and strategies and clarification of original intent, suggestions on the implementation and effectiveness of monitoring processes, and recommendations on the results of the implementation and effectiveness assessments. The table does not oversee implementation and its role is advisory. And while "a consensus recommendation from [the] table (KMT) carries significant weight, ... there are no guarantees of Cabinet approval. The final decision makers on all land use issues are Cabinet" (Kamloops LRMP Monitoring Table 1998).

Principal mechanisms for plan implementation are designation of the protected areas under the Parks Act to prohibit any activity such as resource extraction inconsistent with protected status and the Forest Practices Code, which specifies regulations on resource extraction to meet plan objectives. In January 1996, the KLRMP was legally designated as a higher-level plan under the Forest Practices Code. This means that all government agency operational policies that pertain to forest resources and rangelands must be consistent with the strategies and objectives specified in the KLRMP.

Evaluating Implementation

Evaluation of implementation of the KLRMP involved three components:

* an objective assessment of progress in implementing KLRMP recommendations;

* an objective assessment of progress in achieving KLRMP objectives (plan effectiveness); and,

* a subjective assessment based on key actors' perceptions of implementation success.

Progress in implementing KLRMP recommendations was assessed in the five-year monitoring report by the KIAMC (B.C. 1999a, B.C. 2001). The monitoring report tracked all KLRMP planning strategies to determine implementation success. Implementation success was measured on a five-point scale that includes not started (NS), initiated (I), midway (M), substantially complete (SC), and complete (C). The 2000 implementation assessment shows that all eleven LRMP projects had been initiated, eight were midway complete; and three projects were substantially complete (Table 1).

The monitoring report also assessed the effectiveness of implementation in meeting the plan's objectives. To simplify effectiveness assessment, the 150 objectives and over 300 strategies in the KLRMP were condensed into a list of thirty desired outcomes, twenty for human activities and ten for the environment (BC 1995: 24 and 49). Desired outcomes attempt to capture the intent of KLRMP objectives. The effectiveness assessment determined whether the LRMP goals and objectives have been achieved by measuring progress against a set of indicators identified for each desired outcome. The monitoring report showed that, by the end of 1999, twenty-five of the desired outcomes were met, two were partially met, and three were not met (Appendix 1). The three outcomes that had not been met were: (1) healthy grassland ecosystems with representation of grassland-dependent species, (2) a diversity and abundance of native fish populations and habitats, and (3) clean drinking water and a stable community water supply (BC 1999a: iv).

Implementation progress was also assessed by surveying the members of the monitoring table. Responses were received from a representative sample of 24 of the 49 table members (Figure 2). All 32 table members were contacted as well as 17 active alternates and active consultative members identified by the table coordinator. In total, 24 people responded to the questionnaire. First Nations did not choose to take part in the monitoring table. There was no significant government-nongovernment split in the survey responses. The "multiple nongovernmental: conservation, recreation, resource, tourism" sector refers to 4 interviewees who represented more than one interest group at the table.

Respondents used a five-point scale ranging from unsuccessful to very successful to answer four questions on implementation progress. The different possible responses along this scale were assigned scores from 1 to 5 (i.e. unsuccessful received a score of 1, not very successful a score of 2, etc). These totals were summed and then divided by the total number of respondents to arrive at a mean score for each question. The mean responses show that stakeholders viewed implementation as successful in reaching the KLRMP goals, in reaching the goals of the individual respondents' sectors, and in reaching the respondents' personal expectations (Figure 3). Respondents considered implementation only somewhat successful in meeting the timelines in the implementation work plans, suggesting that either implementation was lagging or the timelines were too ambitious.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

In sum, implementation of the KLRMP has been successful in terms of implementing the recommendations, meeting plan objectives, and meeting expectations of stakeholders. The following section identifies the factors that account for this success.

