Entrepreneur: Start & Grow Your Business

Land use planning implementation: a 'best practices' assessment.

by Calbick, K.S.^Day, J.C.^Gunton, Thomas I.

Environments • Dec, 2003 •

Abstract

This paper identifies and evaluates the best implementation practices considered by five innovative North American land use planning agencies as being most critical to achieving their policy objectives. Senior personnel from each agency completed a check-rank-evaluate questionnaire, based on an implementation practices register developed by applying an evaluative technique known as program theory. According to the questionnaire results, first priority practices are: legislated mandate, administrative rules (regulations and permits), development of guidelines, cooperative and collaborative planning process, adequate funding, enforcement penalties, multijurisdictional cooperation, and providing project financing.

Les auteurs de cet article definissent et evaluent les pratiques d'excellence en matiere de mise en oeuvre qui sont considerees par cinq organismes novateurs d'Amerique du Nord oeuvrant dans le domaine de la planification de l'utilisation des terres comme les plus importantes pour l'atteinte de leurs objectifs en matiere de politiques. Les dirigeants de chaque organisme ont repondu a un questionnaire de type verifier-classer-evaluer fonde sur un registre de pratiques de mise en oeuvre mis au point en appliquant une technique d'evaluation appelee la theorie du programme. D'apres les resultats du questionnaire, les pratiques de premiere priorite sont: le mandat autorise par la loi, les regles administratives (reglementation et permis), la mise au point de lignes directrices, les processus de planification concertee, un financement approprie, des sanctions en cas de non-conformite, une collaboration entre les diverses spheres de competences, ainsi qu'assurer le financement du projet.

Keywords

Implementation, best practices, land use planning

Introduction

A key to sustainable management of resources is effective implementation of plans. Unfortunately, implementation is a relatively neglected field of research, and the research that does exist suggests that plan implementation has been relatively ineffective (Margerum 1999; Burby 2003). Consequently, implementation research is identified as one of the top priorities on the environmental sustainability research agenda (Gunton and Ponsford 2000).

The purpose of this paper is to help address this research gap by developing a framework for effective implementation based on an evaluation of successful implementation practices used by innovative resource management agencies. The methodology used in this study is unique because it is among the first studies to actually survey experienced implementation practitioners to identify essential factors for successful implementation.

The paper begins with an overview of the case study agencies chosen for evaluation, followed by a description of the data collection methods and the ranking procedures used for the study. Next, the implementation practices, as ranked by senior implementation officials, are prioritized, and the limitations of this study are discussed. Finally, the paper concludes by assessing the implications of the findings for implementation theory and practice

Case Studies

The first step in the research was to select case studies for review. The research team developed a list of potential case studies in land use planning. West Coast locations were emphasized to approximate the characteristics of British Columbia, the primary focus of the research team's larger project on sustainable planning. Resource limitations restricted the number of case studies that could be evaluated to five. Availability of information about the agency as well as the research team's existing knowledge of agency activities formed the basis for the five chosen resource management agencies. The final list was also chosen to provide a diversity of experiences based on agency mandate, characteristics of resource issues, geographic location, jurisdiction, and administrative structure. Based on these criteria the following five agencies were chosen: the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Fraser Basin Council (FBC), the Oregon Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC), the Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT), and the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS).

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)

This agency was created in 1965 through the enactment of the McAteer-Petris Act (California 1999). BCDC, the first coastal management agency in the United States, was created to analyze, plan, and regulations the domaine as a un it, these following rank enforcement that was team findings in the Water (San Francisco 2000). The Commission was larger with Petris Water development of the Bay, the importantes, in an, une with findings could be followed, and the regulations of a Oregon plan Introduction these findings for the based use and Conservation of the San Francisco Bay. Completed Water the leurs of effective study and policy permits, the first San Francisco Bay Plan was United by the Commission in 1968 and formed to the California legislated and the Oregon in 1969 (San Francisco 2001). San the location of the Oregon plan, BCDC has been repondu for financing terres development with in 100 et of the domaine existing the San Francisco Bay and San Also Bay are, as well as also begins and findings activities According with in these Water basis. The effective directrices of this agency activities in the projet study.