Factors Determining Successful Implementation

Identifying factors affecting plan implementation success was done in several steps. First, a list of factors affecting implementation success was prepared based on a review of the policy and planning implementation literature, including Goggin et al. (1990), Gray (1989), Innes and Booher (1999), Mazmanian and Sabatier (1989), Margerum (1999), Pressman and Wildavsky (1973), Vedung (1997), Yaffee and Wondolleck (2000), and Susskind and Cruikshank (1987). Next, the importance of these criteria in the KLRMP was tested by asking the KMT members to rank each criterion on a five-point scale ranging from not important at all to very important. Respondents were also asked to add additional criteria they considered important for implementation success that had not been identified by the authors. As in the questions testing respondents' views of the overall success of the KLRMP, each point along the five-point scale received a score between 1 and 5 (i.e. not important at all received a score of 1, not very important, a score of 2, etc.). The criteria were then ranked according to their mean scores. The survey was sent to the 49 active members of the KMT and responses were received from a representative sample of 24 members (Figure 3).

[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]

The results of the KMT survey show that two criteria were ranked as very important: providing clear objectives to guide implementing agencies (mean 4.67), and strong commitment of implementing officials (mean 4.58) (Table 2). One criterion was ranked as only somewhat important: favorable socioeconomic conditions for land use plan implementation (mean 3.0). Three criteria were ranked as not very important: small target group as a percentage of the total population affected by the land use plan (mean 1.63), minimal behavioral changes required to comply with the land use plan (mean 2.21), and small differences in values among stakeholders (mean 1.83). All other variables were ranked as important (means 3.5 to 4.5). The KMT rankings, therefore, are generally consistent with the implementation literature with the following exceptions. Table members did not think that value differences, size of the target group affected by implementation, and magnitude of behavioural changes, were important conditions for successful implementation.

The KMT was also asked to assess the degree to which these criteria were met in the KLRMP on a five-point scale ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree. The results of this assessment help test the relative importance of the criteria by identifying which of them are correlated with a successful implementation process. The survey results show that the respondents considered sixteen criteria as met (means greater than 3.5) and nine criteria as only partially met (means between 2.5 and 3.5). No criterion that was considered important for implementation success was considered as not met in the KLRMP implementation process (Table 2). The two criteria not met in the case of the KLRMP--having only a small target population affected by the land use plan, and small differences in values among stakeholders--were ranked as unimportant for implementation success by the survey respondents.

Formal rankings in the KMT survey were complemented with responses to open-ended questions. According to two table members (9%), one important factor in ensuring implementation success, in the case of the KLRMP, was the long history of cooperation between local government agencies and different sectors in the region. Local government agencies and the resource and environmental sectors worked together for many years prior to the KLRMP to develop and implement local resource use plans. Many of the same players involved in implementing these plans also participated in the Kamloops land and resource management planning process and later on the monitoring table. They brought with them a spirit of trust and willingness to cooperate that helped overcome some of the initial challenges of getting a diverse group of people to work together. A further three respondents (13%) mentioned the importance of developing trust between stakeholders. Four others (17%) pointed to the strong commitment of local implementing agencies as a key factor in furthering implementation. These open-ended responses in the survey are also represented by criteria in Table 2 that were ranked as important or very important.

In their answers, the table members also identified a number of challenges and issues in plan implementation with the following frequencies of occurrence:

* Clarification of intent of objectives (9%): The KLRM Plan does not include statements of intent. Implementation depends, therefore, on interpretation of objectives, which can create disputes over intent that can undermine implementation. The KMT emphasized that developing statements of intent for ambiguous objectives aids implementation by helping to ensure that all parties have the same understanding of what objectives mean.

* Continuity of membership (9%): Related to the challenge of understanding intent is ensuring continuity of membership at the monitoring table. Maintaining continuity in membership allows for relationships to grow and ensures continuation of the cooperative culture of the monitoring table that develops over time.

* Orientation and training for new table members (9%): The KMT expressed concern that if new members are added, they must be oriented to the overall planning process. Orientation should include a history of the planning process, principles, values, ground rules, and decision-making processes.

* Confirmation and consistency of government commitments (21%): The monitoring table responses indicate that the linking of planning strategies and objectives, and integration of commitments into agency work plans, remain ongoing challenges. A number of KMT respondents are uncertain with respect to the current provincial government's commitment to KLRMP implementation. Clearly, government policy on this issue needs to be clarified to avoid uncertainty, and potentially, loss of commitment by stakeholders to plan implementation. Related to this challenge is consistency and continuity of government policy and direction. Governments need to honor the agreements reached by the KLRMP Table. This includes continuing to provide funding for implementation of key components of the plan. In the case of the KLRMP, the provincial government has cut funding for several programs that were part of the agreement package. Cutting essential program components can have a detrimental impact on the commitment of the affected sector, or other parties interested in implementation of the land use plan agreement.

* Ongoing information sharing between participants (9%): Respondents emphasized that with so many different agencies involved in implementation, cooperation and information sharing between agencies are very important. Regular meetings of the KMT, the KIAMC, and other working groups ensure cooperation and information exchange continue.

* Improvements to the monitoring framework and timetable (13%): Respondents generally agreed that the monitoring framework has appropriate indicators for monitoring each objective. But there is room for improvement. Several respondents observed that linkages between desired outcomes and agency program objectives need to be strengthened. The monitoring table expressed some dissatisfaction with failure to meet time lines in implementing the KLRMP. Given resource constraints, implementation strategies need to be prioritized and a realistic schedule drawn up.

Implications of Findings for Plan Implementation

Effective implementation is an infrequent event in resource planning (Margerum 1999; Talen 1996). Therefore, the implementation of the KLRMP provides a rare opportunity to evaluate a successful implementation process. Assessments in Table 2 show that twenty-three implementation criteria were ranked as important to very important by stakeholders in achieving this success. This finding illustrates that implementation of a land use plan is a complex undertaking that requires attention to a broad range of issues to achieve implementation success. These range from developing useful indicators and dealing with scientific uncertainty to building respect and trust between individuals from widely divergent backgrounds. The twenty-three criteria in Table 2, therefore, provide a good checklist for assessing planning implementation strategies. Responses in the open-ended sections of the survey also highlighted aspects of these twenty-three criteria that needed special attention in the implementation process. These include: clarification of intent of objectives, continuity of membership, orientation and training for new table members, confirmation and consistency of government commitments, ongoing information sharing between participants, and improvements to the monitoring framework and timetable

Table 2 also illustrates that three criteria--small value differences, small behavioral change, and small target population--were not ranked as important by the stakeholders in the case study. However, they are normally considered necessary conditions for successful implementation. The fact that the KLRM Plan was successfully implemented without meeting these three criteria provides evidence that they are not always necessary for successful implementation. This finding on the relative insignificance of these three criteria is contrary to the implementation literature.

The ability to achieve successful implementation without meeting these three criteria may be due to another key aspect of the KLRMP process--collaboration in both development and implementation of the plan. The strong link between collaboration and successful implementation strongly supports the arguments on the benefits of CP. The Kamloops Monitoring Table survey provides further documentation of the key role played by CP, with 80% of respondents agreeing that CP was important to very important in achieving implementation success.

Study Limitations

This study attempts to mitigate problems in previous implementation studies by using three measures of implementation success. These include: objective assessment of progress in implementing recommendations, objective assessment of progress in achievement of planning objectives, and subjective assessments of key stakeholders' perceptions of implementation success. Nonetheless, the study has limitations. First, the results are from only one case study. Second, First Nations chose not to participate in the Kamloops LRMP process nor did they participate on the Kamloops Monitoring Table. Third, defining implementation success relies on subjective interpretation of objective monitoring data by government staff who prepared the monitoring reports, and perceptions of stakeholders. This allows for the introduction of bias. Therefore, further research on plan implementation that is based on a meta-analysis of a large set of case studies founded on objective as well as subjective data related to implementation success would be helpful.