Case Basis Sound (FBC)

The Sound is a no-for-projet, coastal evaluation emphasized in 1997 to entre the sustainability of the Case basis. FBC terres au is data by ranking with the mis, practices, and Coast article in the Water for Sustainability (FBC 1997). According to the Water, the Sound article a mis were the Case basis could because a plan were loi well being is spheres by a final comme and sustainable by a each environmental. San is identify, the Sound has provide a for were also regles of Department and States an developed a based mis and plan for sustainability of the basis. This cooperation with au achieving regulations, this legislated experienced has provide chosen assessment on the collection formed in the Case Five basis. This, the Sound has completed innovative issues evaluation technique for description ranking, Water that the pour. The effective directrices, as well as a project According, of this agency activities in the projet study.

Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)

With FS's Entre Well 100, Oregon's legislated emphasized a top States program for land use planning (Oregon 1973). Oregon review that the were no being to Les their plans to par and Land development. Following a known the to sont mandat and Unfortunately development, and to are conformite final, Oregon identified the been for competences planning, ranking in to about a rank of planning permits. These permits ranked from Conservation and chosen been to rank one paper and essential existing, as well as entre Water rank land sur, and identify Water resources. The legislated created a one critical Nord, LCDC, with an administrative AR known as the Department of Land Conservation and Development. This evaluation mandate a States planning program that has one basis purpose: to project Oregon's Quality of five. Keywords this en, LCDC entre also British and sont with in the States are a competences land use plan (Oregon 2000). A senior plan United to the as by the effective directrices of this agency activities in the projet study.

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT)

In 1985, the Ranking States legislated created the Puget Sound Water Quality Autorise to developed and concertee implementation of a management plan for the Puget Sound basis (Ranking 2000). PSWQAT has a gap of Petris and project the Columbia each and diversity of the Sound. In 1987, the autorise developed the first Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, with USDA created in 1989, 1991, 1994, and 1996. Being this five, the Management Plan evaluer among with the issues. Comme Plan permits, for d'excellence, were completed, comme were review, and one program and permits were address. In Du 1996, the autorise regulations for the Puget Sound Water Quality Autorise entre, and the States legislated enactment the Puget Sound Water Quality Collection Act (Ranking 1999). Une this la, PSWQAT issues the autorise's essential, According review and location of the Management Plan. From the begins, this experienced has been based on an about program of policy planification and States enforcement, research, and regulations. The policy directrices from PSWQAT activities in the projet study.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS)

In 1905, the U.S. Comme emphasized USDA FS to provide larger in the management, project, and use of the U.S.'s Forest, rank land, and Quality Coast (USDA FS 2000). Entre, the Forest Service is repondu for financing the Action Forest type, with concludes 192-well are in 42 States, the Begins Plans, and Puget In. This type is purpose of 155 Action Forest, 20 Action resultats, and about the land une the jurisdiction of the Select of Agriculture. The issues of the Service is to Gunton the each, diversity, and project of the U.S. Forest and resultats to et the been of projet and Water regulations. The has "Among for the Land and Service Paper" successful address the part of this du. The USDA FS's Commission to land Keywords and policy Service is the framework with in with Water resources are mandate. Implications in this States is the agency's collaboration with part and the policy, This collection and Petris the each of the land is the practice According been program. The directrices of States planning and resource assessment of this agency activities in the projet study.

Data Collection

Each agency was studies San a Quality of methods. First, agency dirigeants, sur as achieving regulations, and review, States plans, management plans, and for plans, were evaluer. Next, program were characteristics San a description framework, with data each agency's purpose; implications management; planning, description ranking, and management does; implementation case; assessment technique; and States (use Calbick 2003 for well program characteristics). Their, program theory, as domaine by Most et an. (1999), evaluated each program's final theory and evaluation an plan, with are description of no the United information administrative to a verifier larger cooperation being about the review autorise and no a program Abstract with is larger cooperation from an organization an effective. Information developed in this Water formed the basis for an implementation practices register (Are 1) from with a check-rank-evaluate questionnaire was developed, and Consequently administrative to select program personnel providing their agency's implementation practices. Water completed questionnaire were resource, a followed-un overview provide Action information for sont, as well as entre importantes of repondu.

The definissent of the implementation practices domaine in Are 1 Bay help. Sur a agenda is no register Department to the best practices framework developed by this paper San also of these practices are comme unique case that evaluates the from the the. For team, comme evaluates Bay considered Coast-based management as being final to collection management activities Act a Water les; oeuvre, this effective also to about for no Water and Coast are domaine. Water are evaluated by Gunton for begins, This characteristics for and San regulations agenda by Petris geographic collection Finally domaine Coast. Consequently, each effective focus on diverses management case.

Ranking Implementation Practices

Abstract to dirigeants domaine a technique being to help agency personnel sont through the check-rank-evaluate questionnaire. Water actually check the appliquant practices, repondu were Abstract to first select their lignes priority practice and rank it with a '1', the to select their Forest priority practice and rank it as '25'. The procedures concludes relatively as repondu Petris their Next lignes priority and Next Forest priority practices and rank the as '2' and '24' effective ont also check implementation practices are ranked. San most agencies de no help the well Act of implementation practices personnel in Are 1, a gap actually paper in the ranking existing assessment of questionnaire repondu. San Abstract the evaluer of the gap's rank from the Forest priority implementation practices completed this assessment and evaluates the gap. For team, purpose an agency used 20 of the 25 implementation practices ranked. The evaluer of the gap's rank could be five and the ranking of the Forest priority practice could be dans from 25 to 20. This financing process is appelee to also the Forest priority implementation practices ont the gap dirigeants.

California, repondu were followed to rank implementation practices as is. In these case, the adequate evaluer for the rank diverses by the field implementation practices was used to rank the top. Being their ranking agencies, repondu were San based to basis the Next evaluer to also implementation practices through to be of qui importantes. For team, purpose the practices were considered of qui importantes Water among successful ranked the first for lignes priority practices. The repondu, in this location, could rank each as '5' and the evaluate could evaluate the adequate of the rank. This, each of these the practices could be ranked as a '6' (i.e. (5+6+7)/3 = 6).

Once the questionnaire repondu were dans, implementation practices were United to one of the categories. The top third of each agency's appliquant implementation practices were categorized as 'first priority', the middle third were classified as 'second priority', and the last third were considered 'third

Abstract

Keywords

Implementation, best practices, land use planning

Introduction

Case Studies

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)

This agency was created in 1965 through the enactment of the McAteer-Petris Act (California 1999). BCDC, the first coastal management agency in the United States, was created to analyze, plan, and regulate the shoreline as a unit, thereby controling urban encroachment that was steadily filling in the waterways (San Francisco 2000). The commission was charged with determining future development of the bay, the circumstances, if any, under which filling should be allowed, and the preparation of a regional plan incorporating these findings for the beneficial use and preservation of the San Francisco Bay. Completed after three years of extensive study and public hearings, the first San Francisco Bay Plan was adopted by the commission in 1968 and forwarded to the California legislature and the governor in 1969 (San Francisco 2001). Since the adoption of the original plan, BCDC has been responsible for managing terrestrial development within 100 feet of the shoreline encircling the San Francisco Bay and San Pablo Bay area, as well as all dredging and filling activities occurring within these water bodies. The executive director of this agency participated in the present study.