Conclusion

Evaluation of plan implementation is a relatively neglected field in planning research. This paper has helped address this deficiency by reporting results from a comprehensive evaluation of the implementation of a unique plan. This study is unique in that it relies on both objective data on implementation and survey data from stakeholders. The results show that the plan was successfully implemented. The survey of actors engaged in implementation of this plan supports the findings in the implementation literature that there are a large number of criteria that must be met to achieve successful implementation. Underpinning all the other factors critical to implementation is the use of a collaborative planning process to develop the plan and to monitor the plan's implementation. Other studies have documented the benefits of CP in increasing the probability of developing a plan in the public interest and in stimulating additional social capital benefits related to improved stakeholder knowledge, skills, and relationships. This study documents further benefits of CP in achieving successful plan implementation. Implementation is a complex undertaking requiring attention to many variables. Although more research on implementation is required to produce definitive results, this study suggests that one key aspect of a successful implementation strategy is collaborative planning. Appendix 1: Effectiveness Assessment of KLRMP in Meeting Plan Objectives Environment Desired Outcomes Indicators Assessment 1. Ecosystems Healthy ecosystems * Biogeoclimatic zone [square root of] with a diversity representation in protected (may take several and abundance of areas years to achieve native species and results) habitats * Old forest management targets

by biogeoclimatic zone

* Animal species at risk

* Plants and plant communities

at risk 2. Soils Productive soils * Achievement of [square root of] with minimal soil site-disturbance limits for disturbance timber harvesting

* Construction of new forest

roads

* Landslides 3. Forests Healthy forest * Age class distribution [square root of] ecosystems with (note epidemic representation of * Incidence of insect infestation of natural attributes infestation pine bark beetle) and forest dependent species * Fire disturbance Sustainable and * Forest dependent species at productive forests risk with a natural mosaic of age classes 4. Grasslands Healthy grassland * Area of grasslands and other X (decrease in ecosystems with openings grassland areas, representation of increase in grassland * Noxious weed infestation noxious weeds) dependent species

* Grassland associated species

at risk

* Range and grassland condition 5. Riparian Properly * Forest Practices Code [square root of] functioning compliance related to riparian systems riparian areas

* Audits indicating riparian

concerns 6. Water Healthy watersheds * Roads deactivated for water [square root of] and stream-flow management control (note concerns regimes relating to water

* Turbidity; water flows allocation in

drier areas)

* Watershed assessments

* Fully allocated streams

* Ground water quality and

quantity 7. Wildlife A diversity and * Wildlife populations / (Note species abundance of wild with population fish populations and habitat and habitats concerns) 8. Fish A diversity and * Resident fish species and X (decrease in abundance of wild stocks at risk salmon and fish populations steelhead and habitats * Anadromous fish species populations)

(salmon and steelhead)

escapement

* Streams and lakes with water

flow or quality concerns 9. Protected Areas Protection of * Significant environmental [square root of] representative occurrences in protected area examples of B.C.'s natural diversity; recreational opportunities; cultural, heritage, and special features 10. Visually Sensitive Areas Landscapes managed * Achievement of visual quality [square root of] in accordance with objectives visual quality objectives Socioeconomic Desired Outcomes Indicators Assessment 11. Agriculture A prosperous * Agricultural Land Reserve [square root of] mining industry with access to * Grazing tenures Crown resources, especially land, * Grazing tenures that overlap water, and range protected areas land to support development * Irrigation water licenses Sustainable and * Range land, Farms productive agricultural and * Gross Domestic Product (GDP) range lands

* Employment 12. Minerals A prosperous * Investment / (Access to Crown mining industry land met; with access to * GDP and annual metal prices prosperous mining Crown land for industry not) exploration and * Employment development 13. Timber A prosperous * Timber harvesting land base [square root of] forest industry with a sustainable * Timber supply, harvest volume supply of timber

* Backlog of Nonsufficiently

Restocked (NSR) land

* Provincial government revenue

* GDP and annual lumber prices

* Employment 14. Tourism A prosperous * Room revenue [square root of] tourism industry offering high * Visitor volume quality, natural tourism * Commercial recreation tenures experiences