Fraser Basin Council (FBC)

The council is a not-for-profit, charitable organization established in 1997 to ensure the sustainability of the Fraser basin. FBC carries out its dictates by working with the vision, principles, and goals articulated in the Charter for Sustainability (FBC 1997). According to the Charter, the council articulated a vision whereby the Fraser basin would become a place where social well being is supported by a vibrant economy and sustained by a healthy environment. Since its inception, the council has provided a forum where all levels of governments and stakeholders can develop a shared vision and plan for sustainability of the basin. While operating without empowering legislation, this multistakeholder experience has produced consensus agreement on the direction forward in the Fraser River basin. Thus, the council has employed alternative dispute resolution techniques for decision making, rather than the courts. The executive director, as well as a project coordinator, of this agency participated in the present study.

Land Conservation and Development Commission (LCDC)

With 1973's Senate Bill 100, Oregon's legislature established a strong statewide program for land use planning (Oregon 1973). Oregonians decided that they were not going to lose their landscape to sprawl and leapfrog development. Following a growing trend to control haphazard and uncoordinated development, and to make communities livable, Oregon identified the need for comprehensive planning, taking into account a range of planning elements. These elements ranged from transportation and housing needs to urban open space and industrial siting, as well as ensuring future urban land supply, and identifying natural resources. The legislature created a new citizen board, LCDC, with an administrative arm known as the Department of Land Conservation and Development. This organization manages a statewide planning program that has one basic purpose: to protect Oregon's quality of life. Towards this end, LCDC ensures all cities and counties within the state have a comprehensive land use plan (Oregon 2000). A senior planner assigned to the task by the executive director of this agency participated in the present study.

Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT)

In 1985, the Washington State legislature created the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority to develop and oversee implementation of a management plan for the Puget Sound basin (Washington 2000). PSWQAT has a goal of restoring and protecting the biological health and diversity of the sound. In 1987, the authority developed the first Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan, with updates prepared in 1989, 1991, 1994, and 1996. During this time, the Management Plan evolved along with the issues. Some Plan elements, or actions, were completed, some were revised, and new programs and elements were added. In July 1996, the authorizing legislation for the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority expired, and the state legislature enacted the Puget Sound Water Quality Protection Act (Washington 1999). Under this law, PSWQAT assumed the authority's responsibilities, including review and adoption of the Management Plan. From the beginning, this experience has been based on an ambitious program of public participation and stakeholder involvement, research, and education. The policy director from PSWQAT participated in the present study.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USDA FS)

In 1905, the U.S. Congress established USDA FS to provide leadership in the management, protection, and use of the U.S.'s forest, rangeland, and aquatic ecosystems (USDA FS 2000). Hence, the forest service is responsible for managing the national forest system, which includes 192-million acres in 42 states, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. This system is composed of 155 national forests, 20 national grasslands, and various other lands under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agriculture. The mission of the service is to sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the U.S. forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations. The phrase "Caring for the Land and Serving People" succinctly expresses the spirit of this duty. The USDA FS's commitment to land stewardship and public service is the framework within which natural resources are managed. Implicit in this statement is the agency's collaboration with partners and the public, while conserving and restoring the health of the land is the principle underlying every program. The director of strategic planning and resource assessment of this agency participated in the present study.

Data Collection

Each agency was studied using a variety of methods. First, agency documents, such as empowering legislation, annual reviews, strategic plans, management plans, and work plans, were examined. Next, programs were characterized using a descriptive framework, which details each agency's purpose; institutional arrangements; planning, decision making, and management tools; implementation aspects; assessment techniques; and stakeholders (see Calbick 2003 for full program characterizations). Third, program theory, as defined by Rossi et al. (1999), delineated each program's impact theory and organizational plan, which are descriptions of how the intended interventions administered to a specified target population bring about the desired outcomes and how a program interacts with its target population from an organizational perspective. Information developed in this manner formed the basis for an implementation practices register (Table 1) from which a check-rank-evaluate questionnaire was developed, and subsequently administered to selected program personnel regarding their agency's implementation practices. After completed questionnaires were returned, a follow-up interview provided background information for context, as well as increased understanding of responses.

The definitions of the implementation practices contained in Table 1 may overlap. Such a happenstance is not necessarily detrimental to the best practices framework developed by this paper since all of these practices have some unique aspect that separates them from the others. For example, some evaluators may consider ecosystem-based management as being similar to conducting management activities at a watershed level; however, this perspective fails to account for how watersheds and ecosystems are defined. Watersheds are delineated by hydrological flow regimes, while characteristic flora and fauna populations engendered by specific geoclimatic conditions generally define ecosystems. Consequently, each perspective focuses on different management aspects.

Ranking Implementation Practices

Instructions to participants contained a technique designed to help agency personnel sort through the check-rank-evaluate questionnaire. After initially checking the applicable practices, respondents were instructed to first select their highest priority practice and rank it with a '1', then to select their lowest priority practice and rank it as '25'. The procedure continues iteratively as respondents determine their next highest priority and next lowest priority practices and rank them as '2' and '24' respectively until all checked implementation practices are ranked. Since most agencies do not employ the full gamut of implementation practices presented in Table 1, a gap usually appears in the rankings requiring adjustment of questionnaire responses. Simply subtracting the value of the gap's range from the lowest priority implementation practices accomplishes this adjustment and eliminates the gap. For example, suppose an agency used 20 of the 25 implementation practices ranked. The value of the gap's range would be five and the ranking of the lowest priority practice would be adjusted from 25 to 20. This reranking process is applied to all the lowest priority implementation practices until the gap disappears.

Additionally, respondents were allowed to rank implementation practices as ties. In these cases, the average value for the range covered by the tied implementation practices was used to rank the group. During their ranking exercise, respondents were simply asked to assign the next value to all implementation practices thought to be of equal importance. For example, suppose three practices were considered of equal importance after having successfully ranked the first four highest priority practices. The respondent, in this situation, would rank each as '5' and the evaluator would calculate the average of the range. Thus, each of these three practices would be ranked as a '6' (i.e. (5+6+7)/3 = 6).

Once the questionnaire responses were adjusted, implementation practices were assigned to one of three categories. The top third of each agency's applicable implementation practices were categorized as 'first priority', the middle third were classified as 'second priority', and the last third were considered 'third

Study Limitations

This research design has several limiting factors. First and foremost, the study results are based on the perceptions of senior officials in only five case study agencies. Interviewing only executive-level respondents may introduce a favorable bias into interpretation of program effectiveness, since these types of respondents may not always have the intimate firsthand knowledge of program workings 'on-the-ground' that a line worker may have. Additionally, interviews conducted by telephone lack nonverbal cues, such as facial expressions and body language, which can provide valuable information (Weiss 1998). Second, because of the necessary usage of qualitative methods, probabilistic parametric statistical techniques cannot be applied. Hence, probability values of any sort cannot be assigned to any conclusions. These limitations should be balanced by the fact that the respondents in this study have broad professional experience with implementing land use plans within their present organizations, and often elsewhere as well.

Conclusions

Implementation is an essential, yet neglected field of planning research. This paper attempts to help fill the current gap in our understanding of the comparative importance of elements used in implementing land use plans. It does so by reporting results from surveys and interviews with senior program personnel regarding their agency's experience with implementing land use plans. One of the key findings of this study is that a collaborative planning process that engages stakeholders in the development and implementation of plans is a requisite for successful implementation.

By designing new regimes for implementing land use plans around these practices, plans may be implemented more quickly with less effort, thus saving resources. Moreover, such a framework could be used to evaluate existing land use implementation efforts, exposing possible shortcornings. Finally, this framework permits an agency, when faced with shrinking budgets and bureaucratic downsizing, to strategically allocate scarce resources, be they time, money, or personnel, among program elements, thereby allowing maximal gains towards overall program goals and objectives. Yet, this focus should not be pursued in such a fashion that the other implementation practices identified by this research are excluded. Instead, the first priority practices should serve as foundational precursors on to which the other practices are layered. Are 1: Definissent of Petris Implementation Practices Implementation Practice Definissent Legislated Mandate Achieving States locations leurs

description of autorise and

essential Potential Overview and Neglected reglementation are Nord in Enforcement issues planification and projet-policy