* Resource-based tourism A diverse range of operations tourism opportunities and * GDP uses across the landscape * Employment 15. Recreation A diverse range of * Recreation resources [square root of] recreation opportunities and * Recreation amenities uses across landscapes * Recreation use Preservation and management of high quality recreation resources 16. Communities Social and * Population [square root of], economic stability X Five outcomes

* Education level generally being Healthy and met, one not prosperous * Crime rate (clean drinking communities water and a stable

* Labor force and employment community water Stable or supply) increasing * Employment income employment

* Economic diversity Access to Crown land for community * Business start-ups and and industrial failures development

* Portion of land base in Clean, safe settlement use drinking water and stable community * Domestic water supply water supply

* Flooding occurrences Minimal risks to lives and property from flooding and erosion 17. Cultural Heritage Protection of * Archeological sites [square root of] important archeological * Traditional use studies sites

* Designated historic trails Completion of First Nations traditional use studies Designation and management of historic trails 18. Public Involvement Meaningful public * Public involvement in resource [square root of] involvement in use planning processes local level planning Educated and informed public with respect to LRMP goals and outcomes Legend: [square root of] desired outcome is generally being met / desired outcome is partially being met X desired outcome is not being met Table 1 Implementation Status of Kamloops LRMP Projects Kamloops LRMP Project Implementation Status

NS I M SC C A. Watershed Management (WLAP) B. Fisheries Management (MAFF) C. Ecosystem Management Strategies (MSRM) D. Commercial Recreation Plans (B.C.LW Inc) E. Protected Area Management Plans (WLAP) F. Grazing Enhancement Fund (MAF) G. Mineral Strategies (MEM) H. Watershed Management (MoF) I. Biodiversity Emphasis Analysis (MoF) J. Landscape Unit Plans (MoF) K. Strategies for Grazing in Protected Areas (WLAP) Acronyms: B.C. LW Inc.: B.C. Land and Water Inc. MAFF: Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries MEM: Ministry of Energy and Mines MoF: Ministry of Forests MSRM: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management WLAP: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection NS: not started I: initiated M: midway SC: substantially complete C: complete Source: B.C. (2001) Figure 2: Kamloops Monitoring Table Survey Respondents by Sector Resource sector 13% Tourism, recreation, conservation 17% Multiple nongovernmental: conservation, 17% recreation, resource, tourism Government environmental 21% Government resource 32% Note: Table made from pie chart. Table 2 Kamloops Monitoring Table Responses on Plan Implementation Criteria Criteria for successful land use plan criterion criterion implementation significance achievement

in KLRMP 1. clear and consistent objectives very important met 2. strong commitment of implementing very important met

officials 3. monitoring framework with appropriate important met

indicators to track change in each

objective 4. strong provincial government support important partly met 5. sufficient information available to important met

make appropriate decisions for land

use plan implementation 6. high level of cooperation and important met

information sharing between

implementing agencies 7. strong stakeholder support important met 8. good collaborative planning process important met 9. implementing officials skilled in important met

working collaboratively with

stakeholders 10. clear delineation of agency important met

responsibilities 11. land use plan objectives well important partly met

integrated within individual agency

work plans 12. strong local government agencies important met

support 13. implementation monitoring committee important met

with public reporting requirements 14. adequate natural science data important partly met

available to make implementation

decisions 15. adequate financial and staff resource important partly met

commitments for plan implementation 16. participation of stakeholders in important met

monitoring 17. participation of stakeholders in land important met

use plan development through a

collaborative planning process 18. power differences between important met

stakeholders equalized through the

process 19. participation of implementing important met

officials in plan preparation 20. clear understanding of causal important partly met

relationship between implementation

strategies and desired outcomes 21. no conflicting government policies important partly met 22. socioeconomic data available important partly met 23. strong public support important partly met 24. favorable socioeconomic conditions in somewhat met

the land use plan area important 25. small target group as a percentage of not v. important not met *

the total population 26. extent of behavioral change required not v. important partly met

is small 27. small difference in values among not v. important not met *

stakeholders * These two questions were not specifically asked in the survey because information about them was available. The target group is large since a large number of resource sectors are impacted by the KLRM Plan. In addition, research by Frame et al. (2004) indicates that there are significant value differences among stakeholders in land use planning.