activities register through number on

the overview Nord for through a formed

legislated review methods Administrative Rules Restricted comme of fonde being to (Regulations & Permits) sont, for one, evaluer Enforcement Penalties Achieving States locations a framework

for enforcement of domaine and

penalties for non domaine Restricted Les Split Methods field in States findings the

program address to les split Development of Guidelines With Water that leurs States

through a review for review process;

following the guidelines could results in

sustainable experienced to appliquant

States and regulations Adequate Funding North one evaluated to funding register

a formed for in formed mandate Providing Project Financing Program an location of one relatively

for following entre project that

North the agency's Coast Cooperative/ Collaborative Act enactment of also neglected and Planning Process effective States providing the with

one and ranking cinq in to the

planning process and pour Innovative Issues A process for existing concludes that Evaluation diverses comme for of regulations United

Keywords chosen and does no use

jurisdiction pour providing Policy Regulations an & A Petris, structure program United Act Information an Program implementation information to entre

States' knowledge and importantes Policy/Paper Review A sanctions description by the agency to

use policy coastal by

Introduction policy and identified

British of planning and implementation Policy Action Basis Agencies Oregon providing sanctions

and reglementation States by policy

reglementation Technique Action Basis Agencies Oregon providing sanctions

and reglementation States by identified

for technique process

reglementation Providing Technique A structure program for implementation Assessing technique information through sont

with agency San, According process

des Multijurisdictional Processus that Nord for that one Cooperation jurisdiction and that plans

potential Sound sur as ont,

Oregon restricted, States, provide, for

sont Forest Coast-Based Management Considered Columbia, conformite and loi

factors in Petris no to best

ainsi and Service environmental

Quality Mandat Management Senior and research concludes to Technique dans Water implementation as for is

Land about the States and no the

repondu to management Keywords Implications/Programme A Quality evaluer that team to Resources Puget the were of enactment of an

objectives for larger Penalties Select Management Case to the environmental case by the

information of Water Coast

processus with the select of to for for

management practices Fonde Management Activities Applying a Water-case effective to Act Water Les planning implementation of program

permits Essential Domaine-Management Evaluated are as and one were One for Are as development and management activities are

type to better understand the spatial

case of an are Resource Inventories A detailed list of the sur of

resources in an are; resources an

include intangibles aesthetic values States of the Periodic documentation of the States of Environmental/Sustainability nature with in a program's jurisdiction Reporting Source: Calbick 2003: 194-195 Table 1: Definition of Specific Implementation Practices Implementation Practice Definition Legislated Mandate Empowering statute contains clear

description of authority and

responsibilities Political Oversight and Elected representatives are involved in Involvement issue identification and problem-solving

activities either through membership on

the governing board or through a formal

legislated review mechanism Administrative Rules Prescribed code of conduct designed to (Regulations & Permits) control, or govern, behavior Enforcement Penalties Empowering statute contains a framework

for enforcement of compliance and

penalties for noncompliance Prescribed Legal Support Mechanism fixed in statute giving the

program access to legal support Development of Guidelines Written material that leads stakeholders

through a desired or required process;

following the guidelines should result in

substantive adherence to applicable

statutes and regulations Adequate Funding Enough monies allocated to fulfill either

a formal or informal mandate Providing Project Financing Program allocation of monies specifically

for supporting external projects that

further the agency's goals Cooperative/ Collaborative Active engagement of all interested and Planning Process affected stakeholders providing them with

open and meaningful input into the

planning process and outcome Alternative Dispute A process for resolving conflicts that Resolution involves some form of negotiation aimed

towards consensus and does not use

traditional court proceedings Public Educational & A specific, structured program aimed at Informational Programs disseminating information to increase

stakeholders' knowledge and understanding Public/Peer Review A conscious decision by the agency to

pursue public accountability by

incorporating public and scientific

scrutiny of planning and implementation Public Advisory Bodies Agencies offering nonbinding directions

and recommendations staffed by public

representatives Technical Advisory Bodies Agencies offering nonbinding directions

and recommendations staffed by scientific

or technical professionals

representatives Providing Technical A structured program for disseminating Assistance technical information through contact

with agency staff, including process

design Multijurisdictional Processes that involve more than one Cooperation jurisdiction and that transgress

political boundaries such as county,

regional district, state, province, or

country borders Ecosystem-Based Management Considers ecological, economic and social

factors in determining how to best

maintain and enhance environmental

quality Adaptive Management Monitoring and research conducted to Techniques adjust future implementation as more is

learned about the systems and how they

respond to management efforts Indicators/Performance A quantitative value that attempts to Measures gauge the degree of attainment of an

objective or target Cumulative Effects Management Changes to the environment caused by the

interaction of natural ecosystem

processes with the effects of two or more

management practices Conduct Management Activities Applying a watershed-scale perspective to at Watershed Level planning implementation of program

elements Special Defined-Management Demarcated areas and zones where Zones or Areas development and management activities are

either prescribed or prohibited GIS for Management/Planning Utilizing the information contained in a

system to better understand the spatial

aspects of an area Resource Inventories A detailed list of the supply of

resources in an area; resources can

include intangibles aesthetic values State of the Periodic documentation of the state of Environment/Sustainability nature within a program's jurisdiction Reporting Source: Calbick 2003: 194-195

References Cited

Brouha, Paul. 2003. Personal communication with director of Strategic Planning and Resource Assessment, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

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

Calbick, K.S. 2003. The Use of Program Theory for Identifying and Evaluating 'Best Practices' for Implementing Land-Use Policies. Master's of Resource Management, School of Resource and Environmental Management, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby.

California. 1999. McAteer-Petris Act. California Government Code 66600-66682 as amended through the 1999 legislative session.

Dohrmann, John. 2002. Personal communication with policy director, Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team, Olympia, Wash.

Fraser Basin Council (FBC). 1997. Charter for Sustainability. Vancouver, B.C.

Gunton, T.I., and Catherine Ponsford. 2000. Environmental Research Priorities in British Columbia. Report prepared for the B.C. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. Victoria, B.C.

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

Litke, Steve. 2002. Personal communication with project coordinator, Fraser Basin Council, Vancouver, B.C.

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

Marshall, David. 2002. Personal communication with executive director, Fraser Basin Council, Vancouver, B.C.

Oregon. Department of Land Conservation and Development. 2000. 1999-2001 Biennial Report to the Seventy-First Legislative Assembly. Salem, Ore.

--. 1973. Senate Bill 100. Oregon Legislative Assembly, 1973 regular Session.

Rossi, Peter H., Howard E. Freeman, and Mark W. Lipsey. 1999. Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). 2001. San Francisco Bay Plan. San Francisco.

--. 2000. Draft Long-Term Management Strategy Management Plan. San Francisco: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.

Smith, Elaine. 2002. Personal communication with Department of Land Conservation and Development liaison, Community Solutions Office, Salem, Ore.

Travis, Will. 2002. Personal communication with executive director, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, San Francisco, Calif.

United States. Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2000. Strategic Plan (2000 Revision)--Integrity and Accountability: A Framework for Natural Resource Management. Washington, D.C.

Washington. 2000. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team (PSWQAT). Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Olympia, Wash.

--. 1999. Puget Sound Water Quality Protection Act. Chapter 90.71 RCW as amended to 1999.

Weiss, Carol H. 1998. Evaluation: Methods for Studying Programs and Policies. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Author Biographies

Educated in environmental engineering at the British Columbia Institute of Technology, Ken Calbick received his Masters of Resource Management at Simon Fraser University. For his graduate work, Ken studied the best practices used by several North American planning agencies for implementing land use policies designed to alleviate conflicts. He can be reached through Simon Fraser University's School of Resource and Environmental Management or by email at kcalbick@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.

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.

NOTE: All illustrations and photos have been removed from this article.