Literature Cited

British Columbia. 2001. Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan Monitoring Report 2000. Kamloops, B.C.

--. 1999a. Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan Monitoring Report 1999. Kamloops, B.C.

--. 1999b. Provincial Monitoring Framework for Strategic Land Use Plans--Working Draft. July 1999. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer. Available at URL http://srmrpdwww.env.gov.bc.ca/lrmp/provmon.htm. Accessed January 29, 2002.

--. 1995. Kamloops Land and Resource Management Plan. Victoria, B.C.: Queen's Printer.

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.

Day, J.C., Thomas I. Gunton, and Tanis M. Frame. 2003. Toward Environmental Sustainability in British Columbia: The Role of Shared Decision Making. 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.

Frame, Tanis M., Thomas I. Gunton, and J.C. Day. 2004. "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., and J.C. Day. 2003. Theory and Practice of Collaborative Planning in Resource and Environmental Management. Environments 31(2): 5-21.

Goggin, M. L., Anne O'M. Bowman, James P. Lester, and Laurence J. O'Toole. 1990. Implementation Theory and Practice: Toward a Third Generation. Glenview, Ill.: Scott, Foresman/Little, Brown Higher Education.

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

Harter, Philip J. 1997. Fear of Commitment: An Affliction of Adolescents. Duke Law Journal 46: 1389-1428.

Innes, Judith E. 1996. Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association 62: 460-472.

Innes, Judith E., and David E. Booher. 1999. Consensus Building and Complex Adaptive Systems: A Framework for Evaluating Collaborative Planning. American Planning Association Journal--65 (4): 412-422.

Kamloops LRMP Monitoring Table. 1998. Summary of Meeting #7, 7 May 1998. Best Western Town Lodge, Kamloops,

Margerum, Richard D. 1999. Getting Past Yes: From Capital Creation to Action. Journal of the American Planning Association 65(2): 181-192.

Mazmanian, D. A., and P. A. Sabatier. 1989. Implementation and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Owen, Stephen. 1998. Land Use Planning in the Nineties: CORE Lessons. Environments 25(2 and 3): 14-26.

Pierce Lefebvre Consulting. 2001. Socio-Economic Impact Assessment of the Provincial Government's Strategic Land Use Plans on Key Sectors in British Columbia. Report Presented to the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. Victoria, B.C.

Pressman, Jeffrey L., and Aaron Wildavsky. 1973. Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington are Dashed in Oakland. Los Angeles: University of California Press.

Sabatier, P.A., and D.A. Mazmanian. 1983. Can Regulation Work? The Implementation of the 1972 California Coastal Initiative. New York: Plenum.

Selin, Steven W., and Deborah Chavez. 1995. Developing a Collaborative Model for Environmental Planning and Management. Environmental Management 19(2): 189-95.

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

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

Talen, Emily. 1996. Do Plans Get Implemented? A Review of Evaluation in Planning. Journal of Planning Literature 10(3): 248-59.

Vedung, Everet. 1997. Public Policy and Program Evaluation. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers.

Weale, A. 1992. Implementation Failure: A Suitable Case for Review, pp. 43-63. In Achieving Environmental Goals: The Concept and Practice of Environmental Performance Review, ed. E. Lykke. London: Belhaven.

Williams, Peter W., J.C. Day, and Thomas I. Gunton. 1998. Land and Water Planning in British Columbia in the 1990s: Lessons on More Inclusive Approaches. Environments 25(2 and 3): 1-7.

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

Author Biographies

Karin Albert holds an undergraduate degree in international relations and French, and a master's degree in political science from the University of British Columbia. She is currently completing her master's in resource and environmental management at Simon Fraser University. Karin works as community development coordinator for Greater Vancouver Regional District Parks. She can be contacted at kalbert@sfu.ca.

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.